Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
2012
Would an admin summarize the main points for the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ScottyBerg sock review? The discussion was initiated on 28 January 2012; the most recent comment was three days ago. Cunard (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed by John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Merge proposal at Caesarea
Greyshark09 (talk · contribs) has requested that an administrator close a discussion at Talk:Caesarea#Merge proposal. Please do so. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
An uninvolved administrator is required to close the merger proposal of Arab–Israeli conflict in sports.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors? Would an admin also implement the consensus by filing a Bugzilla request? Cunard (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 86#"My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Bugzilla filed, see: bugzilla:36121. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close this discussion. It has been open for more than 30 days, and discussion went inactive a week ago. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Move discussion has been open for well over a week now; given the active nature of the talk page it would be nice to close out this discussion if a consensus can be extracted. VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Mike Cline (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Non controversial merge RFC discussion - consensus needs a sum up. Please close. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Unclosed DRV discussion, which has already fallen of the main DRV page. Somebody please close it. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Please could someone close this multi-move: the discussion for which is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Moving "Isaac Asimov's ..." articles. Sorry for the irregular form of the proposal, and I would be happy to correct the links once it's closed. --xensyriaT 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by JHunterJ. Jafeluv (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! --xensyriaT 13:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello guys close this request for comment. It is over. --Highstakes00 (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Now open for 22 days, i.e. well beyond the usual 7 days. Discussion has stalled -- no posts since one on 14 April, and before that nothing since 7 April. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Now open for 18 days. I was a participant, so cannot close it myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Now open for 17 days. I was a participant, so cannot close it myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done. I'm not sure that I've dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, so it would be nice if someone could double check. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Plz can be closing? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a clear WP:SNOW closure right here. 15 delete !votes with no objections. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Joe Decker. Jafeluv (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is inactive since Monday and I think it can be closed now. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 22:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- This report is stale now and so are the proposals. Don't see a consensus there for an action as wide as a topic ban or anything else. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed by Panyd --lTopGunl (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion has been inactive for 9 days now, opponent was presented with edited solution on which he never reacted and nor have anyone else. One way or another, since no editor which never participated in similiar discussion has been found, could you close the request? Thank you. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if the nominator and administrator User:Tenebrae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is acting on good faith or not, but look at the comments he made toward me and others. Look at what he did to my Block History before I moved it to my talk page. Look at the comments in User talk:Elen of the Roads#User:George Ho/Block History#Blackmark. Look at the comments in User talk:Tenebrae. Seriously, even with the consensus over significance and stuff, I am not sure if the discussion can go on any longer. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Declined - Requested moves have a seven-day waiting period. The discussion has gotten a little hot, but that happens all the time on Wikipedia, and the closing administrator can gauge consensus in spite of any bad faith, assumptions of bad faith, ad hominems, etc. that occur on the page. If you become offended by anything said on the page, then simply ignore it because administrators are usually smart enough to see through it even without a rebuttal on your part. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed by JHunterJ after 7 days. Dpmuk (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 13#Healthcare_by_subdivision_of_the_United_States
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Fayenatic london (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Should have been closed after 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The consensus unanimously opposed this proposal, and I bet many more will oppose. Odds of supporting this proposal may be none. --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This has been open for a couple of months now, partly because of a long wait for a foundation legal opinion, but discussion has pretty much stopped and this needs closing. I started it so am involved and Moonriddengirl was involved in her WMF role so can't close either. I'd hope to be able to find a image copyright admin to talk a look but a post to WP:MCQ has yielded no responses so bringing here. Dpmuk (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Closure. Rd232 talk 18:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you a very detailed, well-thought-out closure! Cunard (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/User pages and its sub-proposals? Would an admin also implement the consensus by filing a Bugzilla request? Cunard (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion was archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_86#Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/User pages. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Added a note about the discussion (which despite some opposition, appears to have consensus) to Bugzilla:470, which has been open since... 2004. Worth observing that the recent discussion led to the creation of a toolserver prototype (see archived discussion), and of course the same functionality is possible via RSS, since every user's contributions list is spat out into its own Atom feed - see WP:Syndication. Rd232 talk 16:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Cunard (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Does not appear to be anywhere near a close result - but would an unilvlved admin kindly close it? 3 appear to consider the Tea Party to be properly mentioned (even if it is not deemed Radical Right) while 11 deem it improperly in the article. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
An unclosed deletion review.—S Marshall T/C 14:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- closed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
A proposed basis of closure was made by a neutral third party on 30 April [1]. This was accepted by TPH [2]. Since then there has been no objection and only a few minor edits to the project. The whole project is more than two months old and I would say that all the key points have been made. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- As one of the participants, I concur with this assessment. Jclemens (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion there are consensus among uninvolved admins on some kind of short term sanction either block for a week or one one month topic ban.--Shrike (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
RfC on merge, please assist in closing. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The proposal is standing for a couple of years already.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
There are three oppositions and two supports. However, opposition begs chances, while supporters do not want to give chances. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
MMA merge requests
Can an admin look at the following merge requests at Talk:UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch and Talk:UFC 150, on the face of it there appears no consensus to merge, but given the lack of poicly based reasons and the recent outcomes of :
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 148 (2nd nomination),
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida (2nd nomination),
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier (2nd nomination) and
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall (2nd nomination)
Can an admin close the discussions . Mtking (edits) 05:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Due to my prior involvement, it would be improper for me to close these. The lack of willingness of others to go close these does demonstrate my previous observations that no admin wants to touch MMA with a 10 foot pole, making the problems there worse. I did noticed that there is not a single oppose vote that is based on a guideline or policy, which makes me think a policy based consensus does exist. Now to find a brave admin who isn't too "involved". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- This section was restored from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone ? Mtking (edits) 20:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed both discussions. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 14:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 1#User:Cla68 and another DRV
Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 1#User:Cla68 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30#The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- First DRV closed by Runningonbrains (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Second DRV separately listed on this page by Beeblebrox. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Could someone close this RfC? It's rather malformed, being put on the main noticeboard, instead of the talkpage, and seems to have fairly clear consensus. 86.** IP (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 31#RfC: Should there be advice to notify an article if discussion is extended or invites action?. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This has been awaiting closure for over a month and it's been about a week and a half since the last comment. I've taken part in the discussion so can't close it myself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This was an RfC to decide whether there's consensus to add the subject's surname to the article, against his wishes (it was his slave name and he rejects it). The RfC closed after 30 days. TuckerResearch concluded that around 22 users (who were not single-purpose accounts) wanted to add the name, and 14 wanted to omit. Further discussion here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Closed Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 Not done RFC is now properly certified and discussion is ongoing, a close at this time would be premature. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
|
Per the header, this RFC should have been deleted about seven days ago. There is really only one "certifier". There appears to be a second, Guy Macon, but in the "Views" section he states "I am not involved in the current dispute", which means he shouldn't have made himself a certifier. Jeh (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Please close straw poll on Seamus incident talk page. Please note that a non-admin previously tried to close the poll, but their closure was undone. Debbie W. 05:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- As an involved admin, I can't do it, but please note that the closure or the reopening lost some comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
can an admin either close or relist this? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done by Anomie. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vision Thing? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have Closed this due to inactivity. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Armbrust. As the closer, would you add a note at the RfC like that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Willfults indicating the RfC was delisted due to inactivity and received little attention? Cunard (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Can an admin either close or relist this? thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Black Falcon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This open DRV will soon fall of the main DRV page. Closure needed. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Would someone be so kind as to close out this RFC? [4] Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Sorry, and sorry it took so long. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
It's been eight days since the original post. What is the result of this discussion? --George Ho (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Result is not to split. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Request close of quadruple RM
- Moved from AN. Jafeluv (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
(I hope this is the right place to make a request of this type. If not, please let me know.)
Namely:
- Books of Chronicles → Book of Chronicles
- Books of Samuel → Book of Samuel
- Books of Kings → Book of Kings
- Book of Kings → Book of Kings (disambiguation)
It's been at the backlog for nearly a month and is quite stale at this point, I believe. Both sides had good points, and I wish we could have gotten a wider range of input. There is no clear consensus at the moment, however, and it doesn't look as though one is going to develop any time soon. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- The actual discussion can be found at Talk:Books_of_Chronicles#Requested_move. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 21:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- closed - jc37 12:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin (or admins) close:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) closed. Jafeluv (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wtshymanski/Griping Done Drmies (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PuppyOnTheRadio/score thing2 - closed by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 16:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wimpy Kid (2nd nomination) - closed by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 23:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Chemical ASCII-art - closed by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User's archive of deleted articles - closed by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus and summarize the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Time to make WP:BRD policy?, which was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done. NW (Talk) 16:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion was open for more than one month is inactive since 26 April 2012. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is archived but there is still one DRV open. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Reposting this as it was removed under the mistaken assumption that it was the same DRV from another post. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
added "closed due to inactivity, no consensus" Nobody Ent 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ? A close was requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ, and the RfC was delisted due to inactivity but was not summarized. A summary will allow the subject and participants to have a third-party list the RfC's findings.
When I saw http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=493621214#User:Fae at WP:AN, I reviewed the RfC/U and found that unlike the most recent RfC/Us at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive it had not been summarized.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer#Summary and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay are two excellent examples of how complex RfC/Us are summarized. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion originally closed by Nobody Ent (talk · contribs). Left a note for him. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- No consensus was reached. I closed it per iar as no one else seemed willing to it. My more personal summary may be found here. Nobody Ent 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Added a note to the top of the page pointing to the summary of the RFC/U [5], and I think this can be marked as {{done}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your close was (correctly) reverted by another editor because the close merely linked to WT:Requests for comment/Fæ#summary which is a very sarcastic (but accurate) summary of the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Umm, no, it's not correct to revert in such a situation. It's fine to disagree but not to unilaterally overturn it. Prioryman (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- BTW it's not even my close, I just linked to the closer's summary. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Umm, no, it's not correct to revert in such a situation. It's fine to disagree but not to unilaterally overturn it. Prioryman (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your close was (correctly) reverted by another editor because the close merely linked to WT:Requests for comment/Fæ#summary which is a very sarcastic (but accurate) summary of the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Added a note to the top of the page pointing to the summary of the RFC/U [5], and I think this can be marked as {{done}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- No consensus was reached. I closed it per iar as no one else seemed willing to it. My more personal summary may be found here. Nobody Ent 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Whether it was meant to be sarcastic or serious or a mixture of both, a comment that refers to other editors as "a bunch of homophobes" should have been stricken from the RfC's talk page entirely, not propped up as an honest evaluation of the matter. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, the RFC/U still needs a proper summary. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would have thought it obvious that "a bunch of homophobes" was Nobody Ent's (admittedly sarcastic) summary of one of the arguments put forward in the RfC/U. It's very obvious from the context and tone of his summary that he's attempting to reflect the various arguments in a relatively lighthearted fashion. I'm sure that some will be upset that he's declined to take the outcome of the RfC/U seriously, which is quite understandable given what a circus it was and what a thorough mess it ended up being. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding "reading comprehension needed?", I would say that our comprehension is working just fine, thanks. I addressed the possibility of sarcasm in my comment here earlier, but wil note again that even if it was intended was sarcasm, it was still inappropriate. It would be preferable if someone else provided a mature and serious summation of the RfC. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Apologies to the community, I had not realized this discussion had been continuing. To make everything explicit, my close does not include any summary, other than the edit summary of closed due to inactivity and no consensus as listed on the archive page; this is not an official close by a community elected admin but a gnomework task because no one else will do it performed by an eponymous nobody. As there is currently an ongoing ArbCom case regarding Fae it probably doesn't matter at this point.
As to my inappropriate "summary," which is a talk page comment illustrating the potential difficulty an actual closer would have -- my actual statement is "this was just started by a bunch of editors who are all homophobes except all the ones who aren't" -- which is the union of two disjoint subsets which form the Universal set. No statement is made as the number of members in each set. I will also contend that an editor reading all of the RFC and all of the talk page will find my summary reflects what is actually there to a reasonable approximation. Nobody Ent 01:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested articles#RFC? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion; the last comment was on 17 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 55#RFC on non-free content handling, in particular in history revisions with regard to the questions asked by FT2 (talk · contribs)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion is still ongoing, but it has gotten slow. --George Ho (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Kaldari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 00:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
GA Reassessment closure requested
I need someone to close discussion at Talk:Jacobus Deketh/GA2. It's straightforward enough, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Merger discussion closure
Could you please close Talk:Ashton_Kutcher#Merge_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Please close Talk:Big Bang#RfC: Which draft should be selected?, thanks!! – Lionel (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- {{cross}} Not done, thirty days have not yet elapsed, and the latest comment is only four days old. Sandstein 09:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 07:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
A deletion review focusing on copyright and fair use as it applies to Dungeons & Dragons.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Bwilkins (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin review Talk:Matt Lucas#Former partner RfC for closure? Opened 23 May. Thanks, --92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Mahahahaneapneap (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I imagine this is a fairly clear-cut 'no consensus' result, but it would be helpful for an uninvolved administrator to rubber-stamp this expired and de-listed RFC. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Closed. Sandstein 08:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This RfC has remained open for months. Would an uninvolved admin please close and summarize the discussion. Thanks. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:User pages#May sanctions that are actively in effect be removed from a user talk page
Requesting close, RFC tag expired, would an uninvolved editor or admin please summarize the discussion? Monty845 04:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This RFC/U needs closure after It went inactive on 22 May 2012. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ban April Fools pranks? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_88#Ban_April_Fools_pranks. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I had a look at this, and I can't find any consensus for doing anything. Although there is certainly substantial community disapproval of disruption, especially in articlespace, there is no agreement on what that means or what to do about preventing it. Personally, I would suggest Wikipedia:Department of Fun be tasked with collaborating on pranks in advance, so that we don't get such a proliferation of "hey, wouldn't this be funny" individual acts. However, even if stressing that such collaboration didn't amount to requiring Department of Fun approval, I'm sure some would say that this would be WP:BUREAUCRACY and kill the fun. Rd232 talk 16:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Closed as no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
DYK closure needed within 10 hours
At Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition, I have explained why Template:Did you know nominations/John Tiffany needs rush closure and special queue placement. The 66th Tony Awards are tonight and this is a great hook to have on the main page in Queue 6 tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Either a nominator must withdraw this nomination, or someone here shall close it as "no consensus to delete" as not substitute for WP:VPPR. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done closed as Keep, but discussion must continue on what to do instead of using this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Due to the contentious history of this article, claims of ArbCom sanctions with this particular subject matter, and other problems simply needing a dispassionate uninvolved 3rd party coming in to review the discussion about, I'd like to request some administrator willing to wade into this discussion (at your peril) to close this discussion. Just be aware it is a tarpit of problems waiting to drag you down into the abyss if you aren't careful, so tread lightly and back yourself up with additional help if you wade in here as well. The discussion on this RfC has apparently run its course simply needing resolution. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done but no consensus here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
RfC on Deaths in 2012
ResolvedAn RfC concerning reference style that was opened on April 12. Danger! High voltage! 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please? :) It has been open for several months now. I came here to ask it be closed as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done WormTT(talk) 15:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Resolvedopen for several weeks now, and the discussion appears to have died. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Resolvedopen for several weeks now, and the discussion appears to have died. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Closing requested move at Talk:Luka Magnotta
Two weeks ago tomorrow, it was requested that the article Luka Magnotta be renamed as Murder of Lin Jun. Since we passed the 7-day mark after which the discussion could be closed, it has surprised me that no admin has done this already, given the contentious and high-profile nature of the topic. After a very active discussion over those first seven days, only one comment has been made on the request.
It seems pretty clear that there is no consensus for this move, and it's probably not unfair to say there is a consensus against the move. Either way, the rest of the activity on the talk page indicates that the question has become not whether we should rename Luka Magnotta but whether we should create Murder of Lin Jun as its own article. (Incidentally, attention to that discussion could also be helpful.) I've tried to be patient about this, but administrator attention and a decision will be very helpful in putting this discussion behind us so we can focus on the myriad other issues that have shown up there. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. May I cross post here? "myriad" may not be a strong enough term. If admin does look at the closure, they may also wish to look over some of the comments in the talk page that may be against BLP policies. I put a big bold section right at the top that may help (feel free to edit that). I also mentioned this in its section at ANI.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Resolved-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Has already been relisted twice. Discussion stalled since 24 May. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 17:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Short discussion, stalled since June 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 17:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Astrology RFC
This RFC was never closed though the RFC bot removed the template as expired. Can an admin please have a look at Talk:Astrology#RFC_on_change_to_pseudoscience_summary_in_lede? Thanks. SÆdontalk 01:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- The RfC was about a week over the 30-day period, and no one else had yet stepped in, so I closed it. I've been previously involved on the talk page and article, but had not weighed in on that issue in any capacity that I can recall. If there are any questions, or an admin (in particular) was requested for the close somewhere I had not seen, let me know. However, consensus appeared to be fairly obvious, so I don't anticipate any problems. Thanks. — Jess· Δ♥ 16:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
open for several weeks now, and the discussion appears to have died. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as no consensus. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone close or relist this one? I would, but I closed it the first time, before the DRV and subsequent relisting (which I fully supported). I will be happy to take care of any cleanup issues (e.g., either restoring, deleting, or renaming the templates). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No discussion since May 28. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by The Bushranger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Stalled since June 4, apart from a request for closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Requesting close of an RfC
Would an otherwise uninvolved administrator please review and close with a decision the expired RfC located at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_modification_to_WP:NFC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed (good luck). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This has a big majority of support to move and has being needed to be closed for days. Thanks. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done - This discussion has been closed (not by me). Dana boomer (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Dpmuk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
open for several weeks now, and the discussion appears to have died. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done - This discussion has been closed (not by me). Dana boomer (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Open for 42 days, and only 2 comments in the last 17 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done - This discussion has been closed (not by me). Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Mike Selinker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
No discussion since 30 May. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done - This discussion has been closed (not by me). Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Mike Selinker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Very long discussion, only one contribution in the last week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Even longer discussion, very contentious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This request for uninvolved admin RfC closure has now exceeded 30 days without response. The subject in question is an oft-recurring one and warrants an unambiguous administrative resolution. Your assistance is appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Discussion to change/add wording to the Block policy? (initiated 18 February 2012). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done - jc37 01:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Unblocking bot accounts? (initiated 10 May 2012). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done - jc37 01:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin close Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice and provide guidance about how a subsequent RfC would be better focused? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Category:Terminology (initiated 20 May 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Merger at Nintendo 3DS
This might be a bit early, but discussions on merging Nintendo 3DS XL to Nintendo 3DS is here. When an admin feels it should be closed, please do so. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 19:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Move review on Big and Season 2
I notice that the reviews that I started are still active. I wonder if there is a consensus. --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Direct links to the Move reviews: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_June_14#Season_2 and Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_June_18#Big. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed discussion for Season 2. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 07:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion on Big was Closed by Jenks24 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an administrator assess the consensus of five proposed changes to the notability of academics guideline? Discussion of the proposals is at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Proposed_changes. NJ Wine (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- This hasn't run for 30 days yet, and doesn't appear ripe for a SNOW closure. It also needs more participation. Sandstein 17:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Mscuthbert (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:SNOW close needed at Wikipedia talk:Community Council of Wikipedia
This idea has been repeatedly, recently rejected by pretty much everyone who has come across it yet the creator of the idea seems to think if he keeps re-presenting it with slight modifications it will suddenly become aprooved. I have explained to him that the underlying concept is completel antithetical to the way Wikipedia works and that no amount of tweaking it will change that, but he seems to be somwehat resistant to "clue adjustment" in this department and apparently intends to keep this farce open. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is probably not needd anymore, the user making the proposal has moved it back into userspace, I have therefore just no-wikied the RFC tag, it was already delisted from WP:CENT, so I think we can call it resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done Proposal userfied and Rfc template commented out. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why the first listing got relisted, but could someone come by and close this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Discussion was relisted by Tom Morris (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion was closed by Scottywong (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
English national identity
Could someone be so kind to close the merger proposal of English national identity article. I think that user who proposed merger did not follow all necessary steps (he did not start the discussion) and there was no discussion about his proposal. I could start discussion myself, but since I do not support his proposal it would probably be absurd. There are articles about the other national identities, like Scottish national identity, Canadian identity, Taiwanese identity, Jewish identity... The article on "English national identity" obviously meets the general notability guideline because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (43,500 of them) --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not done There is no discussion on either articles talk pages about this merge. Removed the tag, but nothing to close. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion; the last comment was on 13 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Victor Yus (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 19:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Staledraft and Proposed slow deletion? The RfC was initiated on 2 June 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Move review#RfC to see if there is broad support for RM closure reviews (initiated 20 May 2012), taking into consideration the other discussions on the page? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paternal Behavior and other MfDs
Would an admin assess the consensus at the following MfDs:
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paternal Behavior Closed by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cliffubba/sandbox Closed by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men in Black Closed by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:OverlordQ/WTFPL Done Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kasaalan/sandbox/rachel Closed by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kolkata Closed by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Prime objective Done Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15/Change in consensus on Northern Ireland Relisted by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
speedy closure requested on Paradise
Editor requested a rename of Paradise to Heaven (but both articles exist). Now a second proposal to merge has been forwarded, but the old rename proposal is still hanging out. I think it should just be speedily closed as a procedural close -- Talk:Paradise/Archive 1#Requested_move for details. --KarlB (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at IPCOLL concerning insertion of mandatory, formulaic, boilerplate text
Can an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion at IPCOLL and render a decision that respects the majority consensus. The advanced proposal seeks to eliminate mandatory, formulaic, boilerplate text currently inserted into some 200 articles. After a lengthy debate, 23 editors voted in favor of the proposal to remove the boilerplate text while 19 opposed (24 to 20 if IPs are included). A decision that respects the valid concerns voiced by the majority of the community should be respected and implemented.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently declined. The most recent opinion was offered yesterday, so the discussion is still ongoing, and hasn't yet been open for the 30 days a RfC usually runs. (Also, in discussions of this type, opinions are not votes.) Sandstein 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: This RFC can be closed after 22 June 2012. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Now closed. Sandstein 18:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Image categorisation? Initiated 11 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. The last comment was made on 20 June 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:List of banned users#Treatment of de-facto-banned users (initiated 9 May 2012)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done. 28bytes (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Neutral closure needed; discussion has been on-going since June 12. --KarlB (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reading it now, will close shortly. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing#RfC: Should this be a guideline ?? Initiated 2 June 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion because of inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Non-admin closure. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be closed. --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Does it really need to be closed? The discussion has petered out, there is obviously no consensus that bloke (word) is the primary topic, and articles cannot be deleted via a talk page discussion, they must go to AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have closed the discussion and nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (word). Cunard (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This RfC ran for 30 days and became rather heated towards the end, with considerable incivility, edit warring, and even an ANI thread. Would someone take a look to determine consensus, please? Rivertorch (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- But the poll started 8 June 2012, so it hasn't been 30 days yet? Sandstein 17:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to begin a poll; one editor (acting in good faith but with bad judgment, imo) initiated it unilaterally, multiple editors objected to it, and its launch marked the beginning of serious contentiousness in the RfC. I supported waiting 30 days before closing the RfC—I think there's considerable precedent for that—but I can see no reason to extend an RfC simply because an editor decides to add a poll two weeks into it. Rivertorch (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I, the initiator of the poll, started it because the RfC went off course and was turning into name calling and other off topic things. The poll was intended to bring the focus back onto the question at hand. I personally would prefer to keep it open because of the issues. But if it is closed now I wouldn't object. I would however ask the closing admin take a look at the comments section closely because it appears to me that there is no real consensus in either way because several commentators stated they preferred a different image than the current one despite posting in the no image section. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? The RfC and the poll both show an overwhelming consensus against having an image in the navbox template, in terms of the strength of arguments and in sheer numbers against the image. How you can possibly interpret this overwhelming consensus as "no real consensus" is very strange. In fact, none of the arguments for an image in the template have even attempted to rebut the arguments against it, and can only be interpreted as "I like it", which isn't a valid argument. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I second that "Huh?". There is very clear consensus to remove the image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. There's clearly consensus to remove the current image. The question of whether to use any image at all is somewhat less cut and dried (although opinion is leaning against it), but there's no reason to maintain the presence of an image there's consensus to remove while that second question is determined. Rivertorch (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I, the initiator of the poll, started it because the RfC went off course and was turning into name calling and other off topic things. The poll was intended to bring the focus back onto the question at hand. I personally would prefer to keep it open because of the issues. But if it is closed now I wouldn't object. I would however ask the closing admin take a look at the comments section closely because it appears to me that there is no real consensus in either way because several commentators stated they preferred a different image than the current one despite posting in the no image section. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to begin a poll; one editor (acting in good faith but with bad judgment, imo) initiated it unilaterally, multiple editors objected to it, and its launch marked the beginning of serious contentiousness in the RfC. I supported waiting 30 days before closing the RfC—I think there's considerable precedent for that—but I can see no reason to extend an RfC simply because an editor decides to add a poll two weeks into it. Rivertorch (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Closed. Sandstein 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Archiving talk pages? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion and no discussion has occurred since 18 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the discussion is in my favour. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Everyone's spoken; realistically, time to close the discussion and enact the results. --Rschen7754 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done by another user. --Rschen7754 08:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages? The RfC was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion and the last comment was on 20 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- This request for closure has now been up here for over thirty days. Is there no one who is willing to close this? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done I like the hard ones. -- Selket Talk 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Stub types for deletion#Do we really need this deletion discussion category? (initiated 20 May 2012)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done this was implemented quite some time ago, just archiving the discussion. -- Selket Talk 22:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO: yes or no? (maybe) (initiated 23 March 2012)? An RfC was held under a subsection at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RFC for more feedback (2 May 2012). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not clear what a summary would accomplish here. The discussion ran from 23 March to 18 May, with a sense that options for WP:PORNBIO were considered, & some discarded. This led to a straw poll that ran from 15 May to 3 June when Kaldari closed the poll & determined the results. No further discussion on this subject appears on that page. If any further discussion took place elsewhere, there is no link on that page to it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I withdraw this close request as the discussion was superseded by a poll that determined the changes. However, would you (or another uninvolved admin) review the poll at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO criteria regarding awards (straw poll)? Kaldari was an involved administrator because he participated in the poll. To ensure that there are no disagreements in the future about what the consensus was because an involved editor closed the discussion, would an uninvolved admin endorse Kaldari's close if they agree with it or modify it if they don't? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although I'm not an admin, I'm fully endorse the closure. In fact I wanted to close it, but Kaldari got there first. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- An uninvolved experienced editor can review and endorse the closure too. Would you add a note below Kaldari's signature at the poll that you fully endorse his close as an uninvolved editor? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although I'm not an admin, I'm fully endorse the closure. In fact I wanted to close it, but Kaldari got there first. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I withdraw this close request as the discussion was superseded by a poll that determined the changes. However, would you (or another uninvolved admin) review the poll at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO criteria regarding awards (straw poll)? Kaldari was an involved administrator because he participated in the poll. To ensure that there are no disagreements in the future about what the consensus was because an involved editor closed the discussion, would an uninvolved admin endorse Kaldari's close if they agree with it or modify it if they don't? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Requested move of Stephane Charbonneau
A requested move of Stephane Charbonneau was opened almost four weeks ago, and after plenty of feedback, there hasn't been anything for a week. Especially since a parallel request was closed over a week ago, I think there should be enough evidence for an administrator to rule without fear of disenfranchising anyone. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I may have spoke too soon. There was just another comment, though it's a vote in the direction the request is probably headed anyway. --BDD (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done -- Selket Talk 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The merger discussion must be closed if it slows down. --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I am requesting this be closed now as 2 weeks have passed now and it appears there is a consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Closure needed of this discussion. Several proposals have been mooted, all with varying levels of support, but there are divides that don't seem likely to be breached by further discussion, so a neutral closure/assessment of consensus is needed. --KarlB (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done Closed by nominator per Talk:Republic of Ireland#Close this ourselves?. DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 9#Justin Bieber on Twitter? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- WT:WikiProject Television#Turning WP:WikiProject Dad's Army into a task force?
- WT:WikiProject Television#Turning The Office Project into a task force?
These discussions need to be closed. I think a consensus is already established. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Nation of Islam RfC
Could an uninvolved administrator close the RfC at Talk:Nation of Islam#RfC. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've restored this request after it was removed. I believe a close is necessary to answer the question the RfC posed: "Should the first sentence of the article use the narrative voice to describe the Nation of Islam as an antisemitic, black supremacist organization, or should such descriptions be attributed to critics of the organization?" Arguments and edit wars may arise again in the future over this issue if is not settled by a close. Cunard (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. This issue isn't likely to go away. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. This issue isn't likely to go away. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Another request for closure
- Moved from AN. Jafeluv (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like someone to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f; there is a "view" subscribed to by a large enough number of editors at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#View_by_Drmies and a move to close at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#Move_to_close. Editor in question has had ample opportunity to show a dedication to cease disruptive editing (in this case, filibustering and stalling) and has not seized that opportunity. This has been running since 12 May. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
(below comments merged from a duplicate request) – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Moved from later on this board. JJB 19:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- After attempting multiple times to get some sort of acknowledgment of the issues at hand we see a widining circle of disruption on multiple pages (Now at WP:SPI) therefore I request an uninvolved admin to step in and close down the soapbox. In no way am I advocating for any action to be taken in response to the contents of the RfC/U. I am simply asking for the closure as it is obvious to me that there will be no negotiated agreement between the certifiers and the respondant. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is a duplicate of the request above. What's the appropriate action here? Strike, remove, leave it here? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)- Scratch that, I'll just merge them together. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Scratch that, I'll just merge them together. – NULL ‹talk›
- This is a duplicate of the request above. What's the appropriate action here? Strike, remove, leave it here? – NULL ‹talk›
- So Admins... Nobody has substantially edited the RfC/U in nearly a month. What incentive is necessary to close it out? Hasteur (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Intelligent, sensitive and well reasoned closure needed of this fairly problematic thread. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been stagnant for almost 2 weeks with an agreement being reached to use "Wells's". Would an admin please close, thanks Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated.
- I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Trout#Too inflammatory? (initiated 5 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- There isn't much to say, but sure. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC on political topic
Sensible, diplomatic admin needed to close a 3 month old RfC at Talk:Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Request_for_comment. --Noleander (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
We need an uninvolved administrator to assess the consensus on this discussion, to determine whether this discussion after the article's 2nd AFD has reached a consensus on whether to merge. BOZ (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#The WP:SOURCESEARCH paradox (initiated 17 June 2012)? Cunard (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:User access levels#Rights of indef blocked users (initiated 5 June 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |