ARTIKELDIGITAL.COM

ended only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met. Shortcuts WP:RFCENDWP:RFCEND WP:RFCEXTENDWP:RFCEXTEND WP:RFCCLOSEWP:RFCCLOSE As an RfC is the solicitation...

the RfC, which he did without anyone else's consent in violation of WP:RFCEND. Since this content dispute is clearly not closed, the RfC should be reopened...

cited RFCEND (5). A bot removed the RfC tag and there was no discussion for two weeks. At this point anyone can close the RfC. As you cite RFCEND partially...

2017 (UTC) NOTE: I just now removed the "close" by a participant, per WP:RFCEND. Since there does not seem to be a real consensus in terms of bolded Yes/No...

open? Will some uninvolved editor (It doesn't have to be an admin, per WP:RFCEND.) please go ahead and close it? The bot's already removed the template days...

—usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Hm, as best as I can tell, per WP:RFCEND Venkat should have formally closed the discussion, but involved users are...

previous experience in the discussion, which is not allowed according to “WP:RFCEND”, where it is specified that only an “uninvolved editor” can formally close...

What you're quoting from WP:RFCEND is just one of several ways to close an RfC (uninvolved close), not the only way. RFCEND goes on to say: If the matter...

completely different topic (an RfC he discovered via WP:WIKIHOUNDING). WP:RFCEND says when outcomes are obvious and uncontroversial, there is no need for...

understanding about the purpose of RfCs which is to resolve content disputes. WP:RFCEND also outlines that you're not allowed to close RfCs because of a belief...

believe WP:RFCEND No. 5 to state. Could we please have some clarity on the situation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC) WP:RFCEND: "As an...

question. I have therefore applied WP:SNOWBALL, and closed it myself per WP:RFCEND: "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's...

is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure because: According to WP:RFCEND, the outcome should be "determined by weighing the merits of the arguments...

is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure because: According to WP:RFCEND, the outcome should be "determined by weighing the merits of the arguments...

The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing...

deletion reviews), so listing here, as it likely needs admin attention. WP:RFCEND says that an RFC may be closed by any uninvolved editor, but this RFC was...

page. In some cases, someone can vote on an RfC and still close it (see WP:RFCEND). Expecting "uninvolved" (in the ordinary word sense of the word, not the...

(talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC) All RfCs need closing. - Not so, per WP:RFCEND. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC) I can only speak for myself, but I've...

days or a few months depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, per WP:RFCEND, RfCs require a close no more than any discussion does. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:06...

the RfC has no set amount of time that it needs to be kept open. Per WP:RFCEND, it can be closed early for many reasons. With the way the votes are going...

January 2021 (UTC) @ProcrastinatingReader I closed the discussion per WP:RFCEND "the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response...

an RfC due to bot-intervention; it's not a required time frame (see WP:RFCEND). Anyone (admin or user) can close the RfC (due to overwhelming consensus...

February 2021 (UTC) I think this was a proper way to end the RFC per WP:RFCEND. This was nearly-unanimous, not a controversial outcome at all. Having an...

conversation. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Please read WP:RFCEND. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Would some admin look...

2021 (UTC) Oh, and this nonsense about me quoting WP:CLOSE instead of WP:RFCEND in a discussion weeks ago was just that -- nonsense. An RfC that showed...

thoughts as the other editor to undo the close. The policy is here: WP:RFCEND, in particular “It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor.", with...

think of adding this language to WP:SNOW? It's less visible place than WP:RFCEND and I think it's a good reflection of our practice that SNOWy discussions...

include in them. It's not really spelled out in WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CLOSE, WP:RFCEND, DGFA, WP:XFD, WP:DELPOL... how to write a closing statement doesn't appear...

in these discussions is to have a look at the little glossary inside WP:RFCEND, so that everyone who's talking about "ending" or "closing" is really talking...

"close". Others can continue contributing or even re-add the rfc tag. WP:RFCEND has more info. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:14, 6 April 2022...

- Epinoia (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC) There is some text in WP:RFCEND in this regard. WP:Consensus should probably have something similar. This...

RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC) RGloucester, to quote from WP:RFCEND:-- If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is...

discussion? ADifferentMan (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Hi ADifferentMan. WP:RFCEND has guidance on when and how RfCs can end. Removing the tag and moving on...

knows when this is going to end, but if it's still going on 19 November, WP:RFCEND says that it will be bot-closed. Therefore, postponing the bot-closure until...

2018 (UTC) @Nomoskedasticity: Yes I do know better, because I've read WP:RFCEND. You may find the following useful: "The question may be withdrawn by the...

least a few others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC) WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing...

are not good. I recommend that you close them. All three of them. See WP:RFCEND. Renat 19:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC) I agree here. More blanket RFCs for...

I don't have time to look now but a couple general words. First per WP:RFCEND no formal close might be necessary. Second, if a formal close is necessary...

sometime this afternoon (I launched it last month), as Wikipedia policy (WP:RFCEND, specifically #5) does allow any editor involved in a discussion to close...

@Sdkb: A discussion that is going SNOW does not need a formal close per WP:RFCEND and it does not need to be listed here, per the instructions in the edit...

discussion. I was relying on RFCEND. I'm concerned that elevating this page to guideline will then give it more weight than RFCEND. My concern would be addressed...

GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC) For future reference, per WP:RFCEND, the initiator of an RfC can withdraw the RfC early if the community response...

(UTC) If an editor starts an RfC, can that same editor close it, per WP:RFCEND? I have gotten some puzzling pushback (see 3 June activity). -- Oa01 (talk)...

19:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC) The RfC tag expired after 30 days per WP:RFCEND btw. CNC (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)  Done​ — Newslinger talk 21:58...

statement of what everyone else already knew. This is documented in WP:RFCEND. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC) "Panevėžys, Lithuania"...

decided to close despite being an involved editor per the guidelines in WP:RFCEND. I thought the WP:CONSENSUS undeniable in this case. I am admittedly a less...

819 days ago on 22 May 2024) I have ended this RFC a week early per WP:RFCEND. Because of a history of edit warring over this, I would like an uninvolved...

There's no deadline to meet. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC) WP:RFCEND says "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...

who participated in the RfC can't close it (despite the fourth limb of WP:RFCEND), so I just thought I'd query that point with you. I'm not trying to be...

2024 (UTC) This is already a large and entangled mess. As a reminder,WP:RFCEND suggests "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that...

apply to the broadsheet published between 1964–1969 of the same name. WP:RFCEND states "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus...

#4, it's actually not irrelevant. It's exactly what is described at WP:RFCEND: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...

discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. WP:RFCEND says that by default, Legobot will assign a 30-day period to an RfC and...

anything that has been planned here. To respond to @WhatamIdoing, per WP:RFCEND, I would like the RfC to run for the full 30 days, a fortnight at a minimum...

participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. from WP:RFCEND and suggest we close and implement as such. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 22 September...

thus worth thinking about. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) WP:RFCEND does note that not all RFCs are closed. It is not the only place in our...

timelines for any of this; but 1 month is always a good rule of thumb, per WP:RFCEND. --Jayron32 11:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC) WP:MERGE suggests a week, and as it...

(UTC) Since WP:RFCSIGN works, as do WP:RFCST, WP:RFCBEFORE, WP:RFCCAT, WP:RFCEND, and others, what's the problem? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2026...

Vanamonde but this is such a case. I think this this was closed too soon. WP:RFCEND says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...

Dw31415 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC) not strictly a rule, but from WP:RFCEND An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...

That doesn't conform procedurally with the guidance of WP:WHENCLOSE or WP:RFCEND, but especially does not justify a finding of "strong consensus" when there...

the sources cited. ...we are quite some time away from concluding such WP:RFCEND states there is no required minimum or maximum time for an RFC. You disagree...

you mean? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Legobot. From WP:RFCEND: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...

mistake, as I indicated in the AN discussion, based on a strict reading of WP:RFCEND which failed to take into account cultural norms regarding RfCs in contentious...