Your comments should only evaluate whether the closer reasonably reflected consensus of the discussion and properly applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
RfC closure review is not RfC round 2
- DO NOT rehash your disputes from the RfC during this process. Evaluate the RfC as a whole.
- DO NOT repeat your arguments from the RfC. You should have made your case during the RfC.
DO NOT vote to endorse or overturn the closure simply because:
- Your personal views on the question align/don't align with the closure and that has nothing to do with the closer's judgment.
- Apparently similar RfCs have come to different closures than the one in question.
- Your arguments rely on a technicality (such as an RfC being closed 10 minutes early) or they are technically correct but do not reflect the spirit or purpose of policies and guidelines
- You think that the closer is not experienced enough, or that you think that an admin/a panel should have closed it.
DO NOT attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias.
We will shut down threads that violate these rules quickly.
If one of the following things happen, do not start an RfC closure review process or close down this thread if it was already started
|
|---|
|
If you have made up your mind if the editor's judgment was proper, post your opinion in the "Involved" or "Uninvolved" section. Refer to this policy to see if you are involved.
See also: how we measure consensus, procedure on opening RfC closure reviews, advice on closing discussions, what is a supervote and how to see it and guidance on closures with overwhelming consensus
 | This template should always be substituted (i.e., use {{subst:RfC closure review banner}}). |
Usage
[edit]This is a meta template that is nested within the {{RfC closure review}} template, which is used to generate challenges to closures of Requests for comment (RfC).