 | This is an essay. 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. |
This page contains recommendations for editors who want to learn how to effectively close and summarize discussions, particularly RfCs, on the English Wikipedia. It may also be useful for people who want to understand why a discussion was closed in a certain way, or why certain types of arguments are stronger than others. General information about RFCs can be found at WP:Requests for comment, and general information about closures can be found at WP:Closing discussions. Additionally, while this page focuses on RfCs, many of the principles are applicable when closing discussions in other contexts, such as for deletion discussions and on most noticeboards. It does not apply to specialized pages such as DYK and VA that have unique rules for closure.
Formal closures are a component of dispute resolution that help to resolve disputes by summarizing the results of discussions. They usually include stating the consensus (for, against, or lack thereof) for the issues under discussion, along with a few sentences explaining why this is the case. Most discussions that need closure are first listed at WP:ANRFC, which serves as a list of currently unclosed discussions.
Secondary goals in addition to resolving the immediate dispute include:
- to allow editors to move on from specific issues to new ones
- to provide an authoritative reference for future editors if the subject comes up again
- to help editors understand why a particular result occurred
- to preserve the authority, integrity, and transparency of the closing process, which allows effective dispute resolution to continue in future
- in some cases, to formalize uncontroversial decisions as well (e.g. some RMs and AfDs)
Being a closer is a position of responsibility and trust, and should be approached both seriously and cautiously. Each closing statement should be neutral and well-written, and should only be performed after careful analysis of the discussion in question. A poor summary may be disruptive and can cause more problems than it solves. For especially contentious subjects, it can result in days or weeks of unnecessary debate before finally being overturned.