| Revision as of 17:15, 17 January 2014 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,692 edits →Too many discussions being added: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:21, 19 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Closure requests/Archive 3) (bot | ||
| (936 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talk header|wp=yes|search=no|noarchive=yes|WT:ANRFC}} | |||
| == Archiving == | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo = old(180d) | |||
| | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter = 3 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=180}} | |||
| == Heads up == | |||
| I've restored the archiving that was reverted. These are old reports that don't need to be closed; not all RfCs do. All seem to have been added by the same editor, ], who doesn't edit much. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Many of the RfCs still need to be closed - there is a backlog that needs to be cleared, and archiving these reports won't help matters. ]] (]) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| There's a ] at ]. It's only been open for six days so far, but I thought I'd drop by and say that we'll be needing someone to summarize the results of the discussion next month. There have already been about 350 comments posted with about {{tomats|31170}} of text, so I suppose this is also a friendly reminder that the most reliable way to avoid getting stuck with closing a huge discussion is to go !vote in it. <code>;-)</code> Alternatively, some closers like to read along as discussions happen, so they don't have to read a book-length in one sitting. ] (]) 20:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::They are from months ago. I couldn't find one that needed to be closed. Can you give an example? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, ], which I plan to close in the next couple of days. ], which I can't close because I am involved. There are lots and lots of them, and that's what this page is for. ]] (]) 23:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The bot pulled the RFC tag almost 24 hours ago, so I've officially listed it at ]. ] (]) 22:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No one has commented on the first for almost four months; if you want to close it, that's fine, but it's unlikely to make a difference. The second is more recent and is worth closing. The problem is that Cunard has cluttered the page up with some old RfCs that really don't need to be closed, so I removed everything before March. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Adding the doing/working tag == | |||
| ==Self-closure== | |||
| I added on 16 June () that most RfCs and RMs don't need formal closure, and that the usual thing (where consensus is clear) is for the initiators to perform the close themselves. Failing that, any editor can do so. This is the way it has been since I joined Misplaced Pages in 2004. It is only where consensus is unclear or the issue is a contentious one that a formal close is needed. | |||
| I've noticed that closers have recently not been using the {{tl|doing}} or {{tl|working}} tag recently. It would be helpful if folks who are watching this page to close discussions could remember to do that so that we don't end up duplicating work. ] (]/]) 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Obiwankenobi keeps reverting, objecting to the part about RfC or RM initiators performing the close themselves, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. He seems to prefer that that part not be mentioned. Any thoughts? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm specifically referencing this section: ]. The language SV adds makes it seem like the person who opened the RFC has some sort of special rights around closing it. In my experience, this is not the case. Clearly, an uninvolved editor can close it, and basically any discussion for that matter, after they've been open the requisite amount of time, but also an involved editor should be able to close an RFC (and I've seen it happen) even if the person who started the RFC isn't around or perhaps even if they don't agree. RFCs are anyway supposed to be neutrally formulated and framed by a group of people, so there isn't really a single "owner" of an RFC. Again, I have no issue with the RFC initiator doing the close themselves, I have issue with giving them some sort of special rights to do so, which I don't see described elsewhere in any other guidance or policy. I wouldn't want a case where X initiated, Y participated, and then X goes away and Y wants to close - do they have to ask permission? What does "failing that, any editor can do so" mean? Do you need to get consensus from the person that started the RFC? This doesn't exist for any other type of discussion - a discussion can be closed once the time has passed. Of course, if those participating disagree with the close, they can revert and debate and so on, but that's not what we're addressing here. --] (]) 07:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Having read the diff I have to agree with OWK. The changed wording does seem to incur some kind of special status on the person that opened an RFC, which shouldn't be the case. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 09:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Concur, 'Anyone involved' is enough. Dont need more instruction creep. ] (]) 13:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Relists == | |||
| == Should we add some guidance about non-admin closures? == | |||
| If people here are generally of the view that a relist means that a closure request ought to be archived, then perhaps someone should add <code><nowiki>{{relisted</nowiki></code> to the list of archive prefixes. Personally, I don't really consider relisting as resolving a closure request, given that a relist isn't a closure and ]. CC: ], who pinged me to say I should mark a relist for archiving. ] ] 09:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to me that this noticeboard can be subject to some confusion, in that although it's an "administrators' noticeboard", it states that there can also be ], and furthermore, it contains a paragraph summarizing the consensus that non-admin closures should not be overturned simply because it wasn't an admin, but says nothing more about non-admin closures. Leaving it only at that, it seems to me that it could be only a matter of time until (rather like the snow-close RfAs that come up from time to time) someone who has been editing here only a week or so decides, "Hey, any editor can close an RfC, so I'll close this one!", only to close a discussion that was exceptionally complicated and contentious, precipitating an unnecessary drama. (For that matter, even a more experienced editor should evaluate consensus in complicated cases in the same way that we expect someone who has passed an RfA to do.) There's nothing in the current wording that addresses these possible pitfalls. | |||
| :What I meant was that your post would leave the request on the page indefinitely. As shown at ] (if you uncollapse the "Technical instructions for closers" block), ClueBot III will only archive a thread if it detects one or more of certain templates in the thread. Specifically, they are: {{tlx|resolved}},{{tlx|Resolved}},{{tlx|done}},{{tlx|Done}},{{tlx|DONE}},{{tlx|already done}},{{tlx|Already done}},{{tlx|not done}},{{tlx|Not done}},{{tlx|notdone}},{{tlx|close}},{{tlx|Close}},{{tlx|nd}},{{tlx|tick}} (case-sensitive). Your post used none of those, so it would have been ignored by ClueBot III. --] 🌹 (]) 22:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know. I wasn't trying to archive the request because the discussion was not closed. ] ] 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd probably be minded to archive them: a relist reflects someone's judgment that the discussion isn't ready for closure (the same meaning as "not done"), and XfDs/RMs generally don't need to be here unless they're unusually stale. But it's definitely a trade-off. ] (]) 10:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarifying point 1? == | |||
| I made an edit-and-a-half yesterday in an attempt to see if I could improve the language about that, in the spirit of ]: and . Another editor did the "R" of BRD: , which is fine, of course. So, here I am with the "D". | |||
| Point 1 at the top of the page currently states: | |||
| What I wrote stated that non-admin closers should (i) "be familiar with policies and guidelines", and (ii) "be prepared to justify their reasoning to any editors who have questions about the closure." Unless I'm missing something, those things should be pretty much non-controversial. Of course, there may be better ways to say it. What do other editors think? | |||
| {{tqb|Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.}} | |||
| However, for someone who is ] (especially the author of the RfC), closing the discussion is highly discouraged even if the consensus is clear. Closure requests by involved editors have been nonetheless been denied on this basis (e.g. ]). should point 1 by amended to clarify this? | |||
| (I feel I need to say one thing more. I want to be fair to the editor who reverted me, but, if I'm going to be honest, I have to admit that some things that went on, on that editor's user talk page, were what initially made me think of making those edits here. I won't pretend otherwise: it was my reaction to seeing that editor decline to discuss their reasoning with editors from an RfC (in which I had no involvement) who expressed concerns. Although that was what made me think of the edits here, I did not intend those edits as implying a personal criticism of the editor who reverted me, or of anyone else. OK? I just want to make that clear.) --] (]) 23:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqb|Do not list discussions where consensus is clear, except if you are ]. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.}} ] (] · ]) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>I've posted links to this discussion at ] and ]. --] (]) 00:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::There are processes in place for reviewing any closures, by anyone. I don't think we need special language to say that non-admin closers should be familiar with policies and guidelines - that goes without saying. And I've seen several mop-holders that refuse to discuss their closes in a civil fashion. So, I'm not sure what purpose this language would serve here, and in any case such language should not be targeted only at non-admins.--] (]) 02:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I think there are a few notes about NACs that might be appropriate, mostly for those listing matters needing closes: 1) let all submitters know that even though this is an admin noticeboard, that NACs are common, and that they are as valid as an admin closure. 2) only matters that need specific administrator permissions should specifically request an admin instead of an uninvolved editor. 3) I would also support a note to NACs that closures often require significant follow-up, and that by undertaking a closure, you are taking on a responsibility to answer questions, usually on your user talk page, from participants about the particulars of your closure, and how to go about starting discussions for changing policies and guidelines on which the closure was based. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 07:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, both of you; those are helpful comments. To Obi-Wan, as I said, I see the purpose primarily as being helpful to inexperienced editors. You are factually correct that admins as well as non-admins sometimes act in non-admin-like fashion, and that these things ''ought'' to go without saying. But as you can see at ] and ], it's become more common than anyone would like that newbies apply for RfA without a clue about what they are applying for, including a lack of familiarity with policies and guidelines. I think it's just a matter of time before someone like that sees this relatively new board and thinks it's a great way to get ready for their RfA. (And frankly, I think there have been recent non-admin closures by experienced editors that are likely to precipitate drama.) Although we do have a closure review process, it's potentially costly in terms of community time and effort, so wouldn't it be worth it to have instructions that help avoid needing a review to begin with? | |||
| ::VanIsaac, I'm receptive to further guidance for those requesting here, but I think that's a separate discussion. This page already does say that non-admin closures are as valid as admin ones, although it doesn't try to quantify how common they are, and I'm not sure we should really try to do that. But I agree with you that a good approach would be a pointer to ]. And that is actually better than my previous language about policies and guidelines; we could just make sure that editors refer there. I also agree with you about indicating that making a closure entails a commitment to engage in talk, etc. I'd like to see something brief about that here. --] (]) 14:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I like the way Obi-Wan created a subsection for NACs. Based on the discussion here, so far, I suggest making the following additions, shown in {{fontcolor|green|green}}: | |||
| ===Non-admininstrator closes=== | |||
| {{fontcolor|green|Editors volunteering to close discussions here should refer to }}]. A ] discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for ] and ] - see ] and ] for details. {{fontcolor|green|Closers should understand that they may be asked to explain their closes to editors who have questions or concerns, and should be prepared to take the time to do so.}} | |||
| --] (]) 22:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm. I disagree with the link to the essay (we already give a link to the consensus guidance, lower down). I also strongly oppose the last sentence, given that I've seen several admins act like **** after a close, so if you'd like to make it a global message for all, go for it, but frankly it's not really needed here, and there's certainly no need to make it seem like its a non-admin problem.--] (]) 06:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The link to the essay could be worded differently (perhaps "should refer to" --> "can find guidance at"), and/or maybe changed to something else (perhaps ] and ]). Yes, I know that some admins, albeit a minority, can act badly, ''blah, blah, blah''. That was me who pushed ]. But your opposition to the last sentence makes it sound like you think it's OK for an editor who closes an RfC badly to be uncooperative with editors who have questions. This is something where it amazes me that anyone would object to it. Someone who closes an RfC '''should''' be familiar with policies and guidelines, and '''should''' be willing to explain their reasoning. Many of the discussions listed here are contentious or have widespread implications. It's a serious responsibility. I haven't wanted to make any of this personal (and please understand that I don't mean you), but I have already seen repeated evidence of non-admin closes at this noticeboard where the closer did not understand policies and did not want to engage with editors with questions, and in time, these problems are only going to get worse. Perhaps I will decide to open an RfC with, in addition, a broader look at how the community views people who have not undergone an RfA setting themselves up as if they had passed one. I'm coming to the conclusion that a small number of editors are using this page to push the policy that editors who self-appoint should be able to make high impact decisions the same as editors who go through RfA. --] (]) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>I've posted a link to this discussion at ]. --] (]) 20:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::I'm concerned that this is both an overreaction and requires a complete overhaul of the consensus process - a pretty unwise course of action, in my opinion. The reason is simple: right now, beyond discussions that require specific permissions to execute, there exists no unambiguous distinction between formal and informal closes, and the types of discussions requiring one or the other. If we require all discussions to be formally closed, the entire consensus model grinds to a standstill as we wait for admins and formal closers to get around to reviewing every on-wiki discussion. If we leave it up to individual editors to decide whether a discussion needs to be formally closed, then we get a less functional version of what we have now - a board where formal closure requests get posted, but where discussions not needing admin oversight end up overwhelming the board or just don't ever get attended to. All we really need is what we've been working on here - a much more comprehensive prescription of the closure process, and fleshing out the ] process. I honestly believe that better guidance for both closers and participants will greatly help for the minority of problematic closures that crop up. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 22:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I strongly support the wording that Tryptofish added to the article: "Because requests for closure made here are often those that are contentious, editors who volunteer to close discussions should be familiar with policies and guidelines, and should be prepared to justify their reasoning to any editors who have questions about the closure." I disagree with the comment above that familiarity with policies and guidelines "goes without saying". I recently saw a brand-new user try to mediate a content dispute, and they INSISTED on continuing to try to mediate it despite being rejected by the disputants, because they had read that "anyone can mediate a dispute". As was noted above, brand-new people who know nothing about Misplaced Pages often apply for adminship; I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility that somebody who doesn't know anything about our policies could try to close a discussion. So I think it should be clear that non-admin closures are not open to "anybody"; they are open to anybody who understands what they are doing. And I don't see any harm in reminding people that they must be open to discussing their decision. And I still believe, as I have stated elsewhere, that non-admin closures should be limited to situations where the result is pretty obvious. That is usually not the case with requests made here, and I would actually prefer to discourage non-admin closures of such discussions. --] (]) 21:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would be fine with "Because requests for closure made here are often those that are contentious, those who volunteer to close discussions should be familiar with policies and guidelines, and should be prepared to justify their reasoning to any editors who have questions about the closure." - but as a general message for ALL CLOSERS. Again, recent (and past) evidence has not shown any difference between bit-holders and non-bit-holders in this regard. Adminship is a set of powerful tools, not some marker that "Admins interpret policy better than editors". On your other points, I disagree. I would be fine with something saying, for non-admins, that only experienced editors well-versed in policy should attempt to close complicated discussions. Again, there are venues available for dealing with problematic closes, so I don't know what exact problem is being fixed here.--] (]) 04:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What about "Because requests for closure made here are often those that are most contentious, volunteer closers should be familiar with all general policies and guidelines, and every specific policy and guideline bearing on the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure, and be willing to guide editors on where to and how to continue discussion on the underlying policies." I completely agree that this should be a general message for all closers, and that we do have good procedures and venues for dealing with problematic closes. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 05:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I added this language to a general section, please see the recent changes, feel free to revert or reword, but I would encourage such language to be framed for all closers, not just NACs.--] (]) 06:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's fine and I concur. And I certainly agree that the cautions should apply to all closers, whether or not they are admins. --] (]) 15:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *''All'' maintenance areas have always been a magnet for new, especially younger users. They do this work with the best of intentions but just don't realise that the required experence only comes with regular editing, seeing how things are done, reading up on the 1,000s of policies and guidelines we have, and heeding advice when it is offered by admins and experienced users. It's a problem that we constantly have to resolve, but I do not believe it has reached proportions that such contentious NAC can't be handled on case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, ] makes some excellent observations and I welcome the suggestion made by ]. That said, we must avoid ] and allowing non admins to subtly pass themselves off themselves as having some special authority. ] (]) 03:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I want to thank everyone who commented here recently, and I am very satisfied with where the language on the page seems to be now. I'd like to explain a couple of things. It's interesting that VanIsaac expressed concern about the recent changes creating new policy, at the same time that I was concerned about the wording ''before'' the recent changes having created new policy – like ], with different people looking at the same things and yet seeing them differently. Why is that? – especially since I think that VanIsaac's concern is actually one that I can agree with! Thinking about it carefully, it occurs to me that it isn't really about admins on one side and non-admins on the other. Instead, it's about experienced (or clueful) users on one side and inexperienced (or clueless) users on the other. Given what RfA involves, there's really no such thing as an administrator who has little or no experience editing (cluelessness, possible, but an exception to the rule). To use a recent example, please look at the close of ], by three admins appointed by ArbCom to close it. There really ''is'' a standing practice of using those kinds of closures in such cases, where the issues are contentious and the reverberations high-impact. It ''would'' be a change from current consensus to say that a newly registered editor could come along and close a discussion like that. --] (]) 22:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Move requests, a standard backlog == | |||
| Seeing four move requests here at the moment, I feel they should not be permitted to be posted here. There is almost always a backlog at ], and there rarely is a reason for particular move requests to jump the queue. Unless a legitimate reason can be provided for why a particular request needs to be addressed more quickly (e.g. it's related to an article on the Main Page or a very high-profile article), I don't believe these should be posted here. "It's been open for a month" or "It's been seven days" applies to a number of move requests. If one wants to make a general appeal to have the backlog there cleared, that's fine, but I think it's unfair to suggest requests are special. -- ''']''' 22:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm. That same logic would likely apply to all XfD discussions for example. What is the general case language here? Sometimes, I've seen the RM backlog simply transcluded here for example. I'm not sure much harm is done by someone posting here, it's really sort of a squeaky-wheel-getting-grease sort of thing - but we should continue to encourage people to close discussions themselves if the solution is clear. --] (]) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::FWIW I posted some because they had been open for a month plus, and we're fairly complex. ] <small>]-]</small> 01:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==BLPN better for improper bio RfC closures?== | |||
| (''Not a request for closure, FYI.)Noninvolved editors only, please: | |||
| I was writing up a WP:BLPN notice on ]. Since I asked at the RfC it be closed as improper, someone said I should come here. This is something that should be clarified re: BLPs in this policy, by the way. (Note: also asked at ] since I have a feeling this noticeboard not too active; maybe should have gone there first.) Thanks. '''] ''' 16:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That 'someone' was me. I provided a link to the ANRFC so that you might actually post a request for closure. What are you asking for here -- that admins be more involved in this particular notice board? – ] (]) 16:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I told you on my talk page, I don't know in a BLP case, if BLPN should trump this closure. I'm looking for ''ninvolved'' editors advice. '''] ''' 18:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: this board is to request closure. If you think the RFC should be closed early as disruptive that's what you'd use this board for. In this case, I see a content discussion, so no need to close early. If you want to notify other boards like blpn, or, etc that's fine. If the material in question is very controversial or defaming and currently the subject of dispute as to sourcing, I'd say remove it for now since its a BLP (I didn't look at the article, only the talk). Once the RFC has run for a while, if there is clear consensus one of you can close, if not feel free to post a neutral notice here to ask for closure. As an aside, I feel like people use RFCs an awful lot these days in cases where it's not necessarily needed, or is it just me?] (]) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for opinion; it makes sense. I agree on RfCs, especially in BLP policy issues. Better to go to various content noticeboard where people interested in policy ''sometimes'' paying attention :-) Will give it another day to see how things develop and since weekends not great for good noticeboard responses. '''] ''' 20:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggested move to {{No redirect|Misplaced Pages:Requests for closure}} == | |||
| I'm proposing that this page be moved to {{No redirect|Misplaced Pages:Requests for closure}}. There are three main reasons: | |||
| #This is not a noticeboard | |||
| #This is not a subpage of AN | |||
| #Closing of discussions has never been limited to administrators as is suggested by being at AN/RFC | |||
| {{No redirect|Misplaced Pages:Requests for closure}} can still be transcluded at AN as it is currently if it's useful for administrators. Thoughts? -] (]) 18:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm uncomfortable with any move that shifts the process away from administrators closing difficult discussions. Yes, I know that there are good-faith non-admins who do good work, but I still have all of the concerns that I raised above, in ]. --] (]) 20:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Could you elucidate why you're uncomfortable with non-admins? -] (]) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :# I think that this ''is'' a noticeboard, specifically for discussions needing closure. | |||
| :# Well, factually, it ''is'' a subpage of AN - ie, /Requests for closure; whether it ''should'' be is just the question you've posed. You've ] and used it as an argument. | |||
| :# Certainly, closing discussions is not limited to administrators, but no other administrators' noticeboard is, either. | |||
| :My thoughts are that it's just fine where it is.]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 21:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::My thoughts are that it's not just fine where it is. It gives the impression that admin have some special powers in closing discussions. This has never been the case. In my view, having this forum here gives credence to that idea, which is harmful to the project. -] (]) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Keeping this at AN should not be taken as a request that only admins should close these. Things wind up in this list usually because they are difficult to close and there is no general enthusiasm for closing them. Regular editors who may want to take on these worthwhile tasks should consider watchlisting ]. Removing these closure requests from AN might cause them to be seen less often, since not everyone would think to watchlist ]. ] (]) 15:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with what EdJohnston said. Nathan Johnson, I'll try to answer your questions to me here. I am not uncomfortable with all non-admins – after all, I am one myself. And I was the main person behind ], so I'm certainly not someone who feels that admins should somehow be considered to have a special stature. But, that said, I feel that the determination of consensus in a difficult discussion – and this board tends to have a high proportion of difficult discussions – is a task requiring a high level of skill and familiarity with policies and guidelines, and a temperament that is compatible with being challenged by editors who end up disagreeing with the close. That's not for everyone. Decide a contentious discussion badly, and all kinds of problems will ensue. Sure, we have review procedures, but it's much better to get it right the first time. As I explained in detail in the discussion thread above, when we leave it open to all willing editors, we might assume that only clueful users will step forward, but (absent some kind of qualifying criteria, and I don't want to have to figure out how to articulate what those would be) anybody might show up. Maybe a brand new account, who knows nothing about how discussions here work, but who sees it as an opportunity to be a big shot. It's a recipe for trouble. I think that there is a project-wide consensus that non-admin closes should not be overturned simply because they are non-admin, but I also think that there is a project-wide perception that, when an uninvolved user is asked to close a difficult discussion, that person making the close needs to be someone who is widely trusted by the community. In recent years, RfA has become so rigorous that being an admin has become shorthand for being widely trusted. I honestly think that if we want to move in the direction of giving non-admins a greater role in determining consensus in difficult discussions, then that would actually require a much broader discussion to determine if it really has wide consensus, because I don't believe that it does. As Ed indicated, most admins don't want to say that non-admins are unwelcome. The previous discussion was simply about overturning non-admin decisions; it was a discussion amongst a fairly small group of editors, and it only examined overturning once a decision was made. There really has not been a serious assessment of how the editing community feels about when non-admins should or should not close those discussions in which emotions run high. --] (]) 21:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], this is a subpage of AN. Watchlisting AN does not add AN/RFC to your watchlist. I am not proposing to stop transcluding this page from AN. | |||
| :::::@], RfA is simply about staying under the radar for a year and racking up >10000 edits. Throw in a modest amount of content work, and you're guaranteed to pass. It has nothing to do with "widely trusted". -] (]) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nathan, you may be correct that an update of ] does not pop on the watchlist of someone who is only watching ]. Nonetheless, if I'm here looking at AN for other reasons I'll probably go and look at the transcluded items that want closures. Also, WP:AN has over 3,700 watchers while WP:AN/RFC has only 152. ] (]) 18:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], none of that makes any sense. Do you know that? I am correct that an edit to this page does not show up in the watchlist of someone who only has AN watchlisted. You know why? I've tested it. You know, due diligence before opening my mouth. Something that an admin should do instead of simply saying "you may be correct..." and then blather about something not related. If the page were moved, it could still be transcluded at AN. Do you have any logical reason that you oppose moving the page? Or can I assume you aren't intelligent enough to understand the basics of how Misplaced Pages work? -] (]) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And, Nathan, that is your opinion of RfA. It might not be shared by the community. But making this open to all editors does not even require staying under the radar and racking up some edits that include content. The fact that it's possible for an admin to make a flawed close does not mean that non-admins can be counted upon, as a matter of broad policy, to do better. --] (]) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], this page is already open to all editors. Admins have never had any special powers in closing discussions. Your trust in admins and RfA is misplaced, but there's really nothing I can do about that. See above how admin EdJohnston doesn't know how the watchlist and transclussion work. Do you trust them to close discussions if they can't seem to understand the technical basics of Misplaced Pages? -] (]) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well, Nathan, I suspect that someone who questions Ed's intelligence would probably not have the full trust of the editing community. Anyway, it seems to me that the move proposal is not getting consensus, and if you would like to initiate a broader discussion of the issue of closing discussions, by all means do so. --] (]) 22:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I have created ], a list of ] listed at ]. This will give editors interested in posting closure reviews the opportunity to review past closure reviews. I used the table format from ] because I think it provides a better presentation of the material than only a list of links.<p>Please feel free to add any closure reviews I may have missed or correct any factual mistakes I might have made in the creating the archive. ] (]) 10:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Cunard. I think this will be a useful point of reference for a variety of discussions. Any objections if I let others know about this on ] or on The Signpost? ]] 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Feel free to post this on the village pump or the Signpost. I hope it'll be a very useful reference. I put the archive under WP:ANRFC at ], but am unsure if there is a better location. Feel free to move the page if there's a better location.<p>Also, as I , maybe this page could be added to the ANRFC archive box, but I haven't figured out how because of the archive box's formatting. If adding it to the archive box isn't possible, perhaps it could be added somewhere else on the ANRFC page? Thanks, ] (]) 19:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Moved to ] . ] (]) 18:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Number of discussions being added == | |||
| {{U|Cunard}} seems to be searching for discussions that have not been closed formally and adds them here for closure, even when they're old, or have petered out or become moot. When I try to archive them, I'm reverted by Cunard or {{U|Armbrust}}. | |||
| The problem with leaving them here is that the ones that do need closure get overlooked because of the undergrowth. And this page being transcluded onto AN makes that page look a mess too. | |||
| My own position is that the people involved in a discussion should be the ones to request closure, because they know best whether outside closure is needed. Often it isn't. Any other thoughts on this would be appreciated. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that there are some discussions I've closed from Cunard where I did not think it was strictly necessary, but that isn't always the case-- some discussions that Cunard has posted have helped folks figure things out and effectively move on. Sometimes, editors may not want to step forward to request a close because it might seem like they want to quickly end it in their favor. Other times, people simply forget to request because newer issues that have arisen while older ones have gotten archived. That said, Cunard and I had a discussion related to this concern ] where I expressed that I think editors on the page were fully able to read consensus on their own, and reiterated what is at the top of ]: That ''most discussions do not need a formal close.'' I think while formal closes can be helpful, I am concerned about the perennial backlog at ] for editors actually waiting on closes, which sometimes reaches an additional two weeks or more (in addition to the 30 days of discussions). (Speaking of which, it seems there are only a handful of editors actually closing discussions which makes this tougher to deal with.) ]] 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I helped write the top text, and I agree with I, JethroBT that the existing consensus is that this page is ''only'' for those discussions where there is a need for an outside person to visit the discussion and determine the consensus. A way to think about it is to ask oneself whether, given the small number of users who are available to provide closes, the discussion is important enough or controversial enough that it is necessary to ask for one such user to take the time to make a close – and if not, please don't list it. It does seem to me that the list tends to be overly long, and to appear overly backlogged. My hope is that editors can agree to this consensus (or ask that the consensus be re-evaluated). That said, once someone lists a discussion in good faith, it's probably best not to de-list it without prior agreement with the listing user to do so. --] (]) 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not archiving means they will sit here for a long time, that's the problem, and he is adding multiple discussions at once. For example, two of the discussions I archived today (first, , second ) were about proposed topic bans on AN/I. The first failed to gain consensus, and the second had been decided (user blocked and clear support for the topic ban). Both had been archived by the AN/I bot. Cunard (who did not part in either discussion) asked here for an admin to close them. I judged them not needing closure and archived them here too. Armbrust reverted. | |||
| :::Volunteer time is precious, especially for something like this, because closing discussions is a thankless task that can be surprisingly time-consuming. I really think we need to keep this page clear of discussions that the people involved in them are handling by themselves. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Previous discussion about this , by the way. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree about volunteer time being a finite commodity, and one that should be respected. I also think that previous discussion to which you linked is key. I hope that ] will comment here, so that we can see whether or not we have consensus about how many discussions to list. --] (]) 23:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <font size="4">{{anchor|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags}} ''']'''</font><p>] This was one of the discussions deleted by SlimVirgin. Her explanation: " had been decided (user blocked and clear support for the topic ban)". Based on the closure request, {{user|JodyB}} the discussion as: <blockquote>] is topic banned indefinitely from adding flags, icons, rank insignia, and other images to military biography infoboxes per this discussion from the community. No block is assigned at this time but could arise if the user violates the community decision. ]<sub>]</sub> 01:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)</blockquote> JodyB's close was necessary per the policy ] (bolding added for emphasis): <blockquote>Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. '''If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usually ] or ].'''</blockquote> The sanction does not take effect until the discussion is closed, the sanction logged, and the subject notified. Without these steps, the subject will not have received due process. The ban will not be in effect despite the consensus for enacting it.<p>See for example ] (discussion initiated 17 October 2013, ] 28 October 2013, ] 30 October 2013 at AN, closed 14 November 2013).<p>Despite the resounding consensus for a topic ban, the subject ], writing "when making your close, did you notice that all 6 users that supported a topic ban were already in a dispute with me on another page elsewhere related to that topic area". The topic ban closure was contested at , where it was endorsed by an uninvolved admin: <blockquote>No issue with the close. Appears to be a well-read version of policy, the provided evidence, and therefore consensus. Note to everyone: if you've pissed off 6 people in a specific topic area, so much so that they all drop by to provide valid evidence, you might want to re-think how you interact with people in that topic area</blockquote><p>This is an example where even though the discussion's consensus was obvious, the involved editor, Loomspicker, disagreed.<p>Extrapolating this to "obvious RfCs", the involvement of an uninvolved editor is beneficial in formalizing the consensus. It takes very little time to close such an obvious discussions, which is why I include them in my list of closure requests. Furthermore, these "obvious RfCs" do not clutter ANRFC because based on the timestamps, they are usually closed very quickly.<p>I do not close these discussions because even closes of "obvious RfCs" can require clarification or be contested. I cannot provide timely responses to such requests.<br><br><font size="4">''']'''</font><p>Link to topic ban subsection: ].<p>Link to closure request by involved editor: ]<p>] (discussion initiated 18 October 2013, closure request 28 October 2013).<p>SlimVirgin wrote " failed to gain consensus". But as an uninvolved editor, I think it is reasonable to find a consensus for a topic ban based on the strength of the arguments and the level of support.<p>] The discussion should be closed. It should not be ignored and dismissed because an admin did not get to it before the archive bot archived it.<p>See also the 5 December 2013 request for closure at ].<br><br><font size="4">{{anchor|How my ANRFC closure requests and the closures have improved the encyclopedia}} '''How my ANRFC closure requests and the closures have improved the encyclopedia:'''</font><br><ol><li></li>] (]) The discussion was initiated 19 July 2013 and a closure request was posted 4 November 2013.<p>The RfC initiator made an : "Well, its been a while. I count '''7 support''' and '''4 oppose''', and those opposing are mostly just ... I myself see no truly valid argument for continuing on with this confusing state of affairs. I propose to proceed with the edit?" The uninvolved closer found based on the strength of the arguments that there was no consensus to proceed with the edit despite a narrow majority of editors supporting the proposed edit.<p>Even three months after the RfC had started and 75 days after the last comment, the RfC initiator wanted the situation resolved but was left with no guidance as to whether he or she could proceed with the edit. An uninvolved closer's involvement helped determine that the proposed change lacked the level of support needed for restoration, possibly avoiding future edit wars about whether the proposed edit had consensus.</li><li>] and ] (]) The first RfC was initiated 30 August 2013; the second RfC was initiated 26 October 2013 after the RfC initiator's proposed change failed to achieve consensus in the first RfC. The closure request was posted 25 November 2013.<p>57 days separated the initiation of the first RfC and the second RfC, an indication (like the previous closure request) that editors who care enough to start an RfC sometimes repeatedly raise issues they have previously raised. See the RfC initiator's (over a month after the RfC template had been removed). See also of the RfC initiator's deletion of the first RfC.<p>A closure in this situation helped determine there was no support for the RfC initiator's view. The formal closures more concretely establish that a third RfC without new information that addressed the participants' concerns would be disruptive and could be speedy closed without expending more of the community's time repeatedly discussing the issue.</li><li>] (]) The discussion was initiated 5 August 2013 and a closure request was posted 4 November 2013.<p>At first glance, the discussion appears to have a result of no consensus. But after a close review of the arguments, the closer found that there was a consensus to restore the image. Based on this closure, the image 91 days after the RfC was initiated.<p>Had this old discussion not been assessed by an uninvolved editor, the image would have been excluded from the article despite the consensus to include it.</li><li>] (]) The discussion was initiated 5 October 2013 and a closure request was posted 19 November 2013.<p>The RfC tag was removed and no one requested a closure until I did 15 days later. The closer's assessment of the consensus resulted in . Without this closure request and closure, the material would have remained excluded despite the consensus to include it. The participants' time offering arguments would have been wasted.<li>] (]) The discussion was initiated 3 October 2013 and a closure request was posted 3 October 2013.<p>At first glance, the discussion appears to have no consensus to remove either of the images being discussed (the first an image still from a video and the second a mugshot). An uninvolved closer determined that based on the strengths of the argument the image still should be retained (though not in the infobox) and the mugshot should be removed per the policy ]. After the close, the was restored in the article body. After another editor , the first editor , noting the RfC close. The uninvolved closer helped prevent edit warring and brought clarity to a lengthy discussion.</li></ol>When I list discussions for closure, I cannot tell which ones will result in edits to articles or edit war preventions. Therefore, I err on the side of listing a discussion for closure if I think there is a reasonable chance of a close's being helpful.<br><br><font size="4">'''April 2013 removal of unclosed discussions:'''</font><ol><li>SlimVirgin a large number of unclosed discussions.</li><li>{{user|StAnselm}} with the edit summary "restored archived discussions, many of which still need to be closed".</li><li> SlimVirgin with the edit summary "restored archiving; these are old and cluttering the page".</li><li>StAnselm again, writing: "No - there is still work to do. Please get consensus on the talk page first."</li><li>SlimVirgin again with the edit summary "rv please see talk".</li></ol>The discussion is ].<p>I was away from Misplaced Pages for over a month. When I returned, I found my hours of work deleted. The deletion of the requests for closure despite the lack of consensus to remove them prompted me to avoid making closure requests for five months. I did not want to spend time finding discussions only to find them all deleted when I returned weeks later.<br><br><font size="4">'''December 2013 removal of unclosed discussions:'''</font><p><ol><li>{{user|SlimVirgin}} requests for closure with the edit summary "archiving discussions that are old or don't need formal closure".</li><li>{{user|Armbrust}} with the edit summary "Unarchive, IMO they need closure..."<li>SlimVirgin .</li><li>Armbrust .</li></ol>Thank you, Armbrust, for restoring those discussions because they needed closures.<br><br><font size="4">'''Closing discussions is a "thankless task":'''</font><p>This might be true for some but it is not true for all closers. Prolific closer {{user|I JethroBT}} (bolding added for emphasis): <blockquote>I actually take out a pen and paper and write down notes and do at least two reads of an RfC (unless it's a case of ]). On the first pass, I write out summaries of people's arguments, and the second pass, I check them in relation to other arguments and also note policies that are relevant or have been explicitly discussed. I actually find the whole process kind of fun, in part because I like the challenge of having to help resolve legitimate, good-faith conflicts where matters might seem unresolvable. To be fair, sometimes situations cannot be resolved (which is why I'm sure glad '''no consensus''' is a valid close). But it does require a bit of time for reading, writing, and thinking. '''Some have said that closing RfCs is a thankless task, but I actually get thanked much more often than I expected for making closes, even the easy ones.''' But I get it with the "issues I care about are hard to summarize" in a balanced way. I tend to know when that's the case for me and I either avoid or participate in those discussions instead. Anyway, thanks for dropping a note my way, I really appreciate it. ]] 15:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)</blockquote> Finding and listing discussions for closure could also be considered a "thankless task". But I do not consider the task thankless. I feel it is a positive contribution to the encyclopedia by listing forgotten discussions that would benefit from closure. But the credit for resolving the disputes belongs singularly to the RfC closers who sift through discussions to determine the consensus or lack of it.<br><br><font size="4">'''Reasons for closure requests:'''</font><p>As I wrote :<p>A close could help serve as a baseline for future discussions by explicitly recording the current consensus.<p>I have observed some topics being repeatedly raised. An uninvolved editor's close would firmly establish that the consensus is for or against a proposal, more so than a lengthy unclosed discussion.<p>I view RfCs like XfDs, which are always closed. An editor considered the subject important enough to start a formal discussion, so the discussion deserves a formal close to give its result finality.<br><br><font size="4">'''Final comments:'''</font><p>I acknowledge that the wait time for some discussions at ANRFC is not optimal. But those are frequently the discussions that would have had long waits owing to their complexity or contentiousness. The key to this is to engage more community members to participate in ANRFC. In the past few months, I've noticed a growing number of editors joining the ANRFC closer team as new regulars: {{user|ТимофейЛееСуда}}, {{user|Mdann52}}, {{user|Callanecc}}, and {{user|Keithbob}}.<p>Just today, {{user|FiachraByrne}} made his or her first RfC closure at ]; see ]. The eloquence and attention to detail in FiachraByrne's first close is impressive and is reminiscent of some of ANRFC's very experienced closers.<p>As I wrote , I agree that discussions should not be indiscriminately listed at ANRFC. I carefully consider each close request I list at the board. If I make a mistake as I did ], I am willing to withdraw my closure request.<p>I apologize for the length of this post. I am explaining my rationale for listing discussions for closure in detail because I cannot engage in timely extended discussion. I urge editors to read closely the "]" section.<p>If the consensus is that my closure requests are disrupting ANRFC, then I will obey the consensus and no longer find expired RfCs to list.<p>Thank you to all ANRFC closers. You have significantly improved the encyclopedia by resolving many disputes, some of which may have seemed at first intractable but were untangled by your wisdom, tact, and eloquence.<br>] (]) 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion of Cunard's reply=== | |||
| ::Cunard, I frankly find your comments here to be ], and it doesn't help your argument, but I do see that you said: "If the consensus is that my closure requests are disrupting ANRFC, then I will obey the consensus and no longer find expired RfCs to list." Thank you. Based on the comments leading up to your reply, I think that might indeed be the consensus. Obviously, you are free to list anything in which you, yourself, have been taking part in the discussion and you are convinced that someone impartial is needed to determine consensus. But let me suggest to you that you please take a vacation for a while from looking around for discussions that you otherwise did not take part in, for listing here. Those users who ''did'' take part in those discussions can of course come here themselves if they see fit to do so. (And we all agree with you that those Wikipedians who do step up to make closures are doing a very helpful service, which is why we should respect their finite time.) OK? --] (]) 14:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think Cunard has been providing a valuable service to editors who are new to the RfC and ANRFC process, by posting relevant discussions for closure. Maybe as a compromise, Cunard could go to the talk pages of the RfC creators and ask them if they would like their discussion listed at ANRFC and only list discussions where the creator endorses the action. I have closed several of these RfCs as a non-admin, and editors seem grateful for a neutral summary close as it gives them a focused conclusion that they can use as a foundation for further activities. Regarding the ANI thread on Matthew Bryden which Cunard listed at ANRFC on Oct 28th and which is cited above, I don't think the 'no consesnus' conclusion is perfectly clear, and I asked repeatedly during that ANI discussion for an Admin to come and close the discussion. I, and I believe other involved parties, would still very much like closure on that discussion and I am grateful to Cunard for having listed it at ANRFC. I hope someone will close it soon. From my end I will try to make as many non-admin closures as I can in the next week to help with the back log including the Main Page Redesign RfC which was listed at ANRF by Cunard in October. I hope this is helpful. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I have no problem with the number of discussions added, however It would be good if {{ping|Cunard}} could check if some of these requests are not on the page already. I also want to ask {{ping|SlimVirgin}}, that if only that sections were deemed as not needing closure, than why didn't she close any of the other ones (which she didn't remove from the page)? ] <sup>]</sup> 22:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I also have no issue with the number of discussions being added, ]'s work is most definitely helping the project, and I thank him for that. Also, ] is doing a fantastic job of archiving closed discussions, and I thank him for that. I've gotten involved in helping out with simple closures that do not require administrators because I've listed a few items that needed closure that I cannot close. I feel like if I am asking for someone to help close things I've worked on, its only fair for me to also try to help others out. -- ]]. 00:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, I'm always quite happy to change my mind when I'm shown to have made a mistake. It's pretty clear to me that the most recent comments disprove what I said above about the consensus here, so I take that back. That said, I think that Keithbob has a very good idea: that Cunard ask at the discussion before coming here, and only list here if editors at the discussion (I don't even care whether it's the editor who started the discussion, or any editor who participated in it) indicate that doing so would be helpful. It does occur to me that, sometimes, editors are not aware that they can request an outside close, or are under the incorrect impression that a closer will show up automatically. So, given that Cunard is interested in this, if he could provide that advice at the locations of the discussions, and then list here ''only'' if there is feedback that he should do so, then I see that as a win-win. Does that work? --] (]) 00:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wasn't asking to change your mind, I was just showing my support for Cunard as I think he does great work. I'm biased, so don't put too much weight on my opinion. I do agree that situation could potentially be good practice, but I think that its rather unfair to place such sanctions on only one person. If we decide to change something like this, I think that ANRFC should be changed to state that either a participant in a discussion can request, or an uninvolved editor can request only if it has already been requested for a closure on the RFC itself. Maybe that's not the best wording, but I hope you get the gist. I still think there is plenty of work that could be done, like Cunard could post on the talk page a reminder to the editor who opened the RFC that they can post a request for closure here. But, I'm not familiar enough with current processes to know the best solution. Just my 2 cents, I guess. :) -- ]]. 01:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No worries! I'm happy to change my mind even if nobody asks me. {{(:}} This page already carries the instructions: "Please note that '''most discussions do not need formal closure'''. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form." So, as I see it, this is just a way of pointing Cunard to how to comply with that existing expectation. I suppose that if, in the future, we get more editors who list lots of discussions and it becomes contentious again, then we might want to generalize it. --] (]) 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks Tryptofish, for your flexibility and helpfulness. That sounds good. In the meantime, we can encourage ] to check first with RfC participants but since there is no guideline on this I don't think we can ''require'' him to stick to any particular procedure. However, I agree, it would be helpful to all concerned if Cunard checked with a participant, or a potential closer as I did here with Main Page redesign. In that case it turned out to be a real time saver for me as the rather long discussion does ''not'' need closing for various reasons cited by the creator.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you, too, Keithbob, and that sounds very good to me. I think it's reasonable that this be a "request" rather than a "requirement" to Cunard, but with the understanding that a failure to abide by the request is likely to result in further discussion. ], do you agree with this? --] (]) 21:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Although Keithbob means well with his proposal, I do not think it is a good idea. The discussion Keithbob cites (]) was an "open-ended discussion" (in the words of the RfC initiator). The close request was not acted upon for 58 days because a close of an open-ended discussion would be difficult owing to no concrete proposals being discussed. I listed the discussion only because it was listed at ]. In the future, I will cull such open-ended discussions from my close requests.<p>Many discussions are not listed at ANRFC because participants are no longer watching the discussion. Many reminders posted at discussions would not be noticed. For instance, I JethroBT's post at ] received only one reply in five days even though 22 editors participated in the discussion.<p>Another forgotten discussion was ] (]). After the RfC was closed in favor of restoring the diagram, none of the participants—including the creator of the diagram—restored the diagram to the article despite all having edited afterwards. Three days after the RfC close, I restored the diagram.<p>Even if editors are no longer following a discussion, a close is useful in recording the newly established consensus (or lack of it) because an RfC's results can be considered in future discussions that might take place months or years after the RfC close. For example, at ] (]), the closer wrote (my bolding): <blockquote>Closing as "yes it should". The discussion is basically between "I don't like it" on the con side, and "It helps and it's in line with common practise" on the pro. We don't accept the cons' argument when contrasted with the argument that the pros are making. '''Because the issue of infobox vs. identibox was brought up so late and not discussed by most people, I'm going to say "no consensus" on that. I would encourage participants to open a new discussion on it immediately; it wouldn't be much help to keep open that part of the discussion, because people are obviously discussing it in the context of "should we have anything of the sort".'''</blockquote> Based on the close, the infobox : "Per RfC admin closing ('yes it should')". A new discussion about infobox vs. identibox hasn't been started yet. But the discussion about having an infobox in the article has been ongoing since at least 25 July 2013, so it is likely that this will be discussed in the future. The RfC close helps participants frame their arguments based on the existing consensus.<p>I request closes in situations where some of the participants might oppose a close because it could go against their positions. The determination to close or not to close should belong to a neutral editor who has no stake in the outcome.<p>I believe I am a fair judge of which discussions' closures would benefit the encyclopedia. I make frequently editorial judgments to exclude listing some expired RfCs on ANRFC if they are not well-framed. But if the consensus is to bar uninvolved editors from requesting closure, that would be a strong indication that my closure requests are disrupting ANRFC, and I will abide by my promise above to no longer post expired RfCs.<p>Since my last posting of closure requests , have been fulfilled. ANRFC seems to be frequently backlogged, but close requests are usually fulfilled within a week while difficult discussions linger much longer. This is mainly an indication that ANRFC is an active noticeboard where closers do excellent work.<p>Armbrust, I apologize for occasionally placing duplicate closure requests on this page. Thank you for your work closing discussions, archiving acted upon closure requests, and removing my duplicate closure requests. Though I may make occasional mistakes in the future, I will try my best to avoid such oversights.<p>] (]) 12:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Cunard, it seems to me that if all the editors who had taken part in a discussion have so thoroughly lost interest in it that no one will notice a comment on the talk page, then the discussion has become so stale that it is a waste of a closer's time to bother to close it. To go around looking for such discussions seems to me to be an unproductive thing to do. If you come upon something like that, and leave a note there as has been suggested here, and no one responds, you can either make an edit consistent with your own interpretation of the discussion, without bothering with a formal closure (and someone can always revert you and reopen discussion if they disagree), or you can just ignore it. | |||
| ::::::::It seems to me that if the discussants have not asked for a close, one can suggest one to them, and one of two things will happen: | |||
| ::::::::#They want a close, and posting it here is a good thing. | |||
| ::::::::#They either say "no" or do not respond at all, in which case posting it here without some very good reason is likely to be seen as disruptive. | |||
| ::::::::--] (]) 21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't think that just because editors have not commented on a discussion in some time means that they have lost interest. Sometimes, all of the information is on the table, and a close needs to be put in place. Other times, both sides have given their opinions in the discussion and in an honorable way have not taken the discussion too far where they must argue over petty details or fight for the last word. This is especially true in WP:NFCR where there are very very few closers. We always need a resolution in discussions as such. -- ]]. 21:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I understand that. But what I am saying is that they have lost interest if they never respond to a comment in the discussion, asking about whether it should be closed. If they remain interested even after there are no further comments after a long time, then those who remain interested will see and respond to someone saying "would you like a formal close?". --] (]) 21:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I know that, at WP:FFD, there are very few contested nominations, but I'm not very familiar with WP:NFCR. Where you say there are very few closers, does that mean that there are very few closers for discussions where consensus is unclear because different editors have expressed different opinions? And, more directly related to the discussion here, is there a problem at WP:NFCR that discussants do not know to ask here for closes when they need to, such that someone uninvolved in those discussions needs to post here, on their behalf? --] (]) 22:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] (mentioned above) is but one example of a discussion where the participants did not return the discussion. An assessment of the consensus enabled the consensus to be implemented by restoring the figure. An uninvolved editor making an edit on the basis of an RfC's consensus is the same as an RfC close but lacks the formality of explicitly recording the consensus in a close. And an edit lacks the reasoning a closing rationale would provide. Therefore, formal closes are far preferable.<p>I agree with ТимофейЛееСуда's comment that WP:NFCR is another such example. I continue to believe my close requests are benefiting the encyclopedia, and the RfC closers who commented here agree. We will have to agree to disagree. ] (]) 21:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::No, that will depend on what consensus emerges as other editors comment here. I'm not going to presume that I know what the consensus will end up being, but if, hypothetically, you end up saying that you disagree with whatever it is, then you could be looking at a ban from this noticeboard. --] (]) 21:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Your threats are unnecessary. As I noted above, I will no longer post expired RfCs at this noticeboard if the community believes it is disruptive. ] (]) 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::It's not a threat. My understanding of your lengthy reply today was that you said: "Although Keithbob means well with his proposal, I do not think it is a good idea." That statement is not congruent with "I will no longer post expired RfCs at this noticeboard if the community believes it is disruptive." --] (]) 22:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::The first quote is an expression of my opinion, which I am allowed to express. It does not contradict the second quote. ] (]) 22:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Alright then, do you agree to follow Keithbob's suggestion (even if it does not match with your own opinion)? --] (]) 22:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I don't see, why such a restriction should be put in place. ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::No, I will not follow Keithbob's suggestion per Armbrust: ]. If the community chooses to impose such a restriction on the noticeboard, then I will voluntarily no longer list expired RfCs at this board. ] (]) 22:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::I don't think NOTBURO has anything to do with it. It isn't a restriction, yet. It was a suggestion, intended to be helpful, and it seemed to have consensus. At this time, we are only talking about one user, Cunard, for whom the issue comes up. Cunard has now stated that he rejects the suggestion. The question, then, is what the consensus at this noticeboard really is about such listings. The discussion began because someone felt that there were getting to be too many, and it appears that some users agree with that, and others disagree. If, hypothetically, the consensus is that we want to treat "Please note that '''most discussions do not need formal closure'''. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form" as a serious expectation, then Cunard will have to decide whether "if the community believes it is disruptive" applies. And if he decides that it does not, then the community will have to decide whether we want to make it a restriction. --] (]) 23:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| :I don't see, how it can be disruptive. The "consensus is clear"-discussions can be very easily closed. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look, I don't close discussions here myself, so I don't have a dog in the fight of how many discussions are listed. I saw other users expressing concern, and, having been involved in drafting the language at the top of the page, I have been trying to help. Whether you, personally, see something or not, there are comments by other editors in this discussion, first expressing concern that Cunard has been listing discussions that did not need to be listed here, and subsequently, expressing support for the advice that Keithbob first proposed. There remain differences of opinion. Cunard has made it clear that he will comply with any formal restrictions, but will not voluntarily comply with the proposal from Keithbob so long as it remains an informal suggestion. At this point, it comes down to what editors active at this board want to do. The existing consensus is that "Please note that '''most discussions do not need formal closure'''. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form." That's it. --] (]) 20:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Look, I don't close discussions here myself'' – that indicates you have not had the level of experience that prolific, experienced closer Armbrust has had: '''' , , and I, who are all very involved with listing and closing discussions at ANRFC, do not believe that there are too many discussions. Other than yourself, the earlier participants who expressed concern with the number of discussions being listed have not returned. No one has been able to explain why listing the "consensus is clear" discussions is disruptive. This is because such discussions are closed very quickly and easily by editors who believe that their closures benefit the encyclopedia by recording the consensus.<p>The existing text states: <blockquote>"Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form."</blockquote> after the first sentence . Formal discussions such as AfDs, CfDs, and RfCs benefit from formal closure because the topics debated have been contentious or important enough to merit formal discussions. But any discussions can—and should—be listed here if an experienced editor believes a formal close would benefit the encyclopedia. ] (]) 00:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Although you may not be aware of it, I am a very experienced user, with extensive experience in actually taking part in disputed discussions, so I am quite capable of taking part in ''this'' discussion. And, for ''any'' editor, it's the quality of the argument that matters in arriving at consensus, not some supposed status based on experience. A new user can make a very insightful contribution, and an experienced user can be mistaken. I would hope that anyone who closes disputed discussions would understand that. --] (]) 14:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My statement was a comment about why you have been unable to provide any argument to refute experienced closer Armbrust's strong argument: There is no disruption in listing the "consensus is clear" discussions because '''' and editors who close these discussions believe they are improving the encyclopedia by recording the consensus.<p>As you acknowledge yourself, you do not close discussions here. Therefore, you have not had the "level of experience" (my wording from above) that Armbrust has had in closing discussions. This does not dispute that you are a "very experienced user, with extensive experience in actually taking part in disputed discussions". It is a misread and misrepresentation of my comments to interpret that as meaning I disagree with "it's the quality of the argument that matters in arriving at consensus, not some supposed status based on experience". ] (]) 00:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am not the issue here. I'm quite capable of understanding the concept that closing discussions where the consensus is clear is much more straightforward than closing those where the consensus is complicated to ascertain. There were editors who '''are''' experienced in closing discussions who started this discussion, about you, in the first place. '''They''' were expressing the opinion that your listings were creating a time burden for them. If they have now lost interest in this discussion, then so be it. --] (]) 15:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There is no time burden when in the words of Armbrust they '''' Armbrust closes the majority of this category of discussions on this board. He sees no disruption and believes his closures are improving the encyclopedia by recording the consensus, so I see no reason to disagree with that opinion. ] (]) 01:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Language in opening section: do all discussions need to be listed here?=== | |||
| I recently made this edit: . And it was reverted: . Those were the "B" and the "R" of ], and this now is the "D". And I'm raising this discussion at least somewhat separately from the discussion above, because it goes to the basic consensus about what this notice board is or is not for. | |||
| The established language at the top of this page, which is not under dispute, says: | |||
| :::"Please note that '''most discussions do not need formal closure'''. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form." | |||
| My suggestion, now reverted, added the following language to the first sentence: | |||
| :::"Please note that '''most discussions do not need formal closure'''{{fontcolor|green|, and consequently do not need to be listed here}}." | |||
| Let's look critically at the logic of this. On the one hand, it appears that everyone agrees that '''most''' discussions do not need a formal close. However, the revert means that there is an argument that, '''even''' discussions that do not need a formal closure '''do''' need, or at least '''might''' need, to be listed here. Even when a discussion '''does not need''' an uninvolved administrator or other editor to take the time to review the discussion, determine a consensus, and close it, nonetheless it can be helpful to list that discussion on this notice board. | |||
| '''Really???''' To me, that sounds absurd! Is there actually an argument that it is helpful to list discussions on this notice board that do not need someone to come and close them? I look forward to hearing an answer! --] (]) 14:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Some editors might believe a discussion does not "need formal closure" because for example "the consensus is clear" or "the discussion is stale". The added language was reverted because it " accepted practice]]" of allowing closure requests by good faith editors who believes a close would benefit the encyclopedia even if "the consensus is clear" or "the discussion is stale". ] (]) 00:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's an impressive demonstration of circular reasoning, but it still leads to an absurd conclusion. You describe a situation in which there has been a discussion, and the editors who took part in the discussion do not see a need to ask anyone to close it, perhaps because they all can see that the consensus is clear, perhaps because time has passed and no one really cares any more. The language at the top of this page already describes the "accepted practice" for such situations: "most discussions do not need formal closure". '''That''' is the accepted practice on the English Misplaced Pages. But you are adding a new twist: someone outside the discussion comes along and somehow or other decides that those editors who participated in the discussion were missing something, that this editor, through some sort of higher insight, sees the need to come to this notice board and ask an administrator or other editor to take the time and effort to go and issue a close nonetheless. Editors who are experienced closers began this discussion by complaining about you doing that. I'm not questioning that you do it in good faith, but there seems to be some question about good judgment. You are arguing that ''most discussions do not need formal closure, but anyone, for whatever reason, can decide that formal closure is required, even when editors who took part in the discussion see no need for it''. --] (]) 15:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::And furthermore: the language I proposed was written to apply to situations where formal closure is not needed. If there is really a situation where an editor observed that a formal closure '''is needed''', then the proposed language would not apply. Your revert implies, amazingly, that '''this notice board is for listing discussions that do not need to be formally closed'''. --] (]) 15:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The text "most discussions do not need formal closure" is a reminder that discussions should be carefully considered before being listed here. I follow this advice every time I make closure requests by excluding discussions that would not benefit from closure. The added language "and consequently do not need to be listed here" could be used to forbid closure requests where some editors believe a formal closure is not needed because "the consensus is clear" or "the discussion is stale", while another editor believes one is warranted. The accepted practice on this board since its inception has been to allow these requests from good faith editors. As I wrote above regarding the stale discussion ] (]): <blockquote>At first glance, the discussion appears to have a result of no consensus. But after a close review of the arguments, the closer found that there was a consensus to restore the image. Based on this closure, the image 91 days after the RfC was initiated.<p>Had this old discussion not been assessed by an uninvolved editor, the image would have been excluded from the article despite the consensus to include it.</blockquote> See ] for a "consensus is clear" discussion. It was removed by SlimVirgin just before she started this thread because she believed it "</nowiki> need formal closure]" even though a close would have benefited the encyclopedia.<p>There is a selection of other discussions at "]" where some editors might have believed a closure was not necessary. The added language is not accepted practice and would hinder good faith requests on this board. ] (]) 01:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here, you point to where you disagreed with SlimVirgin, and higher up, you pointed to how Armbrust is currently doing most of the actual closes here. Those things are factually accurate. I appreciate what Armbrust does, as we all do, and I want to make that very clear. I also, obviously, cannot claim to read anyone else's mind. But I wonder whether this board has evolved to where many potential closers of discussions, aside from Armbrust, have been driven away by the daunting quantity of listings, and by the resistance by everyone except me in this discussion to decreasing that quantity. I don't know, maybe, maybe not. In way, you are right that the language I proposed could be misused to work against good faith listings; conversely, I can argue that the existing language can be misused to defend good-faith but bad-judgment listings. Objectively, if the majority of discussions do not require a formal close, then the majority of discussions do not need to be listed here. You assume that you are right and SlimVirgin was incorrect, but I see two sides to that argument. That said, if no one else besides me cares, then I have better things to do than to continue arguing about this. --] (]) 14:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Regarding the "ProudIrishAspie" closure request, it came out, that a closure was indeed useful. He ] for violation the topic ban (the consensus of the discussion). Without a closure this couldn't been possible. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Assistance on closure == | |||
| Hi. I just closed the RFC on whether English should be considered the Jews' ''lingua franca'': ]. The discussion on the topic covered multiple sub-sections but I only formally closed the RFC section of the debate. Should I have archived/closed the entire discussion? Also, what, if anything, should I post on this project page to indicate closure? Finally, this was my first time to close a discussion, was my rationale OK.? Thanks. ] (]) 02:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi FiachraByrne.<p>When you close a discussion, please note the closure on the project page, by saying something like "closed" or "done".<p>Regarding archiving/closing the entire discussion: If you read the entire discussion including the other subsections to make your decision, I recommend placing your close at the top and enclosing the entire discussion with archive templates.<p>If you just read the RfC subsection (or if your close is primarily applicable to that subsection), then I recommend following {{user|Armbrust}}'s multiple archive templates method at ]. If you follow this second method, I recommend making section links like <nowiki>]</nowiki>. See ]. This ensures that when the discussion is archived, the section links will still work.<p>As I wrote in the section just above this one: "The eloquence and attention to detail in first close is impressive and is reminiscent of some of ANRFC's very experienced closers." Your closure captures the opposing viewpoints very well and is a reasonable interpretation of the consensus.<p>A suggestion I have would be to consider implementing your close in the article, so that other editors don't need to interpret your close.<p>Further information in case any of your closes are contested: The RfC at ] concluded that "The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator" (quote from ]). If your closure is contested or reverted (which has happened to other closers in the past), I recommend explaining your decision to the contesting editor first. If you cannot come to an agreement, then a ] can be requested at ] so there are more eyes on the situation.<p>Thank you again for your excellent work!<p>] (]) 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the very kind words {{u|Cunard}}. | |||
| ::I've modified the closure to include the entire discussion following your comments above. | |||
| ::I can't implement the closure as it was an endorsement of the current ''status quo''. The statement that English was the Jewish ''lingua franca'' had been reverted on the 20 October . | |||
| ::Thank you also for excellent advice and explanations. ] (]) 12:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::If status quo is the consensus of a discussion, than it's effectively implemented. There is no need to make any edits. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree, {{user|FiachraByrne}} and {{user|Armbrust}}. I apologize for the oversight.<p>FiachraByrne, thank you for your detailed close of ] and for by reverting to the status quo. ] (]) 12:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks again {{ul|Cunard}}. I'm not familiar enough with the protocols of this board to put my spake in above. I do enjoy closing though and I think that a lot of discussions, generally, would benefit from formal closures. ] (]) 01:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Too many discussions being added == | |||
| :''Previous discussions about this: ; ; '' | |||
| The situation with Cunard adding old discussions continues. It seems to have reduced the functionality of the board and may be discouraging closers, which is a pity because article RfCs are one of the aspects of dispute resolution that work well. | |||
| Until the archiving today there were on the page, 24 of them added by Cunard. Several were old discussions where consensus was clear or discussion had petered out. As the page says: "Please note that '''most discussions do not need formal closure'''." | |||
| I've tried in the past to archive old discussions, but {{U|Armbrust}} has reverted. I've considered posting on AN/I or taking admin action, but it's one of those time-consuming things that I'd prefer to avoid. I'm therefore asking here again whether Cunard will agree to stop adding discussions that he hasn't taken part in, and whether Armbrust will allow old or moot discussions to be archived – or post here about whether they should be unarchived, rather than reverting. | |||
| Alternatively, Cunard could ask RfC participants whether they want uninvolved closure, and only request closure here if one of them says yes. I believe this was suggested before but I don't know what came of it. {{U|Cunard|Cunard}} and {{U|Armbrust}}, what say you? | |||
| Pinging others who have taken part in previous discussions about this: {{U|StAnselm}}, {{U|I JethroBT}}, {{U|Tryptofish}}, {{U|Keithbob}}, {{U|ТимофейЛееСуда}}. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :My opinion about this is, that instead of complaining and archiving requests, which (you think) doesn't need closure, you should close some, which need. The "old discussions where consensus was clear or discussion had petered out" are easy to close, and don't constitute a problem. I mean from the 19 closure request Cunard posted today at 2:03 (UTC) 10 were closed in the next 11 hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I used to close discussions, but the board was becoming overwhelmed by the old discussions, and when I tried to archive I was reverted, so I gave up. It's unlikely that I'm the only person who feels that way. | |||
| ::If a discussion is prematurely archived and you really feel it does need closure, then of course it's okay to restore it, but the wholesale reversion of archiving means that Cunard is encouraged to keep adding old discussions, so the situation will just continue. Something has to give. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps a compromise could be that we open a subpage of this page for old discussions that Cunard feels need to be closed, and if Armbrust (or anyone else) wants to close them, that's fine. That would mean the main page could be kept for discussions that are more recent or pressing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::IMO your approach to this page is wrong. Just because a discussion is old, it doesn't mean it doesn't need/it wouldn't benefit from a closure. From the 26 section from 14 are from Cunard. In two cases a participant of the discussion endorsed it | |||
| ::::*{{u|Herostratus}} wrote on ANRFC on the request of ]: "If it helps motivate anyone, I just cleared the second-oldest entry on this list, so maybe someone will help us out on this one?" | |||
| ::::*{{u|Brianhe}} wrote on ANRFC on the request of ]: "I would also like this looked at and don't feel comfortable doing it myself since another editor thought I was not impartial. Don't think this should be just dropped like the first ANI was regarding same stuff from same person." | |||
| ::::Two of the issues, where closure is requested (] and ]), have gone through multiple venue. Closure is certainly needed, and resurfacing the issue is just a mater of time. And in the case of ], a closure was requests at involved editor. (Now archived at ].) Moving these requests to a separate page would defeat the purpose of making, and I'm not supporting it. Also it's unclear, what old discussion means. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:21, 19 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing Closure requests and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
 Archives | |||
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Heads up
There's a WP:PROPOSAL at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. It's only been open for six days so far, but I thought I'd drop by and say that we'll be needing someone to summarize the results of the discussion next month. There have already been about 350 comments posted with about 1.2 tomats of text, so I suppose this is also a friendly reminder that the most reliable way to avoid getting stuck with closing a huge discussion is to go !vote in it. ;-) Alternatively, some closers like to read along as discussions happen, so they don't have to read a book-length in one sitting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The bot pulled the RFC tag almost 24 hours ago, so I've officially listed it at Misplaced Pages:Closure requests#Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Adding the doing/working tag
I've noticed that closers have recently not been using the {{doing}} or {{working}} tag recently. It would be helpful if folks who are watching this page to close discussions could remember to do that so that we don't end up duplicating work. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Relists
If people here are generally of the view that a relist means that a closure request ought to be archived, then perhaps someone should add {{relisted to the list of archive prefixes. Personally, I don't really consider relisting as resolving a closure request, given that a relist isn't a closure and a relisted discussion can still be closed at any time. CC: Redrose64, who pinged me to say I should mark a relist for archiving. SilverLocust 💬 09:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- What I meant was that your post would leave the request on the page indefinitely. As shown at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Closure requests (if you uncollapse the "Technical instructions for closers" block), ClueBot III will only archive a thread if it detects one or more of certain templates in the thread. Specifically, they are:
{{resolved}},{{Resolved}},{{done}},{{Done}},{{DONE}},{{already done}},{{Already done}},{{not done}},{{Not done}},{{notdone}},{{close}},{{Close}},{{nd}},{{tick}}(case-sensitive). Your post used none of those, so it would have been ignored by ClueBot III. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)- I know. I wasn't trying to archive the request because the discussion was not closed. SilverLocust 💬 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd probably be minded to archive them: a relist reflects someone's judgment that the discussion isn't ready for closure (the same meaning as "not done"), and XfDs/RMs generally don't need to be here unless they're unusually stale. But it's definitely a trade-off. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Clarifying point 1?
Point 1 at the top of the page currently states:
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
However, for someone who is WP:INVOLVED (especially the author of the RfC), closing the discussion is highly discouraged even if the consensus is clear. Closure requests by involved editors have been nonetheless been denied on this basis (e.g. this request by the RfC's author). should point 1 by amended to clarify this?
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear, except if you are involved. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)