User:Eggishorn/RfC log/Archive 2

Talk:International Bureau of Weights and Measures
As an uninvolved party, I was asked to close this discussion. Abstaining from voting, I posed one question that I felt the discussion was lacking, and if no significant reason for keeping the discussion open is given after 7 days, I would consider the discussion closed. I understand that as an uninvolved editor, I can do this; I have closed a discussion only once before.

However, I'm not sure what to do about the related discussion directly above it, Talk:International Bureau of Weights and Measures. It's quite a long section, with some contention, and I'd feel more comfortable if an admin would kindly look things over and decide how to deal with this. Thank you very kindly for your assistance with this matter. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Usually, I'd consider that this is a discussion that does not actually require a close but since one was requested, I've closed it with a clear consensus that "IBWM" should not be used. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Baptism of Jesus
I am involved in the discussion, but closure is easy-peasy. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with clear consensus not to merge. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Human uses of living things/1
Need a decision at this reassessment. Completing the close can be a little bit complicated so I can do that part if needed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a consensus to delist. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scriptural texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)
Vigorous discussion, closing would be good for future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Now at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Having been archived without being closed, it would seem that further discussion is forestalled, and we are stuck with an absence of clear consensus on the issue at bar. The best I can gather from this is that there is general agreement that most propositions that could be sourced to scripture can also be sourced to a WP:RS-worthy examination of scripture, and that it is perhaps better practice to look for such a secondary source. BD2412  T 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ restored to discussion board and closed as no consensus achieved to modify' WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Byrd (sic)
I am seeking a neutral editor to review this discussion to establish consensus on whether or not some sort of description of Byrd's KKK involvement ought be included in the article summary, though I don't believe there has been a serious discussion of how such a sentence should be written yet. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with no consensus for changes to lede. After 1.75 years, whatever level of serious discussion that is likely to take place probably already has. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
A quasi-RfC. To paraphrase the summary of another participant, "I'm pretty certain that the specific proposed wording can be overall considered successful (even the one who initially opposed didn't continue to do so after clarifications)". I'm also a participant in the discussion (author of said proposed guideline wording), so someone else needs to close this, and a formal closure would actually be beneficial. This has been open long enough it will archive away soon. If that happens, it will probably be in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 221 (or 222, depending on what the archver bot does) and should be fished back out the main talk page for closure. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a consensus to generally omit stress marks per existing policies and guidelines. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 07:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

==Talk:Great Barrington Declaration/Archive 5== The page has a very contentious history and the outcome of the RfC is not 100% clear. By the way, I am aware that the section heading sucks, and it's my own fault. JBchrch (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a consensus to retain the challenged text. Note that consensus has never been held to require 100% clarity. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence
I opened this RfC, and a recent, related fringe noticeboard thread that spun out has just closed. Since the discussion was not unanimous, I was involved in both threads, and this was my first time opening an RfC, I thought I should request a formal close. — Wingedserif (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a consensus to retain the controversy section. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 22:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Romani_people_in_Hungary
The result is clear, but a formal closure by any experienced editor is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus for Option A. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Goths
The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. Krakkos (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus to focus on Goths as described by modern scholarship. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Goths
The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. Krakkos (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus to substantially trim these sections and a rough consensus to use the proposed text as a basis for further refinement. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese Communist Party
I was involved in the discussion, though it's very close. The discussion largely focused on whether to keep a "controversy" section within the page for Chinese Communist Party or whether it would be better to split it off into its own article. There has not been discussion in over a month. If an experienced editor could take a look and provide closure, it would be helpful for moving forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus to remove the "Controversy" section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Shapiro
. Original proposal came from a sockpuppet, and the only clear consensus seems to be that discussion has not been useful, as the conversation has seemingly been brigaded and affected by sockpuppets on all sides. has suggested a new discussion may be useful, and I agree, but I also think an assessment of this particular RfC from an uninvolved editor would be helpful for going forward. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 17:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as no consensus due to a lack of quality participation and high levels of disruption. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Anne Hathaway
Almost a year old discussion with limited participation, could do with an uninvolved close though. Thanks. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 03:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a reasonably clear consensus for the 2018 photo in the infobox. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)#All options, redux
- An experienced editor familiar with policies is invited to close this well attended (but slightly disrupted) discussion and determine if there is consensus for any of the presented options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Restored from archive and closed per this request and current request on article talk page. Closed with a clear consensus to remove the contestant's progress table. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket
There's been a lot of contention over the cricket notability guidelines, with large numbers of AfDs recently causing much discussion within the project and outside of the project, and the RfC period has just ended. I'm requesting a formal closure from someone uninvolved in the discussion and who hasn't been majorly involved in the discussions at WP:NSPORTS as we're keen as a project to potentially implement the proposal, or work on different changes if not implemented. Further details on the proposal can be found above the RfC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that the proposal has now been archived without closure on the WikiProject Cricket talk page.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Restored per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE and closed with a rough consensus to implement the proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan Omar
Requesting closure as Snowball clause. The proposer is one of only two editors supporting the recommendation in the RfC and it is similar to two recent unsuccessful RfCs by the editor on the same article. Since it has no likelihood of succeeding, it should be closed.TFD (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ SNOWBALL indeed applies. Clear, convincing, and overwhelming consensus against the proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox ship begin
I wasn't really involved here or anything (although I support the nominator's rationale) but I think I'm unqualified to close this discussion or to decide what's gonna happen to it. Although everyone seems to agree with the proposal, a total year of silence kinda baffles me. So, it would be good if a qualified person would step in and close it. Thanks. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 16:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as passed. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Short description
Note to closer: there were also two other relevant discussions, a BRFA (which was put on hold pending a closure to this discussion) and a conversation at Shortdesc helper talk (same situation there). — Goszei (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ the conversation is spread across three venues, there is limited participation at each, disruption by a now-banned user, and a number of non-definitive comments from the users that did participate. Per Closing_discussions, this is non-conducive to a consensus assessment. Although a "No consensus" close could be created, it would not help matters any more than simply leaving the discussion alone. Recommend a much more strongly-focused discussion take place at one venue.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 23:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like a no consensus close would be beneficial if only to get a firm end and not questions about why you started a new discussion when the last one is open. I also have to wonder whether there's no consensus with regards to the implementation only or to whether the descriptions should be removed as well. --Trialpears (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon re-reading and 's request, I have marked it as "Discussion Failed" and archived the discussion. This should allow further focused discussions on removing or replacing the default list article descriptions to proceed. I did not see any indication that there was any support for retaining those if there is an agreed-upon substitute. I hope that helps.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones
Could someone please close and determine consensus for the discussion at WPTC? There are some additional related comments here. Keep in mind there are around 4–5 projects being discussed. Noah Talk 23:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus to proceed with the merger of the Wikiprojects. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 22:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311
Requesting uninvolved closure here. During an ongoing discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, suggested that it may be worth placing here, owing to their view that there was consensus to deprecate. The source is used in >1000 articles. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Unarchived and closed with a clear consensus in favor of Option 4 (deprecation). The actual mechanics of deprecation will need to be carried out by administrators. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Requesting uninvolved closure here please. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I closed one proposal, there is one more proposal left to close.  starship .paint  (exalt) 04:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Third proposal closed as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs
Requesting uninvolved closure. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a rough consensus for Option 2 based on the strength of the arguments. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Scooter (motorcycle)
Not a formal RfC, just a discussion that's going nowhere and won't die. It's a case of WP:IDHT, dragging on disruptively in spite of the proposals being clearly DOA because they violate MOS guidelines and are failing to gain significant support, let alone anything like consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with no consensus to rename the article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Goths
Requesting an uninvolved editor with experience and time to look carefully to make sure we can go ahead. The RFC concerns 2 draft texts (a shortened lead, and a shortened Origins section). The shortening idea was proposed and gained consensus in a previous RFC, and there was another RFC already closed where 3 different drafts of the Origins section failed to gain consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as the proposed draft did not gain a consensus for implementation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Uyghur genocide
Requesting closure from an experienced and uninvolved editor. Thanks! — MarkH21talk 23:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a rough consensus for Option 5 (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 22:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Azov_Battalion
—Michael Z. 18:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus for 1(C) and a rough consensus for a some combination of 2(C) with (D) or (E). (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 14:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/ Archive_345 #RfC:_WikiLeaks
Uninvolved administrator requested to close this RfC. The discussion that triggered this RfC is here, for reference. Thank you. PS. Previous request to close by administrator denied, but 30 days has passed and the discussion is not particularly active. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone has archived the RfC in the meantime. The link has been updated to reflect this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ That "someone" was, a bot account that automatically archives old threads. Despite the request for a specifically administrator close, no admin has done so in at least a month and so the request is not relevant. The discussion was restored from the archive per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE and closed as a discussion which reached no consensus on the reliability of Wikileaks as a source. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch
This discussion has produced two (very messy looking) votes, which both resulted in a pretty clear consensus that no change to MOS is needed. As far as I see, the last bit of actual discussion took part in late March, so I doubt that consensus or discussion will evolve anymore. I don't feel qualified to close this myself (since it involves MOS, and since I never closed anything), so I'm formally requesting a close here. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus that there is no reason to modify the MoS to cover "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" nor is there a need to create a separate category of the MoS to cover those terms or similarly "laden" terms like "philanthropist". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 00:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources
Discussion, non-RfC, about the reliablity of Game Rant, uninvolved closer requested. Thanks, regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ closed as Game Rant is a source that should be used with caution and for generally non-controversial topics. It should not be used for topics such as BLP's. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ayurveda
Closure would be helpful. The perceived ambiguity regarding consensus is causing regular edit war flare-ups. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) ✅ Closed as a consensus that the statement should be: "The IMA calls Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine 'Quacks'." (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)
The main discussion and this revised proposal could both use a formal closure czar  03:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Closed as  no consensus to implement the proposal (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 06:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Undisclosed alternate accounts
Well-advertised on T:CENT, this RfC has important policy implications that will benefit from a formal closure. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In my view, that discussion intersects with Trust & Safety and the current anti-harassment RFC to such a large extent that it should either be closed by Maggie Dennis personally, or by a panel that includes her, or by an independent community member who has received her feedback prior to closing.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * T&S has no mandate to set community policy. The board can set their own policies that override community ones, but seem to have no intention on setting policies on multiple and/or privacy accounts. That specific discussion is a community process, so any suitably experienced volunteer should feel free to close it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't really agree with that: I think that the whole point of (legitimate) undisclosed alternate accounts is to avoid harassment.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, and various policies and proposals try to do the same. They're almost all community policies, made and enforced. This is the same; it's an issue about amending a community policy, discussed by volunteers, and should be closed by any suitable community member, the same as any other discussion. If the WMF wants to setup a Board policy on this and thinks the community's views will be helpful, they could read the discussion or the summary of the consensus reached (ie, 'the close'). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * not done I looked at this with a view to closing it. I don't think there is any issue with closing the RfC, personally. The RfC initiator said "I've not proposed specific wording, this is more about looking for consensus on the ideas, the wordsmiths can get in there and create the appropriate wording if such a consensus is reached". However, no consensus was reached about whether changes to the status quo are in fact desired, let alone what specific changes. I actually don't think a formal closure is beneficial; users are free to start a fresh discussion in future. If you still believe a formal closure is beneficial, please clarify what it will achieve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ncmvocalist: If there was no consensus, and frankly when I've read that discussion I do see a consensus even if it's not identical to one of the three options that first was offered, that can be a close. But this was a centrally notified discussion which a nice level of participation and consensus can be reached about an outcome even if policy change language would then need to be identified and workshopped. Considering that this is a longstanding policy a NC would be significant. A well worded and thoughtful close helps to give shape and structure to what next steps would be for interested editors. I would ask that you reconsider this idea that it is not a discussion that needs to be closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On reconsidering this, I've reversed the "not done"; a detailed closure is needed after all for the reasons you have said. For the avoidance of doubt, I was open to reconsidering, which is what prompted my question and my choice not to alter the archive tag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I support a closure for the same reasons as Barkeep. Given the number of editors that have been blocked under PROJSOCK, clarification on this issue of policy is important moving forward. If you feel you can't don't want to close it, I would encourage you to remove the   parameter so that an  another uninvolved editor can. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That won't prevent this thread from being archived, you need to remove or disable the to achieve that. yes means "no further action";  means "this may be archived because it will not be carried out". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that as a participant in the RfC that you would like a particular outcome, but as a matter of courtesy, you might want to consider how your last sentence reads. I am an uninvolved editor and already said "I don't think there is any issue with closing the RfC, personally". My initial view not to formally close was not about whether one can or can't, but rather, what the closure would achieve, as I already asked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As a participant of course I'm involved, but (believe it or not) if it doesn't get closed in the way I !voted I wouldn't mind. Discussions aren't battles to be won or lost, after all. Given you used the Not done template instead of On hold or MoreInfo, it seemed like you were declining to close the discussion, and said you didn't think a formal closure is beneficial. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't uninvolved (nor was I questioning your closing ability) and have amended my comment accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * no worries, thank you; I'll take that on board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also support a closure, because this is an important discussion which could have wide ranging implications. I encourage Ncmvocalist to remove the not done to prevent this being archived without a closure.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've deactivated the done tag, since there seems to be a consensus above that a closure is preferable (and I agree). ProcSock (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It might have been misunderstood, but I didn't intend for this to be archived as yet - as I expected a response to my question before deciding whether to let this be archived or to formally close this. Subsequently, someone else boldly added the archive link in good faith thinking that I might have forgotten. In any case, thank you ProcSock for deactivating it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That edit did not add the archive link, please read my post of 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC). The yes parameter of does two things, and no more: it de-colours the "Initiated X days ago on 15 April 2021" text, and instructs the template not to put the thread in Category:Administrative backlog.
 * It was that marked this thread for archiving, and all I did was tidy up an inconsistency, which was hardly a bold action. See the last paragraph of the notice that was presented to you when you posted here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah right; thank you for clarifying what the parameter/edit actually does, as I was mistaken above. Your post of 25 May 2021 actually said template means "this may be archived because it will not be carried out" and that the yes parameter indicates "no further action"; I read this to be consistent with my understanding that the archival isn't guaranteed if the parameter isn't inserted. I didn't see the changes that were made over the last year to the notice you have linked to, but it currently says that  means "this will automatically archive". In future, I'll use the  template instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I intended "no further action" to be read as "no further action on this thread is required by any living human", but that seemed to contain much that was redundant. I suppose that if taken to its ultimate conclusion, "no further action" could be interpreted as "nobody, not even archiving bots, is to do anything with this thread, it must be left set in stone for all eternity". We don't really want that, I think.
 * As an example of how ClueBot III operates, see - in that edit, three threads were archived, of which two have both yes and, whereas the third has only . It is clear that for the third thread, ClueBot III has picked up on the presence of the , whilst the lack of yes has not influenced the bot. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Closed with a clear consensus that undisclosed alternate accounts are used at the risk of the editor with no guarantees and a rough consensus that some limited level of participation in WP: and WT: namespaces is allowed. No particular formula for the exact nature of those limits established a consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
In my opinion, this RfC should be closed by an uninvolved editor with experience in contentious closes and enough free time to respond to a close challenge.

The RfC closes at 20:34, 27 March 2022 but I wanted to give any potential closers time to decide whether to take this on before an inexperienced editor sees the 30 days have passed, jumps in, and posts a close that is certain to be disputed. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am asking for a experienced closer for several reasons:


 * Emotions are high on this one, and it is likely that whichever way it closes there will be accusations that it was closed with a WP:SUPERVOTE. I expect any close to be challenged; I know an upcoming shitstorm when I see one on the horizon.
 * WP:BIASED says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" but multiple !votes amount to "SI is biased so it must be unreliable". These need to be evaluated to see if they conform to Wikipedia policies on reliable but biased sources. Complicating the situation is the fact that some editors claim "SI is biased so it must be unreliable" but also made valid arguments concerning SI's reliability.
 * Arbcom published a Finding of Fact (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing) on what the current consensus was at the time based upon RSNB discussions from before this RfC. If the result of this RfC does not match that FoF IMO the closing should explicitly discuss which of the two is authoritative and whether an additional decision at WP:ARCA to bring the two into alignment is needed. The answer to this question may seem obvious, but it is near certain that there will be a heated debate about this by whoever didn't get their way.
 * At WP:ARBSCE, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision found (Passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions) that "[GSoW] Trainees are given outlines of Wikipedia's core content policies and encouraged to explore project-space on their own" and Arbcom did not place any special restrictions on GSoW members, yet at least one participant in the RfC has repeatedly claimed that GSoW members are automatically to be considered to have been canvassed and thus are not allowed to comment on the RfC (with no evidence needed that the editor being accused actually is a GSoW member or that there has been any canvassing at GSoW).

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * please append your closure request to be neutral. You are advocating for one of the options and discussing arguments raised within the closure request. Additionally, it has been explained to you multiple times that the result of the RfC is authoritative both by involved editors, uninvolved admins and arb members, so there is no need to point that out to the closer. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 16:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Closed with a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)