Wikipedia:Closing discussions: Difference between revisions
m Moving hatnote to top of page |
→Challenging a closing: add additional language about appealing closes |
||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
For challenging a deletion discussion close, there is a process called [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|Deletion review]], while for page move discussions, the process is called [[Wikipedia:Move review|Move review]]. |
For challenging a deletion discussion close, there is a process called [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|Deletion review]], while for page move discussions, the process is called [[Wikipedia:Move review|Move review]]. |
||
For less formal |
For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as [[Wikipedia:merging|merging]], contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the [[WP:AN|Administrators' Noticeboard]]. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself. |
||
<!-- ==Re-opening a closed discussion== --> |
<!-- ==Re-opening a closed discussion== --> |
||
Revision as of 04:12, 23 December 2012
 | This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting. |
Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. Editors begin discussions to resolve disagreements that cannot be easily resolved through the normal wiki-editing process. Many community discussions and decisions happen on project pages that are specifically designed for that purpose. If discussions involve several individuals the discourse can become lengthy and the results hard to determine. After a while, it is time to close the discussion so that the community can move on.
This page offers guidelines on how and when discussions should be closed. There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion. The guidelines here are documentation of the customary practices that have evolved at Wikipedia in the years since it was started. These customs are grounded in the core principles of Wikipedia etiquette such as assuming good faith, creating consensus, and maintaining civility.
Which discussions need to be closed
Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious. Disagreements in articles are often solved by further edits. For example, two or more individuals may disagree about how a section of text in an article is written and start a discussion on the talk page. An uninvolved party might come up with a creative solution that addresses the concerns raised in the discussion. If it is a good solution, nothing needs to happen. There will be nothing more that is said, and everyone moves on. When this is the case, it often helps to leave a comment that the issue was resolved and perhaps link the edit that resolved the issue. On some pages, such as Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard, the {{resolved}} template is used to note that an issue has been resolved. The template is added to the beginning of the section, with notes that indicate what action was taken. This helps shorten the reading needed to scan the page. Similarly, the {{unresolved}} template may be used to indicate that a dispute about an important issue has not found its solution, inviting more people to weigh in their ideas and opinions.
When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion. This is always the case in discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and the other XFD's. Observe however that intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying. Here, adding the {{unresolved}} template may be a better option or informing all parties about the possibility of requesting formal or informal mediation.
It may be useful to close Request for comments. When these are listed by User:RFC bot they will be automatically de-listed 30 days after the first time stamp after the RFC template. The de-listing process will also remove the RFC template from the talk page. So closing by means of the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} templates, with suitable parameters, can provide a convenient summary of the result and preserve the fact that the discussion had been advertised through the RFC process.
Closing vs archiving
Closings are sometimes termed "archiving", although unlike traditional archiving, the discussion in question is not moved to a separate page, but is kept in place and enclosed in a shaded box. This can be accomplished by placing {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} around a discussion. For the sake of avoiding confusion between traditional archiving and the kind of discussion archiving described above, this page will refer to the practice as "closing".
In addition to formal closes that analyze the consensus of a discussion, discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive. This practice is used quite often on pages that attract heated dispute, although there are no rules in place governing its use, and there are times when closing a discussion can create even more strife than had existed before.
How to determine the outcome
Consensus
Many closures are based upon consensus. Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. The closing editor/administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closing editor/administrator must read the arguments presented.
The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached.[1]
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.[2] If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy. He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently enough to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to his view, he is expected to decide according to the consensus. He is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.
Policy
Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted.
Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.[2]
Closure procedure
Example of a closed discussion
To close a discussion, use the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} templates (although some particular types of discussion, such as those which concern whether to delete or rename a page, have their own specialized templates). For example:
{{archivetop}}
Discussion text...
{{archivebottom}}
A closed discussion looks like this:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Challenging a closing
For challenging a deletion discussion close, there is a process called Deletion review, while for page move discussions, the process is called Move review.
For other procedures, whether formal RFCs or less formal ones such as merging, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.