Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal - limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list

Based on this discussion from WP:ANI (permalink) in the last day, I think it's time to move it here for wider discussion. I have copied the relevant part of discussion from there to the collapsed-and-archived area below for easy reference.

TL;DNR version: Sometimes people "clerk" at XfD discussions but do a poor job. Restricting the XFDcloser tool to people who have some experience on Wikipedia and revoking it from those with demonstrated incompetence should incentivize competence and reduce the cleanup workload caused by people who make too many mistakes, without resorting to topic bans or blocks. The WP:Articles for Creation process already works this way: You are not allowed to use the AFC scripts unless you have signed up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, and your access to the scripts can be revoked if necessary. You can technically still do AFC work without scripts, but it is much more tedious and is strongly discouraged.

Initial feedback was positive, so I'm bringing the idea here for wider discussion.

Proposal suggestion at WP:AN, September 22-23, 2020

Note: Copied from WP:ANI (permalink) at 17:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC). 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. Non-admin comment: Here's an idea, but I wanted at least a couple of people to give feedback before I post it at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure: Perhaps "non-admin closures" for certain types of discussions should be changed into something like the WP:AFC process, where "tools to make it easy" are only available to people who sign up, and if you sign up and display incompetence, you lose access to the tools. It wouldn't change who could do a non-admin closure, but it would incentivize competence. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC) That's an intriguing idea david - essentially limit XfD closer to those who have been granted a pseudo perm. As someone who has concerns about non-admin closing at AfD in a way that those who frequent some other deletion areas don't that could be a good way to nuance this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin comment) - The one thing to keep in mind is that it would probably be best to keep a way to close your own nomination as a speedy keep withdrawn. That's about the only time I use XFD closer at AFD, although I do clerk RFD on very rare occassions. Seems like withdrawing your own nomination is a fairly uncontroversial NAC, generally. Hog Farm Bacon 02:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin comment) I think this is an excellent idea. I've never closed an XFD, and have no intention of doing so. I have the WP:APAT and WP:PGM privileges, and had to ask for them and show that I knew what I was doing. To assess competence at WP:AFD, there's the AFD Statistics Tool - %ages for initial sorting, and a list of recent contributions to show activity level and to weed out anyone who might be piling-on. This idea would also give pileologists a useful way to indulge their hobby. Requests are likely to be rare once established XFD closers have been grandfathered in, and so unlikely to consume much admin time. Another way to handle self-withdrawal might be something like the {{db-author}} tag for pages you're sorry you created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narky Blert (talk • contribs) 22:20, September 22, 2020 (UTC) Except withdrawal often occurs after someone else points out that you missed something. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budget Cuts, where me withdrawing quickly was the best course of action after it had been proved notable, but db-author wouldn't work, as I was not the only primary editor, and the discussion there should likely be kept around for posterity about the notability of that article. Seems like leaving a technical exception for self-withdrawals is maybe a good thing to leave open. Hog Farm Bacon 14:10, 23 September 2020 (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.

I will be posting a notice of this discussion on Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser, on the ANI discussion cited above, and Wikipedia talk:Deletion process shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest a notice at WT:DRV as well, davidwr as DRV often has to deal with the results of bad (or allegedly bad) closings of deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been announced at WT:XFDcloser, WT:Deletion process, and WT:Deletion review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion - limiting use of WP:XFDCloser

• Clarification needed: under this proposal, users not on the list would lose access to the XfDCloser scripts, but are they allowed to close discussion manually? --Dps04 (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  I would guess yes, since you can't technically stop someone from closing XFDs without a tban. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Dps04: Yes, this proposal is only to restrict access to XFDcloser and possibly other tools that do the same job, not one's ability to actually edit the pages to effect a manual XfD close. That said, over time a future consensus may develop that if you've had tool access removed, there is a de facto topic-ban on closing XfDs, but I think it will be months or a year or more before such a consensus develops, if it develops at all, so let's not muddy the waters with it except to acknowledge that it might happen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm very much in favour of something like this; in fact I was one of the main proponent of trying to introduce an non-admin closer permission in the section above. Sadly both Nosebagbear and I, the two most involved people, got quite a lot less active as a result of this springs events meaning it stalled before the RfC was started. --Trialpears (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Trialpears: - indeed, that was a detailed draft we were working on. Do you have a link, I've had a hunt but can't find the draft proposal. I think its general and AfD sections might be of use as a proposal, but we'd probably want to leave all of the other XfDs for separate discussion, as we felt we'd need fairly detailed input from each one as to what level of participation in the userright, if at all, they wanted. Whether as part of that or any distinct proposal, we need to know if there's a way that AfD can be limited to a (pseudo)-userright, without cutting off, say CfD/TfD users (or causing problems by auto-granting there). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Non-admin closure/draft and it's definitely technically possible to limit only certain venues; Evad37 the maintainer of XFDCloser is quite active and some other people could possibly write an update as well, including me if no one more experienced is willing. --Trialpears (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I would not want to start closing if I did not have access to XFD closer. I pity any potential-NACer who would like to close things as well. It might be preferable to add a blacklist for users who are having problems using this tool. --Izno (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  I nac-close so rarely that I usually do it by hand. Doing it by hand invites, almost forces, you to think about what you are doing and why you are doing it. It also forces you to double-check everything to avoid leaving loose ends un-done. In any case, one of these days I will install the tool and do more XfD non-admin-closures. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Self-followup: I was doing WP:AFC reviews by hand way back in the day before the scripts were written. Then I left for a few years and came back. I had to add my name to the list to be allowed to use the AFC tools. It took a day or two for me to be added to "the list" of approved AFC script users. Before asking for access, I made sure I understood how AFC had changed over the years. Before getting access, I took the time to do at least one AFC review "by hand" since even the "manual" process had changed over the years. It was a very educational experience, both from a "re-learn the technical aspects" end and the "learn what AFC is TODAY, it's changed since you were a big-time AFCer back in the day.

  Bottom line: I recommend everyone new to a particular XfD including administrators new to a particular XfD do at least a few actual, possibly supervised, XfD closes or mocked-up "fake" XfD closes of that type before asking for or being granted access to the tools. It teaches a lot, and it demonstrates competence. OK slight correction: Administrators should get the tools upon getting the bit, but they should be encouraged to do a few "by hand" for the experience it provides. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have both practical and doctrinal concerns. On a practical level I doubt this will affect me personally since I've been here a while and I don't think anyone has had problems with XfD's I've closed. That said, there is a maintenance cost associated with this. Who controls access to the list, who removes people form the list, what standards it takes to get on the list, etc. etc. add up to non-trivial maintenance burdens. Unless there is a definite agreement that these maintenance tasks will be undertaken by particular users or (preferably) admins, we are committing some other editor to taking up a burden for us. That is both unfair and likely to fail.

On the doctrinal side, I generally dislike creating in-groups and out-groups within the WP community that can create "second-class editor" status perceptions. The barriers to entry for new editors are already very high and are growing all the time. Each and every time that a new barrier has been erected, the arguments in favor of it are essentially the same: "Yes, well, we like to treat editors the same but this particular area of editing activity needs more control and editors need more experience to participate." Pending changes, page protection, AfC, etc. are all in and of themselves perfectly defensible and in some cases absolutely necessary. Raising barriers to entry on a website with declining participation is a recipe for disaster, however. I'm not convinced that this particular barrier is one that is necessary. There have been, what, 5 or so AN/ANI threads this calendar year about inexperienced users closing or relisting inappropriately?

Overall, the documented level of disruption that this attempts to address does not appear to justify this particular barrier or outweigh the maintenance costs we are evidently planning on getting some-one else to undertake. Temporary frustration is not a good reason to create permanent solutions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

... the documented level of disruption that this attempts to address does not appear to justify this particular barrier or outweigh the maintenance costs we are evidently planning on getting come-one else to undertake.

This type of "cost benefit analysis" is something that should be done before proceeding before any big/expensive change like this. Thank you for bringing it up. Sometimes the gain is worth the pain, sometimes it is not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So consideration that the disruption is usually temporary is part of why I didn't return to this a couple of months when I realised I'd left it by the wayside when some minor IRL events occurred around March. Another part is that I am strongly against some of the additional restrictions on NACers proposed - if we wanted extra safeguards I'd much rather limiting the pool than further limiting the abilities and thus, utility. If people feel that it's not necessary to rewrite both the rules and the gadget in order to handle disruption that occurs a few times a year, that's fine with me. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is, in my view, ongoing regular disruption at AfD; this has basically been my view since before I became an admin and continues to be a problem I see now as an admin. Essentially whenever I take a look at the NAC for a day I find someone who is doing it who's not qualified (and sometimes I don't have to go looking - they show up to an AfD I'm watching). When I come across it I either ask questions or write a nice note asking them to reconsider what they do. This is normally effective. This might only rise to level of disruption worth someone formulating an ANI thread about it a couple times a year but imperfect NAC is a regular ongoing problem at AfD. And I am entirely open to the idea that this is, purely, a problem at AfD which is the most prominent and busy of our deletion venues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, I've read this comment and the one you made below and I have to admit to some confusion. You state that the normally effective intervention is just a word from an admin but also say that it regularly disrupts AfD. I'm not clear if you think that the proposed solution is preferable to the normally effective one or if the regular disruption of AfD is addressed by the proposed solution. I realize that sounds like, "please express yourself according to my preferred terms of discussion" or something but I honestly don't know how your comments should be read in relation to the proposal. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, happy to clarify. I support this change but it's really about AfD for me. I'm not sure it's necessary or needed (and potentially counterproductive) at other deletion venues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've dropped some suggested criteria below. Personally I think 6 months may be a little long, while 3 would be too short. No technical reason we can't go for 5 months etc, or could rely on the exceptions bit. 3-5 all seems reasonable non-controversial, the specifics (or even relevance) of 2 could also be disputed. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I participated in working on this draft and I think the language is heading in the right direction. My only comment, which did not carry the day in the draft discussion, is that if we are going to consider making AfD closures a user right, we should consider a separate question of whether a NAC should be limited to uncontroversial keep discussions or expanded to close all types of discussions. But, this could also be a separate discussion and I don't think it should derail the current proposal. --Enos733 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There is usually a significant backlog at XfD, and this would make that problem significantly worse. I know there are some editors who loathe NAC, but it would make more sense to set up a blacklist for the small number of editors who are actually causing problems. (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose AFC is not a good model as it is permanently backlogged and generally agreed to be dysfunctional. See also WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree we're backlogged. But the solution to that isn't to have more people who are unqualified performing closes, it's to have more people qualified to do so doing them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not too concerned that creating this pseudo-perm would greatly increase the backlog (as suggested above), as most XfD discussions today are closed by administrators anyway. We have AfDs dating back to Sept 11 (13 days ago!) still open, and even if all non-admins are allowed to use the XfDtool (as is the case now), the backlog still exists, simply because no non-admin would dare to close such discussions without being immediately accused of BADNAC. If we want to solve the backlog at XfD, the solution is to either (1) appoint more admins who would work in the XfD area, or alternatively (2) expand the closing powers for some selected, trusted, experienced non-admins (who would be the users with this pseudo-right), and allow them to close some controversial discussions (with the understanding that the most controversial ones are to be left to admins). If the proposal seeks to allow experienced non-admins to close discussions AND (at least slightly) expand their closing powers, I can reasonably see the backlog going down, not up. --Dps04 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• I also think this is unnecessary bureaucratic creep. Bad closes aren't that common and can usually be handled with a quiet word to the (invariably new) editor doing them. A key difference between AfC and AfD here is that, while bad AfC decisions tend to disappear into the draftspace blackhole, AfD closes are relatively visible (at least the nominator will have it on their watchlist) and we have clear processes for reviewing them. – Joe (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  If I find a bad non-admin close in an AfD I'm not involved in, I am empowered to just fix it, as are you, because we're sysops. In fact we both did so for the user that triggered this discussion. That works nicely for us. It works less great if you're not a sysop. Because your quiet word doesn't have the same impact. So then you either need to find an admin to have a quiet word or you need to know how to raise a stink at the appropriate place which carries its own costs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose but happy to change my mind if evidence can be presented that changes it: I came here after reading the ANI thread suggesting a topic ban for a user who has apparently made some dodgy NACs. I'm very much of two minds: I've not seen that much in the way of bad non-admin closures. In the time I've spent at AfD, I very rarely see a NAC where I end up concluding the decision of the closer is outrageous. I had a look at a few days worth of AfD closes for the NACs and none of them stood out to me as being unreasonable or particularly controversial. There were one or two where I thought "in an ideal world, maybe the closer should have left it for an admin to close" but even there, I thought the closer probably came to the right decision. I'll freely admit I have not been looking much at XfD (or at Wikipedia more generally), so perhaps I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing a problem here. The process of handing out, and revoking, another set of user permissions seems a disproportionate response if we haven't established there is a problem with NACs. While admin numbers decline, and RfA reform is a seemingly eternal stalemate, NACs will remain a necessity to ensure the XfD backlogs don't grow to the size of, say, the AfC backlogs. It might be an idea if those proposing this change set out some compelling evidence there is a problem by, for instance, collecting the number of NACs, whether NACs are more likely to get challenged at WP:DRV than admin closes, whether those DRVs are upheld or not. Without evidence, we're just going on hunches. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Draft's AfD-closer criteria

The below was the early set (and while it had been discussed, even the set to take to RfC had absolutely not been fully agreed upon), to give the discussion some thoughts, should it go forward: Nosebagbear (talk)

The non-admin closer user right is granted by administrators, usually to users requesting the right at PERM. Administrators use their own discretionary assessment of an editor's competency for performing non-admin closures as well as the following general guidelines:

1. The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 6 months.
2. The editor should have made at least 3,000 overall edits.
3. The editor should have voiced an opinion in at least 50 discussions.
4. The editor should have demonstrated knowledge of and competency in applying policies and guidelines relevant to the discussions they wish to close.
5. The editor should have read and understood guidelines related to closing discussions.

The above items are guidelines. An administrator may grant non-admin closer rights to users they otherwise deem competent and may deny the requests if they do not see a need for the tools or have other concerns.

---

@Nosebagbear: Just to be clear, what you posted is a copy from a previous discussion. The current proposal under development/discussion would not create a user right and it would not prohibit anyone from doing a non-admin closure (nor of course would it "un-prohibit" anyone who is currently not eligible, such as non-logged in users and topic-banned users). It would restrict access to a tool (XFDcloser), or maybe more than one tool (tools similar to XFDcloser), that makes non-admin closures easy to do rather than laborious and time-consuming. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely - the original discussions had primarily (though not entirely) focused around asking for a userright (as opposed to a AfC-style pseudo-userright) to be tied to the gadget, but also required for manual closes, and this is just a copy out of that discussion - primarily to see what people thought of the criteria (if and only if we went ahead with proposing the change at all). If someone wants to amend the above to reflect that, that's fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have thoughts on these but I'd rather see consensus for doing this at all before we get into the weeds as to what sort of requirements there might be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• My first thought when I saw this proposal (I missed the previous one) was that this was a good idea. But when I read the concerns raised by Eggishorn I found them rather persuasive. So, pending further discussion, my inclination is not to support such changes. I would mention that while I haven't done much AfD closing in recent years, I did quite few manually, and never found that particularly onerous technically, the hard part was always deciding what the outcome should be. In fact, I did my first AfD closes back when it was a head count, with a rule that there had to be at least a 2-1 ratio of deletes over keeps to justify a delete result. But my point is that I don't think that denying access to the script would keep an enthusiastic would-be closer for doing closes. We also see plenty of less than wonderful closes by admins at DRV, and endorse quite a few challenged NACs. I am not sure there is a real need for this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The tool is not the issue; the issue is editors without the requisite experience/temperament/independence closing discussions that they shouldn't. All this proposal does is add a heaping mound of administration - someone has to maintain the access list - eating up scads of otherwise productive editor time, and putting bureaucratic hurdles in the way of competent editors to use a helpful tool in a critically under-resourced section of Wikipedia. All of that bureaucratic nonsense is obviated by using the existing procedure for problematic editing of this type: a topic ban on closing discussions. Maybe that procdure needs to be explicitly added to some of the noticeboards, but it is the appropriate response to problematic discussions closures. Something like this proposal should only be considered if there is a recurring and manifest inadequacy in topic bans managing this problem. VanIsaac_WS^cont 21:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support I personally believe that the amount of editor time currently wasted by dealing with inappropriate NACs and relists is more than what would be needed to grant access to the tool to those non-admins who have shown themselves to be competent in this area. This is exactly what happens today with access to the AFC script. It's not a great deal of overhead for an admin to add a name to a list. If it help to cut down the amount of disruption and necessary cleanup at XfD, I am all for it. CThomas³ (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• This is roughly where the de-facto minimum standards for becoming an administrator were around the time I became one, with similar daily AFD load (but considerably more participation). Just saying. —Cryptic 00:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• comment and probably an outright oppose, not one of the condition makes the contributor any better at closing afd's or addresses the issue. This is part of a project wide systemic problem stemming from the RFA process. The demands there are so high that users have to spend months making non-admin closures to even get considered as suitable to be an admin. That is what is driving people to do as many closures as possible to ensure they have the numbers and boxes ticked. Making it harder on who can close a discussion is going to increase the issue as more people will focus on less opportunities. If we can have a criteria that lets a non admin decide what can be closed as kept, surely they are also ready to actually be able to also decide when something can be deleted and therefore ready to be admins themselves. @Cryptic: is right though, it's what we once looked for in giving contributors the mop, instead of band-aid fixes how about just addressing the cause. Gnangarra 03:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Nominator's comment It's obvious from the replies above that this change does not have consensus at this time. However, the discussion is good and I don't want to shut it down before everyone has had a chance to give their view. What you say now will be useful if this idea comes up again in the next few years. Everyone's reasoned, thought-out input is welcome and encouraged. When things dwindle down my guess is that this will close with either "no consensus" or "consensus against." How it closes is not nearly as important as us listening to each other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose How would people ever be able to show competence at closing AFDs when they're unable to do so in the first place? Don't tell me they can still close manually -- that's a tedious and error-prone process and the tool was written to overcome exactly that. – SD0001 (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per SD0001. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Splitting RFCs out of this

At WT:RFC, we've been discussing how this page, which is primarily about XFDs, does/doesn't apply to closing and summarizing RFCs. Obviously, having the mop doesn't make you suddenly better at understanding content, and admins are supposed to the same as anyone else when it comes to content decisions. But when you're talking about deletion, then whether you have the extra buttons really does make a world of difference.

One idea we've had is to split NACRFC off this page, and put it in the WP:RFC section on closing RFCs. It might let this page focus better on its core subject. If you're interested in this idea, then please put WT:RFC on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Having the mop doesn't suddenly make you better, but it does mean that you have been examined on a number of things, including temperament, understanding of Wikipedia, policies, reading and judging of consensus, etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd still pick your assessment over some admins', especially if the question is on a subject you know well. The median admin is better than the median non-admin, but not better than all non-admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

And the fact that SmokeyJoe is perfectly qualified to be an RFC closer is why I think that this needs to stay here. We need something that shows the many valuable ways non-admin can contribute to our consensus process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, why should it be here, and not in WP:RFC, where has said "Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion" for years, on a page that has never preferred admins as closers, and where the only subject is entirely actions for which the admin toolset is irrelevant? A good deal of this page is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Why should it be here? Because it's in the scope of this essay: how do closes by non-admins work? WP:RFC is about how RFCs work. Clearly there is some overlap, just as there is overlap here and with XFD. Overlap isn't a problem, only inconsistency and I'm not seeing that at the moment (and if there were, this page, as an essay would be what needs to change). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Theoretically, there is no distinction between an "admin" and a "non-admin" close with RFCs. There are only "editor" closes at RFC. That's not true for XFDs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate closures

The first two numbered reasons don't make a lot of sense as they are not admin only requirements or are at best redundant to the third. Number one says basically that you shouldn't close discussions you are involved in. That in no way applies just to non-admins. Worse the way it is written seems to imply that admins can make involved closes. I don't see the point in adding that here as it is a general don't do for closing discussions. As to the second, I would trust many non-admins more than a lot of admins as to their ability to judge consensus in controversial cases. This just adds another impediment to closing discussions and gives more ammunition to those that disagree with a close because it doesn't reflect their view more than whether it was a bad close or not. The third point is commonsense, but probably worth mentioning as at least admins should have experience and we should discourage newbies from closing discussions until they have some. It does however cover the previous two points (i.e. if you have experience you should be aware of INVOLVED and able to judge your ability to close controversial cases - at least as much as most admins). The forth is technically the only real inappropriate close. Aircorn (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, INVOLVED applies to more than just non-admins but it is a good reminder to have in place. I would strongly oppose removing the second point though. Close calls aren't fair for non-admins to make because they don't have access to the delete button, so they are biased towards a decision that would favor a non-deletion outcome. Admins need to make these calls because they have all the tools in the toolbox to be able to judge an outcome fairly. Not to mention, admins have been approved by the community to make tough deletion-related decisions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by the last point. Many discussions don't need the use of tools so I don't see the issue with experienced non-admins closing contentious RFC's, merges, splits etc. Aircorn (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of BADNACs over the years and contentious or otherwise close calls are at the root of most of them, so removing this close will cause more harm than good. Besides, any experienced user that I would trust to close contentious discussions I would also trust with the mop, so we should instead be funneling those editors towards RfA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It has no effect except placing another level of bureaucracy in the process. There are many experienced non-admins that have no interest in becoming admins so eliminating or downplaying their exercise of judgment just because they don't want to patrol AIV or whatever is short-sighted. There is a constant cry of "There are too many backlogs." Why further restrict one backlog that you don't need the tools for? There is nothing in the admin tools that magically grants a person the ability to determine consensus in close cases so adminship should not be tied to closing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

In practice, no one will bat an eye if an experienced non-admin makes a good close call closure. This is to protect against inexperienced bad closes where an uninvolved admin can simply revert the bad closure by quoting this clause. And yes, if you want to take on additional responsibilities, it is best for you to be vetted by the community first. The admin toolkit is designed to deal with contentiousness since it includes the tools of blocking, protecting, and deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a small number of very good closers who are non-admins. They are the exception, and they know how to close without coming here for the advice. For the vast majority of adventurous bold non-admins who close contentious close call discussions, their doing so does NOT help the project.

This page offers excellent advice for non admins who think they can be helpful in closing a discussion. The repeat of INVOLVED is very good here, because it is the most frequent failing.

The discouragement of closing contentious close calls is very important. Anyone considering closing a contentious close call needs to know that. Admins know that, it is one thing thoroughly examined at RfA. Many adventurous ambitious non-admins do not know this, and the advice is very valuable to helping them not be counter-productive.

Backlogs are not improved by clumsy closes, or closes that will not be respected, or closes that will be taken to review for a week or more before being relisted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In practice, no one will bat an eye if an experienced non-admin makes a good close call closure. The advice in any essay should follow practice. Here we are calling a non-admin closure of a contentious discussion inappropriate, when it is agreed that it is appropriate if it is a good close. It also goes contradicts the consensus that a RFC close should not be overturned just because it is done by a non-admin.

I think we are conflating inexperienced non-admins with experienced non-admins. I agree that we should discourage inexperienced non-admins from closing discussions, but I strongly feel that the project would benefit from encouraging more experienced non-admins to get more involved in closing discussions (contentious or not - because lets face it what I consider contentious someone else might not), instead of leaving it to a few editors with the admin bit. Judging consensus is something most experienced editors can do admin or not. Are you seeing bad non-admin closes from experienced non admins?

I don't understand the RFA argument. If they are prevented from closing any contentious discussions how do you vet their ability to judge consensus in contentious discussions. There are lots of experienced editors here who for a variety of very valid reasons do not want to become an admin. Many of these have a lot of experience in content development or are subject specific experts, making them ideally suited to judge consensus for many content related discussions. Handicapping them from closing discussions seems counterintuitive (and yes it is used to bludgeon good non-admins).

Can we at least move point 4 to the top as it is the most legitimate reason for a non-admin not to close a discussion (as mentioned in the first paragraph) and make the INVOLVED section more universal instead of repeating non-admin (i.e. say "closer" instead). Also it should probably say A non-admin closure is usually not appropriate in any of the following situations (bolded to highlight the change - not to be bolded on the page) as there are clearly exceptions. I would actually support strengthening the experience advice and am pretty sure number 2 should be removed, but can we do the first three at least. Aircorn (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That non-admins should not make close calls should very much be the advice given on the page (and I like the way SmokeyJoe explains it so I'll leave it at that). The "practice" I mentioned is and should be rare, and the exception to the rule than the rule itself. Ironically, the consensus in the ANI thread you linked was that Buidhe should run for adminship, and I completely agree with the sentiment raised there; experienced users who want to take on those kind of responsibilities need to be admins. I totally understand if someone does not wish to run for whatever reason, but if they have no desire to be an admin, they should not be getting involved with admin-like activities. A caveat would be if someone is preparing for an RfA run, it'd be nice to have some examples of closes to look to, so it makes sense for someone like Trialpears to semi-regularly break the close-call point as long as an RfA is on the horizon. I would be fine with reversing the order completely. It does seem that the current order starts with the least important and works down towards the most important. I disagree with adding "usually", it would give the "adventurous bold non-admins" something more solid to cling to if they were to push back against their bad closes. I think the fact that the heading says "general cautions" makes the distinction clear enough. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure I would support them too, but that is beside the point. They should not need to be an admin to continue with the closes, which was the consensus of that thread and an RFC on this very issue. This essays should reflect this consensus and currently it contradicts it, not to mention itself. While the heading is general cautions, it then goes on to say it "is not appropriate" to close a close call. This is quite clearly false in some circumstances and adding "usually" or something similar should be non-controversial? The focus of any close should be on the quality of the close, not whether the person closing it is a admin or not. Aircorn (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, non-admins can make closes. That is clearly backed by consensus and practice. No, they should not make close, controversial, or contentious closes. There is no contradiction here. Like all guidances, there are exceptions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, @Tavix:: Just what part of your RfA do you think evaluated your ability to make close, controversial, or contentious closes? The most consistent theme I see mentioned is your wikignomishness, which is sort of the exact opposite of an editor who makes close, controversial or contentious edits. There were many who praised your RfD activity but the majority of those discussions are not "C³" discussions. Because I don't see that there was any significant vetting by the community on this ability at your RfA or the vast majority of RfA's so I really don't see how admins should be treated differently. If an admin or a non-admin screws up a close, then anyone can question it or bring it to AN and life goes on either way. The rest is just second-classing non-admins. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

At the time of my RfA I had closed hundreds of RfD discussions, so praising my RfD activity would include praising my closes. That none in particular came up signifies that no one found any to be problematic. In a more general sense, RfAs vet one's trustworthiness, behavior, levelheadedness, etc. all of which are important with controversial closes, especially when dealing with any fallout from it. There is no second-classing involved here—any experienced editor with clue that is not a jerk can become an admin. It is simply that this particular task falls firmly falls under the "administration" category and needs to be handled by that kind of editor. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If closing discussions fell so clearly under the administration category it would be in that category. It is explicitly not by the agreement of the editing community. And while "any experienced editor with clue that is not a jerk can become an admin" is a fine sentiment, it does not match observable reality. These were all experienced, clueful editors with impressive nominators (you among them) and, whatever failings torpedoed their RfA's, none are what I'd call jerks. It was called a "horrible and broken process" 10 years ago and hasn't significantly improved since. Demanding that people subject themselves to it to carry out an explicitly non-admin edit strikes me the same way that the justifications of residency did when my spouse went through that broken process. "I had to do it so you should, too." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A non-admin can make a close controversial close of a RFC and it should not be overturned just because they are a non-admin. There was no exception at the RFC on this. Only this page is saying that, so yes that is a contradiction. The section is talking about closes generally so this obviously includes RFC. It also includes many other closes, so I would also challenge the exceptions argument. I would argue that outside of deletion discussions this is more the rule. I don't know if we keep easily accessible archives of other community discussions, but the GAR process is almost exclusively closed by non-admins (Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 66). This essay not only gives incorrect advice, it is giving advice that is generally ignored at most venues outside AFD. Aircorn (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It should not be overturned just because they are a non-admin, but it can be unilaterally overturned by an uninvolved admin due to being a bad close.

This essay gives very good advice.

Are non-admins making bad closes at WP:GAR? SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the whole point. The issue is bad closes, not non-admin closes. Even then to overturn it would have to be an unambiguous bad close.

It gives some good advice. The advice (which is more presented as a stipulation) about close contentious closes is not.

Like most there are very good closes, alright closes, closes I disagree with - but are justifiable and the odd one I think are bad. Being an admin or not has not changed the incidence of this, more how experienced editors are with the GA process and criteria. A lot of the facts and numbers presented in these arguments are anecdotal. One is that non-admins closing contentious discussions is rare. GAR is a well maintained archive of community closes that we can look at. Out of 65 closes last year, three were by admins. This year 38 closes so far and not a single one by an admin. If there was a similar archive of move, merge or RFC closes it would be interesting to see what percentage of closes were done by Non-Admins. Aircorn (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You’re not saying how many contentious closes are done by non-admins. You are saying that some closes are disagreeable or bad. I think that the real problem is a lack of close review for GAR closes? The proper place is WP:AN, but I think that WP:AN may feel to be overkill? If this is remotely close, then weakening advice for non-admins to not make contentious closes will be counterproductive. At GAR, has anyone ever responded to a bad close by pointing the closer at BADNAC? At GAR, are there at least some admins around?

When there is a bad GAR close, what are the consequences? Is there a time period for waiting to start a process to downgrade the rating? Or is there a culture of finding weak Good Articles and bringing them up to standard? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit subjective. Community reviews are in theory for contentious reviews as there is the option to do individual ones for the obvious ones. In practise some editors use them when an individual one would have been fine (and vice versa). But that's just Wikipedia (and life) in general. The best place to review a GAR close is probably a related talk page (WT:GAR or WT:GAN). The major problem is the back log, something found at other venues too Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RM backlog (I like that even at the administrators noticeboard there is acceptance that anyone can close a requested move with no contentious caveat). It is not really fair to Piotrus that his article sits in GA limbo for 9 months. From memory I have been personally challenged four times on a close (to keep it in perspective I have closed close to a hundred GARs over many years). One I reverted so someone else could close, one I changed my close, one was brought to a talk page and then went nowhere and one was reverted for me and I just turned it into a comment instead. Personally I think one of the main things with closing discussions is to not take it too personally. I don't recall being pointed to BADNAC, I don't think being an admin has ever come up. I don't think that supports your argument though as it more defacto suggests that being an admin has no bearing on a close. There are a few admins around (Barkeep has closed some, but ironically I think that was before they became an admin).

To be honest the stakes are low at GAR. The article might be delisted when it shouldn't have been or kept when it no longer meets the criteria. In either case there are no real changes in how the content is seen except for a green spot. It is nice to maintain standards as they are often held up as examples of good work, but in the end another GAR could be started or the article nominated at GAN depending on the outcome. I chose this example because I know a lot about it and I can access the archives easily. It would be more interesting and possibly relevant to analyse RM, RFC or MERGE closes. Anecdotally many I have participated in have been closed by a few dedicated non-admin editors without any major issues. No official time period for GAR (average is probably a month or two), it really depends when someone is around and can do it. They tend to get closed in bursts. Improving depends, mainly on the presence of previous nominators. The good thing about GA's is that usually if someone is dedicated enough to improve the article, they will also try and save it. It works on the premise that the aim is always to improve the article to GA standard. Old GA's unfortunately have often lost this dedicated editor.

Either way taken at face value this essay says I should not be closing Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Home Army/1. I am going to anyway, right after I finish this as I believe I have the experience and knowledge to do so and leaving it for a potential admin has caused more harm than good. I also believe this is probably true for many other areas. Aspects of this essay don't reflect how Wikipedia works. Or at least how I have seen Wikipedia work. Its not a big deal as I feel it is only an essay and this part carries little weight in areas I edit or may edit in the future. Aircorn (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Aircorn, that was an interesting thread. Did we stop posting because we reached a consensus? I have no criticism of your last post, I should have replied noting my support. Is the agreement actionable in any way?User:Aircorn SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This was all so long ago. I just don't have the time or energy at the moment for these type of discussions. The thread below popped this back into my watchlist and I saw that it was essentially saying the same thing I was. It has attracted much more attention than my post (maybe something happened that led editors here or it was just put together much more coherently). Either way I still believe that this essay is actually harmful in places. The GAR stuff was just because that is an area I have fallen into, but it applies to pretty much any other close outside of AFD. I really don't have the time or energy to participate much in the new discussion, but would support any major rewrite of this essay to better reflect community practice. One of the comments about changing non-admin to inexperienced closer was exactly what I was trying to achieve and very strongly follows my POV on this issue. An editor in good standing who has been here long enough (experience can be hard to define with a number) can close any discussion as well as most admin editors, many probably better. Aircorn (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Up until recently I would classify myself as one of those non-admins who were willing and able to deal with contentious closes. That meant semi-regularly breaking the close-call point for a reasonable definition of close-call. I have never gotten a close to DRV even then. My feeling then is that it's possible for experienced and suitable non-admins to perform more contentious closes in practice. It still feels quite bad giving at times dubious guidance, but I feel it is in general good advice that likely has prevented a lot of bad closes. --Trialpears (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparent contradictions between WP:BADNAC and WP:RMNAC

There might be two contradictions between this policy and the policy at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions.

• Can non-admin close contentious discussions?
  • WP:BADNAC says "A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations...The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator."
  • WP:RMNAC says "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure. Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there. While non-admins should be cautious (as indeed all move closers should be) when closing discussions where significant contentious debate among participants is unresolved, any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate."
  • Comment: It might be that non-admins can't close contentious deletion discussions but they can close contentious move requests. If so, this should be made clearer.
• Can non-admin close move requests that they can't themselves move?
  • WP:BADNAC says "A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations...Moving an article into a page (such as a redirect) that can't be accomplished by a regular editor."
  • WP:RMNAC says "Occasionally, a move involves a redirect with multiple revisions, and requires technical intervention. Editors are permitted to close the discussion and file a technical move with a link to the closed discussion."

Am I misinterpreting something? If not, can we reconcile these differences?VR _talk 19:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you're misinterpreting anything, but there's general lack of interest in harmonizing those pages (as evident from the lack of response). They diverged largely due to historical reasons: in the early days of Wikipedia, there was no shortage of admins, it was pretty easy to become one, and NACs were comparatively rare. BADNAC originated at that time, with the rationale "if you want to help at AfDs, here's the guidance, but you should really consider being vetted at an RFA". Fast forward to 2021, RFA is loathed upon, many admin functions are unbundled (rollback, page moving) and most non-deletion discussions are closed by non-admins, and despite an occasional grudge at purported "BADNACs", that's mostly the culture we live with today; judging from the redirect history, RMNAC originated around 2011–2012. I'm not an admin either, I've closed hundreds of discussions, mostly RMs, and I don't bother declaring {{RMnac}} on closing; someone suggested that I propose an RfC in order to remove that requirement from RMCI, but honestly, I can't be bothered either. No such user (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that WP:RM/TR exits, and page moves are somewhat trivial (on a scale to "editing" to "deleting the main page"), I see no reason why a NAC cannot then necessitate admin assistance following the close. In other words, XfD and RM are allowed to be slightly different, and any wording disparities are (as stated by no such user) are because no one really cares enough to do it. Primefac (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Primefac here on the cause of the issue (nobody has got around to it yet), and I propose we edit WP:BADNAC to refer to more nuanced guidance on these situations. Deryck C. 09:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal as introducing bloat and also being a net negative in giving confidence to people who aren’t ready for it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, we remove the two points in WP:BADNAC that contradict other guidance. Deryck C. 12:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is unhelpful to tie the two points to each other. On the first, BADNAC is definitely better. On the second, it is a mere technical matter. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

On contentious move requests, WP:RMNAC gives bad advice and should be made like BADNAC. Non-admins closing contentious RM discussions causes a lot more trouble than help.

On RM closes that require admin assistance to complete, as long as the closer knows how to use WP:RM/TR it should be fine. This advice need not be given, the experienced non-admin closer should know RM/TR or they don’t have the experience. This is similar to AfD, where non-admins can close as delete and use {{db-xfd}}, which they’ll know if they are competent to close AfDs. RMNAC is giving too much advice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-admins are not allowed to close AfDs as delete. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That’s a very good lie-to-children, yes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-admins should never be making closes that they do not not have the technical ability to carry out. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tavix: why not? I've been closing RMs, some of which I can execute, and for others I post on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Its been working out well so far, though I suppose I could just request WP:PMR permissions.VR _talk 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It increases the overall workload and splits the closure between multiple people. If you are closing the discussion, and then posting it to RM/TR, you're not really closing the discussion, instead you're just dumping it somewhere else for someone to carry it out for you. That person would then have to check your work (which could easily take as long as the closer did on the actual close) and then make the move, so there really isn't much point in closing it. Also, an admin closure is easy to dispute: if there is a problem with any admin close, that admin can easily undo it. It's not that easy if someone else carried out the move for you. Should I complain to the closer? the mover? Both? Do I have to wait for both parties to be on the same page before the move is undone or taken to MR? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It is implied that the closer, not the performer, is responsible for the close at WP:RMNAC: "In any case where a non-admin closer does resort to a technical move request, the closer should actively monitor that request, and be ready and willing to perform all tidying after the move (as instructed below), such as fixing double redirects, fair-use rationales, and navbox links included on the page." So one would complain to the closer, and they alone would be responsible. The technical mover doesn't have to check a closer's decision as they're not responsible for it. If a closer repeatedly makes bad closes they should be banned from it.

Given the RM backlog it makes sense to allow non-admins to help.VR _talk 17:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I get what is implied, but that's not how it works in reality. The non-admin closer does not have the ability to reverse their close if challenged so they are not really responsible for the closure—it would de facto fall to the person who moved it since they would (ideally) be the one to undo it. And yes, the editor who makes the move should absolutely be checking the closure. It would be a dereliction of duty to fail to do that. I also don't buy the backlog argument. No, you're not clearing a backlog—you're just moving the work from one place (RM) to another (RM/TR). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

A non admin finding themselves needing to reverse should apologise to all concerned and stop closing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be a premise that there is more admin activity, by action count not effort, at technical admin request lists (RMTR, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion) than at WP:ANRFC where desired-close difficult-discussions are concentrated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin RM closers, like non-admin AfD closers, should only be closing non-contentious discussions, if for some reason they are lingering in a backlog. The RMTR or db-xfd step should be a mere technicality, technically the admin confirming the obvious non-contentious close, there being no chance of challenge. If a NAC ever sees a challenge or even a nontrivial question about their close, they should revert their close and re-examine their understanding of “contentious”. Non-admins who dig their heels in, stand their ground, and require a formal DRV or MRV, are most definitely not making a net positive contribution with their NAC, and the DRV or MRV record will reflect poorly on them forever.

Non admins aspiring to demonstrate their advancing wisdom, finding contentious discussions in a backlog, would do themselves and the project much better by casting a wise !vote. The reward is having an admin come along shortly after and close it agreeing with and citing their !vote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Recently a non-admin (S_Marshall) closed a very contentious RfC. That close has been challenged at WP:AN. The first discussion was closed by Levivich who said "'Closer was not an admin' is also not a valid reason." There is now a new discussion where Barkeep49 (whose currently an arb) says "RfCs of this type are regularly closed by experienced editors who may or may not be sysops". So it seems to me that community consensus leans towards letting non-admins close contentious discussions as long as they're experienced. If we can all agree to that, then lets fix WP:BADNAC (which currently discourages non-admins from closing such discussions).VR _talk 04:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall is a special case. Read his RfC close log. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think each type of close has a different level of "controversial". The wisdom to know just what constitutes controversial in a particular area is part and parcel with being a qualified closer and as such I would oppose removing that language. Also I feel compelled to note that being an arb shouldn't give my opinion on this topic - which has nothing to do with ArbCom - any more weight than any other editor except to the extent that people agree with me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: understood. Do you feel that the language at WP:BADNAC is inconsistent with that at WP:RMNAC? Do they need to be harmonized in some way? VR _talk 16:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps but the way it's done would be important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is apparently a pet peeve of yours (judging from your arguments at MRs and DRVs), SmokeyJoe, but I believe you're in minority (as evident from the number of "BADNAC" close complaints upheld at AN, such as the one linked above by VR). As a community, we've moved away from the "admingods" approach of the old days (if it ever was a thing) towards allowing anyone to close discussions, given that they are neutral and experienced enough. And I could readily point to several very bad closes made by admins, so I don't see why there should be difference between non-admins and admins doing bad closes. Of course, everyone can misjudge from time to time, but if one systematically shows bad judgment in closing certain types of discussions, they should be prevented doing that, regardless of status. My only reservation is that closers generally should have technical ability to execute whatever is necessary, since clean-up effort may be significant (see e.g. Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Cleaning_up_after_the_move) and it would be unfair to devolve it to admins (WP:RMTR is just a stopgap.) No such user (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:No such user. I don’t think it is well labelled as a “peeve”, but a criticism. Not a peeve, it’s not personal, it doesn’t hurt me any more than the project, and BADNACs, where they are wrong, go both ways vs my opinion, but much more often they are BADNACs because they create more volunteer work than help.

BADNACs in AfD and RMs do not go to AN, but to DRV and MRV. BADNAC RfC closes would go to AN, and I agree that happens little, I think because RfCs demand good closing statements, and BADNACs are generally scant on detail in the closing.

It is rational constructive criticism that I offer: A BADNAC is proven in hindsight by it not garnering respect but complaint. A BADNAC is typically labelled as a WP:Supervote and unimpressive closing statement, undermines the respect of the XfD/RM process if participants believe that the closer did it arbitrarily, not reflecting the discussion. It’s a perception issue, but perception is reality.

If there was a peeve, it was because my criticism was ignored. I have followed consensus and closing of discussions very closely for many years, and there are some very big behavioural differences, speaking generally. One is that there are very very few admins who continued the same behaviour over being overturned at DRV/MRV (User:RHaworth being a recent example), while *some* Nonadmins would persist in failing to read the room after repeated complaint and overturns under review, confirming their failing in the quality of good judgment. This was, definitely systematic, especially at RM, but, to the credit of DRV and MRV as excellent review processes that serve as continuing education, the systematic problem is much less than it was, before MRV ~ ten years ago.

Non Admins *should* be advised to not close contentious discussions, and if they do they had better do a good job. This is about advice, not a rule. WP:NAC is an essay.

Yes, there are bad closer admins, and there are good closer non-admins. The above named User:S Marshall happens to be in my opinion Wikipedia’s best closer. I read User:S Marshall/RfC close log for pleasure, always impressed. The best admin closer, I would name as User:MBisanz, in wisdom, but he is not as good as S Marshall due to being too terse. And on further thought, I could write a list of admin names who never close badly. It’s not because they are admins, but because people who understand consensus make good admins.

I wish that this discussion would separate the issue about good advice for nonadmins closing contentious discussions from the issue of whether closes requiring technical assistance are net helpful. Both are important discussions, but they are unconnected. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe: I said "pet peeve" because every time a complaint about a close comes up, you seem to check the closer's badge and bring their non-admin status up, as if it is directly relevant to the close quality. Yes, I can agree that a bad close by a non-admin constitutes a BAD Non-Admin Close (BADNAC), but that is so trivially obvious. I'd estimate that over 80% of RMs are closed by non-admins lately: among the most active are Paine, Buidhe, Vpab15, ProcrastinatingReader, Calidum, myself, probably missed a few; all experienced users and none of us admin. Yet when I briefly search for overturned closes in MR archives, I find two admin closes in June 2021 ; and a few assorted NAC-s in previous months back to Oct 2020, one by an inexperienced closer, one by Buidhe, and one more by the same admin. That's not a terribly large body of evidence, but I'd say it's not a bad average by non-admins, is it? Anyway, I'm reluctant to continue this discussion, but I felt compelled to tell you openly: I don't think your apparent attitude toward NACs is based on provable data. No such user (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

User:No such user, you really should point to specific examples if you are going to talk about what I “seem to check” and my “apparent attitude” and “provable data”. You don’t know what I check. (I start with the RM, not the closer) I think you mischaracterise my attitude. If you’re going to bring up “provable data” then be precise about the data.

The large number of good closes by non-admins is not reason to weaken the advice of BADNAC. I think there have been a number of cases of BADNACs, overturned, where the NAC claimed compliance with RMNAC SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe: Obviously, I cannot know what you check and what you start with. I can only tell you how you come across; and I'll be blunt: like a broken record. [1][2][3][4][5][6]. The last two comments are elitist to the point of being distasteful: Admins are vetted at RfA... If this were a WP:NAC I would not be giving a happy comment. . No such user (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Like a broken record? You mean, I am consistently saying much the same thing? Over two and a half years? I have read through the several discussions. I am not alone. There were a small number of over-enthusiastic RM NAC-ers in that period that repeatedly made more work for other editors, not including myself, in making, handling and resolving complaints caused by their clumsy closes, and I note that repeated clumsy RM closes strongly correlate with them being NACs. I don't argue the converse, but instead argue that good RM NAC-ers do not rely on RMNAC to justify their closes.

On the specific cases you bring up:

1 Familiar. "No clear consensus, woefully inadequate closing statement for such a divided discussion". Strongly put, but I stand by it. I consider "inadequate closing statement" vindicated by the closer (User:Paine_Ellsworth) improving it. The improved close weakened the perception of a supervote. This NAC-er received a lot of critical comment from me, on their closes taken to MRV, and they have responded positively. While this might have been good training for Paine, it was not good for the participants short-changed by the original close. I would be interested to hear whether Paine's view of NAC advice has changed over the last couple of years.

2 Chairman. Gosh that was a mess, 2 1/2 years ago. The NAC-er, a hasty youth who I have noted has grown a lot with time, did not do the project service with their NAC "no consensus". It was not that "no consensus" was wrong, but that the closing statement did not inject wisdom. Compare with the next close (Talk:Chairperson/Archive_4), but one of the more impressive RM closers. The strength of the close, combined with the respect for the closers status had a stabilising effect, most clearly at Talk:Chairperson/Archive_5#Requested_move_16_May_2019, also an NAC, but not a contentious NAC.

3 Utrecht tram shooting. I was not alone in complaining that the closing statement detail was inadequate. I maintain that this is a recurring theme with NACs of contentious RMs, they frequently would make perfunctory closes, on which others would complain first. I guess an alternative solution to discouraging inexperienced NAC closes of contentious discussions could be to add to the essay the need for NACs to explain contentious closes with a detailed explanation.

4 Ice age (disambiguation). My input there was well supported by others and is very well reflecting in the MRV close. I think my arguments were well made and persuasive. There was productive disagreement with User:Red Slash, largely speaking directly to the issues we are discussing here.

5 & 6 are the same MRV discussion. Jaggi Vasudev. Nov 2018. This is an extremely relevant case to consider. It was an extremely contentious RM discussion, well closed by an experienced admin who made a "rough consensus" call. It was complicated, with arguments in favour of all three of "consensus to move", "no consensus" and "consensus to not move". I noted that one important privilege of administrators is Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus (in hindsight I should have linked it). NACs are NOT entitled to call a "rough consensus", because a rough consensus is not a consensus, but an administrative role decision to call a stop to an ongoing discussion that has ceased to be a net positive discussion, and there is a large degree of arbitrariness in the call. It is also sometimes called "admin discretion". Calling a "rough consensus" is a tough call, requiring expertise in calling consensus, and temperament. Calling a rough consensus is to be expected to upset many of the participants. An editors suitability to do these things is tested at RfA, and after technical competence, and trust, and civility, is the next most important thing in approving administrators. If you think this is unduly elitist, I am sorry, but I disagree. If you think it is distasteful that some editors are formally qualified to make rough consensus calls, OK, I respect the philosophy of that, but I do not hold it myself. I think calling "rough consensus", shutting down an ongoing discussion, declaring that the enthusiastic continued contribution of several participants has a net negative waste of time, requires having passed the RfA test. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

To editor SmokeyJoe: I would be interested to hear whether Paine's view of NAC advice has changed over the last couple of years.

I would like to say that my view of NAC advice has changed for the better, improved, not just over the last two years, over the last several years. Each and every RM and especially MRV has been a huge learning experience for me. When we learn, we often upgrade our views. Have to admit that I still do not shy away from contentious and controversial discussions. If I'm interested in the subject, then I'll !vote; if I have no opinion, then I might close or I might leave it for another to close. Gotta say that's more of a gut decision. Oh, and I agree with you about SM! We haven't always been in sync on some things, however there is no closer we can respect more than him. On the subject of getting an admin's help to do things, that's one of their callings after all. We wouldn't have SDs and ERs if it weren't. I have on several occasions used RM/TR to get an admin's help. Those who don't think that's appropriate should rethink admin responsibilities. Can't tell you how many times I couldn't edit a fully-protected redirect and had to use an ER. Also can't tell you how many times I've learned some really great things from admins. I think that any policy, guideline or whatever should strike any language that excludes NACs from closing a discussion just because they don't have the tools to carry out the result. We do have the tools in the form of helpful admins and the project pages and templates that call 'em! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 17:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• The last few discussions on the talk page have been on this issue and the same couple of editors keep opposing it. It is probably time for an RFC to bring in some outside eyes in a more formal capacity. Aircorn (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I'm still blushing from SmokeyJoe's many kind compliments above! Good Lord. I feel very appreciated. I nevertheless differ from SmokeyJoe on BADNAC: I suspect it might no longer enjoy consensus in its current form.—S Marshall T/C 21:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I like "rules of thumb" as opposed to "rules". One of these is that if S MArshall disagrees, it should be looked at again. Another is that every essay, guideline and policy could be improved by editing. WP:BADNAC contains excellent advice, but is not perfectly written. Looking again, my edits and comments would be:

WP:BADNAC.

Inappropriate closures.

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

(1) The non-admin has demonstrated a perceived potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality. For example, they have expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep[a] when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well.

NB (1) is a restatement of WP:INVOLVED and applies equally to admins and non-admins.

(2) The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or and is likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator.

Recommendation: the non-admin considering the close is advised to cast a comprehensive summary !vote, and see if an admin later arrives to agree 100% with that !vote. This is both an excellent exercise for the non-admin in closing, and greatly assists the later-arriving admin.

(3) The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions.

(4) The result will require action by an administrator:

• Deletion (except for TfD discussions where orphaning is needed)
• 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
• Either imposing a ban or block

all of this is disputable, an experienced non-admin can do most of these thing helpfully, by 100% correct and approriate used of db-xfd, RM page swaps and CSDG6, WP:RfUP, template:Histmerge (but note that even the average admin should be discouraged from doing their own history merges!).
Just because a particularly skilled and experience non-admin can do such a thing is not a reason to write this advise into an essay for enthusiastic non-admin, it is advanced editing. Imposing a community ban by closing a consensus discussion at WP:AN is beyond the scope of authority of this essay. This essay is for editors entering the level "proficient", not "expert" (see Wikipedia:Levels of competence).

Per Wikipedia:Deletion process § Non-administrators closing discussions,[b] inappropriate early closures of deletion debates may either be reopened by an uninvolved administrator[c]

Advice to editors exploring their boundary of NACs: (all new)

NACs being challenged, whether on the closer's user_talk page, or formally at WP:Deletion review or WP:Move review or WP:AN should cause the NAC-er to reconsider whether the NAC was a net positive for the project. In the case of a valid complaint or challenge to an NAC, the NAC-er should consider reverting their close, and participating in the discussion.

On the issue of non-xfd and non-RM closure reviews, I opine that formal reviews should go not to WP:AN, but to a dedicated review forum in the vein of DRV and MRV. This is for the benefit of records of review, and for clarifying that participation is not restricted to Administrators, and other reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

“We really ought to have an orderly RFC review forum.” Someone wrote somewhere. 00:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I recognize those words! I wonder who wrote them.  :)

I think that (1), (3) and (4) apply to everyone. I'm unable to be objective about (2), because that idea has such a negative effect on me personally. Subjectively, I dislike it because my only experience of it is when others use it as a stick to beat me with. Based on my most recent close analysis on AN, I think the community as a whole no longer believes that only sysops can make the close calls, although some of our more longstanding editors retain it. I view it as historical and I wish that paragraph didn't exist, although I'm too involved to interfere with it myself.

I am considering proposing that we rename this essay "Advice for inexperienced discussion closers", replace all the references to "non-admins" with "inexperienced closers", and delete the section about close calls being best left to an administrator.—S Marshall T/C 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I'd second that. Should we also have an RfC on this to get community input? As Levivich points out below, this is just an essay, but after an RfC it will reflect community consensus.VR _talk 13:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Move the page to "inexperience closers" and remove all references to admin/non-admin as S M suggests, and it might get consensus to be promoted to an info page or guideline to the WP:CON policy. But even then I'm not sure, due to WP:CREEP concerns. Does there exist a problem that we need a new guideline/info page to fix? NAC is one of many essays that presents a viewpoint that doesn't have consensus; that alone isn't a problem in my view. Levivich 13:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, it could be selectively merged and redirected into Wikipedia:Closing discussions (being aware of WP:CREEP). The essay does contain some generally useful advice, but when we subtract the admin-vs-non-admin chaff, there is not much that remains. No such user (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

+1 Levivich 15:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions, with some non-admin advice in an unexpected section:

Note that non-admin status is not in itself a reason to overturn a close (see this request for comment). Nevertheless, non-admins often focus on closing less controversial discussions. There is a limited latitude for non-admins to close discussions that are potentially controversial – if the close is good then it will stand, but if not then you may find a greater level of disapproval than an admin would. The level of disapproval will be lower if there is a long backlog of unclosed discussions. Some non-admins prefer to declare their status in the closure, usually by adding the NAC template. This isn’t required for RfCs since the closer’s status isn’t supposed to make any difference, but it may be a good idea to include it in cases where the closer is normally expected to be an admin, such as deletion discussions. Additionally, non-admins should not usually close discussions for which the result requires administrative status to perform, if the discussion relates to the use of the admin tools (for example, many discussions at ANI), or if an admin was requested at ANRFC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Highlighted part 1: Don't close potentially controversial discussions unless your close is good.

Highlighted part 2: If the discussion relates to the use of admin tools. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it doesn't have consensus. It just has as much consensus as people in a given conversation agree it has and can't be assumed in any sort of global context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Advice for inexperienced discussion closers" has attraction, but it shifts the problem to defining "inexperienced". Admins are expected to the qualified to close discussions generally. The problem with the advice is that is assumes non-admins are not experienced closers. Most non-admins are not experienced closers. Some few non-admins are excellent closers. The advice in this essay is not written for them, they are beyond this level of advice. Maybe just add the note: This essay is written as advice for inexperienced discussion closers. An even better solution is here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's one way to stop NACs - turn all the prolific closers into admins.VR _talk 03:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if adminship were offered, as opposed to requested. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• NAC is an essay, not policy; RMNAC also not a policy. Both can be (and routinely are) safely ignored. Levivich 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Reading Wikipedia:Deletion review#Let's Go Brandon, it is very clear that WP:BADNAC has strong support at DRV, that it works for the respectability of AfD. Given that AfD deals with more important contentious questions than RM, and the AfD has far less trouble with NACs than RM, I think it is obvious that RMNAC should take cues from WP:NAC and not vice versa. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• I've skimmed the wall of text above, but I don't see the problem here. If anything, BADNAC should be rewritten to allow non admins to close more contentious deletion discussions. Challenges to deletion and move requests, and RFCs, should be based on the close itself, not whether the closer was an admin or not. Calidum 17:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Should this essay remove "the outcome is a close call ...." line from general cautions

Should the line saying The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator (point 2) be removed from the General Cautions section. Aircorn (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes The above discussions point to an issue where this advice does not reflect community consensus and practice. Wikipedia has changed and there are many editors now that are vastly experienced and able to close these types of discussions, but who have expressed no interest in becoming an administrator. The issue is not non-admins closing these types of discussions, but with inexperienced editors closing these discussions. This is covered by point 3. A further appendum could be added to that highlighting that this applies doubly so to controversial discussions. The location of this advice under General Cautions means that it applies to all closures on Wikipedia, from RFC's to merges, moves and reassessments. These discussions (even the close and controversial ones) are often closed by non-admins and essays should reflect what actually happens. Aircorn (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. The default advice should be to not close close call contentious discussions. Very few non admins have the experience to go above this advice. The fact that some do have do not justify changing the basic advice. Instead, the wording can be altered, as I suggested above. The change suggested diverges further from Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions. The “practice” of frequent ignoring this advice is largely confined to RM, where RMNAC introduces the problem, and NAC close problems are much more evident at MRV than at DRV. Therefore, fix RMNAC. Improvment of this essay is needed, but this is not it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• I guess not, but you could change "...better left to an administrator" to "...better left to an administrator or other very experienced editor" which I think is the point you are trying to make. Nobody wants somebody who is still getting their feet wet to be closing controversial discussions I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Unsure. On one hand, they have an unfortunate tendency to lead to deletion review. Non-admins who want to close disputed AfDsshoould become administrators--we need a few more active admins (the difficulty here, of course is the absurd current difficulty in passing RfA) On the other hand, the best positive evidence that candidate is qualified to be an admin i sa record of good non-admin closures in non-trivial situations. DGG ( talk ) 11:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)`
• No. If you don't know when it's appropriate to ignore such advice, then you're not experienced enough to be closing that sort of discussion. —Cryptic 12:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. Anyone I would trust to close a controversial discussion I would also trust to be an administrator. Adminship is the best way to distinguish who is an experienced editor and they have been vetted to perform administrative tasks like closing contentious discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC) (edited: 18:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC))
• Contentious closes should only be done by admins or experienced editors. Thus, either we should remove point 2 (Yes to proposal) and modify point 3 to write that non-admins must have significant experience in closing non-contentious discussions before they can close contentious ones. Or we keep point 2 but change "...better left to an administrator" to "...better left to an administrator or other experienced editor", per Herostratus.VR _talk 17:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per contra-Tavix: if I trust someone enough to be an administrator but for whatever reason, they do not wish to be so (as the nom explicitly points out) then I would obviously trust them to close these same discussions. ——Serial 17:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

FTR, this is the version of Tavix's post that I was referencing, i.e. before they went back and added stuff attempting to pre-empt me. :D ——Serial 18:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• • If someone has no desire to become an administrator, they also should not be performing administrative tasks. Non-admin closures should be seen as a stepping stone towards an RfA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • You propose that NACs should be seen as a stepping stone towards an RfA? Excellent. So you will encourage them as a way of encouraging RfAs. Cheers! ——Serial 18:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Of course. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Tavix; I think we've got our wires crossed somewhere, as I also support that approach. I apologise for the snark, it was unhelpful to say the least. ——Serial 12:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• No along the lines of Cryptic. You don't even need to rely on IAR to know when you can do it, it's written right into the procedures/information/guidelines of some areas. The broader advice is good and those competent enough to ignore it will do so at the right places and in the right ways. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. I think that regarding policy and consensus-gauging, in areas where it is close and potentially controversial, having an admin close makes sense and offers more accountability than a NAC if, for instance, a closure is being contested. Now I've seen some suggestions that this, as currently written, discourages NACs from experienced users. I believe that experienced users might have the understanding or clout to perform a close. However, we need to find a better way to vet experienced users beside just looking at edit count and account age, which isn't particularly indicative of skill or fitness, just longevity with the project. To that end, perhaps we could create a NAC team or boot camp in which experienced editors are trained and vetted on how to close by administrators and higher. (Said team could also help train folks on the horrendous backlog of Wikipedia:Closure requests we always have.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 13:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. There are a few people who are generally trusted to ignore the advice there, and they generally know who they are. But I do not in general want inexperienced editors thinking they ought to jump straight into closing a highly charged and contentious discussion. And not just for the community's good, but for their own—they may have absolutely no idea what the aftermath of doing that looks like; oftentimes you are going to have a whole bunch of people shouting at you and telling you how stupid and wrong you were no matter what decision you make. Admins or highly experienced non-admin closers are prepared for that to happen and know it might, but such blowback may drive a less experienced editor who's not ready for it straight off the project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• No to proposal as posed. It's useful advice to most people, so just taking it out would be unhelpful. The difficulty we have here, which I think is missed by saying that people who can safely ignore this advice know who they are, is the "stick to beat me with" point made above by S Marshall. The section begins "A non-admin closure is not appropriate in the following situations." From time to time this leads to editors reasonably but mistakenly seeking to have a close overturned as WP:BADNAC, but that is never successful. It's a waste of time and may be embarrassing both for the closer and for the editor who stumbles into the mistake. So what I think we need (unless the entire essay can be rewritten to reflect current practice, which would be desirable) is clarification that this is guidance for closers and will not be a sufficient reason to overturn an otherwise good close. Havelock Jones (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• No - Removing this caution would be likely to result in some enthusiastic, well-meaning, but with more enthusiasm than judgment in doing more non-admin close call closes than are currently done. There are some good non-admin closers and a few bad non-admin closers, and we want to avoid tacitly encouraging the few. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• No It is a warning against reckless conduct. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC).
• No - Those who don't want the tools should not be given tools. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Having a "closer" flag would solve all this.

The three most fraught duties of an admin are blocking editors, viewing deleted content, and (altho this is unspoken) providing leadership and demonstrating exemplary behavior as a beacon to the editor corps generally. These three require a very high level of trust and the community needs to demonstrate that they trust you. Anything else -- including deleting content -- can't cause a big disruption and can pretty easily be undone.

Having a closer tag doesn't require any of those so it should be much easier to get -- obtained same as pagemover and template editor etc flags, on application and vetting by one or two admins.

Probably the closer tag should include the ability to delete pages, BUT since that's heavy lifting politically, then instead we add a WP:CSD tag: "Deletion requested by a Closer [editor with a "closer" tag] per XfD close", which would be an automatic delete unless contested or the admin cleaning up CSD smells something fishy. (To have a flag which gives deletion rights only would require action by the developers I guess, which I think is difficult, whereas adding a CSD flag can be demanded by the community I think. If an actual flag is hard to get put in the code, a tag -- the person gets put in "Category:Closers" -- would work OK I think.)

Even this would be hard to get thru because you would be getting objection from both left and right: "No, because anyone should be able to close" from the Trotskyites, and "No, because only admins should be able to close" from the Monarchists. But maybe the center can hold; only one way to find out? Anybody think this is worth trying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• To me this seems like a lot of unnecessary overhead for little gain. Anything involving deletion really needs to be carried out by someone who has been vetted at the level of an admin, so this would be redundant to adminship IMO. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, a monarchist. Very well, but we just don't have enough admins to close everything properly and this is unlikely to change, and so this is least-bad next alternative, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Quite the opposite—I have a very low bar to support an RfA candidate. I truly believe that RfA is no big deal. I also disagree that we do not have enough admins to close discussions. Of course we could always use more, but the way to accomplish that would be to encourage promising candidates to run for RfA instead of half-baked solutions that require a similar bar to pass. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Jimbo said that the admin corps should be easier to get into and easier to get taken out of, and he's right. The problem is with the "easier to get taken out of" part. I've talked this around some, and it's pretty clear that the admin corps is adamant that they are never going to allow that in any way shape or form, regardless of how it's configured and regardless if current admins are grandfathered in. That being so -- admins being unremovable except by ArbCom -- the community is understandably unwilling to loosen the requirements. You get one admin who's abusive or whatever, she's still in for life. So, nothing's going to change there. So, we need to work with the hand that we have been dealt, which is not enough admins to close everything. Herostratus (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree this is a worthy avenue to explore. (See my weighing in above in survey). ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 13:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Also another point is, there are a lot of discussions to close, every day. People say that our admin corps is somewhat understaffed, but that isn't true: our admin corps is grotesquely understaffed to the point where it's a huge existential problem. We know this because admins are doing 15-second four-word closes and other hurried actions. (It could be that the admin corps doesn't want to to do better or can't, but I refuse to believe that of our admin corps, I just think it's a habit caused by chronic extreme understaffing.)

So, a "closer" category would not just help with closing but would allow admins to spend more time considering other stuff like WP:ANI cases and all.

Most daily closes are AfD, and to close those properly you have to have the ability to delete as well as preserve -- whether an actual bit that lets you delete stuff or (and I think this is much better, and more likely to pass too) just membership in "Category:Closers" which allows you to legitimately send articles that you've adjudicated as delete to CSD. (I would never close under the current circumstances, it's like being a judge who can only decree "not guilty" -- it's worse than useless, it puts things out of balance). Herostratus (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Has anybody ever suggested having a bot designated to perform deletions as a result of a closed AfD? A closer flag (or something similar, like perhaps how the AWB check page works, which would be very easy to implement and require no added perms) could be checked by the bot to prevent abuse prior to deletion. Of course, abusive deletions and bad closures would be handled as per our existing policy and would only cause temporary disruption (plus, admins would have more time to handle those cases, should they arise, as well as help with vetting and educating potential closers). ASUKITE 20:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)