Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-admin closure page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Essays Mid‑impact

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)`[reply]
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)[reply]
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)) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - Of course. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No It is a warning against reckless conduct. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
No - Those who don't want the tools should not be given tools. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree this is a worthy avenue to explore. (See my weighing in above in survey). ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 13:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. House Blaster^talk 03:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just a note about the implementation of autosubst'ing: all but one would need to go on User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. House Blaster^talk 14:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. Primefac (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding NACs at VPP

There is a discussion regarding this essay at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Taking the temperature on NACs in CTs. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]