Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 7

 2013 entries 

Talk:Wii U
From the !votes, nine or so are opposed to including the comment in the lead, one (User:mazty) is vocally supporting (but it appears from their comments that they just hate Nintendo as they state their derogatory opinions as facts without reliable sources...), and one who supports more ambiguously and one neutral. This seems to be a WP:SNOW case as most almost everyone agrees that the putting "(although some industry figures have disputed its exact classification)" in regards to the Wii U's generation status in the lead is putting undue weight on a minority view that better belongs in the reception section. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note the users emotive insults. Sources were referenced and presumptions made on all sides of the debate - user was warned in thread for his aggressive tone before. Mazty (talk) 00:00 3 July 2013 (GMT+2)
 * Mazty unfortunately is lying here. Other than saying they were lying, I never directly insulted them. They have stated multiple claims denigrating the Wii/WiiU within said discussion (such as saying the original Wii was weaker than the original Xbox) without actually citing reliable sources. That said regardless Mazty's conduct or statements, there is a clear snowball consensus that the statement "(although some industry figures have disputed its exact classification)" puts undue weight on a minority opinion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please only use this space to request a close, and not as an extension or a meta-analysis of the RfC. I'll take care of this one and close within the next few hours.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:RJL
Requesting an uninvolved admin to close the above. It was not an official RFC but more or less a straw poll to gauge consensus, though I am not sure that it ultimately has done so. However, it should be closed so we can see where it falls off. --Rschen7754 23:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please undo and close with "No consensus" which I believe to be an accurate description. Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also take note that this request came rather soon after this thread and this thread, both of which were on the verge of getting nasty. I for one backed away and did not make my opinion known. I now make it known - I oppose them.  Martinvl (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, please just drop the WP:STICK. --Rschen7754 10:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, please admit that there was no consensus. Martinvl (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just glancing at the discussion, I think I would have closed it the same way as Nathan. Can you say more about why you see no consensus? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I knew there was something fishy about a request to close something that seemed so one-sided. Anyway, AN is the place to request review of such. Well, after asking politely on the closer's user talk page, but that ship has sailed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * May I make another request that this version (12 June 2013) be instated as the last stable version of the page. If you look at the section "M5 Motorway", you will see that the road junction list is identical to the version propsed by User:Rschen7754 three years ago here. Rschen7754's version of 2010 has been accepted, yet it was Rschen7754 who initiated the closure on the debate which triggerd the lock. Martinvl (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is a complete red herring. The current version reflects the current consensus, and that is what should remain. --Rschen7754 05:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please let an uninvolved administrator make that decision. Martinvl (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please use edit protected on the article talk page. Though it will almost certainly be rejected without first obtaining consensus on the talk page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes
A long and at times contentious RFC that needs an uninvolved admin to close. Due to several problems, the first RFC (open for 40 days) was closed with no consensus by User:Dpmuk who also moderated this RFC. This second RFC has been open for 58 days with the last vote lodged 46 days ago and formal discussion ending 42 days ago. User:Dpmuk posted on 11 June that he would be away for a few days but would close within a week if another admin had not already done so, that was 18 days ago. User:Dpmuk suggested posting here at WP:AN/RFC if the RFC remained open too long. Wayne (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Deadmaus
Discussion has been ongoing for seven days and it is clear per the consensus that a move is needed so it is impossible for a non-admin to close it. PantherLeapord (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:PSR B1919+21

 * Moved from incorrect posting at WT:AN. —  Scott  •  talk  18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone close an old merge poll at talk:PSR B1919+21? LGM-1 was merged into the article in 2013 February by Wtshymanski. However, he didn't close the merge poll or migrate the project banners. I tried to note the merger with mergedfrom and close the merge discussion with discussion-top/discussion-bottom on the talk page, and migrate the project banners from LGM-1 to PSR B1919+21, but keep getting reverted. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've undone their reversion of your close. Seems like a good close to me - conversation is stale and the merge has happened so I can't see any reason to oppose this bit of house keeping.  The fact that an IP editor did it makes no difference and they shouldn't be reverting for that reason (which appears to be the case from the edit log).  Dpmuk (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)
Requesting an uninvolved party to evaluate for consensus and close an involved and heated discussion that lasted over a week, is at a clear standstill, and has very low involvement now. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus was unclear, so I relisted it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide more reasoning as to why you relisted it? Even if you don't believe consensus clear (which is debatable, given the vivid discussion and the !votes), I'm unclear as to why a no-consensus closure wouldn't be more appropriate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To provide more time for uninvolved users to comment in the hopes of reaching a consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish I were convinced that were possible, but most of the editors involved are clearly not going to budge, all of the same points are being rehashed over and over, and new participants are simply lining up to agree with arguments already made. I hardly see how providing more time for discussion is going to change anything at this point. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Further discussion is not necessary. Sixteen editors have participated, all the arguments have been put forward and now the discussion is going around in circles. It is highly doubtful more editors will bring fresh viewpoints to the discussion. The whole debate would be best served by an admin sifting through what is an extensive and largely repetitive discussion and determining which arguments—if any—are most consistent with the naming guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but there seems to be a rush to get this to WP:MR, so closed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that I have brought this to move review. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Martin Guevara Urbina
Nomination is more than a month old, but seems to have been left out of the daily logs when it was relisted, and either needs closing or relisting (and inclusion in the dailies this time). I can't do it myself because I !voted in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 30
It would be great if another admin could close/relist this one. I have been closing all the football squad discussions recently, and it would be great to have someone else help out. If the result is delete/keep, I have a bot that can take care if removing the transclusions or removing the tfd tags. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . --Salix (talk): 21:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cooperative_State_Research,_Education,_and_Extension_Service
Request for closure and evaluation of consensus on merge discussion: Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at Talk:Cooperative_State_Research,_Education,_and_Extension_Service. I believe an appropriate amount of time has elapsed. Discussion has been open since May 15, 2013 and last comment was made June 24, 2013. Thank you for your help! Amnorris2 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

❌ This looks like a snow close of not merge, but I don't think we here should do it. I didn't see anyone arguing for the merge, but the discussion as to what to do was a bit disjointed. I suggest the editors in question simply remove the merge tag, close the discussion themselves, and then make any other edits as necessary. An uninvolved and formal close is not needed here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to close an expired RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)
Can an univolved administrator please close this expired RfC Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Since the bot removed the template there have been no comments from editors has been one comment from one editor who had not previously commented during the RfC. -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - No consensus for replacing the word 'Madrid'. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28use_English%29&diff=563763453&oldid=563759493 Closed here]. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_17
Discussion was started over two months ago and was relisted for the first and only time almost eight weeks ago. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed by . --Salix (talk): 05:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Craft.28s.29manship
Discussion was started over six weeks ago an was relisted for the first and only time over one month ago. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Salix (talk): 04:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems
I request that this merger proposal be speedily closed with the decision "Rejected". I believe that this is a malicious proposal by a banned editor. The rational is as follows: The case for writing the article in the first place is Talk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems. Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The merge proposal was made at about 22:00 on 11 July 2013 by an unregistered user
 * 2) The IP addressed used by that was 212.183.140.15, a dynamic address owned by Vodafone.
 * 3) Earlier that day User:Cobulator was banned as a sock-puppet of User:DeFacto
 * 4) User:DeFacto has used IP addresses from Vodafone in the past – here and here
 * 5) Sockpuppets of User:DeFacto proposed a similar merge of the article Metrication of British Transport back into Metrication in the United Kingdom shortly after the new article was created – see here.
 * Discussions can be started by any editor, registered or not.
 * There is no discussion of the issue involved, hence no need for a formal closure.
 * In violation of the instructions for this noticeboard, this is not a neutral request for closure.
 * This is not a request for closure of a discussion, but a request for intervention in the matter. As such, it should be addressed to WP:AN or WP:ANI.
 * Concerns about block or ban evasions should similarly be addressed to WP:AN or WP:ANI, and requests for sockpuppet investigation should be directed to WP:SPI. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 22:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

❌ Agree this request is inappropriate for this board. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 4
Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 4 and close the discussion. Which ever way this is closed (except no consensus obviously) a change/clarification will need to be made at WP:Account creator, Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator, and (if it's closed that way) removal of account creator rights from some people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed discussion. I'd appreciate it if someone else did the other parts. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussions in need of closure

 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR
 * WP:NFCR

Thanks. Werieth (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Im unarchiving this, there have discussions listed that have been over 5 months. None of the sections listed above have had a comment in the last 30 days. These need closed, waiting for some random admin to see a backlog and jump in to fix it just isn't working. This is just like FfD, or AfD, and these need closed. Werieth (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump Werieth (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Bump Werieth (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Hi Werieth, these look like old discussions that don't need to be closed formally. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Flickr
RFC over the level of detail appropriate for a recent "controversy", which has now run for over a month. Some concern expressed over a possible WP:COI from one editor, and off-site canvassing from another (mention of which had to be WP:OVERSIGHTed for outing them by name). --McGeddon (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ SlimVirgin (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close WP:RFD#Unsolvability
Open for over two weeks without relisting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

✅ --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tech N9ne
This RM needs closing. Thanks. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 14:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists
This RfC was scheduled to run for a period of 10 days as a follow-up to a previous discussion. That time has elapsed, so could an administrator please close the discussion?  Imzadi 1979  →   23:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion
We would appreciate the help of a previously uninvolved admin to close a discussion about three proposed edits here. That section contains links to previous installments of the discussion that are currently archived. The discussion was going very actively throughout the month of April but was put on hold by a moderator who wanted to focus on a different section of the article. When that section was improved, we started to discuss these three edits again in June, but the moderator again redirected our efforts into a different section. Both of those other sections are now substantially improved, the moderator has withdrawn, and it's time to finally resolve these three proposed edits.

Also, we'd appreciate a volunteer admin to serve as our new moderator. kind regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ❌. Hi Phoenix, it's not clear that this request is realistically actionable. Your link leads to a loose discussion that would require a lot of reading, and your post on that page about this request for closure links to other pages going back to April, and asks that the closer read those too. This is all for three minor edits. The best thing would be for the people involved to decide whether there's consensus, and if it can't be decided, open a formal RfC (if the edits are worth that) with a clear question, so that the closer can easily see who is supporting and opposing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sunn (band)
The RM has been open for 7 days now. Insulam Simia (talk/contribs) 08:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gojira
Requested move has now been open for a month. Hot Stop talk-contribs 08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hans_Johan_Andersson
Move request open for a month that involves multiple pages. Hot Stop talk-contribs 08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by BDD. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Race_and_genetics
RfC has been open for 30 days. The issue originally went to WP:Dispute Resolution but no agreement could be reached during DRN with User:The Devil's Advocate and User:BlackHades supporting inclusion of Dawkins in the article and User:ArtifexMayhem and User:Aprock opposing the inclusion. As no agreement could be reached among the 4 editors during DRN, our mediator User:Guy Macon suggested we start RfC and that the results of the RfC would be final. After 30 days, the results of the RfC have been 7 to 1 in favor of inclusion of Dawkins by previously uninvolved editors. (8 to 3 overall). Requesting closure for the RfC. BlackHades (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ SlimVirgin (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close WP:RFD#June_28
Open for over two weeks without relisting:
 * 1) WP:RFD#Direct_Realism
 * 2) WP:RFD#Arts_and_crafts
 * 3) WP:RFD#Logical_Fallacy
 * 4) WP:RFD#Un-word of the year (Germany) --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first two and the last was by . ✅ the third. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close WP:RFD#1st_IIFA_Awards
Open for over one month, and ten days have elapsed since the latest relist. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close WP:RFD#List_of_autostereotypes_by_nation
Open for over one month, and one week has elapsed since the latest relist. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close WP:RFD#July_8
Open for over one week without relisting:
 * 1) WP:RFD#TV18
 * 2) WP:RFD#Heavy_metal_in_countries_with_an_oppressive_regime --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by and  respectively. Armbrust The Homunculus 05:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close WP:RFD#Super_Mario_Universe
Open for over seven weeks without any relisting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close WP:RFD#July_9
Open for over one week without relisting:
 * 1) WP:RFD#Sassanid_Arabia
 * 2) WP:RFD#Dont call me crazy --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both were by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close WP:RFD#July_10
Open for over four weeks, and relisted over one week ago:
 * 1) WP:RFD#Anti-choice
 * 2) WP:RFD#Hefemale --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both were by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Close Articles for deletion/Townsend string theory
Page has been moved and deleted, but nominator wants to salt the page. Needs administrator to evaluate and close accordingly. Ansh666 17:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gun_control
Highly controversial article. RFC open for 7 days (as of 6/27), last !vote 6 days ago. Survey !votes results approaching WP:SNOW but several editors without !votes commenting in extensive threaded discussion. Threaded discussion is primarily previously involved editors rehashing same debates, but a few people notified by RFC discussing as well. Survey !votes have a lot of new voices. At least one "opposing" editor explicitly abstaining from RFC, a few others with discussion but no !vote. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not done. Please see/read the paragraph above starting "Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure." -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Nathan Johnson This article has been subject to highly contentious editing, edit warring, etc. There are active "threats" in the discussion to nominate the article for deletion immediately, and accusations of violations of policy all over the place. I am coming here for closure to keep everything as above board as possible so that there are no accusations of impropriety or manipulation of the RFC closure analysis (particularly as I am the creator of the RFC, and one of the more active prior-involved editors) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed as no consensus with a suggestion to reopen the RfC. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reopened it per your suggestion. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sangguniang_Panlungsod
Move request open for a month. Hot Stop talk-contribs 08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Close the remaining listings in Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/2013 June mass MfD
Excruciatingly long process here, these 57 MfDs from May 26 and May 27 were allowed to proceed mostly without relisting. At a maximum, even with two relists, these all should have been closed four weeks ago. Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, there are three MfDs that are still open. Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One MfD is left. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The last one is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Louis Charles de La Tour d'Auvergne. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The last one was closed by, thus marking section as resolved. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Relist or close Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_controversies
RfC was open for a month, consensus not obvious. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Close or Relist Articles for deletion/List of political leaders renowned for their integrity (2nd nomination)
AfD has been open for 11 days without close or relist; heavy participation. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  12:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . WikiPuppies  bark dig 18:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Close Help talk:Citation Style 1
Please close Help talk:Citation Style 1. The RFC has expired and I believe a consensus was developed (broad support for the general concept; narrower support for the most popular solution). I believe closing this formally will be helpful for the developers who will code the solution without necessarily having avidly followed the discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Having requested here and in other locations for an uninvolved editor to close this without result, I have ignored all rules and closed it myself, even though I opened the RFC. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Close RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)
This discussion has been open for more than the originally stated 10 days. It seems to have run its course and I think we have consensus to go forward with the proposed system of article name changes. Can we have an uninvolved admin confirm the consensus and close it?  V C  21:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  tariq abjotu  03:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gza and Talk:Rza
Both RMs need closing. Thanks. Insulam Simia (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - D arth B otto talk•cont 09:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure on Talk:Aryan_migration_to_Assam
The move request was posted on, and was relisted once. The relisting admin has since provided his and is now involved. I request admins to please close the move request. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think it should be relisted; almost no one has commented. That's probably why BDD chose to comment a couple days after relisting. --  tariq abjotu  05:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * n.b. While I'm now involved, the request is now in the backlog, and consensus seems clear. So this is probably worth a second look. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Requesting closure on several FfDs
Quoting WP:FFD: "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised." These discussions have not been modified in nearly a month, as such, action should be taken. Beerest355 Talk 23:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26
 * 2) Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26
 * 3) Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26
 * 4) Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26
 * 5) Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26
 * 6) Files_for_deletion/2013_June_26
 * All six were by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident
Could an uninvolved admin assess consensus at this AfD? It has been open for 15 days with just the one reposting after 7 days. I do not think the discussion needs another repost and should be closed, but if an uninvolved admin disagrees, that's fine (and for the record, I am involved in the discussion). I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Baboon43
This RFC/U has been open for over a month. A recent proposal was undertaken and implemented to raise the conduct issues at WP:AN, in this thread. Would an admin please close this as the proposal was agreed upon and the AN discussion is continuing? Thanks Blackmane (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like this was ✅ by BDD. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PTM language dispute
The section of WP:D dealing with partial title matches is marked as disputed or under discussion. The relevant discussion has been open over two weeks, with no participation in the past few days. Would an uninvolved admin assess whether disputed tag should be removed, and if the language should be changed as a result of the discussion? --BDD (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Old AfDs need closure
Due to Mathbot being down, unclosed AfDs are not showing up in the list at Articles for deletion. There are 5 needing to be closed for July 14, 2 for July 15 and 20 for July 16. Could someone please take care of this? Prioryman (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At the time of writing the following discussion are open on the pages listed by Prioryman:
 * Articles for deletion/Zane B. Stein (July 14)
 * Relisted → Aza Toth 22:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Tito Traversa (July 14)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional evil corporations (July 15)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Bloomberg Aptitude Test (July 16)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia (July 16)
 * I relisted this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The others have either been closed/relisted already. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN
Three proposals were made, two have been closed, one is ready to be closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The third should have, though, been closed with the other two, on July 18, as it does absolutely, categorically, nothing that is not already in place. Clearly the proponent did not know that it already was. Ignoring this and allowing it to self archive is entirely appropriate. Apteva (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to note that Apteva is the subject of the proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh... how predictably WP:IDHT....... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After seeing the above from Apteva I will support a WP:IDHT block without hesitation. PantherLeapord (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As much as I would support that, we really just need an admin to formally close the discussion. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why has nobody closed this yet? It's not a difficult close and it is not controversial so why the delay? PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 10:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins aren't paid any more than everyone else, a request will sit here until an admin decides they want to handle it. As this is now one of the oldest requests still pending someone will probably handle it fairly soon. Actually, this does not require an admin to close it. A topic ban discussion does not require the use of any admin tools, just an understanding of how consensus works. Any uninvolved user in good standing can handle this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And, it's been ✅ by Basilisk. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
The RFC was started approximately a month ago, and I suppose the RFC bot will remove the tag in a couple days. Requesting an uninvolved admin/editor to close this discussion so we can carry forward with the proposal and its implementation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set
Ran for 30 days, WP:SNOW result. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:Dpmuk. --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Moctezuma II at MRV
Move review/Log/2013 July has been open for three weeks, and consensus seems clear. The three other cases open at WP:MRV have also run the required amount of time, and may merit closes. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:EdJohnston --RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine of...
This has been open since 10 May 2013, over two months. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:The Bushranger. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 17
Consensus at this RfD is clear after two weeks. Since it involves a BLP, a swift close would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by JohnCD; thanks to him. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sandra Sakata
Please close out the above recent WP:AFD. As the nominator I have decided that the nomination was made in error and am withdrawing it. Thank you. Quis separabit? 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 24
Consensus here appears clear. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Era Vulgaris (album)/Comments
No comments for more than a month. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 10
Several discussions, many which have been open for weeks after relisting. 74.203.127.2 (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The following sections contain unclosed discussions:
 * Template:Infobox NI station
 * by . --RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox Ireland station
 * by . --RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox professional association
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox Greek Dimos
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox Papua New Guinea place
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The other sections are closed. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why have the other discussions not been closed? They only seem to have been left open to garner enough delete votes to justify the deletion of the templates and there is no clear consensus either way, despite having both been open for more than a month and relisted as well. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The RfC has had no comments for ten days. Formal closure rather than auto close is needed to settle the dispute. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, now. The thing has run its default course, and has expired. An outside judgment would be nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion now archived at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_142 Armbrust The Homunculus 09:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I de-archived it so it's back where it was. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 23:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center
The discussion has been open for two and a half months. There are some laggard commenters, but I think there has been enough input to gauge consensus. - MrX 13:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard RfC
Here. This was closed by an involved editor after a month and there have been a number of objections so it needs a neutral closer. User:Carolmooredc  18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do close it. (Also see: WP:Administrators%27 noticeboard.) My recommendation: Post a "Moved to" link. – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)
This discussion has been open and stagnant for more than one month, and I am too deeply involved in the discussion to close it myself. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:BP
This RfC has been closed by the bot after 30 days, and now an uninvolved editor is needed to sum up consensus. The purpose of this RfC was to determine whether there is consensus to add any of the proposed versions to the article as first drafts. This RfC is based on the previous RfCs ( and ). Beagel (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sockpuppet_(Internet)
This is an RfC that's been running since May, regarding the inclusion of a particular BLP example. It expired in June and is attracting no comments from new editors. Two of the three editors still discussing it have said, weeks ago, that they're ready for an admin to assess and close the RFC. --McGeddon (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, McGeddon. I agree, it would be helpful if someone closed this RfC as "consensus" or "no consensus". My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'm the third of three editors. I too am quite ready for community decision and formal closure. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Punctuation when quoting
I've noticed that an RFC on MOS talk I originally launched has been live for more than four weeks and appears to have settled into relative inactivity. My signature and the opening wording were subsequently changed, but I haven't bothered to scrutinise those changes.

I wonder whether an uninvolved admin would think it's appropriate to do the honours. It was a relatively complex issue, so perhaps one for an admin who is experienced at RFC closures. Thanks for your time, and I guess there's no particular hurry. Tony  (talk)  03:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is getting pretty old though... Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Although the issue was indeed complex, the determination of consensus was straightforward. Cheers! bd2412  T 00:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Move review
This has been open since June 29, well beyond the standard one-week move review period. All of the July discussions have even been closed by now. It's time to wrap this up. --  tariq abjotu  16:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Now I await the flak. Dpmuk (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Journey Through the Decade
This RM is in the backlog, consensus is clear, and it's a move that has been previously discussed. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A non-admin has relisted the discussion. I've taken it up with him, and my opinion stands; a close would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically modified food controversies
This is reasonably contentious, so a formal close would be appreciated. I have preemptively closed the section since someone has just raised the issue again on a related page; all the same arguments are being repeated again, and I'd rather prevent it from spilling over. (The RfC is very long already, and I think there's been more than enough discussion - I'm an involved editor, so please let me know if this isn't proper.) Of course, we still need someone to evaluate consensus. Thanks! Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted your closure. Please don't close until this board responds.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, yes, let's have someone who is uninvolved make a formal closure. And please understand that whoever closes it needs to be prepared for the fact that the RfC has a very determined minority who will question any consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am reviewing the RfC right now, and will close in the next few hours. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
open for over a month. Frietjes (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
 * relisted by Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 23:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly would not mind another admin checking my work. Not that I'm second-guessing myself, but when I close contentious and deeply involved discussions, I like to be sure that I have not missed the call. Cheers! bd2412  T 00:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems a good close to me. Dpmuk (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
 * by Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
 * by Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
 * by Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
 * by Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13
 * by Frietjes (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI
The discussion has been going on for a while. I think it's time to close this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a subsection of WP:ANI. Could the whole section be closed at once, please? --Stfg (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - jc37 00:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Magick
Bot just removed the RFC tag but the discussion itself hasn't been closed. Any chance we could get an uninvolved admin to interpret a consensus and do the necessary functional stuff? Not particularly controversial, I don't think. Cheers, Stalwart 111  14:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed Hobit (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Zbečník stream
Nominator has withdrawn, no outstanding delete !votes. Ansh666 06:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ StAnselm (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article Incubator
Hasn't quite been a month, but discussion has slowed down considerably. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm trippin. I looked at the wrong timestamp, it has been almost two months and no new comments are coming in. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The last activity on the RfC when this was posted was on the 20th of july. Not even one month. Since then participation has increased and !votes are still coming in. As such I think that it should be left open for a bit longer until this latest surge passes. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 00:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like the RfC was opened on 14 July, so RfCbot should be removing the tag shortly. I think it's best in this case to wait the entire 30 days. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe you are making the same mistake I did, it was in fact opened on June 25 so I'm not sure why it took so long for the bot to remove the tag, probably the same thing that confused both of us. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Qwyrxian (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12
open for over a month. Frietjes (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12
 * now all closed. thank you Plastikspork. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WT:NCIN
Unopposed RfC on promoting a draft naming convention to guideline. Ran 40 days. (As nom.) LeadSongDog come howl!  15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . I'm not entirely sure this requires a close. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 12:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree it's not required by policy, but I'd prefer not to close it myself to avoid injecting any hint of biased process. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at closing this, but I'm a bit worried about moving something to be a guideline with as sparse attendance as this has had. I realize it's a very specialized topic so attendance will necessarily be small, but was this widely advertised to all Wikiproject(s) that might be interested?  Hobit (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SILENCE would seem to apply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's the "weakest form of consensus". I think we should have something stronger when it comes to making something a guideline. YMMV and I certainly wouldn't object to someone closing this as successful.  I personally just don't know enough about the topic area to know if the right folks were notified or if this discussion was in effect a walled garden. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ It was an RFC, so that automatically notifies a large part of the community (or at least anyone who watches RFC pages), and it was also notified on a few relevant notice boards. I've closed as promote. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jesse James (song)
Not an especially controversial RM, but I'd appreciate a timely close so I can begin with the cleanup it will entail. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 13:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Prince George of Cambridge
The RfC has gone for three weeks, with no comments for the last week. The consensus at Talk:Prince George of Cambridge is that it is time to close it. StAnselm (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. There goes an hour of my life I'll never get back... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Skyfall
This has gone on for three weeks, with only one comment in the last week. That most recent comment was along the lines of most (we're pretty much in a WP:SNOW situation here, with only two editors taking an stance "against" the status quo. I filed the RfC and suspect that if I am the one to close it, I may be accused of being too involved and trying to force an early close. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/RfC_2013
Gone on for >30 days, consensus is pretty clear for the two added proposals, consensus is not present for the other part, so a summary of ideas would be the best idea probably. ~ Charmlet -talk- 22:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Flickr
A straightforward 14-day poll asking editors to select one of four possible wordings for a section has now been open for 14 days. --McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 22
This old RfD looks ready for a close. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers! bd2412  T 16:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 22
This has been open for a month; requesting closure from an uninvolved person. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed as NC to rename. Hobit (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:OneMain Financial 200
This has been open for almost three weeks now, with no new input for almost two; the apparent consensus is for a move that could have been boldly done (and often is for this sort of thing), but given the fact that I'm one of only two !voters I think it would be best for somebody not involved to do it. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents
User has been soft-blocked following a RFC/N. There's nothing more to do. Ansh666 01:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  02:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

UDSM
Can someone please close the rfc section at Talk:University of Dar es Salaam. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 21:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 27
open for over a month, including the relistings. Frietjes (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 27
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 27
 * I did one, but I have no patience for arguments about the relative notability of sporting events so the other one is still open. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The other one was by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 27
Both of the remaining entries here appear to be ready for a close. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning
Can someone here close some sections not related to rename request? The drama is going spiral right now. And there are accusations, which is against assumptions of good faith. --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is probably overdue. There is a productive conversation going on on this topic at WP:Article Titles. Liz  Read! Talk! 00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking solely for myself: no thanks. I wouldn't touch that hornet's nest. I am inclined to think the whole situation is avidly headed for WP:RFAR and frankly the sooner it does the better. This is no longer a simple content dispute, it's a full on forest fire. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Over 240 editors have !voted in the move request discussion (over 250 counting IPs), although the pace is beginning to slow. A great many participants on both sides are both outraged and certain that the result will be exactly what they desire. No matter how this goes, there will be further outrage, and appeals to other forums, so the best course of action is to make sure that everything is done to the letter of the law and with the most effective explanation possible. bd2412  T 02:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe this particular edit request was around closing certain sections, not the RM (which BD2412 will handle). I've closed several, but new ones keep cropping up (discussing the name change, again, in a new section, or sections which descend into name calling)...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there're a few requested edits for example. I've been handling some on the talk page but I'm not inclined to make any edits to the article. I'm involved in the RM discussion and so tainted against making changes of any sort to the article right now.
 * I'd feel confident someone else could deal with them though. --<tt style="color:black;">RA</tt> ( &#x270D; ) 23:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

===Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning and Day of personal attacks by Josh Gorand=== I don't think it's fair for these two users, or anyone else, to keep the discussions open and let the thing drag on. Josh Gorand continues to edit freely on the talk page in question, although Baseball Bugs does not seem to be. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The first was by . The second is still open. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping/bump/whatever. Stands at around 27-13 in favor of a topic ban at the moment, going on 3 days now. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposed topic ban would last through Thursday (when the move request is planned to be closed). If this doesn't close sometime soon, a topic ban will be relatively pointless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The second was by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard/Incidents
Request for closure: I think an AN/I was premature and directed the individuals who disagree to return to the article Talk Page, RSN or DRN as this is a dispute over content and sources, not editor conduct. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 2
Looks ready for a close. Personally, I know my keep vote is more of a retarget, and I suspect the same goes for some others. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Files_for_deletion/2013_July_25
Most of these discussions have not been modified in over two weeks and yet remain unclosed. Could an admin step in and perform the appropriate actions?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 15:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Now only Files_for_deletion/2013_July_25 is open. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The last open section was by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning
I'd like to ask that an admin who has had no involvement with this article, either as admin or editor – including no one who has expressed a view on the issue – oversee and get ready to close this RM in seven days. It involves the statement from Bradley Manning today that she regards herself as female and wishes to be known as Chelsea Manning.

The article was moved back and forth without discussion from Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning, and there is now an RM to move it back again. It's likely to be a contentious move involving balancing consensus and the applicable policies and guidelines. Several admins have already been involved today (with the moves or protection) and strong views have been expressed, so to save trouble in future, I've suggested on AN/I that an entirely uninvolved admin agree to close the move, and I'm posting here in the hope that someone will step forward to do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Kudos to SlimVirgin on this posting. This subject needs rapid attention. I sorta wish you hadn't had previous involvement with this page Slim. You'd be in a better position to intervene. Frankly I think this is ridiculous. NickCT (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take care of it. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks BD, that's much appreciated. If you would be willing to help keep an eye on the article too, that would be great, although if you'd prefer not to mix roles, that's understandable. The problem is that several admins have been editing through protection; not major edits but it's still unfair to non-admins. (I'm not counting Mark Arsten in this, by the way, who's responding to edit requests.) I've left a note on the talk page, but it's not clear anyone's listening. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this close is going to need multiple admins. The move has already attracted attention in the wider media and the talkpage is being noticed on Twitter. Quite a number of arguments on the page are getting into the general issue of who gets to decide a person's gender and the whole thing is getting politicised and in some places nasty. Any decision made is going to get challenged by the losing side and almost certainly attract more media attention. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely not opposed to a closure by committee. I agree with the underlying sentiment that the close is going to have to be rock solid. Cheers! bd2412  T 00:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say a group of 3 would be wise. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's to be a group, perhaps BD could take the lead and look for a couple of people he knows are uninvolved. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the sound of this, and I think people here are being very sensible. Just a question though - what would happen if the result is (eek!) No Consensus? StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. I'll throw out names of some admins I think have a solid reputation for being fair and reasonable and that I've not seen in related areas. BOZ, Kww, Spartaz, Black Kite, and Timotheus Canens all come to mind.  I'm sure others can suggest some names too...  Hobit (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I count at least four pages where this article is being discussed. I think anyone taking action should be aware of conversations on AN/I, the Manning Talk Page, RMs, etc. Liz Let's Talk 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, if there is no consensus, then we do have something of a problem because the page was moved in the first place without a proper discussion. However, the discussion is basically a referendum on the question of which title the page should have. I interpret WP:BRD as requiring a consensus in favor of a title different than the one that existed yesterday, in order for such a change to be effected. Secondly, there is one WP:RM discussion, and anyone who is commenting anywhere else can comment there as well. Wherever else the topic is being discussed is therefore irrelevant to the outcome of the RM. bd2412  T 02:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be available for taking part in the closing, if a group is wanted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * FPaS: I'd characterize you as having a fairly strong POV when it comes to at least one other sex related area--pornography. Do you lack a strong POV on transgenderism ?  Hobit (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth does pornography have to do with transgenderism? (I'd also challenge you to find any hints on Wikipedia about whatever views I might have about pornography. I have never expressed any. I have expressed views about Wikipedia's coverage of porn actors, which is a different thing. Likewise, my views about Wikipedia's treatment of transgender naming issues might have little or nothing to do with my views about transgenderism proper. Duh.) But this is moot now; if the other three have agreed to do the closure, that's fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was probably irrelevant. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also willing to help close this when it comes to it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Hobit's suggestion, I asked User:BOZ and User:Kww yesterday, and they have agreed to participate in a closing committee for this discussion. bd2412  T 14:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013 August 28
With two Speedy Keeps, one Incredibly strong keep, one strong keep, four regular Keeps, and no Deletes, I think this should be safe to WP:SNOW close by any uninvolved editor. Technical 13 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013 August 28
With three Speedy Keeps, six regular Keeps, and no Deletes, I think this should be safe to WP:SNOW close by any uninvolved editor. Technical 13 (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

More RfDs

 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 18
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 18
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 5
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 2
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 17
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Of the significant RfD backlog, these appear to just be waiting an administrator or qualified NAC. They're all ones I'd close if I weren't a participant in the discussion. Of course, if you want to close more, that would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Prosecution_of_Marte_Dalelv
RfC. Been open for a month. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 20:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tammy Duckworth
This discussion has been open for roughly 30 days. Edge3 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)
This has been open since 05 July, requesting close please. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 19
Both of the open RfDs here appear to be ready to close. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Both were by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

History of the Falkland Islands
Talk:History of the Falkland Islands

Rather odd RFC that would benefit from formal closure (RFC has expired anyway). The originator seems very fixed on removing material but my count 4 or 5 editors have commented that he is wrong but he's continued to argue he's right and the material should be removed. Originator seems to be a rather passionate advocate of Argentina's sovereignty claim to the Falkland Islands and it may be appropriate to suggest that he finds another topic to work on. He seems unable to put his strongly held beliefs to one side. It seems that the originator was also involved in a rather protracted dispute at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute that resulted in the page being protected earlier this year from the edit wars that kept breaking out. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)
RfC open beyond 30 days. NickCT (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. This one was not particularly well-phrased and the ensuing discussion did not make clear a specific proposed change, and I believe another RfC will need to opened to follow-up on it.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 16:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Consensus is nearly unanimous, but topic is contentious. RfC about 30 days old. No comments for over a week. Please close. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tea Party movement
Please close RfC at Talk:Tea Party movement

There was a merge proposal at Talk:Tea Party movement on August 8 (27 days ago) — suggesting a merge of Agenda of the Tea Party movement with the parent Tea Party movement article, and while these things normally last 30 days, I see no reason to wait another three days for a close. The "voting" ended on August 10 (9-3 opposed to the merge, and the opposition presented policy-based arguments against the merge). According to the headnotes on this page, "Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where ... the issue is a contentious one." The headnotes also state, "The default length of an RfC is 30 days; where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed sooner than one week." The discussion ended on August 12 and is not ongoing. Accordingly, please close the RfC and remove the templates from both of the articles. Thank you. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

NFCR discussion
WP:NFCR needs closed. Werieth (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done  K rakatoa    K atie   01:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you know/Good Article RfC
Would an admin assess the consensus at Did you know/Good Article RfC (initiated 28 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NYB has already agreed to close.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 00:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Obtund/CVUA/AlexJFox
Would an admin close:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Obtund/CVUA/AlexJFox (initiated 27 July 2013)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tony1/Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes (initiated 9 August 2013)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/ITablet (2nd nomination) (initiated 10 August 2013)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film) (initiated 11 August 2013)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam mugliston/List of bus routes in Clacton-on-Sea (initiated 12 August 2013)
 * by me. BencherliteTalk 21:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)
Discussion has been active for over a month, and it must be closed. --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Jujutacular (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 26
After a discussion, we now have unanimous support to delete this item in the RfD backlog. Hooray consensus! --BDD (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BencherliteTalk 21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Wikimedia Incubator
I'm still not sure this page isn't a joke, but the discussion seems to have come to consensus to delete as we approach a month of listing. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BencherliteTalk 21:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28
open for several weeks. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)
I would like an uninvolved admin to please make a closure to this discussion on a guideline I suggested as the RfC period has expired. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - no consensus for the proposed change. bd2412  T 16:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bob's Watches
Consensus for deleting has become clear after relisting the article after some sockpuppetry. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * as delete. bd2412  T 16:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Two connected ones at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
These are closely related. Please could they be closed together? --Stfg (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates and
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
 * Support. It's high time the community move on. I am certain little, if anything, will come of dragging this on anymore.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The closer should probably also read some of the connected discussions now archived in WT:FAC/59, although the archive is out of order (since it is in chronological order of last posting, not first posting). "Who is in charge of the clattering train?" (ack. E. J. Milliken) starts the discussion off, I think. The RFCs (not yet archived) then start, and the discussion continues in parallel in the "clattering train" thread, the RFC threads and another archived thread. Good luck. BencherliteTalk 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The second discussion is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive59. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WTF? Undone. You archive both or neither, not just one. Talk about bias and prejudice.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I could also say "WTF?". If you would have a taken a little more closer look, than you would have notice, that the section was archived by Miszabot II. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies to you then. This is why someone (human not bot) simply needs to close both, which I said needs to happen long ago. But everyone seems afraid to which is why this has been languishing here for weeks. I myself would archive both but I'm sure someone would raise a shitstorm about that too.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  20:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted inside Tony's proposal to force the bot the be fair if no one comes along to close both. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed Hobit (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. You've only archived the first of the two. Your closing remarks seem to cover the second also -- did you mean to archive that as well? --Stfg (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * by closer. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor/Default State RFC
Request for closure: This RFC was started on July 31 and it is now August 27th. It also appears a clear consensus has been determined in this RFC and the comments and discussions have slowed to a point where it appears those who wanted to make a comment have. Also, per the talk page, there seems to be some agreement that the RFC has run its course and can be closed now. Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Now only the following sections are open:
 * 3. Visual editor should display two editing panes by default, one WYSIWYG pane and a smaller pane for source code editing.
 * 4. The section edit tabs should be removed for the visual editor
 * 6. "Edit source" after section titles on talk pages should be changed back to "edit"
 * 7. The default action upon clicking a section edit link should be "edit source", not to open VE
 * Armbrust The Homunculus 10:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent 11:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment A closing statement at the top of the page would be appreciated. . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Well, near the top -- feel free to refactor if you want it top top NE Ent 14:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Revere the King, Expel the Barbarians
Even ignoring the fact that consensus is clearly leaning in favour of the move, per WP:BRD unilateral moves that are challenged should be reverted automatically. That the RM lasted a week in this context is disturbing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Double-headed eagle
This RfC has been going for 30 days, and it looks like a consensus has been reached. Since I opened the RfC, however, I would appreciate a formal closure before I act on what I perceive as a general (though not unanimous) consensus supporting my position. <span style="font-family:Frankenstein SF, Luftwaffe, Fraktur, Old English Text MT;">Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 03:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 19:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:you didn't build that
Opened almost a month. --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2013 August
This move review request has been open for two weeks; it should be ready for a close. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Siam
Not an RfC, but discussion has pretty much died down and closure by an uninvolved editor has been suggested. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 1980s
No additional comments have been left on the merge discussion in nearly two weeks. It seems that a rough consensus has been reached (per step IV of the merge process on WP:MERGE), and discussion has gone silent, so can this be closed? Holiday56 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 08:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User names
I've just got done clearing out all the old business there, except for two cases where I had expressed an opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ the Inanygivenhole section. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_comment/User_names is still open. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed-- the above RFC on Dalermehndi123 has been open for three months. Could a passing admin with a few moments please close it?  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 16:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ the last one had enough of a consensus that I just closed it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_snooker_player
This has been open now since 3 weeks, and largely inactive in the last 8 days. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of discussion, but it's only by a handful of editors and it goes in a couple different directions, and depending on the proposal, it may not need an official close. What proposal needs evaluation?  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 17:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Does the addition of the role and gender parameters in this edit has consensus? Armbrust The Homunculus 19:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Jreferee (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Templates
open for several weeks. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17
 * ✅ -- Jreferee (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17
 * ✅ -- Jreferee (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 17
 * ✅ -- Jreferee (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 18
 * ✅ -- Jreferee (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 18
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 19
 * ✅. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:did you know
I believe either the consensus has reached, or is the consensus inadequate. There was a prior consensus in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs, or so I thought. If inadequate, can we centralize it in WP:VPPR? --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 03:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago
Opened almost a month. --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI
It's a relatively simple discussion. No new arguments for a week. Needs an admin to take a look and close the discussion. Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Jreferee (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of Greyhawk deities
Discussion opened two weeks ago, no new comment in 9 days.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Jreferee (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (initiated 14 August 2013)? The question the RfC posed was: "As a standard of practice, can direct links to Skyscrapercity.com's online forums be used as references to support statements of fact about buildings or construction projects, when no other references are available or linkable?" Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I, JethroBT  drop me a line 20:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) (initiated 30 July 2013)? The question posed in the RfC is: "Should articles on Magic: The Gathering expansion sets be merged into blocks?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 09:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson (initiated 4 September 2013)? The question posed in the RfC is: "The infobox currently has down as a victim 1 dog. Should that stay?" If the consensus is for removal, please implement the consensus. Based on the current discussion, WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 18:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfdder (talk • contribs) 10:45, 15 September 2013
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 19
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 20
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 09:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2013 August 26
All easy closes, but an admin is needed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cerys Cooksammy-Parnell
Can someone consider whether a SNOW or a BOLD early close would be appropriate here, based on unanimity so far, decent number of responses and lack of apparent disagreement. Usually I'd say run it for the full time normally, but this is a bit of a sensitive AFD (it's a 4 line BLP of a minor who's probably BLP1E/NOTNEWS) and there doesn't seem much basis to expect consensus to be different in a few days than now. (An explicit note to post requests for review, if any, to DRV, would probably be enough to protect against cutting off any keep views, if needed) FT2 (Talk 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 06:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage
There are two discussions which have gone on long enough and are ready for a close here: Note that if the merge discussion is closed with consensus to merge, the RM becomes unnecessary. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage (n.b. Chelsea Manning has reverted to Bradley Manning for now)
 * Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage
 * It was proposed on 27 August that a new article, Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage, be merged into Chelsea Manning (currently located at Bradley Manning). It would be appreciated if an uninvolved editor could close the discussion. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: to whomever closes these discussions, I make the suggestion that the merge discussion be closed first. If it is determined that the consensus of that discussion is to merge the article, it won't be necessary to touch the contentious topic of what to title the article. -sche (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both discussions were by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Alexis_Reich
Requesting a neutral and uninvolved closer to shepherd this discussion. Thus far it has been fairly reasonable, but as it's a rename article about a trans* person so I'd rather schedule a closer in advance here, and have someone devoted to monitoring the conversation. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed the discussion per WP:SNOW. Based on the current state of the discussion, and the way its trending, the only possible outcomes were no-consensus (in this case defaulting to no-move) or a consensus against the move. As the end result would be the same, and the discussion was generating a good deal of heat, keeping the discussion open longer would not have been a good idea. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite reasonable. Thank you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Joefromrandb
Would an admin assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Joefromrandb (initiated 15 August 2013)? The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The consensus is clear. All opinions agree that Joefromrandb has done things wrongfully; the opinions that also accuse other editors of doing so are in the minority.  Joefromrandb has not contested the assertions of the RfC.  With the RfC having run over a month, and only one vote in the last two and a half weeks, it's time to close this  p  b  p  18:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at that will show how completely full of shit that last comment is. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting closure of problematic AfD
This is a bit of a sticky issue, in regards to the Valeria Lukyanova article. I'm not going to layout reasons for keeping/deleting here, as that would be inappropriate. The current AfD is now two days past due, and is the only extant AfD from September 10. Please follow along with this.. The outcome of this is that there has been an inversion of what a no consensus might mean. If the appropriate process was followed, then a no consensus at DRV would result in the article remaining deleted. But, since MastCell and Postdlf's decisions were overturned by Crisco 1492, and a second AfD was initiated, a no consensus will result in the article not being deleted. The process broke down here. To be clear; I am not looking for any action against/for the admins involved. Rather, I want to avoid another fiasco like we had with Corey Worthington (see also Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion).
 * May of 2012, an article for Valeria Lukyanova was created.
 * Subsequently, it was placed for AfD. See Articles for deletion/Valeria Lukyanova.
 * 24 May 2012 The AfD was closed as delete by administrator MastCell. No deletion review was requested.
 * May of 2013, the article was created again.
 * 26 May 2013 it was speedy deleted under CSD by administrator Malik Shabazz.
 * 8 September 2013 it was created again, this time by User:Bonkers The Clown.
 * 9 September 2013 I tagged it for speedy deletion under G4, and informed the article creator
 * 9 September 2013 Bonkers the Clown removed the G4 speedy tag, in violation of the 5th paragraph of Criteria for speedy deletion policy.
 * 9 September 2013 I restore the G4 tag, and inform Bonkers the Clown about this and that it is inappropriate for him to remove the G4 tag.
 * 9 September 2013 administrator Postdlf deleted and salted the article, due to two recreations of the article despite the AfD, in line with WP:SALT.
 * 10 September 2013; administrator Crisco 1492 restores the article
 * 10 September 2013; administrator Crisco 1492 removes the speedy tag, and places the article for deletion again.
 * Crisco 1492 did not discuss the issue of undeleting the article with Postdlf, instead only informing Postdlf of his decision after the fact . He also did not inform MastCell that he was effectively overturning his decision on the original AfD. Crisco's decision is no more right or wrong than Pstdlf's or Malik Shabazz's. But, their decisions were overturned anyway, without discussion.
 * This generated further discussion (see User_talk:Postdlf), which prompted Crisco 1492 to start a discussion to clarify G4 (see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion).
 * 18 September 2013 User:Innab posts a non-neutral request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia asking for help at the AfD . After complaint, the wording has since been modified towards neutral.

If you are to look at Articles for deletion/Valeria Lukyanova (2nd nomination) and simply count votes you would be doing a disservice to the issue. To whichever admin takes this issue up, please be careful. There are plenty of interweaving issues at hand; WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NOTNEWS, plus a whole host of issues at Deletion policy. Whatever decision you make needs to be a solid one, clearly founded on policy/guidelines, if for no other reason than to stop this train wreck from moving any further down the tracks.

Thank you for your attention. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, the train may have wrecked before, but I think of myself as laying more solid tracks to transport the train. I am not wishing for the train to wreck further. Are you canvassing your opinions? ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 14:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am doing nothing in violation of Canvassing, as I alluded to at the beginning of this section. I am seeking a careful administrator review of this situation, and did not recommend any particular action. Please be careful with your accusations. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fret not, it's a question, and not an accusation. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 14:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why ask it? You can do the right thing by removing the 'question'. You have my leave to remove my response to you here if you do, including this response. --15:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at this. I think you are over-bureaucratizing this. It was deleted a year ago, and sources have developed and a new article was rewritten, so giving it a fair run through AfD was totally within reason. Secondly, having gone through AFD, I read a clear consensus in the AfD that she meets the GNG, and when I look at the article and sourcing, I think those !voters are right. I'd close this myself but non-admins are enjoined from closing contentious AfDs, but I would be extremely surprised if someone closed this other than "keep".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not really correct to claim the only way this recreation could have happened was thru DrV. The deletion was 1.5 years ago and the new article also had subsequent ongoing coverage to rely upon.  Articles get recreated all the time that have been deleted at AfD at some point in the past, most commonly when something becomes notable over time.  I inflicted The Annoying Orange on us all after multiple old deletions, I believe.   Sure the AFD needs to be closed and there's some reticence to do it because some aren't happy that the subject is notable, but such is life.  By the way, I wasn't canvassed to come here, I just saw hammer has been active in the AfD and I figured he was wishing for alternate avenues of relief.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  21:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Hammer, since you seem so intent on promoting "proper" procedure, I note that I was mentioned but not notified on my talk page. 2) As Milowent has said, and I have explained several times, DRV is not the only way to restore a deleted article, particularly as the deleted version was not even in the same neighbourhood as the one written. I should note that, had I seen Malik's deletion and compared the two versions, I would have restored the article because that version was even better than what Bonkers wrote. 3) The AFD is actually rather straightforward, IMHO, and the only reason it wasn't closed with the rest of the stragglers yesterday was because I was the one doing the closing (i.e there would have been a COI). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You were not informed because there was no reason to inform you. I was not looking for a review of your actions nor that of anyone else's. I was requesting closure, nothing more. As I said in the original request, "To be clear; I am not looking for any action against/for the admins involved". The edit notice says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion". You are not the subject of the discussion, nor is anyone else. The request for closure is the subject of the discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to be technical about it, as a "best practice" every editor you named in the OP should have been notified. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, this has nothing to do with those editors. I requested a closure. Their actions are nothing on which I was seeking action, review or oversight. I even specifically said so. Good grief. Notifying them would achieve nothing, as they have nothing to do with the closure. My point about procedure being followed before was NOT to be a stickler for technical details. The point was that the result of a no-consensus decision is inverted because of the lack of following procedure, and that needs to be considered in closing the AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Kaliningrad
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kaliningrad (initiated 16 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 12
Easy RfD awaiting a close. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed by Ruslik_Zero. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  04:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mercy (Duffy song)
It was requested the article Dancing Queen (Girls' Generation song) to be merged there. The proposal began in February. It is more than enough time to have a consensus. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  17:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. 28bytes (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Footpaths of Gibraltar
There's a consensus, and the nominator seems to treat article quality and sourcing as relevant. --George Ho (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 12:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Rather complex RfC that could benefit from a formal closure. The discussion appears to have died down since the end of July. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I participated in this discussion. Although the discussion is lengthy, I think the outcome is rather clear. Cheers! bd2412  T 21:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment A bot archived it to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 40. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Archived or not, the discussion still has not been closed. bd2412  T 15:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it seems to be agreed by proponents and opponents alike that the discussion did not generate a consensus in favor of the proposed policy, I have removed the language from the policy page. As I was involved in the discussion, my action should be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to BD2412 for this step. As long as this interpretation is upheld, WP:PDAB should probably be deleted per G8; if not, I'd appreciate being informed so I can make the case at RfD. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Falkland Islands
A proposal to end a two or even three year edit war and disruptive editing. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a little early to request a close, considering 1) the proposal only went up a week ago, 2) people are still discussing the issue and supporting/opposing the proposal as of yesterday, and 3) the contentiousness and length of the disagreement. I realize this close will be helpful to mitigate edit warring, and a consensus seems to be developing, but I see no harm in letting the discussion go another week.  If another editor or administrator feels differently, they are welcome to close at their discretion.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks understood. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 16:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
As the OP, I certainly think closure about this personal blog is warranted with a not RS determination. A formal determination is needed IOT avoid further controversy. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OP has taken a battleground posture on this and other recent content discussions with respect to this article and appears eager to rush closure. The discussion on RSN and article talk is ongoing and several points have been raised by editors who disagree with OP, so far without response from OP and those who agree with him.  I feel that the discussion should run its course, preferably to an acknowledged consensus, before it is closed.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion regarding the Callahan blog was started on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute and moved to the RSN. The last posting with content was 3 days ago by an editor who wanted the extended thread explained. As the default archiving on the RSN is 5 days, there is a need to get this resolved. I trust whoever closes the discussion will do so properly. – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Srich, let's be clear and complete about this. 3 days ago an editor asked you a question on that thread.  Instead of answering that question, thereby renewing the discussion, you now claim that the thread is dormant and request it be closed.  From where I sit, that doesn't seem in the spirit of consensus-building.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The other editor asked for an explanation, and it really was a rhetorical point. Still, quoting editor Binksternet, "S. Rich made it abundantly clear that this thread is about whether the Callahan blog should be used in the LvMI article to say the Institute is a cult." In any event, I cannot do MilesMoney's homework. (And SPECIFICO could have "'splain it...in small words.") This line of argument is yet 'nother reason to close the RSN. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked you a question and you refused to answer it. No matter how you try to spin it, you evaded the question. This is not productive. MilesMoney (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A table summarizing the main points of the various contributing editors on the Gene-callahan.blogspot.com thread has been posted at the end of the RSN thread. (Of course it is subject to revision depending upon feedback.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 17:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

 * Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Discussion in this RfC, which has passed the standard 30 days, has subsided. Dezastru (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I suspect this close might go to WP:AN for review, though if another editor or admin would like to evaluate my close before then, I encourage them to do so.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 19:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to line up a closer, VPP ACERFC RFC
While I'm weary about the practice of lining up a specific closer ahead of time, there is a scheduling pressure to close WP:VPP on or before Sept 30. Would any uninvolved editor be willing to take on the responsibility of closing it on that day? (doesn't even need to be exclusive, just if no one else has done it) Thanks, Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  14:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 04:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Battle of the Birds
Consensus to delete seems obvious but the discussion was relisted by an IP that happens to be from a similar range to many of those that have contributed non-policy keep !votes. Can someone sort it out? Stalwart 111  14:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by BDD. Thanks! Stalwart 111  23:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mariah Carey
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mariah Carey (initiated 9 August 2013)? The question posed in the RfC is: "Prominent, reliable sources give both 1969 and 1970 as birth years for Mariah Carey. How should this be addressed?" Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need for a formal close of this. A consensus version seems to have been reached, and implemented, that satisfies all the involved editors. Dpmuk (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , I disagree that there is no need for a formal close of this:
 * I originally listed this for closure for three reasons:
 * The version discussed at the end of the discussion had not yet been implemented. It was added by on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariah_Carey&diff=573191908&oldid=572366000 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)].
 * The birth year had been discussed since at least October 2010; see Talk:Mariah Carey.
 * It is best to formally close this discussion to establish a consensus version has been reached to prevent future edit wars that may occur. A formally closed discussion allows editors to point to the concise close rather than the lengthy discussion to show future editors what the consensus is. A formal close from an uninvolved editor cannot be dismissed as easily as an unclosed, lengthy discussion.
 * There is now an additional reason:
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariah_Carey&diff=573848995&oldid=573698002 00:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)] – "readded birth date and age & present".
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariah_Carey&diff=573865727&oldid=573848995 03:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)] – "No. See the talk-page consensus hammered out by multiple editors over weeks' time. You can't unilaterally change something once consensus has been reached. You want to open an RfC, please do so."
 * The user who added "birth date and age & present" may have not believed that consensus was reached on the talk page even though most RfC participants seem to agree. A close will establish that such a consensus has (or has not) been reached. I ask you to reconsider your declining of this close request for the reasons I listed above. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

✅. This seems to have been resolved on the page by Moxy. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Femininity

 * Talk:Femininity

This RFC has pretty much run its course, as there is only one editor who has expressed opposition to the current phrasing of "gender stereotype," no new arguments have been developed and at this point the horse is very well and truly dead. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As no outside users have entered the discussion, the RfC hasn't served its purpose. Another method of DR is needed. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay open, now that others have been notified about it at the reference desk where the ip has been working to push a pov against NPOV and the available references. Since the ip is still trying to use the discussion from the reference desk to change the consensus of the RfC, closing the RfC is most certainly premature. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your bullshit about my post at the reference desk has already been dealt with by the editors there. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can get this ip banned from this and related articles while we're at it. This gaming is disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 04:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rape culture
Talk:Rape_culture Oldish RFC with editors still arguing over the outcome, would appreciate an uninvolved admin gauging the consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed Hobit (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gia Bình District‎
RfC bot has withdrawn template, consensus clear and new comments not coming, so request closure please. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 06:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Adolf Hitler
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Adolf Hitler (initiated 20 August 2013)? Although the consensus seems clear, it may be best that this is formally closed because of this subsection, where the poster wrote "You took a survey, and despite the wording being less that neutral, the consensus was unanimous against you, and yet you refuse to accept the result". The RfC initiator replied: "Well of course I refuse to accept the result..." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 20:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Flow
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Flow (initiated 28 June 2013)? According to Centralized discussion/Archive, this discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion from 28 June 2013 to 13 August 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Flow/Archive 3. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . I, JethroBT  drop me a line 00:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
There's a consensus; that's all. --George Ho (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 15:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:622d_Expeditionary_Air_Refueling_Squadron
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:622d_Expeditionary_Air_Refueling_Squadron? Discussion occurred during July 2013 on the merge of the 22nd Reconnaissance Squadron with the 622d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron. Thanks. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also Talk:920th Air Refueling Squadron, Talk:33d Network Warfare Squadron, and Talk:318th Information Operations Group with similar merge rationale. Thanks. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 03:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Location map Syria
I'm not sure that the current situation is a consensus and in any case some editors would really question me if i close the discussion not the way the prefer it. External opinion is hence needed to finalize the discussion which default map should be used for template:Location map Syria.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 03:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin summarize the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? TonyTheTiger was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&diff=572897656&oldid=572895619#Statement unblocked] by the blocking admin. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For lots of reasons, I won't touch this one. But I do think given that a block occurred and the blocking admin unblocked this need not be closed and can be removed from this section. Hobit (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I listed this ANI discussion before it was archived so the closer could document two simple facts: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&diff=572897656&oldid=572895619#Statement the unblock] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&diff=572892854&oldid=572859382 the editor's statement]: "I will not make further (direct or indirect) claims on wikipedia that I am the subject of racism without proof of such." I don't expect any action to be taken or any sanction to be imposed. I apologize for not being more clear when I posted this close request. I do not think a close documenting those two facts would be contentious, but am not doing it myself because I do not close AN or ANI discussions. Documenting these two facts is important to demonstrate the result of this ANI thread if it is referred to in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Noticing that no one has closed this yet, I just wanted to note that I agree with Cunard and this could stand to be closed. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category: Women sociologists
Could an uninvolved Admin please close the discussion on Category: Women sociologists from July? I think 2 1/2 months is enough time for discussion. There is also an associated rename CfD, Sociologists by sex, which could probably be addressed at the same time.

The related decision for Category: Men sociologists in a Deletion Review was "Overturned to No Consensus" (the initial decision was to Delete). Thanks for your help! Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. bd2412  T 19:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:John Calvin
This RfC is several months old, but it was never closed, and there is some confusion as to what the result was. StAnselm (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 19:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Easy RfDs
There are more items in the RfD backlog that are probably ready for a close, but here are a few that are essentially just waiting for a rubber stamp: Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 15
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 17
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 17
 * ✅ --Tóraí (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal
RfC that has run for 28 days, appears to support a change to WP:MOSLAW on article titles for court cases. Although I believe that consensus is clear, I'm involved and had earlier closed on a (then) unanimous !vote, so it would be better if an uninvolved admin/editor closes the discussion. GregJackP  Boomer!   05:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page
Requested moves are open for 7 days; that time is up. Pretty obviously the consensus is not to move, but a proper admin closure would be better for this more high-profile discussion.  Rcsprinter  (deliver)  @ 17:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin
I believe it is past time to close this, which, if seven days is the usual time, has passed a while ago. Nevertheless, it very much needs a neutral closer who is entirely uninvolved, as it is very contentious. If one thinks that the discussion should be open longer, feel free to remove the request and let it be until a later date. RGloucester — ☎ 13:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples

 * Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples (initiated 28 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning
October move discussion will be open in at least two hours. Is there a consensus yet? --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi George, the RM has already started; see here. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)