Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 23

Articles for deletion/Scientists' March on Washington
A consensus has formed and page creator requests that article be moved to a draft in his userspace. Because of the potential precedent of having an article about a proposal in such an early stage of planning linger in mainspace - and because there is a consensus - I am requesting that an editor close it swiftly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus is not obvious to me. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done by DGG. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vajiralongkorn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Vajiralongkorn ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done Preferences were in favor of a Green-Blue-Red, open-dashed-closed shackle, dotted-half full-full lock image (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Milky Way/Archive 5
Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC. Best Polyamorph (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Dan Koehl (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it was not done. I asked for the consensus to be assessed. So please could an uninvolved editor close this properly. Many thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done non-involved editor closing as no consensus to overturn previous discussions (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies/2017 archive
Needs closure from uninvolved editor. . Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done Closed as only partial consensus on some sub-sections, and no clear consensus on overall behavior. Please see close message for further details.  (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 21
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 21 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Discussion closed by on 6 February. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 16
The discussion may need evaluation. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * done --Cerebellum (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 5
Would some kind soul gently assess consensus and answer the question asked? — JFG talk 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done DarjeelingTea (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Inside (video game)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Inside (video game) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 14
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 14 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 21
Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 49
Experienced and uninvolved close requested. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by, thank you! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 29
Please disposition Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 29, which has been relisted 3 times, and has been open for more than one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the CfD, ! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Eurodac
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eurodac ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2017 January
While there is consensus in the ongoing discussions, those move reviews need uninvolved admin to review the comments. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * already done. George Ho (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2016–2017 Gambian constitutional crisis
An uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus at Talk:2016–2017 Gambian constitutional crisis. George Ho (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)
There is some disagreement over the way forward, and as I have been involved it would help to have an uninvolved editor or admin assess consensus and agree closure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:John Furlong (sports administrator)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Furlong (sports administrator) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kfar Ahim
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kfar Ahim ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 14
Would an experienced editor asses the consensus opinion on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center/Archive 14. It initially started out with voting and then escalated to a lot of people going back and forth and it is a little difficult to gage what the full consensus opinion. TAG (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 32
Discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 32 appears to have stalled, with no comments since February 9. An uninvolved experienced editor or admin is requested to evaluate consensus, since a simple numerical count shows a close vote (13 to remove, 10 to keep, 3 to rename) and it's a contentious subject area that's seen some heated discussion. clpo13(talk) 16:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bipartisan Report
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bipartisan Report ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * DONE DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Three-editor non-involved editor verbose NAC. See talk page for reasoning.  (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

====Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64==== Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done --Cerebellum (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 19
Is an uninvolved administrator willing to close this discussion? The discussion has become extremely lengthy already, in just a single week, and will only get lengthier when not closed, while afaics no new arguments are being added. I can't close it myself because I have contributed to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by on 13 February. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Euryalus. Thank you for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Kim Dent-Brown. Thank you for closing the discussion. Cunard (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Pedophilia
This RfC expired on the 16th. An official close could help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 23
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 23 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Consensus against preventative automatic blocking of these usernames. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:New York Daily News
An uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus at Talk:New York Daily News. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:New York
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done closed as consensus in favor of reducing emphasis on NYC. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus for inclusion of proposed points. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey ? Listing after a request on my talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done closed with consensus that "murder" is not necessarily a violation of NPOV (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus? --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion now archived at External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done closed with partial consensus (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done by, as this was also requested two sections above. P p p er y 19:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Radha Madhav Dham
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Radha Madhav Dham ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

done Due to extremely limited participation, closed as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Government of the Republic of China
This discussion also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Saudi Arabia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Saudi Arabia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed with clear consensus against original text, and rough consensus for Zero's suggested replacement text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Murray
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Andy Murray ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is anyone going to act on this request?Tvx1 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done - Closed as Option 2. - MrX 12:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Carrie Fisher/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carrie Fisher/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done - Discussion is stale and archived. Defaults to no consensus for proposed edit. No need for formal closure.- MrX 12:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Albert Cashier
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Albert Cashier ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 133
This needs closure from uninvolved editor. --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an existing discussion on this at WP:AN John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by the team of closers. --George Ho (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 5
The discussion has been inactive for 12 days. - MrX 11:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Should Breitbart News also be described as "right-wing" in the lead? is broken, so I added "Talk:Breitbart News" to fixed the link. George Ho (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Done - the Nos have it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kek (mythology)
Would an experienced editor kindly assess the consensus about inclusion of the Internet cult of Kekt phenomenon? Thanks in advance for your assistance! — JFG talk 21:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * DONE DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed with consensus to not use the lists as sources of critical opinion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel
Discussion on splitting List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - initiated in 2014 with last comments added in early 2016. In my opinion there is a consensus to split, but since i initiated the discussion - i would like an external objective closure of the RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas/Archive 8
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Christmas/Archive 8 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done. The closest thing to a consensus here is to stop pointlessly re-writing dates. Groan. Alsee (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Star Trek: Discovery
The RfC was ended by Legobot after the normal thirty days: consensus on the primary issue had been achieved well before that; but there is still disagreement upon the scope of the RfC - does the outcome apply only to the Star Trek: Discovery article. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note that this discussion has been moved to this section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done, with further discussion moved to Manual_of_Style/Television seeking elevation into MOS. Alsee (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of highest-grossing films
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of highest-grossing films ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Alsee (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2000
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2000 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Alsee (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Forever (website)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Forever (website) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the merge discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process
Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a big one, which looks like consensus to me but I'm WP:INVOLVED. Would some kind soul go through the closing motions? — JFG talk 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Consensus is for treating this type of AfD discussion like a PROD. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2017 February 15
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2017 February 15 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been done. P p p er y 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that the subthread regarding sanctions proposed against Petergstrom has been open for over a week now. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done and archived. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Banjica concentration camp
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as rough consensus for considering this book a reliable source as it relates to the article subject. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)
Would an uninvoled and experienced editor kindly assess the consensus here. Apologies in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Would an uninvolved and experienced editor assess the consensus ? Thanks, --Carliertwo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done rough consensus for inclusion of the proposed material. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tomas Gorny
Would an uninvolved sysop assess the consensus at Talk:Tomas Gorny? This RfC needs closed. I should note that there are SPA accounts that joined the discussion in order to add a comment to delete the source. Eliko007 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note:The above user is one of the series of accounts which have recently emerged and are adamant in adding a bunch of puffery to the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Consensus for removal of the citation is clear and reasonably based in policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * further explanation of close after this discussion on my talk page. Although not consistent with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I have explained my reasoning as a good-faith effort.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTubers/Archive 9
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of YouTubers/Archive 9 ? I started the 2011 discussion at Talk:List of YouTubers/Archive 5, so I am not closing this discussion even though the consensus is clear. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done There is clear consensus for the proposed inclusion criteria. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Germany/Archive 23
Needs close from uninvolved editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed with consensus to remove the "Formation" section entirely. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Casey Affleck
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Casey Affleck ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Consensus against inclusion of ancestry information. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus due to low participation and lack of substantiative arguments on how images should be treated or on standards for inclusion/removal. Recommend a better-formulated RfC with definite options. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 10
Experienced and uninvolved editor requested to evaluate this RfC. Thank you. JerryRussell (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a try for a closure by an involved editor, which I have reverted, as he himself has been the reason for this RFC.--85.74.33.233 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there was. But this anon. ip. left out some essential information. The RfC was opened 7 Jan. by JerryRussell regarding some issues being pushed by this anonymous WP:SPA editor from Athens (self-identified as "AA", currently from the IP address 85.74.33.233). It was poorly formulated, and after a first round of drive-by opinions the discussions tended to flounder; there has been no substantive discussion since 1 Feb. The RfC expired on 7 Feb, and Jerry requested a close on the 10th, but there has been absolutely no action or discussion on the RfC since then. Jerry has been [till now] absent since the 10th, and as no one else seems interested I attempted to close it yesterday with a minimal summary that, aside from "Question #6", there is no clear consensus either way. However, "AA" objects (perhaps because Question #6 bears on "balancing" material he wanted to add), and he reverted, with the bare comment "involved editor". I restored, noting that no uninvolved editors have stepped up, which he reverted as "vandalism of the process", and there we are.
 * Would someone (preferably without an ax to grind) please step up and put this RfC out of its misery? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow, what a biased presentation of the situation by JJ. Yes, someone uninvolved please come and help us out. Thank you! JerryRussell (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Biased?? Like how – that there has been substantive discussion on the RfC since 1 Feb? Perhaps you consider (about closing the RfC) "substantive"? If you can find any discussion in the RfC since then please show some diffs. Otherwise I'd say you are dead-wrong as to the facts, and should look to your own bias. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, the part that is biased is the part where you say "It was poorly formulated, and after a first round of drive-by opinions the discussions tended to flounder." While I've admitted that two of the six questions were not clearly formulated, there was nothing wrong with the other four. And I had to do some outreach to get enough participation in this highly technical RfC, but I did the outreach, we got the participation, and the outcome is clear.
 * Editors reading this squabbling might be concerned and not want to get involved, thinking that this is a tough close. It's not. The consensus is completely obvious, JJ is the only one who disagrees. But he won't let us close it as involved editors, except on his terms. JerryRussell (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the "terms" I have been insisting on are Wikipedia principles and mainstream scientific opinion. Also, your statement that I am "the only one who disagrees" is demonstrably false. But is this really the place to be arguing about that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

done Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you have stepped in (thanks), and am not going to belabor you on points where I disagree. But I would note, for the record, that the "consensus" now being implemented in the article, while agreeable to a subset of the WP editor class, is at odds with mainstream science. It is an indication that popular viewpoints are preferred to expert viewpoints. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Archive 22
This RFC needs a close. Thank youCasprings (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced uninvolved editor kindly assess the consensus there? Thanks, — JFG talk 03:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Phew.— S Marshall  T/C 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7
Please may an experienced user close the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7 as no consensus? The discussion originally began by myself and has been relisted once, however there is no sign of any consensus whatsoever. The discussion is a rather haphazard one, just to note.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to your work, it seems to me that it's not proper for a participant in the discussion, even the OP, to instruct a closer about the consensus reached or lack thereof. Either you take responsibility to perform an involved nac, or you request an uninvolved closer to do the job with no prejudice as to their decision. — JFG talk 23:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * on it Primefac (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done, though I feel a TROUT is in order for being impatient. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the TfD, ! Cunard (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts
This discussion also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by . Mz7 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Melania Trump/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Melania Trump/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Alsee (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138 (using the date from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner due to the close relationship between the two discussions) ? Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not a RfC and does not need closing. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar. That will close as a SNOW keep. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The MfD you mention is about the sidebar, while the village pump discussion is about the banner. It wasn't originally listed in the RfC section; it has been moved twice. A closure is needed and overdue. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Both are the same thing but they have a different look. The new one can be put towards the bottom of the page. What we need is a bot to add it to all medical pages. Medpedia sounds better than Wikipedia. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there is definitely not consensus for that, considering the banner page was explicitly prohibited from being used on articles by its mfd. P p p er y 02:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The mfd did not prohibit its use in articles. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The mfd decreed a condition (i.e. "not to be inserted into articles without obtaining consensus to do so") for its use that was never met. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is consensus. The new sidebar may replace the banner for articles. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

done I've unarchived this to Village pump (proposals) and closed the discussion. The consensus is against adding to articles in its current form, or in an alternative form that links to the Play Store (or equivalent) and/or is not dismissable, including by users who are not logged it. A link in the site sidebar should be discussed separately before being added. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9
The discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9 has been relisted several times already and no new arguments have been added since 21 February and needs closing. Full disclosure: I am very involved with this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure but I think every admin who regularly patrols RfD has participated in this one. Needs fresh eyes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done. WJBscribe (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfD, WJBscribe! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ouch. done Alsee (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
This discussion also needs an uninvolved closer. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Alsee (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Katherine Johnson
This RfC recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Easy peasy one.— S Marshall  T/C 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom
Needs an uninvolved party to close the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Neoliberalism
Would an uninvolved editor please assess this RfC? It crossed the 30 day mark yesterday. Last comment was 1 March. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not reached 30 days yet; it will do so in about 19 hours time. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's certainly no reason to let RFCs run a full 30 days if they're settled out. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948 ? See the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 133
This RFC has run more than a month and has been quiet for weeks. Needs a close. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

done ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:K-pop
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus here. Thanks! - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? It's still got two days to run. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RFCs don't need to run 30 days. They expire in 30 days, and can often be closed much sooner. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * done by Lemongirl942. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive212
Would an admin assess the consensus at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive212 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done by The Wordsmith, thank you! Cunard (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bronze Wolf Award
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award ? Thanks, --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 49
This is a political-advocacy discussion I initiated within the Australian community 3 months ago and has been an active proposal, with widespread publicity within the Australian community (geonotice, mailing lists, mass-message talkpage note) for about a week. 50+ individual user-accounts have expressed opinions and the number of new people commenting has dropped to 1 or <1 per day - no new comments for several days. Although this is shorter than the standard 30 day comment period for on-wiki debates, this particular proposal has external factors affecting its timing. Even though a simple tally of supporting vs. opposed comments shows a strong preference towards the former, I would like to request a hitherto uninvolved and experienced administrator to provide a formal 'close' decision because of the unusual nature of this proposal - and because a fair assessment of the Australian-wikipedia community's consensus is crucial. [Note: WMF-Legal has also confirmed this is a technically&legally valid proposal in accordance with the relevant WMF policy. Wittylama 14:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Done Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest ? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a part of the overall discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest, separately below. Without comment on what the results should be, I believe that the overall discussion will be difficult to close, but that Concrete proposal 1, should be very easy to close, and, as the original proposer, I'd rather not see it get lost in the shuffle.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * done.— S Marshall T/C 14:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest ? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion as part of the overall RfC Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest (the above listing). Thanks for any help. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * done.— S Marshall T/C 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend an admin take this one. There is a clear lean to the numbers, but this has a wide impact, strong views, and it warrants very careful consideration of the arguments and the effect. Alsee (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * done— S Marshall T/C 19:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 26
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy/Archive 26 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think a formal closure is needed for this one. The section has been archived, and the lack of consensus in them is obvious.


 * done <-- for the bot. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * done Closed as no consensus Tazerdadog (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Clean coal technology
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clean coal technology ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * done Closed as no consensus. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * already done ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7 ? Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * already done Innisfree987 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nintendo Switch
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nintendo Switch ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was probably moot by now, but Done. Perhaps it will help guide future articles. Alsee (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Alsee (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Edit filter
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done Mz7 (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138
The uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus. George Ho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Huge support percentage, should be easy to close. The lack of a close is holding up progress on this matter. Alsee (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * --Done-I have closed the RFC. Winged Blades Godric 12:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts
This discussion also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * - Wikipedia talk:Drafts still needs a close, and I have no idea what it should be, so I left it alone. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Tazerdadog, I only partially reviewed the situation so I'm sure you're more familiar with it. If I understand the situation correctly, many of the responses are clear but some are a mess due to flawed RFC structure. I think you should to ping the incomprehensible responses asking for clarification, specifically given the close on the first half? Alsee (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'd call that statement more or less correct, but the question raised by in his !vote of whether the prodlike process should apply throughout draftspace or just to AFC submissions is very relevant, and the RFC question as written doesn't touch it. I would be inclined to extend the discussion, calling for fresh comments in light of the closure on the above section, and specifically addressing the desired scope of the prodlike process.  Tazerdadog (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done in line with Tazerdadog's last comment. Alsee (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi
Started the RfC discussion almost a month ago at Talk:Death of Alan Kurdi. It needs closure. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Deryck C. 16:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Empire ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nissan Caravan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nissan Caravan ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kfar Ahim
Could some brave admin please assess  the consensus at Talk:Kfar Ahim ? One editor tried to close it, but it was reopened, hope we can finally close it soon, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note to the closing admin, when you do close, you should make sure that you specify that it's only for the specific page, a multipage RFC can't be dealt with at one article's talk page. It needs to be in a central location and prominently advertised. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This issue is addressed at the above talk-page, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * close – S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:MAKS Air Show
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MAKS Air Show ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done – S. Rich (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Armenia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Armenia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
The backlog has been growing again, currently some 150 open discussions, the oldest is almost two months old. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC) I have been thinking about how to persuade admins more to help, and my best idea so far is to routinely add CFD-close questions to WP:RFA candidates. They are already closely questioned on AFD closures, which ensures that new admins are usually up-to-speed on that. It seems to me that doing the same thing for CFD would encourage more new admins to learn CFD before putting themselves forward, and also maybe tempt some existing admins to join in. Any thoughts on that idea? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The backlog has now decreassed to just over 100 open discussions, thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl's recent efforts. Regardless of this, it's pretty important that more admins should regularly close discussions here. Without further admin involvement, we'll be back at 150 in two weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical.   became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.
 * I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in or convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know WP:OVERCAT? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * good points. Will you help me try to persuade to accept an RFA nomination? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * :-) User:Fayenatic london tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm already closing discussions and we need other people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't know whether having the tools is useful at CfD, but looking at your contributions history, yes, you'd probably struggle to pass at RfA at this time. But that could be helped by you creating a handful of decent articles. Once done, you could check things out via WP:ORCP. You may be closer to it than you think. If that could be of interest to you, let's take this discussion to your talk page.  Schwede 66  08:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done<-- for the bot. This discussion is stale, and appears to have run its course.  Tazerdadog (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Beheading in Islam
Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? -- M h hossein   talk 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done – not formally closed. The talk page discussion died out months ago. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion
Needs closure by uninvolved admin. George Ho (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Sam Walton (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy Winter
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timothy Winter ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Melbourne car attack
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Melbourne car attack ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * – RFC is old and subsequent editing has cleared up the concern. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done for the bot. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would appreciate a formal close by an uninvolved editor or administrator. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)
This RfC finished after 30 days of discussion, and I have now closed it to prevent the discussion from overrunning. This was merely a housekeeping closure; I have not determined a result, so I would like an administrator to override my closure with a result. Thank you. Linguist talk&#124; contribs 14:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done per Linguist's comment. – S. Rich (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Restoring this request - Lingists placeholder closure is still in placed, and the substance of the discussion has not been addressed. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done: Winged Blades Godric 08:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

Village pump (policy)/Archive 133
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 133 ? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done by . Winged Blades Godric 09:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, Beeblebrox! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 World Rally Championship
Would an experienced and uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#RFC? ? It would also be advised to take the subsequent discussion, Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#Top-level article into account when closing this one, as the RFC participants posted contributions relevant to the RFC question in that discussion as well. Thanks, Tvx1 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone going to look into this. It's been more than 60 days and the discussion have now ended up being archived.Tvx1 08:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done--As it seems, the RFC attracted only two participants(both were involved in prev. discussions on the issue prior to the issue) in it's entire course.And a closure is thus definitely impossible.I will request you to re-open a RFC on the issue minus the long walls of text.If you feel that they are utterly necessary, just summarise each of your views in sentence or two or link to the archiveCheers! Winged Blades Godric 08:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thank-you. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 11:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done- Winged Blades Godric 10:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

Talk:Tony Blair
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tony Blair ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Winged Blades Godric 08:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done- Winged Blades Godric 17:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC).

Talk:Battle of France
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of France ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done-- Winged Blades Godric 17:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC).

Village pump (policy)/Archive 133
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 133 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Sam Walton (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports
Would an experienced editor (and not frequent aviation editor) assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports? We have a vote of 14 supporting removal of concourse information from Airport Destinations Tables, while 3 oppose removal of the information. It has been 26 days since the discussion was opened, however, no contributions have been made in almost a week (6 days). Thanks! Stinger20 (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done- Winged Blades Godric 18:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC).

Talk:Day Without a Woman
Request assessment and closure from an experienced, uninvolved editor at Talk:Day Without a Woman. The RfC has been open for six days, and there have been significant objections to its wording. Please also see related discussion at DRN. Funcrunch (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done- Winged Blades Godric 10:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

Talk:X-Men (film series)
Request assessment and closure from an experienced, uninvolved editor at Talk:X-Men_(film_series). The RfC has been open for 9 days with significant discussion and survery responses. Brocicle (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done-That it has recieved significant participation from the community hardly indicates that it should be closed after a paltry 9 days of run. Winged Blades Godric 10:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Demagogue
Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Talk:Demagogue ? Thanks, – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done  Sandstein   17:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 55
- Would appreciate an experienced editor to assess consensus and close. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done  Sandstein   17:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fake news website
A close here would be good as the articles in question are high-traffic. 121.218.198.209 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 04:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Reza Aslan/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Reza Aslan/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 04:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 06:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 7
Would some kind soul assess consensus there and close the debate? Thanks, — JFG talk 05:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yaris678 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Reigns
Requesting uninvolved closer. I'm unsure if the template expired or if it was ever inserted correctly in the first place. RfC has gone for 30 days either way and is ready to be closed.LM2000 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 12:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Erika Lauren Wasilewski ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 10:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Regina Spektor
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Regina Spektor ? Please consider Talk:Regina Spektor in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Exemplo347 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sebastian Gorka
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sebastian Gorka ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 06:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sean Spicer/Archive 2
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sean Spicer/Archive 2 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Exemplo347 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 133
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 133 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Exemplo347 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Visa requirements for Georgian citizens ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 09:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Post-progressive
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Post-progressive ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 06:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Post-progressive
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Post-progressive ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 06:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Exemplo347 (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of Mahinda College alumni
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Mahinda College alumni ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Exemplo347 (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Winged Blades Godric 06:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Liancourt Rocks
There is overwhelming evidence for, and consensus for, the status quo. WP:RM appears to be the appropriate forum for further discussions of this topic Siuenti (씨유엔티) 10:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with suggestion to discuss further at WP:RM. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16
Been open for two months and has consensus to delete, I'd say. p b  p  03:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by BU Rob13. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested moves
We have 1 RM discussion from early March still open. Would a disinterested admin please close it anyway? Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ bd2412  T 11:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Alkaline diet/1
Consensus clearly favors delisting the article; however, the talk page has seen a good deal of non-AGF and ad hominem remarks, and so would benefit from an uninvolved editor's assistance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have also carried out the required GA delisting steps. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 56
This informal survey has reached a stable point where no new editors are participating, and there seems to be consensus on the preferred outcome. However, I don't want to close it because I'm WP:INVOLVED, and so are a bunch of "regulars" at the article. Would some kind soul perform a formal close? — JFG talk 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ at 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC) by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Brady/Archive 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Brady/Archive 3 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Exemplo347 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:James O'Keefe and Talk:James O'Keefe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe and Talk:James O'Keefe ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅--The 2nd RFC has been closed by . Winged Blades Godric
 * Thank you, for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 09:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Vikings (TV series)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vikings (TV series) ? There is disagreement about what the consensus is. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅:- Winged Blades Godric 07:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is not required (2nd nomination)
I'm happy they don't really need to be in Wikipedia space, if someone want to chase them into my user space maybe they could start a new debate. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Deletion discussions typically run for a minimum of seven days (unless faced with overwhelming consensus per WP:SNOW) and there's no justification for you to come here to request the closure of that deletion discussion, particularly because you're an involved editor. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 15
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 15 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done Section has been archived. Yaris678 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Sungenis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Sungenis ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 11:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Storm
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the consensus at Talk:Operation Storm ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * --With the amount of editors involved in the RFC so stunningly low and opposing view-points among those who participated, gauging and writing a closure is a difficult task. Winged Blades Godric 15:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done-The afore-said problem makes a closure impossible.Also see how to phrase a good RFC question. Winged Blades Godric 11:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fabergé egg
Listing this here to ensure an eventual close as it affects a large number of articles. Cheers, Laurdecl talk 09:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Exemplo347 (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Air (band)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Air (band) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The initiator is asking me to close it and . As one who has (i) warned both of the primary participants in the dispute for WP:EW; (ii) edited the page to remove the disputed text; and (iii) protected that version of the disputed page, it's best that I don't close this myself. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * -done:- Winged Blades Godric 09:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * -not done I ask for another decision from another uninvolved user and this time an administrator please, as can't count the votes apparently. There's a consensus for "Sometimes stylized as air". The people who voted for "sometimes are: Koui² (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC),  Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC), Chilton (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC), Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC), Korny O'Near (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC), 1 voted for Neither, and 2 voted for "often stylized as air". Do I have to contact an adminitrator? .  Iennes (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You "demand"? No. That is not how Wikipedia works. Everything done here is voluntary; nobody is (or can be) forced to take any action whatsoever (people can be forced not to take action, by means of blocks and protections, but that is not the same at all). Also, why do you need censorship? Wikipedia is not censored. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have every right to ask another user for another decision; it is allowed if my memory serves for a rfc. In this case, there's a consensus for one version aned it should have been respected. It is very strange that you don't address anything concerning the result of the votes. Have you counted ? Why discussing if at the end, someone doesn't respect the result of the opinions expressed. Iennes (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that you have the right to ask for another decision. But you cannot demand it. Also, please note that the outcome of an RfC (as with almost all other types of discussion) is not determined by counting votes. The closer (who need not be an admin, see WP:NACRFC) considers the strengths of the points put forward by both sides; they may also consider just how those points were made. Aggressive posts can count for less than reasoned, calm comments. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @The rfc was not about a policy to apply or not, it was about which version one could included. Henceforward, there's a consensus even "rough" for the version with "sometimes"; one can't deny it. I note that you don't comment what I addressed. Seeing the number of rfcs this user took the power to decide today, I wonder if he has passed a lot of time on it. just wondering. Iennes (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse the decision to close the RfC as No Consensus. I've examined the RfC discussion and it's not about numbers - it's about the weight of each side of the argument. In this case, both sides of the discussion carry equal weight, and No Consensus is the appropriate call. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @ you must be kidding. People clearly voted and there's a consensus only one person clearly said "neither" option and one advanced "sometimes" while saying if one version has to be chosen at the end. Most of the users clearly chose the version with "sometimes"; cancelling the whole thing seems extreme. We were two users disagreeing at the beginning and now none of us saw their version included. I think that you are not impartial. I would prefer that this case was seen by an administrator if you don't mind. Iennes (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You've asked for a second opinion. You've received a second opinion. I wasn't involved in the discussion in any way, so I'd remind you to Assume Good Faith before accusing someone of not being impartial. Are you going to keep asking for more opinions until you get the one you want, or are you going to drop the stick so everyone can go back to editing Wikipedia? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My request is that an administrator who often edits on music articles reads this rfc and closes it. Then I would completely accept the result without any objection. Iennes (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you don't just want an administrator now, you want one who often edits on music articles? That's moving the goalposts - and it's not how the Requests for Closure process works. If an administrator happens to come along who disagrees with the closure, they will ask the person who performed the closure to re-open the discussion. You'll just have to wait to see if that happens. In the meantime, it was "no consensus" - so you can carry on using your preferred terminology in the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by closer--I re-read the RFC and I feel my closure was right.And, please read WP:NOTAVOTE.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 06:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 20
Several entries are still open despite the discussion having concluded. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * not done Already closed by another editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Emmett Till
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emmett Till ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * not done Close already performed by another editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Human/Archive 34
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Human/Archive 34 ? —MartinZ (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Winged Blades Godric 07:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Old-fashioned doughnut/1
Requesting closure from an uninvolved editor. North America1000 20:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as "Keep GA rating." Exemplo347 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User categories
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Exemplo347 (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox unit
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox unit ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * done Exemplo347 (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kevin O'Leary/Archives/2018
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kevin O'Leary/Archives/2018 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done Exemplo347 (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2017 March
Several days over the week listing period and not that contentious a move review. Just needs someone to close. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done Result: Endorse Exemplo347 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * not done RfC has been archived. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Combining AfC reviewers and new page reviewers
An uninvolved but experienced closer may be needed. George Ho (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done Exemplo347 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

South African Copyright Act amendment advocacy
I would like to know if experienced editor assess the consensus and close the vote for both votes on the same issue (namely on wheather we should use a central notice banner in South Africa to advocate for the amendment of the South African Copyright Act to allow for Freedom of Panorama) on both Afrikaans and English Wikipedia? The vote has been up since late March and has so far had strong support from both communities and seems to include a very large proportion of the South African editors I am aware of.


 * South African Copyright Act amendment vote on English Wikipedia (South Africa project portal).
 * |South African Copyright Act amendment vote on Afrikaans Wikipedia - I am not so sure if this is the best place for asking to close the discussion on Afrikaans Wikipedia I dont really know of any where else to ask for that Wiki and I am sure the Afrikaans community would be okay with it. Thanks, Discott (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done----I have closed the request on en.wiki.You cannot request a closure of some thread at Afrikaan wiki on en.wiki.Please post the request to some experienced contributor/admin over there.And anyway, the second link does not work.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 12:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Winged Blades Godric.  Sorry about the broken link, I will sort it out at af.wikipedia.--Discott (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Link to discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Swann
Is anyone willing to assess the consensus for this RfC, which was just de-listed after 30 days? Thanks. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * - OK I will have a look. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done Winged Blades Godric 16:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Nazism sidebar
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Nazism sidebar ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 16:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Manassas, Virginia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Manassas, Virginia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * not done.Given the nature of expressive views and a dearth of participants,it's hard to gauge a consensus(if any).And I'm against a relist. Winged Blades Godric 16:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 30
Several entries are open despite the discussion having concluded. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ L3X1 (distant write)  19:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Aliyah Bet
Discussion on merging One Million Plan -> Aliyah Bet with three editors participating, and no further discussion. In my opinion there is a majority for merge 2:1, but since I was the one to initiate the discussion - it is proper for an external objective closure of the RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 18:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * not done--Too stale and too old! See WP:RM. Winged Blades Godric 03:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1988 Junior Olympics
Has 1 !vote (mine), has been relisted twice, is up for third relisting, but XFDclose's relisting tool won't let me relist it. Thanks. L3X1 (distant write)  19:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done BencherliteTalk 15:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive952
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive952 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus. BencherliteTalk 17:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done by De728631. BencherliteTalk 17:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:West Montrose, Ontario
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West Montrose, Ontario ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * done - procedural closure as the leading proponent of the picture has compromised. Deryck C. 17:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138
Would an experienced editor please see what, if any, further conclusions can be drawn from this RfC beyond the historicalisation of the Featured Portals process. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Bencherlite: Thanks for bringing this up. I agree with you that there's unanimous consensus to tag Featured Portals as historical, but to draw further administrative conclusions from it would be beyond the scope of ANRFC. Since the discussion has itself fallen onto an archive page I don't think formal closure would be necessary.
 * But since you asked, as a passerby admin I spotted these possible follow-up actions from this RfC:
 * Deprecation actions: Something should be done with existing featured portals, for example giving them a badge of recognition that isn't quite the same as a full featured articles star. This and other actions directly relevant to the deprecation of featured portals would be best done boldly because the project itself fizzled out due to inactivity, so discussion without prior opposition would be unnecessary.
 * Maybe discuss the possibility of merging Featured Portals into Featured Lists.
 * Some suggested a radical action of deprecating portals altogether. This will also require a separate discussion.
 * As far as ANRFC is concerned I'm tagging this as not done. Deryck C. 17:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2020
Needs an uninvolved opinion to assess the consensus. Currently stands at 8 yes's and 8 no's. Be mindful of dumb answers and people voting twice. 21:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done - No consensus. However, in accordance with policy, remove candidates who are not supported strongly by reliable sources.  A new RFC on specific candidates is recommended.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "The number of No statements, which mean not to remove the speculative candidates, slightly exceed the number of Yes statement." This is not true, someone bolded "no" twice. Could you please fix your RfC statement accordingly. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 191
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 191 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * not done--The consensus is clear at a glance.There's no substantial benefit in restoring it back,closing and re-archiving. Winged Blades Godric 04:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Wrigley Field ivy
Needs uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 03:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fucking, Austria
Needs uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race
I know this was just opened, but this was opened after a community consensus was reached and the user who disagreed with it didn't want to honor the community's thoughts. I would like a speedy closure as the user is being disruptive and preventing the community's decision from being enforced. The consensus is also nearly unanimous. (I expect the disruptive editor to show up here and say I personally attacked him by pointing out his disruption.) nihlus kryik (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to clarify that the RfC was opened with the question "Can editors make subjective claims based on the primary-source episodes without providing a cite (timestamp and quote) as to what exactly was said?", this is hardly going against the consensus as the editor who opened the RfC has concerns about the consensus decision not being correctly sourced. Brocicle (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur. No consensus was reached to allow editors to insert their own POV interpretations of vague statements. As for personal attacks, I can point to several by User:Nihlus Kryik at the RfC and an uncivil, off-topic and unnecessarily personal post here on my talk page, so as the saying goes, consider the source. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And like clockwork, the two disruptive editors have shown up to disrupt more because they failed to get their way originally. Regarding the "personal attack" I supposedly made, I will point out the 500+ edits updating his edit count userbox. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why editing one's user page is suddenly a bone of contention. And, really, did he count my individual edits over several years? That's amazing and a little worrisome. Regardless, my user page has nothing whatsoever to do with the RfC, so "I recommend you worry less about your edit count" was a needlessly personal, completely tangential comment that was designed to be nothing except an attack. It certainly doesn't involve the issue at the RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And actually, except for User:Nihlus Kryik and other other editor, every one of the multiple other editors at the RfC are treating it responsibly and maturely, and no one except Nihlus Kryik and the other are making any "disruption" claims. -=-Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I guess if he's going to bring up edit counts, I'd note that Nihlus Kryik is a newbie who began editing in late 2016, when he made exactly eight edits, and then suddenly this month showed up solely on the RuPaul's Drag Race pages to insist on violating OR and to insult and denigrate longtime editors who have contributed for years to Wikipedia. I'm not sure why he feels an expert on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, when he certainly doesn't understand WP:CIVIL, at least --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Boom. That is what I was waiting for. Tenebrae has an elitist attitude that he believes his edit count warrants him. WP:BITE anyone? nihlus kryik (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And your only argument at this point what other editors are doing. So keep disrupting the wiki. Your behavior will be brought to WP:ANI in time. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So my saying that other editors are behaving well and discussing things reasonably is a problem? Really?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I'd be interested in seeing how WP:ANI reacts to your having uncivilly told an admin that blocking a new, genuinely disruptive editor was "an egregious abuse of admin privileges and a piss-poor way of assuming good faith." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * More pathetic arguments. How the fuck is that related to YOUR behavior and YOUR inability to accept consensus? nihlus kryik (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So let's add "pathetic" to your list of insults in lieu of the reasoned pro and con arguments most other editors are giving at the RfC. Again, there is no consensus for subjective, POV interpretation of primary sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't being disruptive, I was adding context via a neutral statement. Your views on what is classed as disruptive is concerning. Brocicle (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for calling you disruptive. My pal Tenebrae over here is really showing me what disruptive is, and you are not that. Sorry about that. nihlus kryik (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I merely concurred with his statement, so I'm not sure your characterization of my action as "disruptive" is accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * not done - this is the page for making requests for closure, not the place to continue a dispute. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the merits of the closure request and not the drama that other editors are bringing to my request. Thanks. nihlus kryik (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2017 March
Started in March with the last comment being on April 3rd. Well over the seven day listing period. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the move review, ! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 132
Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 132 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done - closed yesterday. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charles Murray (political scientist) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 03:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs
Requesting uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Primefac (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sebastian Gorka
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sebastian Gorka ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done --Izno (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * - Winged Blades Godric 06:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 17:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done- Winged Blades Godric 16:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2020/Archive 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2020/Archive 3 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Closed 28 April. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done on 28 April. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:American Automobile Association
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American Automobile Association ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 07:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:James O'Keefe
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Done (non-admin closure) Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 17:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Microscope
Although there is clear consensus, there is also high contention, so would an uninvolved editor, please close this? ? Thanks, --2601:648:8503:4467:D82F:EA1A:BEAB:EF93 (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 07:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
Needs uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC) As the person who started the RfC, I endorse this request for closure. Could a neutral admin please close it? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Is there any problem in letting it run for the due course esp. when a snow-close is out of order? Winged Blades Godric 07:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another editor requested a close, and as the initiator I saw no reason that it shouldn't be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --done:-Well there seems to be little point in lingering a stale RFC and I have closed it. Winged Blades Godric 16:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 26
Several entries are open despite the discussion having concluded. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Already done Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 31
Discussion has been open almost four weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfD, ! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11
-- Tavix ( talk ) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by about 20 minutes ago. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfD, Ivanvector! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Yakla raid
Overwhelming consensus against merging, please close. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 07:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production
Would an uninvolved editor kindly close this RfC? — JFG talk 09:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Yashovardhan (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages
Needs uninvolved closer. George Ho (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * until 30 days has passed Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done by Gamebuster19901. George Ho (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11
-- Tavix ( talk ) 02:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done by . --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, BDD! Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Plant
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Plant ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 06:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corey Stewart (politician) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 07:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1873 in Germany
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1873 in Germany ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 07:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Gaslighting
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gaslighting ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 08:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Harem
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Harem ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * not done:-They have fairly got along the right lines.No need for a closure! Winged Blades Godric 08:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * done - this fell off and was archived while I consulted with the CheckUser, but consensus was clear. I have not modified the archive but the user has been unblocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, Ivanvector! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blue Army (Poland) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 16:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953
Would an admin assess the consensus at the topic ban discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done--Cúchullain t/ c 21:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, Cuchullain! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused
Could an experience and uninvolved editor close the following RFC. It relates to the wording in both Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections and United States presidential election, 2016. Casprings (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * After just over four days? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are right.Casprings (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think now it's time. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we have enough time and enough people have taken part in the discussion.Casprings (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Any chance someone can take a look at this now? Its been open for awhile and I think there is consensus.Casprings (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * done Exemplo347 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Echosmith discography
Articles for deletion/Echosmith discography has now been relisted thrice without stating a reason for doing so. Please disposition this discussion, which I cannot close per WP:INVOLVED. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 *  Comment - I have closed all of the simple AFDs that I can, the others are more complex or require a vote of delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 7

 * Problem already solved by discussants, just a formal closure needed (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed. BencherliteTalk 09:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done (for bot) P p p er y 01:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137
Could an uninvolved user please assess the consensus of this discussion and close it? You'll have to drag it out of the archive in order to do so. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Wanna do this? Winged Blades Godric 17:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've got a draft close but it's rather nuanced. If you want to find a third, we can bounce ideas off each other. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to take a look. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --That's a good idea! Winged Blades Godric 03:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done - just waiting for cosigners. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done -Co-signed by all! Winged Blades Godric 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Too Old To Date

 * relisted thrice. 3 !vote to delete, last one 5 days ago. Why do my AfDs always drag on and on?? Does this happen to anyone else?  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  14:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

not done As you've been relisting it yourself, after you started the AfD yourself, I think you should let it run its course. An uninvolved admin would have probably closed the AfD after the 3rd relisting as "No Consensus" and usually, it's only uninvolved editors or admins who decide to relist or close an AfD. Exemplo347 (talk)
 * done, before I noticed this was listed here, I saw it at Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times. I agree this probably sat open because it was relisted so many times: AfDs don't show up in any of the backlogs until it's been seven days from the last relist. If you relist a stale debate it goes to the top of the queue. Best to just leave it when the result is obvious but you can't close it yourself. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:John Fleming (American politician)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John Fleming (American politician) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * . Winged Blades Godric 04:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 15:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ned Kelly
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly ? Thanks, David. moreno 72    08:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done--Let it run it's course!Too early to discuss about staleness. Winged Blades Godric  16:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-fascism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anti-fascism ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 02:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 135
Needs uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - Winged Blades Godric 02:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 06:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Piccadilly Rats
Articles for deletion/The Piccadilly Rats has been opened since April 18 2017 and has one deletion vote and one comment. I'd say it's ready for a closure. Please close it up, I am unable to as I started the discussion.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * to increase participation. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 4

 * Discussion died down a long time ago, and there are ongoing issues with edits placing pages in the category. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by  P p p er y 21:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2017 April
Needs uninvolved closer to close one or more discussions. George Ho (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done--Aervanath (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the move review, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)
An uninvolved closer is needed. --George Ho (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 15:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 8

 * Looks like there is consensus (but I contributed myself). – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 16:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy
Needs uninvolved closer. George Ho (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Still needs it. Close should be fairly obvious though, so this isn't a tough one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Cheers! bd2412  T 16:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67
I'd love to close the RfC myself, even when I'm involved. However, I would prefer someone else to perform the closure instead with a good rationale. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done by Yashovardhan (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Catalan Countries
. A good level of participation, but no clear consensus between two alternatives. An outside close would be appreciated. NAC would be fine. Scolaire (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yashovardhan (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done - A tough closure indeed but I tried my best. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2017 May
Needs uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done. bd2412  T 16:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the move review, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition
. I believe the consensus is clear after the past three weeks (I'm fine waiting the full month), but at least one editor is acting contrary to the expected consensus, so I'm asking for an experienced, uninvolved editor to close the RFC formally. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Yashovardhan (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dismissal of James Comey/Archive 1
Could an uninvolved editor please close this RfC. Although the outcome is clear, a closure will make it less likely that the issue will be relitigated in the near future, as sometimes happens in American Politics articles. SPECIFICO talk  01:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done for now. The RFC has been up for only 2 days. Although, there seems to be a clear consensus, I would suggest letting it run for at least a week. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14
Looks like there is consensus (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done Deryck C. 14:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 17
Looks like there is consensus (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done Deryck C. 14:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the CfD, ! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Erik Prince
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Erik Prince ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by ! Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Album-oriented rock
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Album-oriented rock ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌-Given that this was relisted twice, the discussion is too scarce for a closure. Winged Blades Godric 09:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Generation Snowflake
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Generation Snowflake ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌:-No practical use of a closure in such a short discussion. Winged Blades Godric 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
An uninvolved closer is needed. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * . Winged Blades Godric 17:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump
Requesting early closure because of possible BLP implications of the disputed section. — JFG talk 15:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done:--Regretably, the situation isn't one-sided enough for the execution of a snow closure--on any grounds.Let it run! Winged Blades Godric 12:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Cao Bang (1979)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Cao Bang (1979) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 12:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Flag
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Flag ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 12:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Controversial Reddit communities
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Controversial Reddit communities ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 11:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 11:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse
Discussion been ongoing very slowly for a year (!), personally I can see a consensus and would close it myself if I knew how to action the request. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done--Aervanath (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955
Could an administrator assess the consensus at the ban discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955 ? Thanks,--Cúchullain t/ c 15:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For better clarity: . --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by Deryck C. --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14

 * Stale discussion, no contributions after end of March (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like consensus now (but I also contributed). – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by . Deryck C. 16:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:International Justice Mission
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Justice Mission ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done After relisting, the rough consensus supports incorporation of criticism where appropriate throughout the article instead of in one "Criticism" section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus for the proposal as written. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Closed with clear consensus for grouping and rough consensus for grouping into tenure and highlight sections. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:European Graduate School
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Graduate School ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus for altering the inclusion of the sources listed. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lithuania
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lithuania ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by on 26 May 2017, updating listing here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 139
Requesting uninvolved closer, even though the request seems early. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by Mz7, for whom I thank. --George Ho (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2017 May
Uninvolved closer is needed please. George Ho (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Deryck C. 17:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the move review, ! Cunard (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Need an uninvolved closer. George Ho (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by Jytdog. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, Jytdog! Cunard (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Kudpung. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956 ? Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Vanamonde93. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest (2nd request)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest ? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a part of the overall discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest, separately below. Without comment on what the results should be, I believe that the overall discussion will be difficult to close, but that Concrete proposal 1, should be very easy to close, and, as the original proposer, I'd rather not see it get lost in the shuffle.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Restored from Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 23. Closer self-reverted their close and wrote, "I reverted the closure because of concerns with the wording, not with the overall result. Another editor (or two) to add to the close discussion will result in a much more polished result. I see no reason to not partake in that discussion." The other closer,  wrote, "Primefac being uncomfortable with it, I'll accept that the close should be vacated and redone by someone else." I am listing this discussion here since Primefac would like another editor or two to participate in another close. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Milieu 3, Milieu 4, Concrete proposal 1, Concrete proposal 2, and Concrete proposal 3 need separate closures from uninvolved closer(s). I already closed milieu 1, milieu 2, and milieu 5. George Ho (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Milieu 3, Concrete proposal 1 and Concrete proposal 2 have been closed by me. Winged Blades Godric 12:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking. After closing all the milieus and concrete proposals, I wonder whether closing the remainder of the whole discussion as a whole is possible. If not, how about separately closing "RfC discussion" (including Break 1), Break 2, and Break 3? George Ho (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --I feel that all discussions need not be closed esp. given that the spectrum is too broad. Winged Blades Godric 16:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, Godric. BTW, emailed you. George Ho (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Milieu 4 and Concrete proposal 3 still remain. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * done Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 06:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish diaspora
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish diaspora ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yashovardhan (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * by . Winged Blades Godric 04:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks. Was just mentioning this! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Neutrality. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
This RfC recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Winged Blades Godric 16:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This still has not been closed yet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Winged Blades of Godric. It's been days since you stated that you would close this, and there have been additional votes since then. Are you still going to close this RfC? If you'd rather not, then maybe Armbrust or Cunard would? I would ask I JethroBT, but he edits sporadically these days and I've asked him to close more than one RfC. I don't know too many editors who specialize in closing RfCs and/or close a lot of them. AlbinoFerret is semi-retired. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 04:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Abraham
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abraham ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Neutrality. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muhammad ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Neutrality. Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2020/Archive 4
Uninvolved closer needed. The archive bot put it in the archive. Crewcamel (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Supreme Court of the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done:-There are obvious problems with the framing of the RFC. Winged Blades Godric 06:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 06:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Women's Equality Party
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Women's Equality Party ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done--Discussion is too scarce.I am not going to do it but relisting is a possibility. Winged Blades Godric 06:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * . Cunard (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 06:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:En Marche!
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:En Marche! ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 06:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 06:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
Following four discussions were sort of heated (two of them definitely are). As none of the discussions did not achieve consensus, they provide a false impression. Requesting an unbiased closure, based on facts/sources provided in the discussions. this, that, this, and that. — usernamekiran (talk)  03:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done-The discusion wasn't an RFC.And this is not a place to ask to close random discussions. Winged Blades Godric 06:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * sure. Where should this be taken to? — usernamekiran (talk)  21:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where should this be taken to? — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know. Don't care, except that the point I was making was that since these four discussions were not requests for comment, they shouldn't have been listed in the RfCs section of this page, which has four sections, each with a different purpose. They also did not require admin action, and were not pages for deletion. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Echo . Winged Blades Godric 02:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * you two geniuses should read this: Closing discussions. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  08:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I already made it clear, we only close RfC and RMs on article talk pages, or if a discussion is especially heated (nuclear). An article talk page is not ANI. We don't close a discussion because a participant thinks it gives the wrong impression. Just make a note of why that is at the bottom of the discussion and any reader can make up their own minds. Insulting editors who are rightly confused by your request is not on. El_C 09:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologise. I thought by "we" you meant admins. Closing discussions states discussions on talkpage of articles can be closed if the situation calls for it.

If was confused by my request or didn't know what can be requested here then he shouldn't have used {not done} template so confidently, and the words "don't know, don't care".

And no, I didn't insult anybody.

Anyways, I closed the discussions. I think there is no point continuing this discussion. I humbly request everybody to cease communication here. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  12:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know, don't care was not Winged Blades of Godric—that was Redrose64—who told you pretty much what I said before: we, on Wikipedia, don't ordinarily close regular discussions. Calling them "geniuses" is unhelpful, they were just telling you what any one else would have. Your request is unusual. El_C 01:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * So you decide to close them yourself, really? Why should those threads be frozen? What if someone else wants to continue commenting? You provided no convincing reason for this. Also, you're one of the main participants, it is not objective for you to close those yourself(!). This is starting to become disruptive. El_C 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing/Archive 1
The discussion requested a move to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. It's effectively been mooted a short time ago as the police have confirmed that it was, in fact, a bombing. As this is a very high-profile article at the top of the Main Page news section, could an admin please close the discussion and make the move ASAP? Prioryman (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done by SlimVirgin. Thank you for closing the requested move! Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289 ? Please review the unblock request at User talk:Paul Bedson. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Protests against Donald Trump/Archive 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Protests against Donald Trump/Archive 3 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Need uninvolved closer please. --George Ho (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Stockholm attack
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Stockholm attack ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 05:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jews
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jews ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 05:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jars of Clay (album)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jars of Clay (album) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 05:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Medical resources
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Medical resources ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 05:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft talk:US Presidents navbox
Requesting an uninvolved editor to kindly assess consensus about the draft merge of US Presidents and US Presidential Administrations, which strongly overlap each other. This RfC is the continuation of a previous debate held at Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7 (29 January – 3 March), following the process suggested by the closer. Thanks, — JFG talk 15:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed with rough consensus for Proposal C. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Needs uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-requested closure at WP:AN on assumption that more than one closer may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done Joint closure authored by myself and posted with multi-part conclusion.  See close for full details. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Cao Bang (1979)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Cao Bang (1979) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * -I believe the matter is already resolved! Winged Blades Godric  12:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reverts in the article history indicate it is not resolved yet. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done Yashovardhan (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Shapiro
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ben Shapiro ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by Winged Blades of Godric. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:RWBY

 * This discussion started on April 25, 2017, it was a prior RfC that has since expired. I feel the discussion has run its course and would like an admin to asses the consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done Even though I am not an admin, I guess the consensus was simple enough that any other uninvolved editor would have done it as easily. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User categories
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User categories ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at this RfC and perform a close? Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, would someone experienced please close this? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I re-requested a closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, saying that either a solo or teamwork closure may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by . Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Berkeley protests
Needs uninvolved closer please. --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Mz7 (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957 Thanks, —  Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 00:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done by Dennis Brown. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 13:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess the outcome of this consensus-building effort on the lead section of a controversial article? — JFG talk 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done THE DIAZ talk • contribs 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Day-care sex-abuse hysteria ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done--Barring one editor, all supported that it is non-compliant due tocertain issues.Let the rest be discussed naturally on the talk. Winged Blades Godric 13:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocide ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done THE DIAZ talk • contribs 14:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus in favor of the intended proposal. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Done &mdash; Music1201  talk  22:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Six-Day War
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Six-Day War ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done by . Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Stockholm attack#RfC about time of attack times as given in article
Needs uninvolved closer please. --George Ho (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Alternative for Germany
Would an uninvolved experienced editor assess the outcome of the consensus regarding the entry in the infobox of the article? --Joobo (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Emmett Till
This RfC recently expired. We need an editor to weigh the arguments and assess the consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Judaism and sexuality
Clear consensus to exclude statement entirely has been reached and the RfC has been recently delisted, so I think this can be closed now. Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your signature is invisible. The main problem is the  declaration. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jacen Solo
There has been a discussion for merging Jacen Solo into Solo family for between two and four years, depending on how you count. The discussion has never been closed and consensus is hard to determine, as the page is active, yet most of the votes for in favor of merging. Let's have this settled. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * notdone Per the top of this page, Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Just do it. (BTW it was never an RfC, so even if it wasn't four years old with clear consensus, it doesn't belong in the RfCs section here.) -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done by DarthBotto. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lord North (disambiguation)
Needs an uninvolved closer, to assess the consensus. Thanks. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus in favor of double-disambiguation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 17
Looks like there is consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, time to close this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done by – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 6
. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done by –  Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the CfD, Explicit! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Koren Specific Technique
the discussion has not been edited in over a year, and it has been brought up at AN/I that it was not closed. if this might be considered forumshopping, feel free to refuse. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * done. This might've been considered forum shopping at the time the request was posted, but another month has elapsed since then so it is in the benefit of the editorial process to close it now. Deryck C. 12:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump talk discussion/survey close request
Can an admin please review this discussion and survey on Donald Trump talk here and close it? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking a look!Am not even sure this qualifies for a closure. Winged Blades Godric 04:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 60. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * not done. I concur with Winged Blades of Godric above that a formal closure is not necessary, especially since the discussion has now fallen into an archive page. Deryck C. 12:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2017/April

 * Please disposition the open discussions started in April 2017 at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2017/April. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to be done P p p e<big style="position:relative;top:10px">r y 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2017 May 24
Very overdue DRV discussion. I think there is a reasonably clear consensus, but I contributed to the discussion and so did many of the other regulars who close DRV discussions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Done by . Winged Blades Godric 13:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the DRV, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2017 June 10
There's been more than enough talk on this issue, the ongoing discussion is a honeypot for trolls. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Covfefe. I mean, done. Deryck C. 12:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the DRV, ! Cunard (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala/Archive 1
The consensus is not to include the suggested word. It would be better if any uninvolved user could close the discussion. Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 13:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * closed ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * not done. Already archived without closure. --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, it can be edited: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289. --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * closed. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the ANI discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as clear consensus in favor of proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Done --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1 ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed with consensus to include the majority of the proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Looking for additional closers to collaborate with our volunteer User:Winged Blades of Godric, who's already signed up. Not a close for the fainthearted, I would tend to think.— S Marshall T/C 22:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A re-request of Administrators' noticeboard. Also, just in case: --George Ho (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC); amended, 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --Willing to collaborate? If yes,feel free to drop a note on my talk! Winged Blades Godric  14:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ned Kelly
Would like an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly ? Thanks, David. moreno 72    09:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as in favor of including the picture of the monument. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Noël Coward
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noël Coward ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed with consensus against proposed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Antonio Margarito
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antonio Margarito ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ned Kelly
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done duplicate request - see above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Jesus ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done Closed as no consensus for restructuring. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Potts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Potts ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (non-admin closure) Done Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Sic/Archive 1
Someone please close this RfC on the use of [sic] tags in quotations. This should be an easy close, as it asks a simple and concise question and there are 9 responses, almost all of which answer the question at least indirectly, and there is hardly any debate. A closing by an uninvolved party would be very valuable here because the question is relevant to a longstanding conflict. ? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (non-admin closure) Done Snuge purveyor (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates/Archive 4
Would an uninvolved experienced editor assess the outcome of the consensus regarding this RFC? --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done--Complete scarcity of any substantial discussion. Winged Blades Godric 18:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill
This needs an uninvolved closer. Meanwhile, Citation underkill was created and then discussed. --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (non-admin closure) Done Snuge purveyor (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Money.Net
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Money.Net ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done:-The RFC was non-controversial and the initiator did a good job of charting a closing statement! Winged Blades Godric 18:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Goguryeo
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goguryeo ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not done:-The issue is prob. resolved and it's difficult to summarise such an opinion-based RFC.And it's short! Winged Blades Godric 17:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 17:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done Primefac (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kind of Blue
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kind of Blue ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done:- Winged Blades Godric 17:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done Primefac (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Mueller
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Mueller ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done:- Winged Blades Godric 17:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Policy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Policy ? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
I am requesting early closure of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout which has turned into a slanging match. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (non-admin closure)  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 10:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have undone the close. It should be allowed to run the full 30 days, and should be given a proper close by an administrator. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, you didn't. All you did was the  and  templates that had been added by . As far as the RFC system is concerned, it's still closed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While I am refraining from reverting your revertion; please don't reverse closes unilaterally.There were ample valid grounds for a snow close.And WP:AN is the appropriate venue for discussing closure-related problems! Winged Blades Godric 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Had an administrator closed it, I would in fact, have opened a discussion. I firmly disagree with "ample grounds for a snow close", and while I've no doubt it was done with the best of intentions, I firmly disagree with a non-administrator responding to a request for administrative action. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin. Should I have closed it? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that rhetorical? You know damn well you shouldn't have closed it. I didn't realize you were an admin. That renders my revert rather pointless. By the numbers it's 123. It was my hope that the closing admin would look past that, and actually adjudicate this based on actual arguments, which, if one ignores the handful of baseless votes, seem to be fairly even. One vote from an administrator, however, renders all other votes meaningless, right or wrong, and is, sadly, "ample grounds for a snow close". Joefromrandb (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was rhetorical. But if I hadn't already !voted, I could probably have closed it in order to stop the escalation which was already in WP:NPA territory. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --Whatever is posted at this noticeboard(which is a sub-board of WP:AN) is typically meant for administrators.But that does not exclude any editor from taking an action on the issues; esp. if that could be performed without the use of any tool specifically provided to the sysops.Also, see this RFC.Thanks! Winged Blades Godric 08:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was clearly a malicious reversion. This reverting person is one of the only two people who disagrees with the others in that discussion. So, he is simply prolonging the inevitable as a last act of defiance before the consensus eventually changes Wikipedia to the way he does not like. I think a closure by an uninvolved editor must never be reversed by an involved editor, at least, not without a round of communication.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

done As an editor with no prior involvement in the issue, I reviewed the RfC and the related prior discussions ne novo and find that the clear consensus for placement of these templates is at the top of the article. See close for full rationale. While I am confident experienced involved editors are familiar with WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, I am linking to this for those who may not have recently reviewed it. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the RfC, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Céline Bethmann
Second re-list was seven days ago. Outcome could be keep, redirect or no consensus, but I'm not sure which. Linguist 1 1 1 15:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * already done by . Deryck C. 11:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the AfD, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 23
Closure was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_13&diff=prev&oldid=787032661 reverted on 13 June 2017], so the discussion was subsequently relisted. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * done. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the TfD, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Counter Logic Gaming/1
Requesting that an experienced editor close the good article reassessment and carry out the consensus, which is unanimous. –Cognissonance (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree; the consensus is unanimous. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 07:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done by . Snuge purveyor (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Refimprove
Requesting closure and potential action for the template page. North America1000 21:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed link and header for you. --George Ho (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * done Reverted change and gave some advice to the template editor concerned. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the discussion, ! Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)