Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Closure requests/Archive 2

< Wikipedia talk:Closure requests
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Wbm1058 in topic Concerning the instructions for Template:Initiated
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

NAC Deletes

Latest comment: 9 years ago121 comments53 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A few points:
  • Short version: for the next month, I recommend that non-admins avoid closing any deletion discussions that require a deletion (and technically, that was the question asked in this RfC, and the only question I'm answering for now). This RfC was well-advertised, there were more opposers, and I'm comfortable saying that they've got the weight of consensus ... for now.
  • Longer version: in every one of the hundreds of discussions and RfCs I've seen about making non-admins responsible for certain admin functions, I've had the sense that people were talking past each other a bit ... and that's not necessarily a bad thing, because it allows for the possibility that both sides might be right. That's what I'm seeing here: the opposers have the numbers and the strength of the arguments on some points ... and, as always, some of them are pissed off that they have had to make the same arguments again and again and again. Winning by grinding your opponents down is never acceptable, and although I see no evidence that the supporters intended to do that here, that's the net effect of hundreds of "why can't non-admins make the call on admin functions?" discussions. The current RfC over at WP:VPR#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter also involves the question of when non-admins should perform admin functions, and I'll be one of the closers there. If at the end of that one (in about a month) I'm seeing the same "asked and answered already" problems there as here, then I don't think I'd be out of line suggesting at that time that some of these questions shouldn't be raised again for a while.
  • OTOH, the supporters have suggested (but not proved) that some things are different this time: that we're talking about something that non-admins have in fact been doing successfully for a long time (making a call and then grabbing an admin to seal the deal), that the backlogs are longer than they have been and getting worse, and that there are fewer admins these days getting the deletion work done. It does a disservice to Wikipedia to dismiss these claims with a witty argument; they're serious and plausible. But I can't make a call in either direction on the evidence provided. Since I think I need to wait till the end of the RfC mentioned above anyway before finishing the closing statement for this one, I might as well wait to make a call on this part of it too, so: supporters, please use the coming month to collect and present evidence of the claims you're making (anywhere you like ... this page is fine, in a new subsection). I'm not going to leave you hanging: if you make a good case, your effort will be rewarded (in some fashion ... no promises on specific results, just that I'll pay attention and I'll do what I can). - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: There was no movement on this that I can see over the last month, so there's nothing new to do. I've just closed the Vandal Fighter RfC as well over at WP:VPR#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You're technically (ha) correct, Ed. In the past, I've argued for such actions on a WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR basis, but I realize that argument won't convince everyone. I think the evidence of such backlogs is rather strong evidence that we should be allowing non-admins in good standing to do this. To a certain extent, deletion is a big deal, but at least in these cases, restoring a deleted redirect is quite simple. --BDD (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was waiting for this, EdJohnston. I'd argue that above WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR, the ability to tag pages that were determined consensus was to delete as CSD:G6 with a rational that links back to the deletion discussion qualifies as a technical ability to act upon the outcome. I'm also more than willing to discuss my reasoning behind my determination of consensus per the header of this noticeboard. I'm willing to hold off on closing any more as delete to allow this discussion to develop a little more, but I think it is doing a disservice to the encyclopedia in doing so. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
And {{db-xfd}} acts as a bit of a check and balance, since it ensures an admin is involved anyway. If that admin would give a quick check to the validity of the decision, effectively seconding it, then you're good to go, but I wouldn't really fault one for just taking it on faith. --BDD (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, cool BDD! Thanks for pointing that out, I was using the "housekeeping" G6 option on twinkle, didn't even see the XfD one. I'll use that on the rest if there is consensus for me to continue closing. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't continue that -- any limited consensus you find here would probably be overridden in a more-publicized discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  Moved from User talk:Technical 13 § NAC

Regarding RFD closures...

...Just giving you a heads-up that you may want to reference the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for closure when you are placing the {{Db-xfd}} tag on RFD discussions you close to "delete". Due to WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC, closes for "delete" by us non-admins might be challenged by others, and ... well, long story short, been there, done that, and now, I close very few discussions. Either way, I'm going to start removing the transclusions of completed days to clean up the log. Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hey Steel1943! Thanks for stopping by! There is actually an on-going discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes about this, and I'm taking a break for a day or two to let more comments come in and more consensus to build. You are welcome to drop your thoughts there of course. As to your specific post here, I had though that I did mention the deletion discussions in the deletion templates I posted with Twinkle (just learned about Db-xfd, was using the "housekeeping' G6 version before). I'm not afraid of my closes being challenged (see above) and am more than willing to try and layout my exact thought process in cases where someone seems confused how I came to the conclusion I did. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Technical 13, if you choose someday to run at WP:RFA, a question that can be asked is how the person conducted themselves in non-admin closures. If people observe that you were making non-admin RfD delete closures that are technically against the written policy, that is hardly a good beginning for that discussion. RfAs these days make a big deal of any connection the candidate may have to deletion issues, including their speedy nominations and their AfD votes. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ed, thanks for popping in! I have no intention of running an RfA in the near future (I'm actually quite opposed to the idea at the moment). I just ran for a seat in the most recent ArbCom elections, and while my hopes are realistic (I don't expect a seat, although I was likely one of the better non-admin candidates based on the review I got in some of the voter guides), I look forward to seeing the final results. Either way, non-admin deletions are as supported by {{Db-xfd}} as they are discouraged (not technically against policy) in WP:DPR#NAC. I'd be willing to go so far as to say that deletion discussions that have not been acted upon in over a month (when the max length of such discussion should not exceed a couple relistings with a total length of up to 21 days (technically 16 days comprised of an initial 7-day period and 3 3-day relistings, as I've read it) and have ended up at ANRfC, where non-admin closures seem to be the norm, it is perfectly fine for a non-admin to close as delete, tag the page {{Db-xfd}} and have an admin delete it on their behalf. Thinking that an admin has "more authority" detracts from Jimbo Wales's NOBIGDEAL. Admins are just mop holders and any established editor has as much authority as any other regardless of membership in user groups. Either way, like I said on the talk page discussion listed above, I'm happy to step aside for a couple days and let an admin deal with them or let a wider consensus emerge on the topic in the sub-heading. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin close

I notice that you closed the RfD for Next Fijian general election as Delete. Have you seen this bit in WP:Deletion process "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome"? I've taken the speedy tag off as you might want to reconsider... (I do agree that it's useless as a redirect - this is a procedure objection.) Peridon (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin deletions

Per WP:BADNAC, it's not acceptable to non-admin close a discussion as delete. I've reverted your close to the Next Fijian general election article, and removed the speedy request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Raised it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#NAC deletes in an attempt to get a wider consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that since a non-admin can't actually carry the deletion out it xhould be up to an admin to make those close. The only exception I can think of would be cases where an admin speedy deleted an article that was being discussed and a non-admin closed the discussion since the deletion was already carried out.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • invitee from WP:NAC: Sarek, the way this has generally kind of worked in the past is that NACs that have to use a WP:SPEEDY should not be overturned on the basis that CSD isn't technically a user permission to delete a file, even while discouraging non-admins from making those kinds of closes. WP:NAC was written as a set of best practices when doing non-admin closures, not a list of rules to be wikilawyered over. So NAC tells people not to do closures on matters that they do not have the user permissions to execute the outcome. But sometimes, you may end up with a discussion on, say, a big list of files, where you do an NAC that keeps the vast majority of them, but there are a couple where the discussion found they should get deleted (a bitmap version of an SVG, for example). It's probably best if a non-admin who is willing to put in the time to go through all those files and do the closes just to stick a CSD tag on the couple exceptions, and just ignore the fact that he's technically pawning this off on an admin. VanIsaacWScont 01:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So, this is the question we're asking

Since we have so many discussions brought in from so many places, it might not be clear where to state opinions, so here we go: Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?. So far, arguments in favor are Ignore all rules and not bureaucracy, while the big argument against is that non-administrators can't actually carry out this decision. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is the long backlog at some discussion pages back to October in some cases. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Absolutely they should Non-admins should not feel like they cannot judge consensus and close any discussion. If a deletion is needed, simply ask an admin to do so. There's plenty of active admins; find one you know well and drop a note on their talk page. If any non-admin closed a discussion as "delete" and asked me for the technical help in deleting it, I would help out. I suspect that many other admins would as well. Any policy which says that non-admins are forbidden from doing some action (which has no technical barrier) is a bad idea and we should never set up any situation where admins are a special class who are "better" at some part of Wikipedia, like judging consensus and closing discussions. Just close the discussion, and then ask for an admin to do the minor technical detail of performing the deletion. --Jayron32 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Errr isn't the idea of this to save admin time? If an admin deletes something T13 has closed without checking it, that's a lot different from doing the same to something Herbert the Aardvark has closed. Herbert joined us three weeks ago and this is his first venture into Draft space after doing his other ten edits. I wouldn't object to a new permission XfD Closer for experienced enough non-admins (like T13) that would enable them to utilise the route T13 in all good faith used, which led to this discussion. The difference with the delete closes is that the object disappears. In the no consensus or keep, it doesn't and it can easily be brought back in the event of no con, or a very close or disputed call for keep. Are you going to let Herbert close as delete? If an admin HAS to check the discussion to see if the decision is right, the only gain is that the NACer has another tick on the path to RfA. The start of this lot for me was a minor redirect that is no great gain or loss whatever happens to it. But the rules apply across XfD, not just to RfD. Are we to have NACs for delete in AfD? Done by Herbert the Aardvark? BTW closing as 'Deleted' is way different to closing as 'Delete'. 'Deleted' means a fait accompli - it's gone. The discussion is therefore dead and needs burying. For 'Delete', things aren't over yet... Peridon (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
To start, I agree absolutely with the principle of everything Jayron just dais. However, the fact that non-admins can't carry out a "delete" decision is the technical barrier. When you close an XfD, you are generally expected to carry out the decision, with the exception of "merge" results, which will often need further consensus on how to merge them (and therefore can't necessarily be carried out by just one person). A non-admin can't carry out a "delete" decision, so he shouldn't close it that way. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Why not? Why is it expected that he could close it for "keep", but cannot for "delete". He just needs to ping an admin to do the technical bit. There are two issues here: the judging of consensus and closing the discussion (which anyone can do) and the actual deletion (which needs an admin). An admin is not needed for the first part. --Jayron32 23:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
So what is the admin responsible for when deleting an article under these circumstances? Just delete based on the close without further review? Analyzing whether the closer is suitable? (proper level of experience/judgement) Review the discussion denovo and make their own judgement? If the deletion is disputed, whose deletion is it to reconsider, the admin's or the closer's, who can't even see the deleted content anymore... Monty845 16:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that be entirely up to the admin that deletes the page with the {{Db-xfd}} template on it? Aren't administrators suppose to make sure that CSD deletion requests are valid before carrying them out or are there admins that need a review because they are just deleting things tagged as CSD willy-nilly against policy? 130.111.59.29 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It's the Cabal of Rogue admins! Desysop them all! lol All joking aside though, that is a fair point, administrators should be reviewing CSDs before deleting them and the general NAC guidleines would still apply where if an admin disagreed that the closing reflected the consensus, they would have the right to postpone or reverse the decision pending asking the reviewer why they thought their close was reflective of the consensus. If the closer had a valid reasoning for it, then it would stand and the admin would delete or defer to another admin to delete. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      • But if the admin needs to fully asses the consensus of the AFD discussion, the work is being duplicated. Whats the benefit of the NAC then? Generally speaking Db-xfd tags are used where the closing admin missed something and some additional cleanup is required. The person deleting is just carrying out the close, and defers to the original close as to consensus. Monty845 04:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
        • They need to check the discussion, they don't need to fully reassess it. It takes a lot less time to skim through the comments and see if the result generally reflects them than it does to sit there and thoroughly read through and weigh each comment to determine consensus. As long as the result doesn't stand out as a SUPERVOTE or doesn't seem obviously skewed to one side or the other when the comments don't reflect that's the consensual result, then there is no reason to overturn. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. (my answer to the question asked) There is nothing wrong with an experienced non-admin who takes the bull by the horns when others who also have hold of the horns need some backup help. I might be the wrong person to take part in this apparent attempt to make Tech 13 and others like myself feel as if we've done something wrong when the only thing on our minds is to help out when we can when help is needed. What a waste of good editing and improvement time this is! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 22:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not averse to the idea, but I think it needs more thought. How would a non-admin respond to a query about the deleted article (perhaps from its creator, perhaps a random passer-by—I've known this to happen years after the deletion)? They can't see what was deleted, so they'd have to tell the editor to ask an admin, which is going to confuse the editor because they would expect the closer to be an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If the editor in question, for the sake of argument - myself, was an experienced editor - such as myself - they would know enough to simply explain to the editor that they do not have access to the deleted content directly and ask the admin that actually carried out the deletion to weigh in on the matter and deal with any possible userfication or restoration. Barring that (if the deleting admin was no longer active let's say), such an experienced editor would also know how to find another administrator to assist whether it is asking another admin they are familiar with or going to an administrative forum such as WP:AN. Meeting any resistance at such forums, such an experienced editor wouldshould be capable and willing to assist the user in opening an appropriate DRV request. Personally, I have no issue with clarification of whatever clauses and processes the community comes up with in the wording of wherever this ends up written, and support such clarity. What I'm unclear about in your question is why you think that they would expect the closer to be an admin. That seems to be a bit mind-reader-ish and wouldn't be backed by any essay, guideline, or policy if this discussion turns into anything. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Most new editor's probably assume everything is closed by an administrator, assuming that no one else is allowed to do this. New users generally think we follow rules more strictly than we actually do. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes As an admin who works on big backlogs, I absolutely appreciate qualified non-admins closing discussions, regardless of the outcome. If any individual is making bad judgments or abusing this power, deal with that person. Realistically, giving sanction to this practice isn't going to make a bunch of editors who signed up yesterday trying to seize power. It's going to allow good-faith non-admins in good standing to help out to address backlogs. Far from EdJohnston's suggestion that this could hurt someone at RfA, I'd see it as evidence of experience and initiative. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • By the way, perhaps as a sort of compromise or pilot program, we could sanction this sort of activity only in backlogs. I suspect this is where most such non-admins will work anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added an RfC tag and linked to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, and Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion. This discussion is already listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Incredibly suboptimal idea. non admins lack the technical ability to review or undelete material they have closed as delete. This means that any challenge to their close isn't going to get proper consider. Either a non involved admin has to be found or the complainant is going to get fobbed off. Another concern is that there will be an increase in poor deletions. editors lacking the knowledge and nuance to correctly interpret our policies will be closing discussions to aid their hat collecting. This will mean the Csd clearing admin will have to review the close before deleting or DRV will be swamped.given that poor deletion reasons are a reason why new editors get scared off t, I feel this idea had far more downside then possible upside. Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No I don't think as an admin I'd simply delete something that someone told me it's OK to delete. As an admin the onus is on me to make sure I'm not screwing up, and that means I'll look at the AFD the same way as if I was closing it... which means I might as well close it myself. If this is an attempt to lighten loads or clear backlogs, I'm pretty sure it's not going to work. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes - Wanting to be an admin means you have to do admin things .... like judging and closing discussions, I personally believe NAC helps you experience-wise and I assume it's helping alot with backlogs too. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe that actual participation (i.e. !voting) is much more valuable experience than actually closing, especially on discussions in which you have no prior exposure to. You are still able to judge the entire discussion and decide what you think the consensus is, but at the end you still get to see whether you were correct or not, and correct yourself accordingly in the future. (Sometimes this comes in the form of a pile-on vote; personally I think that's fine, and have done it in the past.) ansh666 21:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes The less responsibilities that are admin only the better. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Absolutely Not The one who is ultimately responsible for deleting an article is the one who hits the big red D button that makes it go away. That person is always going to be an Admin. No one should have the power to make a decision that someone else has to carry out with the responsibility falling on that second person. File this under the heading "Don't start what you can't finish." See also FreeRangeFrog's post above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the ability to decide the outcome of deletion requests is one of the issues most looked for in requests for adminship. In addition, only admins can technically perform, and hence be responsible for, deletions (and any followup such as userfications).  Sandstein  21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No. There are multiple reasons I have this opinion, some of which are: 1) it increases the amount of work to be done (an admin must check to see if the discussion was closed properly or not); 2) the non-admin closer is not responsible for the deletion (i.e. the deletion log will only show the deleting admin) and cannot review/restore the page if requested. Basically, it increases the amount of bureaucracy needed (contrary to the suggestion that WP:NOTBURO is an argument in favor) and decreases accountability of deletion. No comment on quality, but I will say very clearly that were I allowed to, I would not close any discussion as delete which is not completely obvious, and those are usually handled fairly quickly by actual administrators anyways. ansh666 21:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • But they're not actually all handled quickly by "actual" administrators anyway. That's why we're here. There are no administrators that want to look through and close them. So, either stuff that should be deleted sits there for months on end (I'm not exaggerating, see Large backlog at RfD) where there are closes (the ones I did didn't seem that hard to assess) that have been waiting for a close since last July (five months ago). Any closer assumes all the responsibility for their closes regardless of the outcome is. It does not matter that "they" didn't push the button, and it is easy enough for the admin that pushes the button to put in a decline reason Deleting per [User:«editor that closed the discussion»|Closer]'s close of [XfD/Log/YYYY MMM dd#page to delete|XfD]. Please contact them for assistance., so the the deletion log will only show the deleting admin argument doesn't fly well. If the closer is willing to do the extra leg work to deal with restoration/userfication requests, then so-be-it, less work for admin to have to do. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmm, my experience is at AfD only; the other XfDs must be different, then. The problem with Any closer assumes all the responsibility for their closes regardless of the outcome is. is that they cannot - non-admins cannot see or restore deleted content. And, while I am aware you can put the closer's name in the deletion rationale, it still marks the administrator as the one who deleted the page. ansh666 21:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
        • In reply to is that they cannot - non-admins cannot see or restore deleted content, by outlining the closers responsibilities when closing discussions, it is simple to add in there that it is their responsibility to find a willing administrator, oversighter (not necessarily just for admins), or editor in another usergroup that has access to the information to supply assistance in giving a summary, emailing the contents of, restoring, or userfying the deleted content. At that point, admins are doing what admins are supposed to do, be the mop holder and the button pusher. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes in theory, no in practice. Non-admins are perfectly capable of judging consensus to delete, as is already done with consensus to keep or merge. But the person who pushes the delete button must be accountable for that action, so they should make the effort to review it themselves. If an admin can't be bothered checking their own janitorial work, they shouldn't be deleting anything. The real answer here is for people with the experience, wisdom and willingness to make difficult closes, to lodge an RfA and be passed by the community as the kind of people we need in that role. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No administrators are accountable for any actions they take with their admin tools (WP:ADMINACCT), so if a non-admin delete closure is actually implemented then it is really an admin closure since the deleting admin is the one responsible. Furthermore it goes against the guideline WP:NACD. Hut 8.5 22:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No: the person who presses the "delete" button should be solely accountable for pressing it.—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No per FreeRangeFrog. Also, closing an AfD as delete without actually deleting the article seems like a "half-close" to me. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I used to want to say "yes", but now I say No. Admins get the mop and bucket, and the burden of pressing the delete button should fall solely on their hands. But hey, who wants to start a discussion to unbundle the "delete" function from the administrative toolset? Ha, just kidding. Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Why not? Non-admin closures are subject to administrator review already; just as admins may say "no, this discussion should be delete" for a "keep" closure, they can do the other way around. Yes, the people pushing the delete button need to be able to act independently of the non-admin closer (if I switch a "delete" close to a "keep", I shouldn't get in trouble simply for doing the switching), but this is only because we're all responsible for our own actions. When it's not a technical matter or a WMF-required matter (e.g. requiring community approval for admin rights), everyone should be equal. If you're qualified to close an AFD as "keep", you're qualified to close it as "delete" too. We can use {{db-xfd}} for this kind of situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree, and if things work like I think they are suppose to work, admin closures are supposed to be subject to non-admin review as well, after all, isn't that what DRV is for? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Correct. It would be better yet if admins didn't have the right to overrule non-admin closures, but that simply wouldn't work: I'm responsible for my own actions, and if Steel1943 closes a discussion as "delete" and I delete it, I can't go calling him an idiot for the deletion if I think consensus was trending toward "keep". Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Incorrect -- Non-admin closures are not subject to administrator review -- see recent RFC on the subject. NE Ent 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Oh, those kind of closures. That's very different. Never mind. NE Ent 03:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • NE Ent, while I appreciate the outcome and would like to see a similar outcome here, that discussion was specific to RfC and not XfDs. There is apparently a longstanding belief amongst some that there is a difference between the two. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • [edit conflict] You would do well to read WP:NACD, the NAC section of the deletion process page: Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No per Steel1943's argument above; and the first person that proposes a new Deletor usergroup should be shot! — xaosflux Talk 02:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I strongly believe (for the hill of peanuts that it is worth) that failure to get these discussions closed and redirects/categories/files|templates/miscellany deleted in a timely fashion when there is community consensus to do so, then we are effectively flipping the community off and driving editors (possibly good ones) away. When it takes over five months to complete a process that is suppose to take a week and absolutely no more than a month, then we have a severe problem. I'm personally not proposing that this should be an option for deletion of articles, as there are plenty of content minded administrators willing to do those, it's all the odds and ends that may or may not rely heavily on technical abilities (like the ability to read a template or module in the cases of TfD) to close or things people don't really care about like redirects and odds and ends that need to have someone assess them. The only legitimate reason that I can see to oppose this is as a power struggle to prevent users that aren't administrators from doing NACs at all. I mean, in most cases, what is the point of wasting even five or ten minutes to read through a handful of arguments if the result is likely going to be delete?
So, what are the options? (you probablymost certainly do not want to read this TL;DR rant.)
  • Force administrators to assess one XfD a day? - yeah, right... Not reasonable and not going to happen
  • Unbundle the delete right from "admin only"? - I'm pretty sure the ability to delete and the ability to read deleted content is bundled together so that's a non-starter as the WMF requires community vetting
    • Although I suppose we could create a "new" mini-admin group for established users that would require some kind of community vetting that the WMF would approve - but that isn't very likely either
  • Form a committee to vet out possible administrators to propose to the community and create some kind of appointment system based on community votes - a very similar proposal just failed so not likely
  • Find some other way to convince experienced and capable editors to run for RfA, perhaps lowering the bar a little - RfA is broken beyond repair and the only reason it failed to achieve any consensus to do away with it is because there are a handful of holdouts that think it's better to have a system in place that someone may get through every once in a while, and there is certainly no consensus at this point to lower the bar a little and make it achievable for a few more editors
  • Allow non-admins to review discussions and close them however is appropriate. I mean, if they are going to spend five or ten minutes or three hours reading through the discussions and arguments, then they should be able to slap a template on it regardless of what the consensus is.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the hesitation and the opposition, you don't trust these established editors (who may or may not have multiple other "trust required bits" like account creator, mass message sender, template editor, rollback, file mover, or autopatrolled) to be able to assess the consensus in a discussion. They are more than welcome to close any RfC discussions with any appropriate result, but they are "discouraged" from closing a clear cut RfD as delete because someone else has to push a button to carry it out. Seems skewed to me in a way that suggests that administrators indeed have unquestionable authority over all other "lesser" editors.
I collapsed my rant, as I'm sure many of you won't read it. That's okay, I'd rather you spend your time improving the encyclopedia and taking care of the backlogs to make this a moot point in the first place than read it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. I can think of too many instances where a delete with a CSD is a good way of enacting a closure - especially when the deletion is a small part of the overall issue. We shouldn't change anything in WP:NAC, nor should non-admins be told how they can go about doing it - if they aren't familiar enough with policies to figure out how to do it with a maintenance CSD, we shouldn't be giving them ideas - but an NAC should never be overturned on the basis of having a deletion done via CSD instead of direct deletion via admin permission. VanIsaacWScont 02:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No per Spartaz. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Non-admins should not close deletion discussions outside of the very limited criteria set out by WP:NAC -- even that is of dubious 'usefulness'. There is a precedent for experienced non-admins to close RfCs, typically in article space, but that is a different matter. Closure of deletion discussions (broadly construed) should be carried out by those responsible for hitting the delete button. To do otherwise would create needless confusion and additional layers of bureaucracy this project could do without. Bellerophon talk to me 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Generally per Spartaz and Bellerophon. I would not delete something on the say-so of a non admin. I would obviously and correctly feel obliged to thoroughly review the discussion again myself, after all, I’m going to carry the can for using my tools. If a non admin gets it wrong xhe can’t be desysoped, but there are people out there who are actively looking for any opportunity to get one up on the entire corps of admins. Add to that the fact that while we have some very mature and competent NAC closers of non-deletion related discussions, NAC and NAO are a particularly strong magnet to new, young, or otherwise inexperienced users - any admin who has worked at WP:PERM will know exactly what I mean as regards the requests for perms and the NAO who try to clerk the page or turn it into an RfA-style election. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • While it is true that they can't be desysoped, they can be topic banned or blocked just like any other user. I would think the measures taken to protect the encyclopedia would be much more severe for a non-admin than an admin on that front. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Any other user didn't have to go through the humiliation of RfA. While adminship is 'no big deal', RfA itself is. Allowing a proposal such as this, or even suggesting we should IAR on existing NAC policy/guidelines would be, like any handing out willy nilly of traditional admin tools and responsibility, the thin end of the wedge. Taking AfD as an example, when I research to vote on an RfA, I look for accurate voting on AfDs. If I see too many NAC, then it's clear (to me at least) that the candidate is probably being too eager to get the mop. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Misunderstanding NE Ent 23:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems like you are arguing with me, but I don't see where you have taken a contrary position. Chillum 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No — the current criteria at WP:NAC are fine. Any admin worth their salt, when faced with "here is a page, I've judged the consensus, you just need to press the button" is going to look at the closure made and weigh it up for themselves. They are the one who will be held responsible. They're the one who will get shouted about at ANI or taken to deletion review. If the admin doesn't weigh the consensus for themselves, then they shouldn't be an admin. If they do, then the non-admin closure isn't necessary. If you want to close deletion discussions beyond the limits of WP:NAC, run for adminship. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes The process often takes too long. Deletion review can chasten editors who make the wrong NAC. REFUND is always an option. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No I wouldn't support this. It's not a matter of accountability or trustworthiness. It's just not practical. Since non-admin can't actually delete a page, they'd have to CSD-tag it after closing the discussion instead of deleting it. That would just move it from one admin backlog (the XFD backlog) to another admin backlog (the CSD backlog). That doesn't make the admins' job any easier. --Jakob (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No - As others have said, it doesn't make sense to have a non-admin close the discussion when an admin is still going to have to perform the actual deletion, and as a result judge the consensus of the discussion themselves anyway. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No, with a but I say no simply because it seems silly to have two people doing something that can be done by one person. I also think NACs should only be done in cases where consensus is clear and unambiguous. This is why we have admins. But if someone could demonstrate that there is serious, ongoing problem (and by demonstrate I mean show me some hard data, not just anecdotal evidence and opinions) then I'm fine with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Admins have no monopoly on the ability to judge consensus, but that isn't the issue. The admins have been vetted and given a tool specifically to do these sorts of jobs. If there are unacceptable backlogs, the answer is to grant more users working in these area the tools to do the job. You either will see admins still reviewing each decision prior to deletion (and therefore not saving time) or deleting without consider the propriety of the deletion. One is unhelpful, and the other unacceptable. Oppose. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No, absolutely not - like giving citizens guns but no badges or bullets. Yeah, they can wave it around and pretend and scream "bang!" but they can't actually pull the trigger. There isn't a significant backlog at AFD, every admin nominee these days seems to be volunteering to close AFDs once they have the bit and creating a category of discussions that are closed but for which articles have not deleted just creates a work elsewhere. And who do people approach when a deletion is wrong? The closer or the deleting admin. Does the admin get rapped over the knuckles if they delete something based on closed discussion without actually checking if they agree with the close? If a non-admin closes something but the admin who shows up to delete disagrees, can they unilaterally overturn the close (as suggested by WP:NAC)? Want the "power" to delete something? Run for adminship. St★lwart111 10:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Normal closing guidelines still apply- closes must still be per consensus and sane. One (bad) analogy of this is SPI clerks and Checkusers; SPI ckerks can endorse a request for checkuser depending on the merits of the case. The SPI clerk him/herself doesn't actually press the Check button, and CUs are free to not follow the endorsement, but the majority of the time CUs follow clerk endorsements. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 05:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Admins are responsible for their own use of the tools, if I delete something on the say so of a non-admin close and there is a problem it's me getting dragged to ANI or A/R/C. Given that I need to reassess the deletion discussion and decide whether I would have closed it the same way, granted it's a way to force admins to review discussions, it's a duplication of effort. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes In my recent experience with a whole raft of similar deletion discussions and speedy nominations I've found that Admins are far from uniform on their decisions over deletes. Clearly Admins don't have superpowers that give them the ability to be all right and all consistent all the time. An experienced non-Admin should be able to close a discussion and request a speedy based on the discussion. all things not prohibited are permissable. Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No. As others have said, the deleting admin still needs to check the discussion. It makes no sense for a user with no power to delete something to express an opinion about a deletion discussion, only to have someone else perform the evaluation that actually matters. APerson (talk!) 00:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, because deletion, by definition, is the role of an administrator. Non-admins can't delete, so they shouldn't close deletion discussions as delete. If a non-admin wants to do that, then they should ask for the mop. Tavix |  Talk  00:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes in theory, because admins should tackle huge backlogs where elevated rights are actually required, instead of wasting time for simple tasks that can be handled by all experienced users. That's just BOLD as it should be. In practice it would get very messy for a contested non-admin delete based on {{db-xfd}}. I never tested non-admin delete for this reason (but trust that Technical 13 would be able to get it right or fix it.) WP:NAC is an essay, maybe promote it to a guideline before it gets longer (for the counters, it's not a vote, the consensus is obviously no because Stifle, xaosflux, and Bellerophon among others said so.) –Be..anyone (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

So if a non-admin closes a discussion as "delete," can an admin who comes to do the deletion say "hey, wait a minute, this shouldn't be deleted..."? Or must the admin either a) execute the deletion, or b) just leave for another admin to handle? NE Ent 03:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • My opinion of the scenario would be this. They admin is perfectly fine looking at it and saying "something's not right here". The appropriate course of action, I would think, would be for an admin to place some kind of administrative hold on the Db-xfd (I'd be happy to code it into the wrapper template for it) and go to the closer's talk page to ask them why they chose to close it the way that they did. Pending the answer to that question (which as a closer, they would be obligated to explain or expand on their decision if asked), the admin could either assess that the response is reasonable and carry out the deletion, feel "on-the-fence" about it and defer it to another administrator, or disagree with the close and ask for a review of the close on DRV (during which time the Db-xfd template would be adjusted to be a notification of review, which I would also happily code the toggle for that). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Since policy allows the admin to overrule the non-admin, the best course of action is to remove the speedy tag and then reclose or unclose (if the idea's that we need more discussion) the XFD. Best to do this before discussion, lest it be deleted by a less-careful admin and lest someone retag it after observing the "delete" result without a deletion. It's like any other situation in which a speedy tag is applied: before deleting, the admin needs to determine that the non-admin interpreted consensus correctly, whether it's consensus at WP:CSD that there should be a normal speedy-deletion criterion embracing this kind of page, or consensus at an XFD that this specific page should be deleted. As I said up above, if Steel1943 does an NAC for "delete", it's still my responsibility if I do something about it, and if I delete it when I disagree with his decision, I can't go blaming him for the actual deletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The speedy tag need not be removed, it just needs one of those This would be a big red banner that only admins can see (like this .sysop-show tagged span code block) saying do not delete this, see [pending discussion]. If admins are deleting things like that anyways, then they need to be reviewed themselves. A unclosing to continue discussion or reclosing the XfD itself may be appropriate, I won't contend that. As per my scenario above, if you disagree with his decision, you're not obligated to carry it out. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • So ... it's not really a proposal to allow a non-admin to close a Afd ... it's a proposal to allow a non-admin to pretend close and/or supervote an Afd. If the problem is there aren't enough admins to close Afds, the solution is to get more admins, or provide better Afd discussions for admins to evaluate. Are Afds (still) frequently being relisted for more discussion? Simply getting more neutral evaluators would help. This is really going to help much, as many (most?) admins will feel it's their responsibility to make an independent assessment. NE Ent 02:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
        • It is a proposal to allow a non-admin to close XfD discussions as delete. Technically, a non-admin can't move a page in most requested move situations, yet they are allowed to close those in a manner that would require assistance from an administrator. This is no different other than it is requiring assistance to delete instead of move. As for your question about relisting. I recently set up Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times to try and encourage more administrators to work on these. Apparently, there are admins willing to delete things closed by a non-admin, so why should those admins be disallowed to do so because other admins don't want to? Seems like a bureaucratic power-grab to me. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Trial period

What about a trial for a month, perhaps. There is a lot of concern above that reviewing these will be a lot of load on admins, or that they'd be closed without being deleted. A one month trial would give us an idea if those concerns are valid or not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: One month is a long time at AfD, there are so many articles nominated every day. One week would be more realistic IMO. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think a trial period could put many concerns to rest. And last I saw, AfD generally didn't have many problems with this. As the de facto chief of RfD,* I would welcome such a test there. (*Please don't think this pompous. I would be quite pleased to have more closers active at RfD, hence all this advocacy. But in the meantime, I am responsible for most RfD closures these days, and I'm quite grateful to anyone else who does them.) --BDD (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No. A trial of a bad idea isn't going to turn the bad idea good. Spartaz Humbug! 12:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If something cannot get consensus then there should not be a trial period. Spartaz put it well. No thanks. Chillum 18:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • If we're not even talking about AFD, I really don't see the problem. Yes, a lot of CFD/MFD stuff sits longer than it needs to. Then, someone eventually comes along and cleans it up. I don't see that as a serious problem in need of new policy to solve it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No - trialling a bad idea won't turn it into a good one. Once the discussion has been closed we can look at implementation (if there is anything to be implemented). Trials, templates and other things pre-judge the outcome. And given the tone of the discussion, pre-judge it with the wrong result. St★lwart111 10:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No trial. Unless I am very much mistaken, a clear consensus is already reached for the core proposal so having a trial on something that's not going to happen is as time wasting as the discussion below that presupposes a consensus will be reached for NAC deletions and starts designing the NAC Deletion system and how it should be implemented. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No. It's clear from many, many, many RFA discussions that the community views a candidate's view of the deletion process, both substantively and procedurally, as an important, sensitive area. There's no way at this time that this could enjoy a genuine consensus and, if adopted, would like result increasing the amount of time wasted at AN/I and DRV by at least one order of magnitude. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No. A bunch of admins have said above that they would need to reassess the discussion so there's not point to a trial. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per my above comment that the existence of a problem has not been well made-out. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No and oppose Deleting content is one of the most regulated actions on Wikipedia. There is long consensus that only people who have been vetted through the RfA process should have the ability to do this. The need for more admins is not great enough to reform the treatment of deletion responsibility. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not happy with this as a question, because what looks like the likely outcome (that NA's will be able to close deletion discussion as "keep" but not as "delete") is illogical and a recipe for bias. A closer should not know what the outcome of a discussion is until they have carefully read through anything and given everyone's comments an appropriate amount of thought. Asking NAs to either predetermine the result of discussions or else abandon closes only after they've done all the work would be ludicrous. The question should be simply about whether NAs can or cannot close deletion discussions. Formerip (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2015 (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.

New CSD template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm going to close this before it descends into further sarcasm and trolling. Any unrelated discussion can go below.

If there is consensus to allow non-admins to do this, I suggest some things we can do to make the process work better. First, create a new speedy delete tag {{db-nac}} saying "A deletion discussion on this page was closed as delete, but the closer is not an administrator" or something. Second, the deletion menus should add an option for a deletion summary of "Deleting per xfd closed by non-administrator user:example" or something like that. These two measures would make this idea work much better by clearly communicating to everyone what is going on. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I just figured people would be more willing to support with these ideas. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:02, 16 December 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.

To archive or not to archive

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see some users simply removing requests after they're done and others actually archiving them. I think it's time for a discussion: Do we want to enforce archiving or scrap it? I'm tempted to say scrap it since we already have incomplete archives, but I can see the benefit of archiving. Sam Walton (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of archiving were mentioned at #Archiving and restoring removed request from User:Kahastok. I believe our archives are fairly complete because whenever people simply remove the requests, I manually archive them myself. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-Admin closure

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I closed a merge discussion as an involved editor (Talk:Law of Louisiana#Proposed merge with Louisiana’s Evidence Code) and after reading:
  • Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion., realized I made an error in comments. I also made mistakes on template placement but corrected this. There was clear consensus not to merge (no consensus to merge) and I made it seem confusing in the closing comments as per the above policy.
The merge discussion began October 5, 2014, and a deletion request October 6, 2014, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana’s Evidence Code. It appears one or the other was actually improper as they are one day apart and listed together in the history. At least two editors knew of both but I missed this, apparently as as did the closing admin for the deletion proposal. The article survived the deletion, because of improvements.
The reasons for merge were solved with improvements to both articles.
  • A problem?: It is possible that I usurped authority and I would like clarification although I already received a thanks for my actions. My intentions, were more procedural and housekeeping.
  • Consensus: (not the split vote) is clear taking all this into context and considering the improvements, lack of current discussion, and expiration of the discussion timeline (from October), however, it is still 3 editors for a merge and 3 against so there could still be questions of conflict even though "counting votes" is not consensus. I would assume if there is not any questioning then all would be good and I realize I could have just "waited it out".
My concern is that I had no intentions of going around policy or playing administrator and do not want it to seem that way. If there are any concerns I would understand reverting my edits and re-listing the request. There is a backlog and consensus was clear, even without my input, but I DO NOT want it thought I was attempting to go through the back door to keep an article. If I would have thought about this before hand I would not have closed the request.
Request: Would someone look at this and give me some guidance. From discussions I see that non-admin closures (on merges) have support and accordingly, when consensus is clear, this is certainly not a problem even if involved. My concerns are any possible questions of impropriety. I am sure if there were questions the closure could simply be over-turned but would like confirmation that my reasoning is seen as objective because of being involved.
  • Please note: While I do not question my objectivity and reasoning I did make an error in my closing comments per the above policy, and some on maintenance execution. No matter the out-come in the future I will not close any discussion where I am involved. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I looked over the discussion and the AFD. And while you did comment in the discussion, I don't see a strong need in this case to open and re-close the discussion. Though (especially in light of the AfD), I might have closed this as keep. The AfD results essentially refuted the claim of the supporters in this discussion, which left little else in support. Anyway, nice job asking for a WP:3PO. I think you'll probably be fine for future WP:NAC, so if you see something else on this page you can help with, please volunteer : ) - jc37 20:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions on merge closings

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have noticed a few merge closings, one Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Merger proposal looks like its an easy one, discussion has died for over a month, and no one on either page wants the merge. Thats from a fast reading, I would do a more detailed reading if its ok for non admins to close merges. But a few questions remain. Can non admins close mergers? I assume that the discussion on both pages factors into the closing, should both discussions be archived as I think they should? Who merges them if the consensus is to merge? Sorry if there is a page that covers this, but WP:MERGE seems only to cover how to propose a merger, and how to merge, not who does what and what the role of the closer is. AlbinoFerret

It depends on the type of merge and whether the page histories need to be merged as well. If so, then the ability to delete/restore may be required. And merging page histories is never to be done lightly, but rather, carefully.
If you're not sure, then please leave it for someone else. There's always another closer, as they say : ) - jc37 23:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, I still have a lot to learn about closing. I tend to ask a lot of questions when I am learning something, better than making mistakes. I think for the time being I will stick to closing those mergers that are against the merger. That will leave the ones that may need admins, so they can focus on things they need to do. I am just an editor and my focus is to help out with the stuff editors can do. AlbinoFerret 02:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What are the qualifications for a closer?

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I think that the RFC process is interesting. I would like to help if possible at some point. I am not sure what qualifications are needed to help with closing. AlbinoFerret 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi AlbinoFerret. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs any uninvolved editor can close an RfC, though if an admin action is required (such as with any of the MfD/RfD discussions which are listed here) then an admin should close a discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Great, sorry it took so long to respond, I am currently looking for more ways to help out if I can, and it looks like this page could use help closing RFC's. I will probably try one today. AlbinoFerret 16:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi AlbinoFerret. Thank you so much for your close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 17#Talk:Bhutanese passport#Spoken Wikipedia file. WP:ANRFC needs editors who are willing to take the time to resolve disputes by reading discussions and assessing the consensus in them. Cunard (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem Cunard I have lots of time and WP is a great place to spend it. I have been looking at the page, but I am taking it slow and dont think I am ready to close some of the current RFC's. Just a question, what happens if there are only a few replies to an RFC, and its pretty split? AlbinoFerret 23:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
If there are few replies to an RfC, I recommend determining whether one side has better policy-based arguments. For example, in a split discussion about whether to include negative material in a biography of a living person, WP:BLP might be the overriding policy argument. See Drmies (talk · contribs)'s excellent close of Talk:Michael Grimm (politician)/Archive 1#RfC re "fucking balcony", where he discussed the applicability of NPOV and BLP in his close excluding the material.

If the discussion is split and neither side has a stronger argument, I recommend closing as "no consensus".

Sample close from Samwalton9 (talk · contribs): Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)#RfC: Article/character name and usage:

Closing as no consensus due largely to lack of participation. The discussion appears to be leaning in favour of option 3, but a more widely publicised RfC or bold change might be in order.

Also, if your close is challenged, you or the challenging editor can take your close to WP:AN for a closure review. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for a list of past closure reviews.

Many editors watch WP:ANRFC, so if you have any questions or doubts about any of your closes, feel free to ask for feedback at WP:ANRFC or this talk page. Thank you for volunteering to help with the WP:ANRFC backlog!

Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer Cunard, it will help a lot and open up more that I can close. AlbinoFerret 03:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome! Thank you for your excellent work at WP:ANRFC today! Cunard (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Anything to help WP, and I am glad I can help clear some of it out and so let the admins focus best where they are needed. I am getting close to finishing the ones that are real old that I think I can do. I cant do Talk:Brisbane Roar FC#RfC: What does the F in Brisbane Roar FC stand for? because I commented on it. Ill start looking at the rest starting at the oldest first probably tomorrow. AlbinoFerret 23:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the very good work you've been doing. You and Jc37 (talk · contribs) cleared the backlog but there is a new backlog now since I've added more RfCs from the past month to the list. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow the page filled up quick! I will take a look tomorrow afternoon and see where I can help. I wont be able to do any e-cig RFC's and it looks like there is one on the list. But it looks like there is plenty more where I can help. I ended up doing a few, but its time for this editor to sleep, tomorrow is a new day and there is plenty to do. AlbinoFerret 02:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#FakeHeaders

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A proposal is up on AN that would affect ANRFC, cross-posting here in case some have this talk page watchlisted but not AN as a whole. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC Kosovo Identification

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should all the extra verbiage in this section be hatted? The RFC participants are just making it larger and larger rehashing the RFC itself and growing ANRFC larger than it needs to be. AlbinoFerret 15:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Archiving and restoring removed request from User:Kahastok

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Nyttend (talk · contribs) reverted my revert of his removals with the edit summary "Re-removing items that have already been handled and don't need to be archived. Do not restore".

Archiving

WP:ANRFC has been archived since its inception. To unilaterally decide that archiving is no longer needed is not acceptable. Here are two arguments for why it is archived:

  1. As Technical 13 (talk · contribs) noted:

    AIV and UAA should not be archived because they are trouble user specific issues (so, kind of a special case like BLP). PERM is archived and RFPP is archived (kind of) all of the other AN boards are archived (AN ANI 3RR BON (current)). It makes sense that ANRFC would also be archived.

  2. As I noted:

    I support archiving of the noticeboard for transparency and easy reference. I've referenced discussions in ANRFC's archives before (in fact, I've done that just above about the Mariah Carey birth years discussion), as have other editors. And it allows editors to easily determine who requested a close rather than laboriously paging through ANRFC's history.

    It takes no more effort to archive a discussion than to remove it. First, see an example here using the OneClickArchiver. Second, ClueBot automatically archives closed discussions (example from 21 January 2015). Since it is easy to maintain an archive, I don't see a pressing reason to remove it given the benefits of having one.

What do other editors think?

Removed request from User:Kahastok

Nyttend removed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Determination of what country an article relates to, and MOSNUM consequences with the edit summary "Not something that needs an admin". I disputed the removal, writing:

This was removed with the edit summary "Not something that needs an admin". That is an invalid reason to remove a request for closure from WP:ANRFC, which handles both discusses that require closure by an admin and those that can be closed by a non-admin.

Because this discussion is related to the general sanctions at WP:GS/UKU, it would be less controversial for it to be closed by an admin (though it can be closed by a non-admin).

Nyttend reverted my revert, removing the closure request from User:Kahastok. Edit warring to remove the closure request is not acceptable. As FormerIP (talk · contribs) noted in a similar case:

Your deletion of the requests was a no-tools affair, so your decision to delete has no special status over Cunard's decision to restore. BRD applies.

I ask that the closure request be restored.

Should admins have special status over non-admins at WP:ANRFC?

Cunard (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked that the issue I wanted closed be closed because it is an area that has proved exceedingly controversial in the past. To the point where we have general sanctions in force.
Could I close it? Yes. But if I did it would not be the end of it. If I close it, it will end up at close review because of how controversial the point has been, given my involvement, and given that I would be closing in favour of my preferred position. Would it not be much better if it was dealt with by a neutral admin or other user? Of course it would. The drama involved would be greatly reduced and we'd be in a much clearer position. We would have an authoritative and independent close without the otherwise-inevitable accusations of bias and involvedness. So where am I supposed to go to obtain such a thing? It's close to nine years since I first registered my account and I know of no other relevant forum. If there is one, it's well hidden.
"Not something that needs an admin" is an entirely inadequate response to a request - a clear instance where Wikipedia is treated as a bureaucracy. There is nothing in the instructions here to say that only closes that must be made by admins can be listed here, nor anything to say that one should not list controversial discussions here. We may not, strictly speaking, need an admin, but we do need a neutral close and we have not had one. If it was removed because the conclusion is obvious, then great! Please close the discussion with the obvious conclusion, because that way nobody is going to be able to tell us there wasn't consensus. But just not closing it is useless. As such, I intend to relist the discussion. Kahastok talk 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A number of users have raised reasonable questions about whether ANRFC is overloaded. I'm not sure how much merit these concerns have, but the right thing to do is put forward proposals. In the meantime, it really is not acceptable to edit war over the contents of the page, and if it doesn't stop, I would certainly support a ban on Nyttend (talk · contribs) removing anything from the list. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing archived discussions

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In response to these removals of closure requests for archived discussions, I believe archived discussions should be closed just like unarchived discussions. Pages have different archiving timelines, so some pages may be archived before they can be closed.

Because the RfC has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page.

Cunard (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cunard: check out WP:VPP. Jenks24 (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Jenks24. Link to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 122#Requesting closing statements for archived discussions. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Two Kosovo RFCs

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

As User:AlbinoFerret noted above, there is extended unproductive back-and-forth discussion about the two Kosovo RFCs, evidently intended to sway the closure, or to establish, in advance of closure, that there is only one permitted closure, or something. I agree with AlbinoFerret that the back-and-forth should be hatted. In view of the disruption in the extended back-and-forth, I also strongly recommend closure either by one administrator or by three administrators, preferably by administrators who are willing to make WP:ARBMAC blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I just found this after having already collapsed the duplicate request. Naturally, I agree with you here. :-) No objection to hatting the rest of it also, although my rationale for leaving it was that the discussion had already stopped and the original request was itself partisan (so collapsing everything but the request could be interpreted as non-neutral, but perhaps someone could just replace it with a standard request). Sunrise (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I rewrote the request for closure in the usual neutral form and collapsed the discussion. I have requested an administrative closure. If anyone disagrees, they can revert my edit, but I think that the neutral request is what we need. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Sunrise (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As someone who was party to the debate, I mistakenly assumed !vote to mean "vote" until reading WP:NOTAVOTE. As such, I feel justified in having acted objectively when making this[1] edit. Obviously upon realising that my assumption was wrong, I redressed my comments by striking out the content based on voting principles. Either way, it was a genuine request that invited third parties to draw their own conclusions, and no further debate on this page followed, I therefore must object to the threat of a block. --OJ (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OJ, yeah, "!vote" as "not a vote" is really confusing terminology, and I shouldn't have used it. I apologize for leading to your confusion. Red Slash 17:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, I had to learn somehow! There is a tongue-in-cheek element to that symbol so anyone can make that error. --OJ (TALK) 19:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on consensus

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am asking a question on consensus to make sure I understand it correctly. I am asking for the opinions of closers and admins on this question. A question has been raised on rough consensus vs clear consensus vs perfect consensus. As I understand the page on closing the standard is rough consensus when closing. Not perfect consensus and I can find no reference to clear consensus. If another venue is better for this question please direct be there. Thanks AlbinoFerret 16:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • For deletion discussions, the standard is "rough consensus" per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. The guideline notes:

    For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion.

    And:

    Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

    And:

    Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.

    Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no more common in deletion than in any other area.

    These are commonsense, reasonable guidelines, so I agree that the standard for RfCs should be "rough consensus" too.

    Cunard (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cunnard, I have a feeling I am going to be leaving off the word "rough" in a close, so as not to give those looking for any way to disregard a closing ammunition. AlbinoFerret 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing statement doesnt show in the RFC box

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I have ran into a problem, the closing statement doesnt show in the RFC box here Talk:The_Pirate_Bay#RfC_-_24_July_2015. Its there in the wikicode, and I placed the text above the box so the participants can see it. Can another close look and see whats stopping it from showing? AlbinoFerret 19:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. Let me know if that's not what you intended. - MrX 19:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for fixing it, what was the problem in case I run into this again or so that I can stop it from happening? AlbinoFerret 19:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure. You used template: Rfc top, which didn't work for some unknown reason (line feeds, maybe?). I changed it to template:archive top which seems to have worked. - MrX 19:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I normally use the Rfc template because its made for RFC's, but archive works as the purpose is to archive it. I will remember that trick. Thanks again. AlbinoFerret 19:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I have restored close requests removed without consensus

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I have restored close requests that were removed without consensus. Do not remove them without gaining consensus to do so. Cunard (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the link used as rational cites archived discussions. So far none of the RFC's that you added, that I have closed, have been archived on the talk pages. This removal is stopping at least me, from closing RFC's. This is not the best way to make the page smaller, closing them is. Removing them is more WP:POINTY as it defeats the purpose of the noticeboard. AlbinoFerret 18:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
So your opinion is a discussion, not an RFC, with 4 or 5 editors in it, and not noticed to the talk page of the noticeboard it will affect is binding? AlbinoFerret 12:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't get it. You're pointing at something that says "Un Archived"; that's all. Even the grammar of your sentence here isn't clear, which is unfortunate given the complexity of the material: the easiest solution is to say there's a comma splice, but even then, given the, ahem, terseness of "Un Archived" I'd say non sequitur. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Apologies @Drmies: I unarchived it to close it per request it's Now Here SPACKlick (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I notice that one click archiver links are gone now, they were there not long ago. When the page is long its sometimes easier to archive things manually. I have done it in the past and usually wait two days before doing it. I have no idea if this was done on purpose or how to fix it if it wasnt. AlbinoFerret 05:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The most recent change to the page's structure was this edit which changed the close sections from level-four headers to level-three headers by combining all the discussions into one section. I don't know if this has to do with that change or if something with the MediaWiki software has changed. Unfortunately, Technical 13 (talk · contribs), who maintained the script at User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver is banned and Equazcion (talk · contribs) who wrote the original script at User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver is inactive.

I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).

Cunard (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it by looking at the documentation. In it it says that it respected ClueBot III's |headerlevel= and it was set to 4 on the page. But all the headers were at 3 ===. So I changed it to 3. This would have stopped the bot from archiving also. AlbinoFerret 11:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Should the {{Do not archive until}} show something visible on the page.

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am questuioning this here because we have used it, but shouldnt the tag have something visible to humans to stop inadvertent archiving by humans? AlbinoFerret 15:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I found that {{Bump}} is a visible wrapper for {{Do not archive until}}, but I am not sure if its appropriate for the page. AlbinoFerret 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think either {{Do not archive until}} or {{Bump}} is fine. But if you use {{Do not archive until}}, I recommend mentioning that you are using the tag in your comment. I use {{Do not archive until}}; see the example here, where I wrote:

{{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.)

Thank you for your consistent quality work at WP:ANRFC! Cunard (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether to keep WP:ANRFC transcluded to WP:AN: RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion about whether to keep WP:ANRFC transcluded to WP:AN. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to remove unclosed close requests

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Nyttend (talk · contribs) removed close requests with the edit summary "Stale". I have reverted. There is no consensus to remove unclosed close requests that have been listed on the board for between 12 and 64 days. Pinging the editors who had their closure requests removed: Godsy (talk · contribs), Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk · contribs), FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs), Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk · contribs), and Tom29739 (talk · contribs).

There is a previous discussion related to Nyttend's removals at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 2#Archiving and restoring removed request from User:Kahastok. Cunard (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This being a page for requesting admin action, don't restore requests that have already been answered. Go ask someone privately and don't continue clogging up a board with requests over a month old; you may have noticed that this is how we handle similar old-and-not-answered things at pages like WP:RFPP and WP:AN3. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#ANRFC_again; if you continue spamming ANRFC with requests and/or reverting admins when they remove piles of requests, a block will be sought as a method of ensuring that you don't continue making ANRFC useless. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Your revert using rollback is a violation of Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. If a non-admin were to misuse rollback in that fashion, their rollback would be revoked.

Wholesale removing six users' good faith close requests because they are in your view "stale" is unconstructive and unacceptable.

Closers at WP:ANRFC always have handled older closure requests. That is the existing consensus. It is unacceptable to edit war to impose your personal view on the board against this existing consensus. The disputes and policy questions do not disappear with the passage of time. In fact, discussions that linger the longest on WP:ANRFC likely are the most contentious and the ones that most need assessment of consensus by an uninvolved party.

Cunard (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • First of all, I highly disagree with the sentiment of "go ask someone privately", Nyttend. This forum is the proper place to request closures for the sake of procedure and neutrality; asking an administrator you're friendly with opens the door to canvassing accusations among other things, while asking one your unfamiliar with could yield the same result, and in all likelyhood they'd point you here to list your close. There is no good recourse if a close is still needed when a request is delisted from this noticeboard. Secondly, an issue with my close specifically: "don't restore requests that have already been answered", my closure request had a comment, it had in no way been answered (MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr). As such, I'm restoring it. If the accusations of rollback use in this situation are true, it's against policy and in poor taste. I generally concur with the opinion of Cunard above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of AN/RFC is to ask for admins to close RFCs which may be controversial, and the requests that have been open the longest are usually the ones that no-one wants to close because the RFC is contentious, or because there is no clear consensus. It says on the main AN/RFC page 'Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications'. Editors are directed here to ask for formal closure because of the above, it doesn't matter how 'old' or 'stale' the RFC is. I also agree with the opinion of User:Cunard and User:Godsy as well. Just my 2p, Tom29739 [talk] 16:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC).

  • Cunard brought the requests back "anew" so I'm happy with that (I were incorrect, apparently there are two requests for closure for the same discussion at Political correctness), but yeah it wouldn't be logical to simply close them as "stale". One closer once explained his closure with the request for closure having been the oldest one on the list. They do get taken care of eventually, but actually solving disagreements on Wikipedia takes a while. It's not an enjoyable job so you've got to give these people time and space and not rush it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Godsy (talk · contribs) that privately approaching an admin to ask for a closure could lead to accusations of impropriety and non-impartiality. I privately approached an admin in the past in April 2011 at User talk:Jayron32/Archive19#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei. The admin told me he was concerned about non-impartiality accusations and told me to post in a public forum.

    I agree with Tom29739 (talk · contribs) that it doesn't matter how "old" or "stale" an RfC is. They still should be closed so that dispute and policy questions are answered instead of being dismissed. XfD discussions like WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:FFD are not ignored because they are "old" or "stale". For example, WP:CFD currently has a backlog dating to 5 January 2016, which is 71 days ago. This is older than the oldest ANRFC request, which is 65 days ago.

    I agree with Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk · contribs) that requests "do get taken care of eventually" and that we need to give closers "time and space and not rush it". WP:ANRFC closers do an excellent job reviewing, assessing, and summarizing the consensus in contentious RfCs. I am grateful to them for their hard work.

    I will restore the close requests because:

    1. the existing consensus was not to ignore and remove unclosed "stale" RfCs and
    2. there is a clear consensus here not to disturb that existing consensus.

    Cunard (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. Further, approaching even publicly, or openly pinging individuals, encouraging them to close any contested discussion, creates the appearance of gaming, destroys the appearance of impartiality. Requests for closure should be done only at this central location. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Too many potential problems. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure → Wikipedia:Requests for closure noticeboard – Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. If so, why is this noticeboard at a subpage of WP:AN? It gives a sense that this noticeboard is designed for specifically asking admins to close discussions. sst✈ 08:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think where this currently resides is a problem. I don't like the idea of a change, but I'm not going to oppose based on that.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Separate noticeboard for RFCs

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Separate noticeboard for RFCs about creating a separate noticeboard for RfCs. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

ClueBot III archiving error

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See here for a bug discussion relevant to this board. ~ RobTalk 20:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I've commented out the automatic immediate archiving until this issue is identified and fixed. OneClickArchiver is appropriate in the meantime. Whoever would like to restore the headings is welcome to do so. ~ RobTalk 01:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove AN and ANI notices from the RFC notices

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any reason to have notices to request a closure of discussions at WP:AN or WP:ANI here? My view has always been that if a discussion at AN or ANI goes to the archive, that means there's no admin consensus to do anything. Even if a discussion has gone to the archive, then a person can make a second post at the board asking about it going to the archives but if that second post goes to the archive without discussion, it's done. There is no reason why it should sit permanently like this link will when the discussion is in the archives. It's an extended third bite at the apple for something that, unless RFC, does require admins to close and presupposes that something is supposed to be done. I'd like a straw poll to support barring AN or ANI discussions from the RFC log. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

CfD

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Is it really necessary to list so many CfD discussions here? This seems redundant to the Discussions awaiting closure section there. If more closing needs doing at CfD then perhaps a note on WP:AN would be more appropriate than filling this page up with every old discussion. Pinging Lugnuts. Sam Walton (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The backlog was getting silly. It was raised at AN, but no-one looked at it. Since I've listed all the CfDs older than one month, several have now been closed. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed you're an admin too! Maybe you could get stuck in and close a few while you're here? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: - how many CfDs have you closed since this was raised? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: None, nor have I done any other substantial editing. Sam Walton (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
That's super! One more onto the backlog pile this morning. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Look at that @Samwalton9: - the backlog slowly is clearing. You can thank me later. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Having cleaned up a number of CFDs, the fact that I have to then clean up both Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure and this page is redundancy (although *I* don't have to do it, still...). I'm fine with with listing them but we don't need a mountain of separate headings as I personally am just going to gloss it over at this point and it eats up the entire AN page header for no reason. List them under the CFD backlog page like at the awaiting closure section I say. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
As someone who is actually closing CFDs, I removed the headers. MFD has a backlog of a few weeks too, we don't need to clog up this page with each individual listing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Samwalton9, Lugnuts, and Ricky81682: I've cleared the CfD backlog, mostly. It's down to 58 discussions as of this posting, and a good 30 are recent discussions that I'm working on clearing. There are a handful (15ish) discussions that go back all the way to February which I can't close, mostly due to my own participation. Now that the backlog is more reasonable, do you have any objection to listing specific discussions if and only if the usual closers at CfD can't close them and an outside closer is needed? That's far closer to the intended purpose of ANRFC than the mass listings from before. ~ RobTalk 18:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No objections and thanks for tackling the backlog, Rob. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No objections either. Maybe limit it to the February, and March ones which are the most urgent backlog. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Things that aren't RfCs in the RfCs section

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

This noticeboard, at the moment, is divided into "Merge Discussions" (1 entry) and "Requests for Comment" (33 entries right now). But of the Requests for Comment, the last six, plus one item further up ("Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Clarification please: DrChrissy and human anatomy edits"), are not in fact RfCs.

Would it be a good idea to add a separate subheading of "Other" or something, and to list these seven items (and similar things that come up) under it? It might make the page clearer and easier to navigate - especially since RfCs can readily be closed by non-admins, whereas these other items mostly do need admins, although it's not a hard and fast division in that respect. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I created a separate section for XfD's yesterday when I added the RfD request. I'm not sure why or when it was reverted, but I'd definitely support sectioning out "XfD's" and then an "other" section would be just fine for the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This is a Cluebot malfunction. See here. It's been happening repeatedly for a while now. I asked for assistance here but received no response. I'm not really sure how to proceed. ~ Rob13Talk 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I am pleased to report that I foiled ClueBot: my headings have survived his archiving. I think the issue might be that Cluebot deletes the headings if you include a link in them, as you did, User:BU Rob13, when you included a link to WP:XfD in the heading? Dionysodorus (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
        • @Dionysodorus: I didn't make that heading, and I've also tried headings without links in the past. All have been archived. I think it has to do with the placement of the done template on the page. Give it a few days and we can get more excited if your heading is still surviving.   ~ Rob13Talk 02:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Require participants to add to RFC listings

Latest comment: 8 years ago67 comments18 people in discussion

As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Separate_noticeboard_for_RFCs, there were some consensus for adding a restriction to when an RFC can be added here. One discussion was that only participants in the RFC can add this to the backlog. As such, I'm proposing that no third-party who has not even commented in the RFC can just browse it and add it here. I'm going to ping everyone from the prior discussion to come here as it doesn't belong there anymore. @Cunard, WhatamIdoing, IJBall, BU Rob13, Ncmvocalist, and TParis:. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

  • Support. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Just yesterday, 33 discussions were listed at ANRFC by a single editor, who was involved in few (or possibly none) of them. I opened up a random five of them. Of the five, this and this are obvious closes. A third looks worth a close on the surface, but is actually a single editor being loud and bludgeoning the process. That editor was recently taken to AN, where he received a topic ban from the Four Noble Truths for disruptive contributions on that talk page. All the participants of that discussion knew about that topic ban, which is likely why they didn't bother listing the RfC themselves; they knew it wasn't an issue going forward. A fourth is a semi-obvious close; the outcome is very clear, but it hasn't been implemented yet, so a close might be worthwhile. I'm sorry, but 1-2 worthwhile closes out of every five is not indicative of hearing my concern. I appreciate that this rate is actually quite a bit better than before, but it's still not sustainable given the number of volunteers at ANRFC. In the one case I explained in detail above, any participant would know it shouldn't be listed. In the other three I linked, I trust the participants to figure out the solution themselves, but if they can't, they can list it. Based on this latest round, I have absolutely no choice but to support in the hopes that this is a long-term solution to the perpetual backlog. ~ RobTalk 05:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Have you commented in any of these? I have this kind of arguments with the backlog at FFD and other places, people who just come around screaming that someone else do something when most of the FFD discussions have literally no comments. Better yet, why don't you close these? Being an admin isn't required. The first one is a gimme. In the time you've spent arguing to include it on the page and to include it here, you could easily slap on archive top|Yes and archive bottom and go on your way. Why are you wasting more arguing for other people to do that than doing it yourself? Be bold! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I have closed RfCs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. I have not closed the first one mentioned, "Anarcho-capitalism and its place in this template", because it is unclear where Anarcho-capitalism should be placed in the template. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Listing all expired RFCs en masse distracts limited volunteer attention from the ones that truly need that attention. IMO it's also disrespectful to the participants: it sends the signal that participants are either too dumb or too biased to figure out even the simplest consensus on their own. It has also resulted in some unfortunate situations, such as someone writing a closing statement without noticing that everyone in the dispute has resolved it and moved on.
    However, I don't think a complete ban is necessary. I think it would be better to say that if you are listing more than one or two discussions (per week? per month?), then you need to either be a bona fide participant, or have asked the participants if they would like you to list it (and have received a positive response). As an alternative, it would probably be easy to have the RFC bot replace the {{rfc}} template with one that provides instructions on how to list a discussion for closing, rather that just blanking it. Then we could eliminate indiscriminate mass-listing but still get requests for closing statements when they are actually wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I've never been able to keep up with the load, and I think while the idea that closing RfCs can help provide future guidance, in practice, I do not think this happens frequently enough for it to be worthwhile to list many RfCs here. I also agree with WhatamIdoing that most of the time, editors do not need a closer to figure things out themselves. I JethroBT drop me a line 21:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. If people don't care enough to comment, they can't legitimately care enough about the closure to ask admins to do it, and are just looking to make wikilife hard for admins. Our adminship system is troubled enough we don't need people's shoes jammed into the gears.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, because this will effectively ban Cunard from it. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. There are too many listed that really do not require admin attention to close which makes it less likely that the ones that do will receive it in a timely fashion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose Ricky81682 and I both believe that an uninvolved editor should close each RfC. Ricky81682 wrote:

    I still think we should have a page that does list all the unclosed RFCs. While they don't need an admin closure, I do think there's a fair concern that someone should close them and since it can't be the people involved in the discussion, they are kind of left in a loop if it's a pretty obscure talk page. From there, we can leave it as another backlog or whatever people want it called here (CSD and TFD are listed even though non-admins can close those as well) with like real complicated past-120 days or something ones separately identified when it gets really bad.

    We differ on where requests for RfC closures should be listed. What is wrong with listing them at WP:ANRFC? WP:ANRFC was created to request closures for RfCs. This proposal is unhelpful because it would prevent an uninvolved editor like me from adding RfCs that need to be closed to the list. Oftentimes, if I don't list an RfC at WP:ANRFC, no one else will list it and it won't be closed.

    RfC closures are important. As RGloucester (talk · contribs) wrote:

    RMs lingering in the backlog without closure are a problem, but at least no one says that RMs do not need closure. RfCs are a community dispute resolution process. If no uninvolved administrator (or other closer) provides a closure, it completely renders the process useless, and becomes merely another forum for involved parties to duke it out without end. RfCs need closure to function, otherwise they do not serve as a dispute resolution venue, merely as a different kind of talk page discussion that will go nowhere.

    And:

    Unclosed RfCs are often a recipe for disaster, and nothing more. Often times, an RfC about a controversial topic will go on, everyone will have said their bit, but it will languish without closure forever. Then, the dispute comes back as there has never been any resolution, which is what a formal closure provides. RfCs should not be left unclosed unless they really are approaching unanimity. Unclosed RfCs are the basis of the continuance of many needless disputes.

    I have heard the concern of BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) regarding "consensus is clear" RfCs and have been closing the clear ones myself (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). The remaining RfCs I list typically do not have an obvious consensus or are contentious.

    Cunard (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If the close is so important then someone there can make the listing here. If not, if the people actually arguing about it don't care to report it here, why are you? Again, RFC closures don't require an admin (unlike most everything else) and unless you literally believe that posting the tag "RFC" on a header means it requires someone to use template:archive top and template:archive bottom, there is an agreement that there exists some RFCs that do not require a close. Rather than it be some arbitrary criteria of which ones do and which don't, I say we just defer to the people debating the issue and whether they have resolved it. If they have, a close is a waste of time. If they haven't, they can surely tell someone they haven't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), one of RfC's dedicated and hard-working closers, explained why formal closure of even seemingly "consensus is clear discussions" is helpful at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Benefits of Formal Closure:

I have closed several RFCs where I thought that consensus was clear, but that required follow-up for either of two reasons. Either one of the posters ignored the consensus, in spite of the formal closure stating the consensus, or one of the posters objected to the close and requested that I re-open the RFC to allow them to insert a statement. When there was move-warring against consensus or edit-warring against consensus, formal closure put the enforcing administrator on firmer ground in enforcing consensus. Formal closure establishes what the consensus is, unless reviewed. Otherwise the resulting WP:ANI thread would itself have had to establish consensus before warning or blocking, causing drama on a drama board. In cases where I have been asked to re-open a closure, I have instead asked for closure review. Without closure and closure review, the most likely result would have been edit-warring.

I think that listing 30-day-old RFCs for closure is useful. Maybe the policy should be changed so as to encourage formal closure in seemingly non-contentious cases. (A case is only non-contentious if no one comes out of the woodwork to start contending.) Maybe there should be more encouragement for experienced non-administrators to close open RFCs rather than to treat them as not needing closure.

I therefore have closed or listed "consensus is clear discussions" on WP:ANRFC because closure is necessary to enforce consensus.

I oppose this proposal because it does not matter who requests the closure. We should not defer to people discussing the issue because we do not do this for AfDs and Requested moves. That an editor took the time to create a formal RfC discussion seeking input and resolution from the community is enough to demonstrate that formal closure is necessary. All AfDs and Requested moves are closed without an involved editor's being required to request closure. So should RfCs.

Cunard (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Still, you haven't provided any reason why third-parties should care so much about closures. And you do realize that those are just personal opinions, right? Making them into giant blockquotes to take up half the page doesn't make your point any stronger and it sure doesn't convince me of anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Useless, as one could simply participate in a discussion in a pointless way if they desired to list it here. No good reason has been given here for disallowing uninvolved users from posting reasonable requests. "33 discussions were listed at ANRFC by a single editor" a reference made above to Cunard whose work at this noticeboard I've found extremely productive and helpful in my experience.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Any editor who sees a RFC that has been open long enough and would benefit from a formal close should be able to list it. any other outcome is rules creep, and seems decidedly un-wikipedian to me.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - proposal is based on politician's fallacy. The problem (assuming it really is one) that the new rule is supposed to solve is a large input of RfCs at ANRFC that do not need closing. The rule would not solve the problem (see the evasion tactics proposed above), but it would prevent an editor from usefully listing RfC that do need closing. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanket rule for two reasons: the impracticality of such a rule as discussed above; and the benefit of flexibility on such matters. But I do want to trout-slap User:Cunard for adding a large number of discussions to this backlog in one go, some of which don't really need a formal / third-party closure. Deryck C. 16:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Looks like more bureaucracy for no benefit; if someone thinks a discussion needs a close, it doesn't matter if they participated or not. Maybe they need the close so they can build on the consensus or conclusions from the discussion. If you think a discussion is not worth closing you can simply close it with "no consensus" and clear it out of the backlog. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cunard has been more receptive to being discriminate in his listings recently, and I do appreciate that. Given that the majority of the problem seems to have passed, I now oppose a blanket rule. I've always considered a blanket rule to be a second choice to individuals being far more discriminate in their closings. @Cunard: As for a separate section at ANRFC for participant listings vs. non-participant listings, I would oppose that because I think it encourages editors to list as non-participants or encourages an "all RfCs must be closed" mentality. I would support creating a separate page entirely at WP:Requests for comment pending closure for discussions that aren't urgent or difficult to close. I wouldn't oppose linking to this from ANRFC under the backlogs section. ANRFC, as I see it, is meant as a place to get quick administrator (or experienced closer) attention on discussions that really need rapid closure. ~ RobTalk 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The claim that Cunard is less indiscriminate now is something we could objectively verify. A year or two ago, when people first started complaining about this, he was mass-listing about 90% of RFCs (by his estimate, if memory serves). How much has it declined? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @WhatamIdoing: I can't verify the percentage, but I'm not talking about now vs. two years ago. I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far. ~ RobTalk 00:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I see no reason why INVOLVED users should take action here, when in general INVOLVED users are more restricted than other users, not less. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Feeble attempt to mask current admin lazyness through the backdoor. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There have been issues with too many RfCs which don't need a formal closure being listed here. But a bigger issue, IMO, is holding an RfC and things getting stuck because there is no closure. You can't expect everyone to know about this board. So on the whole, I think this propose is worse than the status quo. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • If we replaced the {{rfc}} template (rather than simply removing it) with a note about how to request a formal closure, then I think that we could expect everyone to know about this board. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

We can discuss changes to the RFC template or the bot so that people know after we figure out if this rule should exist. There's obviously ways to screw with this by making meaningless comments to RFC to post it here but at this point, you're approaching WP:POINT and WP:DE territory for something that is getting really, really lame. Most likely, assuming the bot can figure this out, it can be that, after removal of the notice, the bot can notify the original commenter on their talk page (probably just hide that into the markup when it's adding it, something to take out when it's being removed). Personally, I prefer that we have a full backlog within Wikipedia:Requests for comment (like RM does) and keep this section for the severe or emergency RFCs (things involving BLPs, the front page or things that are over 120 days or something) and I'd support this restriction here and a separate "old RFCs" page there without it but that's just me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with WP:ANRFC having a section for "an emergency backlog" of RfCs involving BLPs, the front page, etc. and a section for other RfCs. I would list nearly all of my closure requests in the non-emergency unclosed RfC section. Would you support that?

Cunard (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No I don't think both are necessary here. I'd still support a requirement that a participant from the RFC report it for this one and suggest another away from the Admin noticeboards. RFCs aren't necessarily part of the noticeboard and should be separated. Didn't you oppose separating these before? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I oppose separating them on different pages. I am fine with separating them in different sections on the same page. Cunard (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It's worth considering how this spamming of requests for closure affects how many people participate here. I was working through the backlog quite a bit until I realized that the majority of the backlog wasn't really a backlog, persay. At that point, I decided to help elsewhere. The spam increases the amount of work that other editors must eventually do above what's desirable (unless we convince closers to skip over those that don't need closes), but it's also reducing the amount of volunteer hours that are being spent at ANRFC. If ANRFC returns to a noticeboard to list discussions that the average editor would have difficult assessing, I'll happily work to clear the backlog, but I'm not interested in wasting hours of my time rubber-stamping discussions where the outcome is obvious. ~ RobTalk 20:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I looked at the current revision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. There is a six-day backlog of 81 unclosed discussions out of 440 total discussions (75 + 59 + 78 + 103 + 59 + 66 = 440).

      Wikipedia:Requested moves currently has 32 unclosed discussions in its backlog.

      This week, I added 31 unclosed RfCs from the past two weeks and closed six myself.

      There are many more backlogged AfDs and Requested moves than RfCs. I do not see any editors arguing that only a subset of AfDs and Requested moves should be closed. I do not see any editors arguing that it is a waste of time to read through and close clear consensus AfDs and Requested moves. Why should all AfDs and Requested moves be closed but not RfCs?

      I understood your concern that you didn't want to close "consensus is clear" RfCs. I closed them myself: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. The remaining discussions are all contentious or unclear consensus RfCs as I explained above when you disputed four discussions I had listed.

      Cunard (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

      • Well in the alternative, I suggest we do have to reconsider the topic ban proposal. The amount of time and energy spent arguing for a right to making postings here screaming for other people to volunteer for something is quite amazing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Rob, thank you for explaining how this "spamming" has discouraged you personally from closing RFCs. I think that's a valuable point of information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: Would you object at all to me adding an official RfC banner? We need outside opinions. ~ RobTalk 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Though very few support opinions have been given so far, they seem to be based on rationale of disliking the actions of an individual. The actions of an individual are not a reason to blanket disallow everyone from doing something that is not in itself inappropriate. Take the issue with the individual to the appropriate venue if desired and let the community decide whether or not they're acting appropriately.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • This is a chicken-and-egg problem. If you say "deal with the one editor's behavior (how?), but don't change the rules", then the the discussion about the editor's behavior will end with "he's not breaking any rules; ergo, there's no behavior problem". And if you say "change the rules, and don't make this about one editor", then the response is "It's only one editor, so you don't need to change the rules. Deal with the one editor's behavior".
      I think it makes more sense to have a discussion about the rules: Is it desirable for any editor to list nearly every expired RFC on this page? If not, then we should actually say that somewhere, and I have no doubt that this editor would stop doing it. And if it is desirable, then people need to stop complaining about this editor doing that (and maybe even find a bot to do this, because the listing process could be fully automated). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree with your point about this potentially being a bot task if nearly every RFC should be listed on this page. I guess my point boils down to "being a participant" is a bad criteria for being able to list a discussion at this noticeboard. If a user comes across an expired RfC that clearly needs a close, it is detrimental to restrict them from listing it here (the quicker consensus is assessed, the quicker the community can stop arguing and implement it), if it hasn't been already. I think the 3 points listed at WP:AN/RFC are good enough guidelines: "If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance." If consensus is clear, don't list it here. If a user is violating that, take them to WP:AN/I.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Are you aware that we've already had those discussions, about this single editor, several times now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Godsy (talk · contribs), thank you for your kind words above about how you found my work at this noticeboard "extremely productive and helpful in [your] experience". The discussions I listed at WP:ANRFC today all follow the guidelines you listed. I've closed "consensus is clear" RfCs and other RfCs that I felt comfortable closing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
          • These latest listings were significantly better, but I still don't understand why the participants, who in all of these cases seemed to care quite a bit about the outcome, can't list it themselves? What's gained by listing discussions within a couple days of them going past 30 days instead of letting the participants do so themselves? ~ RobTalk 23:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
            • BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), if I do not list the RfCs at WP:ANRFC, they usually do not get listed and are not closed. Many times the participants don't list the discussions here because they are unaware of the noticeboard or do not remember to list the RfC. That does not mean the issue goes away.

              Why are RfC closes important? An example: Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 9#Request for Comment: Birth Year (ANRFC close request). The close was referenced 16 months later to enforce the consensus. The consensus was already implemented. Mariah Carey's two possible birth years were added to the article. In January 2015 (16 months later), a new editor disputed the consensus version, saying only one year should be listed. Another editor responded with a link to the RfC. Had the RfC not been closed by an uninvolved editor, it would have been far more difficult to ensure the consensus is respected. "Read an uninvolved editor's summary of the RfC" is more likely to be heeded than "read this long, unclosed talk page discussion". In June 2016, nearly three years after the RfC close, an editor referred users to the discussion because there continued to be debate about the same issue.

              I noticed that you've worked on closing CfDs. CfDs are closed even when no participant request closure. Why should not that same standard be applied to RfCs? A CfD close request is implicit when an editor opens a CfD. Why isn't an RfC close request implicit when an editor opens an RfC?

              These latest listings were significantly better – I closed 12 RfCs today and listed the rest at WP:ANRFC. I hope this addresses your concerns. This proposal will effectively ban me from WP:ANRFC. You strongly opposed a ban in the past. I hope you will reconsider your decision to support this proposal.

              Cunard (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

            • An RfC I closed today resulted in the removal of a section called "Conflict with Marine Corps Times". If the discussion was not closed, negative information that RfC participants said should be removed per WP:BLP likely would have continued to remain in the article. A close was necessary to enact the consensus regardless of whether participants requested closure. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
              • Because CfDs are followed with action. The close of a CfD is a summary of the action the closer is taking based on the discussion. I wouldn't object to you prodding a discussion and pinging participants to see if they want to request closure (i.e. alerting them that 30 days has passed). Would that be a suitable compromise here? You let participants know that they can list the discussion at ANRFC and they decide whether to action on that knowledge. This seems to address both your concerns and the concerns of editors here. ~ RobTalk 03:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
                • RfC closes can also be followed with action like the example I mentioned above. Another example is this removal of the "Accolades" section from Ted Cruz by Tazerdadog (talk · contribs) as a result of this RfC.

                  I don't understand why a closer taking action means a discussion is more worthy of closure. The reason for a CfD close is to record the consensus and enforce the result. This is the same for an RfC close: record the consensus and enforce the result.

                  Pinging participants to ask them to request closure for a discussion I believe should be closed is a "repetitive and mundane tas[k]" that might be fit for a bot, not for me. My opinion as uninvolved editor that a discussion is worthy of being closed should not matter less than an RfC participant's.

                  BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), would you accept this compromise: We create two RfC sections on WP:ANRFC. One is called "Requests for comments (requests for closures by participants)" and the second is called "Requests for comments (requests for closures by non-participants)". Closers like you who want to close only involved editors' requests will work on closing discussions in the first section while other editors who are fine with non-participants' requests will also review the second section.

                  Cunard (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

                  • I honestly do not understand this. Why would a non-participant even care? It's not like there's a 30-day limit on commenting. If it's not closed, just comment. You either (a) have an opinion and want a close or (b) don't have an opinion. How do you have an opinion that there should be a resolution but also don't have an opinion on how it should be resolved enough to even say it? Do people just wander around every single edit dispute and say "hi I think you two should go try WP:3O, I'm not actually going to offer myself as a third-party even though that would a lot easier but I'm just saying go bug someone else"? Do we really have a problem of unclosed RFCs with none of the participants either edit warring further or asking for a close that requires a close so that other people who visit the talk page but similarly somehow don't have an opinion can also opine that while they don't have an opinion, they want a fourth-party to make an opinion about the two parties currently there? It's just plain weird to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
                  • Cunard, CFDs need "closing" because non-admins cannot implement the usual consensus outcomes. Therefore, at CFD, you need someone to close and enact the community's consensus, or (in the 'keep without changes' outcome) to tell people that the admin corps declines to push any buttons for them. (Formally marking "keep" decisions as closed saves other admins' a lot of time, because they can see which need attention from an admin and which don't.)
                    There is no equivalent need at an article RFC. If you see which way an RFC is headed, you can implement the consensus yourself, even before the bot removes the tag. And – rather unlike XFD – if you come up with an even better idea tomorrow, then you're welcome to improve the article again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#RfC about listing discussions concluded that most RFCs do not need to be listed here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
    Interestingly enough, the fact that that RfC has a formal closure makes it so much easier to assess and refer to now. (I agree we do not always need a formal close, but it helps when future reference is needed). Back to the topic, I'd go further and say that backlog listings in general should be discouraged, it creates a backlog of backlog listings, and extra work to (de)list from the backlog list. What we need is technical measures to publicise ALL RfCs needing closure. Kind of like wp:PRODs. Maybe some bot can signal here RfCs with, for example, more than 30 days since the start and more than 7 (4? 3?) days without any comment? Also some social measures could help (more admins, clearer closing procedures, ..., but that is too much off-topic for this discussion) - Nabla (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
    That presumes that all RFCs needs a formal closure. People aren't idiots, I think we can all guess when an RFC needs a formal closure. My proposal above would limit it to the people there just to limit it and get away from the people who absolutely believe that all RFCs requires an archive top and archive bottom template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    Ricky81682, I presume that all discussions with a formal request for participation need some closure. The closure does not need to be "formal". Closure may be a one liner by just about anyone - involved - stating the conclusion and actions taken if any, or the absence of a conclusion. That means: "Okay, we seem to mostly agree on <this> so I'll do <that>", or something. And removing any RfC template. Why? If the discussion was important enough to request comments from the larger community, then it also is important enough to document it. So "needing closure" in my above reply means simply that it still has a RfC tag, and closure may mean simply stating that the discussion seems stale and removing it. - Nabla (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    Nabla The template's removal is automatic. The issue is whether there is a need for an archive top and archive bottom closure. That is all I meant by "formal" closure. Also, often you get a resolution in wording in the article via various revisions but the timeline between the RFC ending and a "formal" closure means you close with something that doesn't match what's actually done. Should it be reversed to reflect the RFC "consensus" or ignored? That's why it's easier to just have a participant make a request for closure rather than just posting everything that the bot has removed the template form. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Floating an idea here: What if we listed all unexpired RFC's here, and simply allowed any editor to remove any RFC's that they believe do not require a formal close? Tazerdadog (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors already can (and occasionally do) remove RFCs they don't believe requires a formal closing statement, although many editors probably don't realize that they can be bold here, too. (Perhaps we should add that to the instructions?)
However, overall, I think it would make more sense to invite participants to make the request themselves, if (and only if) they believe it would be beneficial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I've been reverted in my removals before. When that happens, there's no real solution but to wait for someone to close the discussion. ~ RobTalk 16:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Was it a dispute over whether a specific RFC would benefit from a close, or did it seem like a blanket approach where they would have reverted any removal? Obviously, disputes will happen, but there's a huge difference if 1 in 30 removals are disputed versus fighting over every one of them. I would also not be opposed to adding in a clause to the instructions that permits removal of discussions is you don't believe a close is helpful. Something like "If a discussion is listed here that you believe would not benefit from a formal close, please be bold and remove it." perhaps? Tazerdadog (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
My impression was that it was blanket, given that it was something extremely clear-cut. Everyone but one editor supported a specific action in the discussion and it had already been archived, if I'm recalling correctly. ~ Rob13Talk 19:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We could also consider having the bot replace all RfC banners with a banner that directs editors to ANRFC if they wish consensus to be assessed. This appears to address the concerns of many on the oppose side that editors wouldn't know about this board. ~ Rob13Talk 19:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Numbers

I spent a few minutes getting some numbers, in case they're interesting to anyone else:

  • On 8 May, Cunard listed 53 RFCs for closure. (The previous mass-listing seems to have been on 18 April.) A quick scan through Legobot's contributions during that time shows that about 62 RFCs expired during those three weeks. That's a mass-listing rate of about 85%.
  • On 23 May, Cunard listed 29 RFCs for closure. A quick scan through Legobot's contributions during that time shows that about 38 RFCs expired during those two weeks. That's a mass-listing rate of about 75%.
  • On 6 June, Cunard listed 33 RFCs for closure. A quick scan through Legobot's contributions during that time shows that about 48 RFCs expired during those two weeks. That's a mass-listing rate of about 70%.
  • On 19 June, Cunard listed 12 RFCs for closure. A quick scan through Legobot's contributions during that time shows that about 36 RFCs expired during those two weeks. That's a mass-listing rate of just 33% – in the first mass-listing since this RFC began.

I'm sure that there is more variability over time (both in the total number of RFCs and the percentage Cunard lists). I'm also sure that there were some RFCs that Cunard would have listed, except that a participant had already done so. Only Cunard could to tell us whether, during the month or two before this RFC started, he intentionally omitted any expired RFC or could give us examples of RFCs that he didn't list on the grounds that he didn't believe they should be listed here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes over two recent closures

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Recently, Talk:Serial killer, Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion, and Talk:List of Indian massacres have had RfCs closed by someone who isn't very experienced in closing RfCs. Would someone else more experienced be able to take a look at them and offer feedback? Thanks, →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Σ: I don't have problems with those three closures. I commend your courage to take on these difficult discussions and to find common ground - I thought about closing Talk:Serial killer and gave up before I could make my mind up! Also thanks for your oblique, self-deprecating humour   --Deryck C. 12:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Look fine to me as well (but I am not one of huge experience either). Looking at the section title reminds me that there are three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who cannot. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Closure review at DRN

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello helpful folk at ANRFC. I've recently closed the RfC at Template talk:Ethnic slurs [2] but the closure didn't seem to be satisfactory, as a mega-long discussion thread soon unfolded on my user talk page here.

So I've escalated the issue to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template_talk:Ethnic_slurs and I would very much like fellow discussion-closers' scrutiny on this matter. Thanks a lot. Deryck C. 23:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Tool for summarizing long / complex RfCs

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

Hey folks. In my capacity as a volunteer, closing RfCs is pretty tough work, and there aren't a lot of resources we have available to support it. My way of closing longer or more complex RfCs involves taking notes about comments and project policies/guidelines manually in something like NotePad or some other word processor. Then, I write a summary about where consensus was at for that topic. It works OK, but it's pretty disorganized.

I've been dabbling a little bit with a tool that can take in an RfC, break it down into threads (based on our various kinds of indentation), and allow one or multiple people to make additional edits that summarize a portion of a thread or the entire thing at once. The tool is called Wikum, and it's being developed by Amy Zhang, a computer scientist over at MIT. Here are a few examples of what RfCs look like using the tool, and the editing interface for adding summarizing comments:

The tool is completely separate from the MediaWiki inteface, so making edits to it does not affect anything in the actual RfC on-wiki. I think the tool has some potential for individual closers to organize their notes and would be especially helpful for the less common cases where there are multiple closers for a single RfC. There are some other features, like Mark comment as unimportant and Tag comment that are also available that might be useful to support closers, too. If you are interested, I encourage you check out these threads, and try contributing some edit summaries to see what you think, and what improvements you'd like to see if it's something you'd like to use. Feedback and questions are welcome here in this thread, or you can reach out to Amy directly at axz mit.edu. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging folks from recent discussions: @Cunard, WhatamIdoing, IJBall, BU Rob13, Ncmvocalist, TParis, SMcCandlish, Nyttend, Σ, and Thryduulf: I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems useful, but mostly for admins. If I do a NAC it'll be based on WP:SNOW, or someone posting an invalid RfC that is actually a rant against someone else, or something else obvious that doesn't require thread analysis in any detail. As a reader tool it's also potentially interesting, but isn't doing much yet (e.g. who is mentioning who else in the discussion in their rationales, which posts have links to offsite sources on onsite pages in a namespace like WP:/Wikipedia:, which zero or nearly zero content other than the support/oppose/whatever term and their sig, and so on).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll give it a try sometime.--v/r - TP 22:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Personally, I wouldn't use such a tool. I take notes in NotePad as well, but I find that method fairly efficient. I'd also worry when using a tool like this about the nit-picking some editors may do in trying to claim a closer erred. For instance, say I hide a comment by marking it unimportant just because it duplicates the arguments made by other comments. I'm properly evaluating consensus by weighing the strength of arguments and the amount of support for each valid argument, but some wikilawyer comes along and states I erred by "discarding" a valid !vote, even though things don't work that way. Moreover, given the level of scrutiny when closing high-level discussions, closers will need to carefully consider every comment they make using such a public tool as if it were an actual closing statement. I don't know that I'd find it particularly helpful to have to "polish up" my internal comments as much as I would a closing statement on a complicated issue. ~ Rob13Talk 22:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Although I'm sure you could come up with other scenarios, I'd imagine that in the one you've described that I would create a tag for the argument and hide those that didn't add anything to the argument. Then I could review the tags to see how many people supported a particular viewpoint.--v/r - TP 03:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Any other thoughts on the tool? Pinging more recent editors on the page: @BrownHairedGirl, Godsy, George Ho, Mhhossein, The Armchair General, JFG, Ronz, Polyamorph, DarjeelingTea, Redrose64, John from Idegon, Premeditated Chaos, Schwede66, Ghmyrtle, and Serialjoepsycho: I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Godsy: Any chance you could take a screenshot and send it to me privately (cschilling wikimedia.org)? (I'd normally suggest uploading to Commons, but probably can't use it for this kind of external software). I JethroBT (WMF) (talk)
  • Though I support transparency when it comes to determining consensus, making such potentially detailed notes public is not really a good idea. For a neutral closer to express generalizations is appropriate, while marking an individual's comment as unimportant or summarizing it is not. The pitfalls outweigh the benefits.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Godsy: Just as a note, I've already brought that issue of publicity to the attention of the developers. I expect unless closers could use this tool in a private manner, just as the process behind their closes has always been private, it might not get used very much at all. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I rarely close honestly. But yeah some RFC's can be cumbersome. The only thing I can offer as far as suggestions is KISS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor changing an admin's post

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This matter is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tenebrae and WP:DISRUPT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

User:Nihlus Kryik has now three times changed an admin's posts on the project page. I and one other editor have reverted him, I have contacted the affected admin, and I have given the editor the required 3RR warning on his talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

...which he removed with a vulgar edit summary. [3] --Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you serious right now? Vulgar? Are you a child? You are clearly WP:INVOLVED and you reversion was unnecessary. nihlus kryik (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2017 (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.

A section to request teamwork closure

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have recently requested teamwork closures at WP:AN. Should we need a section that requests more than one editor to close a discussion, i.e. a teamwork closure? --George Ho (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. The requesting editor can just mention here itself that a teamwork close is requested... Another section for that would be fine as well but in my limited experience, these are not very common requests. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, Yashovardhan. If a separate section is unnecessary, where else do I amend saying that a request for team closure can be made at the project page? --George Ho (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Well, I would wait for some admins to respond before saying anothing. I don't mind having a seperate section though, I just feel its not needed. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot not working?

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

In the past one or two weeks, the bot hasn't archived anything. I don't know what's wrong with it. Pinging its operator Cobi about this. --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's not the ClueBot but Template:Archive basics? Probably there's something wrong with it. Pinging Redrose64 about what to do with the archiving issue. --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not the {{Archive basics}} or indeed {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}}: their parameters haven't been altered since before ClueBot III (talk · contribs) last ran on the page (12:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)). I suspect a bot problem: although ClueBot III is still archiving, it hasn't archived anything in Wikipedia: space since 14 June. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Cobi seems to be scarce these days (I see <20 edits on their main account this year) so maybe this should be switched to lowercase sigmabot III for archiving? I see Cunard has manually archived many discussions recently and we may need to keep doing that until there is a change to the bot. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) works purely on timestamps, it won't archive threads that are marked {{done}} etc. Also, I believe that it will only archive level 2 sections - we use level 4 for individual requests. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
So much for that suggestion. Maybe @Σ: has some other ideas, though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's September. A while after initial issue was resolved, ClueBot has been not working for one week. The operator is currently not active for months. Re-pinging Redrose64, Eggishorn, and Σ about this issue. --George Ho (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I know full well that it's down, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop; and seeing as I am not the botop, there is absolutely nothing that I can do to restart the bot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Section headers

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Editors (myself included) have and are assuming the section headers "Place new administrative discussions above this line" / "Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line" are actual instructions,
Wouldn't it be a good idea to remove these to save the confusements ?, As far as I'm aware they're not serving any sort of purpose ?,
Failing that someone could add a hidden notice but IMHO it'd make more sense to remove them,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: They are indeed actual instructions. "Above this line" means literally that, not "at the top of the section". Requests should be added at the very bottom of the section, in accordance with WP:BOTTOMPOST, but we need the extra dummy subsections because of a bug in ClueBot III (talk · contribs), so instead, each new request is added as a last-but-one subsection. The dummy subsections are formatted as level 4 headings, the same level as the real requests, so that ClueBot III (talk · contribs) doesn't trash the following level 3 heading when archiving. See for example this archiving edit and this repair, dating from before we introduced those dummy subsections. There was a discussion on the bot talk page, which amounted to "this is how the bot works, get used to it". We tried hidden comments: they didn't work, as ClueBot III trashed the hidden comment too. After we made some more adjustments in May 2017, finishing with this edit, the archiving has worked smoothly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi RedRose, Ahhhhh right I had no idea this was for the bot, I'm by no means saying "I don't get it so please change it" not at all I've simply seen a few editors stumble on it and thought maybe they should be changed or something however as these are for the bot and essentially stops a lot of damage I do agree with them staying, Ah well thanks for replying! :) –Davey2010Talk 03:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Further: even a level 5 subheading will break the archiving, as here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Archived RFCs still "requiring closure"

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all. How do we deal with an RFC that has been archived, and then a request for closure appears here some time later? I've not dealt with these particularly consistently, but the options I can think of are:

  1. Close the RFC within the archived subpage, take no further action
  2. Close the RFC within the archived subpage, note this on the main article talk page
  3. Unarchive the RFC, remove it from the archive, paste it back into the main article talk page, and close it there
  4. Make a copy of the RFC, leaving the archived copy, paste it into the main article talk page, and close it there
  5. Refuse to close the RFC, as it has been archived, it's then up to the original RFC creator or whoever to decide if a fresh RFC is warranted

I don't want to formally set upon a particular option and say 'this is how we should deal with all closure requests for archived discussions', because I think best judgement is key here, but I'm interested in people's views. This has been discussed before, here for example - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_122#Requesting_closing_statements_for_archived_discussions - but that was three years ago and (perhaps appropriately) meandered around for weeks without reaching a consensus. Cheers. Fish+Karate 11:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This typically happens when a discussion page is set for quick archiving (14 days in the case of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), some discussion pages are archived more quickly than that). But if the thread gets archived, that means that there has been no discussion for a while (none for 14 days in the case of VPP), which suggests that there is nothing more to say. So even if the default 30-day duration of an RfC has not yet been reached, a cessation of discussion implies that there must be some kind of consensus, so WP:AN/RFC pool ball no. 1 applies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Fish and karate. Thank you for your hard work closing RfCs. It is really appreciated. I generally follow option 1 for cases like this (closure was requested here) where the consensus is clear and the assessment of consensus is unlikely to be contested. I think options 2 and 3 are fine for all cases and particularly cases where the consensus is less clear and the close might be contested. Option 4 is not good because having duplicate copies of discussions will be confusing. Option 5 is not good because archival bot parameters that determine whether a discussion is archived should have no bearing on whether consensus should be assessed. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You will see from the histories of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and its archive that Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) has followed option 3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Mention the 'doing' template

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Near the lead instruction to "please add {{Close}} or {{Done}}", could we mention using the {{doing}} template, to indicate work in progress? Batternut (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Backlog

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the current closure backlog considered normal ? Requesting more Admin eyes. --DBigXray 20:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

2 March 2019‎

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

DannyS712, my intention with this was to mark it {{Not done}} as I had both put in the request for closure and re-opened the discussion to go through AN/I's normal closing process. Basically, I put in the request for it to be closed per WP:SNOW, then a boomerang proposal was made, that boomerang proposal gain a good amount of support, then the discussion was closed in a controversial way, so I reopened it. With those facts being said, I do not feel comfortable keeping a request to close a week old discussion that is still ongoing (especially after the last close). Also, thank you Redrose64 for elaborating on the purpose of "nac=y/n" as it is always appreciated by me! :D ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 22:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, given that its an AN/I close, I won't get involved. I just marked it as |done=no since it wasn't closed. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Please see User talk:Redrose64#Quick questions about WP:ANRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: thanks again for catching my last mistake --DannyS712 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

RfCs on the WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with respect to archiving time

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard says sections older than seven days are archived. How do you keep an RfC there on the page for the 30-day length of an RfC or for close to that length without the RfC prematurely archiving before a closer can get to it and assess the consensus? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC) ‎

@Halo Jerk1: That's a function of the archiving bot, not of the RfC system. Bots don't care if it's an RfC or not, they just follow the rules set up by the archive configuration template at the top of the discussion page concerned. In the case of WP:BLPN, it uses {{User:MiszaBot/config}}, so see User:MiszaBot/config#Delaying or preventing archiving of particular threads. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yo, Redrose64, I know it's not a not function of the RfC system. Thank you for pointing me to how to preserve the thread long enough for it to run a proper length and get a close. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No Consensuses and Non-Admin Closers

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi,

In AfDs non-admins are de facto/de jure prohibited from providing a "non consensus" result. In RfCs that are otherwise not especially controversial, is it legitimate for an experienced non-admin (myself) to give a no consensus result?

Felt it better to ask first.

Nosebagbear (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I've closed several such discussions as no consensus and have yet to have anyone complain. Just stay away from the discussions specifically listed as requiring/requesting an admin closer. signed, Rosguill talk 21:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
A no consensus result in an AfD simply means that consensus for deletion was not reached. The article is then kept by default. How is it prohibited in a NAC? Why would be it be prohibited? I, for one, think a NAC should be able to deal with discussions where consensus is split closely, also, and still be able to determine the result by closing the discussion as they see fit. El_C 21:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware of whether or not there's an actual rule against NAC no-consensus AfD closure, but I could see a reasonable argument for discouraging it as follows: if a non-admin is evaluating a close AfD, they may be tempted to close it as no consensus so that they can actually perform the close, as opposed to concluding delete and being forced to walk away from the discussion despite the amount of time invested (although I suppose in that case they could just vote delete to make the consensus clearer for when an admin comes along). signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I started a discussion about NAC closures at AfD in March and I think consensus was shown against NAC at AfD though not necessarily other XfD. An RfC is very different in my mind. This is mostly because there's no inherent reason for a non-admin to have a bias, if only subconsciously, towards a certain outcome. Further, unlike AfD where no cosensus happens less frequently than delete or keep (or even related outcomes like redirect and merge) no consensus will be common in a RfC. Certainly more common than consensus against. If an editor has the chops to close a particular RfC, in all the ways laid out there and in the widely accepted Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions I see no issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed mergers holding cell

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is now a proposed mergers holding cell where closed mergers can be listed to mitigate the risk of a merger being forgotten when the merge tags are removed. {{Being merged}} can also be placed on the page to be merged for the same purpose. --Trialpears (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion vs voting

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Editors who frequent this page may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Role of voting, which is an effort to determine what the current trends are in the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with closure

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone tell me if editing is permitted in an archive? The discussion reached a consensus but started so long ago it's in an archive. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi SusanLesch (talk · contribs). Regarding your question here, I have done RfC closes in archives in the past. Here are two recent examples at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard/Archive 6. Thank you for your work at WP:ANRFC! Cunard (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Cunard. This was my first closing and thanks to you it worked out. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Review a user who is vandalizing a page

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi I would like u to review user (talk) He has been editing Ecuador national team and is just putting anything. The update is not accurate. {talk} 02:01, 27 February 2020

@KRQ11: This is not the place to discuss user conduct; it is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Instructions for not closing

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should instructions be added to the main project page about tagging things {{Not done}} to let the bot archive, rather than deleting entries that don't need to be closed, and also about marking processed requests |done=yes? (Apologies if there already there and I missed it.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion and for your excellent work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC (especially your detailed closing rationale here that provided good advice to the RfC participants), Levivich (talk · contribs). I have updated the page to add details about using {{Not done}} and about ClueBot III's automatically archival of close requests marked with {{Close}}, {{Done}}, and {{Not done}}. The wording I added is repetitive, so I support editors modifying the wording to make it more concise. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The important points are that archiving is triggered by those templates, and if any of them is used, |done=yes must also be used - and vice versa. Other important info include that only certain variants on the template names will work - the full list of templates that will trigger archiving is given by the |archivenow= parameter of the {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} template. ClueBot III doesn't follow redirects, and is case-sensitive; so whilst {{done}} {{Done}} and {{DONE}} all work, {{dONE}} {{Did}} and {{did}} will not, even though the visual effect is identical. Note that {{xXxX}} is a dummy, to terminate the list - it won't trigger archiving. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What's up?

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I'm typing {{done}} but the things aren't going away. What gives?—S Marshall T/C 15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

ClueBot III (talk · contribs) is down, that's what. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It's annoying me a bit, to be fair. Can we give the job to a different bot or will that break things?—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Or how about we ask the bot op whether it can be woken up? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
ClueBot III is running normally, see Special:Contributions/ClueBot III. I think that the ArchiveThis template may be broken (the documentation has the archivenow parameter uncommented at User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis#Optional parameters, that works elsewhere). My attempted fix was reverted by User:Redrose64. Also, I noticed that there was one newline added after the last archive that could have broken things, I've removed that here. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@S Marshall, Mdaniels5757, and JzG: ClueBot III was down for just over eleven days, during which time no pages were being archived, so the problem cannot have been specific to this page. Certainly that newline had nothing to do with it, and an examination of the version of the page the last time that ClueBot III ran on it shows that the comment markers were present, so these also cannot have been a factor.
Once the bot restarted, it had a lot of catching up to do, which is why it didn't get to this page straight away. As you can see from this edit, it has now archived all of the threads which you did manually (except this one), plus a whole lot more; whilst doing so, it also updated indexes and checked inward links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Splendid, thank you.—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

One question

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Good day. Can I remove the entry that I added on RFCL, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Philippines-related articles#Revisiting the comma convention for article titles of municipalities? It seems that, as per Talk:Baliuag, there's now consensus about the revision of WP:MOSPHIL for uniquely-named municipalities (Philippine towns). Might it comply with Wiki policies? And if I would remove that entry, can I now also modify the statement at MOSPHIL despite that I'm heavily involved in this discussion? Paging @Redrose64: who sorted my request there. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: You added the request in question, and nobody else had posted there at the time that you started this thread (my fix doesn't count), so WP:REDACT would have applied and you could have removed the thread if you wanted; however Rosguill (talk · contribs) has since posted there, which means that if you want there to be no further action, you should mark the {{initiated}} with |done=yes and also use {{resolved}}/{{not done}}/{{already done}}/{{close}} as appropriate. These templates, like {{done}}, are detected by ClueBot III (talk · contribs) as a request to archive the thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd say that if you do require further assistance, you should leave the request up. You may want to discuss the matter with the other discussion participants as far as next steps at MOSPHIL are concerned. If there's truly a consensus, the fact that you were involved shouldn't matter at this point. signed, Rosguill talk 18:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and Rosguill: As far as the current situation at MOSPHIL talk is concerned, and that the content on the discussion thread hasn't been edited or challenged since June 26 (Manila time/UTC+8), plus the verdict for Talk:Baliuag#Requested move 22 June 2020 given by a non-involved page mover on July 29, I'd say there's now consensus about this matter. I will now conclude the thread and close it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Question: closing archived discussions

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How does one go about achieving it (practice? policies?)? Unarchive and close, or just go into the archives and close them there which doesn't seem right at least to me (for (1) modifies the archive, (1.1) Adds history to the archive that's more than copy-paste of the discussion page (1.2) archive contains content not in the original discussion on the discussion page). Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Request closure for requested move

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

My request to move the page for Larry Hurst has been open for 7 days with no discussion or closure. What are the next steps? Could somebody help resolve this?

B — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWMcCoy (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@BWMcCoy: What request is this? I cannot find your name against any of the requests currently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Larry Hurst#Request move. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
So why is this being posted here? This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion is now operational, as a venue for prospective discussion closers to discuss how specific discussions should be closed. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, why did we need another noticeboard for that? Was there something wrong with just using this talk page, for example? Not to be ironic, but was there a discussion regarding the need for such a noticeboard? CThomas3 (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
We don't really have a place dedicated to closers discussing the mechanics of closing contentious discussions. The genesis of the idea was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Let's talk about problem AfDs. BD2412 T 22:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

We need to figure out how to do better here

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

There are some issues with how this board functions that I think are long overdue for being addressed. I would like to get a discussion going on how we can improve the effectiveness of the process. Here are some issues I think need attention:

  1. We should not have discussions awaiting closure that are 407 days old
  2. We should not have discussions listed that have already been sorted out on the respective talk pages
  3. The structure of this noticeboard doesn't make a great deal of sense. If sections are needed (are they?), they should be broken down first by project space (article/file/project) or by type (content/policy). Why are deletions listed here? Don't they show up under a categorization page?
  4. What is an administrative discussion? If AN/ANI, why don't we just flag the discussion on those noticeboards and let admins close them as they see them?
  5. I see no value in separating formal RfCs from less formal content dispute resolution discussions given that the latter are in widespread use on enwiki.
  6. We have 851 admins yet I see something like 6 admins (beside Redrose64) closing discussions in the past month. That's failure. How can we get more admins and experienced editors to patrol this board and set a goal of something like no discussions more than 7 days stale?

Thoughts? - MrX 🖋 17:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, we could define some sort of cut off (100 days? 200 days? 365 days?) after which anything still listed here is automatically considered to be no consensus. I agree with points 3 and 5; reorganizing the page to list all discussions chronologically could reduce the amount of discussions that fall through the cracks signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking along those lines, but perhaps an even shorter cut off time. If we could get more people to regularly close discussions, I don't see why we couldn't shorten the delay significantly. I'm willing to help recruit some experienced editors and admins, and help raise awareness at AN and ANI.
I forgot to add it to the list, but I think there should also be a process for handling hopeless cases. If a discussion is so poorly executed that it's impossible or extremely difficult to determine consensus, it may be best to cut it loose with a note to the participants to try something else. - MrX 🖋 18:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
We are not required to process all of the requests in a manner that brings about formal closure. A request may be rejected by marking the {{initiated}} template with |done=yes coupled with the use of {{not done}}/{{already done}} and a suitable explanation (example). You might, for instance, direct the OP to the yellow pool ball at the top. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit and this revert by MrX (talk · contribs): I can find no evidence that the {{rfc}} tag was ever used on either of the two linked, threads, nor that either one was listed by Legobot at the RfC listing pages, therefore, neither one was a formal request for comment. Compare any other request under WP:AN/RFC#RfCs - all of them have borne an {{rfc}} at some point, and some of them still do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: This discussion is not an RfC. It's a follow up to an RfC. It has the same status as any other informal DR discussion. Nor is this one or this one which are also listed under RfCs. But back to the main point: Why segregate them like that? Chronology is surely more important than degree of formality. If they are to be segregated, at least they should be done categorically as I suggested above.  - MrX 🖋 19:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Why not ask for two or more admins to close a discussion? We've done this before. That should speed up processes a bit more, right? George Ho (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Turks in Germany dispute

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The moderator ProcrastinatingReader responding to my request[4] for closure on this dispute[5] stated "This seems to mostly be a discussion between 2 people. Not much a closer can do here, suggest WP:DR". At the time of him writing this there were multiple people involved not just two. It is going on close to two months unresolved and the discussion has been lengthy, the reason I put a request for closure instead of dispute resolution is because the other user involved has dismissed those who disagree with him as "disruptive users" and "sock puppets" out of hand. I do not now how I can resolve this without an administrator being directly involved and a formal decision being made, as the user has continued to edit the infobox and demographics section that the dispute is about despite it still being ongoing while reverting anyone putting contrary information, I have not edited the main page since early December. Is this a case where I need to just wait for more people to weigh in so consensus is more clear before it can be closed? Have I misunderstood this noticeboards purpose? Thanks. Will Tyson for real (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That discussion is mostly a back and forth between yourself and Sseevv. buidhe commented once, as did two newer accounts, but it's mostly a back and forth discussion. There is nothing that I can see for a closer to do.
As for your dispute, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You need to get more editors to participate, basically. You can do so by asking for WP:3O, posting on noticeboards or WikiProjects, or ultimately by starting a WP:RFC. Such discussions would be more suited for closure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the instructions for Template:Initiated

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I just successfully completed adding my closure request, however, I kept running into issues while verifying it in preview mode.
The instructions below the last request state...

{{Initiated|<date and time when RfC was opened, in the format as would be produced by ~~~~~>}}

Having used {{Unsigned}} and {{Unsigned IP}} previously, I took this to mean typing the time and date like this...

{{Initiated|07:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)}}

However, I kept getting nonsensical error messages in preview mode. I eventually figured out it was the addition of (UTC) that it didn't like. As this is an admins' noticeboard, to add a concise clarification making it clear that the timezone must be excluded when using Template:Initiated.

Further, I believe "RfC" is referring to Template:Rfc, and so I copied the date said discussion was created, but I keep getting the nagging thought that maybe "RfC" actually means request for closure, in which case I should apply the date it was added to the admin's noticeboard, not the date discussion was created.
— Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@DeNoel: The problem is not the "(UTC)"; this is perfectly fine, and indeed its presence is desirable. The problem is that you have a U+200E left-to-right mark directly after the year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Having looked more closely, the edit that initiated the RfC is this one, which is clearly timestamped 14:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC) - there is a seven hour difference, so presumably you're in a time zone that is seven hours behind UTC, such as Mountain Standard Time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, when I initially added {{Initiated|07:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)}} to the request for closure, I was presented with the following error message...
(Initiated 222 days ago on 21 August 2020)
I couldn't figure out what it was talking about, until I removed the (UTC) from the {{Initiated}} template. After I removed the time zone, everything was fine. Basically, I'm asking permission to add text to the instructions to the hidden text in the bottom of Rfc section containing editor instructions, which specifically says not to type the 3-letter timezone to the template, as doing so produces the error message you see above. No, I made no such Left-to-right mark; yes, I'm 8 hours behind, but Wikipedia records in UTC, not PST. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the left-to-right mark (LRM) is there, as it is in your {{initiated}} demo of 19:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC). In that demo, and when in edit mode, place your cursor immediately before the opening parenthesis of (UTC). Then press ← Backspace once; the space is removed. Press it again, and the zero is not removed - the cursor appears to stand still: here, you are deleting an invisible character. Press it a third time, and the zero is removed. Now type the zero and the space back in and preview - there is no error message, therefore, the (UTC) is not the problem: it is the invisible character between the zero and the space which is the problem. Pasting the original markup into a Unicode converter, such as the one courtesy of Richard Ishida, shows the presence of &#x200E; (alternatively displayed as &#8206; and a variety of other forms) in that position, and that character is an LRM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not remember if I had copy-pasted the text into Notepad first (which may not pick up the invisible character), or just copied the text directly. I will frequently encounter format copying when I copy text into YouTube as part of a comment, and will usually use Notepad to remove the formatting, otherwise strange effects are displayed in the comment section. I must have neglected to do so in Wikipedia, or I had done so and the character was not removed (editing Wikipedia source code is plain text; I never use the visual editor). I think I see the point you're trying to make, and I will be wary of it in future. Thank you for your patience. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I just tested the example I gave at the top of this section. I placed my cursor in front of the open-parenthesis, and it took three backspace keystrokes to remove the zero from 2020, exactly as you described. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  Fixed – See Template talk:Initiated#An embedded left-to-right mark causes the template to malfunction. wbm1058 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Closure_requests/Archive_2&oldid=1142666082"