The following is a draft working towards a proposal for adoption as a Wikipedia
policy, guideline, or process. The proposal must not be taken to represent consensus, but is still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as policy, guideline, nor yet even as a proposal. |
This page in a nutshell: Some discussions on Wikipedia may be closed by non-administrators and some should not. Before doing so, non-administrators should be sure that the closure is appropriate. |
While many discussions are closed by administrators, users with the non-admin closer user right can close discussions as well. The user right is assigned to editors who have shown competency in discussions and a good understanding of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines usually at PERM. For practical purposes, non-admin closers should not take formal action in discussions whose outcome would require the use of administrator tools, such as those at AIV, RFPP or PERM. This supplement offers guidance to non-admin closers and editors considering applying for non-admin closer permissions in the future.
All users can close discussions as withdrawn if it they started the discussion and no one supports the nomination and close as speedy delete if the page has already been deleted in a deletion discussion. Users without the non-admin closer user right cannot use tools for closing discussions such as XFDcloser.
There are many ways in which competence is required when editing Wikipedia, and often more so when accurately judging the outcomes of discussions. It is important that those who do close discussions are able to do so properly. Improper closures may have detrimental effects on the project, such as necessitating potentially time-consuming reviews or contributing to backlogs for various tasks.
Because of these difficulties only editors assigned as non-admin closers by an administrator should close discussions. Being a non-admin closer does not mean that all discussions are appropriate for a non-admin to close and are best left to an administrator. Some discussion venues have other rules for who can close discussions, please check the list below.
As experienced editors who have passed a community review, administrators will normally have gathered 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.
Closing editors must abide by the standard of being uninvolved as described at Wikipedia:Administrators § Involved admins. 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 appearance of impropriety, potentially compromising a consensus reached by the community by casting doubts on a closure. For the avoidance of doubt, editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted, or XfD discussions were they created or contributed to the object under discussion.
Just as policy prohibits canvassing 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 which may cast doubts as to their impartiality.
The non-admin closer user right is granted by administrators, usually to users requesting the right at PERM. Administrators use their own discretionary assessment of an editor's competency for performing non-admin closures as well as the following general guidelines:
The above items are guidelines. An administrator may grant non-admin closer rights to users they otherwise deem competent and may deny the requests if they do not see a need for the tools or have other concerns.
To assign the user right add the user to the list at Non-admin closer/Check page. This grants the user access to some scripts intended for closing discussions, such as XFDcloser.
The user right can be revoked at any time by an administrator without any process or prior notice in any of the following circumstances:
Additionally, the right may be removed immediately at the request of the editor.
If your non-admin closer right was revoked and you would like to appeal the decision, first communicate with the revoking administrator. If after such an exchange you still feel the matter is unresolved and requires outside input, or if the administrator is unresponsive, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to appeal the decision.
A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:
Per Wikipedia:Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions, [b] inappropriate early closures may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator [c] or could result in a request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review. [d]
After an AfD discussion has run for at least seven days (168 hours), it is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, 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 Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Note that, per WP:SK#NOT, this does not authorize WP:SNOW 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 allow an administrator to gauge the community consensus.
As the result of a 2015 request for comment, [e] consensus allows for non-administrators to close discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion as delete. Non-administrators should follow the same steps as administrators, found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions, with the exception of the final step of proposing speedy deletion using {{ db-xfd}}. Closers may also be expected to understand and comment upon implementation details suggested in the discussion and should be aware of how the holding cell works.
Closing FfDs 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 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.
In general, all XfDs are only suitable for non-admin closure by those with extensive experience in that field. Some XfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, unless editors 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 closer does not take all the required steps, it can create significant problems that may go unresolved for an extended period of time.
Renaming pages (known as moving a page) generally does not require administrator permissions. Although requested move discussions are conventionally closed by administrators, experienced and uninvolved registered editors in good standing are allowed to close requested move surveys. Any non-admin closure must be explicitly declared with template {{ subst:RMnac}} placed directly after the reasoning for the close within the {{ subst:RM top}} template.
Non-admin closes normally require that:
Any uninvolved editor can close a request for comment or RfC. However, these may be particularly challenging closures for multiple reasons:
Just as other editors are free to question or criticize 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 civility, avoiding personal attacks, and assuming reasonable good faith.
Additionally, per this RfC, any non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.
Some areas specifically permit non-admin closes without a need for the user-right, although the other restrictions, such as inappropriate closures, experience levels, or pitfalls to avoid remain in effect. These areas include:
Wikipedia is a work in progress and in most cases there is no deadline for closing discussions and enacting their results. Rather than attempting to close a discussion, consider contributing as a participant instead. A weak local consensus that is reached between few editors or with little discussions is likely to be limited in its applicability and impact. Likewise, editors who reach a 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 invalid consensus that is quickly overturned or simply never enacted.
Consider also whether one of several avenues for editor notification may be helpful in broadening discussion:
{{subst:nac}}
, general notice for use when the closer's status as a non-administrator may be relevant{{subst:Rmnac}}
, variant specifically for requested move discussions, links to
WP:RMNAC, rather than this page