::::I responded to the conkers close at the BISE page to keep it separate.  As to the "wikilawyering", perhaps I misunderstood.  I wasn't considering the behavior of threaded responses to be wikilawyering, but it seems that it's precisely what you're referring to.  In that case, yeah, there was tons of it, but, to my eyes, there was four main protagonists (not counting the sock) for this behaviour, and naming and shaming would be better than lumping everyone into the same boat.  Briefly, as to the conkers close, it's impossible to present evidence (so that it's available at the time of close) if you're going to materially change the article and introduce new facts in your resolution.  If I break out your resolutions I find that you've essentially ruled in favour of the argument that conkers is not traditionally played in Ireland and the colonies.  Fine.  But then you've created a new fact to discuss the areas of distribution where we can find conkers being played.  Outside the scope of BISE.  Unless your position is that this is an alternative reading of the existing text (fine), in which case nobody has had the opportunity to discuss it (not fine).