Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 8

 2013 entries 

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music
This RfC is now 28 days old and in need of an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * done  K rakatoa  K atie   04:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've requested a review of this closure here. Please don't archive this section quite yet, thanks. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  09:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This section can now be archived since the above discussion was closed. There is no discussion review ready to be closed and the above OP request does not relate to a request to close a discussion review. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The closure of the discussion was undone by, therefore this shouldn't be archived. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Armbrust is correct and this discussion is still in need of a closure by an uninvolved admin. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard (initiated 27 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW is probably a consideration here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Deauxma (2nd nomination)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Articles for deletion/Deauxma (2nd nomination) (initiated 19 September 2013)? The discussion within the past two days are getting more heated and the discussion has run for 11 days, so an earlier rather than later close would be beneficial. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I second this. The discussion has been open since September 19 (despite having never been relisted) and it has gone extremely off-topic despite users' attempts to shift the focus back.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 9
Stale CfD that's 2 1/2 weeks old. All have voted "merge" or "delete", and with only a few articles, all of which are in a sister category to Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of the United States such as Category:Political positions of United States presidents or Category:Political positions of United States Senators, merge and delete would effectively be same outcome p  b  p  20:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 21:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/04
Would an admin address the 8 July 2013 request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/04 by, who wrote: "Any admins care to weigh in here? Naturally, I am still hopeful this page will be whitelisted, but I've been awaiting a decision for more than two months and counting. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)" After addressing the request, please notify the user on the user's talk page. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of new religious movements
Is there any chance of a ruling or closure on the RfC and extended debate at talk:List of new religious movements? The narrow issue is whether the sources justify the inclusion of Landmark Worldwide in this list, and the wider issue is whether there is any merit in defining the term 'New religious movement' in some specialised sense, or whether the phrase should simply be interpreted to mean what the everyday meaning of the words suggests. Actually I should have thought that the consensus was clear, but one editorn in particular seems determined not to agree, and promptly reverts edit that address the majority view. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements
 * A timely close would be helpful here, since the dispute is still being carried on in the article itself. I'd do it myself if I hadn't voted in the RfC. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Please remember to frame your statements here neutrally, rather than putting forth your personal opinion of the outcome. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Two up for closure at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper
It's time to finally close the long-running discussions at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper (which was removed from WP:RM for some reason) and Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Wikipedians
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Wikipedians (initiated 29 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, was an involved close but I think consensus was clear enough. Feel free to revert if you disagree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content review 1
A Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Roundup (herbicide)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Roundup (herbicide) (initiated 20 August 2013)? There were about five previous merge discussions (dating from 2007–2012), where merges were implemented and reverted, so I advise a formal close of this broadly attended discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Louisville_teen_sexual_assault_case
Unanimous agreement to move back to original name - look at the linked-to section at the bottom for even more unanimity, including from the original mover to this name. Needs an admin to perform the move over the redirect. --GRuban (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can close this yourself, then post a speedy move notice at the RM page. I do find this consensus rather odd, not sure I see the value in having victims name in the title, but c'est la vie.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Discussion was started 15 September and positions are well laid out. A related RSN, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (also involving a personal blog used as a citation on Ludwig von Mises Institute) was closed today (rather on 23 September UTC) with a non-RS determination. The discussed issues matched those presented and argued here, as the Murphy blog. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to close this, but I think there may be objections as I closed the Gene Callahan blog RfC which is related, so I'll defer to another experienced editor to evaluate this RfC. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider. 1. The issues between the Callahan blog & the Murphy blog are the same. 2. Getting a different result (e.g., allowing the Murphy blog to remain) from someone else would be an inconsistent application of policy and create a BALANCE problem on the page. 3. Your closing of the Callahan blog RSN did not produce a WP:Closure review. So I would not expect a consistent closure decision, based on the same policy, to produce a challenge on the Murphy blog. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the entire matter is moot and the RSN thread is deadlocked by several editors talking past one another. It should be allowed to die of old age and a new thread can be opened if anyone still wishes to articulate concerns relevant to the current article text and citations. There would be no benefit to a close in this thread which is no longer applicable to current text. It would waste the time of any Admin who dove into the tangle for closing.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. If the Murphy personal blog had been removed as a citation on the article page, then the issue would be moot. 2. At the same time, Specifico says a new thread should be opened -- why? To go through the same process?? This point demonstrates that the matter is not moot. 3. Specifico says editors are talking past each other -- a request was posted on the thread for Specifico to explain how the removal of the Callahan blog contents changed anything as to using Murphy's personal blog as RS. No answer as yet. – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich you have developed quite a tendency for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I stated the RSN "thread is no longer applicable to the current text." One line beneath this you ask me why I suggest a new thread should be opened.  And then, next line, you don't seem to understand my concern that editors are talking past one another?  What's up with that?  At any rate this is not the place to badger or instruct the Admins on how to behave.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The thread WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is ready for closure. A question was posted, asking for justification for keeping the Murphy personal blog in the article. No answer was provided. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I still believe it is bad practice to close consecutive RfCs on the same article, on substantially similar issues, but because no one has really stepped up to close it over the past week, and because there were no major objections from the involved editors, I saw no harm in closing . <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 16:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Rujm el-Hiri on NPOVN
Could an uninvolved editor/administrator assess, summarize, and formally close this discussion on NPOVN? A formal closure is required since the consensus remains unclear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 9 September 2013)? The discussion was a review of Move review/Log/2013 August, which was a review of Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars#Requested move #2. When closing the discussion, please add a comment to Move review/Log/2013 August linking to the ANI discussion and explaining your close of the ANI review. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Would appreciate another set of eyes on this, was an IAR close.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Lucio Dalla
I posted this RFC, which was removed when it expired. There wasn't really a consensus but I attempted to edit the page based on the RFC discussion, avoiding my own preferred wording. This edit was reverted without discussion by another editor (who had participated in discussion earlier on the talk page but not in the RFC). I'd therefore like to request an uninvolved editor takes a look. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not confident that this requires a close, considering there is only one editor in obvious disagreement with the specific proposal (who did not even participate in the specific discussion). If the editor continues to revert, there are other venues at your disposal. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Sandy
This discussion has dragged on for more than a week now, would be helpful for an uninvolved admin to close this based on the people who voiced their opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Do you have any objections, in principle, to a non-admin closing this discussion?  The proposal does not require any administrative action. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:I JethroBT, I cant because I am involved in the discussion. In addition an admin is also involved as well, so in order to be neutral I feel a non involved admin or an uninvolved editor should make the closure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I meant to say I was interested in closing it as a non-admin.  Anyway, I'll take a glance at it now. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 23:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Files for deletion/2013 August 24
This discussion has been in progress for 6 weeks now with no resolution. The only discussion has been between the nominator and I and the back and forth discussion doesn't seem to be achieving anything. The discussion was not added to for four weeks until yesterday when the nominator revived it. Without input from uninvolved editors, and there's no evidence that anyone else is interested in providing input, it seems pointless to continue. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

===Template talk:Infobox Chinese#RfC===
 * Template talk:Infobox Chinese

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Chinese (initiated 3 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed as no consensus. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Flight 93
The move is apparently non-controversial. If it is the proper time, could an admin close it and conduct the move (so I don't mess it up)? Instaurare (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ You need to wait at least 7 days. I'd suggest posting notice of the move on a few notice boards to get a bit more participation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which noticeboards do you suggest? I'm not sure which are relevant. Instaurare (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At the top of the talk page are two projects this article is considered to be interesting to. I'd start there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the discussion is now at Talk:Flight 93 (disambiguation). Favonian (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 (initiated 30 August 2013)? The question posed was: "Should Robert Sarvis, as a third-party candidate, be included in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
An RfC, open since 31 July 2013, that needs some uninvolved closing (or more participation of course). Fram (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1
There have been no comments at Help talk:Citation Style 1 for over a week. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Not sure why this hasn't been closed yet. Ten editors support at least a topic ban, no opposes. I'm involved so can't deal with it obviously. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission (initiated 24 August 2013)? The RfC states: "This RfC will be open for 30 days, or closed earlier if an overwhelming consensus either way is obvious." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shiallia
Nominator has requested to have the discussion withdrawn. BOZ (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , but I can't protect, so it's at WP:RFPP now. Ansh666 09:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * and protection declined, so ✅. Ansh666 17:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 25
This discussion has reached a unanimous conclusion; it's simply waiting an admin to close it out (it will have to be an admin, since it will require deletion). --BDD (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ayn_Rand
I am formally requesting that this RfC be closed on the basis of policy, not consensus, as it violates WP:RFC on a number of counts. These violations are summarized here. MilesMoney (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Closing on the basis of consensus is closing on the basis of policy, BTW.  Not convinced by violation claims. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 17:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the violations, it would not be correct to treat the votes as a consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Give it up, Miles, and find something better to do. You've been wrong all along about this, which is the whole reason I opened the RfC in the first place. Yworo (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like an admin to rule on whether the RfC is biased and non-compliant. Anyone can arrive at the end and sum up the views, but the whole problem with violating policy is that these views do not reflect the consensus of a cross-section of the editors. Until a few minutes before the "close", the RfC wasn't even listed for the topic of philosophy, so editors with some interest and understanding of the topic never got a chance to weigh in.
 * My goal is to restart the RfC, only without the errors, so that we can see what the consensus really is. MilesMoney (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins don't issue "rulings" but I would be happy to see other disinterested parties look at the situation and give their opinion. My own take is this: There is over 300KB of material on the article talk page, overwhelmingly about this topic. You personally replied to almost every editor who has commented, so you can't claim they weren't informed of your viewpoint, but in the end only a few agreed with it. At some point you should accept that your view isn't the consensus. If you can't or won't, another RFC doesn't seem likely to change that. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The RfC brought in editors who were interested in biographies, not philosophy, making it difficult to bring them up to speed on the relevant issues.
 * I assure you that I will accept the results of a compliant RfC as binding. This RfC, however, was never compliant and Yworo edit-warred to keep me from making it compliant. He has since been blocked for edit-warring, which says much about his character and what we can expect from him in the future if he doesn't get his way here. MilesMoney (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I'd advise that you open up a new section on WP:AN requesting formal review. I know this is transcluded, but you're more likely to get a quicker response that way. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
This discussion has been open for a week; discussion inre: the incident has gone stale, and decisions on a topic ban have also slowed down. There is another discussion below on discretionary sanctions, but its outcome is fairly clear in the negative. Could an admin please assess consensus? <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254 (initiated 24 September 2013)? The subject [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=574980830 wrote]: "it would be great if a decision could be made soon. i'm already getting the mediation invite. and it's not like i'm going to be touching any other page other than mediation pages and obviously, it's mediation, so theres little room for incivility.Lucia Black (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)" Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the subject of the interaction ban (User:ChrisGualtieri) has agreed. Ansh666 20:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Please note the section immediately above it as well.--v/r - TP 12:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * n.b. The section immediately above has been closed. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the part that says "Further statement"--v/r - TP 22:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please move or close Talk:Music of the SaGa series
I am not sure of the proper procedure for this, but can someone please move and/or close Talk:Music of the SaGa series to Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility? If not, please let me know what is the proper procedure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I just closed the section and pointed them to the discussion on the other page. I don't think you need to copy/paste stuff, just summarize the main points.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement (initiated 18 August 2013)? The proposer said voting would close "0:00 September 5, 2013". I am listing this discussion here because it has been listed at Template:Centralized discussion for over three weeks. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment regarding my thoughts on the closure here if others would like to weigh in. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Batting (baseball)
I'd be grateful if an experienced editor could close this discussion. The RfC has seen no activity for a week, so I think it is ready to be closed, although 30 days has not yet elapsed. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Shark Island Extermination Camp
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus on the request for comment on the subject of the name of the historical camp on Shark Island, Namibia? FOARP (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is rather bizarre RFC. There is a clear consensus that this is the COMMONNAME, but we don't *always* have to choose the commonname, so the RFC was not worded in a way to suggest that the page title should be moved, although admittedly this is likely implied. Anyone closing this and moving the article would be within their rights, but I find it rather bizarre that few of those who weighed in the first time weighed in the second, so you may get some grumbles. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It can't be moved by a non-admin because "Shark Island Concentration Camp" is a re-direct (it used to be the title of the article but the article was moved to its current place as a technical move). I guess I could move it to "Shark Island (Concentration Camp)", but like you said, it will cause grumbles, and probably another move to another name. What do you suggest? FOARP (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * at this point, I'd suggest dropping a note on the talk page of all eds concerned with previous move, point them to the discussion, and update the header saying that you are now proposing a move, not just a determination of common name - I know it's a technicality but prob cleaner. Then post an rm template up top and let the discussion run for 7 days.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A third move discussion? Well, I'll give it a try, but I'm hoping you'll back me up when the inevitable accusations of forum shopping or whatever come along. Of course, I'm going to have to come back here to get someone to close that discussion as well. . . FOARP (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have to start a new discussion, just reframe the existing one, and inform all editors who have !voted that this is now clearly a move discussion - in case it causes them to rethink what they were !voting on, and let everyone know who !voted before as well. Consensus can change, and the cat's out of the bag, so I don't see any point in closing this down - I'd rather get 10 more eds !voting and then come to a clean close. Feel free to post notice of the discussion on as many notice boards as you like, that is not canvassing as long as it is broad and neutrally worded. You can use Template:pls for example. You can keep the RFC up of course, and extend it another 7 days (instructions on how to do so are at the RFC page). Then you can just repost in this thread in 7 days time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There, done. I used the requested move template to update the discussion header and informed all the editors who voted previously. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ there was a clear consensus on this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The current place of the discussion is Talk:Shark Island Concentration Camp. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Greenhouse
This MfD has run for about a month or so, and consensus appears to be clear. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Shii. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Rent My Vacation Home USA
IP is now digging himself a troubling hole. The folks involved with education outreach have no record of class, course coordinator or assignment. Nonetheless, IP is now trying to out himself in an effort to "prove" his claims. All this over a seemingly promotional article with zero independent sources. In the interests of damage prevention, could an admin please step in? I know that means closing it early but I really do think that's the sensible thing here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  13:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that troubling. Assume good faith, maybe they really are students, let it run it's course.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Advice from Obi-Wan to "search your feelings", right? Ha ha. Sure, it's possible he is a student but then his actions have the potential to make future relationships between WP and Coastal Carolina difficult. It doesn't really worry me either way but I don't think the result is going to change. Thanks for having a look though! Stalwart 111  04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have just read it again, it will probably be a snow and it probably is who you think he is (I didn't catch the middle name coincidence), but at least by giving it 7 days we are giving it a full hearing. Remember that wiki rules are arcane for newcomers, even for those who are editing in a promotional fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, fair enough. Stalwart 111  11:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Obi-Wan, I'm sorry to say it's gotten worse. He's spent the last little while trying to spam links to a previous (more promotional) copy of the article hosted on someone's blog. He also seems to be suggesting that the username and the IP are two different people, despite signing off with both using the same name. Stalwart 111  21:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, yeah, I agree, this has gone on too long. Calling on closure for this please, better to nip this in the bud, several editors have searched for sourcing and found none, so it's a pretty clear snow at this point and the editor is question doesn't seem to be bothering to read about how wikipedia works.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:TFD
RFC began 4th September, discussion has stopped (nothing since late September), a close would be good. BencherliteTalk 07:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 17:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 29
Seems like I am closing 99% of the discussions at TfD these days. It would be nice if someone else could close this one? Or, any of the other open discussions :) Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)
 * An additional note, if you do close one and don't want to spend effort removing/merging/etc., you just drop it in WP:TFD/H and it will be processed for you (e.g., by bot or another editor). Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  22:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish Bolshevism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism (initiated 12 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Talk:Penis
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Penis (initiated 11 September 2013)? The discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APenis&diff=576752103&oldid=575705902 is an RfC]. The questions posed were: "Does [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penis&diff=572442385&oldid=572442081 the image restored in this post] look like a penis and should it remain as the lede picture? Should this article be illustrated with pictures of penises, or should they be restricted to subpages?" Please take into account a December 2012 RfC on the topic at Talk:Penis/Archive 10, where the closer wrote: "Closing the RFC as no consensus - there is a slight leaning towards oppose, but not enough for consensus. Even if the oppose was the majority, it would result in no material changes to the page. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)" Participants asked users who supported removal to list alternative images to discuss. This was done [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APenis&diff=575705902&oldid=574386559 here] by on 4 October 2013. Discussion has seemed to stall, however, so a close could help participants frame a future discussion about alternative images. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Léon: The Professional
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Léon: The Professional (initiated 12 September 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "After several threads above and a requested page move that finished with the move to the current title which includes the colon we are now being told that this article should not use said colon. The article just looks sloppy with the article title using the colon and the rest of the article removing it and using a small t. In an attempt to gain a new consensus I have opened the thread." Please consider the June 2012 discussion Talk:Léon: The Professional in your close, where the closer found the consensus to be move from Léon (film) to Léon: The Professional, explaining: "The proposed title appears to be as common or more common than the alternatives, and is preferable to titles requiring parenthetical disambiguation per WP:PRECISION." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you Cunard. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Template editor user right

 * This RfC has run a full month, comments have tapered down, and the auto "30-days old" RFC bot task has delisted the banner. Would an uninvolved admin please evaluate the consensus so that we may move forward. Hasteur (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅    <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa   <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   00:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Edit warring
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring (see also Wikipedia talk:Edit warring; initiated 2 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this concerns issues of sanctions as a consequence edit warring, I think this really ought to be closed by an admin. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard (initiated 21 September 2013)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. There has been no discussion for over a week. See also the 2 October post at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where no one opposed an early close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254 (initiated 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC))? Banning policy states: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." If a consensus has been reached either way (or if a consensus is unlikely if the discussion is kept open longer), please close the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes (initiated 1 September 2013)? Participant wrote: "Do we need to ask that this above discussion be closed somehow? Guy1890 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)" I believe that a close would be helpful in resolving the dispute. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons (initiated 22 July 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "What is the scope of this article. Is it about the building, the lodge, or both? This relates to a dispute over appropriate categorization." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Days of the year in India
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Days of the year in India (initiated 13 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 07:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples (initiated 26 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content review 2

 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * 2) WP:NFCR
 * 3) WP:NFCR
 * 4) WP:NFCR
 * 5) WP:NFCR
 * 6) WP:NFCR
 * 7) WP:NFCR
 * 8) WP:NFCR
 * 9) WP:NFCR
 * 10) WP:NFCR
 * 11) WP:NFCR
 * 12) WP:NFCR
 * 13) WP:NFCR
 * 14) WP:NFCR
 * 15) WP:NFCR
 * 16) WP:NFCR
 * 17) WP:NFCR
 * 18) WP:NFCR
 * 19) WP:NFCR
 * 20) WP:NFCR
 * 21) WP:NFCR
 * 22) WP:NFCR
 * 23) WP:NFCR
 * 24) WP:NFCR
 * 25) WP:NFCR
 * 26) WP:NFCR
 * 27) WP:NFCR
 * 28) WP:NFCR
 * 29) WP:NFCR
 * 30) WP:NFCR
 * 31) WP:NFCR
 * 32) WP:NFCR
 * 33) WP:NFCR
 * 34) WP:NFCR
 * 35) WP:NFCR
 * 36) WP:NFCR
 * 37) WP:NFCR
 * 38) WP:NFCR <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line
 * 39) WP:NFCR
 * 40) WP:NFCR
 * 41) WP:NFCR
 * 42) WP:NFCR
 * 43) WP:NFCR
 * 44) WP:NFCR
 * 45) WP:NFCR
 * 46) WP:NFCR
 * 47) WP:NFCR
 * 48) WP:NFCR
 * 49) WP:NFCR
 * 50) WP:NFCR
 * 51) WP:NFCR
 * 52) WP:NFCR
 * 53) WP:NFCR
 * 54) WP:NFCR
 * 55) WP:NFCR
 * 56) WP:NFCR
 * 57) WP:NFCR
 * 58) WP:NFCR
 * 59) WP:NFCR
 * 60) WP:NFCR - <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line
 * 61) WP:NFCR
 * 62) WP:NFCR <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line
 * 63) WP:NFCR
 * 64) WP:NFCR
 * 65) WP:NFCR
 * 66) WP:NFCR
 * 67) WP:NFCR
 * 68) WP:NFCR
 * 69) WP:NFCR <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line
 * 70) WP:NFCR
 * 71) WP:NFCR
 * 72) WP:NFCR
 * 73) WP:NFCR <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line
 * 74) WP:NFCR
 * 75) WP:NFCR
 * 76) WP:NFCR
 * 77) WP:NFCR
 * 78) WP:NFCR
 * 79) WP:NFCR
 * 80) WP:NFCR
 * 81) WP:NFCR
 * 82) WP:NFCR
 * 83) WP:NFCR
 * 84) WP:NFCR
 * 85) WP:NFCR
 * 86) WP:NFCR
 * 87) WP:NFCR
 * 88) WP:NFCR
 * 89) WP:NFCR
 * 90) WP:NFCR
 * 91) WP:NFCR
 * 92) WP:NFCR
 * 93) WP:NFCR
 * 94) WP:NFCR <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line
 * 95) WP:NFCR
 * 96) WP:NFCR
 * 97) WP:NFCR
 * 98) WP:NFCR
 * 99) WP:NFCR <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line
 * 100) WP:NFCR
 * 101) WP:NFCR
 * 102) WP:NFCR
 * 103) WP:NFCR
 * 104) WP:NFCR

A Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you ask to close that many discussion, than you should make some effort to close the ones, where you're uninvolved. IMO that's true for most of them. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Myself and a few others have closed a great many, bringing 220+ open discussions down below 100. I've updated the above list of those still necessary needing closure for some time.  Thanks for any assistance that could be provided. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  01:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council
I posted this RfC on 19 September 2013 and think it would benefit from administrative closure any time after 26 September 2013. It touches on WP:FRINGE and on the governance of WikiProjects. Comments seem to be petering out, with less broad participation than I had hoped. Still, given the strong feelings one can see displayed on the talk page, both in the initial discussions and, to a lesser degree, in the RfC comments below the initial discussions, I think an uninvolved admin's closing comments would go a long way toward focusing discussions after closure. David in DC (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌. RFCs typically run for 30 days, and one with such broad impact should be left at least that long. My read is a clear no on option 1, and broad support for option 2, however with caveats. I'd focus the remaining discussion on resolving those caveats to the extent possible, pinging editors who've already participated to come back towards any compromise tweaks you come up with. This discussion may not need formal closure, rather broad agreement amongst the participants on the way forward and then the work of enacting the changes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:MOS-TW
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:MOS-TW (initiated 5 September 2013; see Template talk:MOS-TW)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Emerson Middle School (New Jersey)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEmerson_Middle_School_(New_Jersey)&diff=565783757&oldid=562576138 the RfC] at Talk:Emerson Middle School (New Jersey) (initiated 25 June 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MichaelNetzer/Growing Earth Theory (initiated 2 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Tran
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Tran (initiated 9 August 2013)?


 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalie_Tran&diff=567762159&oldid=567753708 02:07, 9 August 2013] – removed vidstatsx.com reference from the article. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalie_Tran&diff=567767017&oldid=567763828 03:06, 9 August 2013] –  reverted the removal. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalie_Tran&diff=568158725&oldid=568158660 03:26, 12 August 2013] –  removed vidstatsx.com reference from the article a second time per WP:BLPREMOVE.

Issues I would like a close to address: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The vidstatsx.com reference had been in the article before the current dispute. See for example reference #9 of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalie_Tran&oldid=560583838 this 19 June 2013] version of the article. If there is no consensus in the RfC, should it be restored because the stable version included it? Does WP:BLPREMOVE apply in which case a "no consensus" result defaults to excluding the vidstatsx.com reference? If the consensus is determined to include or exclude the source, then the above questions are moot points and do not need to be addressed in the close.
 * ✅ by Legobot. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not done, Legobot maybe can remove the expired RFC template, but it can't determine the consensus of a discussion (if it exists at all). Armbrust The Homunculus 02:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was closed on 22 September as "no clear consensus" by Chris Troutman (he didn't sign, which is why I confused it with Legobot). Are you disagreeing with the closure, or is that adequate? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris Troutman initiated that discussion, and I don't think he should close this contentious issue as no consensus. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the issue was about the use of a self-published source in a BLP to add something about YouTube stats. Using a self-published source in a BLP is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. Therefore someone removed the source about six weeks ago. Chris started a discussion and there was no consensus to restore the source (three for, two against). Chris then closed the RfC against his own position. I haven't looked at this in any detail, so if my understanding of it is wrong, I apologize, but if it's correct what remains to be decided? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I've violated common practices about RfCs. Legobot closed the discussion after 30 days although editor responses dropped off much earlier.  I then marked it closed with no consensus since I felt that extending the RfC would not likely result in achieving clear consensus and I couldn't fairly assess in my own favor.  I still desire to have a real resolution to the problem (can we or can we not use Vidstatsx statistics) but not enough editors seem to want to help provide an answer.  As I mentioned on Talk:Natalie Tran, this question had been initially raised at WP:RSN in July 2012 to no avail.  Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Crossposting my reply to SlimVirgin from User talk:Cunard in a collapsed box:

Hi SlimVirgin. Thank you for your frequent thoughtful closes at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I list discussions at ANRFC because I believe a close would improve the encyclopedia by for example deciding an important content or policy issue or by ending or preventing edit wars. The RfC initiator found an issue important enough to open an RfC, but may be unaware that they can ask for a close at ANRFC or may have forgotten to list the discussion there. I list at ANRFC RfCs that would benefit from a close. For example, at this close request about Mariah Carey's birth year, I listed several reasons for my posting that request. One reason was: "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." The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariah_Carey&dir=prev&offset=20130820034153&action=history recent page history] of Mariah Carey shows that several editors repeatedly reversed the consensus version implemented by Moxy ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariah_Carey&diff=573848995&oldid=573698002 example]), who was involved in the discussion. The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMariah_Carey&diff=574550197&oldid=573217465 close] by now allows editors who are enforcing the consensus to point to the closing statement by an uninvolved editor if they are accused of edit warring. The Natalie Tran request—Chris troutman [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FRequests_for_closure&diff=575102914&oldid=575090079 wrote] at ANRFC (my bolding): "I apologize if I've violated common practices about RfCs. Legobot closed the discussion after 30 days although editor responses dropped off much earlier. I then marked it closed with no consensus since I felt that extending the RfC would not likely result in achieving clear consensus and I couldn't fairly assess in my own favor. I still desire to have a real resolution to the problem (can we or can we not use Vidstatsx statistics) but not enough editors seem to want to help provide an answer. As I mentioned on Talk:Natalie Tran, this question had been initially raised at WP:RSN in July 2012 to no avail. Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)" I listed the discussion for closure because of the BLP considerations. VidStatsX [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=VidStatsX&fulltext=Search&profile=all&redirs=1 is used in several BLPs and article drafts]. A close saying that the source should not be used in BLPs per BLPSPS would inform the discussion's participants to avoid using the source in BLPs. The source was also discussed in July 2012 at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128, which the RfC initiator wrote "received little input". That RSN thread was caused by the lengthy discussion about the source at Talk:Dave Days. Discussion about the appropriateness of using VidStatsX will likely come up again in the future, so a close explaining why using it violates WP:BLPSPS would be helpful in guiding the direction of those discussions. I've reviewed the Natalie Tran RfC myself so I could experience the process that closers such as yourself go through. Here is my draft closing statement: "The consensus is that VidStatsX should not be used in this biography of a living person because it is a self-published source. Although the data published by VidStatsX was used by reliable sources such as Forbes (link) and The Washington Post (link), its usage on Wikipedia would violate the policy WP:BLPSPS, which says, 'Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject'. 's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalie_Tran&diff=568158725&oldid=568158660 removal of the content sourced to VidStatsX] on the basis of WP:BLPREMOVE is upheld. I also took into consideration the discussion at Talk:Dave Days and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128 about the source. http://vidstatsx.com/tos says: 'The owner of this site disclaims any and all liability that may result from your use of the site. Again, this site, the data, access to it, etc. etc. are provided without guarantee or warranty of accuracy or fitness for any purpose... use it at your risk!' This is further evidence that VidStatsX does not pass the policies Verifiability and Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)" I will not close the discussion, however, because it would require reverting 's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANatalie_Tran&diff=574099317&oldid=572946855 close], a controversial action which I will not unilaterally do. I will instead add it as a post-close comment, so that an administrator or more experienced closer can take it into consideration when s/he recloses the RfC. It is time-consuming to read the discussion and write a precise closing statement, so I am very grateful to closers such as yourself who take the time to do so on a regular basis. I agree that discussions should not be indiscriminately listed at ANRFC. I carefully consider each close request I list at the board. Thank you for raising your concerns with me, and feel free to let me know if you have any concerns in the future about my close requests. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content review 3
A Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR - Closed -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:NFCR - closed -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) WP:NFCR - closed -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) WP:NFCR - closed previously
 * 5) WP:NFCR - closed -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) WP:NFCR - closed previously
 * 7) WP:NFCR - closed previously
 * 8) WP:NFCR - closed previously
 * A few more have been closed, but we really need an uninvolved administrator to look at and close some of these. (21 remain on this list, plus others on WP:NFCR. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content review 4
A Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents
Oh dear, dare I ask. The discussion started of fairly normally, but issue upon issue upon issue has been added in and on. Many of the remarks simply deal with the conduct of individual editors. Others are getting into the merits of Austrian economics as a topic, not as an article improvement problem. The whole thing is going nowhere fast. I have tagged it as stuck. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The thread in question is not "stuck", an active subsection of it concerns the possibility of establishing a sanctions regime and the requester here is involved in the articles that might be thus subjected. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the stuck tag, but the discussion simply generates heat at present. – S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to strike my "stuck" comments on the ANI. Sitush, please "close" this thread with a resolved template. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This thread is lively and ongoing, and has clearly not reached a stable view such that it's ready for closure., please withdraw this premature request for closure.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Specifico said as of the time he said it, but the discussion has since evolved to a consensus for applying general sanctions, so it probably is a good time for an uninvolved admin to look at it for possible closure. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussion now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive816. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been un-archived. The archiving seems to have been a mistake since there was active discussion in the section. --RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
IMHO the section headed Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important? should be closed; discussion had stopped about 2 weeks ago except for User:Gothicfilm's recent contribution. The other sections on the same or related topics are still ongoing. Chris Smowton (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion was archived to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 145. After an experienced editor assesses the consensus in the discussion, please either (i) move the discussion with your closing statement back to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or (ii) close the discussion in the archive and announce the result on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Because the "should we yield?" thread opened with a loaded question rather than a proposal to change the MOS in any specific/concrete way, and because several discussions covering the same part of the MOS (but, in contrast to the "yield" thread, making concrete proposals for change) were started while the "yield" thread was ongoing or shortly after it closed (and because later discussions eclipse earlier ones), I humbly suggest that the "yield" thread has already been 'closed' (meaning, shut so that further contributions are not accepted) by the archive bot, and that any further 'closure' (meaning inference of a 'consensus' for a concrete change to the MOS from the discussion) is probably not possible. In particular, WT:MOS#Gender self-identification covers substantially the same ground as the "yield" thread. To a much lesser extent, Archive 146#Gender and direct quotations opens by questioning a different sentence but the same general section/sentiment of MOS:IDENTITY, Archive 146#Inconsistent pronouns questions whether or not to keep pronouns consistent within an article, which is semi-relevant to the "yield" OP's question of whether or not to say "'she' fathered a child", WT:MOS#RfC on pronouns throughout life rehashes the "inconsistent pronouns" discussion, and WT:MOS#Gender, direct quotations and sic rehashes the "direct quotations" discussion. -sche (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. I totally agree, and I have copied the above comment to the archive page. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 13:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)
Article has been open for more than one week without relisting nor closure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content review 5
A Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:NFCR -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) WP:NFCR -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) WP:NFCR -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) WP:NFCR -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) WP:NFCR -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed 4 more, but need further assistance closing the remaining. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 14:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * + 2 more. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mario Kart
You can close it either right now or on 26 October 2013. Your choice. George Ho (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 27
This discussion was started on 27 July 2013 (UTC); requesting closure by an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   07:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:David Foster Wallace
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Foster Wallace (initiated 18 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The White Queen (TV series)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The White Queen (TV series) (initiated 21 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 09:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign accent syndrome
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Foreign accent syndrome (initiated 17 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Four Award
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Four Award (initiated 20 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 09:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mars and Venus (Botticelli)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMars_and_Venus_(Botticelli)&diff=577306422&oldid=574869779 the RfC] at Talk:Mars and Venus (Botticelli) (initiated 15 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 22
Easy delete outcome just waiting for a closer. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by WJBscribe. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) (initiated 31 August 2013)? [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADisambiguation&diff=575147723&oldid=575075227 The RfC was originally listed] at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation before being moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). The questions posed were: "1) should we continue to encourage/allow the use of '(entertainer)' as a disambiguator in entertainment-related articles, and 2) if so, under what circumstances." Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy) (initiated 8 October 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The opening poster wrote: "This stems from a discussion at WP:NPOVN - relevant discussions are also at WP:NPOVN and Template talk:Islamophobia. The templates being discussed are Template:Islamophobia, Template:Racism topics and Template:Antisemitism. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussion now archived at Village pump (policy)/Archive 110. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive.is RFC
RfC has extended past the 30 day window (as evidenced by Legobot coming by to remove expired RfC tag) and there has been no substantial change/discussion in multiple days. Therefore,I specifically petition that an uninvolved admin close this post haste so that we can close the door on this 3 ring circus of drama. Hasteur (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any admins willing to take up the case? I ask because I'm being burecratically forced to get this RfC closed prior to having a DRV on the Using Archive.is successfully overturn the moronic KEEP from the MFD... Hasteur (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed that took a lot longer than I'd expected and I need to run off. Could someone please archive the WP:CENT listing? Hobit (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Liberty University
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liberty University (initiated 22 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 19:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Tran (second close request)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Tran (initiated 9 August 2013)? See my previous close request here. and I believe the discussion's consensus still need to be assessed.

archived the close request [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators'_noticeboard%2FRequests_for_closure&diff=578148254&oldid=578143853 on 21 October 2013] without the discussion's having been closed by an uninvolved admin.

who closed the discussion wrote, "Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc." Because Chris troutman was involved in the discussion and because he gave leave to have an admin reclose the discussion, the consensus at the request for comment that admins cannot summarily overrule non-admin closures is not applicable.

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANatalie_Tran&diff=575113910&oldid=574099317 My post-close comment] cannot be considered a close because I explicitly stated that it would involve reverting the previous close, a controversial action that I would not take ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACunard&diff=577110627&oldid=575744923 further explanation here]).

My proposed close conflicts with Chris troutman's close, so I would be grateful if an uninvolved admin would assess the consensus in the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ by . Armbrust The Homunculus 21:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Marie Curie
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marie Curie (initiated 28 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Petronilla of Aragon
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Petronilla of Aragon (initiated 9 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, and closed by, who participated in the discussion. If there are objections to the close (it appears there have not been any), please relist the discussion here. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 05:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Departed
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Departed (initiated 17 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Raging Bull
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Raging Bull (initiated 18 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Village pump (technical)/Archive 119
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (technical)/Archive 119 (initiated 2 October 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013
Election-related RFC, needs to be closed ASAP so elections can start on time. --Rschen7754 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to close it, but in 12 hours my time. I've closed it the last 2 years and I havent made a comment.  If no one gets to it before me, that is.--v/r - TP 01:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ and created the Election Commission page at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WT:MOSNUM
Would be grateful for someone with a measure of common sense to close this interminable discussion about the use of imperial units on wikipedia, which stems from the thorny question of whether in a few limited circumstances you should put miles before kilometres. I would also suggest a large dose of WP:TROUT all round, a suggestion that reprising this discussion on a monthly basis stops and perhaps a WP:RFCU as suggested at Talk:United Kingdom. . Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . This discussion has continued since the above post, and an RfC on the subject has opened the just 3 days ago, so a close would be premature here. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 01:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) (initiated 21 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/Sports
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/Sports (initiated 3 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, but the merge could not be fully completed because no destination name was proposed for the content. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals) (initiated 30 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 07:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:PrankvsPrank/Archive 1
Requesting closure of 30 day RFC about the name of one of the YouTube channel's creators. Ross Hill ( talk ) 03:11, 30 Oct 2013 (UTC) 03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Joefromrandb (second close request)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Joefromrandb (initiated 15 August 2013)? See my previous close request here.

The close by was contested at User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2013/September by the RfC initiator, ; the subject, ; and uninvolved editor.

There was no subsequent response from, and the discussion was archived.

Recent RfCs have been closed and summarized by uninvolved administrators: Also, [the RfC initiator]'s conduct is widely seen as hounding."
 * Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser_conduct%2FArchive&diff=537462453&oldid=537458952 result]: "No users endorsed the certifier's position, only statements critical of the certifiers and the process received significant support."
 * Requests for comment/Epeefleche's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser_conduct%2FArchive&diff=541487117&oldid=537462453 result]: "[the subject] is broadly correct to remove unsourced conten, and [the RfC initiator] has often acted wrongly in restoring unsourced content.
 * Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser_conduct%2FArchive&diff=537458952&oldid=536753740 result]: "No consensus, closing admin suggested taking larger issues to arbitration."
 * Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser_conduct%2FArchive&diff=561700124&oldid=558772275 result]: "There was consensus that [the subject's] approach needs to change. The closing admin suggested that he agree to a voluntary topic ban regarding deletion issues in the problem area."
 * Requests for comment/Morriswa's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser_conduct%2FArchive&diff=544520970&oldid=544518335 result]: "Broad consensus that [the subject]'s work was indeed problematic, a problem now recognized by [the subject]. Good will and good faith all around, fortunately."

Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that I had in fact contributed a sentence to this RfC so I shouldn't be closing it. Still, anyone is welcome to take what I consider to be a consensus: Joe's behavior and word choice is deemed deeply problematic, even offensive, by a considerable number of editors. His takeaway from this RfC should be that he should adjust his attitude if he wishes to work within a collaborative community and not get his ass blocked all the time. However, it is noted by a considerable number of respected editors (including yours truly, of course) that this particular RfC is a bit tainted from the get-go since it seems that the editors who started it have a history with Joe that suggests an important and less than productive interest in seeking out conflict with Joe. Another takeway from this RfC should be, therefore, that those editors should, you know, just stay away. You're welcome; remember I signed my rights away when I clicked "save". Drmies (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Trevj (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content review 6
A Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:NFCR -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) WP:NFCR -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed 3 more. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox musical artist
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox musical artist (initiated 28 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI: BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute
Which led to Topic ban for MilesMoney's tendentious editing, which an admin agreed to but reopened discussion upon request. Here Admin requests other request closure and he or others can close the thread. User:Carolmooredc  14:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Since MilesMoney has changed his mind about participating, this is no longer relevant. User:Carolmooredc  01:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This request is premature and recent discussion, including a new and constructive proposal has just been made by for resolution of this difficult thread.  In my opinion, this request is premature.   SPECIFICO  talk  14:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifico is distorting a comment I made (by saying my statement was "consistent" with his positions). I did not make a new proposal. I suggested that a request be posted here, as Carolmooredc has done, and nothing more. I support Carolmooredc's request here. – S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And as the admin said in the link above:
 * "*Admin note I've completely withdrawn the close and topic ban. I continue to consider myself uninvolved, however. I agree that a new admin closing it would be preferred, but I'm not opposed to determining what the current consensus is if someone requests the thread to be closed.--v/r - TP 12:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC) "
 * Just to save anyone from having to follow the link and try to compare to comments here. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc  16:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: recently posted a comment in the thread (I believe shortly after this ANRFC was posted).  – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment I posted said that, to the best of my understanding, the sub-report calling for my ban is illegitimate and should be shut down. If I were to participate, this would only make it seem legitimate, so I am withholding participation until an admin tells me that the sub-report, however much it violates the rules, will not be shut down. MilesMoney (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At any rate, the discussion is on going and User:MilesMoney has now posted a substantial response to various concerns of the other editors on this thread. Closure would be premature. SPECIFICO  talk  21:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just gonna point out that I have chosen not to make any article-space edits while this is being discussed, so there is absolutely nothing to be gained from rushing to close it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅, by BD2412.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microsoft (initiated 30 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 10:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:North American Water and Power Alliance
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:North American Water and Power Alliance (initiated 19 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 11:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (initiated 6 August 2013; see the subsection Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement). The opening poster of the RfC subsection wrote: Which word(s) should be used in the following sentences from the article's lead:
 * The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT[A]) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of _____________.
 * Others maintain that, whatever the merits of the idea, the human reproductive drive will prevent _____________ from ever voluntarily seeking extinction. Previously suggested terms include: humankind, mankind, humanity, and the human race. Feel free to offer any others you prefer. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:20 Fenchurch Street
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:20 Fenchurch Street (initiated 7 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 11:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard (initiated 31 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure that there is a need for someone to close this discussion. It looks like it has ended by itself with an endorsement of the close and the closer clarifying their close statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added a formal statement to it. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255 (initiated 1 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✔️ 28bytes 'closed' the discussion when he unblocked Lfdder. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Added a formal closure to it. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:George Zimmerman
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Zimmerman (initiated 3 October 2013)? Please consider the related discussion at Talk:George Zimmerman in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person (initiated 11 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)/Archive 110
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (policy)/Archive 110 (initiated 16 October 2013)? There have been no comments since 27 October 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * although it might take some time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817 (initiated 28 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination)
Would an experienced editor (or an admin if deletion is required) assess the consensus at: Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination) (initiated 24 October 2013)
 * Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Banner/Workpage28 (initiated 24 October 2013)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Bradley Manning/Related (initiated 23 October 2013)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 17:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dave Farrell (initiated 22 October 2013)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 11:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Njaker/WIP Elitloppet (initiated 21 October 2013)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cardamon/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting (initiated 19 October 2013)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kimbola/sandbox (initiated 16 October 2013)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
One week of discussion (plus earlier discussion at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute). Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Premature. The conversation is ongoing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sexism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sexism (initiated 26 August 2013; relisted as an RfC 4 October 2013)? The dispute is about [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexism&diff=575315988&oldid=575290510 the "Criminal sentencing" section] of the article, which was deleted and restored. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/V (Jonas Brothers album)
Has been open since October 29 without a relist.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 08:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 13:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Sidebar update
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Requests for comment/Sidebar update (initiated 3 October 2013)? The discussion is inactive; there have been two edits since 14 October 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Longest Journey
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Longest Journey (initiated 3 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "As evidenced from the prior section of this page, some editors feel that TLJwiki meets the criteria to be included in the 'External links' section of this article, while others are uncertain that it does. We attempted to get a ruling on this matter at WP:ELN but it did not receive comment. We felt that an RFC was the next best step. Thank you for your assistance!" Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed by experienced editor. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 14:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Acharya S
RFC close needed please. The RfC bot has removed the template after 30 days. Not fantastically well attended, but all !votes in the same direction. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 11:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard
Ready for closure, please. An Admin has proposed a thoughtful solution which addresses the outstanding concerns and has been endorsed by a consensus of those who commented. SPECIFICO talk  00:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Yvonne Haddad
Editor agrees subject is notable, nominated today and 4 keeps, no delete !votes. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 20:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content review 7
A Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NFCR closed -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  13:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:NFCR closed -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  17:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) WP:NFCR closed -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  17:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) WP:NFCR ✅ Drmies (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) WP:NFCR ✅ Drmies (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) WP:NFCR closed -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  18:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256 (initiated 20 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 12:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eastern Front (World War II) (initiated 30 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Race and intelligence
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Race and intelligence (initiated 20 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819 (initiated 17 October 2013)? See the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 03:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
There has been a distinct lack of response to the RFC, nothing has been posted for a week. I take this to mean there is no real appetite to change WP:MOSNUM. Request an uninvolved admin to close the RFC and if possible to close the thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, which has been a protracted and unproductive discussion since August. One for WP:LAME I fear. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I endorse this request. It is best to put the chaos at MOSNUM behind us. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also endorse it. Kahastok talk 22:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Big Bang Theory
A name change to add TV Series to the articles is being requested. Could someone overlook this discussion from a non-biased outside perspective thanks.—<font color="36B0D6" style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 0 #CCC, 2px 2px 0 #CCC;">CKY2250 <font color="#FF0000">&tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 14:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ - this is an ongoing discussion. If you really want to move the page, you need to start a formal move request (see WP:RM) and let it run for 7 days; you certainly don't have consensus for a move in that discussion you pointed to now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not intended to be a formal article move. I would like a closure to the dispute on the section. The dialog between me and the other wikipedians are getting out of hand.—<font color="36B0D6" style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 0 #CCC, 2px 2px 0 #CCC;">CKY2250 <font color="#FF0000">&tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, there isn't anything specific to close. If you have nothing more to add, I'd suggest to stop replying. I've looked in the archives, it seems there have been several discussions over the question of primary topic and page titles here, so any change would have to done via a formal RM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I guess I will never use this noticeboard again. Thanks for your help, a direct admin assistance was requested instead and resolved. You can archive the request. —<font color="36B0D6" style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 0 #CCC, 2px 2px 0 #CCC;">CKY2250 <font color="#FF0000">&tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 19:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do what you like, but this board is specifically for asking for discussions to be closed, not for asking for neutral eyes to join a discussion. For that, consider notifying project boards, or wikipedia dispute resolution. This board is really for when someone has started a formal RFC, move, or other XfD discussion, people have showed up and provided their opinions on the matter, and it requires a formal close. This is not for regular content disputes or editor misbehavior issues, for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
A long an convoluted discussion affecting several hunderd articles. I can't see any clear consensus. Prefer admin closure please. --Stfg (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pending. I'll take this one. I'm not an admin but I've done hundreds of closes, some quite exhaustive, with little complaint, and I'm willing to take the tens of hours required to read it all carefully, work through the various points, address the points and concerns of each contributor, work with pen and paper to untangle the arguments and chart and synthesize the data in various ways, and write a decision which will likely run to a few thousand words. This will take some time, many calendar days at least. Herostratus (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 10:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of unusual deaths
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of unusual deaths (initiated 27 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . This is a content discussion with thirteen sub-discussions. Most of them have only one or two comments. There is now way to do an omnibus closing of the whole thing and frankly I see no reason that each of these sections needs an admin to close it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing this discussion, Beeblebrox. I agree that a close with such a small level of participation would be difficult. I withdraw this request for closure. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257 (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , I think we should let this ride for a another couple of days. Right now there is clearly no consensus to remove the topic ban, but there's precious little discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion archived at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style
This RFC, triggered by the Manning controversy, has now been running for 1 month and is not receiving any new comments. Because of its sensitivity, I suggest that it is given a similar level of care to the Manning controversy itself. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A month after the original request, it seems the RfC has attracted exactly two more comments. Please could someone step up to the plate here (I participated in the discussion so cannot do so myself). Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have the votes at around 25 Keep, 33 Delete and 10 Change if we account for the second preferences of those who voted to change we have 29 Keep, 38 Delete (discounting those who didn't have a second preference which weren't many). A large number of people have suggested a possible problem with just removing it, as it leaves ambiguity in it's place. To that end, my assessment of the arguments from both sides suggests that users agree that the order of preference (for lack of a better phrase) goes in this order: Before I get close to solve it could other please weigh in and let me know what they think about that assessment? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Wording as it currently stands
 * 2) Subject's current personal preference (especially expressed in self-published sources or long quotations for example)
 * 3) Where the re are a large number of recent mainstream reliable sources using the opposite terms to the person's current self-identified gender, the terms of the gender in those reliable sources may be used in the same context (such as referring to the subject's early life).
 * Where the person was significantly involved in a notable, significant event they may be referred to by the gender they identified with at the time to avoid confusion (this is especially the case in articles about the event/organisation/etc rather than a biography)


 * Your number 3 seems to be incomplete. And is the un-numbered bullet point supposed to be a number 4, or connected to number 3, or what?


 * I'd also like to see some clarity on the question of what should happen to guidelines which had consensus to be enshrined as guidelines at some point in the past, but whose support later fell to such an extent that they would not be so enshrined if they were proposed now. I gave my own opinion about that here and here (second paragraph), but perhaps others are aware of some precedents that can guide us.


 * Thanks for taking the trouble to help with this difficult situation! – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 11:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Clarified number 3, hopefully enough to make it clearer. I used a bullet point because I wasn't really sure if it should be included in the numbered list or be a stand-alone provision, what do you and others think? If it should be part of the list where should it go in the 'order'?
 * This is one of the things about people saying once a rule is there it's hard to get rid of, consensus is needed to make something a policy/guideline and consensus is needed for it not to be a policy/guideline anymore - that's my understanding, anyone else?
 * No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that you've clarified number 3, it seems to be saying basically the same thing as the bullet point, so I don't think you need to keep both. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 12:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Callanecc, I don't quite understand what you mean by "the order of preference". Do you mean that 1 has the most support, followed by 2 and then 3, and therefore you it should be closed with no change to the guideline? Or do you mean that there is consensus for 2 and 3 as exceptions to 1? If the latter, I would suggest that there is a consensus for 2 but not for 3. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I intended the latter. Having another look through the discussion, there was some discussion of using what's in current sources when that relates to past significant events. However I take your point that there probably isn't enough discussion and agreement to warrant changing the guideline to reflect it.
 * I'll implement the above in the next hour or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In Callanec's closing remarks was, "Consensus from this RFC is to keep the sentence", which isn't true. There wasn't consensus to keep or delete. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Had you asked me about why I said that before you reverted me, I would have told you that I said that because a number of the delete !votes stated that they were concerned that the subject's preference cannot be considered under the current wording. Hence adding that caveat to the guideline meant that there was a consensus to keep with that change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Re "a number of the delete !votes..." — What was that number? The only numbers I saw in the above discussion were "25 Keep, 33 Delete and 10 Change", and "29 Keep, 38 Delete" . --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the RFC. That was a numerical count (used to show that the !votes were close), which whilst sometimes helping to establish a consensus, when the votes are so close what each person actually says matters a lot more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your response is vague, hasn't answered my question, and hasn't  adequately addressed my concerns. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just had a quick look though and saw around 10 delete votes which mentioned the issue of the subject not getting a say and/or/therefore a possible breach of BLP policy. Combined with that the change votes (most of which mentioned this), the first preference keep/delete votes which also mention the possibility of a change and the keep/delete votes which say that the subject's preference should/could be taken into account. With no consensus to keep or delete it, the rough consensus or compromise is to keep it but to add the bit about subject preference - in hindsight that would have been a better comment to put in the closing comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you specifically show me your revised comment here? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure:
 * Closed per request on WP:ANRFC. There is no clear consensus to either keep or delete the sentence in question outright. However, there is a rough consensus that the subject's preference take precedence over referring to them using their latest expressed gender. See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&oldid=582342973#Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style.23RfC_on_pronouns_throughout_life here] for a further discussion of the result.
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest removing the word "outright". Otherwise, I'm OK with your closing with that statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, and ✅. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Massacres_of_Albanians_in_the_Balkan_Wars
It seems that the content of this article has already been presented within Serbia_in_the_Balkan_Wars. Still, this is controversial case which needs to be closed by administrator who is not involved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Antidiskriminator, perhaps you've simply misread, but that merge discussion was from 2010. If you still think the article should be merged, you'll certainly have to start a new discussion. There's nothing to close there since it's a stale discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths
The discussion was closed by a non admin who is well known for holding views decidedly outside of the mainstream Wikipedia community, with a conclusion that I do not think accurately reflects the discussion and policies presented. I would request a non involved Admin review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:A Bug's Life
I need an administrator to conclude the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deficit reduction in the United States (initiated 14 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 22:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:San Salvador Island
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:San Salvador Island (initiated 6 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should San Salvador Island become a semi-protected article due to recent vandalism?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:God
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:God (initiated 14 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Do you support or oppose this edit?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2013 November 10
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2013 November 10? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272 (initiated 16 November 2013)? Please determine the consensus of the block review. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:AN3&oldid=581669055#User:Chelios123_reported_by_User:MarshalN20_.28Result:_.29 Link to blocking admin's comments at WP:AN3]. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 01:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Murray Rothbard
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murray Rothbard (initiated 28 September 2013; see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMurray_Rothbard&diff=579773710&oldid=579757476 the RfC] at the subsection Talk:Murray Rothbard)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This has not been formatted or announced as an RfC and I doubt that it has received much attention. I suggest that, if OP wishes to achieve a lasting and definitive consensus on this that it be restated and posted as appopriate in the form of an RfC.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The RfC tag was added by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murray_Rothbard&diff=prev&oldid=575514663 on 3 October 2013], modified by  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMurray_Rothbard&diff=575522760&oldid=575514663 on 3 October 2013] and removed by Legobot [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMurray_Rothbard&diff=579773710&oldid=579757476 on 1 November 2013]. Although the section header does not have "RfC" in its title, this is not required for the discussion to be listed as an RfC. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy
I'm looking for an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to close and sum up the consensus of this RfC, which asks whether the proposal should become policy. The RfC was opened on 14 October so the end of the 30-day period is approaching. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The related proposal, Paid editing policy proposal, which was opened on the same day (14 October) also needs to be closed and summed up. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For anyone inclined to close these: if the job seems too big, if you want to sum up some arguments and leave others alone, I can do some of the summing-up work when I close WT:Conflict of interest limit (since the outcome of that RfC depends in part on the outcome of the other two). - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have closed it. Ping me if you think I should expand more. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll expand a bit on that when I do WT:Conflict of interest limit. WT:Paid editing policy proposal still needs closing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Alishan Bairamian
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alishan Bairamian (initiated 5 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "... The reason given for this change was that making Sylvia's maiden name so easy to find could compromise the family's privacy and security. However, the information exists in a public, though obscure (and not in English), source. Should this be included or excluded?" Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  15:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ronan Farrow
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronan Farrow (initiated 6 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBotto (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 November 2013

Deletion review/Log/2013 November 9
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2013 November 9? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, this DRV has been open since about 10 days. Could a non-involved admin perhaps have a look and close it? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jon Roland
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jon Roland (initiated 8 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256 (initiated 16 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 12 November 2013)? Please evaluate the proposals at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 13 November 2013)? Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents are two subsections that could be assessed. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Conceptualization (information science)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conceptualization (information science) (initiated 26 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ten Lost Tribes
Requesting an uninvolved person to close the discussion at Talk:Ten Lost Tribes. The consensus appears clear, but a formal closure may be helpful in this case. It has been almost a week since the last comment. Thank you, Bahooka (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . by . -- Jreferee (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why was this closed so soon? No BLP violations so it can surely run the 30 days? Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I closed it based on Bahooka's request above and reopened per your reasoning on my talk page. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with keeping the RfC open for the full 30-day default period, but I did want to explain my reasoning so there won't be any concerns about good faith. I tried to read the RfC page very carefully to make sure I did it correctly. Regarding closure, it states that "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." (emphasis added)  I knew the default period had not ended, but interest in making comments had waned (a week had passed since the last one) and the consensus seemed clear.  That was my rationale, but we can revisit on 11/25.  Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While I acknowledge an editors right to request it remain open. I don't find any fault in Bahooka's close as RfC's are not required to be open for 30 days and may be closed if inactive for some time.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bahooka and Keithbob. The RfC was initiated on 25 October 2013, and Jreferee closed the RfC on 6 November 2013. 12 days had elapsed and nearly a week had passed without further comment. WP:SNOW was applicable: There was a clear consensus by the time Jreferee closed the RfC against the inclusion of the blockquote in the lead. Had the discussion not been an RfC, no one would have objected to an uninvolved editor assessing the consensus earlier than 30 days. An RfC should not grant clearly opposed content the right to stay in the article for the full 30 days when the consensus is clear. There is precedent for early RfC closes per WP:SNOW: see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKidnapping_of_Hannah_Anderson&diff=573370712&oldid=573345745 this close of Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMayors_in_Puerto_Rico&diff=576744390&oldid=576711462 this close of Mayors in Puerto Rico] for two examples. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 17:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Story of a Small Town
Recent proposal is located at the bottom of the talkpage. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 16:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Anencephaly
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anencephaly (initiated 7 November 2013)? The RfC tag was removed; WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television (initiated 2 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌. There really isn't any support for the proposal; I think formal closes make sense when there is some ongoing disagreement that a close would help resolve, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT  drop me a line 02:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 16:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Islamophobia
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamophobia (initiated 13 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅  Sandstein   20:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dragon_Ball
The merge discussion was opened on October 31 and discussion has been stale for over 2 weeks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion is only stale because an RFC was opened regarding the topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 16:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Open since 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC). No new views and few new comments in the past 10 days or more. Really should be clearly settled. DES (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cheers (season 1)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cheers (season 1) (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 22:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jnestorius/List of Bands whose names form complete sentences (initiated 10 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, an admin will and has. Thank you . Drmies (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! I've fixed the MfD archive templates. Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of multimedia franchises
I feel that I have been too heavily involved as an advocate in this discussion to close it without raising an appearance of impropriety. Discussion was initiated 12 September 2013, and appeared to be resolved shortly thereafter, until a contrary view was raised; it was then discovered that the complainant was using multiple sockpuppets in the discussion (see Sockpuppet investigations/AngelaVidal/Archive), but discussion of the point of contention effectively ended on 8 November 2013. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Perth Broncos
Has gone longer than 7 days. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Clint Eastwood and Talk:Clint Eastwood
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clint Eastwood (initiated 30 August 2013) and Talk:Clint Eastwood (initiated 26 October 2013)? As noted in the second discussion, both sections are RfCs about a related topic. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ & done. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan (initiated 20 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of zombie films
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of zombie films (initiated 21 October 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the entries of this list that are redlinked and have only IMDB as a link (no refs) be deleted from this list as failing WP:V WP:RS as well as the specific criteria for this list 'popular or widely known' or 'relatively high budget' per WP:CSC . Proposed deletion is not prejudicial against moving entries to the 'low budget' list, but such move is not a condition of being deleted from this list." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 15:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Kansas gubernatorial election, 2014
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kansas gubernatorial election, 2014 (initiated 23 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote: What should the 1) format and 2) content of the article be?

1) Should the article be primarily in a List format like this] or a Prose format like this? 2) Should the content of the article contain information about people who did not enter the race for governor? If so, what should be included about those people who did not enter the race? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ cheers. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 22:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 107
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 107 (initiated 8 November 2013)? WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Armbrust The Homunculus 15:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Would an admin assess the consensus at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (initiated 22 November 2013)? Banning policy states: "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - JodyBtalk 03:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 107
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 107 (initiated 30 October 2013)? There have been no comments since 19 November 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ccharles32/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ccharles32/sandbox
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ccharles32/sandbox and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Ccharles32/sandbox (both initiated 15 November 2013)? Because the two MfDs are related, it might be beneficial to have the same closer for consistency. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The first was by . Armbrust The Homunculus 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed the second. Sorry, I didn't see it originally. I thought the tag on the user talk page was misplaced. Thanks, Cunard. Killiondude (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich (2nd nomination)
Please look at closing this Afd, thank you. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo (initiated 19 July 2013)? See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKosovo&diff=578325352&oldid=576904856 this 22 October 2013 comment] by the RfC initiator who wants to proceed with the proposal but has not done so. An assessment of the consensus by an uninvolved editor would be helpful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed: no clear consensus. (non-admin closure)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 19:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Throffer/Archives/2013 and Talk:Throffer/Archives/2013
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Throffer/Archives/2013 (initiated 23 September 2013) and Talk:Throffer/Archives/2013 (initiated 29 September 2013)? The opening poster of the first section wrote: "This so-called Good Article is really just a variant on extortion, and should be an item of minor note within that article, if it exists at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion" The opening poster of the section section wrote: "Should throffer be merged into carrot and stick?" The second merge discussion [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThroffer&diff=579248847&oldid=575452716 was listed] as an RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've closed both as no clear consensus for merger. (non-admin closure)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 22:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Druids (Shannara)
I would like to request a formal closure on the content dispute at Talk:Druids_(Shannara). While the comments on that particular content dispute have been rather one-sided, which might indicate no formal closure is necessary, the editor who originally added the text asserts that there are other issues with editor behavior (mine) and issues of WP:PRESERVE that go beyond the content dispute on this particular article, even though he has not chosen to take those assertions (accusations?) to an appropriate forum to have them hashed out. Therefore, I believe a formal closure of this discussion is in order.

I would also like to ask that any administrator with previous involvement with either me (User:N2e) or User:The ed17 recuse themselves from this closure action. Thanks very much. N2e (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * An editor has helpfully stopped by and closed the discussion. I don't see it noted here on AN/RfC, so thought I ought to pop in and note that, just so no other editors need expend any time on the matter.  Cheers, N2e (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Progressive tax
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Progressive tax (initiated 19 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2013 November 15
Would an admin assess the consensus at Deletion review/Log/2013 November 15? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 02:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)