218:: A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one. If a discussion did not come to a consensus, it should be closed as such. If it did, it should be closed with that consensus, not with an "I'm going to force everyone to get along" attempt to split the difference. Attempts to do so often produce impractical or nonsensical results. Closers may add a note about significant dissenting viewpoints, caveats, and suggestions for future resolution or improvement, without trying to include them as part of the consensus determination, and this is sufficient.
243:: A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is a supervote to close in favor of a solution no one even mentioned, or which was mentioned only in passing but not supported. If one has a solution to propose, it should be included in the discussion as a comment. If it's too late, it can be suggested in a later discussion. The extant discussion must have a close that reflects its actual contents.
208:: A discussion has an emotive majority in favor of an outcome, but it is clearly against policy. It is a supervote to close the discussion in favor of the majority as such, ignoring the policy faults of their arguments. If an impartial closer would have used admin discretion to close against the majority, that is the way the decision should be closed.
35:
101:("a close") that reflects the preference of the closer, rather than according to the content of the discussion. It is usually used as an accusation that this is the case, carrying the implication that the closer should have entered the discussion as a participant instead of closing, and that the close should be overturned.
198:: A discussion has concluded for a particular action, based on solid policy reasoning, but a minority takes a different view that has less backing. It is supervoting to close in favor of the dissenters. If a neutral closer would not have produced such a close, the discussion should not close that way.
291:
A "non-prejudicial supervote" is when an XfD is closed either against the consensus in the discussion or where there is no clear consensus, though the closer has left a closing rationale that the close is an "editorial decision" and states what the actual consensus is (if there is one). For example,
178:
policy, which is prescriptively enforced as a legal matter. If a person feels that the opinions expressed in an XfD are contrary to policy but is not certain, then it is better to comment instead of close. The point raised can help inform the discussion, and this may help someone else to close
264:, rather than administrative decision, and it moots the discussion. Alone among supervote types, this kind is often not problematic, because anyone who objects may revert it (or expect the closer to revert), with discussion continuing or being closed differently.
355:
If an editor repeatedly fails to close based on consensus, or refuses to respond to questions regarding possible supervotes, despite multiple warnings and overturned closures, they may be banned from closing deletion discussions by the community (usually at
157:
However, an XfD discussion is not an "admin's suggestion box" either. Unless there are serious policy problems with the majority view, a consensus heavily skewed to one side should not be closed the other way. For example, if the majority view at an
232:
acceptable for proposers to withdraw for the purpose of getting a non-status-quo result or if somebody still dissents to the status quo, as it denies the result of a basis in the consensus of other involved
333:
ask the closer to revert their closure and !vote by their preferences. As closing deletion discussions is an administrative action, closers, administrator or non-administrator, are subject to the
228:: The original proposer may feel like the winds of the discussion have blown one way or the other, and feel like they should withdraw their ideas to let another action run its course. But it is
145:
378:
349:
50:
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
51:
134:. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the
340:
If the closer refuses to revert or adjust their closure and you find their explanation insufficient, nominate the closure for review (
365:
98:
142:
and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion.
388:
408:
393:
341:
313:
337:, and must explain all closes when questioned. Be careful not to skip this step, or treat it as a mere formality.
345:
170:
concerns, the majority is wrong. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the majority wants to keep a file in a
320:
apply to the result of such a close so no attempt should be made to "administratively" enforce the result.
309:
383:
334:
55:
274:
139:
65:
317:
135:
43:
330:
175:
131:
357:
296:
is an acceptable compromise when consensus is against a standalone article but split among
171:
167:
159:
127:
123:
94:
90:
17:
361:
308:. It might also apply if an administrator closes an AfD with no !votes as "delete" but
187:
There are several varieties of supervote, all of them problematic except the last one:
329:
If you believe that a closure reflects the closer's own opinion instead of consensus,
260:
A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. A closer makes an
163:
402:
352:
for RfCs and other discussions), to have the close itself discussed by the community.
58:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
109:
Deletion discussions are closed to reflect the consensus in the discussion.
312:
the article upon request. As an editorial decision, the standard rules of
379:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' reading list § Closing discussions
29:
146:
WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus
122:
It should be noted that consensus discussions (including
282:
73:
162:is based on a position that would clearly violate
255:
89:is a term used on Knowledge (XXG), often in a
8:
118:Advice to editors decrying a supervote close
153:Advice to admins facing a defective debate
138:variety (or conversely if the deletes say
52:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
335:administrators' accountability policy
7:
113:Supervoting vs "admin's discretion"
56:thoroughly vetted by the community
25:
389:Knowledge (XXG):Ignore all rules
112:
33:
27:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
394:Knowledge (XXG):Snowball clause
174:debate if it would violate the
350:WP:Administrators' noticeboard
1:
364:), or even desysopped by the
194:Consensus-reversal supervote
253:
244:
214:Forced-compromise supervote
143:
18:Knowledge (XXG):SUPERVOTING
425:
324:What to do with supervotes
272:
63:
384:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
269:Non-prejudicial supervote
250:Non-prejudicial supervote
409:Knowledge (XXG) essays
366:Arbitration Committee
54:, as it has not been
245:(But see next item.)
239:Left-field supervote
224:Withdrawal supervote
183:Types of supervoting
97:, in reference to a
254:(Covered in detail
342:WP:Deletion review
314:consensus-building
99:discussion closure
310:offers to restore
204:Pile-on supervote
130:) are not really
84:
83:
16:(Redirected from
416:
285:
259:
246:
241:
240:
226:
225:
216:
215:
206:
205:
196:
195:
176:non-free content
149:
76:
37:
36:
30:
21:
424:
423:
419:
418:
417:
415:
414:
413:
399:
398:
375:
326:
289:
288:
281:
277:
271:
238:
237:
223:
222:
213:
212:
203:
202:
193:
192:
185:
179:appropriately.
155:
120:
115:
107:
91:deletion review
80:
79:
72:
68:
60:
59:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
422:
420:
412:
411:
401:
400:
397:
396:
391:
386:
381:
374:
371:
370:
369:
353:
346:WP:Move review
338:
325:
322:
287:
286:
278:
273:
270:
267:
266:
265:
263:
247:
234:
219:
209:
199:
184:
181:
154:
151:
119:
116:
114:
111:
106:
103:
82:
81:
78:
77:
69:
64:
61:
49:
48:
40:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
421:
410:
407:
406:
404:
395:
392:
390:
387:
385:
382:
380:
377:
376:
372:
367:
363:
359:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
332:
328:
327:
323:
321:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
284:
280:
279:
276:
268:
261:
257:
251:
248:
242:
235:
231:
227:
220:
217:
210:
207:
200:
197:
190:
189:
188:
182:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
164:verifiability
161:
152:
150:
147:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
117:
110:
104:
102:
100:
96:
92:
88:
75:
71:
70:
67:
62:
57:
53:
47:
45:
39:
32:
31:
19:
318:edit-warring
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
249:
236:
229:
221:
211:
201:
191:
186:
156:
121:
108:
86:
85:
41:
140:WP:ITSCRUFT
95:move review
42:This is an
344:for XfDs,
144:(See also
136:WP:ILIKEIT
283:WP:NSUPER
262:editorial
105:Principle
87:Supervote
403:Category
373:See also
302:redirect
294:redirect
275:Shortcut
233:editors.
66:Shortcut
331:civilly
74:WP:SUPV
358:WP:ANI
306:delete
304:, and
362:WP:AN
348:, or
298:merge
256:below
132:polls
44:essay
316:and
128:RfCs
126:and
124:XfDs
360:or
230:not
172:FfD
168:BLP
166:or
160:AfD
93:or
405::
300:,
258:.)
252::
148:.)
368:.
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.