Wikipedia:Closure requests

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.

Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for closure is 30 days (opened on or before 7 December 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.

A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.

Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

Requests for closure

XfD

CfD backlog

There are currently many open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure.

Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nearly a month after the previous message and the backlog has only increased in the past month. Please help!! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos (Initiated 3512 days ago on 27 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done bd2412 T 13:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations) (Initiated 3477 days ago on 1 July 2015)? Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 July#Assyrian people

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 July#Assyrian people (Initiated 3465 days ago on 13 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community sanction proposal - Community Patience Exhausted by Elvey

Passing 48 hours, 14:2 supermajority in favor of the sanctions being enacted. An uninvolved administrator can close at any time IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I'd like to second GWH here. There is an unambiguous consensus to TBAN Elvey. There hasn't been any new discussion in two days. We need someone to close it out and log the sanctions.--Adam in MO Talk 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As of late July 2015, the backlog is still about one month (and some of the ones in the backlog should actually be easy closes; others?... not so much). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment

Talk:Race (biology)#Proposal three: Fully diffuse and redirect to dab

@Kraxler: Should be speedily re-closed. It's the same proposal as the previous one (by its only 'Support' !voter) in slightly different wording: merge all the content to Breed and wherever else, so the title can be redirected to the Race disambiguation page (same as nom's response to the RM, too). Every objection to the first edition applies to the second, and it raises no new issues, ideas, evidence, anything. It's pure WP:PARENT, and the result sought is literally not possible under policy, because we can't merge completely unrelated topics. This noise is disruptive of the ongoing RM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really the place for arguments of the merits of the issue, they should be done at the discussion/RfC. A speedy close at this moment (total of 3 !votes) would look like a WP:SUPERVOTE, especially by someone who has closed already a similar discussion on the same page. Either somebody else closes it early, or I may have a look at some later time. Kraxler (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Minority language#Minority languages in geographical articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Minority language#Minority languages in geographical articles (Initiated 3565 days ago on 4 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I question if this RFC is in the right place. It probably should have been done at MOS as its asking for more than just the article in question. An admin should probably close this one. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments (Initiated 3551 days ago on 18 April 2015)? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2 (Initiated 3516 days ago on 23 May 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel?. Please consider the earlier discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 150#Military date format in biographical articles in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2015#RfC: How strict should MoS-JA be about name order?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2015#RfC: How strict should MoS-JA be about name order? (Initiated 3527 days ago on 12 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Electronic cigarette#Merger Proposal - cloud chasing

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Merger Proposal - cloud chasing (Initiated 3501 days ago on 7 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25#Merger_Proposal_-_cloud_chasing. The page was recently expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done bd2412 T 13:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Module talk:Main#Print titles of related articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Module talk:Main#Print titles of related articles (Initiated 3525 days ago on 14 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Kosovo Identification

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at RfC Kosovo Identification? (Initiated 3486 days ago on 22 June 2015) In view of the disruption of this RFC, an administrative close is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back-and-forth discussion collapsed as per talk page discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC, which asks if the current identification of Kosovo as a "disputed territory and partially recognized state" should be changed to "sovereign state," has been open for more than 7 days. During this time there have been 5 !votes from editors to change to "sovereign state" and 5 !votes from editors to keep "disputed territory and partially recognized state." (Please note that, of the five !votes for "sovereign state," one is from a SPA that is one month old and the other is from a IP editor.) The conversation has now degenerated into a routine content debate and, since there is not a majority - let alone consensus - to make the change to "sovereign state," a closure by an uninvolved editor and/or admin affirming said lack of consensus would be appreciated. LavaBaron (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the discussion is largely taking place between one editor (IP accounts) and me. I suppose we can continue the disagreements/exchanges even in the event of a closed RfC. Should we actually reach an agreement then it will probably be accepted by all others, if not, then no harm done. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs usually run for 30 days. 7 days is too little a time to close them, unless there is overwhelming consensus. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron's comment does not represent the truth, it is not true that the votes are 5 vs 5 (in my counting neither were on June, 26). The current votes are 6 votes on Sovereign state, 4 votes on Disputed Territory and Partial Recognition, and 3 votes on all options together Sovereign state, Disputed Territory and Partial Recognition. Whilst the majority of editors so far (9/13) indicated that they would like sovereignty being placed in the lede sentence, the current lede does not contain it. In addition, I would like to point out that the actual lede is not a result of any previous consensus, but as a result of unilateral updates by the editors of the "so-far" minor side of the RfC. To conclude, I would be glad if any involved admin thoroughly reads the outcome of the RfC unbiased by the comments here (including mine). Regards 95.90.184.96 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is obvious sockpuppet, and should not comment here. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the involved admin: i) i am not a sock-puppet, ii) unfortunately such personal insults are not new with the latest editor (e.g. Talk:Kosovo), and iii) he is engaged in an edit war against the will of most editors in terms of introducing the sovereignty term (history at Kosovo). P.s.: Sad to have to respond to this level of underbelly aggression, instead of contributing to the topic. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTR. 13 contributors. Six chose "sovereignty" only on first line, seven chose "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" on the first line. Of those seven, there is an additional 4/3 split over whether "sovereign" should appear before "state" (because something has to be said after "partially recognised"), but nothing to warrant the absence of partially recognised and disputed territory. So clearly the consensus is to have all three listings. Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTR. In terms of combinations (the RfC question asked concrete combinations) the most voted option is sovereignty alone with 6 votes, then next is 4 votes for partially recognized and disputed territory jointly. If one would decompose the explicit combinations and count the implicit singular elements in them, then sovereignty is the most voted element with 9 votes, then partial recognition with 7 votes and disputed territory with 7 votes. Unfortunately, the current article's lede sentence not only does not start with the (most voted) sovereignty term, but sovereign does not even exist in the article at all. Therefore, the RfC so far is a major breakaway from the current article formulation, which I believe needs to be rewritten. Sure, my intention is to not ignore the opinion of the minority of editors and I think that partial recognition and territorial disputes should be naturally mentioned. E.g. it can be "Kosovo is a sovereign state (9 votes) with partial international recognition (7 votes), whose territory is disputed (7 votes) by Serbia". Nevertheless, such formulations look too heavy to me and I prefer different sentences per element: first sentence-sovereignty, second sentence-partial recognition, third sentence-territorial dispute. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should go back to your account (if its not blocked or banned). Its not ok to spam this many pages here on wiki per Wikipedia:SHOPPING. Go back to Kosovo talk page, and go back to your account, so we can solve this chaos you made. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your words and allow the others to have a civilized discussion, who do you think you are to order editors what to do? 95.90.184.138 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or an easier way is "Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially-recognised sovereign state". Everything said, fewest keystrokes. And of course, "sovereign" here is added which should should no doubt please the real minority (for whom only six wanted 'sovereignty' to feature on its own) because Kosovo would be the only breakaway state in the world to feature this word in its opening sentence. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting the RfC votes so far, the "disputed territory" (a minor voted element) should not be located before "sovereign state" (the most voted element). Secondly, partial/full recognition is not a mandatory criteria of a sovereign state (recognition by one UN state is sufficient for sovereignty), therefore the recognition status it is not a categorizing adjective for the word sovereignty. For this sake, I find it less logical to say "partially-recognized sovereign state", than saying "sovereign state with partial international recognition". Consequently, partial recognition is a characteristics of the Republic of Kosovo, it is not a characteristics of its sovereignty status, therefore positioning the recognition trait afterwords eliminates the ambiguity. 95.90.184.138 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seven disagree with that formula and with those principles. Let's not discuss the logistics in this space, we can do that without restriction at Talk:Kosovo. I intend to use this space merely to offer our final positions so that it can be left to admins from that point, my next post here should do that once I have established what everybody wants. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over !vote

OppositeGradient and I are at odds over how to handle the outcome of the votes. This section is for admins to discern which of the two proposals below is most appropriate and upon that choice, may he please make the necessary changes if required (or leave a note if none is required). Note that this is not an extension of the debate that has taken place these past weeks, and that no new evidence or material is being submitted here. The conversation on the matter between OppositeGradient and me may yet continue indefinitely on Talk:Kosovo.

Brief outline. We discussed how Kosovo should be treated on the first line, the options presented by the RfC nominator were 1) Sovereign state, 2) Partially recognised state, 3) Disputed territory. We were given the choice of mixing and matching, and combining so there was no "interrogation factor" (i.e. "you will choose 1, 2, or 3 only"). Fourteen editors participated, six believed in Option 1, seven combined options 2 and 3, and one more in option 3 alone; of the seven to select 2+3, three went for the full list of items (i.e. disputed territory and partially recognised sovereign state).

View of Oranges Juicy. I treated each item on account of how many persons chose the term. The term "sovereign" was opposed by 4/14. Nine out of the remaining ten were split between six choosing it to stand on its own, totally unqualified, whilst three agreed that it should strictly be mentioned in relation to being partially recognised and a disputed territory. The tenth stood by "partially recognised state" per se. The terms "disputed territory" (noun phrase) and "partially recognised" (adjective phrase to qualify "sovereign state" or "state") were both selected by 7/14. On this premise, I believe disputed territory and partially recognised sovereign state (or vice versa) best reflects neutrality per the comments of the participants.

I have struck out text above with this very post for two reasons. 1) The conversation is ongoing and new editors have spoken, 2) I mistakenly assumed !vote to mean just that, only later did I discover WP:NOTAVOTE. These details have overtaken the tone of the above post. Regards --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

View of OppositeGradient. This editor observes that with regards the single figure system of the votes, a plurality has chosen "sovereign state" to stand alone on the first line. He admits that "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" were agreed by half (7/14) - with 8/14 in favour of "partially recognised state" - but notes that the internal disagreement amongst the seven (three agreeing on use of adjective "sovereign", and four disagreeing) is sufficient to omit "partially recognised" and "disputed territory" from the first line (despite these terms being agreed by the seven). As such, his belief on the strength of the plurality choosing Option 1 is that ~~"sovereign state" is all that should appear in the first line, and that other items should start from the following sentence.~~ - check after this post.

As discussion continues, I believe there will be no agreement between us on how the vote should be interpreted and thereby request that an administrator intervene to help resolve the matter. Many thanks.

Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view and final stance is actually slightly different to the summary of OrangesJuicy. In my view, we can have either a multiple sentence introduction, or a single liner. I propose to respect the outcome of the RfC as follows:
- 1): If we agree on multiple sentences: Sentence 1 - sovereignty (9 votes), sentence 2 - partial recognition (7 votes), and sentence 3 - territorial dispute (7 votes)
- 2): If we get stuck with a single sentence: "Kosovo is a sovereign state (9 votes) with partial international recognition (7 votes), whose territory is disputed (7 votes) by Serbia".OppositeGradient (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate section. Also, please keep this discussion at the talk page.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Talk:Kosovo#Request_for_comment

Could an admin or uninvolved editor assess the consensus, or lack thereof, at Talk:Kosovo#Request_for_comment, which asks if the descriptor "sovereign state" be added to the article for Kosovo in lieu of, or in addition to, the descriptors "partially recognized state" and "disputed territory"? By my count, after 30 days of discussion, we have 7 !votes not to and 5 !votes to make the change (several from IP editors) which leads me to believe there is no consensus for the change. LavaBaron (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the involved admin, the editor LavaBaron has again miscounted the votes and misinterpreted the outcome of the RfC. To start with, the RfC present at Talk:Kosovo#Request_for_comment gathered a relatively large audience of opinions (17 editors). They were asked to provide their opinions on the formulation of the lede sentence, choosing from SS - sovereign state, PR - partial recognition and DT - Disputed Territory.

The editors and their selected options are as follows: SS (RedSlash), SS (Khestwol), SS (OppositeGradient), SS (NewquarterMaster), SS (Gjirokastra15), SS (bobrayner), DT + PR (LavaBaron), DT + PR (Zoupan), DT + PR (Anastan), DT + PR (Јованвб), SS + PR + DT (OrangesJuicy), SS + PR + DT (IJA), SS + PR + DT (EdinBalgarin), PR (Marcocapelle), PR+DT (Irina Harpy), SS + PR + DT (BMK), SS (Roladi+). This counting has removed all the IP contributions choosing SS, for the sake of avoiding polemics. It is worth informing that a few editors not choosing SS did not provide any supportive arguments, however I counted all the involved RfC editors for being as neutral as possible. The outcome of the RfC is:

Option SS : 7 editors
Option PR+DT: 5 editors
Option SS+PR+DT: 4 editors
Option PR: 1 editor
Options including SS: 11 editors
Options including PR: 10 editors
Options including DT: 9 editors

The current lede of the article has only PR+DT, but not SS. As you can see, the opinions are in favor of incorporating all three aspects. Even though my option SS was the most voted, I am personally proposing to include the other two less voted options PR and DT, in order to reach consensus. My neutral proposal is "Kosovo is a sovereign state (11 votes) with partial international recognition (10 votes), whose territory is disputed (9 votes)". The "(X votes)" fragments are obviously to be removed and are inserted only for illustrating the support rank of options. OppositeGradient ^Talk 07:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, no ... that's not quite how this works. The current definition is "partially recognized state and disputed territory." To add "sovereign state" requires a consensus. If the consensus is not achieved the status quo is maintained. The accurate count of !votes was as follows:

Change to "Sovereign State" (RedSlash, Edin Balgarin, Khwestol, Anonymous IP Editor 95.90.184.69, Newquartermaster, Gjirokastra15, OppositeGradient) - 7 !votes (including 1 IP editor and 2 new accounts created within days of the RfC becoming active)
Change to "Partially Recognized Sovereign State and Disputed Territory" (IJA) - 1 !vote
Change to "Disputed Territory" (Marcocapelle) - 1 !vote
Keep "Partially Recognized State and Disputed Territory" (Zoupan, OrangesJuicy, Anastan, Јованвб, Iryna Harpy, LavaBaron) - 7 !votes

First, there is not even a majority, let alone a consensus, to add "sovereign state." Second, there is an interesting pattern of new accounts suddenly becoming active after this RfC went up and advocating for "Sovereign State" with an impressively deep knowledge of WP:PG. My neutral proposal is to close the RfC as "no consensus to add sovereign state." LavaBaron (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed to see you are miscounting and misinterpreting the RfC again, despite I provided you the FULL list of editors in my previous post! Once more, the editors and their selected options are as follows: SS (RedSlash), SS (Khestwol), SS (OppositeGradient), SS (NewquarterMaster), SS (Gjirokastra15), SS (bobrayner), DT + PR (LavaBaron), DT + PR (Zoupan), DT + PR (Anastan), DT + PR (Јованвб), SS + PR + DT (OrangesJuicy), SS + PR + DT (IJA), SS + PR + DT (EdinBalgarin), PR (Marcocapelle), PR+DT (Irina Harpy), SS + PR + DT (BMK), SS (Rolandi+). The aggregated statistics of the RfC are:

Option SS : 7 editors, list: RedSlash, Khestwol, OppositeGradient, NewquarterMaster, Gjirokastra15, bobrayner, Rolandi+
Option PR+DT: 5 editors, list: LavaBaron, Zoupan, Anastan, Irina Harpy, Јованвб
Option SS+PR+DT: 4 editors, list EdinBalgarin, IJA, Oranges Juicy, BMK
Option PR: 1 editor
Options including SS: 11 editors
Options including PR: 10 editors
Options including DT: 9 editors

First of all, you wrongly phrased the question of the RfC [1]. The question was "Which combination of SS and/or PR and/or DT do you want for the lede sentence of the article?" Secondly, you miscounted editors (totally "forgot" DMK, Rolandi+ and bobrayner), in addition to altering editor votes (Marcocapelle (PR, not DT), Oranges Juicy (SS+PR+DT, not PR+DT), EdinBalgarin (SS+PR+DT, not SS) ). As anyone can verify, out of 17 editors, 11 of them indicated Sovereign State (SS) to be present at the lede sentence, which is 65% of the participating editors. As a result you made a false claim that there is no majority for including SS, because 65% of participating editors is a clear majority. As a result of the RfC conclusions, my neutral proposal is "Kosovo is a sovereign state (11 votes) with partial international recognition (10 votes), whose territory is disputed (9 votes)". OppositeGradient ^Talk 11:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OppositeGradient. Like many of the "Sovereign State" advocates in this routine edit dispute, it appears you're quite new on WP and have only had an account for 20 days during which time you've exclusively been working on this subject, so I'd just gently remind you we typically don't accuse other editors of "misrepresentation" right out of the gate; since you arrived on WP with what appears to be a fairly advanced knowledge of WP:PG I would hope you were aware of that. Secondly, a RfC presented with the assumption a change to an established article will be made and we are simply tallying votes to determine what the change will be is not a valid RfC. I did not "misrepresent"; this is the underlying issue with your "counting." Forty-five percent of editors oppose any change at all to the status quo, while the remaining 55% embrace three wildly different opinions as the discussion demonstrates (and include a number of IP editors and apparently newly minted SPAs). This is the very definition of "no consensus." My neutral proposal is to close the RfC as "no consensus to add sovereign state." LavaBaron (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LavaBaron, I am proud for, not guilty of knowing WP:PG. Coming to the topic, at your first above post you explicitly mentioned that only 5/12=41% of editors were in favor of sovereignty, claiming that many of them are IPs. After I provided you the full list of editors without any IP included, you still responded in a second post claiming that no majority exists in favor of sovereignty. After a further explicit demonstration and counting of RfC participants, you finally changed your version and in a third post mentioned that 55% of editors are in favor of adding sovereignty. In your third post, you accepted yourself that your earlier two posts misinterpreted the results. However, please let me kindly inform you that even your third post is a misinterpretation of the RfC. Because the true RfC outcome, as I listed twice before, shows that 11/17=65% of editors (all registered, no IPs included as clearly indicated) are in favor of adding sovereignty. It took three posts for you to "change" your own calculations of sovereignty from 41% to 55%, please let us not spend three more exchanges for you to realize that the correct fraction is 65%. I am assuming good faith that your repeatedly made errors in counting, because as I twice demonstrated most editors (65%) were in favor of adding sovereignty. OppositeGradient ^Talk 15:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, there is no majority that exists to effect a change to "sovereign state," let alone a consensus. The distribution of !votes is as follows:

Change to "Sovereign State" (RedSlash, Edin Balgarin, Khwestol, Anonymous IP Editor 95.90.184.69, Newquartermaster, Gjirokastra15, OppositeGradient) - 7 !votes (including 1 IP editor and 2 new accounts created within days of the RfC becoming active)
Change to "Partially Recognized Sovereign State and Disputed Territory" (IJA) - 1 !vote
Change to "Disputed Territory" (Marcocapelle) - 1 !vote
Keep "Partially Recognized State and Disputed Territory" (Zoupan, OrangesJuicy, Anastan, Јованвб, Iryna Harpy, LavaBaron) - 7 !votes

As we can see, unfortunately, no consensus exists to make the change proposed in the RfC since only 55% support any change at all (many of whom are IPs and newly minted SPAs) and those 55% are divided into three wildly opposed visions of what the change should be. I'm not sure further discussion will be that fruitful so I'm bowing out here until someone is able to close this as per the finding of No Consensus. Thanks, OppositeGradient! LavaBaron (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#RFC: One or Two Articles? Should film series and movement be split?

Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist (film_series)#RFC: One or Two Articles? Should film series and movement be split?? (Initiated 3508 days ago on 31 May 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: closure still needed, on whether the Zeitgeist Movement should have a separate article or not. There is a new discussion here. Alternatively, the draft could use an Article for Creation request.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC was archived by the archival bot. I have moved it back to the talk page. Discussion at the talk page is a bit contentious again. The !votes in the RFC appear to have 14-7 in favor of splitting the movement off into its own article. There is argument over whether that is enough of a consensus. A formal close, preferably by an administrator, is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)

Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)? (Initiated 3508 days ago on 31 May 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox heading survey

Collapsing struck-out discussion for readability.

Nothing new or useful has been added to this discussion for days, and no new comments at all for over a day. There is no point to allowing as picayune a matter as the presentation of a name in an infobox to drag on any longer than it already has, so I request that a determination of consensus be made and that the discussion be closed. The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

There has been 3 new !votes in the last two days and discussion seems quite active. If it has slowed a little then I would suggest it is because it is a holiday weekend in the US and people are busy.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 !vote since this was filed.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the discussion is a detail too minor to merit more than a week's worth of discussion, and the entire page is administratively locked pending the outcome of the discussion on this minor detail. Given the high visibility of this article, that favors a quick closure. During the week when discussion was "quite active" it was also highly circular, and contentious to the point that the aforementioned administrative lock was imposed. Lastly, after over thirty editors have weighed in (the "+1 !vote since this was filed" is probably because this was filed), opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument. The only outcome of further discussion is likely to be further rehashing of points that have already been made, and a further descent into negativity. bd2412 T 21:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the closure ends in a no consensus then the protection will need to run its full course per the condition of clear consensus that was set upon it (another 6 days). If a clear consensus can be had then I would be happy to enforce it, I don't care what goes in the infobox but my concerns are in trying to prevent the edit-warring from breaking out again. If that happens then we will be looking at a one month protection unless the individual edit warriors are handled accordingly.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A condition unilaterally set by you, and able to be overridden by the community. It appears that you are attempting to WP:OWN the entire discussion. I therefore request that you recuse yourself from further administrative involvement in this matter. bd2412 T 00:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I exercised my discretion per WP:FULL and WP:PREFER as any admin may, following that policy to the letter. It states "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." Further, I stated this at the ANI thread and there was no uninvolved admin that took exception or asked for this to be altered. On the contrary, it received support by consensus from those that commented. You have !voted and are involved and others have related this to you as well. This looks like you are trying to do a run around and undermine an administrative action because you don't like it. I'm owning my actions but certainly not that article. There has been one edit request which was handled since it was locked so that isn't a big deal. The one that should recuse is you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to recuse from, as I am not seeking to take any administrative action in this matter; the only such action that I have undertaken was to undo your ill-considered block of a fellow admin - which, apparently, earned your enmity. You would do well to engage in some self-reflection and consider whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all. There are other admins in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 02:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No enmity. I am concerned from your top post "The entire article is currently locked down over this issue, so a swift resolution will enable a return to normal editing" combined with a later post "...opinions remain about evenly split, so there is no realistic hope of a consensus being achieved through additional argument" and I'm drawing the conclusion that you want someone to find a no consensus just so that page protection might be lifted but that is against the purpose of having the editors work at consensus per WP:PREFER. It was faulty logic to assume that a no consensus outcome would mean page protection would be nullified prematurely and that is the only real point that I've been making. Well, I do think the request is premature because other !voters may still opine to help achieve some form of consensus. An essay not yet in project space, Consensus requires patience comes to mind. Regarding the unblock, you disregarded consulting me as you should have per policy which took from me the ability to correct my mistake. Another admin came to my talk page and explained about the edit conflict and then I came to address the issue finding that you had already decided on unblocking. It would have been cleared up anyway but I did perceive that you were lacking in respect towards me. I'm not holding onto any grudge though. But now things have the appearance that you are trying to undo another admin action of mine and I'm left wondering why? Just as you have noted about me "whether there is really any reason that you need to continue being attached to this matter at all...", I'm left to wonder the same about you. I didn't initiate the above. Nonetheless, if a no consensus outcome is found upon closure then I would not object to a review of the protection at ANI and whether it remains necessary. I would abide by whatever that consensus may be.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made a bad block once; another admin removed it, and I thanked them for doing so, because the expediency of undoing an errant administrative action outweighed the protocol of waiting to see how I would deal with it. We police each other; there's no one else to do it. With respect to the current infobox discussion, this is the hangover from a dispute that has been going on since 2007. It doesn't need to stretch on further. The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter. For the same reason, I have no intention of dragging this back to ANI, to be relitigated in another forum for another week. bd2412 T 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 3482 days ago on 26 June 2015) AlbinoFerret 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an uninvolved administrator to look at this? bd2412 T 00:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as it might seem, the more you post and show there is a heated controversy, the less likely you will find takers after only 9 days. AlbinoFerret 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AlbinoFerret: - where do you get "only 9 days" from? The discussion began at Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox and image captions on June 12, which is 23 days ago. It specifically says in the survey section that this is a continuation of the two previous discussions over the past month. bd2412 T 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While discussions on the topic preceded the RFC, the RFC started on June 26th [2][3]. AlbinoFerret 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AlbinoFerret: - I am troubled by the implication that any editor can basically make any discussion drag on without end by merely creating a new section and rephrasing the question under discussion there as a new RfC. bd2412 T 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take issue with BD2412's claim above: "The discussion is dead, and the idea that a consensus will form in another week is certainly not something that would be suggested by the history of the matter." That might be true if we measured consensus by counting votes; but we all know they're !votes, and we don't count them. So consensus must be measured by assessing and weighing the arguments. By that measure, I, for one, see consensus in that discussion. There is an (albeit undocumented) convention clearly and strongly supported implicitly by the community at large for reflecting the article title in the infobox heading, a convention adhered to by the vast majority of our articles, including this article since its inception. No good reason to start ignoring that convention now in this article has been presented. If there was little or no objection to making them different in some case, that would be one thing. But clearly in this case there is objection, so the convention should be followed. That's following consensus. --В²C ☎ 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the problem with "undocumented" conventions in a nutshell. We have a status quo ante, and a rule that absent consensus for a change, the status quo ante should continue. We have a lengthy move discussion preceding the current dispute that argues all the points of Wikipedia:Article titles, but makes not one single mention of a change to the substance of the article. We have a roughly even split in the opinions expressed on the matter, with reasonable arguments being raised on both sides, and an absence of policy mandating a specific outcome. bd2412 T 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with undocumented conventions? Do we really have to document every convention? Are some conventions so obvious that no documentation is necessary? Isn't this one of them? I daresay this might be the first time it has ever even been challenged. The problem isn't the undocumented convention. The problem is the stubborn refusal of some to acknowledge it. --В²C ☎ 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An undocumented, unacknowledged convention with many counter-examples isn't much of a convention. Jonathunder (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With 5 million articles even .01% counter-examples are going to be "many", so having "many" counter-examples is not persuasive evidence against a convention. What you need to do is hit WP:RANDOM at least 10 times and see how often you do or don't get matching titles and info box headings (not including disambiguation and redoing hits without infoboxes). Here we go.
Skomarje Y

Bill Wallace (American football) Y (disambiguated title, plain heading)

Abdul Aziz Mirza Y

Loubens, Ariège Y (disambiguated title, plain heading)

Narasin Y

Edir Macedo Y

Bhiloda Y

Kevin Callan Y

Make It Big Y

Aura (Miles Davis album) Y (disambiguated title, plain heading)

That's about as good as convention gets on Wikipedia. --В²C ☎ 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: - since you are of the opinion that a policy-based consensus has already been established, would you agree that it would be appropriate for an admin to close the discussion at this time? There is not going to be any great shift in participation, and the argument has already become circular and repetitive on both sides. bd2412 T 23:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I believe that that is the correct way to read consensus, in practice many don't seem to do that. Besides, the discussion is ongoing and I don't favor closing ongoing discussions. The normal time for an rfc is often a month, isn't it? --В²C ☎ 01:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RM that led to the current dispute was opened on April 26 and closed on May 8, a total of 12 days. I can't imagine why it would take longer to settle the name in the infobox than the name in the article title. bd2412 T 02:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--В²C ☎ 22:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) The issue here is that somebody thought the article should be fully-protected for two freaking weeks. Lift the protection on a probationary basis; anybody who's aware of the contention and takes to edit warring, can quite simply be blocked for disruption. This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit; it's not the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, unless two or three people can't keep their cool. Alakzi (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh, I don't see a problem with unlocking the article with the understanding that the infobox heading is to be left alone until this rfc is resolved. --В²C ☎ 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am withdrawing my request for closure of this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It'll have been a month by July 26. I'd suggest an Admin close it soon after – it looks to me like there is a measurable consensus now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has already been 6 weeks since the whole infobox discussion began; the survey started a month ago was just the latest iteration of that same discussion. bd2412 T 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox heading survey

Discussion has tapered off and it should be formally closed. Calidum T|C 01:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, the Talk:Hillary Clinton#Portrait discussion is also ripe for closing. bd2412 T 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot requests#RfC: Remove persondata practical steps

Removal of wikipedia:persondata by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Edit in Wikidata links

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at this RfC – including whether there should be a follow-up RfC (and what should be discussed). (Initiated 3505 days ago on 3 June 2015) - Evad37 [talk] 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Microsoft Surface#Surface ≠ Surface RT

The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3498 days ago on 10 June 2015)[reply]

This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3465 days ago on 13 July 2015)[reply]

Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush#RFC: Should present position be summarized before discussing evolution of position?

Could someone please close this RfC that's been open for about four weeks? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bill Cosby#RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby#RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede? (Initiated 3494 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done AlbinoFerret 22:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Herbert Hope Risley#Rfc: Proposed revisions for the lead section due to OR

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Herbert Hope Risley#Rfc: Proposed revisions for the lead section due to OR (Initiated 3493 days ago on 15 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:March Against Monsanto#RfC Is including a quotation which describes GM food as 'poison' acceptable

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:March Against Monsanto#RfC Is including a quotation which describes GM food as 'poison' acceptable (Initiated 3499 days ago on 9 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey#RfC: Should the photos be stacked in the municipalities section?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey#RfC: Should the photos be stacked in the municipalities section? (Initiated 3511 days ago on 28 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Palestine grid#RfC - Should the Palestine grid, obsolete system, be used in infobox?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Palestine grid#RfC - Should the Palestine grid, obsolete system, be used in infobox? (Initiated 3508 days ago on 31 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:H:IPA#Request for comment: "foot" as an English example of the IPA symbol "ʊ".

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:H:IPA#Request for comment: "foot" as an English example of the IPA symbol "ʊ". (Initiated 3513 days ago on 26 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby RfC June 2015

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby RfC June 2015 (Initiated 3485 days ago on 23 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genetically modified food#RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetically modified food#RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? (Initiated 3490 days ago on 18 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ramadan#Health section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ramadan#Health section (Initiated 3488 days ago on 20 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kill 'Em All#RfC: Should we separate the songs in "Music and lyrics"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kill 'Em All#RfC: Should we separate the songs in "Music and lyrics"? (Initiated 3494 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 8#RfC for video section (Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 8#RfC for video section (Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol) (Initiated 3480 days ago on 28 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC for web/internet/streaming series naming conventions

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC for web/internet/streaming series naming conventions (Initiated 3496 days ago on 12 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: The addition of fields for late-night talk show related articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: The addition of fields for late-night talk show related articles (Initiated 3491 days ago on 17 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement about the number of communities and the number of residents?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement about the number of communities and the number of residents? (Initiated 3506 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement to the effect that 99% of the population of the communities are in remote areas?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement to the effect that 99% of the population of the communities are in remote areas? (Initiated 3506 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013#RFC: Quote - which version?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013#RFC: Quote - which version? (Initiated 3505 days ago on 3 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English? (Initiated 3497 days ago on 11 June 2015)? See the subsection, an RfC, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#RFC: Link the word “production” in NFF

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#RFC: Link the word “production” in NFF (Initiated 3502 days ago on 6 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Categorizing WikiProjects and their categories

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Categorizing WikiProjects and their categories (Initiated 3500 days ago on 8 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment

(Initiated 3469 days ago on 9 July 2015) While this RfC has not run the full thirty days, a vote has not been added in 7 days. Requests have been made to close the RfC by editors involved, and the original poster refuses to close it - I'd ask you to look under "Arbitrary Section Break 02" to get a good sense of the willingness of the original poster to work with his fellow editors. An administrator's close would be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please decline this request. This RfC was launched 6 July 2015 and 30 days would be 6 August 2015. Discussion is ongoing. We will be back 6 August 2015 requesting a formal uninvolved third party administrative close since the article is under discretionary sanctions, see you then, thanks. Kindly allow time for wider community feedback. We have no deadline and no reason not to go the full default 30 days and get as much diverse community feedback as possible. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the discussion is now about the clearly improper phrasing and improper canvassing by the proposer. In my opinion, it should be closed as invalid. But, in any case, Comatmebro is correct that no vote or comment related to the proposal (as opposed to comments about the RfC) has been added in 7 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be closed and HughD should probably face sanctions for cross posting/spamming. Springee (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"should probably face sanctions" Other venues are available to you for your editor behavior concerns. Your comment is off-topic here at this request for closure notice board. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"no vote or comment related to the proposal...has been added in 7 days" Not true. Discussion is vigorous. Please see:

That's just the last few days. Additional diffs available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) We'll be back next week, thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in my original post that no vote had been cast in the last 7 days - which was accurate - I stated nothing about comments related to the proposal. Please do not use my WP:ANRFC to lash out at other editors. Other venues are available to you for that. Your comment is off-topic here. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I just cast a !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's an ANI post up about this dispute now, as well, alleging canvassing and campaigning by an involved editor. Posting here in case that affects how/when the RFC is closed. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Watts Up With That#Request for Comments (RfC): Denialism

(Initiated 3511 days ago on 28 May 2015) There is some debate about whether or not the wording of the RfC makes sense, which the closer will need to take a look at, but some kind of resolution is still needed. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Heather Bresch#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Heather Bresch#Request for comment (Initiated 3468 days ago on 10 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Thomas Piketty#RfC should inequality study by Piketty and Saez be included

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Thomas Piketty#RfC should inequality study by Piketty and Saez be included (Initiated 3483 days ago on 25 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done AlbinoFerret 20:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Quint Studer#Updating Career section (Initiated 3499 days ago on 9 June 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Quint Studer#RfC: Seeking input on the Career section. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done AlbinoFerret 19:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:North Yemen Civil War#Request comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:North Yemen Civil War#Request comment (Initiated 3483 days ago on 25 June 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this edit be removed from the article?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal (Initiated 3480 days ago on 28 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Poland#RfC: Eastern vs. Central Europe

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Poland#RfC: Eastern vs. Central Europe (Initiated 3543 days ago on 26 April 2015)? Please consider the closure review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Where is Poland? of an earlier close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of European cities by population#Rfc: How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of European cities by population#Rfc: How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe? (Initiated 3477 days ago on 1 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetically modified food#RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? (Initiated 3490 days ago on 18 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:UNFD#RfC: Is the Discography section necessary?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:UNFD#RfC: Is the Discography section necessary? (Initiated 3484 days ago on 24 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done AlbinoFerret 19:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#RFC: Same-sex union recognition tables

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#RFC: Same-sex union recognition tables (Initiated 3476 days ago on 2 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tyson Fury#How should Fury's nationality be described?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Tyson Fury#How should Fury's nationality be described? (Initiated 3486 days ago on 22 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards