 | This is an essay on closing discussions. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia discussions are closed based on consensus. I understand “consensus” to be a process of compromise that requires careful evaluation of editors' arguments in light of Wikipedia's policies & guidelines (P&Gs), as well as the common sense of the community and occasionally precedent (such as prior RfCs). Consensus (or a lack thereof) may be determined by any editor in good standing who is competent to do so. Administrator status does not give editors any special powers in closing discussions, with the limited exception of discussions that are usually only closed by administrators (such as contentious XfD discussions where deletion is on the table).
When I close a discussion, I first read the discussion. If I have strong views on the matter and do not believe that I can close the discussion impartially, or if I am involved in the subject area of the dispute, I will pass on closing or !vote instead. If I determine that I am capable of rendering an impartial close, I will then review the discussion again, taking notes on the various arguments that have been made, and come up with a rough count of editors who support or oppose each argument. Next, I evaluate the strength of each argument, which primarily involves determining whether the argument is based on P&Gs or generally unpersuasive reasoning, and usually discard the latter (unless editors have presented a compelling reason to ignore all rules). I then compare or weigh arguments that have been presented using various factors. First, I determine whether editors in the discussion have weighed between or responded to particular arguments. Next, if one side of a competing issue does not have the clear weight of P&Gs behind it, I look at the relative numbers of editors who have supported or opposed a particular argument. If a clear majority of editors have supported an argument with more merit than a weaker argument, I will usually find a rough consensus. If an overwhelming majority of editors have supported a strong argument, or if opposing arguments have no grounding in P&Gs, I will usually find a strong consensus. I will usually find no consensus only when all of the arguments are particularly weak or there is a true split in opinion and a finding of consensus would require a super vote.
Finally, if an editor believes that my close is incorrect, I am always open to discussing it. I will clarify my close or re-open a discussion if I am persuaded that I misinterpreted consensus or if the challenging editor supplies compelling new arguments. If I am not persuaded that I was wrong or by the new arguments, I will encourage the challenging editor to open a closure review at AN.