Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
met. Shortcuts WP:RFCENDWP:RFCEND WP:RFCEXTENDWP:RFCEXTEND WP:RFCCLOSEWP:RFCCLOSE As an RfC is the solicitation of comment in a discussion, ending an RfC...
Click to read more »we don't have an answer that both parties accept. Levivich says that WP:RFCCLOSE allows him to snow close an RfC where he has voted. I read the exact same...
Click to read more »Paradisesnake (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC) I followed the advice at WP:RFCCLOSE: if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize...
Click to read more »"I withdrew the RfC because according to WP:RFCCLOSE, the nom can withdraw the RfC" but WP:RFCCLOSE's 5 points contradict every single reasoning of...
Click to read more »that I don't have experience closing RfC's. I was basing myself on WP:RFCCLOSE, which states in point 2: "The RfC participants can agree to end it at...
Click to read more »uninvolved editor can do those - but it is a proper end to the RfC per WP:RFCCLOSE. The consensus there is clear and the meta discussion about the consensus...
Click to read more »be closed". This is quite simply not true, as explicitly stated at WP:RFCCLOSE: "Written closing statements are not required." Formal closure is listed...
Click to read more »Ramos1990 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC) N.b.: I closed this RfC as at WP:RFCCLOSE I read "...if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may...
Click to read more »additional emphasis or explanations), such as WP:SNOW, WP:WHENCLOSE, WP:RFCCLOSE, and WP:CR (like in the sections identified here). As a new editor I have...
Click to read more »2018 (UTC) I would have NAC'd this, but consensus is obvious, so per WP:RFCCLOSE a formal close is "not necessary or advisable". Geogene (talk) 23:13, 12...
Click to read more »(pretty much SNOW). I am an involved editor; while I could close per WP:RFCCLOSE, the discussion was contentious and I think a close by an uninvolved admin...
Click to read more »necessarily an administrator) per WP:RFCCLOSE. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Per WP:RFCCLOSE: "Editors are expected to be able...
Click to read more »you for pointing that out; I was previously unaware of that clause in WP:RFCCLOSE. I'll need to think on this a bit, but I'm still inclined to land on oppose...
Click to read more »the RfC opener to do this. Since the opener can withdraw an RfC per WP:RFCCLOSE, I figure they could also do a partial withdrawal. I have no intention...
Click to read more »think anything at all has gained consensus. That's perfectly proper per WP:RFCCLOSE. Options 1 and 9 generally reflect the status quo and, between the two...
Click to read more »July 2025 (UTC) @EarthDude: Has twice ([205], [206]) made incorrect WP:RFCCLOSEs [based on a flawed understanding of RfCs and of WP:SNOW and WP:CONSENSUS]...
Click to read more »05:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC) @DFlhb, InfiniteNexus, and SnowFire:: WP:RFCCLOSE, Wikipedia:Advice_on_closing_discussions, WP:CLOSE have lots of closure...
Click to read more »RFC should be withdrawn, and you can do it since you started it, per WP:RFCCLOSE. The text you wrote to open this discussion is more of an argument for...
Click to read more »an unofficial closure and implementation doesn't appear advised per WP:RFCCLOSE. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC) The question may...
Click to read more »changed much more with extra time. I don't see anything that contravenes WP:RFCCLOSE. Endorse, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:00, 11 May...
Click to read more »this RFC, and I'm closing it in accordance with the fourth limb of WP:RFCCLOSE, which says: "if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor...
Click to read more »stabilised can be closed by an uninvolved editor: see the lead in WP:CR, and WP:RFCCLOSE. (In any case, it wasn't 21 days; it was 32 days from the date of opening...
Click to read more »which people on both sides of the argument thought would be better. Per WP:RFCCLOSE The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response...
Click to read more »ignored the fact that when this happened, they completely bypassed the RFCCLOSE procedure, and engaged in unilateral RfC closure and aggressive edit warring...
Click to read more »