Misplaced Pages

talk:Non-admin closure: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:47, 28 April 2017 editWinged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,041 edits →RfC regarding unregistered editors: Closure...← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:14, 13 January 2025 edit undoAlalch E. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers30,439 edits →Misleading language: ReplyTag: Reply 
(392 intermediate revisions by 83 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{essaysort|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Essays|importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 2 |counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 9: Line 12:
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-admin closure/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-admin closure/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archive banner}}

== Other deletion discussions ==

The section on ] is wishy-washy. What does '''except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question''' mean? ]s have recently been routinely closed by non-admins (cheered on by the participating admins). So how does one gauge the experience of closers to understand whether it is '''extraordinary''' or simply '''ordinary'''? ] (]){{small|please ] me}}

== Following up with scope ==

Revisiting the previous discussion that has died down a little (because I let it go a bit without actually getting to a point) I think at least two things are fairly clear, either from the section above, or from the actual current content of the essay:

# The content of "this page in a nutshell" isn't ''actually'' the page in nutshell, but only one section of it.
# The actual use of this essay, and its associated template, are not limited to XfD.

So I propose changing the nutshell to something along the lines of:

{{talkquote|
Some discussions may be closed by non-administrators and some should not. Before closing, non-administrators should ensure that the closure is appropriate.
}}

Thoughts? ] 21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

* Comment: Agree with Timothyjosephwood, statement , {{tq|non-administrators should ensure that the closure is appropriate}}.] (]) 05:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
* It's bordering on truism, but I like it. I would change "ensure" to "be sure". --] (]) 08:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

::{{done}} I have also tweaked the other header and lead to reflect a shift toward a more general purpose for the essay. ] 13:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

===Small aside===

{{ping|Timothyjosephwood}} The discussion in the archives regarding ] works on a flawed assumption, that all NACs would use the template in unsubsted form. The AfD close script that I and almost everyone else who closes AfDs regularly (admins included) use substs the template, and I know I alone have made hundreds of NAC AfD closes. I'm willing to guess that a majority of NACs are AfDs (given their volume compared to other XfDs and RfCs) that don't use that template. That being said, I agree that the scope of this page should be broadened, especially since we have ] as well, which is actually a guideline. ]] 09:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
:Also pinging other participants in the discussion regarding this point: {{u|SmokeyJoe}} {{u|Lourdes}} {{u|EEng}} {{u|BU Rob13}}. ]] 09:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

== Reverted reversion of possibly unintended change ==

In January, after a discussion, the header of this page was changed to show that this page applies to every non-admin closure.
Incidentally, the heading was changed so that a sentence that formerly said"However, there are several situations in which a '''registered editor''' who is not an administrator can close a deletion discussion."
to
"However, there are several situations in which a '''registered editor''' who is not an administrator can close a discussion."
Now, the denial of all closures to editors who are not registered was not previously in this page, and it wasn't supported by the wording change consensus.
On the contrary, the section "Requests for Comment" states:
"Any uninvolved editor can close a request for comment or RfC"
Because the change changed the policy without that being originally intended... I reverted it.
Someone reverted me on the grounds of "no consensus"
Now we are here, and now tell me why this change should be kept. After all, IP's can be experienced editors who refuse to make an account, for whatever the reason is... and there are some reasons against editing with a special account.] (]) 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

:I suppose I'll ping ] who was the one who took issue with the change. For my own part, I'm not aware of any formal requirement stating only registered editors may close discussions, although I would expect that, right or wrong, editors are likely to take issue with it if it is not the most exceedingly uncontroversial of closures, perhaps even more so than your run-of-the-mill NACs. ] 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::You(]) basically changed the restriction from applying to deletion discussions to all discussions ().] (]) 16:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
:::My intention was not to "change a restriction," but to accurately summarize the content of the essay/supplement, which includes much more than coverage of deletion discussions. I'll also point out that this is neither a guideline nor a policy, and boils down currently to basically ''advice'', not some kind of binding expectation of all editors. ] 16:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the ping, TimothyJosephWood, but you are mistaken on some of the facts. Here is a diff of the last edit to this page prior to the IP's edit: . It contains the bolded language about registered editors. And it was ''you'' who made that edit. I was around when the ideas on this page first came about, when there were concerns that non-admins were making bad closures and editors needed guidance about not overreaching – and there had also been issues of admins reverting closes by non-admins even when the closes were reasonable, leading to an RfC that established that non-admin closures should not be summarily dismissed. I don't know, and I don't particularly care, what the editing of this essay has been between then and now. But the fact is that until a few days ago, it had that language in bold about registered users, and you edited the page while that language was there, so you should have been aware of it. And that language seems consistent with the idea that we don't want dumb-ass closes by inexperienced users. I get it, that IPs can be experienced and clueful too, and I have no problem with an IP making a close that is thoughtful, accurate, and noncontroversial. But I came here from ], where there is a very clear consensus that ''this'' IP is being disruptive. Bad closes don't get accepted just because an IP calls for IP-rights and keeps reverting experienced editors and claiming that the editors did not explain themselves when they actually did. And all that I did was return the language to the way that ''you'' had left it. So I did not really change anything. --] (]) 19:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
:::::I've definitely edited this quite a bit, but I've still not written most of it, and just because I "left" something doesn't mean I thoroughly evaluated and implicitly approved of it. This has a been a longer term project of mine, but it has also been an intermittent one, and I never claimed to have yet combed over every inch of it, although I do intend to eventually.
:::::This IP in particular may be objectively disruptive, but I'll be the first to say that even disruptive users can occasionally bring up legitimate issues. This does in fact seem to be one of those times. As I said at ANI, if a close is controversial enough that whether the non-admin is registered or not ''is a thing that matters'', then it's probably inappropriate for an NAC to begin with, and the issue of registration is moot.
:::::Besides that, if...''misguided''... but I'm sure well intentioned editors are going to start citing this unofficial guidance as if it were gospel, then we should probably be erring on the side of caution anyway. ] 19:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::::::That's OK with me. I just don't think you should make it sound like I had changed anything, because I hadn't. If you and other editors want to make the change, fine, but own it. --] (]) 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the section above, ] ''is'' a guideline, so we can use it to inform what should be written here regarding general closures. NACD specifically restricts closes to {{tq|non-administrators who are registered (i.e. not IPs)}}, and since this page used to also only concern NACs for deletion discussions, that language was reflected here as well. With this in mind, I'm of the opinion that even though this is an infopage and thus technically not binding in the way that a policy or guideline would be (though really it should be, as infopages {{tq|supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Misplaced Pages in an impartial way}}), you should get consensus for the removal of this language, so I'm going to start the ] (another should-be-guideline essay, huh.) chain here. But that's just sometimes-overly-bureaucratic me. (and before you point out that it's technically the 4th revert of the same material, I'm treating the IP addition as a separate thing because it was a fairly transparent attempt at justifying a poor close and subsequent edit war, not a good-faith change.) ]] 09:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
:Sure. While NACD may be fine the way it is, the scope of NACD is more narrow than the scope of this guidance, and I don't believe there is similar precedence for non-XFD discussions with regard to IPs closing discussions. But I'd be more than happy to open an RfC on the issue. Broader community input on this page is probably long overdue and would probably help a great deal in moving this more toward an official guideline. ] 10:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
::That sounds reasonable, yeah. I think the main reasoning I have is that since NAC as an infopage is a logical extension of the NACD guideline to cover things other than XfDs, the two should be as consistent as possible. Now, that could mean that NAC mentions that deletion discussions should only be closed by registered users but other discussions are okay, but I agree that an RfC would be the best course to get the most eyeballs on the issue. ]] 19:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

== RfC regarding unregistered editors ==
{{atop|reason=There is a strong, near--unanimous consensus to '''oppose''' the desired changes/additions.]<sup>]</sup> 15:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC) }}
Should the current wording of the lead:


== Discussion regarding NACs at VPP ==
{{talkquote|there are several situations in which a '''registered editor''' who is not an administrator can close a discussion.}}


There is a discussion regarding this essay at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)|Taking the temperature on NACs in CTs}}. ] (]/]) 02:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
be changed to:


== New template for recusal ==
{{talkquote|there are several situations in which an editor who is not an administrator can close a discussion.}}


I have created {{tl|Recuse from closing a discussion}} for the benefit of closers who later decide to withdraw or recuse, and want a quick way to comment while removing the {{tl|Closing}} message.
(emphasis in original) ] 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


&mdash;&hairsp;] (]) 03:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
===Survey===
* '''No'''. IPs, while editors, should not be closing <s>RFCs</s> formal discussions. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Kind of'''. There are occasions in which anyone who sees it should close (i.e. clear vandalism/bad faith of the "no reasonable editor would disagree" variety). That said, we do have IAR, and most NACs won't be that kind, so I'm not sure if we need to put those exceptions in. Otherwise, I generally agree with the "established editor in good standing" thing - for the vast majority of IPs, it's impossible to tell if that's true, so a general restriction of NACs to registered users only makes sense. So, basically '''no'''. ]] 23:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
* I support adopting Uanfala's wording. <span style="font-weight:bold">]]</span> 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No'''. It's bad enough that registered users who aren't admins can close discussions. IPs, absolutely not. ] (]) 13:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


== Misleading language ==
*'''No.''' 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 ] to ]. ] (]) 00:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support ''': Per ]. I deal with a shit load of vandalism, and yes, alot of it is IP's, ''however'', that's not an excuse to treat I.P editors differently than editors with handles. Allow it! ] 17:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
:*So how are you going to deal with ] and ]? --] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No'''. I mean, I don't want some drive-by random person's first edit to be closing our carefully worded and closely argued discussion, you know? Or fifteenth edit. You want to do that, register and join the community. I know a few editors think it sporty to have long careers and never register, and for them: oh well. Being sporty, like being ripped, extracts a fee. ] (]) 18:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
::LOL!! ] (]) 01:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No'''. per NeilN. -- ] ] ] 22:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No, IP address editors should not close discussions'''. There are a lot of fine unregistered editors and Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, but it is a ''community'', and unnamed IP address editors should register if they wish to be more involved in the community and close formal discussions. ] 13:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' While I value the contributions of experienced IP editors, this change ''will'' lead to drive-by closures from wiki-lawyering, policy-spouting, logged-out editors. ] (]) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No'''. ]. Regular editors should register. Editors who wish to take on administrative tasks of responsibility and accountability must register to do so. --] (]) 00:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. While I'm clearly in the minority here, I don't think there's a reason to formally delineate between IP editors and registered editors for the purpose of this guideline. If an IP editor closes a discussion, it shouldn't be reversed just because they're an IP. If it's a bad close, then it should be reversed; if it's fine, then it should stay. This is the same requirement I would use when evaluating if a registered editor made a proper non-admin closure, so I don't see the point in making the distinction.--] (]) 18:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' I agree with the 'yes' reasons of ] and the ability to reverse bad closes, just as we would do with registered editors. However, I'm more compelled by ] and the need for being a 'person' in order to have the consistency needed for administrative work. ] (]) 15:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No.''' Actions that might require followup (questions on the close, challenged closes, etc.) should mean that editor can be reliably reached at their talk page. IPs can change. There's no problems with IPs editing in general, but closing discussions is a level of involvement where someone should be registered. ] (]) 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


@]: An RfC about how to word a part of an essay has ''no more authority than the essay itself'', and so the essay should not cite it as a source of authority, purporting that it is setting forth the convention of the community. This is the problem with that part of the sentence which I removed in ], with the edit summary of: {{tq|that RfC was held at this essay's talk page and is only about how a sentence of an essay should be worded; it has no more authority than the essay itself so it should not be cited (doing so is highly misleading, implying there is a community consensus behind the idea that unregistered editors may not close formal discussions, when there is only a consensus about language in an essay)}}. That is the problem with a construction in the form of "per the result of a request for comment, X convention exists". It is a ''false statement''. A true statement is: "per the result of a request for comment, this part of the essay is worded the way it is worded". —] 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
===Threaded discussion===
* ] - To be clear, the scope of NAC is ''all NACs'', and not XFD or RFC in particular. Guidance can certainly still be added that IPs should not close particular types of discussions, but the question is whether IPs should be able to close no discussion of ''any type''.] 21:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
:* Adjusted. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
*The essential (but implicit) information in this piece of text is for an editor to be ''established''. It is true that in most cases established editors are also registered editors, but this is not necessarily the case (there are several IP users with a long track record of contribution who I would trust with closing RfC to greater extent than some admins). I'd be unwilling to substitute an incidental (if often co-occurring) characteristic for an essential one. The wording that makes the overt text closest to its meaning is:<br/>{{talkquote|there are several situations in which an '''established editor''' who is not an administrator can close a discussion.}}This I would support. – ] 21:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
::There are some excellent IPs, who simply prefer to 'stay that way', would there be any possible way of extending rights to such IPs on a 'request' basis ? ] (]) 22:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
:::Well, my rationale for the change away from the current version was that if a closure is so controversial that an IP can't close it, that is, if the result is not fairly self-evident to any experienced editor, then it's not appropriate for an NAC anyway, and the issue of whether the closer is registered or not is moot. ] 23:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
:::: I'm not sure I agree. If consensus is obvious, why does the discussion need a formal close? Also, this supplement instructs that non-administrator closes should not be carried out by involved editors or those with an apparent conflict of interest; if non-administrators were only permitted to close self-evident discussions, there would be no need for this requirement. <span style="font-weight:bold">]]</span> 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::In some cases, closure is needed ''precisely because'' the consensus is obvious, such as fairly off-topic talk page discussions rehashing previous RfCs. In others, the ''type of discussion'' requires a formal close regardless of whether the outcome is obvious or not. ] 00:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


* Literally "for the record", I'll just add that I'm not particularly concerned about whether this passes or fails. I just want to have a solid link-able consensus on the issue. I'd like to see this get somewhere in the neighborhood of a guideline some time in the next year or so, and this is exactly the kind of ] that needs done in order to accomplish that. So if anyone's worried about "piling on" please don't be. ] 14:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC) :Umm...no. I have written essays on profoundly stupid things, which no one should ever read. An RfC is an RfC. Gaining consensus of particular language is the process of moving an essaytoward being a guideline. ]] 17:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are incorrect. Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure is an essay just like any of the essays you have written. For an essay to become a guideline or a policy it needs to go through the procedure described in ]; as a proposal, it needs to gain support at a high-enough level (see ]). This RfC only resolved a content dispute on a project space page marked as an essay, nothing more. —] 18:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ab}}
:::Thank you for instructing me. And what policies or guidelines have you written or had removed? You seem quite confident. ]] 18:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Try being a little more serious please. —] 19:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I was being quite serious indeed. You seem to be treating this as a discussion about an article where we decide whether to call Ringo a drummer or a singer. The base premise of the RfC in question, and the general understanding of everyone involved, was that we were working on general guidance for the community, and not fussing about phrasing.
:::::Take yourself slightly less seriously and please don't WP:ABCDEFG me. ]] 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|The base premise of the RfC in question, and the general understanding of everyone involved, was that we were working on general guidance for the community, and not fussing about phrasing.}} "General guidance for the community"? What I am telling you, and I realize that it is hard for you to accept that this is something I am really telling you, but, yes, this is what I am really telling you: ''It doesn't work that way''. Irrespective of what you think the "general understanding" was, that RfC was—according to policy (that one which I linked to; see that shortcut starting with "C" in my previous reply)—not good for setting general guidance for the community. It takes a discussion at a different level, a discussion capable of achieving consensus at a sufficiently high level, to make a decision about general guidance (how that works is described in that other linked policy in my previous reply; it starts with "P").{{pb}}For this reason, it is not appropriate for the essay to contain the specific language which you reverted to: "Per the result of {{oldid2|777670576|RfC regarding unregistered editors|a request for comment (linked here)}}, unregistered editors may not ...". That specific sentence construction ''misleads'' the reader into believing that the RfC being mentioned is an RfC in which the community decided on its general guidance.{{pb}}The purpose of this discussion is to ensure that you understand that the above language which you restored by performing your ] is not appropriate language for this essay, because it is ''misleading language'', and so that you understand the reason why I had removed it, and the reason why the essay now does not include that specific language (it includes different language), in the hope that you will not restore said language. —] 05:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah...''it does'' work that way in an essay that documents accepted practice. We have plenty of essays that function this way. NOTHERE is an essay, and there have been a zillion people blocked using its rationale because it represents a general community norm. It's not even really a lawyerly requirement that project wide discussions be closed by an admin, but non-admins don't do it, because that's a cultural norm. In some discussions, the closure is made by a team of admins and/or functionaries to ensure finality.
:::::::The RfC in question was a formality to document agreement on the issue. I should know; I started the RfC. There is no world where an unregistered user can realistically come in and close a discussion and people would simply accept it. ]] 11:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:The RfC shows that this sentence has a higher level of consensus than the rest of the essay can be assumed to have. It is appropriate to flag that. ] (]) 07:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::+1.
::Also, this whole page is still an essay - feels redundant to point that out in prose, that an RFC about this essay is ] (]) 16:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That's the whole point. You admit yourself that the {{tqq|RfC about this essay}}, and yes, it was an RfC about the essay. However, the language in the essay (the originally disputed language) was such that it stated that the RfC was an RfC that created "general guidance for the community" (quoting from GreenMeansGo). This is because it specifically used the construction "Per the result of a request for comment, unregistered editors may not ...". An RfC about an essay can't determine what editors may or may not. It is not ''"per" that'' that they may not. It is ''per'' a community convention, a ''living practice'', that they may not, which living practice exists independently of any essay, it transcends any essay. And this essay should simply state that this practice exists, not that it exists because in the year 2017, editors decided to ban unregistered editors from closing formal discussions, because that is not what happened. What happened is that language was clarified so that the essay says the right thing about how things are being done. The practice would have been exactly the same even if that RfC had never happened, and even if this whole essay had never existed. The community at large was never asked "Should unregistered editors be allowed to close formal discussions" and responded "no", it was only asked about ''what viewpoint should be represented and using which language in this essay''. An essay does not need to artificially buttress its position by grasping for sources of formal authority which aren't real. —] 17:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No participant in that discussion made a distinction between what should be in the essay and what should be in policy. There is a long precedence for IP editors not being allowed to close discussions and it even is enshrined in actual policy for XfD at ]. If you feel like it's unnecessary to include the RFC in prose I would be fine with moving it to a footnote but removing it entirely doesn't feel right; it clearly illustrates the reasoning why unregistered editors shouldn't be closing discussions. ] (]) 18:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. Please see ]. I've both mentioned the fact that the deletion process guideline has this (the deletion process is often a template for other processes as it is the most worked out in PAG), and moved the RfC to a footnote. —] 18:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:14, 13 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-admin closure page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages essays Mid‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays
MidThis page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Discussion regarding NACs at VPP

There is a discussion regarding this essay at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § Taking the temperature on NACs in CTs. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

New template for recusal

I have created {{Recuse from closing a discussion}} for the benefit of closers who later decide to withdraw or recuse, and want a quick way to comment while removing the {{Closing}} message.

— Jruderman (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Misleading language

@GreenMeansGo: An RfC about how to word a part of an essay has no more authority than the essay itself, and so the essay should not cite it as a source of authority, purporting that it is setting forth the convention of the community. This is the problem with that part of the sentence which I removed in Special:Diff/1269013471, with the edit summary of: that RfC was held at this essay's talk page and is only about how a sentence of an essay should be worded; it has no more authority than the essay itself so it should not be cited (doing so is highly misleading, implying there is a community consensus behind the idea that unregistered editors may not close formal discussions, when there is only a consensus about language in an essay). That is the problem with a construction in the form of "per the result of a request for comment, X convention exists". It is a false statement. A true statement is: "per the result of a request for comment, this part of the essay is worded the way it is worded". —Alalch E. 17:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Umm...no. I have written essays on profoundly stupid things, which no one should ever read. An RfC is an RfC. Gaining consensus of particular language is the process of moving an essaytoward being a guideline. GMG 17:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure is an essay just like any of the essays you have written. For an essay to become a guideline or a policy it needs to go through the procedure described in Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Proposals; as a proposal, it needs to gain support at a high-enough level (see WP:CONLEVEL). This RfC only resolved a content dispute on a project space page marked as an essay, nothing more. —Alalch E. 18:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for instructing me. And what policies or guidelines have you written or had removed? You seem quite confident. GMG 18:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Try being a little more serious please. —Alalch E. 19:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I was being quite serious indeed. You seem to be treating this as a discussion about an article where we decide whether to call Ringo a drummer or a singer. The base premise of the RfC in question, and the general understanding of everyone involved, was that we were working on general guidance for the community, and not fussing about phrasing.
Take yourself slightly less seriously and please don't WP:ABCDEFG me. GMG 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The base premise of the RfC in question, and the general understanding of everyone involved, was that we were working on general guidance for the community, and not fussing about phrasing. "General guidance for the community"? What I am telling you, and I realize that it is hard for you to accept that this is something I am really telling you, but, yes, this is what I am really telling you: It doesn't work that way. Irrespective of what you think the "general understanding" was, that RfC was—according to policy (that one which I linked to; see that shortcut starting with "C" in my previous reply)—not good for setting general guidance for the community. It takes a discussion at a different level, a discussion capable of achieving consensus at a sufficiently high level, to make a decision about general guidance (how that works is described in that other linked policy in my previous reply; it starts with "P").For this reason, it is not appropriate for the essay to contain the specific language which you reverted to: "Per the result of a request for comment (linked here), unregistered editors may not ...". That specific sentence construction misleads the reader into believing that the RfC being mentioned is an RfC in which the community decided on its general guidance.The purpose of this discussion is to ensure that you understand that the above language which you restored by performing your revert is not appropriate language for this essay, because it is misleading language, and so that you understand the reason why I had removed it, and the reason why the essay now does not include that specific language (it includes different language), in the hope that you will not restore said language. —Alalch E. 05:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah...it does work that way in an essay that documents accepted practice. We have plenty of essays that function this way. NOTHERE is an essay, and there have been a zillion people blocked using its rationale because it represents a general community norm. It's not even really a lawyerly requirement that project wide discussions be closed by an admin, but non-admins don't do it, because that's a cultural norm. In some discussions, the closure is made by a team of admins and/or functionaries to ensure finality.
The RfC in question was a formality to document agreement on the issue. I should know; I started the RfC. There is no world where an unregistered user can realistically come in and close a discussion and people would simply accept it. GMG 11:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The RfC shows that this sentence has a higher level of consensus than the rest of the essay can be assumed to have. It is appropriate to flag that. Trialpears (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
+1.
Also, this whole page is still an essay - feels redundant to point that out in prose, that an RFC about this essay is "about... this essay." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
That's the whole point. You admit yourself that the RfC about this essay, and yes, it was an RfC about the essay. However, the language in the essay (the originally disputed language) was such that it stated that the RfC was an RfC that created "general guidance for the community" (quoting from GreenMeansGo). This is because it specifically used the construction "Per the result of a request for comment, unregistered editors may not ...". An RfC about an essay can't determine what editors may or may not. It is not "per" that that they may not. It is per a community convention, a living practice, that they may not, which living practice exists independently of any essay, it transcends any essay. And this essay should simply state that this practice exists, not that it exists because in the year 2017, editors decided to ban unregistered editors from closing formal discussions, because that is not what happened. What happened is that language was clarified so that the essay says the right thing about how things are being done. The practice would have been exactly the same even if that RfC had never happened, and even if this whole essay had never existed. The community at large was never asked "Should unregistered editors be allowed to close formal discussions" and responded "no", it was only asked about what viewpoint should be represented and using which language in this essay. An essay does not need to artificially buttress its position by grasping for sources of formal authority which aren't real. —Alalch E. 17:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
No participant in that discussion made a distinction between what should be in the essay and what should be in policy. There is a long precedence for IP editors not being allowed to close discussions and it even is enshrined in actual policy for XfD at WP:XFDCLOSE. If you feel like it's unnecessary to include the RFC in prose I would be fine with moving it to a footnote but removing it entirely doesn't feel right; it clearly illustrates the reasoning why unregistered editors shouldn't be closing discussions. Trialpears (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Please see Special:Diff/1269235487. I've both mentioned the fact that the deletion process guideline has this (the deletion process is often a template for other processes as it is the most worked out in PAG), and moved the RfC to a footnote. —Alalch E. 18:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: