Wikipedia:Non-admin closure

While many discussions are closed by administrators, according to Wikipedia policy and convention, any registered editor in good standing may close a discussion. For practical purposes, non-administrators 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 page offers guidance to editors considering doing such a closure.

Who should close discussions
There are many ways in which competence is required when editing Wikipedia, and often more so when accurately judging the outcomes of discussions. Although there are no formal requirements in terms of time spent on Wikipedia or number of contributions made for non-administrators to close discussions, it is important that those who do close 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.

While rare mistakes can happen in closes, editors whose closes are being overturned at decision reviews, and/or directly reverted by administrators, should pause closing until they have discussed these closes with an administrator, and that administrator gained comfort that the closer understands their mistakes, and will not repeat them.

Editors who are experienced
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.
 * Knowledge of policy: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it does employ a sometimes complex set of policies and guidelines which document established consensus, and in some cases, legal requirements which may have serious consequences if not adhered to. Editors who close discussions should have a good understanding of when and how these apply, as well as when they do not, and how this helps uphold the fundamental principles of the project.
 * Knowledge of process: Different venues for discussion on Wikipedia often include their own agreed-upon standards for procedural matters, such as how those discussions are formatted, how long they can or must continue, and what steps should be taken prior to their beginning and following their end. Editors who close discussions should have thoroughly familiarized themselves with these standards, and have enough history participating themselves that they are able to fulfill these expectations.
 * Knowledge of subject matter: Wikipedia is written and maintained by a large and diverse body of contributors, each of which have individual strengths, interests or academic backgrounds. Editors who close discussions concerning highly technical subject matter should have the necessary background to effectively evaluate the evidence and arguments presented.

Editors who are uninvolved
Closing editors must abide by the standard of being uninvolved as described at. 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 where they created or non-trivially 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.

Editors who are registered
Per the results of, unregistered editors may not close formal discussion anonymously. However, those who wish to be more involved with the Wikipedia community are encouraged to register an account, and unregistered users may participate in formal discussions, so long as they do so in a way that does not violate Wikipedia's policies on abusing multiple accounts.

Inappropriate closures
A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:
 * 1) The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well.
 * 2) The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
 * 3) The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions.
 * 4) The result will require action by an administrator:
 * 5) * Deletion (except for TfD discussions where orphaning is needed)
 * 6) * Moving an article into a page (such as a redirect) that can't be accomplished by a regular editor
 * 7) * Unprotecting a page
 * 8) * Merging page histories
 * 9) * Either imposing a ban or block

Per, inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or could result in a request to redo the process at Deletion review.

Pitfalls to avoid

 * 1) Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. Controversial topics may be indicated by the broad topic area, related discussions, and previous XfDs (if applicable). With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions, especially if the non-admin is relatively new to the relevant process or topic area.
 * 2) Contrary to popular belief, especially among newer editors, discussions are not a vote. Editors who close discussions 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 an inexperienced editor ought to be closing.
 * 3) Avoid closing a discussion if you have an opinion on the topic or its suitability for inclusion. Never close a discussion to supervote (i.e. !voting by closure).
 * 4) Avoid relisting a discussion when it could also be possible for it to be closed as a WP:SOFTDELETE or if it has already been relisted a few times, unless there is a good reason to do so. See the guidelines at WP:RELIST.

Articles for deletion
After an AfD discussion has run for at least seven days (168 hours), it is moved to 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 Speedy keep or Criteria for speedy deletion applies. Note that, per WP:SK, 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.

Templates for discussion
As the result of a 2015 request for comment, consensus allows for non-administrators to close discussions at Templates for discussion as delete. Non-administrators should follow the same steps as administrators, found at Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions, with the exception of the final step of proposing speedy deletion using db-xfd.

Other deletion discussions
In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs 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 closer does not take all the required steps, it can create significant problems that may go unresolved for an extended period of time.

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.

Requested move discussions
Renaming pages (known as moving a page) generally does not require administrator permissions. Requested move discussions are regularly closed by experienced and uninvolved registered editors in good standing. 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:
 * The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days).
 * There are no more than a few associated subpages that need to be moved along with the move of the page under discussion, such as voluminous talk page archives.

Requests for comment
Any uninvolved editor can close a request for comment or RfC. However, these may be particularly challenging closures for multiple reasons:


 * The need for closure: Unlike other discussions on Wikipedia, RfCs do not require a formal closure, and doing so may often be unnecessary or even counterproductive. Editors should assess whether the closure is needed at all, or whether the discussion has come to a natural conclusion on its own, and reached a consensus which is self-evident to those involved, rendering a closure moot, and an inaccurate closure unnecessarily problematic.
 * The scope of the consensus: As one of the most general purpose types of semi-formal discussions on Wikipedia, RfCs are also potentially one of the most far-reaching and long-lasting in their consequences, are regularly used to determine consensus on important matters of policy, and often require a subsequent RfC to overturn their results to the satisfaction of the community. Editors should consider not only whether their assessment of the consensus is correct, but whether the discussion might be better closed by an administrator as a matter of form, resulting in a judgement that would be less likely to be challenged, even if the substance of the outcome would be the same.
 * The nature of the question: By their very nature, RfCs are exceptionally open-ended, both in the types of questions that are posed, as well as the types of discussions that may follow. Many RfCs are not simply yes or no decisions, but a choice between multiple qualitatively distinct options. Even then, the consensus that results from an RfC may not be in favor of any of the options initially proposed at all, but a completely new choice originating in the discussion itself. Editors should be keenly aware that the opening of an RfC is merely the impetus for debate, but not determinate of the type of consensus that may result from it.
 * Additionally, although RfCs are ideally proposed in a neutral manner, so as not to affect the outcome based on the viewpoint of the originator, editors who close such discussions should recognize that they are evaluating not only the arguments made, but the nature of the question posed, and whether it is put forth in a valid and neutral manner, in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and how that may have affected the direction of the debate.
 * The nature of the discussion: By default, RfCs run for 30 days. Particularly contentious ones may run for much longer and involve a great many contributors. Editors should be aware that the length of the discussion does not lessen the importance of each argument made, or the requirement to take all such viewpoints into consideration. Editors should not attempt to close discussions where they cannot commit the sometimes considerable time and attention required to do so.

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.

Alternatives to consider
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:


 * WikiProject, which allows editors to search for related WikiProjects
 * WikiProject Deletion sorting, for categorizing AfD discussions by topic
 * Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
 * One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous
 * Other broad notification tools, such as MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages, meta:Special:CentralNotice, or Geonotice