Wikipedia talk:Closure requests

NAC Deletes

• @Technical 13: It appears that RfD follows the same deletion policy as for articles. In other words "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome". Moves are different. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You're technically (ha) correct, Ed. In the past, I've argued for such actions on a WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR basis, but I realize that argument won't convince everyone. I think the evidence of such backlogs is rather strong evidence that we should be allowing non-admins in good standing to do this. To a certain extent, deletion is a big deal, but at least in these cases, restoring a deleted redirect is quite simple. --BDD (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I was waiting for this, EdJohnston. I'd argue that above WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR, the ability to tag pages that were determined consensus was to delete as CSD:G6 with a rational that links back to the deletion discussion qualifies as a technical ability to act upon the outcome. I'm also more than willing to discuss my reasoning behind my determination of consensus per the header of this noticeboard. I'm willing to hold off on closing any more as delete to allow this discussion to develop a little more, but I think it is doing a disservice to the encyclopedia in doing so. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And {{db-xfd}} acts as a bit of a check and balance, since it ensures an admin is involved anyway. If that admin would give a quick check to the validity of the decision, effectively seconding it, then you're good to go, but I wouldn't really fault one for just taking it on faith. --BDD (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, cool BDD! Thanks for pointing that out, I was using the "housekeeping" G6 option on twinkle, didn't even see the XfD one. I'll use that on the rest if there is consensus for me to continue closing. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't continue that -- any limited consensus you find here would probably be overridden in a more-publicized discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Technical 13 § NAC

I wonder how you reached to a merge conclusion after so many 'oppose' arguments and editors? [1] Also, NAC isn't usually for controversial discussions unless the consensus is WP:SNOW. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Its not a vote, so there being so many 'oppose' arguments/editors matters less since they all said roughly the same thing. My decision was based on the fact that the end of the discussion leaned towards merging with that article (instead of the originally proposed one) and I saw no arguments that outweighed the consensus for it to be merged. Thanks for stopping by though! You are welcome to request a review if you like. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I know it isn't a vote that's why I mentioned "arguments" and not just editors and it kind of appeared like a WP:SUPERVOTE so I just thought I'd ask you if there was something I was missing... I wasn't originally the part of the merge discussion, so I'll let the initial participants decide if they want a review. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding RFD closures...

...Just giving you a heads-up that you may want to reference the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for closure when you are placing the {{Db-xfd}} tag on RFD discussions you close to "delete". Due to WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC, closes for "delete" by us non-admins might be challenged by others, and ... well, long story short, been there, done that, and now, I close very few discussions. Either way, I'm going to start removing the transclusions of completed days to clean up the log. Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Steel1943! Thanks for stopping by! There is actually an on-going discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes about this, and I'm taking a break for a day or two to let more comments come in and more consensus to build. You are welcome to drop your thoughts there of course. As to your specific post here, I had though that I did mention the deletion discussions in the deletion templates I posted with Twinkle (just learned about Db-xfd, was using the "housekeeping' G6 version before). I'm not afraid of my closes being challenged (see above) and am more than willing to try and layout my exact thought process in cases where someone seems confused how I came to the conclusion I did. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, if you choose someday to run at WP:RFA, a question that can be asked is how the person conducted themselves in non-admin closures. If people observe that you were making non-admin RfD delete closures that are technically against the written policy, that is hardly a good beginning for that discussion. RfAs these days make a big deal of any connection the candidate may have to deletion issues, including their speedy nominations and their AfD votes. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ed, thanks for popping in! I have no intention of running an RfA in the near future (I'm actually quite opposed to the idea at the moment). I just ran for a seat in the most recent ArbCom elections, and while my hopes are realistic (I don't expect a seat, although I was likely one of the better non-admin candidates based on the review I got in some of the voter guides), I look forward to seeing the final results. Either way, non-admin deletions are as supported by {{Db-xfd}} as they are discouraged (not technically against policy) in WP:DPR#NAC. I'd be willing to go so far as to say that deletion discussions that have not been acted upon in over a month (when the max length of such discussion should not exceed a couple relistings with a total length of up to 21 days (technically 16 days comprised of an initial 7-day period and 3 3-day relistings, as I've read it) and have ended up at ANRfC, where non-admin closures seem to be the norm, it is perfectly fine for a non-admin to close as delete, tag the page {{Db-xfd}} and have an admin delete it on their behalf. Thinking that an admin has "more authority" detracts from Jimbo Wales's NOBIGDEAL. Admins are just mop holders and any established editor has as much authority as any other regardless of membership in user groups. Either way, like I said on the talk page discussion listed above, I'm happy to step aside for a couple days and let an admin deal with them or let a wider consensus emerge on the topic in the sub-heading. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 06:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin close

I notice that you closed the RfD for Next Fijian general election as Delete. Have you seen this bit in WP:Deletion process "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome"? I've taken the speedy tag off as you might want to reconsider... (I do agree that it's useless as a redirect - this is a procedure objection.) Peridon (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Peridon: It seems that per the section above this one, there has been an WP:IAR call to close discussions on the RFD backlog, specifically regarding NACs that result in delete. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin deletions

Per WP:BADNAC, it's not acceptable to non-admin close a discussion as delete. I've reverted your close to the Next Fijian general election article, and removed the speedy request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Per the multiple discussions above and elsewhere, non-admin delete closures are not prohibited and a lack of willing or able administrators to carry out closing such discussions causing them to end up at ANRFC is a justifiable reason to WP:NOTBUREAUWP:IAR to WP:BADNAC and as such I suggest you add your thoughts on this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. Thank you! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Raised it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NAC deletes in an attempt to get a wider consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that since a non-admin can't actually carry the deletion out it xhould be up to an admin to make those close. The only exception I can think of would be cases where an admin speedy deleted an article that was being discussed and a non-admin closed the discussion since the deletion was already carried out.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• invitee from WP:NAC: Sarek, the way this has generally kind of worked in the past is that NACs that have to use a WP:SPEEDY should not be overturned on the basis that CSD isn't technically a user permission to delete a file, even while discouraging non-admins from making those kinds of closes. WP:NAC was written as a set of best practices when doing non-admin closures, not a list of rules to be wikilawyered over. So NAC tells people not to do closures on matters that they do not have the user permissions to execute the outcome. But sometimes, you may end up with a discussion on, say, a big list of files, where you do an NAC that keeps the vast majority of them, but there are a couple where the discussion found they should get deleted (a bitmap version of an SVG, for example). It's probably best if a non-admin who is willing to put in the time to go through all those files and do the closes just to stick a CSD tag on the couple exceptions, and just ignore the fact that he's technically pawning this off on an admin. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So, this is the question we're asking

Since we have so many discussions brought in from so many places, it might not be clear where to state opinions, so here we go: Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?. So far, arguments in favor are Ignore all rules and not bureaucracy, while the big argument against is that non-administrators can't actually carry out this decision. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is the long backlog at some discussion pages back to October in some cases. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely they should Non-admins should not feel like they cannot judge consensus and close any discussion. If a deletion is needed, simply ask an admin to do so. There's plenty of active admins; find one you know well and drop a note on their talk page. If any non-admin closed a discussion as "delete" and asked me for the technical help in deleting it, I would help out. I suspect that many other admins would as well. Any policy which says that non-admins are forbidden from doing some action (which has no technical barrier) is a bad idea and we should never set up any situation where admins are a special class who are "better" at some part of Wikipedia, like judging consensus and closing discussions. Just close the discussion, and then ask for an admin to do the minor technical detail of performing the deletion. --Jayron32 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Errr isn't the idea of this to save admin time? If an admin deletes something T13 has closed without checking it, that's a lot different from doing the same to something Herbert the Aardvark has closed. Herbert joined us three weeks ago and this is his first venture into Draft space after doing his other ten edits. I wouldn't object to a new permission XfD Closer for experienced enough non-admins (like T13) that would enable them to utilise the route T13 in all good faith used, which led to this discussion. The difference with the delete closes is that the object disappears. In the no consensus or keep, it doesn't and it can easily be brought back in the event of no con, or a very close or disputed call for keep. Are you going to let Herbert close as delete? If an admin HAS to check the discussion to see if the decision is right, the only gain is that the NACer has another tick on the path to RfA. The start of this lot for me was a minor redirect that is no great gain or loss whatever happens to it. But the rules apply across XfD, not just to RfD. Are we to have NACs for delete in AfD? Done by Herbert the Aardvark? BTW closing as 'Deleted' is way different to closing as 'Delete'. 'Deleted' means a fait accompli - it's gone. The discussion is therefore dead and needs burying. For 'Delete', things aren't over yet... Peridon (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

To start, I agree absolutely with the principle of everything Jayron just dais. However, the fact that non-admins can't carry out a "delete" decision is the technical barrier. When you close an XfD, you are generally expected to carry out the decision, with the exception of "merge" results, which will often need further consensus on how to merge them (and therefore can't necessarily be carried out by just one person). A non-admin can't carry out a "delete" decision, so he shouldn't close it that way. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Why is it expected that he could close it for "keep", but cannot for "delete". He just needs to ping an admin to do the technical bit. There are two issues here: the judging of consensus and closing the discussion (which anyone can do) and the actual deletion (which needs an admin). An admin is not needed for the first part. --Jayron32 23:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

So what is the admin responsible for when deleting an article under these circumstances? Just delete based on the close without further review? Analyzing whether the closer is suitable? (proper level of experience/judgement) Review the discussion denovo and make their own judgement? If the deletion is disputed, whose deletion is it to reconsider, the admin's or the closer's, who can't even see the deleted content anymore... Monty₈₄₅ 16:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that be entirely up to the admin that deletes the page with the {{Db-xfd}} template on it? Aren't administrators suppose to make sure that CSD deletion requests are valid before carrying them out or are there admins that need a review because they are just deleting things tagged as CSD willy-nilly against policy? 130.111.59.29 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's the Cabal of Rogue admins! Desysop them all! lol All joking aside though, that is a fair point, administrators should be reviewing CSDs before deleting them and the general NAC guidleines would still apply where if an admin disagreed that the closing reflected the consensus, they would have the right to postpone or reverse the decision pending asking the reviewer why they thought their close was reflective of the consensus. If the closer had a valid reasoning for it, then it would stand and the admin would delete or defer to another admin to delete. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • But if the admin needs to fully asses the consensus of the AFD discussion, the work is being duplicated. Whats the benefit of the NAC then? Generally speaking Db-xfd tags are used where the closing admin missed something and some additional cleanup is required. The person deleting is just carrying out the close, and defers to the original close as to consensus. Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      • They need to check the discussion, they don't need to fully reassess it. It takes a lot less time to skim through the comments and see if the result generally reflects them than it does to sit there and thoroughly read through and weigh each comment to determine consensus. As long as the result doesn't stand out as a SUPERVOTE or doesn't seem obviously skewed to one side or the other when the comments don't reflect that's the consensual result, then there is no reason to overturn. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. (my answer to the question asked) There is nothing wrong with an experienced non-admin who takes the bull by the horns when others who also have hold of the horns need some backup help. I might be the wrong person to take part in this apparent attempt to make Tech 13 and others like myself feel as if we've done something wrong when the only thing on our minds is to help out when we can when help is needed. What a waste of good editing and improvement time this is! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not averse to the idea, but I think it needs more thought. How would a non-admin respond to a query about the deleted article (perhaps from its creator, perhaps a random passer-by—I've known this to happen years after the deletion)? They can't see what was deleted, so they'd have to tell the editor to ask an admin, which is going to confuse the editor because they would expect the closer to be an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If the editor in question, for the sake of argument - myself, was an experienced editor - such as myself - they would know enough to simply explain to the editor that they do not have access to the deleted content directly and ask the admin that actually carried out the deletion to weigh in on the matter and deal with any possible userfication or restoration. Barring that (if the deleting admin was no longer active let's say), such an experienced editor would also know how to find another administrator to assist whether it is asking another admin they are familiar with or going to an administrative forum such as WP:AN. Meeting any resistance at such forums, such an experienced editor wouldshould be capable and willing to assist the user in opening an appropriate DRV request. Personally, I have no issue with clarification of whatever clauses and processes the community comes up with in the wording of wherever this ends up written, and support such clarity. What I'm unclear about in your question is why you think that they would expect the closer to be an admin. That seems to be a bit mind-reader-ish and wouldn't be backed by any essay, guideline, or policy if this discussion turns into anything. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Most new editor's probably assume everything is closed by an administrator, assuming that no one else is allowed to do this. New users generally think we follow rules more strictly than we actually do. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes As an admin who works on big backlogs, I absolutely appreciate qualified non-admins closing discussions, regardless of the outcome. If any individual is making bad judgments or abusing this power, deal with that person. Realistically, giving sanction to this practice isn't going to make a bunch of editors who signed up yesterday trying to seize power. It's going to allow good-faith non-admins in good standing to help out to address backlogs. Far from EdJohnston's suggestion that this could hurt someone at RfA, I'd see it as evidence of experience and initiative. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• By the way, perhaps as a sort of compromise or pilot program, we could sanction this sort of activity only in backlogs. I suspect this is where most such non-admins will work anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• I have added an RfC tag and linked to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion review, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion, and Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion. This discussion is already listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Incredibly suboptimal idea. non admins lack the technical ability to review or undelete material they have closed as delete. This means that any challenge to their close isn't going to get proper consider. Either a non involved admin has to be found or the complainant is going to get fobbed off. Another concern is that there will be an increase in poor deletions. editors lacking the knowledge and nuance to correctly interpret our policies will be closing discussions to aid their hat collecting. This will mean the Csd clearing admin will have to review the close before deleting or DRV will be swamped.given that poor deletion reasons are a reason why new editors get scared off t, I feel this idea had far more downside then possible upside. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No I don't think as an admin I'd simply delete something that someone told me it's OK to delete. As an admin the onus is on me to make sure I'm not screwing up, and that means I'll look at the AFD the same way as if I was closing it... which means I might as well close it myself. If this is an attempt to lighten loads or clear backlogs, I'm pretty sure it's not going to work. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - Wanting to be an admin means you have to do admin things .... like judging and closing discussions, I personally believe NAC helps you experience-wise and I assume it's helping alot with backlogs too. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe that actual participation (i.e. !voting) is much more valuable experience than actually closing, especially on discussions in which you have no prior exposure to. You are still able to judge the entire discussion and decide what you think the consensus is, but at the end you still get to see whether you were correct or not, and correct yourself accordingly in the future. (Sometimes this comes in the form of a pile-on vote; personally I think that's fine, and have done it in the past.) ansh666 21:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes The less responsibilities that are admin only the better. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Absolutely Not The one who is ultimately responsible for deleting an article is the one who hits the big red D button that makes it go away. That person is always going to be an Admin. No one should have the power to make a decision that someone else has to carry out with the responsibility falling on that second person. File this under the heading "Don't start what you can't finish." See also FreeRangeFrog's post above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No, the ability to decide the outcome of deletion requests is one of the issues most looked for in requests for adminship. In addition, only admins can technically perform, and hence be responsible for, deletions (and any followup such as userfications).  Sandstein  21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No. There are multiple reasons I have this opinion, some of which are: 1) it increases the amount of work to be done (an admin must check to see if the discussion was closed properly or not); 2) the non-admin closer is not responsible for the deletion (i.e. the deletion log will only show the deleting admin) and cannot review/restore the page if requested. Basically, it increases the amount of bureaucracy needed (contrary to the suggestion that WP:NOTBURO is an argument in favor) and decreases accountability of deletion. No comment on quality, but I will say very clearly that were I allowed to, I would not close any discussion as delete which is not completely obvious, and those are usually handled fairly quickly by actual administrators anyways. ansh666 21:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • But they're not actually all handled quickly by "actual" administrators anyway. That's why we're here. There are no administrators that want to look through and close them. So, either stuff that should be deleted sits there for months on end (I'm not exaggerating, see Large backlog at RfD) where there are closes (the ones I did didn't seem that hard to assess) that have been waiting for a close since last July (five months ago). Any closer assumes all the responsibility for their closes regardless of the outcome is. It does not matter that "they" didn't push the button, and it is easy enough for the admin that pushes the button to put in a decline reason Deleting per [User:«editor that closed the discussion»|Closer]'s close of [XfD/Log/YYYY MMM dd#page to delete|XfD]. Please contact them for assistance., so the the deletion log will only show the deleting admin argument doesn't fly well. If the closer is willing to do the extra leg work to deal with restoration/userfication requests, then so-be-it, less work for admin to have to do. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm, my experience is at AfD only; the other XfDs must be different, then. The problem with Any closer assumes all the responsibility for their closes regardless of the outcome is. is that they cannot - non-admins cannot see or restore deleted content. And, while I am aware you can put the closer's name in the deletion rationale, it still marks the administrator as the one who deleted the page. ansh666 21:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
      • In reply to is that they cannot - non-admins cannot see or restore deleted content, by outlining the closers responsibilities when closing discussions, it is simple to add in there that it is their responsibility to find a willing administrator, oversighter (not necessarily just for admins), or editor in another usergroup that has access to the information to supply assistance in giving a summary, emailing the contents of, restoring, or userfying the deleted content. At that point, admins are doing what admins are supposed to do, be the mop holder and the button pusher. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Which, once, again, would push the responsibility onto somebody else. Deletion isn't a fire-and-forget affair. (speaking of which, that article has problems...) ansh666 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes in theory, no in practice. Non-admins are perfectly capable of judging consensus to delete, as is already done with consensus to keep or merge. But the person who pushes the delete button must be accountable for that action, so they should make the effort to review it themselves. If an admin can't be bothered checking their own janitorial work, they shouldn't be deleting anything. The real answer here is for people with the experience, wisdom and willingness to make difficult closes, to lodge an RfA and be passed by the community as the kind of people we need in that role. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No administrators are accountable for any actions they take with their admin tools (WP:ADMINACCT), so if a non-admin delete closure is actually implemented then it is really an admin closure since the deleting admin is the one responsible. Furthermore it goes against the guideline WP:NACD. Hut 8.5 22:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No: the person who presses the "delete" button should be solely accountable for pressing it.—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• No per FreeRangeFrog. Also, closing an AfD as delete without actually deleting the article seems like a "half-close" to me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• I used to want to say "yes", but now I say No. Admins get the mop and bucket, and the burden of pressing the delete button should fall solely on their hands. But hey, who wants to start a discussion to unbundle the "delete" function from the administrative toolset? Ha, just kidding. Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Why not? Non-admin closures are subject to administrator review already; just as admins may say "no, this discussion should be delete" for a "keep" closure, they can do the other way around. Yes, the people pushing the delete button need to be able to act independently of the non-admin closer (if I switch a "delete" close to a "keep", I shouldn't get in trouble simply for doing the switching), but this is only because we're all responsible for our own actions. When it's not a technical matter or a WMF-required matter (e.g. requiring community approval for admin rights), everyone should be equal. If you're qualified to close an AFD as "keep", you're qualified to close it as "delete" too. We can use {{db-xfd}} for this kind of situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, and if things work like I think they are suppose to work, admin closures are supposed to be subject to non-admin review as well, after all, isn't that what DRV is for? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Correct. It would be better yet if admins didn't have the right to overrule non-admin closures, but that simply wouldn't work: I'm responsible for my own actions, and if Steel1943 closes a discussion as "delete" and I delete it, I can't go calling him an idiot for the deletion if I think consensus was trending toward "keep". Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Incorrect -- Non-admin closures are not subject to administrator review -- see recent RFC on the subject. NE Ent 03:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Oh, those kind of closures. That's very different. Never mind. NE Ent 03:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • NE Ent, while I appreciate the outcome and would like to see a similar outcome here, that discussion was specific to RfC and not XfDs. There is apparently a longstanding belief amongst some that there is a difference between the two. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • [edit conflict] You would do well to read WP:NACD, the NAC section of the deletion process page: Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by an administrator. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• No per Steel1943's argument above; and the first person that proposes a new Deletor usergroup should be shot! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Haha, that goes for anyone who comes up with "blocker" too! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I strongly believe (for the hill of peanuts that it is worth) that failure to get these discussions closed and redirects/categories/files|templates/miscellany deleted in a timely fashion when there is community consensus to do so, then we are effectively flipping the community off and driving editors (possibly good ones) away. When it takes over five months to complete a process that is suppose to take a week and absolutely no more than a month, then we have a severe problem. I'm personally not proposing that this should be an option for deletion of articles, as there are plenty of content minded administrators willing to do those, it's all the odds and ends that may or may not rely heavily on technical abilities (like the ability to read a template or module in the cases of TfD) to close or things people don't really care about like redirects and odds and ends that need to have someone assess them. The only legitimate reason that I can see to oppose this is as a power struggle to prevent users that aren't administrators from doing NACs at all. I mean, in most cases, what is the point of wasting even five or ten minutes to read through a handful of arguments if the result is likely going to be delete?

So, what are the options? (you probablymost certainly do not want to read this TL;DR rant.)

• Force administrators to assess one XfD a day? - yeah, right... Not reasonable and not going to happen
• Unbundle the delete right from "admin only"? - I'm pretty sure the ability to delete and the ability to read deleted content is bundled together so that's a non-starter as the WMF requires community vetting
  • Although I suppose we could create a "new" mini-admin group for established users that would require some kind of community vetting that the WMF would approve - but that isn't very likely either
• Form a committee to vet out possible administrators to propose to the community and create some kind of appointment system based on community votes - a very similar proposal just failed so not likely
• Find some other way to convince experienced and capable editors to run for RfA, perhaps lowering the bar a little - RfA is broken beyond repair and the only reason it failed to achieve any consensus to do away with it is because there are a handful of holdouts that think it's better to have a system in place that someone may get through every once in a while, and there is certainly no consensus at this point to lower the bar a little and make it achievable for a few more editors
• Allow non-admins to review discussions and close them however is appropriate. I mean, if they are going to spend five or ten minutes or three hours reading through the discussions and arguments, then they should be able to slap a template on it regardless of what the consensus is.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the hesitation and the opposition, you don't trust these established editors (who may or may not have multiple other "trust required bits" like account creator, mass message sender, template editor, rollback, file mover, or autopatrolled) to be able to assess the consensus in a discussion. They are more than welcome to close any RfC discussions with any appropriate result, but they are "discouraged" from closing a clear cut RfD as delete because someone else has to push a button to carry it out. Seems skewed to me in a way that suggests that administrators indeed have unquestionable authority over all other "lesser" editors.

I collapsed my rant, as I'm sure many of you won't read it. That's okay, I'd rather you spend your time improving the encyclopedia and taking care of the backlogs to make this a moot point in the first place than read it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. I can think of too many instances where a delete with a CSD is a good way of enacting a closure - especially when the deletion is a small part of the overall issue. We shouldn't change anything in WP:NAC, nor should non-admins be told how they can go about doing it - if they aren't familiar enough with policies to figure out how to do it with a maintenance CSD, we shouldn't be giving them ideas - but an NAC should never be overturned on the basis of having a deletion done via CSD instead of direct deletion via admin permission. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• No per Spartaz. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• No. Non-admins should not close deletion discussions outside of the very limited criteria set out by WP:NAC -- even that is of dubious 'usefulness'. There is a precedent for experienced non-admins to close RfCs, typically in article space, but that is a different matter. Closure of deletion discussions (broadly construed) should be carried out by those responsible for hitting the delete button. To do otherwise would create needless confusion and additional layers of bureaucracy this project could do without. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

So if a non-admin closes a discussion as "delete," can an admin who comes to do the deletion say "hey, wait a minute, this shouldn't be deleted..."? Or must the admin either a) execute the deletion, or b) just leave for another admin to handle? NE Ent 03:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• My opinion of the scenario would be this. They admin is perfectly fine looking at it and saying "something's not right here". The appropriate course of action, I would think, would be for an admin to place some kind of administrative hold on the Db-xfd (I'd be happy to code it into the wrapper template for it) and go to the closer's talk page to ask them why they chose to close it the way that they did. Pending the answer to that question (which as a closer, they would be obligated to explain or expand on their decision if asked), the admin could either assess that the response is reasonable and carry out the deletion, feel "on-the-fence" about it and defer it to another administrator, or disagree with the close and ask for a review of the close on DRV (during which time the Db-xfd template would be adjusted to be a notification of review, which I would also happily code the toggle for that). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Since policy allows the admin to overrule the non-admin, the best course of action is to remove the speedy tag and then reclose or unclose (if the idea's that we need more discussion) the XFD. Best to do this before discussion, lest it be deleted by a less-careful admin and lest someone retag it after observing the "delete" result without a deletion. It's like any other situation in which a speedy tag is applied: before deleting, the admin needs to determine that the non-admin interpreted consensus correctly, whether it's consensus at WP:CSD that there should be a normal speedy-deletion criterion embracing this kind of page, or consensus at an XFD that this specific page should be deleted. As I said up above, if Steel1943 does an NAC for "delete", it's still my responsibility if I do something about it, and if I delete it when I disagree with his decision, I can't go blaming him for the actual deletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The speedy tag need not be removed, it just needs one of those This would be a big red banner that only admins can see (like this .sysop-show tagged span code block) saying do not delete this, see [pending discussion]. If admins are deleting things like that anyways, then they need to be reviewed themselves. A unclosing to continue discussion or reclosing the XfD itself may be appropriate, I won't contend that. As per my scenario above, if you disagree with his decision, you're not obligated to carry it out. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Trial period

What about a trial for a month, perhaps. There is a lot of concern above that reviewing these will be a lot of load on admins, or that they'd be closed without being deleted. A one month trial would give us an idea if those concerns are valid or not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: One month is a long time at AfD, there are so many articles nominated every day. One week would be more realistic IMO. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Except we are not talking about AfD. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is about all XfD except AfD. So, a month to clean up RfDs and TfDs, and whatever else seems reasonable to me. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • But some (like FreeRangeFrog) mentioned AfD too, and I'm mostly seeing mentions of the whole deletion process (XfD). --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I think a trial period could put many concerns to rest. And last I saw, AfD generally didn't have many problems with this. As the de facto chief of RfD,* I would welcome such a test there. (*Please don't think this pompous. I would be quite pleased to have more closers active at RfD, hence all this advocacy. But in the meantime, I am responsible for most RfD closures these days, and I'm quite grateful to anyone else who does them.) --BDD (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

New CSD template

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'm going to close this before it descends into further sarcasm and trolling. Any unrelated discussion can go below.

---

If there is consensus to allow non-admins to do this, I suggest some things we can do to make the process work better. First, create a new speedy delete tag {{db-nac}} saying "A deletion discussion on this page was closed as delete, but the closer is not an administrator" or something. Second, the deletion menus should add an option for a deletion summary of "Deleting per xfd closed by non-administrator user:example" or something like that. These two measures would make this idea work much better by clearly communicating to everyone what is going on. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• сart meet horse... Perhaps you need to work on their ordering somewhat.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I just figured people would be more willing to support with these ideas. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I have to agree with Spartaz. This discussion is premature and not productive. Your template idea seems redundant to the existing {{Db-xfd}} to me and the addition on the MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown was already mentioned above by me in a reply. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• So, instead of this umm ... odd proposal, how about we just start yet another discussion to unbundle the "delete" function from the admin toolset!?!?!? There's not an editor more trustworthy than someone given a user right from one sole administrator!!! Yessir! Steel1943 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (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.