Wikipedia talk:Closure requests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tools to make summaries easier[edit]

It seems that providing a description of the participation level (e.g., "100 comments" or "50 editors") increases editors' perception that the closer has done a good job. There is a tool for doing this, but you'll have to opt in. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and turn on "Discussion Tools". Every ==Section== on a Talk: page (but not yet, sadly, the Village Pumps[*]) will get a "topic container" that says when the last comment was made in that section, how many comments have been made, and how many unique users/accounts have posted comments.

Some of you may already have this turned on, since it's part of the package that brought us the Reply tool.

[*] Until User:PPelberg (WMF) deploys it everywhere, you can trigger it as a one-off on a Village pump or any other non-talk page by going to the regular page URL (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous), not with a #Section_heading in the URL) and adding this magic code: ?dtenable=1 (and then reload the page). For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)?dtenable=1 WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About a closing of an RfC[edit]

Hello. I had an RfC but it seemingly went snowy. But I realized only a couple of editors were uninvolved from a previous RfC on the topic and all the involved ones except, I think, one, had voted in the same way in the previous RfC. I had requested to allow for a couple more editors with a different leaning to provide insights before closing but I was accused of soliciting. The RfC was closed by an involved editor. I appreciate your insights. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the "Place new discussions above" as headings?[edit]

The TOC is quite cluttered, especially for those working with the new skin. Is it possible to omit these headings? Or will the bot break if we do that? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: No, because ClueBot III archives from one level 3 heading (inclusive) to the next level 3 heading (exclusive), even if there is an intervening level 2 heading. It took us well over a year of broken archives to work that out; and since Cobi refuses to fix the bot, we're stuck with a redundant level 3 heading above every level 2 heading. The one at the very bottom of the page is in fact completely unnecessary, but it's there to balance up the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

anrfc-lister user script has been repaired[edit]

Hello all. I ran across Ajbura's anrfc-lister script. It's a great idea, but it wasn't working and Ajbura hasn't edited in a year, so I fixed it up. I think I got all the bugs out if you want to try it out: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/anrfc-lister.js. Don't forget to remove the Ajbura version if you have it installed, to avoid the script double loading. Please report any bugs or feature requests. Happy editing :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, 25stargeneral, A loose necktie, Andibrema, Biz, Btspurplegalaxy, BubbaJoe123456, Celestina007, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Firefangledfeathers, FlightTime Phone, FrederalBacon, GabberFlasted, Gitz6666, Gtoffoletto, Gusfriend, HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, HeartGlow30797, Indagate, Jdphenix, JJPMaster, Kung Fu Man, Levivich/Old USL, MaterialWorks, Mellohi!, MrOllie, Mzajac, Nableezy, NightWolf1223, Paragon Deku, Poketama, Polyamorph, Queen of Hearts, Rotideypoc41352, Slashlefty, SSSB, Tserton, Why? I Ask, Zfish118, and ZLEA:Novem Linguae (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich:Novem Linguae (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CarleasNovem Linguae (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae, I used it once and quickly discovered it didn't work, with it putting my RfC listing down the bottom below the misc listings, and discontinued usage. Thanks for the advise that it's been repaired. TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae, and thanks heaps for your hard work repairing it. Stuff like this is a real quality of life improvement. TarnishedPathtalk 11:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Thanks @Novem Linguae. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 13:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping I'll try it out! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 15:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't tested it yet, but I'm AGF that it works—I've seen NL do good technical work at least once or twice—and I'm grateful for the fix. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close peer review[edit]

If someone has the time, I would appreciate a peer review of this close. For background, see this discussion and this discussion on my talk page, as well as this discussion at the CESSPIT. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, will you get a clue and stop beating this dead horse? Find something useful to do and stop wasting people's time in your endless search for approbation for what you've been told over and over was a huge boner on your part. EEng 21:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve only skimread the ANI thread and so may be missing context, but this didn’t seem like a poor request to me? It just seems like a neutrally worded request for peer review. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 22:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like a poor request to me either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well on further consideration, if people want to spend their time trying to impart some clue to voorts, more power to them. EEng 23:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for feedback here because I'd like to an objective view from people who regularly determine consensus and are not involved in the discussion at issue. That's why, from the beginning, I've asked people to take this to AN for a close review, and I was disappointed when Levivich, and then you, unilaterally overturned my close outside of the established process that we have to discuss and potentially overturn bad closes. If the people here think my close was bad, I will take that into account in my future closes and learn from that. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if they don't then you'll write off the condemnation you've been receiving at ANI and your own talk page as ... what, exactly? EEng 23:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has the time, and wants to add their opinion to that of EEng, Elemimele, Levivich, Horse's Eye Back (who also commented in the ANI thread), Softlavender, and, of course, myself. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You, EEng, and Levivich were all involved, and the latter two didn't even try to talk with me before deciding they have the authority to unilaterally overturn closes. Elemimele thought I was imposing my personal views (I did not, because frankly I think this dispute is absurd and I do not care about the hatnote), the full extent of HEB's feedback was "I think this was a bad close" (paraphrasing), and Softlavender merely suggested this should have been an RfC instead. I don't see how a neutral peer review from experienced closers hurts you or anyone else. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I offered you a wealth of insight into closes, which you appear to be writing off wholesale on account of my being involved. The ANI thread also has a wealth of insight, if you're willing to parse it and consider the insight from all editors in every comment, and not only from those comments specifically related to your close. If someone comes across this request and decides to wade through all of it and offer you some distilled "closing advice", well, that'd be great. But if it doesn't happen (and even if it does) it would behoove you not to discard all this other feedback you've received. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full extent of the feedback that I have received (portions that actually address my close bolded:
Extended content
  1. Your feedback on my talk page, in which you told me that my interpretation of the guidelines was technically solid (thank you) and argued that I misinterpreted the consensus or lack thereof (which is the precise reason I am now asking for neutral feedback and the whole point of a close review, which has not occurred here because Levivich and EEng decided to take things into their own hands).
  2. Levivich's feedback on my talk page, in which he incorrectly stated that the discussion was re-opened by socks (when in fact you were the editor who re-opened discussion and requested the close) and suggested that every participant in the discussion was a sock. Only one of the editors involved in that discussion (who didn't make a very compelling argument in the first instance) has now been blocked as a sock, and Levivich knows very well that he could have brought the alleged socking to SPI.
  3. Elemimele at AN/I, whose feedback was, in full:

    This is probably something that went in the wrong direction from the outset. The advice to make a request for closure was probably unhelpful, and the closure was completely inappropriate (basically one user saying "it could have gone either way, so I will impose my personal opinion as Correct").[a] Yes, the next step could have been to request that the closure be overturned at AN, but dispute resolution might have been a better approach from the beginning.[b] Bringing Levivich's behaviour here was probably unwise as it now focusses attention on the behaviour of all others in that debate: with the best will in the world, it's hard to believe the debate includes as many participants as it does accounts + IP addresses, and it's difficult not to feel there's been some bludgeoning going on.

  4. Horse Eye's Back (HEB) and EEng at AN/I (IP comment, which was replying to Elemiele, added for context:

    That's not how I interpreted the close. Consensus can also be determined based on guidelines and precedent. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

         No it can not be, thats a supervote. The closer can do absolutely nothing novel such as offer their own interpretation of guidelines and precedent. If they want to do that they need to comment, not close.[c] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

              This was already discussed at the closer's talk page, where he explained that guidelines are explicitly a factor in determining WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, and that some arguments in the discussion were based on blatant misinterpretations of the guidelines. 149.86.189.197 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

                   Your comment appears to be bullshit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

                        It's not bullshit. See my comment below. I closed the discussion in good faith according to what I believed to be consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

                             CONSENSUS? Are you fucking kidding? EEng 01:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  5. EEng at ANI again: Well I've unrestored your close. At this point it would be best for you to recognize that at LOT of experienced editors find it was inappropriate, and step back. EEng 01:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC) and Thanks for telling me what ANI is for, editor-with-literally-one-fifteenth-the-experience-I-have![d] My criticism was completely constructive: I told you to stop closing discussions on issues you don't understand, and someone's just gone to your talk page to reinforce that point. But instead of taking that on board, you're fishing at Talk:Closure requests for a "peer review". You've already got your peer review right here in this thread: you screwed up. Now, everyone screws up sometimes, but not everyone keeps denying it despite clear evidence. EEng 21:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. Softlavender, whose only (incorrect) comment was that only RfCs can be closed: The thread is not an RFC and should never have been closed. And it should have never been listed at WP:CR. If someone wants to establish an official consensus, they are free to create an RFC about including the link. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  7. HEB on my talk page: For the record I too believe that your close was incorrect. I would refrain from closing discussions on wiki until other editors are confident that you can do so competently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

So, in sum, the advice I've received has either been from involved editors (which I am not discounting, but which has less weight than a neutral community review, e.g., where this should have gone in the first place: AN for a close review); insults from EEng; an incorrect observation from Softlavender, who didn't address the substance of the close; Elemimele, who assumed I was supervoting; and HEB, who believes that closers are bound to follow editors' interpretations of PAGs, even when those interpretations are entirely incorrect (in my opinion, which is, again, why I would like a neutral review).

Notes

  1. ^ As noted above, I was not substituting my own opinion because I didn't care about the issue when I was making the close.
  2. ^ I agree with this, but given EEng's behavior, I don't think it would have gone well.
  3. ^ As I noted in our discussion on my talk page, I don't believe that closers are bound by editors !votes when they're clearly misreading PAGs.
  4. ^ I'll note here that EEng has been blocked from participating at ANI in the past for his behavior problems.
Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be open to providing some uninvolved feedback in a couple weeks, but I'd recommend withdrawing until then. Asking for feedback now, while the heat is (hopefully) dying down, feels a little too much like an attempted re-litigation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I understand your concern and I'm not looking to re-litigate the close; I asked for feedback now because the close is still fresh in my mind and I didn't think about whether I should wait to request feedback. I'm frustrated about the outcome in general here and will take a step back from this for now. Do you want a reminder in a couple of weeks or will you remember? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A ping would help! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts, thank you for your patience. Some thoughts on your close, in no particular order:

  1. Those who said that non-RfCs shouldn't be formally closed are incorrect. I do think it's reasonable for editors participating in an informal discussion to feel blindsided by a formal closure. This can be ameliorated if the closure requester announces the request or the closer announces that closure is pending. In a section that had been open over a year, it's unlikely that participants expected a deadline for refuting the points of those they disagreed with.
  2. Your close says that the hatnote "clearly violates" a series of guidelines. There is no clear culture here about whether closers can exercise their judgment in this way. I think it's a requirement for the good functioning of the project, but I see SUPERVOTE concerns pop up whenever similar statements are part of a close. It's easier when there's evidence that multiple editors supported the idea that a policy/guideline was violated, but as far as I can tell, no other editor commented on the guideline concerns raised by IP 81.
    • This part of your close was weakened by footnote a, in which you bring up a part of the guideline that no on in the discussion had mentioned. If you find a relevant snippet of a PAG that hasn't yet been mentioned, you might be better off participating in the discussion than closing it.
  3. I don't think you had any responsibility to proactively investigate sockpuppetry, and there was (AFAIK) no evidence of such at the time of your close.
  4. I would probably have endorsed your closure if it were challenged right at the moment of closure, without any of the further revelations about sockpuppetry. I probably would have closed with no consensus, but I see your closure as being within closer's discretion. I can't predict how a challenge would have gone, as many people at AN are sensitive to any signals of supervoting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I'll definitely give a heads up to editors before I close informal discussions in the future; that was not something I had thought of. I also see how the phrasing might spark supervote concerns, so I'll be more attentive to that as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thinking this through is likely to help my own closure practices, so I'm glad you asked for review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Has the archiving bot stopped working? I’m noticing a number of requests still on this page that were marked as closed weeks ago. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pretty finicky lately: WP:REREQ was having the same problem until a couple days ago. I'll just archive it manually. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I post a closure request for this discussion?[edit]

Should I request a closure for this discussion? Because I think that a consensus has already been made after disregarding irrelevant arguments that show no understanding of the matter of issue and those based on personal opinion only.. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 17:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ, can you help me with this? Thanks. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 09:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that discussion won't allow votes based on opinions, I think mine needs to be struck even though I support the request. As it stands now, it's two in favor, two against, and one (VenusFeuerFalle) kind of against. If this isn't at RFC level, it's close.
@Super ninja2: you asked User:Daniel for clarity regarding the reversal of your indefinite block and were told If you are reported back to AN/ANI for disruptive editing (ie. something significant or persistent), if the complaint is upheld, it is likely the block will be reinstated. Yesterday Zsohl lodged a complaint at ANI about your closure of that discussion and Black Kite, an admin, promptly reopened it, which I think means the complaint against you was upheld. Please stop trying to close it in any way, shape, or form. City of Silver 18:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do then? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 23:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it open? Since your reversed closure, two more editors, The Corvette ZR1 and me, have voted. Neither side has a clear consensus, not even close, so this is more likely to go to an official RFC than get closed now. City of Silver 00:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the ping: I think starting an RfC (see WP:RFCST for instructions) to break the deadlock with outside participation would be the next step here. A closer can't do very much with a divided low-attendance informal discussion like this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]