719:: As one of the most general purpose types of semi-formal discussions on Knowledge (XXG), RfCs are also potentially one of the most far-reaching and long-lasting in their consequences, are regularly used to determine consensus on important matters of policy, and often require a subsequent RfC to overturn their results to the satisfaction of the community. Editors should consider not only whether their assessment of the consensus is correct, but whether the discussion might be better closed by an administrator as a matter of form, resulting in a judgement that would be less likely to be challenged, even if the substance of the outcome would be the same.
250:: The various venues for discussion on Knowledge (XXG) often include their own agreed-upon standards for procedural matters, such as how those discussions are formatted, how long they can or must continue, and what steps should be taken prior to their beginning and following their end. Editors who close discussions should have thoroughly familiarized themselves with these standards, and have enough history participating themselves, that they are able to fulfill these expectations.
742:: By default, RfCs run for 30 days. Particularly contentious ones may run for much longer and involve a great many contributors. Editors should be aware that the length of the discussion does not lessen the importance of each argument made, or the requirement to take all such viewpoints into consideration. Editors should not attempt to close discussions where they cannot commit the sometimes considerable time and attention required to do so.
713:: Unlike other discussions on Knowledge (XXG), RfCs do not require a formal closure, and doing so may often be unnecessary or even counterproductive. Editors should assess whether the closure is needed at all, or whether the discussion has come to a natural conclusion on its own, and reached a consensus which is self-evident to those involved, rendering a closure moot, and an inaccurate closure unnecessarily problematic.
625:
these venues have complicated criteria to consider, employ complicated templates, require additional logging elsewhere, or require the use of bots to run jobs to complete the tagging or other cleanup tasks that are required. If a closer does not take all the required steps, it can create significant problems that may go unresolved for an extended period of time.
500:) because they are against policy, made in bad faith, etc. If you are reviewing a debate and find yourself trying to decide if a !vote should be ignored per the rough consensus guidelines, and doing so or not doing so would likely affect the outcome, then this is not the kind of debate that an inexperienced editor ought to be closing.
51:
118:
632:
can be especially complex and should be avoided by anyone who is not an experienced participant. Images are frequently transcluded into articles, templates and user pages. Those closing these type of debates often have to review the "what links here" special page and determine if other cleanup needs
484:
unambiguous. Controversial topics may be indicated by the broad topic area, related discussions, and previous XfDs (if applicable). With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions, especially if the non-admin is relatively new to the
733:
Additionally, although RfCs are ideally proposed in a neutral manner, so as not to affect the outcome based on the viewpoint of the originator, editors who close such discussions should recognize that they are evaluating not only the arguments made, but the nature of the question posed, and whether
624:
are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question. If there is a serious backlog on one of these venues, consider asking a very familiar admin who closes many of this type of discussions for their advice. Many of
163:
when editing
Knowledge (XXG), and more so when accurately judging the outcomes of discussions. Although there are no formal requirements in terms of time spent on Knowledge (XXG) or number of contributions made for non-administrators to close discussions, it is important that those who do close are
729:
decisions, but a choice between multiple qualitatively distinct options. Even then, the consensus that results from an RfC may not be in favor of any of the options initially proposed at all, but a completely new choice originating in the discussion itself. Editors should be keenly aware that the
577:
closures. Non-admins may not use a "speedy delete" close unless the page has already been deleted, but may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate. Otherwise, non-admins are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" in the body of the discussion and
793:
that is reached between few editors or with little discussion is likely to be limited in its applicability and impact. Likewise, editors who reach strong agreement on an issue, but who may have overlooked an important policy-related aspect of their decision, may come to a strong but nonetheless
750:
the actions of administrators, they may also do so for non-administrator actions, such as closing an RfC. Non-admins are similarly expected to promptly justify their decisions when required. As always, editors questioning or justifying a close are expected to do so within the bounds of
140:, according to Knowledge (XXG) policy and convention any registered editor in good standing may close a discussion. For practical purposes, non-administrators should not take formal action in discussions whose outcome would require the use of administrator tools, such as those at
209:, will normally have the knowledge necessary to close community discussions appropriately, or to identify when they cannot and defer to others. Non-administrators who close discussions should ensure they also have the requisite experience and knowledge necessary to do so.
633:
to be done, such as removing the "deletable image caption" templates everywhere the image is used. Those who regularly close these venue debates are likely to know how to use bots, scripts and third-party tools to help them do so properly.
260:, who individually have strengths, interests or academic backgrounds. Editors who close discussions concerning highly technical subject matter should have the necessary background to evaluate effectively the evidence and arguments presented.
313:
for participants with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion, editors should not attempt to close discussions they have been improperly notified of, or notified of in a way that may cast doubts on their impartiality.
561:, and experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either
346:, unregistered editors may not close formal discussion anonymously. However, unregistered users may participate in formal discussions, so long as they do so in a way that does not violate Knowledge (XXG)'s
595:
911:
141:
725:: By their very nature, RfCs are exceptionally open-ended, both in the types of questions that are posed, as well as the types of discussions that may follow. Many RfCs are not simply
489:
1042:
410:
126:
Some discussions on
Knowledge (XXG) may be closed by non-administrators and some should not. Before doing so, non-administrators should be sure that the closure is appropriate.
906:
881:
1075:
1025:
991:
875:
767:
644:
734:
it is put forth in a valid and neutral manner, in accordance with
Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines, and how that may have affected the direction of the debate.
782:
1029:
291:. Closing editors should be aware of any actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest they may have that could affect their decision making, or give the
233:
675:
There are no more than a few associated subpages that need to be moved along with the move of the page under discussion, such as voluminous talk page archives.
385:
The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise
442:, inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or could result in a request to redo the process at
1080:
657:
are regularly closed by experienced and uninvolved registered editors in good standing. Any non-admin closure must be explicitly declared with template {{
789:
for closing discussions and enacting their results. Rather than attempting to close a discussion, consider contributing as a participant instead. A weak
981:
Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review.
990:
Administrators should not revert a closure based solely on the fact that the original closer was not an administrator, based on consensus following
843:
807:
566:
175:
While rare mistakes can happen in closes, editors whose closes are being overturned at decision reviews, and/or directly reverted by administrators,
145:
558:
839:
621:
587:
295:, potentially compromising a consensus reached by the community by casting doubts on a closure. For the avoidance of doubt, editors should
149:
70:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
71:
35:
449:
In non-deletion discussions, a non-admin closure should not be challenged solely on the grounds that the closer is not an admin. (see
403:
The non-admin has little or no experience editing
Knowledge (XXG) generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions.
835:
617:
496:
to determine the outcome. The process of rough consensus requires administrators to occasionally ignore opinions (sometimes called
901:
629:
756:
450:
133:
63:
896:
760:
998:, administrators are expected to promptly and civilly justify their decision to revert based on an assessment of the local
730:
opening of an RfC is merely the impetus for debate, but not determinate of the type of consensus that may result from it.
236:
if not adhered to. Editors who close discussions should have a good understanding of when and how these apply, as well as
891:
869:
439:
164:
able to do so properly. Improper closures may have detrimental effects on the project, such as necessitating potentially
849:
1070:
886:
654:
443:
430:
426:
288:
165:
137:
1043:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD
650:
292:
831:
813:
350:. Those who wish to be more involved with the Knowledge (XXG) community are encouraged to register an account.
801:
797:
Consider also whether one of several avenues for editor notification may be helpful in broadening discussion:
562:
521:
or if it has already been relisted a few times, unless there is a good reason to do so. See the guidelines at
390:
179:, and that administrator gained comfort that the closer understands their mistakes, and will not repeat them.
586:
As the result of a 2015 request for comment, consensus allows for non-administrators to close discussions at
518:
514:
999:
995:
857:
747:
508:
493:
75:
853:
790:
752:
685:
540:
462:
386:
364:
323:
270:
188:
85:
169:
522:
59:
503:
Avoid closing a discussion if you have an opinion on the topic or its suitability for inclusion.
416:
Moving an article into a page (such as a redirect) that can't be accomplished by a regular editor
17:
946:
497:
298:
817:
786:
574:
397:
347:
217:
28:
825:
821:
703:
310:
257:
237:
225:
206:
160:
662:
602:
1003:
570:
241:
221:
933:, general notice for use when the closer's status as a non-administrator may be relevant
936:
658:
706:
or RfC. However, these may be particularly challenging closures for multiple reasons:
1064:
557:
After an AfD discussion has run for at least seven days (168 hours), it is moved to
78:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
924:
177:
should pause closing until they have discussed these closes with an administrator
672:
The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days).
878:– closure of article re-titling discussion by non-admins has some special rules
381:
A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations:
287:
Closing editors must abide by the standard of being uninvolved as described at
594:. Non-administrators should follow the same steps as administrators, found at
229:
34:"WP:NAC" redirects here. For the guideline on notability for academics, see
27:
For the actual guideline on non-admin closures of deletion discussions, see
1054:
Administrators have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click.
598:, with the exception of the final step of proposing speedy deletion using
870:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions
440:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions
152:. This page offers guidance to editors considering doing such a closure.
1015:
Discuss with the closing editor first before starting a deletion review.
876:
Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves/Closing instructions § Non-admin closure
645:
Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves/Closing instructions § Non-admin closure
794:
invalid consensus that is quickly overturned or simply never enacted.
774:
be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.
872:– the guideline concerning non-admin closures of deletion discussions
480:
Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not
389:, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a
596:
Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions
661:}} placed directly after the reasoning for the close within the {{
945:, variant specifically for requested move discussions, links to
912:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions
396:
The discussion is contentious (especially if it falls within a
451:
Knowledge (XXG):Closing discussions#Challenging other closures
112:
45:
393:
when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well.
488:
Contrary to popular belief, especially among newer editors,
804:, which allows editors to search for related WikiProjects
578:
allow an administrator to gauge the community consensus.
205:
Administrators, as experienced editors who have passed a
653:) generally does not require administrator permissions.
517:
when it could also be possible for it to be closed as a
693:
548:
470:
372:
342:
331:
278:
196:
100:
93:
907:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators
882:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
406:
The result will require action by an administrator:
256:: Knowledge (XXG) is written and maintained by a
400:), and your close is likely to be controversial.
289:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators § Involved admins
220:, but it does employ a sometimes complex set of
8:
808:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Deletion sorting
567:Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for speedy deletion
1076:Knowledge (XXG) essays explaining processes
972:result, if it is not a deletion discussion.
967:
810:, for categorizing AfD discussions by topic
297:never close any discussion where they have
559:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Old
304:they created or non-trivially contributed
848:Other broad notification tools, such as
668:Non-admin closes normally require that:
588:Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion
72:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
959:
258:large and diverse body of contributors
36:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
1081:Knowledge (XXG) essays about deletion
783:Knowledge (XXG) is a work in progress
348:policies on abusing multiple accounts
7:
902:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion discussions
492:. Editors who close discussions use
218:Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy
1002:and application of Knowledge (XXG)
343:a request for comment (linked here)
702:Any uninvolved editor can close a
76:thoroughly vetted by the community
25:
897:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion
18:Knowledge (XXG):NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
892:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion process
770:, any non-admin close of an RfC
306:to the object under discussion.
240:, and how this helps uphold the
116:
49:
43:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
914:– instructions for closing AFDs
887:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
485:relevant process or topic area.
444:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
826:original research noticeboard
748:free to question or criticize
850:MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages
740:The nature of the discussion
616:In general, XfDs other than
515:Avoid relisting a discussion
156:Who should close discussions
822:reliable source noticeboard
802:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
563:Knowledge (XXG):Speedy keep
302:, or XfD discussions where
254:Knowledge of subject matter
183:Editors who are experienced
132:While many discussions are
1097:
854:meta:Special:CentralNotice
834:forums, such as those for
759:, and assuming reasonable
746:Just as other editors are
723:The nature of the question
717:The scope of the consensus
683:
655:Requested move discussions
642:
637:Requested move discussions
612:Other deletion discussions
573:, this does not authorize
538:
511:(i.e. !voting by closure).
490:discussions are not a vote
460:
413:where orphaning is needed)
362:
321:
318:Editors who are registered
268:
265:Editors who are uninvolved
224:that document established
186:
83:
33:
26:
858:Knowledge (XXG):Geonotice
818:point-of-view noticeboard
757:avoiding personal attacks
649:Renaming pages (known as
309:Just as policy prohibits
293:appearance of impropriety
992:this request for comment
778:Alternatives to consider
582:Templates for discussion
569:applies. Note that, per
124:This page in a nutshell:
949:, rather than this page
222:policies and guidelines
1071:Knowledge (XXG) essays
1030:this discussion (2024)
968:
507:close a discussion to
422:Merging page histories
359:Inappropriate closures
242:fundamental principles
166:time-consuming reviews
161:Competence is required
1004:policy and guidelines
535:Articles for deletion
409:Deletion (except for
74:, as it has not been
787:there is no deadline
711:The need for closure
680:Requests for comment
530:Deletion discussions
248:Knowledge of process
234:serious consequences
228:and, in some cases,
704:request for comment
419:Unprotecting a page
214:Knowledge of policy
172:for various tasks.
168:or contributing to
64:closing discussions
785:and in most cases
766:Additionally, per
425:Either imposing a
340:Per the result of
230:legal requirements
457:Pitfalls to avoid
398:Contentious Topic
130:
129:
111:
110:
16:(Redirected from
1088:
1055:
1052:
1046:
1039:
1033:
1022:
1016:
1013:
1007:
988:
982:
979:
973:
971:
964:
944:
943:
932:
931:
696:
607:
601:
551:
473:
375:
354:General cautions
345:
334:
281:
238:when they do not
207:community review
199:
120:
119:
113:
103:
96:
53:
52:
46:
21:
1096:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1053:
1049:
1040:
1036:
1028:, supported by
1026:this RFC (2013)
1023:
1019:
1014:
1010:
989:
985:
980:
976:
969:status quo ante
965:
961:
956:
942:{{subst:Rmnac}}
941:
940:
929:
928:
866:
791:local consensus
780:
700:
699:
692:
688:
682:
647:
639:
614:
605:
599:
584:
555:
554:
547:
543:
537:
532:
494:rough consensus
477:
476:
469:
465:
459:
411:TfD discussions
379:
378:
371:
367:
361:
356:
341:
338:
337:
330:
326:
320:
285:
284:
277:
273:
267:
244:of the project.
203:
202:
195:
191:
185:
158:
117:
107:
106:
99:
92:
88:
80:
79:
50:
44:
39:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1094:
1092:
1084:
1083:
1078:
1073:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1056:
1047:
1034:
1017:
1008:
983:
974:
966:Or comparable
958:
957:
955:
952:
951:
950:
937:Template:Rmnac
934:
921:
920:
916:
915:
909:
904:
899:
894:
889:
884:
879:
873:
865:
862:
861:
860:
846:
828:
811:
805:
779:
776:
744:
743:
737:
736:
735:
720:
714:
698:
697:
689:
684:
681:
678:
677:
676:
673:
638:
635:
613:
610:
583:
580:
553:
552:
544:
539:
536:
533:
531:
528:
527:
526:
512:
501:
486:
475:
474:
466:
461:
458:
455:
436:
435:
434:
433:
423:
420:
417:
414:
404:
401:
394:
377:
376:
368:
363:
360:
357:
355:
352:
336:
335:
327:
322:
319:
316:
283:
282:
274:
269:
266:
263:
262:
261:
251:
245:
232:that may have
201:
200:
192:
187:
184:
181:
157:
154:
138:administrators
128:
127:
121:
109:
108:
105:
104:
97:
89:
84:
81:
69:
68:
56:
54:
42:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1093:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1066:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1021:
1018:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
987:
984:
978:
975:
970:
963:
960:
953:
948:
938:
935:
930:{{subst:nac}}
926:
923:
922:
918:
917:
913:
910:
908:
905:
903:
900:
898:
895:
893:
890:
888:
885:
883:
880:
877:
874:
871:
868:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
845:
844:miscellaneous
841:
837:
836:policy issues
833:
829:
827:
823:
819:
815:
812:
809:
806:
803:
800:
799:
798:
795:
792:
788:
784:
777:
775:
773:
769:
764:
762:
758:
754:
749:
741:
738:
732:
731:
728:
724:
721:
718:
715:
712:
709:
708:
707:
705:
695:
691:
690:
687:
679:
674:
671:
670:
669:
666:
665:}} template.
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:moving a page
646:
641:
636:
634:
631:
626:
623:
619:
611:
609:
604:
597:
593:
589:
581:
579:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
550:
546:
545:
542:
534:
529:
524:
520:
519:WP:SOFTDELETE
516:
513:
510:
506:
502:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
472:
468:
467:
464:
456:
454:
452:
447:
445:
441:
432:
428:
424:
421:
418:
415:
412:
408:
407:
405:
402:
399:
395:
392:
388:
384:
383:
382:
374:
370:
369:
366:
358:
353:
351:
349:
344:
333:
329:
328:
325:
317:
315:
312:
307:
305:
301:
300:
294:
290:
280:
276:
275:
272:
264:
259:
255:
252:
249:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
210:
208:
198:
194:
193:
190:
182:
180:
178:
173:
171:
167:
162:
155:
153:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
125:
122:
115:
114:
102:
98:
95:
91:
90:
87:
82:
77:
73:
67:
65:
61:
55:
48:
47:
41:
37:
30:
19:
1050:
1037:
1020:
1011:
996:WP:ADMINACCT
986:
977:
962:
925:Template:Nac
832:Village Pump
814:Noticeboards
796:
781:
771:
765:
745:
739:
726:
722:
716:
710:
701:
667:
663:subst:RM top
648:
640:
627:
615:
591:
585:
556:
504:
481:
448:
437:
380:
339:
308:
303:
296:
286:
253:
247:
213:
204:
176:
174:
159:
131:
123:
57:
40:
830:One of the
659:subst:RMnac
391:speedy keep
58:This is an
1065:Categories
939:– used as
927:– used as
772:should not
761:good faith
643:See also:
311:canvassing
1000:consensus
919:Templates
840:proposals
727:yes or no
694:WP:NACRFC
571:WP:SK#NOT
549:WP:NACAFD
523:WP:RELIST
509:supervote
471:WP:NACPIT
373:WP:BADNAC
279:WP:NACINV
226:consensus
197:WP:NACEXP
86:Shortcuts
947:WP:RMNAC
864:See also
816:such as
768:this RfC
753:civility
686:Shortcut
628:Closing
541:Shortcut
463:Shortcut
387:involved
365:Shortcut
332:WP:NACIP
324:Shortcut
271:Shortcut
189:Shortcut
170:backlogs
575:WP:SNOW
482:clearly
101:WP:NADC
29:WP:NACD
994:. Per
603:db-xfd
592:delete
498:!votes
299:!voted
134:closed
94:WP:NAC
954:Notes
856:, or
842:, or
824:, or
505:Never
431:block
60:essay
1041:See
1024:Per
630:FfDs
622:RfDs
620:and
618:AfDs
438:Per
150:PERM
146:RFPP
590:as
565:or
453:)
429:or
427:ban
148:or
142:AIV
136:by
62:on
1067::
852:,
838:,
820:,
763:.
755:,
608:.
606:}}
600:{{
446:.
216::
144:,
1045:.
1032:)
1006:.
525:.
66:.
38:.
31:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.