 | This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with{{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
Archives |
| Index1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30 31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40 41 |
This page has archives. Sections older than182 days may be auto-archived byClueBot III. |
Use theclosure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor toassess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so whenconsensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to ourpolicies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where the consensus is obvious.
In discussions where consensus is entirely clear to everyone involved, there is no need for a formal close: just go ahead and implement the decision! Discussions should only be posted here when an uninvolved closer is actually needed to resolve the matter.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well.Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formalrequest for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result. Don't worry if the discussion has beenarchived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the{{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. Ahelper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Anyuninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so ifthe area is contentious. You should be familiar with allpolicies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at thediscussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can closemost discussions.Admins may not overturn yournon-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussionsas an unregistered user, or where implementing the closurewould need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to.Articles for deletion andmove discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers |
|---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead, follow the advice atWikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.
(Initiated 22 days ago on 4 October 2025) Disucssion appears to have petered out, and there appears to be consensus for an interaction ban. As I amWP:INVOLVED, and it was a fairly low-participation !vote, requesting an uninvolved formal closure. -The BushrangerOne ping only21:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 21 days ago on 5 October 2025) A very busy discussion for the first day that's now become dormant for about a week. Some sort of administrative closure and resolution seems appropriate, especially since the page in question is indef-protected.Left guide (talk)19:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 151 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with.Sohom (talk)18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 122 days ago on 27 June 2025) This heated, and highly contentious, discussion has been going on for months. However, it appears that it is ready to be closed. For the purpose of the closer, I have divided the RfC into a "Discussion" and a "Compromise" section. It is riddled with a lot of accusations and editor battling. I am sorry for whoever has to go through this, but it is an important RfC and needs a closure. —EarthDude (wannatalk?)21:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 76 days ago on 12 August 2025) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus atWikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 205 § LLM/AI generated proposals? and its subsections? Thank you. — Newslinger talk11:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 47 days ago on 10 September 2025)Slowing down... also its close to thirty days. good luck to whoever closes, needs someone with experience to try their hand at thisUser:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)14:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 38 days ago on 18 September 2025) Coming up on 30 days and discussion has slowed, so listing now. This discussion obviously covers several CTOPs.voorts (talk/contributions)00:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 36 days ago on 20 September 2025) RFC tag was recently removed after a month of being listed, there are two questions though the second one is obviously "no change", the former will need some consensus interpretation. —Locke Cole •t •c •b21:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 33 days ago on 24 September 2025) RFC tag has been removed, ready to be closed. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 22 days ago on 4 October 2025) I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editor could close this RfC once thirty days have passed.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎01:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 48 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 19 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
(Initiated 105 days ago on 13 July 2025)* Pppery *it has begun...23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 84 days ago on 3 August 2025) RfD initiated 65+ days ago, needs closing.Steel1943 (talk)20:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 66 days ago on 21 August 2025) Close or final re-list? There has been no substantive activity since September 15. The second relisting on September 23 garnered no new responses. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 50 days ago on 7 September 2025)HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)12:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 11 days ago on 16 October 2025) while the consensus is obvious, it has too many items for me to be able to use xfdcloserOreocooke (talk)03:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 13 days ago on 14 October 2025) again, while consensus is clear, I can't use xfdcloser.
(Initiated 27 days ago on 29 September 2025) Started out as a discussion, was involuntarily forced into an RM, all discussion subsections should be considered together, this link is to themain discussion section. We're well past the usual week long discussion period an RM is afforded. —Locke Cole •t •c •b15:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 9 days ago on 17 October 2025) Under normal circumstances I would advise to let it run its full course, but it's starting to look quiteWP:SNOWy, particularly considering that many opposers made their objection quite early and have since rescinded it. Should note a few opposing points which "hold water" or so to speak have been raised which may be of concern to a potential SNOW close, particularly on the fact he hasn't fully legally rescinded his titles, but I believe they are "put to rest" or so to speak by support arguments on the matter. Could a more experienced closer take a look at this one?Coleisforeditor (talk)00:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 September 2025) This discussion was previously closed, then perthis move review, re-listed and re-opened for a further seven days from October 18 onward; we're now on day nine. Paging@GiantSnowman: as the closer of the MR.TheKip(contribs)04:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 61 days ago on 26 August 2025) - Whether or not{{section link}} should be used in a "See also" section. --Beland (talk)16:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 24 days ago on 2 October 2025) No one posted in 10 days. It would be nice if uninvolved editor could close as the topic was somewhat contested.78.2.24.44 (talk)22:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoneWhatamIdoing (talk)20:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply](Initiated 142 days ago on 6 June 2025)
Too much ado about nothing.tgeorgescu (talk)09:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 September 2025)
I think that this will benefit from a clear closing summary. The question is whether the editor has permission to exceed the ordinary acceptable rate of article creation (25 to 50 perWP:MASSCREATE).
Please be concrete, specific, and unmistakble about both the permitted rate and whether there are any additional requirements, so that there can't be any drama over differing interpretations later. For example, for the rate, if consensus for a higher limit is not found, then say something like "is not allowed to create more than 50 articles per day", and if it is found, then something like "is allowed to create more than 50 articles per day" or "up ton articles per week" or whatever the result it. And if there are additional requirements (e.g., to citex sources, or to write at leasty words), then please either say what they are or say that there are none. Thanks.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
