Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Other deletion discussions

The section on Other deletion discussions is wishy-washy. What does except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question mean? wp:CfDs have recently been routinely closed by non-admins (cheered on by the participating admins). So how does one gauge the experience of closers to understand whether it is extraordinary or simply ordinary? Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me

Following up with scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small aside

@Timothyjosephwood: The discussion in the archives regarding Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Non-admin closure works on a flawed assumption, that all NACs would use the template in unsubsted form. The AfD close script that I and almost everyone else who closes AfDs regularly (admins included) use substs the template, and I know I alone have made hundreds of NAC AfD closes. I'm willing to guess that a majority of NACs are AfDs (given their volume compared to other XfDs and RfCs) that don't use that template. That being said, I agree that the scope of this page should be broadened, especially since we have WP:NACD as well, which is actually a guideline. ansh 666 09:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging other participants in the discussion regarding this point: SmokeyJoe Lourdes EEng BU Rob13. ansh 666 09:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted reversion of possibly unintended change

In January, after a discussion, the header of this page was changed to show that this page applies to every non-admin closure. Incidentally, the heading was changed so that a sentence that formerly said"However, there are several situations in which a registered editor who is not an administrator can close a deletion discussion." to "However, there are several situations in which a registered editor who is not an administrator can close a discussion." Now, the denial of all closures to editors who are not registered was not previously in this page, and it wasn't supported by the wording change consensus. On the contrary, the section "Requests for Comment" states: "Any uninvolved editor can close a request for comment or RfC" Because the change changed the policy without that being originally intended... I reverted it. Someone reverted me on the grounds of "no consensus" Now we are here, and now tell me why this change should be kept. After all, IP's can be experienced editors who refuse to make an account, for whatever the reason is... and there are some reasons against editing with a special account.109.43.3.81 (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll ping User:Tryptofish who was the one who took issue with the change. For my own part, I'm not aware of any formal requirement stating only registered editors may close discussions, although I would expect that, right or wrong, editors are likely to take issue with it if it is not the most exceedingly uncontroversial of closures, perhaps even more so than your run-of-the-mill NACs. TimothyJosephWood 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You(User:Timothyjosephwood) basically changed the restriction from applying to deletion discussions to all discussions (right here).109.43.3.81 (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to "change a restriction," but to accurately summarize the content of the essay/supplement, which includes much more than coverage of deletion discussions. I'll also point out that this is neither a guideline nor a policy, and boils down currently to basically advice, not some kind of binding expectation of all editors. TimothyJosephWood 16:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, TimothyJosephWood, but you are mistaken on some of the facts. Here is a diff of the last edit to this page prior to the IP's edit: [1]. It contains the bolded language about registered editors. And it was you who made that edit. I was around when the ideas on this page first came about, when there were concerns that non-admins were making bad closures and editors needed guidance about not overreaching – and there had also been issues of admins reverting closes by non-admins even when the closes were reasonable, leading to an RfC that established that non-admin closures should not be summarily dismissed. I don't know, and I don't particularly care, what the editing of this essay has been between then and now. But the fact is that until a few days ago, it had that language in bold about registered users, and you edited the page while that language was there, so you should have been aware of it. And that language seems consistent with the idea that we don't want dumb-ass closes by inexperienced users. I get it, that IPs can be experienced and clueful too, and I have no problem with an IP making a close that is thoughtful, accurate, and noncontroversial. But I came here from WP:ANI#IP close of a contentious RfC, where there is a very clear consensus that this IP is being disruptive. Bad closes don't get accepted just because an IP calls for IP-rights and keeps reverting experienced editors and claiming that the editors did not explain themselves when they actually did. And all that I did was return the language to the way that you had left it. So I did not really change anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely edited this quite a bit, but I've still not written most of it, and just because I "left" something doesn't mean I thoroughly evaluated and implicitly approved of it. This has a been a longer term project of mine, but it has also been an intermittent one, and I never claimed to have yet combed over every inch of it, although I do intend to eventually.

This IP in particular may be objectively disruptive, but I'll be the first to say that even disruptive users can occasionally bring up legitimate issues. This does in fact seem to be one of those times. As I said at ANI, if a close is controversial enough that whether the non-admin is registered or not is a thing that matters, then it's probably inappropriate for an NAC to begin with, and the issue of registration is moot.

Besides that, if...misguided... but I'm sure well intentioned editors are going to start citing this unofficial guidance as if it were gospel, then we should probably be erring on the side of caution anyway. TimothyJosephWood 19:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK with me. I just don't think you should make it sound like I had changed anything, because I hadn't. If you and other editors want to make the change, fine, but own it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the section above, WP:NACD is a guideline, so we can use it to inform what should be written here regarding general closures. NACD specifically restricts closes to non-administrators who are registered (i.e. not IPs), and since this page used to also only concern NACs for deletion discussions, that language was reflected here as well. With this in mind, I'm of the opinion that even though this is an infopage and thus technically not binding in the way that a policy or guideline would be (though really it should be, as infopages supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way), you should get consensus for the removal of this language, so I'm going to start the WP:BRD (another should-be-guideline essay, huh.) chain here. But that's just sometimes-overly-bureaucratic me. (and before you point out that it's technically the 4th revert of the same material, I'm treating the IP addition as a separate thing because it was a fairly transparent attempt at justifying a poor close and subsequent edit war, not a good-faith change.) ansh 666 09:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. While NACD may be fine the way it is, the scope of NACD is more narrow than the scope of this guidance, and I don't believe there is similar precedence for non-XFD discussions with regard to IPs closing discussions. But I'd be more than happy to open an RfC on the issue. Broader community input on this page is probably long overdue and would probably help a great deal in moving this more toward an official guideline. TimothyJosephWood 10:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable, yeah. I think the main reasoning I have is that since NAC as an infopage is a logical extension of the NACD guideline to cover things other than XfDs, the two should be as consistent as possible. Now, that could mean that NAC mentions that deletion discussions should only be closed by registered users but other discussions are okay, but I agree that an RfC would be the best course to get the most eyeballs on the issue. ansh 666 19:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding unregistered editors

There is a strong, near--unanimous consensus to oppose the desired changes/additions.Winged Blades^Godric 15:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should the current wording of the lead:

there are several situations in which a registered editor who is not an administrator can close a discussion.

be changed to:

there are several situations in which an editor who is not an administrator can close a discussion.

(emphasis in original) TimothyJosephWood 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

No. IPs, while editors, should not be closing ~~RFCs~~ formal discussions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of. There are occasions in which anyone who sees it should close (i.e. clear vandalism/bad faith of the "no reasonable editor would disagree" variety). That said, we do have IAR, and most NACs won't be that kind, so I'm not sure if we need to put those exceptions in. Otherwise, I generally agree with the "established editor in good standing" thing - for the vast majority of IPs, it's impossible to tell if that's true, so a general restriction of NACs to registered users only makes sense. So, basically no. ansh 666 23:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support adopting Uanfala's wording. Rebb ing 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's bad enough that registered users who aren't admins can close discussions. IPs, absolutely not. Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't think that IPs should be closing RfCs or similarly important discussions that need closing, especially not contentious ones. Too much room for socking to game the system. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support : Per Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too. I deal with a shit load of vandalism, and yes, alot of it is IP's, however, that's not an excuse to treat I.P editors differently than editors with handles. Allow it! К Ф Ƽ Ħ 17:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how are you going to deal with WP:NACEXP and WP:NACINV? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I mean, I don't want some drive-by random person's first edit to be closing our carefully worded and closely argued discussion, you know? Or fifteenth edit. You want to do that, register and join the community. I know a few editors think it sporty to have long careers and never register, and for them: oh well. Being sporty, like being ripped, extracts a fee. Herostratus (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. per NeilN. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, IP address editors should not close discussions. There are a lot of fine unregistered editors and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it is a community, and unnamed IP address editors should register if they wish to be more involved in the community and close formal discussions. Bright☀ 13:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No While I value the contributions of experienced IP editors, this change will lead to drive-by closures from wiki-lawyering, policy-spouting, logged-out editors. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people. Regular editors should register. Editors who wish to take on administrative tasks of responsibility and accountability must register to do so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. While I'm clearly in the minority here, I don't think there's a reason to formally delineate between IP editors and registered editors for the purpose of this guideline. If an IP editor closes a discussion, it shouldn't be reversed just because they're an IP. If it's a bad close, then it should be reversed; if it's fine, then it should stay. This is the same requirement I would use when evaluating if a registered editor made a proper non-admin closure, so I don't see the point in making the distinction.--Aervanath (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I agree with the 'yes' reasons of Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too and the ability to reverse bad closes, just as we would do with registered editors. However, I'm more compelled by Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people and the need for being a 'person' in order to have the consistency needed for administrative work. Utsill (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Actions that might require followup (questions on the close, challenged closes, etc.) should mean that editor can be reliably reached at their talk page. IPs can change. There's no problems with IPs editing in general, but closing discussions is a level of involvement where someone should be registered. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

User:NeilN - To be clear, the scope of NAC is all NACs, and not XFD or RFC in particular. Guidance can certainly still be added that IPs should not close particular types of discussions, but the question is whether IPs should be able to close no discussion of any type.TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The essential (but implicit) information in this piece of text is for an editor to be established. It is true that in most cases established editors are also registered editors, but this is not necessarily the case (there are several IP users with a long track record of contribution who I would trust with closing RfC to greater extent than some admins). I'd be unwilling to substitute an incidental (if often co-occurring) characteristic for an essential one. The wording that makes the overt text closest to its meaning is:
there are several situations in which an established editor who is not an administrator can close a discussion.
This I would support. – Uanfala (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some excellent IPs, who simply prefer to 'stay that way', would there be any possible way of extending rights to such IPs on a 'request' basis ? Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my rationale for the change away from the current version was that if a closure is so controversial that an IP can't close it, that is, if the result is not fairly self-evident to any experienced editor, then it's not appropriate for an NAC anyway, and the issue of whether the closer is registered or not is moot. TimothyJosephWood 23:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. If consensus is obvious, why does the discussion need a formal close? Also, this supplement instructs that non-administrator closes should not be carried out by involved editors or those with an apparent conflict of interest; if non-administrators were only permitted to close self-evident discussions, there would be no need for this requirement. Rebb ing 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, closure is needed precisely because the consensus is obvious, such as fairly off-topic talk page discussions rehashing previous RfCs. In others, the type of discussion requires a formal close regardless of whether the outcome is obvious or not. TimothyJosephWood 00:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literally "for the record", I'll just add that I'm not particularly concerned about whether this passes or fails. I just want to have a solid link-able consensus on the issue. I'd like to see this get somewhere in the neighborhood of a guideline some time in the next year or so, and this is exactly the kind of sausage making that needs done in order to accomplish that. So if anyone's worried about "piling on" please don't be. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.