Wikipedia:Closure requests

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.

Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days; where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed sooner than one week except in the case of WP:SNOW.

Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement 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.

Notes about closing

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.

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

IMHO the section headed Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important? should be closed; discussion had stopped about 2 weeks ago except for User:Gothicfilm's recent contribution. The other sections on the same or related topics are still ongoing. Chris Smowton (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was archived to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 145#Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important?.

After an experienced editor assesses the consensus in the discussion, please either (i) move the discussion with your closing statement back to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or (ii) close the discussion in the archive and announce the result on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article)

This RfC is now 28 days old and in need of an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

{{done}} KrakatoaKatie 04:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've requested a review of this closure here. Please don't archive this section quite yet, thanks. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This section can now be archived since the above discussion was closed. There is no discussion review ready to be closed and the above OP request does not relate to a request to close a discussion review. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The closure of the discussion was undone by KrakatoaKatie, therefore this shouldn't be archived. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Armbrust is correct and this discussion is still in need of a closure by an uninvolved admin. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Chinese#RfC

Template talk:Infobox Chinese#RfC: Should the template group both Chinese Hán (for writing Chinese language) and Vietnamese nôm (for writing Vietnamese language) names and terms as one identity "Han-Nom", "Han (and) Nom"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Chinese#RfC: Should the template group both Chinese Hán (for writing Chinese language) and Vietnamese nôm (for writing Vietnamese language) names and terms as one identity "Han-Nom", "Han (and) Nom"? (initiated 3 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus (initiated 9 September 2013)? The discussion was a review of Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 August#Thirty Seconds to Mars, which was a review of Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars#Requested move #2.

When closing the discussion, please add a comment to Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 August#Thirty Seconds to Mars linking to the ANI discussion and explaining your close of the ANI review. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Two up for closure at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper

It's time to finally close the long-running discussions at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper#Requested move (again) (which was removed from WP:RM for some reason) and Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper#Section break, start RFC. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate? (initiated 20 August 2013)? There were about five previous merge discussions (dating from 2007–2012), where merges were implemented and reverted, so I advise a formal close of this broadly attended discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Calling for a vote on the format that we propose

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Calling for a vote on the format that we propose (initiated 18 August 2013)? The proposer said voting would close "0:00 September 5, 2013". I am listing this discussion here because it has been listed at Template:Centralized discussion for over three weeks. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Tran#Vidstatsx sourced content

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

• 02:07, 9 August 2013 – 117Avenue (talk · contribs) removed vidstatsx.com reference from the article.

  03:06, 9 August 2013 – Chris troutman (talk · contribs) reverted the removal.

  03:26, 12 August 2013 – 117Avenue (talk · contribs) removed vidstatsx.com reference from the article a second time per WP:BLPREMOVE.

Issues I would like a close to address:

• The vidstatsx.com reference had been in the article before the current dispute. See for example reference #9 of this 19 June 2013 version of the article. If there is no consensus in the RfC, should it be restored because the stable version included it? Does WP:BLPREMOVE apply in which case a "no consensus" result defaults to excluding the vidstatsx.com reference? If the consensus is determined to include or exclude the source, then the above questions are moot points and do not need to be addressed in the close.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Legobot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not done, Legobot maybe can remove the expired RFC template, but it can't determine the consensus of a discussion (if it exists at all). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It was closed on 22 September as "no clear consensus" by Chris Troutman [1] (he didn't sign, which is why I confused it with Legobot). Are you disagreeing with the closure, or is that adequate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Chris Troutman initiated that discussion, and I don't think he should close this contentious issue as no consensus. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the issue was about the use of a self-published source in a BLP to add something about YouTube stats. Using a self-published source in a BLP is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. Therefore someone removed the source about six weeks ago. Chris started a discussion and there was no consensus to restore the source (three for, two against). Chris then closed the RfC against his own position. I haven't looked at this in any detail, so if my understanding of it is wrong, I apologize, but if it's correct what remains to be decided? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Armbrust: I apologize if I've violated common practices about RfCs. Legobot closed the discussion after 30 days although editor responses dropped off much earlier. I then marked it closed with no consensus since I felt that extending the RfC would not likely result in achieving clear consensus and I couldn't fairly assess in my own favor. I still desire to have a real resolution to the problem (can we or can we not use Vidstatsx statistics) but not enough editors seem to want to help provide an answer. As I mentioned on Talk:Natalie Tran, this question had been initially raised at WP:RSN in July 2012 to no avail. Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Crossposted reply

Hi SlimVirgin. Thank you for your frequent thoughtful closes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I list discussions at ANRFC because I believe a close would improve the encyclopedia by for example deciding an important content or policy issue or by ending or preventing edit wars. The RfC initiator found an issue important enough to open an RfC, but may be unaware that they can ask for a close at ANRFC or may have forgotten to list the discussion there. I list at ANRFC RfCs that would benefit from a close. For example, at this close request about Mariah Carey's birth year, I listed several reasons for my posting that request. One reason was: It is best to formally close this discussion to establish a consensus version has been reached to prevent future edit wars that may occur. A formally closed discussion allows editors to point to the concise close rather than the lengthy discussion to show future editors what the consensus is. A formal close from an uninvolved editor cannot be dismissed as easily as an unclosed, lengthy discussion. The recent page history of Mariah Carey shows that several editors repeatedly reversed the consensus version implemented by Moxy (example), who was involved in the discussion. The close by Armbrust (talk · contribs) now allows editors who are enforcing the consensus to point to the closing statement by an uninvolved editor if they are accused of edit warring. The Natalie Tran request—Chris troutman wrote at ANRFC (my bolding): I apologize if I've violated common practices about RfCs. Legobot closed the discussion after 30 days although editor responses dropped off much earlier. I then marked it closed with no consensus since I felt that extending the RfC would not likely result in achieving clear consensus and I couldn't fairly assess in my own favor. I still desire to have a real resolution to the problem (can we or can we not use Vidstatsx statistics) but not enough editors seem to want to help provide an answer. As I mentioned on Talk:Natalie Tran, this question had been initially raised at WP:RSN in July 2012 to no avail. Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC) I listed the discussion for closure because of the BLP considerations. VidStatsX is used in several BLPs and article drafts. A close saying that the source should not be used in BLPs per BLPSPS would inform the discussion's participants to avoid using the source in BLPs. The source was also discussed in July 2012 at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Vidstatsx, which the RfC initiator wrote "received little input". That RSN thread was caused by the lengthy discussion about the source at Talk:Dave Days#Top 50 subscribed. Discussion about the appropriateness of using VidStatsX will likely come up again in the future, so a close explaining why using it violates WP:BLPSPS would be helpful in guiding the direction of those discussions. I've reviewed the Natalie Tran RfC myself so I could experience the process that closers such as yourself go through. Here is my draft closing statement: The consensus is that VidStatsX should not be used in this biography of a living person because it is a self-published source. Although the data published by VidStatsX was used by reliable sources such as Forbes (link) and The Washington Post (link), its usage on Wikipedia would violate the policy WP:BLPSPS, which says, "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". 117Avenue (talk · contribs)'s removal of the content sourced to VidStatsX on the basis of WP:BLPREMOVE is upheld. I also took into consideration the discussion at Talk:Dave Days#Top 50 subscribed and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Vidstatsx about the source. http://vidstatsx.com/tos says: "The owner of this site disclaims any and all liability that may result from your use of the site. Again, this site, the data, access to it, etc. etc. are provided without guarantee or warranty of accuracy or fitness for any purpose... use it at your risk!" This is further evidence that VidStatsX does not pass the policies Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC) I will not close the discussion, however, because it would require reverting ‎Chris troutman (talk · contribs)'s close, a controversial action which I will not unilaterally do. I will instead add it as a post-close comment, so that an administrator or more experienced closer can take it into consideration when s/he recloses the RfC. It is time-consuming to read the discussion and write a precise closing statement, so I am very grateful to closers such as yourself who take the time to do so on a regular basis. I agree that discussions should not be indiscriminately listed at ANRFC. I carefully consider each close request I list at the board. Thank you for raising your concerns with me, and feel free to let me know if you have any concerns in the future about my close requests. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas

A long an convoluted discussion affecting several hunderd articles. I can't see any clear consensus. Prefer admin closure please. --Stfg (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Request_for_Comment_on_Proposal_to_Merge_Wikiprojects

I posted this RfC on 19 September 2013 and think it would benefit from administrative closure any time after 26 September 2013. It touches on WP:FRINGE and on the governance of WikiProjects. Comments seem to be petering out, with less broad participation than I had hoped. Still, given the strong feelings one can see displayed on the talk page, both in the initial discussions and, to a lesser degree, in the RfC comments below the initial discussions, I think an uninvolved admin's closing comments would go a long way toward focusing discussions after closure. David in DC (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy

Discussion was started 15 September and positions are well laid out. A related RSN, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com (also involving a personal blog used as a citation on Ludwig von Mises Institute) was closed today (rather on 23 September UTC) with a non-RS determination. The discussed issues matched those presented and argued here, as the Murphy blog. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to close this, but I think there may be objections as I closed the Gene Callahan blog RfC which is related, so I'll defer to another experienced editor to evaluate this RfC. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please reconsider. 1. The issues between the Callahan blog & the Murphy blog are the same. 2. Getting a different result (e.g., allowing the Murphy blog to remain) from someone else would be an inconsistent application of policy and create a BALANCE problem on the page. 3. Your closing of the Callahan blog RSN did not produce a WP:Closure review#Challenging a closing. So I would not expect a consistent closure decision, based on the same policy, to produce a challenge on the Murphy blog. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the entire matter is moot and the RSN thread is deadlocked by several editors talking past one another. It should be allowed to die of old age and a new thread can be opened if anyone still wishes to articulate concerns relevant to the current article text and citations. There would be no benefit to a close in this thread which is no longer applicable to current text. It would waste the time of any Admin who dove into the tangle for closing. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

1. If the Murphy personal blog had been removed as a citation on the article page, then the issue would be moot. 2. At the same time, Specifico says a new thread should be opened -- why? To go through the same process?? This point demonstrates that the matter is not moot. 3. Specifico says editors are talking past each other -- a request was posted on the thread for Specifico to explain how the removal of the Callahan blog contents changed anything as to using Murphy's personal blog as RS. No answer as yet. – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich you have developed quite a tendency for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I stated the RSN "thread is no longer applicable to the current text." One line beneath this you ask me why I suggest a new thread should be opened. And then, next line, you don't seem to understand my concern that editors are talking past one another? What's up with that? At any rate this is not the place to badger or instruct the Admins on how to behave. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?

An RfC regarding the Manual of Style instructions regarding names (MOS:IDENTITY) has now fallen off WT:MOS without closure. (auto archived) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Lucio Dalla#RFC on discussion above

I posted this RFC, which was removed when it expired. There wasn't really a consensus but I attempted to edit the page based on the RFC discussion, avoiding my own preferred wording. This edit was reverted without discussion by another editor (who had participated in discussion earlier on the talk page but not in the RFC). I'd therefore like to request an uninvolved editor takes a look. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Rujm el-Hiri on NPOVN

Could an uninvolved editor/administrator assess, summarize, and formally close this discussion on NPOVN? A formal closure is required since the consensus remains unclear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 9#Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of the United States

Stale CfD that's 2 1/2 weeks old. All have voted "merge" or "delete", and with only a few articles, all of which are in a sister category to Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of the United States such as Category:Political positions of United States presidents or Category:Political positions of United States Senators, merge and delete would effectively be same outcome pbp 20:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Corporation in titles

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

Talk:Main Page#Requested move

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

 Closed by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC

There have been no comments at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC for over a week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin

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

 Closed by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban (initiated 24 September 2013)? The subject wrote:

it would be great if a decision could be made soon. i'm already getting the mediation invite. and it's not like i'm going to be touching any other page other than mediation pages and obviously, it's mediation, so theres little room for incivility.Lucia Black (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block appeal from L'Origine du monde

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block appeal from L'Origine du monde (initiated 27 September 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission (initiated 24 August 2013)? The RfC states:

This RfC will be open for 30 days, or closed earlier if an overwhelming consensus either way is obvious.

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxma (2nd nomination)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxma (2nd nomination) (initiated 19 September 2013)? The discussion within the past two days are getting more heated and the discussion has run for 11 days, so an earlier rather than later close would be beneficial. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Examiner.com review of Feudal game

Would an admin address the 8 July 2013 request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Examiner.com review of Feudal game by Wilhelm meis (talk · contribs), who wrote:

Any admins care to weigh in here? Naturally, I am still hopeful this page will be whitelisted, but I've been awaiting a decision for more than two months and counting. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

After addressing the request, please notify the user on the user's talk page. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples

Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RfC: Should the article include mention of claims of deliberate use of disease against Native Americans?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RfC: Should the article include mention of claims of deliberate use of disease against Native Americans? (initiated 28 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013#Request for comment (initiated 30 August 2013)? The question posed was: "Should Robert Sarvis, as a third-party candidate, be included in the infobox?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia (initiated 29 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#RfC: Should the article include mention of claims of deliberate use of disease against Native Americans? (initiated 28 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb (second close request)

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

The close by NE Ent (talk · contribs) was contested at User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2013/September#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb by the RfC initiator, Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs); the subject, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs); and uninvolved editor Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs).

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb

I see you closed this earlier today. Do you intend to interpret whether there is a consensus about Joe's behavior? "Inactive" doesn't seem to be the way most RfCs are closed; most of them instead try to interpret consensus. Can we expect that in the near future? pbp 20:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I closed per the instructions at inactivity close as the state of the RFC situation seemed to fit the criteria. NE Ent

When you close, you're supposed to provide a close statement, not "closed due to inactivity".—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Reopen it, NE Ent, and let an admin close it. Your close is only giving PbP yet another opportunity to throw his toys out of the pram. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

—User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2013/September#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb

There was no subsequent response from NE Ent (talk · contribs), and the discussion was archived.

Recent RfCs have been closed and summarized by uninvolved administrators:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert's result: "No users endorsed the certifier's position, only statements critical of the certifiers and the process received significant support."
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche's result: "[the subject] is broadly correct to remove unsourced conten, and [the RfC initiator] has often acted wrongly in restoring unsourced content.
   Also, [the RfC initiator]'s conduct is widely seen as hounding."
3. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2's result: "No consensus, closing admin suggested taking larger issues to arbitration."
4. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel#Summary's result: "There was consensus that [the subject's] approach needs to change. The closing admin suggested that he agree to a voluntary topic ban regarding deletion issues in the problem area."
5. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Morriswa#Summary's result: "Broad consensus that [the subject]'s work was indeed problematic, a problem now recognized by [the subject]. Good will and good faith all around, fortunately."

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

Talk:Bradley Manning#Postpone move discussion

October move discussion will be open in at least two hours. Is there a consensus yet? --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of new religious movements

Is there any chance of a ruling or closure on the RfC and extended debate at talk:List of new religious movements? The narrow issue is whether the sources justify the inclusion of Landmark Worldwide in this list, and the wider issue is whether there is any merit in defining the term 'New religious movement' in some specialised sense, or whether the phrase should simply be interpreted to mean what the everyday meaning of the words suggests. Actually I should have thought that the consensus was clear, but one editorn in particular seems determined not to agree, and promptly reverts edit that address the majority view. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)