Login
Login

User:Martynas Patasius/Things to check while closing discussions

{{user essay}}

This essay lists one possible "process" to close discussions. It is not meant to be a checklist to be followed to the letter. However, it might still be useful for some closers.

Closing

  1. Get an overview of the discussion.
  2. Get an overview of discussion page history and archives (if any), article and its history (if any), look for related discussions (if any). Check the links given in the discussions.
  3. * That should give the closer some idea about the evidence that has to be taken into account.
  4. Check if there is a reason to ignore the discussion altogether.
  5. * For example, if the discussion was obviously meant to be a joke.
  6. Is there some obvious reason to apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in this case?
  7. Are there any behavioral aspects that should be taken into account, mentioned or otherwise acted upon?
  8. * For example, sockpuppetry, insults...
  9. * Even if there is no need to mention them in the close rationale, it might be worth to start a separate discussion.
  10. * In extreme cases it might be worth to start the discussion anew after such aspects have been addressed.
  11. What policies, guidelines or essays are likely to be useful?
  12. Make a list of the participants of the discussion. Count them.
  13. * That is meant to make sure no participants are accidentally left out at the next stages.
  14. Cluster the participants into groups by opinion. Count them.
  15. * Counting is mostly meant to make sure that no participant has been forgotten.
  16. * Opinions given "conditionally" should be grouped separately, taking those conditions into account.
  17. What arguments have been made in this discussion? Try to cluster them.
  18. Which users made which arguments? Count those users.
  19. What policies, guidelines, essays, other discussions or "precedents" have been cited? Were there any that were not cited explicitly, but importance of which to this discussion has been implied?
  20. Was any reason to to apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules given?
  21. What factual evidence was given? Who gave it and in support of what arguments? Check it.
  22. How were the arguments received by other participants? Try to cluster the answers, responses and counterarguments, list the users that made them.
  23. Is there some indication how similar arguments are received in other cases?
  24. Taking into account all the evidence collected up to this moment, evaluate the soundness of the arguments (including counterarguments) and their premises.
  25. How well do they correspond to the facts (where available)?
  26. How relevant are they to the question at hand?
  27. How strong and persuasive are those arguments?
  28. * Among other things, did they persuade anyone?
  29. What exactly does each argument demonstrate?
  30. Taking into account all collected evidence, make the decision.