Wikipedia talk:Closure requests/Archive 1

Cunard, I frankly find your comments here to be

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

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

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

I also have no issue with the number of discussions being added,

ЛееСуда 00:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

ЛееСуда 01:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Although Keithbob means well with his proposal, I do not think it is a good idea. The discussion Keithbob cites (

closure request), the closer wrote (my bolding):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ЛееСуда 21:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see, why such a restriction should be put in place.

Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I will not follow Keithbob's suggestion per Armbrust:

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

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

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

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

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

The existing text states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recently made this edit: [6]. And it was reverted: [7]. Those were the "B" and the "R" of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

closure request):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pinging others who have taken part in previous discussions about this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two of the issues, where closure is requested (

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Суда 19:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

talk 21:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Transclusion

Wikipedia can be a big place.

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

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

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

Especially seemingly crowding the TOC.

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't spend any time at WP:AN, but if there is issues with too much of ANRFC being listed on AN, then I would Support a translusion. --
  Суда 21:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• I like Salvidrim's idea of defaulting to a collapsed display. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Collapsing
  WP:AN is that it brings more attention to the close requests. This is because AN is more well known and thus more highly trafficked than ANRFC. Compare 1,457 views for WP:ANRFC in December 2013 versus 117,240 views for WP:AN in December 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are four recently closed RfCs:

1. An RfC at
   ANRFC closure request
   )
2. In a second RfC,
   ANRFC closure request
   )
3. At
   ANRFC closure request
   )

4. At
   ANRFC closure request
   )

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

withdraw my closure request. When I disagree that I am wrong, I elaborate on my closure request.

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

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

In fairness to WhatamIdoing, I do not think the post here is really what Wikipedia defines as

WP:HOUNDING. I think it was a good faith expression of concern. Myself, I had good faith concerns a couple of months ago in the earlier discussion. Subsequent observation has convinced me that my previous concerns were mostly unfounded, and for that, I apologize to Cunard. As long as Cunard will continue to make a good faith effort of his own to only list discussions where he has a reason to think that an uninvolved closer would be helpful, I think we may be able to wrap this discussion up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

For example, at

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

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

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

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