Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure

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)

Should Template:nac (and variations) be substituted?

{{nac}}, {{nacd}}, {{RMnac}}, and {{RMpmc}} all have {{always substitute}} on their documentation. However, they are often not substituted, with transclusion counts near or in the thousands (except for {{nacd}}, which has 5). Should they be substituted? This appears to have been mentioned previously (e.g. here), but no definitive consensus was ever formed. I do not really have an opinion, other than we should either update the documentation or substitute the transclusions, because templates should follow their documentation. HouseBlaster^talk 03:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, Template talk:Non-admin closure, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. HouseBlaster^talk 03:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see what benefit would substituting 1000s of these templates would bring. I think documentation should reflect practice, and so transclusion should be optional. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• Why are these templates meant to be substituted? I'm assuming that's because, given how very widely used they are, transcluding them would put some easily avoidable strain on the servers. These template have been themselves about 4,000 transclusions, which isn't that much as far as the servers are concerned, and I'd be surprised if that number goes up significantly in the future: most closures are done with the automated tools, and I'm assuming these will already correctly apply substitution (well, at least XFDcloser does). – Uanfala (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't really see a reason to force it. That just creates extra edits with no benefit. I don't see any harm in substituting it either though so perhaps just remove the {{always substitute}} tag and call it a day? I've heard that the reason for this may originally be PEIS issues, but given the size of ~just 66 that wouldn't be a problem if you don't have thousands of nacs on one page. --Trialpears (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I imagine the main technical reason to be something else: without substing, the template will have an ever growing number of transclusions, so any change to the template will force the mediawiki to re-render all the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of pages that use it. And there's probably a non-technical aspect as well: this template produces a boilerplate text for closed discussions: there's little need here for minor improvements to the display, while substantial changes would actually be disruptive, as they would alter the text and so change the message (that's similar to why user warning templates are always substituted). For these reasons, I think substing is still best practice, so the template's documentation should continue recommending it. – Uanfala (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the case, why does it have the option of substing? Why not just set |auto=yes and have the bot fix any un-subst'd versions? Primefac (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just a note about the implementation of autosubst'ing: all but one would need to go on User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. HouseBlaster^talk 14:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Right, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. Primefac (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)