Template:RfC closure review
 | This template should always be substituted (i.e., use {{subst:RfC closure review}}). |
Usage[edit]
Always subst: this template.
Lists up to 10 pages for RfC closure review. Paste this code for the template when you want to challenge one RfC closure only:
{{subst:RfC closure review
|page=
|rfc_close_page=
|closer=
|closer_discussion=
|notification_closure_review=
|reason=
}}
Meaning of each parameter[edit]
|page=: Name the article or the main page about which the RfC discussion was held. Do not use wikisyntax, just paste the plain name.|rfc_close_page=: Give the full path to the discussion that you can copy from your URL after /wiki/ (eg.Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the lead mention DJT's engagement in Jan 6?
and not simply RfC: Should the lead mention DJT's engagement in Jan 6?. Do not use wikisyntax, just paste the plain name.|closer=: Type the username of the closer, withoutUser:or wikisyntax.|closer_discussion=: Name the heading on the user's talk page where you voiced your concerns about their closure (eg.I am not sure the closure is correct
and not User talk:Example#I am not sure the closure is correct. Do not use any wikisyntax.|notification_closure_review=: A diff, link to the diff or link to the section where you notified the user of the discussion that is going to happen at the administators' noticeboard. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to notify the closer. Fill in after filing this request for closure review.|reason=: Explain in a neutral way why you want the community to review the closure. You should give a concrete description of how the closure did not interpret consensus correctly, violated or disregarded relevant policies and guidelines, or ignored some of the users' arguments. You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. an "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument". View Template:RfC closure review banner for ways NOT to file a closure review and for some resources that may help you.
For each subsequent page you want to challenge, paste |pageX= and |rfc_close_pageX= to the template. |page1= is the second page you want to review, |page2= is the third page, |page3= is the fourth page and so on until |page9=.
|page=, |rfc_close_page=, |closer=, |closer_discussion= and |reason= parameters are required to deploy this template. If you fail to fill |closer_discussion= or |notification_closure_review=, you will see error messages urging that the discussion be closed immediately.
When
|closer= < closer's username >and|closer_discussion= < section header on closer's talk page where there was discussion about the close >
are correctly filled in, the result will include a "Discussion with closer" link to that discussion.
If the "Discussion with closer" link lands at the TOP of the closer's talk page, then the closer's talk-page archives should be checked for the post-close discussion.
Example[edit]
{{Subst:RfC closure review |page=Coahuila |page1=Viktor Yanukovych |rfc_close_page = Huh? |closer=Example user |closer_discussion=Example header |reason=You are wrong! }}
will yield this:
RfC closure review request at Huh?[edit]
(Discussion with closer)
(Discussion with closer)
You are wrong!
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