Undid revision 266488263. Please discuss this change at a relevant venue, the section obviously had consensus, so it is only fair to see if that consensus has changed. |
See TalkPage |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* Unanimous or nearly unanimous '''keep''' after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually five days but some XfDs require seven), absent any contentious debate among participants. This also extends to closes in which the final task can be performed by a non-admin i.e. '''Redirect''' or '''Merge''' (when a history merge or deletion is not required). |
* Unanimous or nearly unanimous '''keep''' after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually five days but some XfDs require seven), absent any contentious debate among participants. This also extends to closes in which the final task can be performed by a non-admin i.e. '''Redirect''' or '''Merge''' (when a history merge or deletion is not required). |
||
* [[WP:Speedy keep|Speedy keep]] closures, per the criteria at that guideline. |
* [[WP:Speedy keep|Speedy keep]] closures, per the criteria at that guideline. |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|Snowball clause]] closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. Recommended criteria to use: (a) six or more participants have supported keeping the page; (b) no editor other than the nominator has opposed keeping the page or even supported another outcome, left a comment, or asked a question which could be interpreted as hesitation to support keeping the article; (c) the process has gone on for at least a full day; and (d) the nominator has not added a lot of comments and is not still attempting to make his/her case. |
|||
* Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed. |
* Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed. |
||
Line 21: | Line 20: | ||
Inappropriate early closes will either be summarily reverted by any administrator (''"Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator"'', from [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions]]) or almost certainly will result in a successful request to redo the process at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]]. Inappropriate early closes thus waste everyone's time. |
Inappropriate early closes will either be summarily reverted by any administrator (''"Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator"'', from [[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions]]) or almost certainly will result in a successful request to redo the process at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]]. Inappropriate early closes thus waste everyone's time. |
||
===Closures where care is needed=== |
|||
* The [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|snowball clause]] is sometimes cited in a closure where it is absolutely obvious that no outcome other than keep is possible. The clause is not part of Wikipedia guidelines or AfD process, so an AfD closed early using [[WP:SNOW]] inappropriately, can be challenged. There are no criteria, and it would be inappropriate to give any, as that might lead to SNOW closures based on the fixed recommendations of this essay. Common sense needs to be used, as 10 [[WP:ILIKEIT]] Keeps in one day for a popular topic can be joined 2 or 3 days later by a handful of knowledgeable Deletes which result in a Delete closure. |
|||
=== Pitfalls to avoid === |
=== Pitfalls to avoid === |
Revision as of 00:20, 28 January 2009
Non-admin deletion discussion closures are situations when an editor who is not an administrator formally closes a deletion discussion. This essay offers guidance to editors considering doing such a closure.
Which discussions should a non-admin close or not close?
Appropriate closures
Experienced editors in good standing are allowed (although not necessarily encouraged) to close some Xfd discussions. Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures:
- Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually five days but some XfDs require seven), absent any contentious debate among participants. This also extends to closes in which the final task can be performed by a non-admin i.e. Redirect or Merge (when a history merge or deletion is not required).
- Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.
- Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed.
Inappropriate closures
Non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:
- The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate.
- The result will require action by an administrator:
- Deletion
- Moving an article into a page (such as a redirect) that can't be accomplished by a regular editor
- Unprotecting a page
- Merging page histories
Inappropriate early closes will either be summarily reverted by any administrator ("Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator", from Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions) or almost certainly will result in a successful request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Inappropriate early closes thus waste everyone's time.
Closures where care is needed
- The snowball clause is sometimes cited in a closure where it is absolutely obvious that no outcome other than keep is possible. The clause is not part of Wikipedia guidelines or AfD process, so an AfD closed early using WP:SNOW inappropriately, can be challenged. There are no criteria, and it would be inappropriate to give any, as that might lead to SNOW closures based on the fixed recommendations of this essay. Common sense needs to be used, as 10 WP:ILIKEIT Keeps in one day for a popular topic can be joined 2 or 3 days later by a handful of knowledgeable Deletes which result in a Delete closure.
Pitfalls to avoid
- Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions.
- The nominated item is a controversial topic. This may be indicated by the broad topic area, related discussions, and previous XfDs.
- That the item meets appropriate closure is a close call, for example, does "10-2" in favor of keep count as "nearly unanimous"?
- Contrary to popular belief, especially among newer editors, discussions are not a vote. Administrators use rough consensus to determine the outcome. The process of rough consensus requires administrators to occasionally ignore opinions (sometimes called "!votes") 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 you, as a non-admin, ought to be closing.
- In general, XfDs other than AfDs 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 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 non-admin closes such a discussion and does not take all of the steps, it can create a mess.
- In particular, closing IfDs should be avoided by anyone who is not experienced in closing debates in this venue. 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 to be done, such as removing the "deletable image caption" templates everywhere the image is used. Those who regularly close these venue debates likely know how to use bots, scripts and third-party tools to help them do so.