Jump to content

Wikipedia:Closure requests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) at 23:11, 23 February 2016 (→‎Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 comment is 30 days (opened on or before 15 June 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

    See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

    Requests for comment

    MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr

    Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 3138 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This was going to be no consensus or consensus against, but discussion has renewed for a solution that will satisfy the opposition, so this should not be closed yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 3139 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article? (Initiated 3146 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing of this RFC is past due, and the lack of a close has caused contention in dispute resolution. However, closure by a non-Muslim editor would be likely to result in further contention. Request closure by an uninvolved experienced Muslim editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list (Initiated 3139 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies (Initiated 3133 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else

    It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    eraser Undone I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed done tag so this will not be automatically archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 3136 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:

    1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?

    2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?

    The discussion seems contentious which is why I'm not closing it myself. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 3137 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church#RFC: Reliable sources

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of ministers of the Universal Life Church#RFC: Reliable sources (Initiated 3118 days ago on 1 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? (Initiated 3113 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage (Initiated 3121 days ago on 29 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy#Request for comments

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy#Request for comments (Initiated 3113 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Josip Broz Tito#RfC January 2016

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josip Broz Tito#RfC January 2016 (Initiated 3112 days ago on 7 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Campus sexual assault#"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement."

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement." (Initiated 3104 days ago on 15 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is an early close being requested? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, maybe because, in the Proposals section, editors have reached an agreement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Flyer22 Reborn. Today is the 30th day after the RfC was opened, so an RfC close will no longer be early. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Vehbi_Koç#RfC_on_the_Kasapyan_estate

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vehbi_Koç#RfC_on_the_Kasapyan_estate (Initiated 3109 days ago on 10 January 2016)? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#RfC on inclusion of Overtime Politics polls

    Would an uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#RfC on inclusion of Overtime Politics polls (Initiated 3109 days ago on 10 January 2016)? 108.2.58.56 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Super-easy close: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"winningest" in sports articles (Initiated 3105 days ago on 14 January 2016)

    We actually drafted and !voted on a 5-point consensus (with notes than need not be part of the close), at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Can we wrap this up?. While this could be allowed to just expired into the archives, it would be convenient to have a formal close, because the thread, and its derailed sub-thread about clarifying MoS's meaning with regard to formal/encyclopedic language, is holding up re-opening a "clean" discussion on the latter point, unpolluted by "winningest"-related bickering.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Two RFC's need closing

    One is snow close Talk:Muhammad#Remove 'founder of islam' reference. The other needs a cool headed admin(preferably knowledgeable in Islam) who is willing to read the entire RFC and is able to deal with the fall out later on. Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)/Archive 125#Two edit filter RfCs: Modifying existing filters and enabling the block function

    A two part expired RfC, should be a fairly easy close. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

    (Initiated 3077 days ago on 11 February 2016)

    We need an experienced editor/admin to look at this RfC. The initial question concerns the way in which Palestine is listed on this page, though the question also has implications for other leaders of unrecognised or partially recognized states, and for leaders of sub-national entities (constituent countries of the Netherlands and so forth). It also impacts on related pages (List of state leaders in 2015, etc...). I should note that a couple of editors have questioned the phrasing of the RfC itself. Appreciate that this is a complex one but a careful eye is needed to suggest how to proceed! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done - Discussion still ongoing.--Aervanath (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aervanath: The discussion is over and the result is zero consensus for change, per the lack of prior discussion to the Rfc & the misleading and biased nature of the Rfc question.--Neve–selbert 17:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason to close this RFC would be that it is misleadingly and non-neutrally worded, in which case it can be closed as incapable of producing consensus. Otherwise it can be left open for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neve-selbert: As of this writing the most recent contribution to the RFC is only 30 seconds old. Convention is to let RFCs run for at least 30 days or as long as it takes to reach consensus, whichever is longer. The discussion is only 11 days old at this point. I skimmed the discussion; while the initial RFC could have been better-worded, my impression is that the majority of contributors are not biased by the wording of the RFC. I don't see anything there to convince me to close it early. There is no rush.--Aervanath (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aervanath: The contributors to the survey are simply unaware that they are opposing the status quo, they believe that they are opposing a change to the status quo instead. This is the fundamental flaw & another reason as to why the Rfc should be closed ASAP.--Neve–selbert 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neve-selbert: Like I said, in my skimming of the discussion, the contributors seem perfectly aware of the implications of their statements. I see no need to close early, I see no fundamental flaw. Let the RFC run out its normal course, please.--Aervanath (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aervanath: Would the result be binding? This is totally confusing, there are overwhelming flaws with the Rfc. The contributors are supporting keeping the status quo while at the same time supporting changing the status quo and vice versa (whichever way you look at it). Surely, that is a cause for concern.--Neve–selbert 22:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk: List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented?

    A consensus has been reached. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A consensus at an RFC is the result of 30 days of discussion. The bot continues to invite editors. There is no need for an early close. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. GoodDay (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size (Initiated 3321 days ago on 12 June 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Seeking clarification

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Seeking clarification (Initiated 3120 days ago on 30 December 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Clarification question on the policy, where the opening editor wrote, "Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Vehbi Koç#RfC on the Kasapyan estate

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vehbi Koç#RfC on the Kasapyan estate (Initiated 3109 days ago on 10 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mohamed Hadid#Request for comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mohamed Hadid#Request for comment (Initiated 3108 days ago on 11 January 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the article include "(now Israel)" next to mentions of Mandatory Palestine, the name of the place at the time the subject was born?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFC (Initiated 3101 days ago on 18 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: How should we word the lede?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: How should we word the lede? (Initiated 3102 days ago on 17 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: "List of Verified Oldest Living People" as title instead of "List of Oldest Living People"

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: "List of Verified Oldest Living People" as title instead of "List of Oldest Living People" (Initiated 3100 days ago on 19 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent (Initiated 3098 days ago on 21 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Eminem#Should info about deaths of Proof and Dawn Scott be added and if yes, then what in form? (RfC)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eminem#Should info about deaths of Proof and Dawn Scott be added and if yes, then what in form? (RfC) (Initiated 3097 days ago on 22 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:ExxonMobil#RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ExxonMobil#RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism? (Initiated 3108 days ago on 11 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Request for comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Request for comment (Initiated 3099 days ago on 20 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles (Initiated 3105 days ago on 14 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II (Initiated 3099 days ago on 20 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms? (Initiated 3110 days ago on 9 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Human spaceflight#RfC: Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Human spaceflight#RfC: Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'? (Initiated 3102 days ago on 17 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done - No such RFC in the current talk page. May be a malformed request for closure of the RFC. It isn't obvious why Veganism would be discussed in connection with Human spaceflight, and I didn't see such a discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Marco Rubio#RFC: Does the sourcing given support the statement "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change"?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marco Rubio#RFC: Does the sourcing given support the statement "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change"? (Initiated 3100 days ago on 19 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption (Initiated 3088 days ago on 31 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Cannabis dispensaries in the United States#RfC for "Cannabis dispensaries" or "Marijuana dispensaries"

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cannabis dispensaries in the United States#RfC for "Cannabis dispensaries" or "Marijuana dispensaries" (Initiated 3097 days ago on 22 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control (Initiated 3094 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Add templates for poorly sourced content?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Add templates for poorly sourced content? (Initiated 3120 days ago on 30 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Shrauta

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus of the RfC at Talk:Shrauta (Initiated 3068 days ago on 20 February 2016)? I doubt there will be more input.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Josip Broz Tito

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josip Broz Tito#RFC: RfC January 2016 (Initiated 46 days ago on 11 December 2015)? All users particating to the RfC agree to include in the lead a mention to "the repression of political opponents" during Tito's regime but for some unclear reasons one user opposes the change. Thanks, --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlogs

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

    This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 150 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from 2015 October 15. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The backlog is about the same number but only falls back to December now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion

    This discussion forum has a typical backlog with approximately 40 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 25, 2016. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrative

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Standard offer unblock request from Md iet

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Standard offer unblock request from Md iet (Initiated 3084 days ago on 4 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Boomerang: Proposed Topic Ban for Krzyhorse22

    Would an admin please assess the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Boomerang: Proposed Topic Ban for Krzyhorse22 and close the discussion as they see fit. Thanks, WCMemail 12:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested moves

    Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move 22 January 2016

    Open for 25 days. The discussion has petered out, and there is a clear consensus that it can be closed now. But this is a highly controversial issue, and has been the subject of numerous previous requests. Looking for an experienced, careful, and brave admin to close the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:StAnselm, I think you need to butter any prospective admin up a bit more. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • StAnselm, help me out here. I have it 15-11, if I skip the intermediary polls, one of which I closed and the others I have yet to assess. Oppose: In ictu oculi, StAnselm, Polentarion, Tiggerjay, StevenJ81, JudeccaXIII, Simon Burchell, Graeme Bartlett, InsertCleverPhraseHere, BobKilcoyne, agr (ArnoldReinhold), Srnec, HokieRNB, H. Humbert, Amakuru. Support: Theroadislong, First Light, Doug Weller, Moxy, Hy Brasil, RGloucester, Rwenonah, Scjessey, Jonathan Tweet, Jess, jps. Note: I have friends and lovers on either side, so I think I can be unfair to both sides. I'm not saying, by the way, that I'll actually finish this: it's a beast. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you missed Basileias as an oppose in the main discussion. But I found the opinion poll quite confusing, and I some editors voted only in it, so Darkfrog24, 172.58.225.118, StevenJ81, Deryck C, Roches, Dmcq, Dweller, and Maher-shalal-hashbaz should be added to the "opposes", with Leonhard Fortier, Röbin Liönheart, Khajidha, James, Dimadick, Keahapana and AIRcorn added to the supports. Also, First Light is clearly an oppose rather than a support. StAnselm (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I asked you, to copyedit. Thanks. Yeah, I did not look/count in those sections yet. I have some doubts about that IP, and will ping User:Bishonen. Wait, I just did. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that I left out Martin Hogbin as well: I failed to copy him and Basileias from my list in Notepad. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&oldid=706552227"