Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
2013
This RfC is now 28 days old and in need of an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- {{done}} KrakatoaKatie 04:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've requested a review of this closure here. Please don't archive this section quite yet, thanks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- This section can now be archived since the above discussion was closed. There is no discussion review ready to be closed and the above OP request does not relate to a request to close a discussion review. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- The closure of the discussion was undone by KrakatoaKatie, therefore this shouldn't be archived. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Armbrust is correct and this discussion is still in need of a closure by an uninvolved admin. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- The closure of the discussion was undone by KrakatoaKatie, therefore this shouldn't be archived. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- This section can now be archived since the above discussion was closed. There is no discussion review ready to be closed and the above OP request does not relate to a request to close a discussion review. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've requested a review of this closure here. Please don't archive this section quite yet, thanks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Done SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block appeal from L'Origine du monde (initiated 27 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW is probably a consideration here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done by Blackmane (talk · contribs). I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxma (2nd nomination) (initiated 19 September 2013)? The discussion within the past two days are getting more heated and the discussion has run for 11 days, so an earlier rather than later close would be beneficial. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I second this. The discussion has been open since September 19 (despite having never been relisted) and it has gone extremely off-topic despite users' attempts to shift the focus back. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Closed by Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Stale CfD that's 2 1/2 weeks old. All have voted "merge" or "delete", and with only a few articles, all of which are in a sister category to Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of the United States such as Category:Political positions of United States presidents or Category:Political positions of United States Senators, merge and delete would effectively be same outcome pbp 20:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin address the 8 July 2013 request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/04#Examiner.com review of Feudal game by Wilhelm meis (talk · contribs), who wrote:
Any admins care to weigh in here? Naturally, I am still hopeful this page will be whitelisted, but I've been awaiting a decision for more than two months and counting. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
After addressing the request, please notify the user on the user's talk page. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there any chance of a ruling or closure on the RfC and extended debate at talk:List of new religious movements? The narrow issue is whether the sources justify the inclusion of Landmark Worldwide in this list, and the wider issue is whether there is any merit in defining the term 'New religious movement' in some specialised sense, or whether the phrase should simply be interpreted to mean what the everyday meaning of the words suggests. Actually I should have thought that the consensus was clear, but one editorn in particular seems determined not to agree, and promptly reverts edit that address the majority view. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- A timely close would be helpful here, since the dispute is still being carried on in the article itself. I'd do it myself if I hadn't voted in the RfC. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done Please remember to frame your statements here neutrally, rather than putting forth your personal opinion of the outcome. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- A timely close would be helpful here, since the dispute is still being carried on in the article itself. I'd do it myself if I hadn't voted in the RfC. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Two up for closure at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper
It's time to finally close the long-running discussions at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper#Requested move (again) (which was removed from WP:RM for some reason) and Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper#Section break, start RFC. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia (initiated 29 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done, was an involved close but I think consensus was clear enough. Feel free to revert if you disagree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Plugz.jpg
- WP:NFCR#File:MasterCard Logo.svg
- WP:NFCR#File:Former Visa (company) logo.svg
- WP:NFCR#File:Pokémon episode Beauty and the Beach - screen capture .jpg
- WP:NFCR#File:WCPN logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:WCLV-FM, WCLV (AM) logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:WCSB logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:Power 108.png
- WP:NFCR#File:WENZ logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:107.9 The END logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:WERE logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:WGAR-FM logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:WHWN logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:WKNR logo.png
- WP:NFCR#File:WWGK logo.png
A Wikipedia:Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate? (initiated 20 August 2013)? There were about five previous merge discussions (dating from 2007–2012), where merges were implemented and reverted, so I advise a formal close of this broadly attended discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Unanimous agreement to move back to original name - look at the linked-to section at the bottom for even more unanimity, including from the original mover to this name. Needs an admin to perform the move over the redirect. --GRuban (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You can close this yourself, then post a speedy move notice at the RM page. I do find this consensus rather odd, not sure I see the value in having victims name in the title, but c'est la vie.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion was started 15 September and positions are well laid out. A related RSN, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com (also involving a personal blog used as a citation on Ludwig von Mises Institute) was closed today (rather on 23 September UTC) with a non-RS determination. The discussed issues matched those presented and argued here, as the Murphy blog. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to close this, but I think there may be objections as I closed the Gene Callahan blog RfC which is related, so I'll defer to another experienced editor to evaluate this RfC. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please reconsider. 1. The issues between the Callahan blog & the Murphy blog are the same. 2. Getting a different result (e.g., allowing the Murphy blog to remain) from someone else would be an inconsistent application of policy and create a BALANCE problem on the page. 3. Your closing of the Callahan blog RSN did not produce a WP:Closure review#Challenging a closing. So I would not expect a consistent closure decision, based on the same policy, to produce a challenge on the Murphy blog. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the entire matter is moot and the RSN thread is deadlocked by several editors talking past one another. It should be allowed to die of old age and a new thread can be opened if anyone still wishes to articulate concerns relevant to the current article text and citations. There would be no benefit to a close in this thread which is no longer applicable to current text. It would waste the time of any Admin who dove into the tangle for closing. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- 1. If the Murphy personal blog had been removed as a citation on the article page, then the issue would be moot. 2. At the same time, Specifico says a new thread should be opened -- why? To go through the same process?? This point demonstrates that the matter is not moot. 3. Specifico says editors are talking past each other -- a request was posted on the thread for Specifico to explain how the removal of the Callahan blog contents changed anything as to using Murphy's personal blog as RS. No answer as yet. – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Srich you have developed quite a tendency for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I stated the RSN "thread is no longer applicable to the current text." One line beneath this you ask me why I suggest a new thread should be opened. And then, next line, you don't seem to understand my concern that editors are talking past one another? What's up with that? At any rate this is not the place to badger or instruct the Admins on how to behave. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- 1. If the Murphy personal blog had been removed as a citation on the article page, then the issue would be moot. 2. At the same time, Specifico says a new thread should be opened -- why? To go through the same process?? This point demonstrates that the matter is not moot. 3. Specifico says editors are talking past each other -- a request was posted on the thread for Specifico to explain how the removal of the Callahan blog contents changed anything as to using Murphy's personal blog as RS. No answer as yet. – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the entire matter is moot and the RSN thread is deadlocked by several editors talking past one another. It should be allowed to die of old age and a new thread can be opened if anyone still wishes to articulate concerns relevant to the current article text and citations. There would be no benefit to a close in this thread which is no longer applicable to current text. It would waste the time of any Admin who dove into the tangle for closing. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please reconsider. 1. The issues between the Callahan blog & the Murphy blog are the same. 2. Getting a different result (e.g., allowing the Murphy blog to remain) from someone else would be an inconsistent application of policy and create a BALANCE problem on the page. 3. Your closing of the Callahan blog RSN did not produce a WP:Closure review#Challenging a closing. So I would not expect a consistent closure decision, based on the same policy, to produce a challenge on the Murphy blog. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The thread WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy is ready for closure. A question was posted, asking for justification for keeping the Murphy personal blog in the article. No answer was provided. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I still believe it is bad practice to close consecutive RfCs on the same article, on substantially similar issues, but because no one has really stepped up to close it over the past week, and because there were no major objections from the involved editors, I saw no harm in closing . I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor/administrator assess, summarize, and formally close this discussion on NPOVN? A formal closure is required since the consensus remains unclear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus (initiated 9 September 2013)? The discussion was a review of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 August#Thirty Seconds to Mars, which was a review of Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars#Requested move #2.
When closing the discussion, please add a comment to Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 August#Thirty Seconds to Mars linking to the ANI discussion and explaining your close of the ANI review. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Would appreciate another set of eyes on this, was an IAR close.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I posted this RFC, which was removed when it expired. There wasn't really a consensus but I attempted to edit the page based on the RFC discussion, avoiding my own preferred wording. This edit was reverted without discussion by another editor (who had participated in discussion earlier on the talk page but not in the RFC). I'd therefore like to request an uninvolved editor takes a look. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Not done Not confident that this requires a close, considering there is only one editor in obvious disagreement with the specific proposal (who did not even participate in the specific discussion). If the editor continues to revert, there are other venues at your disposal. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has dragged on for more than a week now, would be helpful for an uninvolved admin to close this based on the people who voiced their opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Do you have any objections, in principle, to a non-admin closing this discussion? The proposal does not require any administrative action. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- @User:I JethroBT, I cant because I am involved in the discussion. In addition an admin is also involved as well, so in order to be neutral I feel a non involved admin or an uninvolved editor should make the closure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I meant to say I was interested in closing it as a non-admin. Anyway, I'll take a glance at it now. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I meant to say I was interested in closing it as a non-admin. Anyway, I'll take a glance at it now. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- @User:I JethroBT, I cant because I am involved in the discussion. In addition an admin is also involved as well, so in order to be neutral I feel a non involved admin or an uninvolved editor should make the closure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been in progress for 6 weeks now with no resolution. The only discussion has been between the nominator and I and the back and forth discussion doesn't seem to be achieving anything. The discussion was not added to for four weeks until yesterday when the nominator revived it. Without input from uninvolved editors, and there's no evidence that anyone else is interested in providing input, it seems pointless to continue. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Chinese#RfC: Should the template group both Chinese Hán (for writing Chinese language) and Vietnamese nôm (for writing Vietnamese language) names and terms as one identity "Han-Nom", "Han (and) Nom"? (initiated 3 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done closed as no consensus. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The move is apparently non-controversial. If it is the proper time, could an admin close it and conduct the move (so I don't mess it up)? Instaurare (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not done You need to wait at least 7 days. I'd suggest posting notice of the move on a few notice boards to get a bit more participation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which noticeboards do you suggest? I'm not sure which are relevant. Instaurare (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- At the top of the talk page are two projects this article is considered to be interesting to. I'd start there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Favonian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just for the record, the discussion is now at Talk:Flight 93 (disambiguation)#Requested move. Favonian (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- At the top of the talk page are two projects this article is considered to be interesting to. I'd start there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which noticeboards do you suggest? I'm not sure which are relevant. Instaurare (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013#Request for comment (initiated 30 August 2013)? The question posed was: "Should Robert Sarvis, as a third-party candidate, be included in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
An RfC, open since 31 July 2013, that needs some uninvolved closing (or more participation of course). Fram (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There have been no comments at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC for over a week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why this hasn't been closed yet. Ten editors support at least a topic ban, no opposes. I'm involved so can't deal with it obviously. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission (initiated 24 August 2013)? The RfC states:
This RfC will be open for 30 days, or closed earlier if an overwhelming consensus either way is obvious.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator has requested to have the discussion withdrawn. BOZ (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Closed, but I can't protect, so it's at WP:RFPP now. Ansh666 09:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- and protection declined, so Done. Ansh666 17:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- and protection declined, so
This discussion has reached a unanimous conclusion; it's simply waiting an admin to close it out (it will have to be an admin, since it will require deletion). --BDD (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I am formally requesting that this RfC be closed on the basis of policy, not consensus, as it violates WP:RFC on a number of counts. These violations are summarized here. MilesMoney (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Closing on the basis of consensus is closing on the basis of policy, BTW. Not convinced by violation claims. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
| This is not the place to complain about the neutrality, or lack thereof, of the RFC - go to WP:AN for that. I also think a nice serving of trout all-around is merited here. I'd suggest gathering more sources and proposing a new RFC in a month's time if you strongly disagree with the result, but ensure the request is neutrally worded (and perhaps collaborate on the wording of same)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This discussion has been open for a week; discussion inre: the incident has gone stale, and decisions on a topic ban have also slowed down. There is another discussion below on discretionary sanctions, but its outcome is fairly clear in the negative. Could an admin please assess consensus? I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done by Drmies (talk · contribs). I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban (initiated 24 September 2013)? The subject wrote:
it would be great if a decision could be made soon. i'm already getting the mediation invite. and it's not like i'm going to be touching any other page other than mediation pages and obviously, it's mediation, so theres little room for incivility.Lucia Black (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Additionally, the subject of the interaction ban (User:ChrisGualtieri) has agreed. Ansh666 20:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Please note the section immediately above it as well.--v/r - TP 12:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- n.b. The section immediately above has been closed. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I meant the part that says "Further statement"--v/r - TP 22:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Please move or close Talk:Music of the SaGa series#Collapsed sections
I am not sure of the proper procedure for this, but can someone please move and/or close Talk:Music of the SaGa series#Collapsed sections to Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Collapsing music track lists? If not, please let me know what is the proper procedure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done - I just closed the section and pointed them to the discussion on the other page. I don't think you need to copy/paste stuff, just summarize the main points.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Calling for a vote on the format that we propose (initiated 18 August 2013)? The proposer said voting would close "0:00 September 5, 2013". I am listing this discussion here because it has been listed at Template:Centralized discussion for over three weeks. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've left a comment regarding my thoughts on the closure here if others would like to weigh in. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if an experienced editor could close this discussion. The RfC has seen no activity for a week, so I think it is ready to be closed, although 30 days has not yet elapsed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus on the request for comment on the subject of the name of the historical camp on Shark Island, Namibia? FOARP (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is rather bizarre RFC. There is a clear consensus that this is the COMMONNAME, but we don't *always* have to choose the commonname, so the RFC was not worded in a way to suggest that the page title should be moved, although admittedly this is likely implied. Anyone closing this and moving the article would be within their rights, but I find it rather bizarre that few of those who weighed in the first time weighed in the second, so you may get some grumbles. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- It can't be moved by a non-admin because "Shark Island Concentration Camp" is a re-direct (it used to be the title of the article but the article was moved to its current place as a technical move). I guess I could move it to "Shark Island (Concentration Camp)", but like you said, it will cause grumbles, and probably another move to another name. What do you suggest? FOARP (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- at this point, I'd suggest dropping a note on the talk page of all eds concerned with previous move, point them to the discussion, and update the header saying that you are now proposing a move, not just a determination of common name - I know it's a technicality but prob cleaner. Then post an rm template up top and let the discussion run for 7 days.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- A third move discussion? Well, I'll give it a try, but I'm hoping you'll back me up when the inevitable accusations of forum shopping or whatever come along. Of course, I'm going to have to come back here to get someone to close that discussion as well. . . FOARP (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you have to start a new discussion, just reframe the existing one, and inform all editors who have !voted that this is now clearly a move discussion - in case it causes them to rethink what they were !voting on, and let everyone know who !voted before as well. Consensus can change, and the cat's out of the bag, so I don't see any point in closing this down - I'd rather get 10 more eds !voting and then come to a clean close. Feel free to post notice of the discussion on as many notice boards as you like, that is not canvassing as long as it is broad and neutrally worded. You can use Template:pls for example. You can keep the RFC up of course, and extend it another 7 days (instructions on how to do so are at the RFC page). Then you can just repost in this thread in 7 days time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- There, done. I used the requested move template to update the discussion header and informed all the editors who voted previously. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done there was a clear consensus on this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- There, done. I used the requested move template to update the discussion header and informed all the editors who voted previously. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you have to start a new discussion, just reframe the existing one, and inform all editors who have !voted that this is now clearly a move discussion - in case it causes them to rethink what they were !voting on, and let everyone know who !voted before as well. Consensus can change, and the cat's out of the bag, so I don't see any point in closing this down - I'd rather get 10 more eds !voting and then come to a clean close. Feel free to post notice of the discussion on as many notice boards as you like, that is not canvassing as long as it is broad and neutrally worded. You can use Template:pls for example. You can keep the RFC up of course, and extend it another 7 days (instructions on how to do so are at the RFC page). Then you can just repost in this thread in 7 days time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- A third move discussion? Well, I'll give it a try, but I'm hoping you'll back me up when the inevitable accusations of forum shopping or whatever come along. Of course, I'm going to have to come back here to get someone to close that discussion as well. . . FOARP (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- at this point, I'd suggest dropping a note on the talk page of all eds concerned with previous move, point them to the discussion, and update the header saying that you are now proposing a move, not just a determination of common name - I know it's a technicality but prob cleaner. Then post an rm template up top and let the discussion run for 7 days.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It can't be moved by a non-admin because "Shark Island Concentration Camp" is a re-direct (it used to be the title of the article but the article was moved to its current place as a technical move). I guess I could move it to "Shark Island (Concentration Camp)", but like you said, it will cause grumbles, and probably another move to another name. What do you suggest? FOARP (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The current place of the discussion is Talk:Shark Island Concentration Camp#Request for comment: what is the common name of the historical camp at Shark Island? (change to Requested move). Armbrust The Homunculus 01:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This MfD has run for about a month or so, and consensus appears to be clear. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done by Shii. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP is now digging himself a troubling hole. The folks involved with education outreach have no record of class, course coordinator or assignment. Nonetheless, IP is now trying to out himself in an effort to "prove" his claims. All this over a seemingly promotional article with zero independent sources. In the interests of damage prevention, could an admin please step in? I know that means closing it early but I really do think that's the sensible thing here. Cheers, Stalwart111 13:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that troubling. Assume good faith, maybe they really are students, let it run it's course.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Advice from Obi-Wan to "search your feelings", right? Ha ha. Sure, it's possible he is a student but then his actions have the potential to make future relationships between WP and Coastal Carolina difficult. It doesn't really worry me either way but I don't think the result is going to change. Thanks for having a look though! Stalwart111 04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have just read it again, it will probably be a snow and it probably is who you think he is (I didn't catch the middle name coincidence), but at least by giving it 7 days we are giving it a full hearing. Remember that wiki rules are arcane for newcomers, even for those who are editing in a promotional fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, fair enough. Stalwart111 11:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Have just read it again, it will probably be a snow and it probably is who you think he is (I didn't catch the middle name coincidence), but at least by giving it 7 days we are giving it a full hearing. Remember that wiki rules are arcane for newcomers, even for those who are editing in a promotional fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Advice from Obi-Wan to "search your feelings", right? Ha ha. Sure, it's possible he is a student but then his actions have the potential to make future relationships between WP and Coastal Carolina difficult. It doesn't really worry me either way but I don't think the result is going to change. Thanks for having a look though! Stalwart111 04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that troubling. Assume good faith, maybe they really are students, let it run it's course.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Obi-Wan, I'm sorry to say it's gotten worse. He's spent the last little while trying to spam links to a previous (more promotional) copy of the article hosted on someone's blog. He also seems to be suggesting that the username and the IP are two different people, despite signing off with both using the same name. Stalwart111 21:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, yeah, I agree, this has gone on too long. Calling on closure for this please, better to nip this in the bud, several editors have searched for sourcing and found none, so it's a pretty clear snow at this point and the editor is question doesn't seem to be bothering to read about how wikipedia works.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
RFC began 4th September, discussion has stopped (nothing since late September), a close would be good. BencherliteTalk 07:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems like I am closing 99% of the discussions at TfD these days. It would be nice if someone else could close this one? Or, any of the other open discussions :) Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk)
- An additional note, if you do close one and don't want to spend effort removing/merging/etc., you just drop it in WP:TFD/H and it will be processed for you (e.g., by bot or another editor). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism#RfC: Is Jewish Bolshevism a conspiracy theory? (initiated 12 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Penis#Removal of inappropriate image from the article (initiated 11 September 2013)? The discussion is an RfC. The questions posed were:
Does the image restored in this post look like a penis and should it remain as the lede picture? Should this article be illustrated with pictures of penises, or should they be restricted to subpages?
Please take into account a December 2012 RfC on the topic at Talk:Penis/Archive 10#Include Photograph of a Human Penis, and remove or downgrade bottled penes foto., where the closer wrote:
Closing the RFC as no consensus - there is a slight leaning towards oppose, but not enough for consensus. Even if the oppose was the majority, it would result in no material changes to the page. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Participants asked users who supported removal to list alternative images to discuss. This was done here by JonRichfield (talk · contribs) on 4 October 2013. Discussion has seemed to stall, however, so a close could help participants frame a future discussion about alternative images. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Léon: The Professional#RFC (initiated 12 September 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
After several threads above and a requested page move that finished with the move to the current title which includes the colon we are now being told that this article should not use said colon. The article just looks sloppy with the article title using the colon and the rest of the article removing it and using a small t. In an attempt to gain a new consensus I have opened the thread.
Please consider the June 2012 discussion Talk:Léon: The Professional#Requested move in your close, where the closer found the consensus to be move from Léon (film) to Léon: The Professional, explaining: "The proposed title appears to be as common or more common than the alternatives, and is preferable to titles requiring parenthetical disambiguation per WP:PRECISION." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you Cunard. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- This RfC has run a full month, comments have tapered down, and the auto "30-days old" RFC bot task has delisted the banner. Would an uninvolved admin please evaluate the consensus so that we may move forward. Hasteur (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Are 4 reverts over 5 months evidence of edit-warring and if so, should editors be topic-banned? (see also Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#RfC - Edit-warring; initiated 2 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Since this concerns issues of sanctions as a consequence edit warring, I think this really ought to be closed by an admin. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs? (initiated 21 September 2013)?
WP:SNOW may be applicable. There has been no discussion for over a week. See also the 2 October post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Time to assess consensus?, where no one opposed an early close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us (initiated 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC))?
Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions states: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." If a consensus has been reached either way (or if a consensus is unlikely if the discussion is kept open longer), please close the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes#RfC: Input requested on whether a certain sentence could be classified as an opinion (initiated 1 September 2013)? Participant Guy1890 (talk · contribs) wrote:
Do we need to ask that this above discussion be closed somehow? Guy1890 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe that a close would be helpful in resolving the dispute. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons#RFC - What is the scope of this article? (initiated 22 July 2013)?
The opening poster wrote: "What is the scope of this article. Is it about the building, the lodge, or both? This relates to a dispute over appropriate categorization." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Days of the year in India#RFC: Mass-merge into Category:Days of the year + its articles (initiated 13 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RfC: Scope of this article (initiated 26 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you ask to close that many discussion, than you should make some effort to close the ones, where you're uninvolved. IMO that's true for most of them. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Myself and a few others have closed a great many, bringing 220+ open discussions down below 100. I've updated the above list of those still necessary needing closure for some time. Thanks for any assistance that could be provided. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I posted this RfC on 19 September 2013 and think it would benefit from administrative closure any time after 26 September 2013. It touches on WP:FRINGE and on the governance of WikiProjects. Comments seem to be petering out, with less broad participation than I had hoped. Still, given the strong feelings one can see displayed on the talk page, both in the initial discussions and, to a lesser degree, in the RfC comments below the initial discussions, I think an uninvolved admin's closing comments would go a long way toward focusing discussions after closure. David in DC (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. RFCs typically run for 30 days, and one with such broad impact should be left at least that long. My read is a clear no on option 1, and broad support for option 2, however with caveats. I'd focus the remaining discussion on resolving those caveats to the extent possible, pinging editors who've already participated to come back towards any compromise tweaks you come up with. This discussion may not need formal closure, rather broad agreement amongst the participants on the way forward and then the work of enacting the changes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by David in DC (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:MOS-TW#Removal of possible WP:POV statement (initiated 5 September 2013; see Template talk:MOS-TW#Survey should the following be removed?)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Emerson Middle School (New Jersey)#Merge discussion on Emerson Middle School and Union Hill Middle School (initiated 25 June 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory (initiated 2 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Bencherlite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Tran#Vidstatsx sourced content (initiated 9 August 2013)?
- 02:07, 9 August 2013 – 117Avenue (talk · contribs) removed vidstatsx.com reference from the article.
03:06, 9 August 2013 – Chris troutman (talk · contribs) reverted the removal.
03:26, 12 August 2013 – 117Avenue (talk · contribs) removed vidstatsx.com reference from the article a second time per WP:BLPREMOVE.
Issues I would like a close to address:
- The vidstatsx.com reference had been in the article before the current dispute. See for example reference #9 of this 19 June 2013 version of the article. If there is no consensus in the RfC, should it be restored because the stable version included it? Does WP:BLPREMOVE apply in which case a "no consensus" result defaults to excluding the vidstatsx.com reference? If the consensus is determined to include or exclude the source, then the above questions are moot points and do not need to be addressed in the close.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done by Legobot. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not done, Legobot maybe can remove the expired RFC template, but it can't determine the consensus of a discussion (if it exists at all). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- It was closed on 22 September as "no clear consensus" by Chris Troutman [1] (he didn't sign, which is why I confused it with Legobot). Are you disagreeing with the closure, or is that adequate? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chris Troutman initiated that discussion, and I don't think he should close this contentious issue as no consensus. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the issue was about the use of a self-published source in a BLP to add something about YouTube stats. Using a self-published source in a BLP is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. Therefore someone removed the source about six weeks ago. Chris started a discussion and there was no consensus to restore the source (three for, two against). Chris then closed the RfC against his own position. I haven't looked at this in any detail, so if my understanding of it is wrong, I apologize, but if it's correct what remains to be decided? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Armbrust: I apologize if I've violated common practices about RfCs. Legobot closed the discussion after 30 days although editor responses dropped off much earlier. I then marked it closed with no consensus since I felt that extending the RfC would not likely result in achieving clear consensus and I couldn't fairly assess in my own favor. I still desire to have a real resolution to the problem (can we or can we not use Vidstatsx statistics) but not enough editors seem to want to help provide an answer. As I mentioned on Talk:Natalie Tran, this question had been initially raised at WP:RSN in July 2012 to no avail. Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chris Troutman initiated that discussion, and I don't think he should close this contentious issue as no consensus. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- It was closed on 22 September as "no clear consensus" by Chris Troutman [1] (he didn't sign, which is why I confused it with Legobot). Are you disagreeing with the closure, or is that adequate? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not done, Legobot maybe can remove the expired RFC template, but it can't determine the consensus of a discussion (if it exists at all). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Crossposting my reply to SlimVirgin from User talk:Cunard in a collapsed box:
Crossposted reply
|
|---|
|
Hi SlimVirgin. Thank you for your frequent thoughtful closes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I list discussions at ANRFC because I believe a close would improve the encyclopedia by for example deciding an important content or policy issue or by ending or preventing edit wars. The RfC initiator found an issue important enough to open an RfC, but may be unaware that they can ask for a close at ANRFC or may have forgotten to list the discussion there. 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: 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. The Natalie Tran request—Chris troutman wrote at ANRFC (my bolding):
I listed the discussion for closure because of the BLP considerations. VidStatsX is used in several BLPs and article drafts. A close saying that the source should not be used in BLPs per BLPSPS would inform the discussion's participants to avoid using the source in BLPs. The source was also discussed in July 2012 at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Vidstatsx, which the RfC initiator wrote "received little input". That RSN thread was caused by the lengthy discussion about the source at Talk:Dave Days#Top 50 subscribed. Discussion about the appropriateness of using VidStatsX will likely come up again in the future, so a close explaining why using it violates WP:BLPSPS would be helpful in guiding the direction of those discussions. I've reviewed the Natalie Tran RfC myself so I could experience the process that closers such as yourself go through. Here is my draft closing statement: I will not close the discussion, however, because it would require reverting Chris troutman (talk · contribs)'s close, a controversial action which I will not unilaterally do. I will instead add it as a post-close comment, so that an administrator or more experienced closer can take it into consideration when s/he recloses the RfC. It is time-consuming to read the discussion and write a precise closing statement, so I am very grateful to closers such as yourself who take the time to do so on a regular basis. I agree that discussions should not be indiscriminately listed at ANRFC. I carefully consider each close request I list at the board. Thank you for raising your concerns with me, and feel free to let me know if you have any concerns in the future about my close requests. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Pikachu seizure-2.jpg - Closed -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#Aimee Semple McPherson - closed -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Giovan M Salati.jpg - closed -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Mayfair 11 12.JPG - closed previously
- WP:NFCR#45th Launch Support Squadron#List of LCSS Launches - closed -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Eugeniusz Horbaczewski.jpg - closed previously
- WP:NFCR#Non-free images in Charles Lindbergh - closed previously
- WP:NFCR#Elia Kazan - closed previously
A Wikipedia:Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- A few more have been closed, but we really need an uninvolved administrator to look at and close some of these. (21 remain on this list, plus others on WP:NFCR. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:The original Sunderland Stn.jpg
- Closed by ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Leela Krishnudu cover.jpg
- Closed by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Ruppelt Ramey Samford 1952-07-29.jpg
- Closed by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Paddy Island 1868.jpg
- Closed by ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Alerta.jpg
- Closed by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, dare I ask. The discussion started of fairly normally, but issue upon issue upon issue has been added in and on. Many of the remarks simply deal with the conduct of individual editors. Others are getting into the merits of Austrian economics as a topic, not as an article improvement problem. The whole thing is going nowhere fast. I have tagged it as {{stuck}}. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The thread in question is not "stuck", an active subsection of it concerns the possibility of establishing a sanctions regime and the requester here is involved in the articles that might be thus subjected. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll remove the stuck tag, but the discussion simply generates heat at present. – S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to strike my "stuck" comments on the ANI. Sitush, please "close" this thread with a resolved template. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- This thread is lively and ongoing, and has clearly not reached a stable view such that it's ready for closure. @Srich32977:, please withdraw this premature request for closure. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with what Specifico said as of the time he said it, but the discussion has since evolved to a consensus for applying general sanctions, so it probably is a good time for an uninvolved admin to look at it for possible closure. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive816#Ludwig von Mises Institute. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- It has been un-archived. The archiving seems to have been a mistake since there was active discussion in the section. --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- It has been un-archived. The archiving seems to have been a mistake since there was active discussion in the section. --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
IMHO the section headed Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important? should be closed; discussion had stopped about 2 weeks ago except for User:Gothicfilm's recent contribution. The other sections on the same or related topics are still ongoing. Chris Smowton (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion was archived to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 145#Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important?.
After an experienced editor assesses the consensus in the discussion, please either (i) move the discussion with your closing statement back to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or (ii) close the discussion in the archive and announce the result on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Because the "should we yield?" thread opened with a loaded question rather than a proposal to change the MOS in any specific/concrete way, and because several discussions covering the same part of the MOS (but, in contrast to the "yield" thread, making concrete proposals for change) were started while the "yield" thread was ongoing or shortly after it closed (and because later discussions eclipse earlier ones), I humbly suggest that the "yield" thread has already been 'closed' (meaning, shut so that further contributions are not accepted) by the archive bot, and that any further 'closure' (meaning inference of a 'consensus' for a concrete change to the MOS from the discussion) is probably not possible. In particular, WT:MOS#Gender self-identification covers substantially the same ground as the "yield" thread. To a much lesser extent, Archive 146#Gender and direct quotations opens by questioning a different sentence but the same general section/sentiment of MOS:IDENTITY, Archive 146#Inconsistent pronouns questions whether or not to keep pronouns consistent within an article, which is semi-relevant to the "yield" OP's question of whether or not to say "'she' fathered a child", WT:MOS#RfC on pronouns throughout life rehashes the "inconsistent pronouns" discussion, and WT:MOS#Gender, direct quotations and sic rehashes the "direct quotations" discussion. -sche (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I totally agree, and I have copied the above comment to the archive page. – Smyth\talk 13:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Article has been open for more than one week without relisting nor closure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Stbold.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes infobox screenshots -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:RAK Records label.JPG -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#Promo magazine ads for TV episodes -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:NewCBBlogo.png -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:South Dublin County Council Crest.png -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Closed 4 more, but need further assistance closing the remaining. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- + 2 more. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You can close it either right now or on 26 October 2013. Your choice. George Ho (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion was started on 27 July 2013 (UTC); requesting closure by an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Foster Wallace#RfC: Is a quotation necessary to get the subject's point across? (initiated 18 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The White Queen (TV series)#Request for comment (initiated 21 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Foreign accent syndrome#RfC: What should be done with the list of Foreign Accent Syndrome cases? (initiated 17 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Four Award#RfC: Does this award need a director? (initiated 20 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mars and Venus (Botticelli)#Request for discussion about an infobox in this article (initiated 15 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Easy delete outcome just waiting for a closer. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done by WJBscribe. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#(entertainer) (initiated 31 August 2013)? The RfC was originally listed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#(entertainer) before being moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#(entertainer). The questions posed were:
1) should we continue to encourage/allow the use of "(entertainer)" as a disambiguator in entertainment-related articles, and 2) if so, under what circumstances.
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC:"Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism" (initiated 8 October 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The opening poster wrote:
This stems from a discussion at WP:NPOVN#Branding individuals as bigots via Templates - relevant discussions are also at WP:NPOVN#Politically Incorrect (blog) and Template talk:Islamophobia. The templates being discussed are Template:Islamophobia, Template:Racism topics and Template:Antisemitism. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 110#RfC:"Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism". Armbrust The Homunculus 08:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
RfC has extended past the 30 day window (as evidenced by Legobot coming by to remove expired RfC tag) and there has been no substantial change/discussion in multiple days. Therefore,I specifically petition that an uninvolved admin close this post haste so that we can close the door on this 3 ring circus of drama. Hasteur (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Any admins willing to take up the case? I ask because I'm being burecratically forced to get this RfC closed prior to having a DRV on the Wikipedia:Using Archive.is successfully overturn the moronic KEEP from the MFD... Hasteur (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed that took a lot longer than I'd expected and I need to run off.
Could someone please archive the WP:CENT listing?Hobit (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liberty University#RfC: Should this article include discussion of either or both the bond denied bond issue and the Unification Church's financial support? (initiated 22 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Sjones23 (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 19:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Natalie Tran#Vidstatsx sourced content (second close request)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Tran#Vidstatsx sourced content (initiated 9 August 2013)? See my previous close request here. Armbrust (talk · contribs) and I believe the discussion's consensus still need to be assessed.
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) archived the close request on 21 October 2013 without the discussion's having been closed by an uninvolved admin.
Chris troutman (talk · contribs) who closed the discussion wrote, "Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc." Because Chris troutman was involved in the discussion and because he gave leave to have an admin reclose the discussion, the consensus at the request for comment that admins cannot summarily overrule non-admin closures is not applicable.
My post-close comment cannot be considered a close because I explicitly stated that it would involve reverting the previous close, a controversial action that I would not take (further explanation here).
My proposed close conflicts with Chris troutman's close, so I would be grateful if an uninvolved admin would assess the consensus in the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 21:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marie Curie#Request for comment on Polish, French in first sentence (initiated 28 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Petronilla of Aragon#Request for comment on main image (initiated 9 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done, and closed by Keithbob, who participated in the discussion. If there are objections to the close (it appears there have not been any), please relist the discussion here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Departed#RfC: Discussion of Lead Section comment on film sources neglectfully or inadequately discussed in main article (initiated 17 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Raging Bull#RfC: Discussion of Inclusion of a new Theme section for Raging Bull (initiated 18 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Proposal to Reduce the API limits to 1 edit/30 sec. for logged out users (initiated 2 October 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Election-related RFC, needs to be closed ASAP so elections can start on time. --Rschen7754 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm willing to close it, but in 12 hours my time. I've closed it the last 2 years and I havent made a comment. If no one gets to it before me, that is.--v/r - TP 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done and created the Election Commission page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Would be grateful for someone with a measure of common sense to close this interminable discussion about the use of imperial units on wikipedia, which stems from the thorny question of whether in a few limited circumstances you should put miles before kilometres. I would also suggest a large dose of WP:TROUT all round, a suggestion that reprising this discussion on a monthly basis stops and perhaps a WP:RFCU as suggested at Talk:United Kingdom#Units dispute. 
I really can't believe what people argue over . Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. This discussion has continued since the above post, and an RfC on the subject has opened the just 3 days ago, so a close would be premature here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Proposal to change episode naming conventions (initiated 21 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/Sports (initiated 3 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done, but the merge could not be fully completed because no destination name was proposed for the content. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Today's featured portal (initiated 30 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Requesting closure of 30 day RFC about the name of one of the YouTube channel's creators. Ross Hill (talk) 03:11, 30 Oct 2013 (UTC) 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb (second close request)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb (initiated 15 August 2013)? See my previous close request here.
The close by NE Ent (talk · contribs) was contested at User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2013/September#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb by the RfC initiator, Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs); the subject, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs); and uninvolved editor Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs).
Extended content
|
|---|
There was no subsequent response from NE Ent (talk · contribs), and the discussion was archived. Recent RfCs have been closed and summarized by uninvolved administrators:
|
Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that I had in fact contributed a sentence to this RfC so I shouldn't be closing it. Still, anyone is welcome to take what I consider to be a consensus: Joe's behavior and word choice is deemed deeply problematic, even offensive, by a considerable number of editors. His takeaway from this RfC should be that he should adjust his attitude if he wishes to work within a collaborative community and not get his ass blocked all the time. However, it is noted by a considerable number of respected editors (including yours truly, of course) that this particular RfC is a bit tainted from the get-go since it seems that the editors who started it have a history with Joe that suggests an important and less than productive interest in seeking out conflict with Joe. Another takeway from this RfC should be, therefore, that those editors should, you know, just stay away. You're welcome; remember I signed my rights away when I clicked "save". Drmies (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed -- Trevj (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#To Tell the Truth -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#File:Miami Dolphins 2013 Logo.svg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NFCR#One Deep Breath -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Closed 3 more. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Proposal to revamp the genre field (initiated 28 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Which led to Topic ban for MilesMoney's tendentious editing, which an admin agreed to but reopened discussion upon request. Here Admin requests other request closure and he or others can close the thread. User:Carolmooredc 14:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Since MilesMoney has changed his mind about participating, this is no longer relevant. User:Carolmooredc 01:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- This request is premature and recent discussion, including a new and constructive proposal has just been made by @Srich32977: for resolution of this difficult thread. In my opinion, this request is premature. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Specifico is distorting a comment I made (by saying my statement was "consistent" with his positions). I did not make a new proposal. I suggested that a request be posted here, as Carolmooredc has done, and nothing more. I support Carolmooredc's request here. – S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- And as the admin said in the link above:
- "*Admin note I've completely withdrawn the close and topic ban. I continue to consider myself uninvolved, however. I agree that a new admin closing it would be preferred, but I'm not opposed to determining what the current consensus is if someone requests the thread to be closed.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)"
- Just to save anyone from having to follow the link and try to compare to comments here. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 16:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: MilesMoney (talk · contribs) recently posted a comment in the thread (I believe shortly after this ANRFC was posted). – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- The comment I posted said that, to the best of my understanding, the sub-report calling for my ban is illegitimate and should be shut down. If I were to participate, this would only make it seem legitimate, so I am withholding participation until an admin tells me that the sub-report, however much it violates the rules, will not be shut down. MilesMoney (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- At any rate, the discussion is on going and User:MilesMoney has now posted a substantial response to various concerns of the other editors on this thread. Closure would be premature. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just gonna point out that I have chosen not to make any article-space edits while this is being discussed, so there is absolutely nothing to be gained from rushing to close it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- At any rate, the discussion is on going and User:MilesMoney has now posted a substantial response to various concerns of the other editors on this thread. Closure would be premature. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- The comment I posted said that, to the best of my understanding, the sub-report calling for my ban is illegitimate and should be shut down. If I were to participate, this would only make it seem legitimate, so I am withholding participation until an admin tells me that the sub-report, however much it violates the rules, will not be shut down. MilesMoney (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: MilesMoney (talk · contribs) recently posted a comment in the thread (I believe shortly after this ANRFC was posted). – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- And as the admin said in the link above:
- Specifico is distorting a comment I made (by saying my statement was "consistent" with his positions). I did not make a new proposal. I suggested that a request be posted here, as Carolmooredc has done, and nothing more. I support Carolmooredc's request here. – S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed, by BD2412. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft#RFC: Restoration of article "Windows 9" (initiated 30 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:North American Water and Power Alliance#RfC: Is the use of the term "Peaceful nuclear explosions" a euphemism? (initiated 19 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement#Man vs human (initiated 6 August 2013; see the subsection Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement#Request for comment). The opening poster of the RfC subsection wrote:
Which word(s) should be used in the following sentences from the article's lead:
- The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT[A]) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of _____________.
- Others maintain that, whatever the merits of the idea, the human reproductive drive will prevent _____________ from ever voluntarily seeking extinction.
Previously suggested terms include: humankind, mankind, humanity, and the human race. Feel free to offer any others you prefer.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:20 Fenchurch Street#RFC: Fryscraper (initiated 7 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure that there is a need for someone to close this discussion. It looks like it has ended by itself with an endorsement of the close and the closer clarifying their close statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done Added a formal statement to it. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#Block review of Lfdder (initiated 1 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Already done 28bytes 'closed' the discussion when he unblocked Lfdder. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Added a formal closure to it. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Zimmerman#RfC: Should photographs be included in this article? (initiated 3 October 2013)? Please consider the related discussion at Talk:George Zimmerman#Please see WP:MUG in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should the "influences" & "influenced" parameters be removed? (initiated 11 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- closed-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 110#Deprecate PROD, close unchallenged AfDs as delete without prejudice (initiated 16 October 2013)? There have been no comments since 27 October 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Doing... although it might take some time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Callanecc (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Proposed topic ban for Gwillhickers on Thomas Jefferson and also slavery (initiated 28 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor (or an admin if deletion is required) assess the consensus at:
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination) (initiated 24 October 2013)
- Closed Yunshui 雲水 12:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28 (initiated 24 October 2013)
- Closed by Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Bradley Manning/Related (initiated 23 October 2013)
- Closed by Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 17:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dave Farrell (initiated 22 October 2013)
- Closed by Yunshui (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Njaker/WIP Elitloppet (initiated 21 October 2013)
- Closed by Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cardamon/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting (initiated 19 October 2013)
- Closed by Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kimbola/sandbox (initiated 16 October 2013)
- Closed by Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
One week of discussion (plus earlier discussion at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Blog & law student commentary). Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Premature. The conversation is ongoing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- – The particular item in the article has been removed. The RSN thread is marked resolved as well. – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
_logo.svg){kind=link}
_logo.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sexism#Sexism in criminal justice (initiated 26 August 2013; relisted as an RfC 4 October 2013)? The dispute is about the "Criminal sentencing" section of the article, which was deleted and restored. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- closed-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Has been open since October 29 without a relist. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 08:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 13:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sidebar update (initiated 3 October 2013)? The discussion is inactive; there have been two edits since 14 October 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- closed-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Longest Journey#Request for comment (initiated 3 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
As evidenced from the prior section of this page, some editors feel that TLJwiki meets the criteria to be included in the "External links" section of this article, while others are uncertain that it does. We attempted to get a ruling on this matter at WP:ELN but it did not receive comment. We felt that an RFC was the next best step. Thank you for your assistance!
Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done Closed by experienced editor. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
RFC close needed please. The RfC bot has removed the template after 30 days. Not fantastically well attended, but all !votes in the same direction. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Ready for closure, please. An Admin has proposed a thoughtful solution which addresses the outstanding concerns and has been endorsed by a consensus of those who commented. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Editor agrees subject is notable, nominated today and 4 keeps, no delete !votes. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCR#Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdereclosed -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)WP:NFCR#Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterflyclosed -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)WP:NFCR#File:Brahmanaidu Statue destruction 2011 Million March Telangana.jpgclosed -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)WP:NFCR#File:Colbert Dinner.JPG Done Drmies (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)WP:NFCR#File:Alagoas.jpg Done Drmies (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)WP:NFCR#Images at Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)closed -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
A Wikipedia:Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin (initiated 20 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 12:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#Were the killings of Jews by Einsatzgruppen "executions" or "murders"? (initiated 30 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Race and intelligence#RfC: What sources should we use to establish notability and relative balance of different viewpoints? (initiated 20 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Loomspicker again (initiated 17 October 2013)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There has been a distinct lack of response to the RFC, nothing has been posted for a week. I take this to mean there is no real appetite to change WP:MOSNUM. Request an uninvolved admin to close the RFC and if possible to close the thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Imperial measurements, which has been a protracted and unproductive discussion since August. One for WP:LAME I fear. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- I endorse this request. It is best to put the chaos at MOSNUM behind us. RGloucester — ☎ 21:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- I also endorse it. Kahastok talk 22:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by RGloucester (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
A name change to add TV Series to the articles is being requested. Could someone overlook this discussion from a non-biased outside perspective thanks.—CKY2250 ταικ 14:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not done - this is an ongoing discussion. If you really want to move the page, you need to start a formal move request (see WP:RM) and let it run for 7 days; you certainly don't have consensus for a move in that discussion you pointed to now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- It was not intended to be a formal article move. I would like a closure to the dispute on the section. The dialog between me and the other wikipedians are getting out of hand.—CKY2250 ταικ 15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Again, there isn't anything specific to close. If you have nothing more to add, I'd suggest to stop replying. I've looked in the archives, it seems there have been several discussions over the question of primary topic and page titles here, so any change would have to done via a formal RM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I guess I will never use this noticeboard again. Thanks for your help, a direct admin assistance was requested instead and resolved. You can archive the request. —CKY2250 ταικ 19:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome to do what you like, but this board is specifically for asking for discussions to be closed, not for asking for neutral eyes to join a discussion. For that, consider notifying project boards, or wikipedia dispute resolution. This board is really for when someone has started a formal RFC, move, or other XfD discussion, people have showed up and provided their opinions on the matter, and it requires a formal close. This is not for regular content disputes or editor misbehavior issues, for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I guess I will never use this noticeboard again. Thanks for your help, a direct admin assistance was requested instead and resolved. You can archive the request. —CKY2250 ταικ 19:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Again, there isn't anything specific to close. If you have nothing more to add, I'd suggest to stop replying. I've looked in the archives, it seems there have been several discussions over the question of primary topic and page titles here, so any change would have to done via a formal RM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- It was not intended to be a formal article move. I would like a closure to the dispute on the section. The dialog between me and the other wikipedians are getting out of hand.—CKY2250 ταικ 15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
A long an convoluted discussion affecting several hunderd articles. I can't see any clear consensus. Prefer admin closure please. --Stfg (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Pending. I'll take this one. I'm not an admin but I've done hundreds of closes, some quite exhaustive, with little complaint, and I'm willing to take the tens of hours required to read it all carefully, work through the various points, address the points and concerns of each contributor, work with pen and paper to untangle the arguments and chart and synthesize the data in various ways, and write a decision which will likely run to a few thousand words. This will take some time, many calendar days at least. Herostratus (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Herostratus (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of unusual deaths#Trimtime! (initiated 27 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. This is a content discussion with thirteen sub-discussions. Most of them have only one or two comments. There is now way to do an omnibus closing of the whole thing and frankly I see no reason that each of these sections needs an admin to close it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing this discussion, Beeblebrox. I agree that a close with such a small level of participation would be difficult. I withdraw this request for closure. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Topic ban appeal by Dolovis (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cunard, I think we should let this ride for a another couple of days. Right now there is clearly no consensus to remove the topic ban, but there's precious little discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Discussion archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#Topic ban appeal by Dolovis. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This RFC, triggered by the Manning controversy, has now been running for 1 month and is not receiving any new comments. Because of its sensitivity, I suggest that it is given a similar level of care to the Manning controversy itself. – Smyth\talk 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- A month after the original request, it seems the RfC has attracted exactly two more comments. Please could someone step up to the plate here (I participated in the discussion so cannot do so myself). Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I have the votes at around 25 Keep, 33 Delete and 10 Change if we account for the second preferences of those who voted to change we have 29 Keep, 38 Delete (discounting those who didn't have a second preference which weren't many). A large number of people have suggested a possible problem with just removing it, as it leaves ambiguity in it's place. To that end, my assessment of the arguments from both sides suggests that users agree that the order of preference (for lack of a better phrase) goes in this order:
- Wording as it currently stands
- Subject's current personal preference (especially expressed in self-published sources or long quotations for example)
- Where there are a large number of recent mainstream reliable sources using the opposite terms to the person's current self-identified gender, the terms of the gender in those reliable sources may be used in the same context (such as referring to the subject's early life).
- Where the person was significantly involved in a notable, significant event they may be referred to by the gender they identified with at the time to avoid confusion (this is especially the case in articles about the event/organisation/etc rather than a biography)
Before I get close to solve it could other please weigh in and let me know what they think about that assessment? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your number 3 seems to be incomplete. And is the un-numbered bullet point supposed to be a number 4, or connected to number 3, or what?
- I'd also like to see some clarity on the question of what should happen to guidelines which had consensus to be enshrined as guidelines at some point in the past, but whose support later fell to such an extent that they would not be so enshrined if they were proposed now. I gave my own opinion about that here and here (second paragraph), but perhaps others are aware of some precedents that can guide us.
- Thanks for taking the trouble to help with this difficult situation! – Smyth\talk 11:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Clarified number 3, hopefully enough to make it clearer. I used a bullet point because I wasn't really sure if it should be included in the numbered list or be a stand-alone provision, what do you and others think? If it should be part of the list where should it go in the 'order'?
- This is one of the things about people saying once a rule is there it's hard to get rid of, consensus is needed to make something a policy/guideline and consensus is needed for it not to be a policy/guideline anymore - that's my understanding, anyone else?
- No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Now that you've clarified number 3, it seems to be saying basically the same thing as the bullet point, so I don't think you need to keep both. – Smyth\talk 12:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry Callanecc, I don't quite understand what you mean by "the order of preference". Do you mean that 1 has the most support, followed by 2 and then 3, and therefore you it should be closed with no change to the guideline? Or do you mean that there is consensus for 2 and 3 as exceptions to 1? If the latter, I would suggest that there is a consensus for 2 but not for 3. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I intended the latter. Having another look through the discussion, there was some discussion of using what's in current sources when that relates to past significant events. However I take your point that there probably isn't enough discussion and agreement to warrant changing the guideline to reflect it.
- I'll implement the above in the next hour or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Closed Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
In Callanec's closing remarks was, "Consensus from this RFC is to keep the sentence", which isn't true. There wasn't consensus to keep or delete. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Had you asked me about why I said that before you reverted me, I would have told you that I said that because a number of the delete !votes stated that they were concerned that the subject's preference cannot be considered under the current wording. Hence adding that caveat to the guideline meant that there was a consensus to keep with that change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Re "a number of the delete !votes..." — What was that number? The only numbers I saw in the above discussion were "25 Keep, 33 Delete and 10 Change", and "29 Keep, 38 Delete" . --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Have a look at the RFC. That was a numerical count (used to show that the !votes were close), which whilst sometimes helping to establish a consensus, when the votes are so close what each person actually says matters a lot more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your response is vague, hasn't answered my question, and hasn't adequately addressed my concerns. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I just had a quick look though and saw around 10 delete votes which mentioned the issue of the subject not getting a say and/or/therefore a possible breach of BLP policy. Combined with that the change votes (most of which mentioned this), the first preference keep/delete votes which also mention the possibility of a change and the keep/delete votes which say that the subject's preference should/could be taken into account. With no consensus to keep or delete it, the rough consensus or compromise is to keep it but to add the bit about subject preference - in hindsight that would have been a better comment to put in the closing comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Could you specifically show me your revised comment here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure:
- Closed per request on WP:ANRFC. There is no clear consensus to either keep or delete the sentence in question outright. However, there is a rough consensus that the subject's preference take precedence over referring to them using their latest expressed gender. See here for a further discussion of the result.
- Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest removing the word "outright". Otherwise, I'm OK with your closing with that statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, and done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me, and
- I'd suggest removing the word "outright". Otherwise, I'm OK with your closing with that statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sure:
- Could you specifically show me your revised comment here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I just had a quick look though and saw around 10 delete votes which mentioned the issue of the subject not getting a say and/or/therefore a possible breach of BLP policy. Combined with that the change votes (most of which mentioned this), the first preference keep/delete votes which also mention the possibility of a change and the keep/delete votes which say that the subject's preference should/could be taken into account. With no consensus to keep or delete it, the rough consensus or compromise is to keep it but to add the bit about subject preference - in hindsight that would have been a better comment to put in the closing comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your response is vague, hasn't answered my question, and hasn't adequately addressed my concerns. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Have a look at the RFC. That was a numerical count (used to show that the !votes were close), which whilst sometimes helping to establish a consensus, when the votes are so close what each person actually says matters a lot more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Re "a number of the delete !votes..." — What was that number? The only numbers I saw in the above discussion were "25 Keep, 33 Delete and 10 Change", and "29 Keep, 38 Delete" . --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems that the content of this article has already been presented within Serbia_in_the_Balkan_Wars#Massacres. Still, this is controversial case which needs to be closed by administrator who is not involved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Antidiskriminator, perhaps you've simply misread, but that merge discussion was from 2010. If you still think the article should be merged, you'll certainly have to start a new discussion. There's nothing to close there since it's a stale discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion was closed by a non admin who is well known for holding views decidedly outside of the mainstream Wikipedia community, with a conclusion that I do not think accurately reflects the discussion and policies presented. [2] I would request a non involved Admin review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I need an administrator to conclude the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States#Do opinion pieces by politicians count as reliable sources? (initiated 14 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done closed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:San Salvador Island#RfC (initiated 6 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should San Salvador Island become a semi-protected article due to recent vandalism?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done closed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:God#RfC (initiated 14 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Do you support or oppose this edit?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done closed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 10#Li Surname (郦)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 01:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Request Block Review of User:MarshalN20 (initiated 16 November 2013)? Please determine the consensus of the block review. Link to blocking admin's comments at WP:AN3. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 01:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murray Rothbard#Images in article (initiated 28 September 2013; see the RfC at the subsection Talk:Murray Rothbard#Photo survey)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- This has not been formatted or announced as an RfC and I doubt that it has received much attention. I suggest that, if OP wishes to achieve a lasting and definitive consensus on this that it be restated and posted as appopriate in the form of an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- The RfC tag was added by Binksternet (talk · contribs) on 3 October 2013, modified by Legobot (talk · contribs) on 3 October 2013 and removed by Legobot on 1 November 2013. Although the section header does not have "RfC" in its title, this is not required for the discussion to be listed as an RfC. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking for an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to close and sum up the consensus of this RfC, which asks whether the proposal should become policy. The RfC was opened on 14 October so the end of the 30-day period is approaching. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- The related proposal, Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal, which was opened on the same day (14 October) also needs to be closed and summed up. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- For anyone inclined to close these: if the job seems too big, if you want to sum up some arguments and leave others alone, I can do some of the summing-up work when I close WT:Conflict of interest limit (since the outcome of that RfC depends in part on the outcome of the other two). - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have closed it. Ping me if you think I should expand more. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll expand a bit on that when I do WT:Conflict of interest limit. WT:Paid editing policy proposal still needs closing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have closed it. Ping me if you think I should expand more. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- For anyone inclined to close these: if the job seems too big, if you want to sum up some arguments and leave others alone, I can do some of the summing-up work when I close WT:Conflict of interest limit (since the outcome of that RfC depends in part on the outcome of the other two). - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alishan Bairamian#RfC: Should publicly-available, but obscure, information be included if it compromises the subject's family's privacy? (initiated 5 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
... The reason given for this change was that making Sylvia's maiden name so easy to find could compromise the family's privacy and security. However, the information exists in a public, though obscure (and not in English), source. Should this be included or excluded?
Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronan Farrow#RfC Ethiopia (initiated 6 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by DarthBotto (talk · contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBotto (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 November 2013
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 9#Fifi La Fume? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, this DRV has been open since about 10 days. Could a non-involved admin perhaps have a look and close it? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jon Roland (initiated 8 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#General sanction notices by non-admins redux (initiated 16 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Polemical use of sandboxes by thewolfchild (initiated 12 November 2013)? Please evaluate the proposals at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Indefinite block and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Stern warning to BilCat against incivility. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BLP violation in upcoming DYK (initiated 13 November 2013)? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Indefinite DYK and article creation ban and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked are two subsections that could be assessed. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conceptualization (information science)#RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science) (initiated 26 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved person to close the discussion at Talk:Ten Lost Tribes#RfC: Should block quotes be included in the lead section?. The consensus appears clear, but a formal closure may be helpful in this case. It has been almost a week since the last comment. Thank you, Bahooka (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
.Jreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -- Jreferee (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Closed by- Why was this closed so soon? No BLP violations so it can surely run the 30 days? Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I closed it based on Bahooka's request above and reopened per your reasoning on my talk page.[3] -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with keeping the RfC open for the full 30-day default period, but I did want to explain my reasoning so there won't be any concerns about good faith. I tried to read the RfC page very carefully to make sure I did it correctly. Regarding closure, it states that "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." (emphasis added) I knew the default period had not ended, but interest in making comments had waned (a week had passed since the last one) and the consensus seemed clear. That was my rationale, but we can revisit on 11/25. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- While I acknowledge an editors right to request it remain open. I don't find any fault in Bahooka's close as RfC's are not required to be open for 30 days and may be closed if inactive for some time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Bahooka and Keithbob. The RfC was initiated on 25 October 2013, and Jreferee closed the RfC on 6 November 2013.
12 days had elapsed and nearly a week had passed without further comment.
WP:SNOW was applicable: There was a clear consensus by the time Jreferee closed the RfC against the inclusion of the blockquote in the lead.
Had the discussion not been an RfC, no one would have objected to an uninvolved editor assessing the consensus earlier than 30 days. An RfC should not grant clearly opposed content the right to stay in the article for the full 30 days when the consensus is clear.
There is precedent for early RfC closes per WP:SNOW: see this close of Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson and this close of Mayors in Puerto Rico for two examples. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Bahooka and Keithbob. The RfC was initiated on 25 October 2013, and Jreferee closed the RfC on 6 November 2013.
- While I acknowledge an editors right to request it remain open. I don't find any fault in Bahooka's close as RfC's are not required to be open for 30 days and may be closed if inactive for some time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with keeping the RfC open for the full 30-day default period, but I did want to explain my reasoning so there won't be any concerns about good faith. I tried to read the RfC page very carefully to make sure I did it correctly. Regarding closure, it states that "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." (emphasis added) I knew the default period had not ended, but interest in making comments had waned (a week had passed since the last one) and the consensus seemed clear. That was my rationale, but we can revisit on 11/25. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I closed it based on Bahooka's request above and reopened per your reasoning on my talk page.[3] -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why was this closed so soon? No BLP violations so it can surely run the 30 days? Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Recent proposal is located at the bottom of the talkpage. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anencephaly#RfC: Are photos of anencephalic newborns relevant to the article? (initiated 7 November 2013)? The RfC tag was removed; WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Replacing title cards and logos with promo advertisements? (initiated 2 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not done. There really isn't any support for the proposal; I think formal closes make sense when there is some ongoing disagreement that a close would help resolve, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done Armbrust The Homunculus 16:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamophobia#RFC:Should this article be included in Category:Racism (initiated 13 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The merge discussion was opened on October 31 and discussion has been stale for over 2 weeks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Discussion is only stale because an RFC was opened regarding the topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Open since 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC). No new views and few new comments in the past 10 days or more. Really should be clearly settled. DES (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cheers (season 1)#Merge two parts of "Showdown" into one summary? (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done closed. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences (initiated 10 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, an admin will and has. Thank you Cunard. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Drmies (talk · contribs)! I've fixed the MfD archive templates. Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I feel that I have been too heavily involved as an advocate in this discussion to close it without raising an appearance of impropriety. Discussion was initiated 12 September 2013, and appeared to be resolved shortly thereafter, until a contrary view was raised; it was then discovered that the complainant was using multiple sockpuppets in the discussion (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AngelaVidal/Archive), but discussion of the point of contention effectively ended on 8 November 2013. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by Mdann52 (talk · contribs). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Has gone longer than 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clint Eastwood#Alison Eastwood quote (initiated 30 August 2013) and Talk:Clint Eastwood#8 children by 6 women (initiated 26 October 2013)? As noted in the second discussion, both sections are RfCs about a related topic. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done & done. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan#RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan level of autonomy (initiated 20 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of zombie films#RFC (initiated 21 October 2013)? The question posed was:
Should the entries of this list that are redlinked and have only IMDB as a link (no refs) be deleted from this list as failing WP:V WP:RS as well as the specific criteria for this list "popular or widely known" or "relatively high budget" per WP:CSC . Proposed deletion is not prejudicial against moving entries to the "low budget" list, but such move is not a condition of being deleted from this list.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kansas gubernatorial election, 2014#request for comment (initiated 23 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
What should the 1) format and 2) content of the article be?
1) Should the article be primarily in a List format [4] like this] or a Prose format like this?
2) Should the content of the article contain information about people who did not enter the race for governor? If so, what should be included about those people who did not enter the race?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done cheers. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 107#Make SidebarTranslate into a gadget (initiated 8 November 2013)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban proposal of Jude Enemy (initiated 22 November 2013)? Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions states: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 107#Proposal for a newbie flag (initiated 30 October 2013)? There have been no comments since 19 November 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ccharles32/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ccharles32/sandbox
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ccharles32/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ccharles32/sandbox (both initiated 15 November 2013)? Because the two MfDs are related, it might be beneficial to have the same closer for consistency. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- The first was Closed by Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed the second. Sorry, I didn't see it originally. I thought the tag on the user talk page was misplaced. Thanks, Cunard. Killiondude (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Please look at closing this Afd, thank you. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done - Thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo#RfC: Serbian register vs Serbo-Croatian language on Kosovo? (initiated 19 July 2013)? See this 22 October 2013 comment by the RfC initiator who wants to proceed with the proposal but has not done so. An assessment of the consensus by an uninvolved editor would be helpful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed: no clear consensus. (non-admin closure)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Throffer/Archives/2013#Merge with Extortion (initiated 23 September 2013) and Talk:Throffer/Archives/2013#Carrot and Stick (initiated 29 September 2013)? The opening poster of the first section wrote:
This so-called Good Article is really just a variant on extortion, and should be an item of minor note within that article, if it exists at all.
The opening poster of the section section wrote:
Should throffer be merged into carrot and stick?
The second merge discussion was listed as an RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've closed both as no clear consensus for merger. (non-admin closure)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to request a formal closure on the content dispute at Talk:Druids_(Shannara)#BRD_on_recent_large_addition_of_text. While the comments on that particular content dispute have been rather one-sided, which might indicate no formal closure is necessary, the editor who originally added the text asserts that there are other issues with editor behavior (mine) and issues of WP:PRESERVE that go beyond the content dispute on this particular article, even though he has not chosen to take those assertions (accusations?) to an appropriate forum to have them hashed out. Therefore, I believe a formal closure of this discussion is in order.
I would also like to ask that any administrator with previous involvement with either me (User:N2e) or User:The ed17 recuse themselves from this closure action. Thanks very much. N2e (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- An editor has helpfully stopped by and closed the discussion. I don't see it noted here on AN/RfC, so thought I ought to pop in and note that, just so no other editors need expend any time on the matter. Cheers, N2e (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Progressive tax#RFC on graph linking top marginal tax rates to job growth (initiated 19 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 15#Federico Pistono? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Closed by IronGargoyle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)