Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 3

 2012 entries 

Deletion review/Log/2012 August 20
WP:DRV is backlogged. Would an admin assess the consensus at: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Deletion review/Log/2012 August 20
 * 2) Deletion review/Log/2012 August 22
 * 3) Deletion review/Log/2012 August 22
 * Closed one. I believe that I commented on previous incarnations of the other two DRVs so I can't close those. T. Canens (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All are now closed. Hobit (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)? Initiated 13 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion because of inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion is now archived at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 90. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  17:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I participated in the discussion a bit so I can't close it, but I am not sure it needs a formal close anyway. It clearly did not succeed, policy had not been changed, so I have marked it with failed. I suppose we could leave this up a bit longer to see if any completely uninvolved party would rather go through the motions of a formal closing but this is probaby good enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that that should suffice, but I agree it wouldn't hurt to leave it up a bit longer to see if someone uninvolved can review the discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am completely totally uninvolved and have read the entire fascinating discussion. So: my name is Drmies and I endorse this failure. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ by . Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  07:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sean Combs
Would an uninvolved admin or uninvolved experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sean Combs (initiated 4 May 2012)? There is some contention about the proposed changes; see the Talk:Sean Combs section. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. And I might add that it was immediately obvious to me why this sat here for so long without a closer... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A very difficult close to make. Thank you, Beeblebrox, for reviewing and summarizing it! Cunard (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Roger Waters
Would an uninvolved admin or uninvolved experienced editor close and summarize the RfC at Talk:Roger Waters? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Founder member" it is. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Remaining Stub types for deletion discussions
Per Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion, Stub types for deletion was marked as historical and replaced by Categories for discussion and Templates for discussion. Several discussions remain unclosed: Would an admin close or relist these discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/May/31 ✅
 * 2) Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/May/29 ✅
 * 3) Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/May/16 ✅
 * 4) Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/May/15 ✅
 * 5) Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/May/14 ✅
 * 6) Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/May/6 ✅
 * I've boldly gone ahead and closed a few less contentious ones, as a non-admin. But it still remains for a admin to go through and close the last remaining ones, so we can finally let SFD rest in the historical peace it deserves. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I took care of the rest, thus this request is ✅. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  13:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal
Would an uninvolved admin or uninvolved experienced editor relist or close and summarize the RfC at Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  14:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Would an uninvolved admin or uninvolved experienced editor close and summarize the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Username policy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed--v/r - TP 13:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Anurag Mathur
Hi. Could someone please close out the this AFD; I have decided to withdraw my AFD. Thanks. Quis separabit? 13:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Authority control integration proposal/RFC
Would someone be so kind as to close Authority control integration proposal/RFC? The discussion has more or less stopped (one comment in the past five days) and it's been open for just under four weeks. (I would close it myself, but I wrote the RFC to begin with!)

Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15/Change in consensus on Northern Ireland
Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15/Change in consensus on Northern Ireland (initiated 19 June 2012)?
 * Added this to a later MfD related request. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  07:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please also close: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sarin Kouyoumdjian/Marcus Evans Summits (initiated 3 July 2012)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:ELECTRONICS DUMP AN ENCYCLO-PEDIA:- 1) NIYAZ KHAN 2) VEENA NARAYANKAR 3) SHAIKH HAQUE MOBASSIR (initiated 9 July 2012)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Outer Ring Road, Bangalore and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Forward Bloc (both initiated 11 July 2012)
 * Both ✅ by . Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  18:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes a minute to delete those portals because of all the transclusions, but yep, done now. I looked at the other thing, the cfd, consensus is pretty clear but I'm frankly not sure I understand it so I haven't closed it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Level one user warnings
Would an admin assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Level one user warnings (initiated 27 June 2012)? The page was last edited on 18 June 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pope
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Pope? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bob Dylan
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Bob Dylan? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Kerala
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Kerala? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians
Would an admin assess the consensus at RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing this very difficult discussion. The deceased Wikipedian is currently listed at Deceased Wikipedians. Would you add to your close whether the default is whether to have or not have an entry on him? His entry was added on 18 May 2012‎ and removed on 25 June 2012. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with a non consensus result, it doesn't really tell us anything. At the moment it is back on the list, notmally a no consensus result defaults to the status quo, so I guess it stays in for now. I'll leave a note to that effect there. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit/RfC (Proposal)
 Rcsprinter  (talk)  @ 16:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy (initiated 27 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Five-million pool and other MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15/Change in consensus on Northern Ireland (initiated 19 June 2012)
 * ✅. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Five-million pool (initiated 13 July 2012)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Ünye (initiated 13 July 2012)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burgas00/Spanish Gibraltarians (initiated 14 July 2012)
 * ✅ Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:GTA No. 1 fan (initiated 15 July 2012)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Move review
Would an admin summarize the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Move review regarding the status of non-admin closures of move discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Germans
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Germans? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Summary style
Could some admin please summarize this and preferable choose one of the options rather than leaving it to go on to another long dispute. There is a request below it to update the page with one of the options but with the proposer saying they will dispute what they are proposing! I am happy with that if it is a definite decision of the RfC rather than a basis for further dispute. The RfC hasn't been touched for the last day and doesn't seem to be attracting contribution so if you'd like to contribute instead please do. The page will be unprotected tomorrow and I fear if some definite decision isn't reached it will be back to what led to that. Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could someone please come along and close the RfC thanks. Dmcq (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gladly. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter
Shall this discussion be closed or opened for a little while? --George Ho (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've closed it but since there is also a DRV underway on the same subject I'm not sure it makes much difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an admin close Village pump (proposals)? The discussion was initiated on 18 April 2012 and was listed on Template:Centralized discussion. If there is a consensus to implement the proposal, would an admin file a Bugzilla report requesting the implementation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussion has been archived to Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_89. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion right now at VPM. If there is not significant opposition, I'll file a Bugzilla request. David  1217  What I've done 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Closure is no longer necessary. A VPM discussion closed as (rough) support for enabling ReferenceTooltips by default, and the relevant MediaWiki gadgets page has been modified to make the tooltips default. David  1217  What I've done 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Watchlist survey
Would an admin assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Watchlist survey (initiated 18 May 2012)? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, could some gadgets be enabled that allow unread changes to be displayed differently on the watchlist, using the CSS from Customizing watchlists? That seemed to be a position that received support in the RfC. My suggestion would be to have gadgets to enable bolding or a subtle underscore, as those received the most support. David 1217  What I've done 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is a bit much to expect from a closer. Closing a discussion is one thing, mucking around in the software is something else. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have gotten no response at gadget proposals. Anyway, the code can be just copy-pasted from WP:CUSTOMWATCH and the instructions are quite simple. David  1217  What I've done 23:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion as a non-admin (pretty clear consensus, yes I was "involved"). Now I just need an admin to add a gadget. David 1217  What I've done 02:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Rangers_F.C. Closing of a straw poll
Hi, can a non involved admin please close this straw poll and decide if a consensus has been reached Talk:Rangers_F.C. this will help move this major dispute on-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib )
 * ✅ Everyone agreed. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:James_Eagan_Holmes
I request an administrator who has not been involved in either this article or any of the Aurora Shooting articles to assess whether James_Eagan_Holmes be merged into the main article or not. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . I didn't weigh in much on that thread because I had better things to do to keep the talk page and article in control. A point that admin should consider is policy/legality, etc. With 'no merge' we can keep the suspect seperate from the shooter. They are two different people unless the suspect is convicted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This one was closed by admin if someone wants to check and file.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 7
Would an admin assess the consensus at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 7? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Marketing mix/Archives/2012
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Marketing mix/Archives/2012 (initiated 20 May 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Eddie Rocket's
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Eddie Rocket's (initiated 29 May 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Glenora Distillers
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Glenora Distillers (initiated 18 May 2012) regarding a merge of Glen Breton Rare into Glenora Distillers? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Interim dividend
Would an admin assess the consensus at the merge discussion at Talk:Interim dividend (initiated 8 May 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sino-Indian War
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sino-Indian War (initiated 25 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories? Initiated 8 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. The last comment was made on 14 June 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it would be proper to close this one yet - sure, the conversation went stale, but while I see a lot of competing proposals, I don't see the kind of discussion that would allow a closer to close it as anything other than "stale." Which, if we're going down that route, why mark it at all?  Discussion may begin again at some point. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The last comment at the RfC was on 14 June 2012, 45 days ago. The RfC will likely be archived by with no further discussion. Are you unable to find a consensus among the comments there because of the diverse views, or is the RfC structured in a format not conducive to consensus building? If the former, I agree that a closure may be unhelpful, but if there are commonalities among the participants' views, such commonalities can be mentioned in a close. If the latter, a closure could provide recommendations about how to better structure the RfC so it is conducive to consensus building. Cunard (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see diverse views, several disagreements involving just two editors (mostly), and at the end a proposal that received no comments. Therefore, I don't see any basis to close the RfC in any way except as "stale."  There are some points of agreement, but not enough to justify a sectional close like at the WP:ACERFC.  Frankly, since the participants seem to have abandoned it, I don't know that a close would do any good in any case.  Given these principles, and the fact that - unlike a RfA or XfD - a discussion doesn't really "need" to be closed anyway, I don't think a close would be appropriate here.  Just let it archive like any other conversation.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the closer look at the RfC. This can be archived. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Super Market (Islamabad)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Super Market (Islamabad) regarding whether to merge the article to F-6, Islamabad? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin determine whether the consensus is to uphold or overturn the block of in the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard (initiated 17 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Community portal
Could an admin look over and close, please? (It's very short!) Also relevant is the earlier discussion here. Thank you! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_size
This discussion must be closed by an administrator. There is enough consensus already. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC) ✅. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 21:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Civil War (2011–present)
Move request was started on 23 July 2012 with a single or almost no opposing arguements, I request a closure here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  15:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2012 July 25
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2012 July 25? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  06:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Godwin's_law
A discussion about merging this artice with Reductio ad Hitlerum has been open here since 31 May 2012. 10 editors have commented by now, all opposing the merge. Perhaps it's time for a close?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  06:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lily Cole
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Lily Cole (initiated 27 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability? The discussion was initiated on 10 May 2012 and was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Said the actress to the bishop
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Said the actress to the bishop (initiated 15 April 2011)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Jafeluv (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Disney XD
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Disney XD (initiated 1 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (initiated 28 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident (initiated 6 July 2012)? The last comment was 9 July 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now archived at Talk:Mitt_Romney_dog_incident/Archive_7. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pakistan Zindabad
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Pakistan Zindabad (see the subsection Talk:Pakistan Zindabad initiated 28 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * closed --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Village pump (policy), taking into consideration the discussions related to the subject: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive237, Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, Deletion review/Log/2012 July 25, Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga on Twitter,Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter, Deletion review/Log/2012 July 9, Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter, Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter (2nd nomination), and Deletion review/Log/2012 July 24. The discussion was initiated on 2 July 2012. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * closed --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pinta Island tortoise
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Pinta Island tortoise (initiated 25 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * closed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ian Fleming
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ian Fleming about whether the article should have an infobox (initiated 23 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * closed --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Legend of Korra
Would an admin please close this discussion? Consensus seems to be apparent, but in the spirit of neutrality it has been requested it be closed by an impartial user. Thanks! — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 20:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  06:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Incarceration in the United States/Archive 1
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Incarceration in the United States/Archive 1 (initiated 29 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Beatles and Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Would an admin please assess the consensus and close the RfCs at the Beatles and Sgt Pepper. Yes, the straw polls are redundant, nonetheless, numerous editors have taken time to comment, some at one and not the other. I respectfully request that the same admin close both RfCs. Thank you. ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. It seems odd that these are on individual pages. Stlamanda (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been decided at MedCom to run a new poll, so these two do not need to be closed. Thanks. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Left-to-right mark
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Left-to-right mark (initiated 27 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  08:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Penis
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Penis (initiated 12 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Grethe and Jørgen Ingmann
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Grethe and Jørgen Ingmann regarding a merger proposal? I was going to close it but one of the participants told me that it was somewhat biased so I undid the closure and the re-direct action. The last comment (until today) was in July 31 2012. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion
Would an admin summarize the consensus at Talk:Abortion (initiated 25 June 2012)? I have placed a new RfC tag at Talk:Abortion (initiated 30 July 2012) to attract more participants. The RfC was closed by at Talk:Abortion as having consensus to add "primarily" to the lead, but the close was contested by  who advanced a new proposal at Talk:Abortion. Does the first discussion have consensus to implement RoyBoy's change, or should the RfC closure be delayed until there has been a 30-day discussion of the new proposal? I will let the closing admin decide. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I went ahead and closed the whole thing down, with some advice on how to proceed from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Darrell Issa
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Darrell Issa (initiated 1 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Frasier Crane
Well, I wonder if the consensus is reached. --George Ho (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Youreallycan
Almost a snow, and the editor has declared their desire to get started with the process. Nobody Ent 20:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 90
Would an admin summarize the consensus at the RfC at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 90 (initiated 22 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done (unarchived to Village pump (proposals)). Jafeluv (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lucy Ricardo
Is the consensus sufficient? --George Ho (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For me after almost seven weeks, yes. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII  <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  17:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee
Would an admin assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee? Initiated 27 May 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The RfC was initiated by an arbitrator. I am not sure that the ArbCom intends it to be closed by a random administrator.  Sandstein   18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked Arbitrator to take a look. Cunard (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Committee are in discussion on the matter, but the RfC was not an ArbCom initiative, it was started by a Committee member, but acting as a community member, as was made clear by one of the clerks - []; as such any uninvolved admin may close the RfC with a summary of the discussion that the Committee will take on board. I took part in the discussion, so it would be inappropriate for me to close it.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages and Wikipedia talk:User pages
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages and Wikipedia talk:User pages? Because the sections discuss the same topic, I recommend that the closer make the latter link a subsection of the first one and then assess the consensus in the overall discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1st by . Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII  <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  08:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2nd discussion also closed by . Cunard (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 89
At Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 3, wrote that "Closure is no longer necessary. A VPM discussion closed as (rough) support for enabling ReferenceTooltips by default, and the relevant MediaWiki gadgets page has been modified to make the tooltips default." I cannot find the VPM discussion that was closed with rough support for enabling Reference Tooltips by default. Would David1217 or another user who knows the location of the discussion close Village pump (proposals)/Archive 89 with a pointer to the VPM discussion to provide documentation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The VPM discussion is already archived at Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_38. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link, Armbrust, but I don't see how the discussion was "closed as (rough) support for enabling ReferenceTooltips by default", as stated by . Cunard (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know, but Reference Tooltips were enabled as defeault, as I have to opt-out. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  05:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Would someone summarize the discussion's consensus for documentation purposes and link to any Bugzilla request (if there is any) that implemented Reference Tooltips? Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Closed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 5 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 12 July 2012)? If the consensus is to activate the section 0 edit link, would the closing admin or a user with a bugzilla account file a report there? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Guidelines
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Guidelines (initiated 16 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been closed by user:Monty845. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 21 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NACed by me. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion (initiated 21 July 2012)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed by . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 91
Would an admin assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 91 (initiated 24 July 2012)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2014/April
Would an admin assess the consensus at talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2014/April (initiated 7 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NACed by me. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:St. Jimmy
Would an admin assess the consensus at the merge/redirect RfC at Talk:St. Jimmy (initiated 16 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NACed by me. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 14
Need an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. It should be easy. I left some instructions at the bottom of the discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I NACed this. The discussion was actually less clear than it first appeared and a passing admin may wish to either endorse my close or write another one. Hobit (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse it if necessary, but I don't see a need. I had a look and I thought it was a very well-considered summing up. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jared Lee Loughner
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner (initiated 29 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now archived at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_3. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  07:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now un-archived. Please close the discussion. Could someone determine if this edit by another user forced the archiving of an RfC awaiting a close? Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that edit has made the bot archive the section. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVIII <sub style="color:#008000;">The Undertaker 20–0  09:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the RFC Bot had removed the RFC notice automatically, as RFC's expire automatically at 30 days of age. This occurred PRIOR to my edit. Safiel (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will place a Do Not Archive template on that thread to prevent it from rearchiving prior to admin closure. Safiel (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NACed. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Metrication of British transport
Please close this dicussion. It was started by an editor who has since been identified an a sockpuppet for banned a editor. Martinvl (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion was closed by an involved editor, though I think the outcome was correct. A passing admin may wish to reclose or endorse this. Hobit (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Great consonant shift
Would an admin assess the consensus at the redirect discussions at Talk:Great consonant shift? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Jafeluv (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. 28bytes (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Phallus
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Phallus (initiated 21 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear case, so closed. By the way, doesn't anyone use WP:PM anymore? Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Rasmussen Reports/Archive 2
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Rasmussen Reports/Archive 2 or restore the RfC tag (initiated 15 August 2012)? The RfC tag removed with the comment that the "debate is dead". If this is true, the RfC can be assessed. If this is inaccurate, the RfC tag should be restored. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Google searches and numbers
Would an admin assess the consensus regarding whether to promote Google searches and numbers to guideline at Wikipedia talk:Google searches and numbers (the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Google searches and numbers was initiated on 20 July 2012). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Family_Research_Council
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Family_Research_Council and formally close it? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:American_Family_Association
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:American_Family_Association and formally close it? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  12:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy (initiated 2 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed Hobit (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bloody Christmas
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Bloody Christmas (initiated 21 July 2012) if the discussion is amenable to a summary (I don't see a clear proposal in the opening post.)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done--v/r - TP 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Phallus
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Phallus (initiated 21 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed as consensus: inappropriate to include. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent closing statement that explained your decision. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Legend of Korra
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:The Legend of Korra (initiated 19 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No longer exists. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Archived to Talk:The Legend of Korra/Archive 1 and Talk:The Legend of Korra/Archive 1. The precedent with an archived discussion is to close the discussion and announce the result on the talk page or move the archived discussions back to the talk page and then close them. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * fixed. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  09:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now the archives are at Talk:The Legend of Korra/Archive 2 after 's close. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_10
Discussion start on August 10 and is inactive for the last 4 days. We only need an uninvolved admin to close it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

&rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC),  Duh, this is different. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  09:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Templates for discussion, TfDs are closed after seven days, though they can be relisted if there is insufficient participation. In a highly trafficked template like this, perhaps the TfD should be relisted for more discussion and listed on Template:Centralized discussion before it is closed. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow I didn't make the connection that this was a XfD and therefore is on the different timer. Huh. Nevermind the above then, I've struck my comments. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  09:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. - jc37 07:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:God
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:God (initiated 25 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comsensus is that God is omnipotent. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Always nice to know that omnipotence is measured by consensus :-) NACed by me. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox and other MfD discussions
Would admins assess the consensus at: Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox (initiated 24 July 2012) ✅
 * 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space (initiated 29 July 2012) ✅
 * 3) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of paradoxes/articles containing paradox not in title 2009-11-14 (initiated 30 July 2012) ✅
 * 4) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hazir123 (initiated 30 July 2012) ✅
 * 5) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Willurd/William Stewart Lawrence (initiated 31 July 2012) ✅
 * 6) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject University of North Texas/Member userbox (initiated 31 July 2012)
 * 7) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stefanhajek/I Am (2010 film) (initiated 2 August 2012) ✅
 * 8) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mr pand/Compilations (initiated 5 August 2012) ✅
 * 9) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:POVbrigand/list (initiated 5 August 2012) ✅
 * 10) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kolkata (2nd nomination) (initiated 8 August 2012) ✅
 * All discussions closed. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Ryan
Would an admin assess the consensus at the poll? Thanks. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bump. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above editor has begun taking it upon themselves to begin telling some "opposing" editors that their vote will not count towards consensus and I believe it has disrupted the RFC and stalled further input as well as put off any uninvolved editor from attempting a closing of this RFC. As the editor that began it, I request an uninvolved administrator to review the consensus and close the RFC please. Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above editor, meaning me, has urged editors to follow WP:CLOSE by offering reasons instead of preferences. I'm actually helping them by encouraging them to make their !VOTE count. But, yes, let's please close this RFC. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed as "no consensus" by . Cunard (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes (initiated 22 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * closed - jc37 22:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Winklevoss twins
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Winklevoss twins (initiated 24 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * closed - jc37 01:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica_massacre
Can an admin please assess the the RfC at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre? It's been open since 13 June. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 00:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * closed - jc37 01:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, particularly Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? ANI participant said: "I'm going to be rather busy in most of the next 36 hours or so, so if anyone notices anything, I'd appreciate it if you presented it here, and/or kept this all from being prematurely archived", so I am posting this request here. Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed by . Cunard (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept
Would an admin assess the consensus at Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept (initiated 24 July 2012, listed at Template:Centralized discussion, and unedited since 1 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ See my comments for details. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Rihanna singles
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Rihanna singles (initiated 9 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Flag of India
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Flag of India (initiated 20 July 2012)? The RfC tag was removed by after the RfC expired. Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse
Would an admin formally close Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse, which has been withdrawn by the proposer? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Macclesfield Bank
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Macclesfield Bank (initiated 11 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:RT (TV network)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:RT (TV network) (initiated 17 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of vegans
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:List of vegans (initiated 20 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk)

Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence (initiated 25 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sister Roma
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sister Roma (initiated 28 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis 1:3
Can I request that somebody close the merge discussion at Talk:Genesis 1:3. This discussion was reopened by Dougweller on procedural grounds. Reasons for closing: Thanks. -- 202.124.75.77 (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * more than a week has elapsed since the proposal
 * all four responses to the merge proposal opposed it, nobody supported it, so WP:SNOW seems to apply (the proposal was made when the article was a short stub, it was since significantly expanded)
 * discussion has ceased, the last response to the proposal was on 26 August (although there has been some debate on procedural aspects of the proposal, from editors who themselves chose neither to oppose or support the proposal).
 * Just to note that I didn't re-open this. My opinion was sought concerning attempts to close this (one which I believe was before 7 days had passed) and I simply noted that we have a procedure for closure and that I didn't think that in this case involved parties should be closing it while others are objecting to the closure. I do note that there are no 4 support votes and no opposes and if I had not been involved by the post to my talk page I would might have considered closing it myself. However, there is no reason to rush to closure here and I see no harm in leaving the discussion open for a few days more. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the discussion was closed after 5 days on 27 August 2012‎ by User:Neelix, who forgot to "blue-box" the talk thread with "Discussion" tags. I added those tags later that day, but they were later removed, with what I understood to be endorsement by User:Dougweller. At present, the thread is more or less in the state it was in when User:Neelix closed the discussion. Over to you guys. -- 202.124.75.77 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that when Dougweller says "no support votes and no opposes," I think he means "no support votes and 4 opposes." -- 202.124.75.156 (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Attempts to close this merge was too swift. Many involved editors were distracted with the Talk:Genesis 1:5 debate which directly involved the merging of Talk:Genesis 1:3. Since the results for Genesis 1:5 was "no consensus", Genesis 1:3 is still open to talk about a merge. If Genesis 1:5 was marked as "keep"... then by default, Genesis 1:3 could not be merged. Now, the opposers of the merge are quickly trying to close the Talk:Genesis 1:3 merge debate to tie up loose ends. With the close tags on it, no one is going to modify it. Only a few of us bold editors are challenging it to ensure a fairness! Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when Jasonasosa mentions Talk:Genesis 1:5, I think he means WP:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5. I also note that, although Jasonasosa has agitated to reopen the merge discussion, he did not contact the admin who closed it, and himself apparently neither supports nor opposes the merge . -- 202.124.73.71 (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5 is correct.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  14:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: Jasonasosa has just added a "support" vote. -- 202.124.73.71 (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP is right in saying that I meant 4 support votes. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction, there are 4 opposes, and now 2 support votes. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well colour me stupid, but I'm counting 4 "opposes" and 1 recent "support." -- 202.124.73.71 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Which totals 2 support votes. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  14:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. You're the only editor that's supported the proposal. -- 202.124.73.71 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * opened the merge, and thus has to be counted, totaling 2 in support. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  17:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And let me just repeat again what User:Dougweller and User:Jasonasosa are glossing over: this merge discussion was properly closed by an admin, namely User:Neelix (except for the missing "Discussion" tags). Jasonasosa attempted to revert the admin here, here, and here. When did that suddenly become acceptable? -- 202.124.73.9 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but was directly involved in the merge dispute at WP:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5. Thus, his admin status does not count as he is biased to the results. Therefore, I was able to undo the admin on all three pages. The consensus is... "No consensus". Thanks,   &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That bizarre belief is the nub of the issue. Nobody has the right to revert an official admin decision like that, only the right to make a complaint about it. And the "no consensus" at WP:Articles for deletion/Genesis 1:5 has nothing to do with the strong "don't merge" consensus at Talk:Genesis 1:3. It seems to me that User:Neelix's closure stands unless anybody here over-rules it. -- 202.124.74.222 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First, he didn't close the discussion, he removed merge tags from the article itself which is why I saw no closure of the discussion, it wasn't closed properly.
 * Secondly, Admins don't have any special power to close a talk page discussion. No consensus however means that the status quo remains. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps it wasn't closed properly. But surely it needs to be either closed properly (with 4 editors opposing User:Fayenatic london's proposal and one editor supporting it) or it should be reopened properly (on the remote chance of more input). At present the page is neither fish nor fowl. -- 202.124.73.65 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Closed--v/r - TP 20:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
This discussion was closed by a non-admin editor. Need an admin to review it. Thanks -- S M S  Talk 15:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll endorse Armburst's closure. There is rough consensus to remove the template although I understand why you would ask for a second opinion.  At it's worst, the same handful of people are in each of these types of India-Pakistan RFCs and it's not helpful when it is just them.   Peter S Strempel's comment would've made an excellent close rationale.--v/r - TP 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing it. Actually I find it kind of weird that admins avoid this topic area. It would be helpful to many editing here if admins avoid avoiding this topic area. -- S M S  Talk 22:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions %28films%29
This discussion occurred in April of this year. No admin closed the discussion, so it could not yet be officially implemented. Thanks. Ω pho  is  02:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.--v/r - TP 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 11
I would rather not close this one, since I closed a related one and there was some backlash from Wikid77. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 02:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.--v/r - TP 19:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States
Discussion has ceased since mid-March, 2012. Requesting closure from an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Jafeluv (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States
Discussion has ceased since early-March, 2012. Requesting closure from an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Jafeluv (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment (see the subsection at Talk:Anti-Christian sentiment)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Shrimp
The discussion at Talk:Shrimp has been at times contentious, with users contesting closer 's neutrality. Would a completely uninvolved admin assess the consensus at Talk:Shrimp, taking into account this comment by and this comment by, two admins who were asked to review the discussion? Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cunard, I assume you're pointing at Talk:Caridea. There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Shrimp, but the discussion at Caridea is anxient, and I see no reason to review Dennis's review of John's review. One would hope that Stemonitis and Epipelagic can work out these issues on this really interesting article (which is making me hungry). But there is no active RfC anymore, and so there is nothing to close. In other words: ✅ Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of African-American firsts
Participants have agreed to request an admin to assess the comments and to close with a decision. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As it's been nearly two weeks, I'd like to ask again for an admin to to assess the comments and to close with a decision. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lilith Sternin/Archive 1
I was going to withdraw, but I don't know if I've added the subject's more relevant relationships. To be honest, I don't find general value about this subject very much. --George Ho (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Grimaldi
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Joseph Grimaldi (initiated 9 August 2012)? The RfC tag was removed after there was an strong consensus to implement the change. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, pro forma I guess. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Information technology
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Information technology (initiated 17 August 2012)? The RfC tag was removed after substantial participation. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue was resolved (and marked so) so there is really nothing to close. Hobit (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I "closed" it anyway, since it's my prerogative. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Bride burning
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bride burning (initiated 3 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ramadan
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ramadan (initiated 27 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed by TParis. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Beef Products Inc.
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Beef Products Inc. (initiated 5 August 2012)? See the RfC at Talk:Beef Products Inc. and the disagreement about the consensus at Talk:Beef Products Inc.. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hobit (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Rape in Northeast India
Would an admin assess the consensus at the merge discussion at Talk:Rape in Northeast India (initiated 9 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hobit (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC closure

 * Moved from AN. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone close this rfc about including fasting criteria in the lede? There are 6 supports and 5 opposes. Pass a Method  talk  11:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Closed.--v/r - TP 18:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy
Would an admin be so kind as to summarize the policy-based consensus at this RfC, and add/not add the proposed text that was discussed? Comments have stopped for awhile now (except for one short one), despite notices at the Village Pump, etc. The discussion has been open for three weeks. I advise taking a look at this thread while you're there, which kind of grew into the current RfC. Much appreciated. NTox · talk 04:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hobit (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy (initiated 1 July 2012) by summarizing the principles in the discussion and declaring whether there is consensus for any additions or changes to the wording of the policy. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hobit (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (initiated 28 July 2012)? The question posed is: "If Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor an indiscriminate collection of information, is a glossary an acceptable form of stand-alone list?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * --j⚛e deckertalk 00:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 4 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅  S ven M anguard   Wha?  22:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 19 August 2012; the last comment was 3 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done.  Sandstein   07:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Official names
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Official names (initiated 11 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done.  Sandstein   07:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section (initiated 9 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done.  Sandstein   07:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Banning policy
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy (initiated 4 August 2012; see the subsection Wikipedia talk:Banning policy). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jeff Duran
With consensus overwhelmingly in favour of Delete, the only editor to vote Keep has (either himself, or via friends) launched a number of WP:SPAs, all of whom are solely focussed on voting Keep at this AfD or editing directly related articles to artificially boost the case for Keep. It's getting quite silly. I'm sure they will all go away if this AfD is closed and we can avoid a time-wasting WP:SPI to confirm what everyone already knows (there has already been one about a username and IP; having been caught the user seems to have changed tactic). If admins disagree then I will raise an SPI, ask for a usercheck and have their "votes" struck from the AfD. Thanks guys, Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - SPI has been raised and checked - please see Sockpuppet investigations/JosephDann for further info. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC).


 * ✅ by admin T. Canens. Thanks! Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) and Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) and Talk:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (initiated 25 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lamia (Pathfinder): Closed as no consensus. Kenzer: Closed as no consensus. And arguably, these aren't really RfC's anyway, since the discussion is debating technical points without seeming to be directed towards inclusion/non-inclusion in the article itself (or at least, they very quickly devolve into that). &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion is an RfC; the bot removed the tag after the RfC expired. I requested a brief summary of the arguments, but has declined to provide a short summary of these closes. More importantly, he also refused to explain his close at Talk:Family Research Council, a divided debate where only strength of argument could have supported his close. Repeated requests for an explanation about how he found one side to have stronger arguments were met by repeated excuses. Requests for expanded rationales from other admins have always been cordially consented to: example from Jafeluv and example from Graeme Bartlett. These admins are willing to provide an extended close when asked. They have taken Administrators seriously. Swatjester wrote: "How I choose to allocate my time on Wikipedia is my business, not yours. My RfC closures are entirely within policy. I'm finished with this conversation, thanks." The policy Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability states among other things (my bolding): "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)." As a volunteer, Swatjester is free to use his time in whatever way he likes. But he may not breach policy by not being accountable for his closes. I am unable to comment on Swatjester's talk page: He blanked the section because he didn't wish to be held accountable, so my only recourse is to post here: Swatjester, your intransigent behavior is unfitting for an RfC closer and a violation of Administrators. I request that you not close further RfCs if you are unwilling to or incapable of explaining yourself when asked. To continue to be unaccountable as you have been here would be extremely disrespectful to other editors. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're mad because I declined to waste time explaining a no consensus RfC close that was exactly that: no consensus. Everyone said their bit, nobody agreed, and that was it for a month. I explained all this to you, so don't even pretend like I'm being unwilling to communicate here. There is literally nothing else of value to add to that discussion. The FRC close I also gave my reasoning: There was significantly more support than oppose opinions, and the strength of the oppose arguments was much weaker. Nobody asked for anything further, but for whatever reason you are insisting on bringing it back up. There was no controversy over the close. Nobody asked for a more detailed opinion. It is a heated talk page discussion on everything BUT the RFC close, actually. If you're going to cite policy, be correct about it: the RFC page does NOT require a detailed monologue about why it was closed a certain way, what I had for breakfast that morning, and more. Some admins CHOOSE to provide detailed summary in a controversial situation; this was neither a controversial situation, nor a situation where I chose to provide more detail. End of story, full stop. Furthermore Administrators refers primarily to use of administrative actions, of which none were taken here. Second, I DID justify myself, multiple times in fact...you just didn't like the explanation. Just because you don't like my reasoning does not make me unaccountable. I realize that you are like the only person paying attention to this page, but you are exhibiting insane amounts of ownership to the point of making up allegations of policy breaches that do not exist to support your point, forum shopping because you didn't like that I told you to go away and quit piling work onto my talk page, and essentially causing drama where there was no need for any in the first place. So no, I will continue to close RFCs and do any other activity on Wikipedia as I see fit, and I will request that you stop trying to dictate what other editors can do, and leave well enough alone. And, I'll request that you apologize for misrepresenting my actions to support your argument, your claims of "intransigent behavior", and the like.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  03:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The forumshopping accusation is groundless. Had you not blanked the section on your talk page to stifle conversation, I would not have had to post on this neutral forum. Regarding Talk:Family Research Council, the proposal had 60% support, which would have been a "no consensus" close if quality of arguments were not factored in. "The arguments of one side is stronger" is not a helpful explanation because it does not explain why that side is stronger. Regarding "no consensus" closes: Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC is an excellent example of a "no consensus" close for which the closing admin was praised by both the RfC's proposer and someone who opposed the proposal. It is certainly possible to summarize "no consensus" closes, which is more helpful to RfC participants than no summary. But if it's your judgment that a summary here would not be helpful, that is fine and I will let the matter rest. Administrators states (my bolding): "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." "Wikipedia-related conduct" includes RfC closes. Feel free to continue to close RfCs if and only if you abide by the policy Administrators and provide substantive explanations of your closes when asked. Cunard (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you don't dictate to other users "if and only if" they can do something or not. As I said, I will continue to close RFCs and do other activity on Wikipedia as I see fit. I have at all times been accountable and within policy on this. To say otherwise is at best a distortion of the facts, and at worst an outright lie: I DID provide a substantive explanation, I did so promptly and civilly, over multiple edits, and a look at my talk page will confirm that. But you insisted on not listening, not accepting what I had to say, but rather insisting that I follow some non-existent policy because in a couple of situations it was done that way. I didn't want to continue the argument after I had explained position multiple times, and your insistence was becoming extremely annoying. That was why I blanked the section on my talk page, and hence why I will not be continuing this conversation further either. Now seriously... leave me alone, stop making snide comments on the matter (he who makes conduct accusations ought to be clean himself), and do not continue to tell me what I may or may not edit.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "I DID provide a substantive explanation" – I wrote above: "'The arguments of one side is stronger' is not a helpful explanation because it does not explain why that side is stronger." I maintain that you did not explain why one side was stronger in that divided debate. That is the basis for my statement that you did not provide a "substantive explanation". I stand by my comment on Hobit's talk page. I wish every closer took the time and care in writing closing rationales as Hobit does and many other closing admins and non-admins on this board do (,, , , , , , , , , etc.). Cunard (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will say that some kind of explaination as to how the arguments were addressed is helpful. It just sucks to be on the losing end of one of these and not understand the close. Hobit (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Owing to my level of involvement in this discussion, even though I believe the discussion has run its course, I'd prefer if an uninvolved user archive the discussion to Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 3 when s/he deems it's appropriate. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Plasma cosmology
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Plasma cosmology (permanent link because there are two sections titled "Requests for comment" on the page: link) (initiated 14 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Georgia State University
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Georgia State University (see Talk:Georgia State University, initiated 27 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC) ‹edits› 03:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (non-admin) I've closed this RFC. – NULL  ‹talk›

Template talk:FoP-USonly
Would an admin assess the consensus at Template talk:FoP-USonly (initiated 12 July 2012)? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Closed--v/r - T P 18:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (initiated 27 July 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of African-American firsts
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:List of African-American firsts (initiated 6 August 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Consensus was mostly against the inclusion, but the discussion does not require formal closure. The proponent(s) have moved on. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica (initiated 1 August 2012)? See the RfC at Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica and the disagreement about the consensus at Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ It was closed by User:Fences and windows two days ago. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:IBM BASIC – Proposal to merge "IBM cassette tape" and "IBM BASIC"
A merge proposal has been in place since January 9, 2012. Requesting assessment and closure. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ There is no consensus to merge them. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 14 August 2012; the last comment was 3 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports (initiated 3 August 2012)? See the subsection at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. It does not require closure. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 16
Discussion has been inactive for 2 weeks and it doesnt look like anyone will be joining it any time soon. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I closed this on 13 September. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 24
Discussion stalled since 26 August. Please can an admin assess the consensus, and close the discussion? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed on 22 September. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 16
Discussion open for a month. Please can an admin assess the consensus, and close the discussion? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed on 16 September by Mike Selinker. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 15
Discussion open for a month. Please can an admin assess the consensus, and close the discussion? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed on 17 September by Mike Selinker. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 6
This the first of 5 very similar discussions on the same page which have been open now for over a month.

Please can an admin assess the consensus, and close these discussions? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closed 17 Sept by User:Mike Selinker. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 28
Now open for over a month (already relisted from August 17). Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 28
Now open for over a month (already relisted from August 17). Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

URGENT - Articles for deletion/Andhow.FM
(Twice in two days - bloody hell!) The above AfD has devolved into arguments between two COI SPAs who have engaged in hostile behaviour both on and off WP (both have now attempted to post information on WP about their conflict off-site). We have had instances of border-line legal threats (notification that one user had referred another user to police) and border-line WP:HARASSment (users trying to post "just enough" real-world info so that IDs can be compromised while still technically not breaching guidelines. Another more experienced user and I have both tried to keep a lid on the hostilities by giving (fairly pleasant, I think) warnings and by deleting offensive material (large blocks of it in some cases). I'm sure both SPA's will lose interest in WP if we take away their WP:BATTLEGROUND. Can someone please close this AfD early so this doesn't escalate to WP:ANI? Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it, but right now I'm not convinced that things have gotten so out of hand that the AfD should be shut down early. Also, in the future, anything urgent should be posted to ANI. This board is basically the "someone close it when you have some time to waste" board, so you're unlikely to get a fast response here. T. Canens (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks. As it happens, those involved have calmed down and taken a step back and several other editors have had a chance to have their input. At the time they were lighting new fires as fast as we could put them out. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC).
 * ✅ (now) by T. Canens. Thanks mate! Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)