Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A much shorter version

It's quite ok for any single person or group of people to close any debate, since closing debates works the same way for everyone. Typically you will find out soon enough if your closure did not have consensus.

In the case that a certain debate requires admin action, make sure you have an admin on hand to perform the admin actions required.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) KISS: Keep It Simple and Smile :-)

JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide your reasoning for that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, under your version, an anon, on his/her first edit to wikipedia is encouraged to close a debate that has been open for 11 minutes as speedy close against consensus. Just close it any way you like, and you'll soon find out if it was the right thing to do. In fact let's have bots close all afd's, and we'll just send them straight to delrev. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They can, but they will be reverted, and someone will explain the correct procedure to them. And then we'll have one more wikipedian with AFD closing skills, who will then go on to be a good admin at some point (after learning many other abilities as well). You have to start learning somewhere. Let's make sure that people can learn in as many places as possible.

At the same time, there are a lot of intelligent anons out there. I started out editing anonymously too, as did many others. Some people even never log in, and that's their right, even though they might be more skilled wikipedians than the majority of our admins. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody contends that an anon or a new user can not or indeed does not make valuable contributions. The purpose of this essay is to provide guidance BEFORE having to learn the hard way, as you seem to recommend, which would certainly create wikidrama and unnecessary wikistress for others. To say "let them just do it any way they want and let delrev sort it out" is not a proactive or responsible approach in my opinion. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is delrev? And this approach has worked very well for as long as wikipedia has existed. Why should we abandon it now? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmmmmmm
Actually no, this approach has not ever existed on wikipedia, as you are suggesting it should be. Deletion debate closures have been closed by administrators, except in certain limited circumstances. The reason this essay was written was that those limited circumstances were never put into a formal document, they were just part of the "tribal knowledge" of the place. delrev is WP:DELREV, or the deletion review process. That is where the deletions that people do not agree with are reconsidered. Deletion closures are never just "reverted" as you suggested, instead they are submitted for a formal review at delrev, and if the deletion was determined to be improper, the deletion debate process is re-initiated. Please read the references at the bottom of the essay, they provide all this information in quite good detail. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, DRV! Why didn't you say so! It's my most hated area of wikipedia. And we *did* encourage people to help out in all kinds of different places, to get in some practice AFAICR. So the "tribal knowledge" you allude to is more like remnants of a much older practice. :-)

Anyway, you don't need DRV to sort it out. You can just revert the closing edit. All discussions on AFD are transcluded these days anyway, so it's only a single click (or 2, if you're good and actually provide an edit summary).

--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying is completely against policy, as I understand it. Can you point me to a policy or guideline that says you can revert a deletion debate closure if you disagree with it? I can point you to several that say you can not. Let's trade links! JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's Common sense that if someone misjudges a closure, you can simply revert them. I'm sure this has happened to me a couple of times on MFD, in fact (though that was because the other party *thought* I had misjudged :-P) . This seems especially useful if you are helping a new editor learn the ropes.

As an aside, this page seems to be very "rules" oriented, while wikipedia has a policy of running by consensus and common sense instead. Is this due to DRV still being very hard-rules oriented? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is due to all the incorrect closures and high number of frivolous delrev's. This essay is one of a series of essays to be written to provide guidance to hopefully mostly eliminate the need for delrev altogether. The next one will be about contacting the closer and discussing the objection prior to filing a delrev. I share your opinion about delrev being my most unfavorite place in wikipedia. I also share your opinion that more users should be encouraged to participate in XfD closings. So why don't they? We have over 2000 administrators, and I run a userscript that highlights their names in their signatures, so I am very much aware of how many of them are out there active on wikipedia. So why are the AfD's frequently 3+ days backlogged? Because nearly 10% of AfD closings go to Delrev, and delrev is a frustrating place. Look over the past 5 days worth of delrevs... really do.... it's a rediculous mess. No matter how unanimous the debate, no matter how clear-cut the case, if people don't like it, they file a delrev. Often with no discussion with the closer. Delrev used to say do not speedy close delrev debates. But this became unreaslitic, so now they get speedy closed right regular. That is not the solution, though. The solution is to get the closings at AfD right to begin with, and to not bother filing useless delrevs. My essay series is a serious attempt to make that happen. I hope after the essays are written and refined that they eventually get absorbed into their relevant parent policy/guidelines. But for now they are works in progress. Your participation is appreciated and encouraged, but your opinions on this topic seem very strange to me and quite against my understanding of policy. So lets talk more and get other people involved please, before you put information in the essay that is radically different than what is there now. Remember it is just an essay, and if your opinion is too different, you can always make your own essay; I will even link to it with a statement like "for an alternate opinion on this subject please see..." Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have the same complaints, a lot of the time, where people won't first just let me write down what I know :-P . I'm an old fashioned wikipedian, so I have some views that might seem odd to you, obviously.

Being Old fashioned is a good thing. If everyone was as green as me, we would not have any sense of community and it would be like the old Napster chatrooms. Being cavalier about rules and order, is not a good thing, though. Chaos is bad. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that deletion review is outright broken?

No, IMHO delrev works, despite the frustration it causes for well-intentioned admins who put in hours clearing backlogs and get attacked for a week afterward by completely unreasonable and irrational editors who WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than would seem psychologically healthy. Of course there are also very valid complaints that are addressed in this venue, and it provides the needed checks and balances that give everyone the needed impression that overall wikipedia is fair. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Separately, there are a number of non-admins that I trust more than some of the admins, so I want to be careful that their ability to solve problems is not curtailed by accident.

I concur with that sentiment, and appreciate your concerns. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But please first write what you view as the current situation. We should so have some other tag than essay for that, just so people have a chance to write first. Sorry I bothered you too early. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you want me to come over and look! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is pretty much done, as far as I can tell. I would just prefer that anybody who in good faith wants to present a completely incompatible set of guidelines, that they do so in a separate page. As I said I am willing to provide a neutral link to such a page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I hope our differences are not that bad! Note that I tend to rely more on the self-organizing abilities of the wiki to sort things out, if that makes sense to you? There's actually very little that can cause chaos in the first place; the wiki-system is very forgiving. --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Encouraging housekeeping closes

I've added a section on this under "Appropriate closures". These are the sort of things that I, as a non-admin, close fairly frequently, and I feel these ought to be encouraged on the basis of efficiency - but others may think differently. Any thoughts? — Gavia immer (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

An excellent addition, Gavia, thanks for your help! JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, so discussing here first

2 points were removed

• When there is consensus that a discussion may be closed, or such a consensus seems likely.
  • If that doesn't have consensus, I'll eat my hat. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Other closes may be possible in special circumstances, or by other guidelines.
  • I don't use MFD or AFD often, so most closes I do are in this category. --Kim Bruning (talk)

What are the actual issues with these two points, that they would not be included in the page? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The first one does not specify "consensus to close as keep", and if it meets speedy keep or snowball clause keep, it is already covered in the section. What kind of other situation would have consensus for closing as keep before the 5-day listing period ends? Or do you mean non-admins can close debates as delete if there is consensus to close as delete? That would be contrary to rest of the essay.

The second one just implies that the essay is not done yet, which is obvious. The essay template says that users are not obligated to follow it, so we do not need to in-build disclaimer-like statement such as this. As we come up with these special circumstances, or other guidelines, lets just add them to the essay, instead of an ambiguous catch-all statement. I am trying to write a bright-lines guidance document, not a spongy/ ambiguous one. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

People can form a consensus that falls outside the normal AFD process. That's perfectly ok, and the closer(s) should act on that consensus, because consensus has primacy.

The second bullet point basically refers to ignore all rules and common sense. We recognize that no description of wikipedia best practices will ever be complete, and we can never cover all contingencies. It is important to acknowledge this explicitly, as some people have trouble understanding this fact.

I still believe the shorter version covers more ground, though :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it make you totally puke if I use the phrase agree to disagree? JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fraid so. Can you explain why you disagree with those points? (though feel free to go off and finish your other pages first... I can wait :-) )--Kim Bruning (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) The biggest problem is this statement: "but they will be reverted, and someone will explain the correct procedure to them". First of all... people reverting XfD closings without any kind of logging, notification or debate is a really really really bad idea, and one that I am certain would never never never work. Secondly, WHAT PROCEDURE? That is what this essay is trying to be. If there is a procedure somewhere, then just tell me where, and I will convert the essay into a redirect. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"would never work"? What makes reverts so special to you? They're just a slightly special edit. Mediawiki keeps a log of every edit you make, and all modern AFD sub-pages have an associated talk page to allow for discussion in case something doesn't quite go right. Reverting itself is an old and standardized procedure, which has been implemented in software.

Your essay is not a procedure itself. Rather, it describes or documents a procedure. A procedure can exist without being documented. And I think it's pretty cool that you are documenting existing procedures. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Systems analysis -which is part of my job description in my day job- is a formal approach to discovering and documenting previously undocumented procedures, (or alternately, it can be used to optimise procedures, or design new procedures from scratch; though we should be careful with that.)

Why duplicate WP:DELPRO#AFD

Why are we duplicating the instructions at DELPRO for closing AfDs? We don't have the other closings here? I often close MfDs and sometimes TfDs, I rarely even check in at AfD. This section seems superfluous, just link to DELPRO.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not contradict the page you listed, and it provides a simple step-by-step that other users have said that they like. The procedure is highly unlikley to change, so there is little concern with one being out-of-date with the other. This one has been customized to include the specifics for non-admin closers, ie: putting "(non-admin closure)" in the closing statement, etc. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do we say that WP:DELREV will result from an inappropriate early close?

The essay says:

Inappropriate early closes will almost certainly result in a successful request to redo the process, at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Inappropriate early closes thus waste everyone's time.

Why? Why would anyone normally go to Deletion Review with a non-admin deletion decision? WP:DELPRO says very clearly that any admin can reopen a non-admin closure. It doesn't take a DELREV. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A non-admin can make the request at DELREV, and it would likely be speedy closed as approved/ relisted. If this was done weeks after it occurred, it would result in a whole new AfD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

out of interest

how can a non admin close as delete? Or isn't that possible, as we can't perform the actual deletion? :( I mean in cases it's an obvious delete. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is normally recommended against. Actually, it is strongly recommended against. It is occasionally done when the page should have been speedied by tagging the page for speedy and then closing the debate - but the risk is that the speedy will be denied, so it shouldn't be closed until the speedy is acted upon. It is also theoretically possible to close the debate as delete and tag the article for deletion per the deletion debate, but it just adds work - since the deleting admin has to research the deletion to see if it's warranted (if the deletion is so obvious that it doesn't need research - it should've been speedied from the start). Even tagging speedies adds work because an admin closing the debate could delete without a speedy tag. So, just don't do it. The much better answer is to only close keeps and procedural speedy closes (like when someone files a TfD at MfD) and let admins close the deletes. If there's a backlog, mention it to an admin who isn't involved. If there's a very bad backlog tag the XfD page with {{adminbacklog}} and if it drags out well beyond the norm (which varies between deletion discussion areas) post a notice at Administrators' Noticeboard asking for someone to clear the backlog. If you really want to close deletes, consider becoming an admin.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

When the nominator withdraws

Is it okay for a non-admin to close an AFD themselves if they withdraw their nomination? How about a non-admin that commented in the AFD? --Pixelface (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so; the only times you'd do so is if there's a near-unanimous consensus to keep anyway. Will ^(talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference Wikipedia:DELPRO#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. If it's not your nomination, I would recommend you normally avoid closing the discussion, admin or non-admin, if you've made a comment, regardless of how much of a snowball it may be. We aren't that hard up for closers, someone uninvolved will close something that easy soon enough. There are rare and complex ignore all rules cases where it might be OK, but if you're experienced enough to handle those you won't need to ask. The nominating editor can close an all keep nomination withdrawn discussion because presumably he or she is the least likely to change to keep, so if he or she changed position, and nobody else has commented in favor of deletion, there is very little likelihood that there is any conflict of interest, he or she is just saying "OK, forget it". Although there is little harm, there is always the appearance of a conflict if an editor has commented in favor of keep and is now closing the discussion as keep, even for a nom-withdrawn.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can close a nomination that you withdrew only as long as all the opinions offered in the debate so far were to keep the page. If a subsequent editor offers a good-faith opinion that the article should be deleted, the discussion must continue for the 5-day cycle. (Note, however, that closers usually give a great deal of weight to a nominator who changes his/her mind based on facts presented during the discussion.) Rossami (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Relist

Is it appropriate for a non-admin to {{relist}} an article that has been listed for 5+ days, without very many contributors? Under what conditions could it be appropriate -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion process. The short answer is "not usually" because if there was that little interest in the first 5 days, there's unlikely to suddenly be more interest in the next 5 days. By design, there is no minimum quorum of participants needed before a decision can be made. But if the decision is not crystal clear based on both the participants' opinions and established policy and precedent, that's probably a decision to leave to someone with a lot of experience. Rossami (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, it would be:

• When two, maybe three editors have voted, and given no reasons; or only one says delete, the other keep, merge, redirect, or something else entirely.
• When no one has discussed it at all.
• When theres no consensus and there is an effort to generate more.

These all seem like reasonable reasons why it should be relisted. Hope this helps! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see no problem whatsoever with a non-admin relisting a discussion. An admin (or in some cases a non-admin) can always close it, just because it has gone back to the top of the list doesn't change the fact that its time has run. An experienced non-admin is just as likely as an admin to be able to determine whether we're there yet.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Doug. I see no harm in relisting, except in certain disruptive circumstances, which are rare and easily corrected, anyway. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm starting to think that my response above was unclear. I also do not think there is any harm in relisting - only that there's often little point to it. If two people have offered opinions which are consistent with established policy and precedent, just make the call. More "me too" votes are not needed just to meet some non-existent quorum requirement. Rossami (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that is certainly true. But there are cases where relisting is the proper thing to do. If there are 6 delete !votes all with wikilinked brief statemtns like "Fails WP:N due to no WP:RS." and then somebody comes by with a list of references that they found, many of which are in a foreign language... then we need more process time for those sources to be evaluated. That's just one case. If there are roughly equal numbers of delete and keep !votes, and none are more articulate than the rest, but the person evaluating it thinks that the discussion has some momentum, then relisting is a better choice than 'no consensus'. It is really a judgment call, and a case-by-case. I see no reason why any wikipedian can't make that call, as it does not require sysop tools. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

More ways to close

Why are we limiting the ways non admin's can close? Why can't they be allowed to exercise good judgment every now and then and close a few AfDs which clearly will be kept? Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems to already be covered by the "Appropriate closures" section. They are allowed to close debates that clearly will be keeps. Under what other circumstances would you believe a decision would clearly be a keep? -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the section, hence the "limiting". In the backlogs, there are a numerous cases where I see that non admins can help out and close a few that will be kept, but silly delete decisions were made with either no rationale behind them, or a delete unless x, and let x equal a specification which might have been met, and others pile on. Clearly you'd keep the AfD, so why not let a non admin close it? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thats only one example. I have many more, but I wish to explore this in detail and want to acquire a small change here and there over time. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The rule already allows "Unanimous or nearly unanimous" (emphasis added). I would oppose softening that wording any further because of the slippery-slope problem. We already have people overstepping their authority and good judgment and closing discussions inappropriately (for example, decisions where they have a vested interest in the article or making closing decisions by counting noses instead of by studying the rationales - I have many more examples of that problem, too). The current wording attempts to strike a balance between the two problems.
To my mind, if we have editors with a solid track record of solid judgment, we should be making them admins, not inviting trouble by changing the rules here. I'll also note that the AFD closure backlog is only 6 days. That's next to nothing compared to our historical levels. Be patient. The times that people have available to volunteer tends to fluctuate during the week. We'll get caught up soon. Rossami (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty of patience I assure you. From my perspective, the backlog has been the same since 2006. Any help is help in my opinion, and this essay is in fact lacking in balance. There is more description in appropriate than inappropriate. Whats the harm in giving more room to close AfD's? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless x where x has occurred is no longer a delete. Those would fall under the currently listed criteria. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do be so kind as to point that out for me. :) Your wording is not currently located in the appropriate closures section. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is common sense that if someone says delete unless x and the x has been meant, then their comment is no longer one of delete. If that is the only delete reason (delete pers don't count as they are just the a restatement of the same reason), then the first criteria applies as it would be a "Unanimous or a near unanimous keep". If there are other deletion recommendations, then it doesn't fit the scenario you described. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My interests here are to make the wording much clearer. Detail. This page could be expanded a bit and I'm looking to expand it, making it clearer in the process. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification is always good, but detail is a double edged sword. If details are added, you may find the results go the opposite way you want. In my opinion, guidelines work best when they are broader and allow people to apply the concepts to any case. The more details that are added, the more people insist if it's not covered by the details, then it's not allowed. Details can actually be more restrictive.

Anyhow, if you have suggestions for changes, then post your recommended wording and it can be discussed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• straight forward keeps, ie near unanimous are closed quickly anyway and dont contribute to the back log its the discussions that need indepth consideration to the arguments or are boviously contentious are the ones that constitute the backlogs and it says these should be left to admins. as for the backlogs it fluctuates in recent times I seen all discussions closed, the number of open discussions hovers around between 50-150 mark most of the time check the last 500 mathbot edits in the article history[1] peak was at 250(weekend after easter) with the trough being at 0 on the 23rd Apr, 15th Mar. Creating such a basis isnt going to resolve any issues or reduce backlogs, but early closures may generate more DRV requests or ANI discussions. Gnangarra 13:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nom

Just looking at these two diffs. It seems worth making a specific note of such circumstances, to me. Perhaps it could be worked into the current text a bit more subtly without adding another bullet, but it seems mentioning this condition could be helpful. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The second bullet under "Appropriate closures" points folks to Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Withdrawals is only one of four criteria there. I don't think duplicating the whole speedy keep page is appropriate and I'm not sure the value of just adding the one. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

essay vs guideline

On 10 June 2008, user:Bstone upgraded this page from an essay to a guideline. I reverted it. Bstone restored it with the longer comment that "the community consensus is that this should be a guideline. moreover, for policy/leagalistic reasons it must be a guideline, else anyone can simply undo a NAC citing an essay, which would be disruptive".

I am reverting it again pending discussion here. First, I do not believe that there is clear community consensus that this be a guideline. If so, please demonstrate it. Second, it is absolutely true that any admin can undo a non-admin closure. Far from being "disruptive", it was a key condition established when the practice was changed to allow non-admin closures at all. (Previously, closures were restricted to admins regardless of how clear or unambiguous the case appeared to be.) Third, this page is an elaboration upon the guiding clause at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (which is a guideline). In any case where this page conflicts with what was approved at WP:DPR, our users must understand that DPR takes precedence. Rossami (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The community consensus for this is clear. It should now be upgraded to a guideline. Bstone (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no unequivocal consensus and I oppose this upgrade. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 17:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps a discussion on the Village Pump would be a good idea here? I think it would be the best way to see if such a consensus can be demonstrated or not. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Has this moved forward at the pump? I oppose elevating this essay. DELPRO speaks more clearly and without so much instruction creep and the procedures here are not exactly the same as the "official" DELPRO ones as they've been tailored. DELPRO is the place the "guideline" should remain.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It had been awhile since I'd looked at this essay, I just made a quick review and remembered some of the specific reasons I don't like it. For one, it only deals with AfD in the instructions and they don't match exactly the instructions at DELPRO. For another matter, in the what you can close it says the decision needs to be unanimous or nearly unanimous and have past the after a full 5-day listing period. Well, I don't agree at all that decisions need to be nearly unanimous for a non-admin to close them and not all XfD's use a five day listing period (TfD, for example, uses 7). This is no way near the standards of a Guideline nor is it needed. As an essay it's great because it can inform the relative newbie to XfDs so that they are not reckless, but long time non-admins can and should be able to do a lot more and having a detailed guideline will result in wikilawyering against otherwise good decisions and will discourage boldness by very experienced non-admins.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose this becoming a guideline, as it would try to prevent experienced non-admins from closing AfD's as no consensus. Experienced non-admins often have far more knowledge of guidelines and policies than many admins, restricting them is indicative of admin power protectionism. There is no good reason to do so. RMHED (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a fine reason to oppose, I guess. However, the guideline can be modified to allow exactly what you are opposing it for. As it sits, the technical status of this as an essay means that anyone who disagrees with a non-admin closure can simply revert it and not be counted as disruptive or just plain bull-headed. You do realize this, yes? As such, I feel the text can be modified and then upgraded to guideline. Bstone (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so. The relevant guideline is WP:DPR#NAC which states, among other things,

Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought.

(emphasis added)

There is nothing in there about non-admins reverting decisions. Reverting a close is generally inappropriate, that's why there's DRV. The special procedure in DELPRO is 1) a summary procedure to avoid the need to go to DRV, and 2) was specifically provided for when non-admin closure was implemented as Rossami stated above. I would consider reversion of any close except the reversion of a non-admin close by an admin per DELPRO to be per se disruptive, unless I could make a case for WP:IAR, and I'd act accordingly depending on the specific circumstances if it were brought to my attention in my capacity as an admin.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course DELPRO is just a guideline, but it's a pretty well entrenched one and of course IAR is a pretty broad exception. Use common sense always . . . or at least try.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

adding a procedure for "already deleted close"

Could someone add a procedure similar to Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#How_to_close_an_AfD_debate but dealing with articles that are already deleted? The 4th item in Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures says "...or where the page under discussion has been uncontroversially speedily deleted but the debate is not closed." This currently isn't covered in the closing procedure. I was going to close Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_21#Thunderpop, but don't want to screw it up.--Rockfang (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the Wikipedia:Deletion process which includes all the technical instructions for archiving a deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. But is there a reason to not have the suggestion I mentioned above?--Rockfang (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If I'm understanding your request correctly, it would completely duplicate the material that's in the Deletion process page. Whenever you have duplicate instructions, you are at greatly increased risk that the instructions will drift out of synch, creating confusion for new readers who don't know which version to trust. You could perhaps transclude the section that you need in but that seems like a lot of instruction creep when a link would do. Rossami (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning makes sense. Thanks for replying.--Rockfang (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No Consensus non-admin closure

There was a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) recently that was No Consensus. In spite of the fact that there was later a huge flap over the rapid renomination of the article, edit warring over an admin closing that renom, an AN/I report by the admin over the nominator behavior that became a debate on the notability of the article (Bad Idea for AN/I), and thus delayed response, causing the new AfD, now mentioned on AN/I to pull in a lot of votes so substantial sentiment arose to keep it open, and then, now five days of debate with Keep and Delete still running about 50-50, with 3 administrators !voting Keep, mostly on procedural grounds (rapid renom) and 4 !voting Delete because "it's not notable, hang the process" (okay, my slightly biased interpretation) and with over 33 editors involved in commenting, today is the first time that anyone seems to have noticed that the original closer wasn't an administrator.

I think this was because the close seemed normal on its face. There were three Keeps (including a COI !vote by the author) and three Deletes, including the nominator. There was no heavy controversy, no massive back-and-forth, as we see in truly controversial AfDs, there was simply No Consensus, the close was just a description of what happened. The closer voiced an opinion on the argument made in the nomination that the author of the article was COI, correctly stating that this was irrelevant (to notability), and also noted that the article needed cleanup. (And that, after closing, he proceeded to help with this, mostly telling the author, no, you can't say this, is now, suddenly, being cited as some kind of problem.) The question of sources was raised, several times, but there wasn't any heavy debate over it.

In any case, now it's being asserted by two administrators that the closure should have been immediately reverted, simply on the basis that the closer wasn't an adminstrator. That seems to me like a bit of additional arrogation of power to administrators. As far as I know, there is no policy reason that non-Delete closures with No Consensus should be limited to administrators. No buttons are needed. And if a closure is incorrect, it can be reverted like any other edit, by anyone, administrator or not. If that doesn't become edit warring, no problem.

This essay on non-admin closure is somewhat unclear on this.

Non-admin closures of XfDs should be limited to the following types of closures: And then No Consensus isn't there. But neither is this kind of closure listed in what is inappropriate.

Given that the normal AfD time had elapsed, that more !votes weren't appearing, No Consensus was a pretty obvious close, and the subsequent problem could have happened with any administrative close, I can't see that the point that the closer wasn't an administrator is anything more than retroactive wikilawyering, looking for some procedural defect. The AfD was actually No Consensus. What is wrong with this picture? --Abd (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as unambiguous as you thought." I don't think anything's wrong with the picture as you described it.
By the way, if this essay is unclear, remember that it is merely an essay attempting to elaborate on the section of the policy page. Rossami (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps should be a guideline

Hi. Recently after a few incidents, I have permenetly ceased activity in NAC. I have been left a bit shook up by thess and I'd like to ask that you guys review this essay and perhaps making this a giudeline and provide a clearer guide (I am dyslexic), perhaps clearer criteria and consider making this a guideline or policy perhaps. Sorry to have caused any disurbance, and thanks. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 08:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe you should point out that you were not violating the WP:Deletion process guideline, which this essay is trying to expand upon. What portions of this essay do you think should be clarified?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep

This page says "Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures", and lists as one such type Speedy keeps. But that guideline says "it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps." These two aren't quite mutually contradictory, but they're certainly misleading and give opposite impressions about whether non-admin speedy keeps are a Good Thing. I think one of them should be changed - but which one? Olaf Davis | Talk 15:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would change the guideline, by adding "if there is any doubt" or something like that.--Kotniski (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Like any other guideline, there should be a healthy dose of WP:IAR. Any Wikipedian (including non-logged-in IPs) should immediately speedily close an AfD for Barack Obama, no matter what the official red tape procedure is. Kusma (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, change the guideline. I like Kotniski's "if there is any doubt" language. Before changing the guideline, propose the specific change on WT:Speedy keep and give it a few days to see if there is any opposition. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Snow

Though the WP:Snow clause is used to close AfDs, it does not have total consensus, and is not used in any of the AfD guidelines (other than this non-admin one!). It would be misleading to give people the impression that a Snow close is "appropriate" and even more inappropriate to give a fixed criteria of 6 Keeps in one day.

It is worth bearing in mind that an AfD should run for a minimum of five days, and are kept open longer than that if there is ongoing discussion, or if there is not enough consensus to make a decision. See: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_deletion_page. Once an article comes to AfD we tend to give it due process to allow people time to consider the situation. There is no need for a speedy decision. The places where attention is needed is in the backlog - and there hasn't been a backlog on AfD for a while.

It is not uncommon for an AfD to turn around after 3 or 4 days discussion. Closing an AfD after one day can be OK, but it can also be inappropriate - it all depends on the circumstances. An AfD on a Pokemon character can be swamped with Keeps on the first day so that it "appears" to be an obvious Snow, but things can change - and should be allowed time to change. It would be prudent to alert closers coming here for advice, that a Snow close is not recommended elsewhere, that there is no simple criteria as it really is up to judgement of the circumstances, and that early closures are valid reasons for calling a DRV. I'm not against the idea of a Snow closure being used, or a Snow closure being mentioned in the advice page - but the advice given should be balanced advice, and the Snow close should not be presented as a close that is easy and non-controversial. SilkTork *^YES! 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you have made. While I do a number of snowball closes myself, I certainly didn't use the criteria that were on this page before. It does take discretion to know when a snowball close should be made, and we shouldn't be advocating that newbie closers be doing them. Experienced non-admin closers will have developed a feel for when and when not to utilize the snowball clause. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the change of recommending more caution when a closer invokes SNOW. My impression is that this page is poorly watched – perhaps notifications at WT:Deletion process and/or WT:Articles for deletion would solicit wider feedback? There's also a recent discussion on NAC at VPP. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for the wider notification, I think, as this is a pretty minor change to something which has no binding status. The VPP discussion went nowhere, anyway.--Aervanath (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It may not have binding status, but NACers are supposed to follow it religiously. Perhaps it should be a guideline. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 05:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose guideline status for this essay, since it's already part of a guideline, anyway. Also, see section #essay_vs_guideline, above, where this was discussed briefly last year.--Aervanath (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is already part of a guideline, then how can anyone oppose it being marked guideline? (Are parts of guidelines not guideline-y?) --Gwern (contribs) 16:51 9 February 2010 (GMT)

Essays which go the quick route for guideline status and fail have a real hard time gaining credibility afterwards. They have a rejected tag put on them, and drift out of favour - like Wikipedia:Notability (schools) and others languishing in here: Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals. It is better for this essay to establish itself and then by gradual widespread usage and tinkering with the words to reflect consensus, it will become accepted as a guideline. It is a relatively new essay and pushing too quickly now will more likely result in its death. SilkTork *^YES! 20:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well put.--Aervanath (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Silk: what is new about non-admin closings? They've been done for as long as I can remember, back to 2004-2005. --Gwern (contribs) 16:51 9 February 2010 (GMT)

Opening sentence

Non-admin deletion discussion closures are situations when an editor who is not an administrator formally closes a deletion discussion.

This is quite silly. Can somebody make it sound less redundant? And remove "formally"? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just write:

In most instances, deletion discussions are closed by administrators. However, there are several situations in which an editor who is not an administrator can close a deletion discussion. This essay offers guidance to editors considering doing such a closure.

We don't need a catchy bold line at the start. Any other ideas? Mahalo. --Ali'i 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork *^YES! 17:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD now seven days

Following this discussion AfD discussions are now seven days, and early closes are discouraged. Early closes should follow Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I have adjusted the guideline to take this into account. SilkTork *^YES! 17:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition of WP:OLD is fine in principle, but because admins flagrantly disregard the current 5-day length by closing early, this effectively outlaws non-speedy non-admin closures as the handful of AfDs get typically get listed at WP:OLD are contested. Skomorokh 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Admins should also be following the prevailing opinion of the community, which is to avoid WP:SNOW closures. If you see admins jumping the gun, feel free to ask them to wait the full seven days.--Aervanath (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

IPs

I don't spend that much time around AfD, so I just wanted to know if IPs are allowed to close AfD discussions? I was looking at the recent changes page when I noticed an IP had removed the AfD tag from Dominique Cottrez. I undid the edit thinking the discussion was open and found that the IP had closed the discussion. I read the NAC page, but couldn't find anything about IPs. Thank you in advance. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Same IP also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's All I Can Do. I'm wondering if it's someone who has an account but didn't log in for some reason. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Should IP users be allowed to do non-admin closures?

Moved from WP:AN

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Cottrez. I am not contesting the actual close here, which is clearly correct and an acceptable case for an NAC, but raising the principle of whether NACs by IPs should be permitted. WP:NAC and WP:NACD do not explicitly forbid it, but do say that only "Experienced editors in good standing" should do them. The problem with an IP is that one cannot tell whether it is an experienced editor in good standing (this particular NAC close was the IP's first ever edit), a non-static IP user cannot be held to account for its actions, and there is in theory the possibility of an editor taking part in a discussion and then logging out to close it. Since there is no pressing need for NACs - by their nature, they are the easy ones which any admin can do quickly - I suggest that WP:NAC and WP:NACD should be amended to say that only registered users may perform NACs. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable change, especially given the scenario you suggest above with the logged-out participant. Do you have any evidence that this has been intentionally done, or is it just an obvious possibility? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we had an IP close an RfA a couple of weeks ago. I'm all for compulsory registration, but until then, I see no reason to restrict IPs from performing fairly routine actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

compulsory registration? That will be the day I retire. Who was it that said that they would never belong to any club that would have them as a member? :) ...anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)ps, sorry, not trying to be snarky since I apprecite your attitude that ips should be allowed to performing fairly routine actions...cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Letting IPs with only a handful of edits close AfDs is likely to lead to a lot of problems. I wouldn't be happy with anyone with only a handful of edits closing AfDs. And as suggested, it could easily by an editor who'd voted, someone who was attracted to Wikipedia from a website discussing the AfD, etc. So yes, do change it to say only registered accounts. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I think that change would make a lot of sense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Full support. --Rschen7754 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I general I'm against limiting what an IP can do based on the slogan "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", however AfD is not a part of the encyclopedia and considering the risk of shenanigans I would support restricting non-admin closures to registered experienced users in good standing. J04n(talk page) 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We have enough registered users who perform poor NAC's now - let alone some ip-hopping, "but they're my favourite band"-toting editor close an AFD? Zoinks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN. –xeno^talk 17:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that IPs should not be performing NACs, due to lack of traceability should the closure become disputed (which we have had, so...) --MASEM (t) 17:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is OK when the IP knows what he/she is doing and when the case is non-controversial, but their level of experience is impossible to determine, so I must agree with changing this to only let registered users do NACs. —fetch·comms 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To me this looks like a solution without a problem - if and only if we find ourselves with IP-hopping people making dubious non-admin closures, then we should consider restricting it. As it is, all we have is an IP editor making perfectly valid and obvious NACs, and it seems odd to restrict access based on strictly theoretical problems. ~ mazca ^talk 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes everyone who participates in an AfD open to a checkuser. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not really an issue unless the close was in any way controversial to start with. It's hard to make an allowable NAC of a discussion so as to give your own point of view additional weight - as if it's sufficiently borderline it's not supposed to be NACed in the first place. ~ mazca ^talk 18:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Passive disallow if an IP closes an AfD in a blindingly obvious matter, fine. If any other editor contests the close, it's invalidated. That's not too much different from current NAC process, but IPs may not be able to remove the page notifications if the article is semi-protected. It's not a generally good idea, but not terrible enough to make up a bunch of new, specific rules about it. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak allow. If the close is obviously wrong, then it shouldn't matter who closes it, be they admin, registered, or IP. --Gwern (contribs) 18:10 30 August 2010 (GMT)
• Allow Exactly. There's no problem if an IP performs an NAC early; it's the same with a registered user. If someone disagrees or thinks that the close was inappopriate, they can just revert the autoconfirmed user or IP (call the close "did not appear to be constructive") and leave a note on their talkpage; this has the same effect no matter the user. Problem solved. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's my thoughts too.--Kotniski (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Allow : I am all for compulsory registration as well, but until that day, I see no difference between an IP's NAC and a non-IP's NAC. What's important is the closure being good. --Cyclopia^talk 19:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• No distinction between IPs and recently-registered users is necessary here. Both groups will be assumed to be inexperienced (sometimes incorrectly), and all NACs may be challenged in the same ways: discussion, reversion, and DRV. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow. If they can't bring AfDs, why should they be allowed to close them? Seems to have things backwards . DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the fact that IPs can't start AFD discussions is a "technical accident" due to 2 separate decisions that aren't related. One being the one to give each AFD its own page and the other preventing non logged in users from creating pages in the "wikipedia" namespace. I don't think anybody ever said "let's make it so that IPs can't nominate articles for deletion". (I could be wrong about this though) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• I too haven't heard of any specific discussion or consensus about AfDs in particular. For example, there is nothing stopping IPs from removing - or adding - PRODs. I have seen both done, and none of the editors involved seemed to note the IP-ness of those edits. --Gwern (contribs) 03:18 9 October 2010 (GMT)

• Not sure. The idea that an IP user who closes an AFD might have also !voted in it as a logged in user does concern be a little but as long as they only close 100% obvious slam dunk keeps it shouldn't be a problem. However, some NACers, myself being one, sometimes work in a gray area between "contentious" and "unanimous". When someone does that we need to be certain they are neutral and we can only reliably do that if they are logged in users. However, I don't think the wording of WP:NACD or WP:NAC needs to be changed unless we get a flood of questionable IP NACs. In other words "wait and see". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Allow for IPs whose edit history demonstrates understanding of Wikipedia processes and policies. Disallow for IPs with few or no other edits outside the article being discussed. This would then prevent someone with no experience in policy or guideline from closing AFDs without their having first demonstrated understanding of the processes involved. Just as it is required that new editors have their articles vetted by more experienced users, the same should hold true for the closing of AFDs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Disallow Sadly, this many exclude many legitimate and hard working IP's who express an interest in this area, but ultimately, their contributions to the AfD discussion as well as the articles still allow the encyclopedia aspect to be unchanged and merely the 'administrative duties' to be left to users who have user accounts and a bit more accountability for their actions to be well, accountable. Mkdw^talk 08:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Disallow per DGG. An IP is not the same as a registered user. There is no accountability for IPs. Since IPs change, there is no way to determine their experience level or to even disprove they didn't vote in the discussion, as CU won't generally compare an IP to a named account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Disallow. A user account should be a prerequisite for any activity requiring strong accountability or social interaction. Such thing as "closure" requires both. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Disallow with exception 99% of IP editors have far to small a contribution history to be closing discussions. However there is a tiny minority of IP editors (1 or 2 that I know of) who have a sufficient editing history to support a non-admin close. If one of those exceptional IP editors closed a discussion, it should be treated like a regular close. Monty₈₄₅ 14:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think we need a rule for this. So allow by default. Static IPs are actually more accountable than registered users (the closest you can get to anonymity in Wikipedia is registering one account per edit). —Kusma (t·c) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

On SNOW closes by non-admins

I just reverted SilkTork on this but my entire edit summary didn't make it into the history so I'll make my argument here. According to the "rules", AFDs can only be closed early if they meet one of the criteria at WP:SK. Therefore any early close that doesn't comply with WP:SK would come under IAR and, whether done by an admin or not, should be judged on a case by case basis. WP:NACD already says that Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator and that should be good enough in most cases. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. This is interesting. There was some concern in 2009 that there were too many early closures and in particular that non-admins were closing early citing the snowball clause. The use of the snowball clause was traced to this essay and after discussion (above) was changed. As admins were not using it, it seemed inappropriate for non-admins to be using it. I've just looked and note that in October 2010 the snowball clause was introduced to Wikipedia:Deletion process, though without discussion. In general the snowball clause is discouraged in AfD. There are, instead, broad and reasonable criteria for early closures. IAR is for those circumstances where following a rule would be detrimental to the improvement or maintenance of Wikipedia. There are not many circumstances where allowing an AfD to run seven days would be detrimental to the improvement or maintenance of Wikipedia. But if there were, then IAR could be applied. The consideration doesn't need to go via Snowball. As the Snowball clause has crept back into AfD essays, it might be worth having a broader discussion on if people want to have that clause, and if so, to standardise it across the guidance essays so the same message is being given to all - admin and non-admin. In Wikipedia:Speedy keep the advice is that they can be used, but they are discouraged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I do see your point and I think one of the issues is that IAR is often used as a convenient shorthand way of saying "yes I know there is a rule". I've even been guilty if it in AFDs where the nominator withdraws but there's a "drive by" per nom delete !vote. Still, I think there are some cases where AFDs can be closed early if it's all but obvious to a reasonable person that the article in question isn't going to be deleted. I'm not sure if that was the case or not with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sovereign_states which I suspect is what prompted your change as I think it should take more then a whole mess of editors jumping on an AFD and !voting "speedy keep". I previously addressed this issue here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this distinction should be emphasized but I also question us worrying about it here. As Ron says, these rules aren't any different for admins so these should be discussed at WP:DEL or some other appropriate place and if a non-admin is closing this way and it's a problem, then we simply re-open the discussion. It also seems odd to me that we would make a change now based on a 2009 concern (and presumably discussion).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was changed as a result of that 2009 discussion, removed by NuclearWarefare in 2010 and added back by SilkTork yesterday and I do understand SK's concerns. After all, at one time it said this... Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. Recommended criteria to use: (a) six or more participants have supported keeping the page; (b) no editor other than the nominator has opposed keeping the page or even supported another outcome, left a comment, or asked a question which could be interpreted as hesitation to support keeping the article; (c) the process has gone on for at least a full day; and (d) the nominator has not added a lot of comments and is not still attempting to make his/her case.... which endorses pure snout counting. According to that, if the nom makes an ironclad and sound deletion argument and six SPAs show up and yell "DO NOT DELETE" the AFD can be closed per WP:SNOW. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

added item

Outcomes of the discussion that require an evaluation of all of the arguments relative to the policies

Lately I have been reversed a few times when doing what I felt policy allowed me to do. Last time, an admin said the above to me as to why I shouldn't have closed something. I think it does capture what I have heard from others in this regard, so I put it in. If reverted, please explain why?--Cerejota (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC on review of non-admin closures

There is an RfC at WP:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin AfD relisting

I've edited the guideline to allow non-admins to relist AfDs with little discussion in addition to close as no consensus,[2] to reflect what seems to be common practice. Well, at least I've seen non-admin relisting AfDs without getting shouted at. Deryck C. 16:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy redirect non-admin closure

What are people's thoughts on formally allowing a speedy-redirect as a non-admin closure. This could be used if an article is found to be a duplicate of the topic of another article that is clearly notable. It could also be useful in cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altamonte Elementary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Redirect" is a flavor of "keep" closure. If a discussion is eligible to close as "speedy-keep-as-is", it is equally eligible to close as "speedy-keep-as-redirect". The decision to keep a page as is or to turn it into a redirect is an ordinary-editor decision that does not require XfD to decide. To the extent that an XfD discussion does show a preference for redirect or keep-as-is, that part of the decision is no more binding than any other discussion with equal attendance and participation.
  Translation: Yes, you can already do it and no, the page does not need modification to say so. We just need to remind people that redirect is a flavor of keep. Rossami (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• This comment was buried in my watchlist so I missed it. I feel that making it more clear would be beneficial and the page should mention that. I have never read the argument that redirect is a flavor of keep closure, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who views them separately. Personally, I find redirect to be more a "flavor" of delete than that of keep. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  That is a common misunderstanding. Deletion, as we use that term at Wikipedia, has primarily to do with the removal of the page history. Deletion hides the attribution history from view and means that the content is so bad that we are no longer concerned about complying with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Deletion requires special admin powers to execute and special admin powers to undo. Because of that, the deletion process gets special scrutiny, has structured oversight and involves far more bureaucracy than other Wikipedia editing.
  On the other hand, removal of content without affecting the pagehistory is an ordinary-editor action. It can be executed by any editor (no special powers required), can be reviewed by any editor by checking the pagehistory and can be easily reversed by any editor, again with no special powers. That can be the removal of a stray comma, wiping of a spam link, slashing out a poorly-written paragraph or even removing the entire content and turning the page into a redirect. As the comment under the edit box says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, ... then do not submit it here."
  The point is that all those actions are ordinary editor actions which can be executed and reversed by any editor. That's what distinguishes content removal from "deletion" and that's why turning a page into a redirect is not deletion as we use that term. Rossami (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am fully aware of what a redirect is and what happens to the page history as a result. What I am saying is that it is closer to a flavor of deletion because when an AFD results in a redirect, the page ceases to exist as far as a non-editor is concerned. In a normal keep, a non-editor will still find the page as it was. That being said, we essentially have the same argument, but we both go about it from a different direction. So lets bring up the original discussion. Regardless of what "flavor" a speedy-redirect would be, if it is allowed I think it should be listed on this page. Currently it states that "Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline" are allowed. That guideline doesn't mention redirects. I think it would be helpful to add, directly under the speedy keep bullet point, a mention allowing speedy-redirect closures. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The page already says "This also extends to other clear closes in which the final task can be performed by a non-admin i.e. Redirect or Merge (when a history merge or deletion is not required)." That covers all bases we've been talking about in this discussion. Deryck C. 09:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closures should be discontinued

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think it is particularily appropriate for this RfC to be closed as a NAC. Other than the initial poster claiming there are enough admins and a single editor suggesting the recruitment of more admins, the only thing that is evidently coming out of all the comments in this section is the overwhelming opposition to the discontinuation of NACs, which was the initial proposition. Editors have voiced a variety of concerns and I believe a number of those would merit further discussion, but this thread seems to have explicitely demonstrated the community's consensus on the paritcular suggestion of the discontinuation of NACs. However I strongly agree with IRWolfie-'s statement that this thread should not be forgotten or swept under the rug, and I strongly encourage editors who expressed concerns about the current NAC system to spark further discussions in order to find solutions -- this is what this whole page is for! :)

Salvidrim! 09:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Renamed from "These should be discontinued" to be more descriptive to people coming from RfC, anchor added ⁓ Hello71 04:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There are enough admins to close discussions, and nowadays, non-admins who are closing them are repeatedly being reverted to allow for a proper close by actual administrator. Till 04:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• While I notice that many article for deletion discussion are improperly closed by non-administrators, sometimes it is a good idea to have non-admin closures if there is no administrator looking at the nomination at that time, or if the article has already been deleted, and therefore a non-admin may tag it themselves. Perhaps a change in rules. I have myself made inappropriate closures at articles for deletion, but it seems to be a learning process. I'm not exactly sure, so I'll stay neutral and let other editors decide this. TBrandley 04:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• The backlog has been rather long until about three months ago when it shortened down. This guideline has been in place for years, so I'm reluctant to claim "there are enough admins to close discussions" as a reason to scrap non-admin closures yet. Bad closures will be reverted regardless of whether an admin or non-admin made it. To show that non-admin closures are obsolete nowadays, we need to show that a large proportion of non-admin closures are reverted and then re-endorsed by an admin with the same outcome. Deryck C. 13:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Deryck; non-admin closures are necessary to close down backlogs (which are still a problem at times), and (at least in my opinion) are part of the learning process of discussions, and are not substantially less likely to be a "bad" closure (although I challenge someone to prove me wrong). RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• It's widely accepted (see for example WP:ANOT and WP:NOBIGDEAL) that admins don't have any higher command or moral authority than other editors. The only difference between a sysop and a regular editor is the fact that sysops have access to additional tools. If an editor is technically capable of closing (i.e. doesn't need any admin tools to close), then by all means they should go ahead with the closure. A non-admin closure should only be reverted if there is some clear reason why the closing editor made an error in judgment. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 20:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not just having the tools that are the limiting case. Non-admins do not have permission to close contentious AfDs themselves. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with JmaJeremy, though would suggest a different wording for the standard used when considering a questionable close by a non-admin, which was already being disuscussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Admin-related_tasks. The vast majority of non-admin closes are just as good as if an admin had done it, we only pay attention to the bad ones. Monty₈₄₅ 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't seen widespread problems with NACs, and as RedSoxFan2434 already said they function as an important apprenticeship process for people who may likely become admins. Basically, the current process doesn't seem broken, so why fix it? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with all above. A standard for undoing an NAC should be considered, but NACs are useful to clearing tedious backlogs and serve as training for adminship. Vacation^nine 19:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Vacation's point, I see value in training for adminship. I don't see that the need to occasionally revet a closure as a compelling argument against allowing it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• No need to fix what isn't really broken. If there is a problem with overturning closures it would be a part of a learning curve for someone who wants to contribute in this way. If someone is really causing a problem then deal with that individually. Insomesia (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see the issue here, Non-Admin-Closures for the most part work fine, and I haven't seen conclusive data or analysis presented that they don't for the majority of the time. — Cirt (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've come across a number of editors who were making inappropriate NACs, and I think there is an actual issue here. If someone is making inappropriate NACs and you can't convince them of the issue (they are hard to convince because typically editors who are doing NACs are sure of their abilities, even when they are lacking), then that inevitably means going to ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the current requirements could be tightened up? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• The rules should definitely be tightened because the amount of poor NACs nowawdays is ridiculous. Perhaps no closures for discussions that have been open less than 7 days, and no closures that are likely to be controversial (eg. relisted multiple times with both keep and delete arguments). I mean actually enforcing these rules, not merely acknowledging them. Till 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that further privileging admins is the right solution. The general principal has always been that opinion of an admin carries the same weight as if they didn't have the mop, and that they have no special authority except to the extent the mop is needed to do something. While NACs in the AfD context has moved away from that, at least in the guidance related to them, I don't think we need to move any further away. Instead we should provide better guidance regarding WHICH non-admins should be performing NACs. We would also do well to provide better education to non-admin closers about things like the importance of being uninvolved, and what that really means. Finally, we should also look at ways to intercede when non-admins are making questionable closes without being overly bitey, to hopefully head things off before they get dragged to a noticeboard. Monty₈₄₅ 01:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I strongly believe that non-admin closures are evil. The proper way to address backlog problems is to recruit more admins. If one desperately wants to close AfDs, [s]he should probe for community trust first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• My opinion, based on casual observation, is that the amount of NAC's is in response to the community's ever increasingly stringent requirements for a successful RFA, particularly that many !voters consider having already been active in administrative-like capacities such as NACs to be strongly recommended. Thus, more editors are engaging in NACs, and so more bad NACs are occuring. I have no comment or opinion on what could be done to remedy this. McJEFF ^(talk) 03:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• If editors are performing problematic NACs, they should be sanctioned. That's no reason to throw out the whole process. The backlog may be fairly tame right now, but who knows when it will burgeon again? I wouldn't want to have to go through another RFC just to reinstate it. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• There is no possible way for me to oppose this more strongly. I actively recruit non-admin to close the less contentious RfCs for multiple reasons. It develops skills, it allows the non-admins a greater part in managing the community, it demonstrates to the community that non-admin are not taken for granted, and blurs the line between those with and without the bit. If someone makes errors, they will be fixed. If someone should not be closing them, they will be dealt with. If someone is not sure if they should, then they shouldn't, but the fact remains that some of the most experienced and best qualified closers we have do not have an admin bit. If you don't like an NAC, instead of reverting it, you appeal it. What we don't need is one more rule that places non-admin on a lower rung of the ladder than admin. As admin, we have shown we can be trusted to block, protect and delete, but closes that do not require the tools should be open to any non-admin that the community in general trusts. The last thing we need to do is elevate admin even higher, and push non-admin down lower. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Admins are not police or judges, they are just editors with access to administrative tools. If no such tools are required to close an RfC then there is no reason that it cannot be closed by anybody. The closer should always act only on a consensus of the participants not on their own opinion. This principle is far more important than who closes the RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as a matter of principle. It doesn't require the admin bit for someone to be able to see that a discussion haven't had much participation or to see that a discussion has clear consensus. -- KTC (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Also, no evidence of bad NACs causing a huge workload at WP:DRV. —Kusma (t·c) 11:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is much less work for admins to check NAC closures than it is to review and close AfD's cold turkey. Furthermore, I think NAC's are an important training ground and opportunity for non-admins to try their hand in some housekeeping activities. From there, many decide to become admins if they enjoy doing the work. Mkdw^talk 08:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I also feel like this topic has a WP:SNOW chance mainly because its the wholesale proposal to remove NAC. If this proposal had been about reducing the cases in which NAC's could occur or simply adding more criteria for NAC closures then it would be a much different discussion. When something that is good and working, but perhaps not working as well as it could, then the wholesale removal of it seems a bit flawed which I think is the case with improper NAC closures. Mkdw^talk 08:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think closing the discussion and forgetting about it is a bad idea, there have been useful suggestions even amongst the opposes, like that of Vacation for example, and we can simply change the nature of the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel that NACs benefit the community in a fair number of ways, and I haven't seen enough problems to warrant a change. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not consistently problematic, and where individuals do repeatedly abuse NACs, they are basically just undermining their own eventual RfAs. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CSD G6 (housekeeping) for NAC of XfD.

Could WP:CSD be used by a non-admin to close an XfD as delete? It seems that the NAC process for XfD is asymmetrical - allowing a keep, but not a delete - but the CSD process would circumvent the problem of not being able to technically implement a delete. So there are three interrelated questions here:

• Should CSD be a technical means of achieving an XfD delete?
• Would the housekeeping criteria (G6) be appropriate to accomplish this? or
• Would a new CSD criteria that links to the closed deletion discussion be necessary to use CSD to execute an XfD deletion?

VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I often wondered that. I believe it is a sound idea in practice, although I have doubts as to whether the community will be able to put that into place. I have been tempted to do NACs as delete and tag associated articles with G6 but knew the community did not support that and wasn't ready to propose the modifications in a full-fledged RfC... however, as I've said, the idea does have its merits. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

IME, what sometimes happens is that the article is CSD tagged while the deletion discussion is still live. If an admin consequently deletes the article, anyone can close the AfD per the CSD criterion used. -- Trevj (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm not quite getting this, but are you saying that this has happened before that you do a G6 CSD, wait for it to get deleted, then close the XfD? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably inaccurate on the G6 aspect, but it's definitely happened for other classes of CSD. Sorry if that's off-topic. -- Trevj (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. You're talking about XfDs that get speedy deleted on their own for reasons outside the XfD nomination. Then the XfD just gets closed. We're talking about executing the result of an XfD closure through the CSD process. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 19:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so I see! Apologies for my confusion. In that case, no I've not seen that. I suppose that in clear-cut cases, it sounds as if a delete result could (possibly) be argued as uncontroversial. However, proposed deletion is what that's for, so if an article's at AfD rather than being successfully PRODed, then its normally classified as controversial (except in cases of AfD nominations, where PRODs would suffice).

In conclusion, my views are no, no and possibly. -- Trevj (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin closures by definition cannot result in a "delete", because the non-admin doesn't have the right to execute it. However, it is of course possible that something gets speedy-deleted while an XfD is in progress. In that case the XfD is void, and any editor can close the discussion as "speedy-deleted by some admin, nomination void". Deryck C. 10:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A fair comment, however I'm not sure that doesn't have the right to execute it is the deciding factor, when compared with the policy at WP:NACD, which states should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome (emphasis added, absence of must not noted). Hypothetical scenarios may arise whereby active admins alone are insufficient to keep up with evaluating and closing AfDs, with the speedy deletion of those closed in a non-admin capacity saving time. (I'm not claiming this is even remotely likely to happen, just that it's not entirely impossible.) Sorry if this appears argumentative, but I thought I needed to qualify my "possibly" comment above. -- Trevj (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Deryck. That's the question here. Would an appropriate CSD criterion constitute a form of "technical ability" to close an XfD as delete; does an appropriate CSD criterion exist already; or would a new CSD criterion need to be created to provide such a technical ability? Right now, the a priori practice has been not to use CSD to execute XfD deletions, but I'm wondering if the purpose and philosophy of non-admin closure shouldn't provide a workaround for the de-facto technical limitation. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The distinction there is that any decision that leads to deletion must be issued by an admin. What is appropriate though, is that someone points out in an XfD that the page in question fits a CSD (or even slap a speedy template onto the page), and then an admin comes along to delete the page before the expiration of the XfD. Once the page has been speedy-deleted, anyone can close the XfD as moot, but not the other way round. Deryck C. 23:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I want to add onto this by pointing a template I just found, {{Db-xfd}}, that seems to have been designed specifically for this function. The documentation, however, states to Use this template if an administrator closed an Articles for deletion or other deletion discussion with a consensus of delete, but the page still needs to be deleted.; it neither explicitely mentions nor forbids NAC, and I think it should be modified to explain whether it can be used for that purpose or not, according to whichever consensus emerged here. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, this looks like the smoking gun, doesn't it? {{Db-xfd}} is a technical means of executing a delete result of an XfD without an admin bit. I wonder if this has ever actually been used by a NAC before. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  The answer is very likely to be yes, although I would like to see consensus form before recommending its usage in this way or amending the documentation or G6 criteria to specify. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  I was under the impression that {{Db-xfd}} is for use where more than one article has been nominated in the same discussion: the main article is deleted as part of the close, and the others follow. For example, I referred to it in this AfD nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  My impression is that {{db-xfd}} exists to clean up the mess made by an admin who closed a discussion as delete, but went offline for whatever reason (lost connection, real-life things to do) before completing the deletion. On its own it doesn't make any suggestions about who can close XfDs. Deryck C. 23:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed on principal to the idea, but as a practical matter I don't think it would be prudent to write it into the guidelines or essay. Absent a rather large shift in opinion, the deleting admin is going to be help responsible if there is something wrong with the NAC delete close. So either the closer needs to be someone who the deleting admin trusts implicitly, yet for what ever reason the closer doesn't have the tools, or the deleting admin needs to review the entire discussion, determine consensus for themselves, and if they agree with the closer, delete. In the second case, the NAC just creates a duplication of work, and will lead to cases were an article remains in limbo, with a delete close that no one really wants to overturn, but where no one is willing to step up and carry it out either. I don't see a practical way to limit the proposal to what is basically the class of editors who at least as far as deletion work is concerned, should be admins but are not. Monty₈₄₅ 20:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Is WP:NONADMINCLOSURE‎ a shortcut?

I'm not about to edit war over this; I don't think it fits any reasonable definition of a shortcut as it doesn't shorten the title whatsoever, but clearly someone does. I am not contesting the fact it is a perfectly valid redirect, however!

I will note that WP:DELETIONPROCESS is not listed as a shortcut to WP:Deletion Process, and the same can be said of pretty much any other such pages I know of. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 06:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I started a related discussion at Template talk:Supplement#Character limit for "shortcut=", "shortcut2=", etc?. This could get to the root of this discussion to form a more clear consensus for editors to understand. Steel1943 (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. I'm not going to edit war either; I left it as was before I put the "shortcut" up there ... and then started the aforementioned discussion on the talk page of Template:Supplement, since the issue I see is the lack of information on that template's doc file. Steel1943 (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I completely agree. It's a perfectly valid redirect, but it is, in no way, a shortcut, and should not be listed as such on the page. It has nothing to do with an absolute sting length, but the fact that it is just the page title capitalized without spaces or the hyphen. That's just an alternative formatting, not a shortcut. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 06:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I also agree that it should not be listed as a shortcut; it's basically the entire title of the article itself. Not really a shortcut. Steel1943 (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC closure review

How do I get an RfC closure reviewed? A non-admin user closed this[3] RfC and entered a result that does not reflect consensus (the result should be no consensus according to the mediation the RfC was opened for [4][5]). I posted about this on the admin noticeboard, but got no responses.[6] -YMB29 (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You did it. You asked for a review at WP:AN. Given that I am involved, I won't go much further other than to suggest that the fact that it got no response should tell you something. As is common at most of the admin boards, you generally fare a lot better by simply stating that you would like a review instead of trying to push a conclusion, as you did. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 15:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Push a conclusion? This is the conclusion that the mediator made.

What should the lack of response at the admin noticeboard tell me? Well it does tell me that no one cared to look into the issue.

Since you are the one who formulated the RfC result, maybe you should change it, because it does not make sense. -YMB29 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to give you real feedback on how this process works, so please try to be informed by what I am telling you.

Yes; you pushed a conclusion. Admin noticeboards are all about tone, and your request was not a neutral wording; it looked like someone who just wanted to vent about an RfC that didn't go their way. If you want more than a prima facie look, something like "I would like a closure review of (link to RfC). Specifically, the closer was unaware of (link to mediation), which the RfC did not explicitly mention, but is pertinent to the context of the discussion, and suggests a higher standard of consensus for this RfC than was reached. Previous discussions at (link to Lord Roem's talk page archive), (Link to Vanisaac's talk page archive), (Link to this discussion), (Link to previous closure review)" looks a lot more like someone who wants an objective review of an RfC closure. Don't bring up that Roem would have closed it differently; it's actually irrelevant, since (s)he explicitly declined to close the RfC in favor of a closer who would take a fresh look at it.

I stand by my closure as a good-faith attempt to find WP:consensus. Lord Roem has never indicated that, because of mediation, the RfC was conducted under any altered criteria for consensus, which, as I've said before, would in and of itself be reason for me to review the closure.

Lastly, I spent over half an hour composing this response to you, so please read it with the care and thoughtfulness that was put into it. Given that not I, nor Lord Roem, nor the admin noticeboard concur that this should be overturned, you should also consider dropping the WP:stick.

It would have been better if you spent a half an hour formulating the RfC result...

I don't know how you can see a consensus in the contradicting responses of three users. You also got a historical fact wrong.

Usually if someone is after a result it would not be "no consensus"... In this case no consensus was the result that I, the mediator, and the other user in the mediation agreed with.

Lord Roem agrees that the result should be no consensus, but says that he can't change it since it was closed through NAC.

The lack of a response at the admin noticeboard does not mean that the admins don't "concur that this should be overturned." Don't try to twist this.

I don't know your purpose here, but I would think it is to help with RfC and other closures. Well if you are going to start flaming because you feel insulted when someone challenges your closure, it is not being helpful.

You did not know about the mediation discussion and about some facts from the article, but now you have a better understanding, so why don't you change the result? -YMB29 (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies folks, I thought I could get this back on track. YMB, if you wish to continue this conversation, please do so at my talk page. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC closures in general.

Is this the best place to discuss RfC closures in general? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It really depends on what you are wanting to talk about. If you want to discuss the general conduct of RfCs, I would go to Wikitalk:Requests for Comment, since that's where the RfC gurus hang out. If you want to discuss a particular issue concerning the conduct of closures, Wikitalk:Admin's noticeboard, Requests for Closure is monitored by people who actually do them. If you have a specific problem about a particular closure, then Admin's noticeboard is the best, since it will get a wide audience to meet a particular concern. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 09:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to talk about the way RfCs are closed generally, so I guess Wikitalk:Requests for Comment is the place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Good luck. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

re WP:NAC for deletions, and CSD G6

Non-admins can close XfC's as delete, then mark them for speedy as a G6 (technical deletion). Correct? NAC shouldn't say otherwise. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Non-admins cannot close discussions which require admin tools to enforce. I think the NAC is correct. Deryck C. 11:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifying another pitfall: conditional closures

Occasionally, a closure is requested with specific conditions. For example, I asked for an RfC to be closed on a policy basis as invalid, not on a consensus basis. In such cases, the closing editor should either comply by closing on the requested basis or decline to close at all. It would be an error to close on a consensus basis if they consider the RfC to be valid according to policy, as that would violate policy by cutting the discussion period short.

Is there any objection to my adding language to this effect? MilesMoney (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to any type of condition on closes. If your not in a position that you can close the discussion yourself, you also are not in a position to constrain how the closer handles the situation. The closer should act independently after considering your request. Monty₈₄₅ 13:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean "you're". The point of asking for a close before the full period is that you believe there is a particular reason why we shouldn't wait. If discussion has stopped and what's there clearly supports a particular view, that's one good reason to ask for a close. In my case, I asked because, in my view, the RfC had violated a number of key WP:RFC requirements and wasn't working. Assuming my beliefs about policy compliance were false, there was no reason to close the RfC so quickly. MilesMoney (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, that determination belongs to the closer, not to an involved editor. They may have decided that the discussion would no longer be productive due to the very conflict about whether it was valid, and that leaving it open would be counterproductive. Oftentimes, when you have arguments about the format of the RfC, it is best to simply close the matter quickly, rather than let it devolve into a meta-fight about the RfC. Since WP:consensus can change, RfC meta-fights inevitably generate far more heat than light, and it's worth it to redirect an involved editor's ire at you rather than continue on the talk page. In other words, you brought this on yourself by contaminating the RfC arguing about form instead of substance. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 18:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@Vanisaac - Given your analysis, what would you suggest an editor do in the event that (s)he believes that the RfC has been stated or launched improperly? I have seen other instances of this with various perceived flaws in the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Vanisaac, form affects substance. Part of what makes an RfC valid is that it follows the required forms, such as having a short, neutral opening statement or being listed for all relevant topics. When an RfC gets off on the wrong foot, it never brings in the editors it would have otherwise, and it biases them and their subsequent discussion by framing it in a particular direction.

If an RfC is well-formed, then closing it prematurely is bad. But if it's not well-formed, then leaving it going is bad. In the case I'm familiar with, the RfC was ruled valid yet closed prematurely, which makes no sense at all. MilesMoney (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this essay a POVFORK ? Should it be merged with WP:DELETION PROCESS?

This essay's claim to official-like greatness strikes me as being especially weird.

Specifically, the part where it claims to "supplement the Wikipedia:Deletion process page". The latter has been vetted through our process of establishing guidelines. This mere essay has not been so vetted, yet asserts some sort of authority role for areas the real guideline (through it's formal vetting process) left un-explicit. Regular old humble "this is my opinion" essays are one thing, but this one doesn't stay in that humble place. This essay claims at least a tiny bit of authority, a role to play among the official guideline big boys and girls.

QUESTION: How is this not a POVFORK? Said another way, if the contents of this essay provide some needed guidance, shouldn't this text be merged with the official guideline ?

QUESTION 2: If the answer is "no" does that mean I should write my own essays for how I want things to be interpreted, and then slap a "supplemental" claim on them? It would be a lot easier, perhaps than trying to get my views incorporated into the real deal.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is, fundamentally, a detailed instruction guide for how to do closes without the admin bit. The actual deletion guideline lists all the technical and policy restrictions, this one goes into detail about how those actually play out in regards to non-admin closes specifically, and incorporates larger wisdom, like the results of WP:AN discussions about closes, and the experience of actual closers in doing non-admin closes. So yes, this is just an essay, and should not be cited in a policy discussion as carrying the weight of community consensus, and it should always reflect any changes at NACD. But it is not a POV fork, but rather a content fork, so that DPR can focus solely on the deletion process, while this one can advise on how, exactly, non-admins can close deletion discussions. If you want to write up an essay, feel free - anyone can do it. This one has the respect that it does because it is crafted and maintained with a great deal of care so that it reflects policy and the reality of how policy gets applied at en.wiki, and it is highly unlikely that any other essay on the same topic would come even close to that level of respect for several years. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 08:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

(A) I should have said I am not involved with any closing issues...

(B) We agree that

• DPR "focus(es) solely on the deletion process" and
• This essays talks about "how, exactly, non-admins can close deletion discussions".

(C) Our disagreement, I think, relates to the word "soley" in the first bullet above. If I understand your use of "solely" correctly, you're saying the 2nd bullet above is not one aspect of the larger topic in the first bullet above. If that is what you mean, I disagree. DPR would still "focus solely on the deletion process" if the key points of this aspect of that process were included in the real guideline.

(D) In your edit summary you said they should NOT be merged, and your answer provides descriptive info, but discriptive info is not a rationale for opposing merger. Why should they NOT be merged? There is a subsection for non-admin closure at the real guideline. If the info in this essay is so vital, and so supported with long standing consensus, (and I have no reason to doubt either of those points) the question remains: why is this important info on an aspect of the deletion-process hanging out here in a mere essay instead of being merged into the subsection on this specific point in the guideline itself? Is the community opposed to that for some reason? Has anyone bothered to ask?

(E) Tagging stuff with the voice of quasi-authority via {{TEMPLATE:supplement}} reminds me a little of the practice of executive signing statements. It's not a perfect analogy of course, so lets not get side tracked.... the real issue I am probing is contained in paragraphs C and D, and though I haven't looked I presume one can raise the same questions wherever else that template is used.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(A) I really don't care. I only close RfCs, but still watch this page. For (C), the policy of NAC deletions already are in DPR. If they weren't, this essay wouldn't exist. In regards to (D), the easy answer is actually contained in your original post. This is only an essay. WP:DPR is a guideline. NAC would have to go through an RfC promotion to guideline before it could even be considered for incorporation into DPR. The bigger answer is that this content is irrelevant to most of the users of DPR. Why would we want to burden DPR with minutia about how NACs should approach an XfD? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 19:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's sort of my point.... this is an essay. Yet it aspires to "more" by way of the {{TEMPLATE:supplement}}. It would be easy enough to RFC this for a guideline unto itself, if it really is important enough to supplement another guideline. If it isn't that important, then it shouldn't claim to be anything more than a run-of-the-mill essay. And neither should any of the other policy & guidelines "supplements" that are really essays claiming to be more via a template. Vet these things as guidelines, or let them be essays. Seems like the template creates a backdoor/shortcut sort of process, at least to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are reading a lot more into {{supplement}} than is actually there. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• This page is confusing due to purposeless redundancy. It is not a real essay, as it is not opinion.

  The real policy issues, in concise for belong at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. Most of this page should be merged to Wikipedia:Closing discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

old text restored in "Inappropriate closures" section

I've undone Incnis Mrsi's changes [7], mainly because the wording was unclear.

The old text clearly expresses the idea that an administrator's intervention is needed to delete a redirect that is in the way of a move. That was lost in Icnis Mrsi's version.

Incnis Mrsi mentioned Wikipedia:Redirect#SUPPRESS, which is about moving a page without leaving a redirect behind. Some editors who are not administrators have the privilege to do this, so Incnis Mrsi generalised the section to cover situations where the editor doesn't have enough privileges to implement the outcome of a discussion. It's a little bit of a change to the scope of the essay. —rybec 01:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed guideline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that this page be promoted to a guideline. I also propose that the content of this page change to what is written in the collapsed box. The changes reflect current practice to the best of my knowledge, attempt to remove some duplication and conflict from the current essay, and include copyedits. Some of my proposal is copied from the current text; see the current page for attribution history. --Pine^✉ 07:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to raise this page from an essay to a guideline. It pretty much reflects current practice. I'm not sure about simultaneously changing what the page says, so I wonder whether the RfC should be divided, to address the content change separately from the essay-to-guideline change. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Tryptofish It's easier to change the content of an essay than to change the content of a guideline because essays don't require the level of consensus that guidelines do. I think that my updated content is a better reflection of current practice than the existing text. However I could boldly replace the text of the current essay with my proposal and then hope for consensus to promote to a guideline. What do you think? --Pine^✉ 06:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty much neutral about whether the proposed language is, or is not, better. My point is simply that I think these are two separate issues. I'm not sure which issue to address first. You may just want to wait and see what other editors responding to this RfC think. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. We read that the non-admin shouldn't get involved if: 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. This seems unnecessarily complex and problematic. Somebody might claim that they had demonstrated a lack of conflict of interest by having expressed in the discussion the blazingly obvious fact that anyone wanting deletion must have a potential conflict of interest (or something similarly convoluted). Therefore let's simplify: The non-admin has expressed an opinion in the discussion, edited the article in question, or been otherwise involved. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Hoary: I understand the wish to simplify but I think the idea behind the more complicated language is to prevent an editor who has strong opinions or a conflict of interest about a topic from closing a deletion discussion even if the editor had no prior involvement on the article's specific page or the specific deletion discussion. Can you can think of a simpler way to word that broad prohibition? --Pine^✉ 08:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose  The essay is WP:NAC, the guideline is WP:NACD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Unscintillating that guideline applies only to deletion closures. This is a broader guideline about non-admin closures in general. I could remove the content about non-admin deletion closures and refer to the other guideline. What do you think? --Pine^✉ 08:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• That is an interesting argument, but with a quick review I see one sentence on RfC and two sentences and a subsection title on Requested moves.  Are you proposing to leave three sentences?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would remove everything about deletions and leave everything else. The guideline would be short but I think it's more than 3 sentences. However, would it make more sense to do a copy and paste or cut and paste from the existing NACD guideline into this one? I like the idea of having all non-admin closure information in the same place. --Pine^✉ 08:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is an essay page, and converting it to a guideline page would then create two guideline pages, with this one being another guideline page in addition to the actual guideline page already existent at WP:NACD. This would create unnecessary ambiguity and force users to refer to two pages, rather than one. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Northamerica1000 please see discussion above that I'm having with Unscintillating. --Pine^✉ 08:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, no, I guess not. Let's think about this some more, anyway. First of all, there're some things in this essay that are plain wrong -- for instance, that non-admins can't close XfD's resulting in deletion. AFAIK those can be done through CSD G6; once the deletion decision is made the actual deletion is just a technicality, I think. Or anyway this is something worth discussing before we make it a formal rule. So let's slow down. I guess it depends on if there's an actual problem or if this is a solution looking for a problem. I'd be leery of moving responsibilities away from the mass of editors and toward the admin corps when it's not necessary. I occasionally close discussions and do so reasonably well, and that's one less thing for an admin to have to do. I've also seen a number of admin closes over the years that are too terse or otherwise not so great. That's understandable I suppose, since admins are busy. But if admins are busy, making it that much harder for regular editors to help out doesn't seem called for. Herostratus (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed guideline

Deletions and merges

Appropriate closures

Experienced editors in good standing are allowed (although not necessarily encouraged) to close some XfD discussions. Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures:

• Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants. This also extends to other clear closes in which the final task can be performed by a non-admin i.e. Redirect or Merge (when a history merge or deletion is not required).
• AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination.
• Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.
• Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed.

Inappropriate closures

Non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:

• 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.
• The result will require action by an administrator such as
  • Deletion.
  • Moving an article into a page (such as a redirect) that can't be accomplished by a regular editor.
  • Unprotecting a page.
  • Merging page histories.

Inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator ("Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator", from Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions) or could result in a successful request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Inappropriate early closures thus waste everyone's time.

Pitfalls to avoid

• Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions.
• If the nominated item is a controversial topic the close may be best left to an administrator. Controversies may be indicated by the broad topic area, related discussions, and previous XfDs.
• Contrary to popular belief, especially among newer editors, discussions are not a vote. Administrators 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.
• 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 non-admin closes such a discussion and does not take all of the steps, it can create a mess. In particular, closing FfDs should be avoided by anyone who is not experienced in closing debates in this venue. 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 discussions likely know how to use bots, scripts and third-party tools to help them do so.

Other non-admin closures

Non-administrators may close many non-XfD discussions as long as no administrator rights are required to carry out the consensus of the discussion. These closures can include featured content promotions or demotions, ANI discussions that do not result in a block, moving a page, requests for reviewer or rollbacker rights that are obviously to be denied, and requests for comment. All users including administrators who disagree with a non-XfD close should use the dispute resolution process described at at Wikipedia:Close#Challenging a closing.

Notes

• Some featured content promotions and demotions are to be done only by elected project delegates. Featured content promotions and demotions never require administrator closes even when the result is unclear.
• Successful and unclear RfAs and RfBs are always closed by a bureaucrat.
• Certain pages and discussions may have special editing or closure restrictions such as Arbitration Committee case pages.
• Moving a page generally does not require administrator permissions. Although requested move discussions are conventionally closed by administrators, it is also sometimes appropriate for non-admins to close requested moves. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure.

See also

• Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions - The actual guideline concerning non-admin deletion closures.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy
• Wikipedia:Deletion process
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion
• Wikipedia:Deletion discussions
• Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators
• Instructions for closing AFDs
• Wikipedia:Closing discussions
• Template:Nac used by {{subst:nac}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed new section

I propose adding the following text to the top of the Which discussions should a non-admin close or not close? section, right below the other sections (note: It will be plain text, not in a "quote box"):

In a nutshell: Non-administrators may close discussions when

• They not not have any "stake" in the matter, or there is no other reason why they would avoid closing that discussion even if they were an administrator.
• No special user-rights are needed or they have the necessary user-rights.
• No reasonable person would argue that the result is "not obvious."
• The closer has enough experience in the type of discussion that his lack of experience in that area won't be a reason to question the closure.

The "or the have the necessary user-rights" in the 2nd bullet-item is there for RfCs that require less-than-admin user-rights, such as an RFC to edit a protected template.

Further thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion

I've started a discussion over at WT:Deletion process#Question about WP:NACD that may interest the passing reader. Thanks, Ansh666 18:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to WT:Deletion process, because there's no topic with that name at WT:Deletion policy, so I've fixed it above. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes

There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarify footnote

I propose changing from the following footnote from the "Inappropriate closures" section:

Administrators cannot revert a closure just because the closer was not an admin; per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators must justify their decisions when questioned.

To the following:

Administrators should not revert a closure based solely on the fact that the original closer was not an administrator, based on consensus following this request for comment. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to promptly and civilly justify their decision to revert based on an assessment of the local consensus and application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Rationale:

1. Cannot confuses the scope of the essay. Admins are not technically restricted from reopening a discussion, in the same sense that a user is technically restricted from performing actions beyond their access level. Rather, the implication is that although it is in their power to do so they should not do so in conformity with community expectations.
2. Specify that the determination should not be made based solely on being a non-admin. Just is colloquial, and there may be instances where the reversal is based on being a non-admin, but not solely on that fact, but also, for example, on the fact that the user was a non-admin and non-admins are forbidden from performing that type of close for technical reasons.
3. Link to relevant RfC.
4. The fact that there is a user decision that is being reversed is an a priori criticism of the admin action requiring justification per WP:ADMINACCT. If no one disagreed with the admin decision, there would be no original "bad" close to reverse. That the disagreement comes chronologically before the admin action is immaterial. A justification for the reversal should therefore be provided as a matter of course, without the need to wait for a post facto criticism which can be assumed to exist. Similar to WP:BRD, the fact that you are reverting means someone disagrees with you, means a justification should normally be given.

Finally, the important thing is not that some justification is given, but that the justification be based on consensus, policy and guidelines. TimothyJosephWood 15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC Section Clarification

should be aware of any such closures falling under the sysop accountability policy.

Honestly, what...exactly is this supposed to mean? There doesn't seem to be anything in ADMINACCT that mentions RfC, and visa versa. Is there a consensus somewhere that's not being linked to, or is this just a lack of clarity on the part of the essay? TimothyJosephWood 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Timothyjosephwood: Basically, it means that non-admins closing discussions are expected to explain and defend their closes if questioned about them. They can't just refuse to answer questions about why they closed things the way they did. This is very important, as a good closer should always be accountable for their close. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

So definitely could use some better wording there. It doesn't fall under the policy, but is analogous to it. It is also not any such closures but rather all closures.

What about something a bit more plain English, mostly paraphrasing from ADMINACCT:

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.

TimothyJosephWood 12:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. It's longer, but it's in plain English rather than traditional twisted Wikispeak, and avoids having to hunt for the policy to see what ADMINACCT actually means. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No objections from either, so long as the section is maintained in tandem with ADMINACCT if the latter is ever altered in a significant way. I doubt it will be. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor wanting to remove one instance of non-admin closure

An editor is wanting to make a change on his own initiative and is insisting. The change is, under "Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures", the bullet point (the material that the editor wants to delete is shown bolded and struck through):

AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination.

I'm skeptical that this is an improvement on the merits, and I am quite certain that material changes to rule pages should be discussed, and consensus obtained, before the change is made. The editor's edit summary was "removing this - clearly controversial per Wikipedia talk:Deletion process" for the first time and "I've come across cases of non-admins closing Afds with little discussion as 'no consensus' where an admin would have closed as delete; this is inappropriate" for the second time.

I don't find these to be strong arguments, and in any case we are not best served by discussion via edit summaries and back-and-forth edits, and so I invite the editor to make his case here and convince us. Herostratus (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• There is evidence of a strong consensus for the change at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Proposal:_AfD_with_no_participants_should_be_relisted_indefinitely.2C_not_closed.2C_until_there_is_at_least_one_other_participant. There is an argument that these closes are quite biased, biased against "soft delete". And also that these closes are not obvious, but can easily go either way, and therefore are not good NACs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• I support User:BU Rob13's 01:05, 21 November 2016‎ edit, including the explanatory edit summary, and think it should be reinstated. Further, I think the text should be removed until there is consensus to support, not kept until there is consensus to remove. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support the change (discussions at WT:Deletion_process have already reached a quasi-consensus on this; so opening another discussion or Rfc would be repetitive). I'm sorry for reverting your change Herostratus. You've mentioned that edit-warring on rules pages is not advised. Just a note (not to be argumentative); this is not a rules page, just an essay; secondly, there's no edit warring if you are reverted once. It was actually you who has reverted twice. BU Rob13 has worked the past few months weeding out silly re-lists, which have the potential of a detrimental effect on editors frequenting the Afd desk. This is a consequent result of those discussions. I would encourage you to please revert your own change before proceeding with this discussion here. Thanks. Lourdes 02:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Just noticed this comment. I only reverted the two closes; I'm not systematically looking for them. There were systemic issues there, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Already supported by guidelines. This isn't even something that needs new consensus. WP:NACD says not to make closes that are controversial or close calls. Discussion at WT:Deletion process shows this is controversial. WP:NOQUORUM, a guideline, lists five possible outcomes, meaning that the situation is a close call. Ergo existing guidelines reject this type of non-admin close. An essay can't override that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Herostratus, just for the record, and just as an example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushkil Samme Mein closed by Music1201 is one of the Afds I have been involved in, where the close flew in the face of existing guideline. I didn't pursue a change in the close statement (although I would actually even now prefer that the close is changed by any admin who sees it, to ensure a correct close) as the article got deleted. As I said, this is just an example. I can forward you multiple other closes similar to this. Thanks. Lourdes 02:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Consensus seems pretty clear here so I have amended the text to read: AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, but should not be closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination by non-admins if there is a reasonable basis for deletion put forward and there was no opposition. This is because the closing admin is likely to Soft Delete the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I support Spartaz's amendment as above per my comments at the Wikipedia talk:Deletion process discussion linked above. Mz7 (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• OK this is fine. I have seen enough cases of bad rules where the history is "some random person put that in three years ago and a couple people grumbled but nobody rolled it back and now we're stuck with it." As long as there's discussion. On the merits I can see both sides and don't have an opinion. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)