Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Closing discussions page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 365 days

This page was nominated for deletion on 4 February 2015. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Who should be closing discussions?

Is there no legislation on this?

I ask because over the past year or so, I've seen a new user with less than 400 (mostly minor, gnomish) edits to her name go around closing several GARs in what looked like a less-than-competent manner, and one SPA suddenly leave his area of interest and close about a hundred RFCs in a sometimes dubious manner. I'm not naming names because this isn't about them, but ...

Is there no guideline that closes should generally only be made by experienced editors whom the community trusts to carefully examine the discussion and determine the consensus?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't any such rule.

Also, if we had such a rule, we would then have fights over which among us are "experienced" enough and which of us "the community trusts", and then someone (perhaps me ;-)) would have to point out that the level of experience and trust depends upon the nature of the dispute, and we'd basically be back where we are, only with a rule that says some, but still unspecified, editors are more equal than others.

I don't disagree with the concern, but we handle it as one-off behavioral problems rather than setting up general rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion/RfC about this type of thing: Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure/Archive 2#RfC regarding unregistered editors. I stated there that "I don't think that IPs should be closing RfCs or similarly important discussions that need closing, especially not contentious ones. Too much room for socking to game the system." I still feel that way, and the discussion closed with that sentiment. But that discussion focused on IPs rather than on newly registered accounts. I feel the same about newly registered accounts that clearly don't have any experience or are suspicious because of their experience, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the editing guideline which proscribes contributing to closed process pages?

I was looking for a user warning, but one does not apparently exist. On rereading the Deletion policy, guide, and process pages I'm missing the official link; I'm looking for this for myself, and for instructional purposes. Is this right in front of me? BusterD (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A way of resolving "No consensus"

There is a discussion about a way of resolving "No consensus" at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#A way of resolving "No consensus". Your input would be appreciated. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"predominant number"?

The "Consensus" section says, "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". What does "predominant number" mean? Does it mean "larger number", in which case it should just say that, or is something else meant? (That text was written in 2008 by User:DGG, who is now dead.) Nurg (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]