User:Tavix/non-admin closes
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
WP:BADNAC currently states that non-admin closure is not appropriate when the result will require action by an administrator. There's a perennial proposal to allow non-admins to close XfD discussions as delete. This essay enumerates my reasons why I feel that's a bad idea.
Authority[edit]
Non-admins do not have access to the delete button because they have not been granted authority by the community at an RFA to have one. If you do not have the technical ability to do something, you shouldn't be doing it anyway!
Workload[edit]
A non-admin closing a discussion as delete requires twice the workload of an admin closing the discussion. For it to be done correctly, the non-admin has to read through the discussion to come to a decision and then tag it for G6. Later, an admin patrolling CSD would then have to read through the discussion to make sure that's the correct decision and finally delete it.
Effort[edit]
Since the introduction of WP:XFDC, closing a discussion is as easy as pressing a button. One no longer has to manually add the top and bottom templates, find the redirects to delete, go through and unlink backlinks, etc. The idea that a non-admin could go through and do all the housekeeping items like unlinking, orphaning, etc. has been superseded by this tool. There really isn't anything a non-admin could do to save the deleting admin time and effort.
Responsibility[edit]
A non-admin delete decision effectively splits responsibility for the close between two people: the non-admin who closed the discussion and the admin who pressed the delete button. If someone wants to appeal one of my closes, the first step for doing so would be to come to my talk page and discuss the closure with me. Let's say someone thinks the discussion should have been relisted instead of deleted. I often fulfill those requests, so all I would have to do is restore the page and then relist the discussion. This isn't that simple for a non-admin to accomplish, logistically. If that non-admin agrees that a discussion should be relisted instead of deleted, for example, they'd have to bother the admin that deleted it, who would then have to restore the page, and finally it can then be relisted. That is a lot more complicated, for what gain?
Backlog[edit]
A common argument that I've seen is that this will help reduce the backlog at XfD. What they often neglect to realize is this will actually increase the backlog at CSD, which is an awful trade off. CSD is where time-sensitive items are tagged for speedy deletion, and tying up admins who patrol this area in more trivial areas is harmful. On the other hand, it is okay if an AfD on a marginally non-notable footballer or an RfD on an implausible redirect remain open for a few extra days. If it's actually time sensitive, there should be criteria for speedy deletion it meets anyway. The fact that there are backlogs at a certain XfD board is simply evidence that more admins are needed in a certain area, and that should encourage non-admin regulars at a certain XfD board to run for admin.
Trust[edit]
Anyone I would trust closing an XfD discussion as "delete", I would also trust to actually have the delete button. A trustworthy non-admin who wants to close discussions as "delete" should stand for an WP:RFA and I'd be more than willing to support or nominate this person should that be the case.