1357:. Produces no savings of time and effort in cases where this proposal would work as idealized, and will increase time and effort while providing opportunities for confusion and error in real-life. The best possible case is a hypothetical, trusted non-admin would split the workload with an admin. This idealized case will be rare if this proposal is approved for the simple reason that there are few non-admins that have achieved the level of trust required while still be short of the level of trust needed to pass an RfA. This is before we even consider the problem of a random admin being able to recognize such an individual and be willing to stake their reputation on this person. As a result, any admin performing a deletion on a closed TfD will still have to verify the non-admin's original findings in the vast majority of cases. This results in no savings of time and effort for the admin while adding the non-admins efforts to the total cost of dealing with a discussion. On top of this, the fact the discussions are being closed without needed actions being performed as part of the closing makes it harder to keep track of what discussions still need admin attention, resulting in situations where a discussion's true status is unclear and allowing for discussions to slip through the cracks without appropriate actions being taken. --
841:: Preventing capable non-admins from closing an uncontroversial TfD discussion as "delete" (followed by orphaning the template and leaving it in the holding cell) is simply bureaucracy for its own sake. It helps nothing. Any non-admin who showed themselves able to do that job would soon be recognised as capable by the few admins left who attempt to work on this backlog - and that would speed up the process. That in itself might encourage someone to stand for RfA who otherwise wouldn't want to be subject to such an unpleasant experience. But insisting that that broken process must be a pre-requisite for the ability to do such a simple task smacks of the view that adminship is an exclusive "club" that us mere peons aren't worthy of joining. --
628:- This is a well reasoned proposal, but I have to weakly oppose -- largely on principle. I don't think the solution to a shortage of admins is to move matters like this outside the domain of admin duties. To me, it would be ideal if there were enough admins to close all XfDs (i.e. get rid of non-admin closes altogether). RfA functions (to the extent it functions) to ensure anyone placed in the role has been well vetted and demonstrates competence and general alignment with the community. An improperly executed XfD close is just too painful to remedy to let anyone do so. ā
1821:
template hasn't been transcluded for 4 days. Second, there would be ample time for anyone to object, even assuming the orphaning happened immediately, there would be 4 days (chosen because that is what we use for CSD:C1) to object, challenge the close, and seek some initial review. Third, it would create a structure where the NAC close is something the closer can fully perform, the big part of the process, which is orphaning, and would then shift the remaining bit of actually deleting the template to a simple and quick thing for admins to do.
971:. That's a fact. There are several templates in that list that needs to be merged and non-admins can definitely do that. As for your other statement, that's not a problem with TFD, but with RFA. If you go to RFA and say that you'd want to help out at TFD, given your track record, I think you'd pass. You've got enough experience with templates and 17,826 edits is impressive. I'd even nominate you because I know how bad it's needed and because you've helped me out a couple of other times. --
31:
858:ā 3 people posted below that they'd start closing discussions as delete if they were allowed. That seems like at would (at least) double the users closing TfDs where the outcome is delete. If most admins don't go near TfD, a helping hand by some non-admins seems like it would help the backlog. The time it would take an admin to check the outcome of the discussion is trivial and as long as they did take a few seconds to check the discussion, there can't be much harm caused. ā
261:. Deletion discussions, regardless of namespace, should only be closed in favor of delete by users that can actually perform the deletion. This adds a second level of bureaucracy that is unnecessary. Admins would have to re-assess the closure and come to the same conclusion before taking any action on deleting pages. Admins should be notified, and perhaps prodded, to complete these backlogs in a reasonable amount of time.
1117:- Per GiantSnowman. What makes an editor "trusted"? Administrators are administrators because they have the confidence of the community and have shown that they can make these kinds of calls. More importantly, admins have access to the deletion tools, and non-administrators do not. Non-admins often have a hard time with what an "uncontroversial delete outcome" even is, so I'm not comfortable with what is being suggested. -
117:. The discussion for the original question is complex, with good rationales on both sides (many deriving from long-running differences of opinion about e.g. the nature and purpose of adminship). However, there is clear support for at least trying out the alternative proposal. I recommend looking into a trial of the orphan/CSD mechanism, and if this fails to resolve the issue then the first question can be revisited.
383:. That said, there are many, if not most, TfD delete outcomes that by established precedent, prior consensus, present weight of argument, and/or clear !majority of opinion, which an experienced non-admin editor may properly close. Such logic applies equally to keep and no-consensus outcomes. Just as an administrator's close is subject to DRV review, so will any non-admin editor remain subject to review.
1499:
participation the closing administrator may, at their discretion, choose to relist the discussion." I'm not sure if it's presently in the scope of this proposal, but it seems to me that it would be better for non-admins to re-list a low participation TFD (obviously they aren't touching a nocon TFD) than to be permitted to remove the template in its various uses and send it to the admin holding cell. --
602:'Deletion discussions, regardless of namespace, should only be closed in favor of delete by users that can actually perform the deletion.' By unbundling this to non admins we would have no control whatsoever over the technical knowledge and competency of who is doing it and IMO like other minor rights it would be a magnet to wannabe admins. One could, I supppose, create a new user right for
402:- I'm a non-admin, but I would still be uncomfortable with any random user being able to close a TfD in this manner. It literally makes no difference; any admin is going to have to check that the close was correct anyway, so it won't speed things up in the slightest IMO, and in many cases, it will slow things down because the closer cannot delete things straight away.
1747:: would this actually help the problem? Are there non-admins who would be willing to close discussions and orphan these templates (presumably regular TfD contributors)? I know it's a crap way of conducting a poll, but if there are any editors who are reading this comment and would start closing TfDs if the proposal went ahead, please can you just post below. ā
764:- The user who closes the discussion should be able to handle the deletion; the closing admin should close the discussion, then list it for orphanning if (s)he is unwilling/unable to handle that. If we allow NACs as delete, then some admin will need to show up and deal with it - and itnwould be his/her own responsibility if the deletion is wrong.
883:. There are lots of work to be done there. Closing uncontroversial delete discussions does not help much, if they do are uncontroversial admins will not take long to access that either. (I'm on low activity nowadays, but that is exactly one of the things I do once in a while). Also what is and how do I recognise a "trusted experienced editor"? -
1037:. People advocating RfA as a solution are living in fairy land. For me there are two questions that need answering: is there a serious backlog at TfD?; and if so, would allowing trusted non-admins to close uncontroversial TfDs as delete help alleviate that backlog? The answer to both questions seems clearly to be yes.
428:. The proposal was drafted by people who are regulars at this venue and have got a pretty good understanding of the TFD workflow. Furthermore, if it "literally makes no difference", what is it that makes you uncomfortable? Perhaps it helps to think of it this way - when we !vote to delete a template, what we
1692:
Agreed that this is an interesting idea, but better discussed elsewhere. The current proposal is intended to refocus the "social" part of the process to better facilitate what can be done with existing technical tools, while this alternative would make a technical change to facilitate essentially the
1401:
The period between a TfD closure and the actual deletion is often months, as there is much work to be done replacing templates in the meantime. No admin involvement is required, until the last minute. It's clear that many opposing this proposal have either not considered or not understood this point;
446:
To me, I see there being no benefit as an administrator is going to have to check the closure. That's a given, right? So what's the point of letting a non-admin close in the first place? That is just an extra layer of bureaucracy and is not, in my opinion, actually going to speed things up. Even if a
1820:
closes; and then created a speedy criteria for: "Template that has been
Orphaned and has had no transclusions for 4 days. (Does not apply to templates that are intended to be substituted)" By going this route, first, we would minimize duplication of effort, as the admin would only need to verify the
1680:
Well that could be an interesting proposal. Allowing templateeditiors to delete pages in the
Template: namespace... I think that would be a good idea, many admins don't actually know all that much about templates, but Template editors have a demonstrated ability to judge and work with templates. But
1075:
You're probably confusing "trusted non admins" with "those willing to go through the unpleasantness of an RfA". You've perhaps also missed the point that this proposal does not suggest allowing non-admins the ability to delete a template - any more than allowing non-admins to nominate for CSD allows
478:
closures; assessing the consensus takes literally seconds. What does require time and effort is the orphaning of the templates to be deleted, and admins are most likely to defer to an AWB or bot operator. Once the orphaning is completed, the closing admin will have to be poked, or the template moved
451:
completely non-controversial, an admin is still going to have to take exactly the same amount of time checking that as they would do anyway. It is also my personal opinion, and one that will not easily be changed, that you should not be able to close something in a manner that you cannot immediately
293:
closures; assessing the consensus takes literally seconds. What does require time and effort is the orphaning of the templates to be deleted, for which admins are most likely to defer to an AWB or bot operator. When that is completed, the closing admin will have to be poked, or the template moved to
1657:
an admin will check it and then delete the article. Isn't that a duplication of effort? Why do you think we permit non-admins to mark an article for CSD? Would you support requiring only admins to make the CSD judgement because they are the only ones who can perform the deletion? We'd soon be up to
1513:
As a matter of practice, non-admins do relist discussions. But repeated relisting after a general lack of interest is evident doesn't help the backlog problem and is a distraction. It's an attention-conservation issue. The process should funnel the efforts of the limited number of participants into
1434:
I don't like the language of "experienced non administrator." It creates a new category of editors I'm uncomfortable with. I think the solution to this is for someone to go through the RfA process with the promise to assist with cleaning up this mess. If someone is an experienced non administrator,
317:
per Nakon: at TfD, the closers are not required to perform the deletion function. Non-administrators typically "orphan" the template by removing all transclusions of it, and then list the template for final deletion by an administrator. TfD has suffered from an acute shortage of closing admins in
1094:
technical capabilities of the participants. Currently, artificial backlogs are created waiting for someone to perform a social role ("closing a discussion"), not a technical action ("clicking the delete button"). This is a distinction without a difference at AfD where the two actions almost always
803:
who decides who are well-trusted non-admins? Heck there are some admins whom I don't trust with the mop, yet they are able to block, delete, etc. At least those who hold the mop have gone through a screening and !vote. If anything mop holders should have to go up to periodic re-approval of holding
610:
but again, IMO it would just create yet another peg on the hat stand and more work for the admins at PERM. The only real solution is to either call more of our barely active admins into action, or clean up RfA once and for all, make it a less humiliating experience, and get new, keen, enthusiastic
744:
And why does the closer at TfD need access to deletion tools? Indeed the one pressing the button is responsible for the deletion, but checking an uncontroversial close takes moments; what more does an admin need to assure themselves that they can safely delete, especially if they recognise the
1550:
At AfD, evaluating and enacting an uncontroversial delete outcome both take seconds, so splitting those two actions makes no sense. At TfD, orphaning the template may require significantly more effort. Currently, throughput at this step is limited not by carrying out the orphaning, but by the
1498:
OTOH, I've seen a number of low-participation (even with seeming-consensus) TFDs be relisted by at least a few users (not sure if they're admins off the top of my head). The interesting phrase is the statement post-your quotation: "However, if after seven days there is no consensus or little
1097:
More concretely, it's also not healthy for any process to have such unpredictable and discontinuous throughput. Building up huge backlogs for a small handful of people to muck out in big batches every so often is inefficient and frankly more likely to lead to errors than allowing more NACs.
1727:
In truly uncontroversial cases, of course, there is no time wasted, because it takes a trivial amount of time to determine that the closer's judgment was valid. In the rare circumstance of an error, surely the second argument obviates the first? Either the admin catches the error or takes
2038:
And that is why this is the same proposal as above with a different name. Interesting (mostly off topic) fact about the power of words - "delete and orphan" vs. "orphan and delete" - is that one version gets a majority of opposes and the other a large majority of supports. Human mind is
1460:
TFDs, due to lack of participation (say, 1 or 2 users), do not have an obvious consensus. WP:NACD is silent on what to do in this situation, as the two users may have agreed on what to do with the template (e.g. delete the template) and so the "close calls and controversial decisions -:
1484:: "There is no quorum. If, after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of a template, it can simply be deleted." Many TfD discussions see lower participation than AfD, as you'd expect, and in my experience low-participation TfDs are typically uncontroversial.
1652:
And yet your other objection is that having a non-admin closure at TfD needs an admin to check before deletion - and that's bureaucratic duplication, right? Let me ask you, do you object to CSD for the same reason? In CSD a non-admin assesses that an article should be deleted and
1317:
could be used here. If we ever get to a day where backlogs are small and infrequent, I may ask the non-admins to lay off. As such, there's no shortage of such work to be done, and I appreciate qualified non-admins stepping in. Those who abuse the ability can easily be sanctioned.
1220:
The only reason that non-admins can't close other discussions as delete is because they can't implement the outcome. Since implementing a delete result at TfD just means putting it in the holding cell, non-admins can implement them, so they should be able to close them as such.
1054:"trusted non admins" should be made admins, and while RFA has far too few candidates, those who do run are often getting over 95% support. If we are going to have another unbundling I'd much prefer that we unbundled "block IP and BLock newbie " rather than the delete button.
1095:
occur in tandem, but at TfD they're often decoupled. We have broad general agreement that admins are experienced editors with extra buttons, not people with privileged social status. Treating this differently than a CSD or a prod does not seem compatible with that view.
1943:, this is the way to go about this. I love the idea of a template CSD that mirrors C1 as that would go a long way to clean up the template namespace without clogging up TFD with so many uncontroversial nominations. It also is a good way to take care of the
1339:. And, the deleting admin will also give a glance at the TfD for the surety of the outcome rather than going through each and every discussion line by line. As templates doesn't require much assessment as AfDs, I support the proposal.. Regards--
1811:
1203:, if the page is going to be deleted it will require an administrator anyways. This does not save much time and introduces a lot of bureaucracy and potential for drama (who is an "experienced non-administrator" and who gets to decide?).
712:
many non-admins have the judgement ability to close TfD's, quite often there are three delete votes and nothing else at a tfd, yet it sits for weeks waiting for an admin. Yes RfA is nice but we have all seen how difficult that place is.
1011:
It's only "broken" because people don't want to run. (Most people would agree that it needs a reform, but the current system works). Since I've followed it in 2015, I haven't seen a single candidate fail that really should be an admin.
479:
to another section of the holding cell, or speedy-tagged. If this proposal were to pass, discussions would be closed by non-admins with the intent to immediately enact the outcome; afterwards, the orphaned templates would be listed in
274:
I wouldn't be caught dead proposing more bureaucracyĀ ;) This discussion is the result of such a prod. Having reviewed the backlog and picked off the quick ones as I have the time, I'm convinced this is a more efficient workflow.
176:: "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome, such as deletion." This is particularly important at AfD, where deletion decisions are immediately actionable.
666:. I have many successful CSD nominations, which require admin review, so from that perspective, I should be "trusted" to delete a page. Yet, I doubt that I would pass an RfA now or any time in the immediate/near future. --
745:
non-admin closer as capable? Doing it your way requires the admin to close the discussion and then spend possibly considerable time in orphaning the template. No wonder there's a backlog. Have you ever closed a TfD? --
318:
2015, and the ability of uninvolved, knowledgeable and experienced non-admins to close non-constroversial delete outcomes would greatly alleviate the continuing backlog, and allow admins to focus on the "hard cases".
1779:
Yes. And I'm willing to stipulate that I will be working with admins
Opabinia regalis and NorthAmerica1000. The object is to clear the non-controversial backlog and free up admin time to focus on the hard cases.
1551:
relatively simple task of closing the discussions. This proposal parallelizes the slowest step of the process at the trivial cost of doing a quick, simple task twice. I do exactly that all the time as a programmer.
944:
Am I trusted to close TfDs? I've closed well over fifty with nigh no complaints. Would I stand a chance at RfA? No, and neither am I willing to go through the ordeal. But you won't accept my help, because?
230:
1964:, as long as templates in user space are excluded. (I assume there is a way to tell the difference between a template which has been orphaned 10 minutes ago and one that's been orphaned 4 days ago.) ā
1382:
and they finish the job next time they're online. However, the case we're discussing is the one where needed actions will not be immediately taken at the time of the close regardless of who closes it.
105:
132:
525:
an uncontroversial closure, an admin will still have to check that the closure is valid before anything can be do. That's an increase in bureaucracy, and I do not agree with your assessment.
1658:
our armpits in crap articles if we took that line. If the size of the task at TfD matched that at CSD, we soon have those opposing here screaming out to let non-admins share the workload. --
1626:
It would certainly be better, but unless they have the ability to actually perform the action, I would still oppose (albeit less vigorously as one of my two major issues would be resolved)
727:
People who want to close deletion discussions need access to the deletion tools, because otherwise the one who actually presses the delete button is the admin responsible for the deletion.
579:
We don't need to give the deletionists any more ability to remove content. If they can't pass RfA they can't delete templates. RfA is our measure of trustworthiness for tasks like that.
1481:
564:
is thataway. Non-admins should not be deciding to delete things, as simple as that. And in fact it just creates more work given that an admin would have to check the close anyway...
2110:
1834:
1090:
I had a similar reaction to this comment. "Unbundling" is a technical modification; this proposal is about modifying the procedural structure of the TfD process to better match the
1107:
1884:
685:
1702:
1575:
1391:
1085:
205:
and permit admins active in TfD closures to concentrate on more complex cases, while still allowing a final admin review of the decision before the template is deleted.
284:
1526:
1508:
1493:
1918:
1843:
Would also work, and would have the additional benefit of massively cleaning up the
Template namespace instead of having thousands of unused templates lying around.
2033:
2021:- since this is the process for deleting a template anyway, it might as well simply be understood that "delete" for a template means "orphan and place in holding".
392:
191:
1789:
793:
2048:
1867:
1643:
1462:
do not close" criterion is satisfied... Thoughts are welcome. (This specific question and this general discussion may be a good discussion to invite watchers of
1191:
1173:
2062:
1977:
1901:
1261:
754:
542:
500:
469:
441:
1956:
1935:
1667:
2076:
2009:
1991:
1774:
993:
People have been harping on about how RfA is broken for eons, it seems. I might've missed it, but I don't think anything's been done to remedy the situation.
2092:
1803:
1021:
1006:
980:
962:
307:
221:
closures of uncontroversial discussions by experienced editors where enacting the short-term outcome is within the technical ability of non-administrators.
1638:
1450:
537:
464:
414:
424:
It's been explained how it'll speed things up - see my comment above and the extended proposal; do not just say "it'll slow things down IMO", but explain
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
149:
This RfC seeks to establish consensus on the question: should experienced non-administrators be allowed to close TfD discussions with uncontroversial
343:" closures, especially since there are only a few admins who are willing to come here to close discussions, would make the TFD process much faster.
379:
To be crystal clear, JC, I continue to believe that some TfD close calls and controversial deletes are best left to administrators in the spirit of
1737:
1560:
235:
784:
admin who's a regular. Do you have any other suggestions? And if the answer is RfA, you're gonna have to excuse me if I respond less than kindly.
1627:
526:
453:
403:
1070:
813:
253:
947:
Closing uncontroversial delete discussions does not help much, if they do are uncontroversial admins will not take long to access that either.
2068:
2058:
1983:
1893:
1766:
1567:
1253:
1165:
998:
968:
954:
880:
821:- experienced non-admins are allowed to close deletion discussions at Articles for deletion and I don't see why TfD should be any different.
785:
637:
594:
492:
433:
299:
1426:
1299:
657:
571:
1617:
327:
1760:
1687:
1230:
833:
771:
483:
for any passing admin to ascertain that the closure was - indeed - diligent and press the "delete" button. Evidently, not only does this
1517:
I don't think it's necessary, but I wouldn't object to an expectation that NAC delete closures should have been relisted at least once.
1212:
1159:
739:
165:
on the page has been exceeded. Very few admins are currently active in TfD closures. Many TfD discussions are uncontroversial deletions.
1475:
1444:
1349:
1247:
419:
1046:
704:
620:
367:
1363:
871:
719:
1126:
921:
892:
850:
269:
1282:
1327:
294:
another section of the holding cell, or speedy-tagged. Therefore, the proposal does not displace nor increase the admin load, but
187:, the template in question must first be orphaned. This is within the technical ability of, and is often completed by, non-admins.
1378:, I expect that what will happen is what happened when I closed a few the other day and got interrupted halfway through: someone
47:
17:
649:
page, even with admin review, then he/she probably could pass RfA. Also, it's another dream of editors lusting for the mop.
1712:
there's a couple of different threads in the above arguments that I want to try disentangling. There are two common themes:
144:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2088:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1982:
It would be four days from tagging the template. The notice would display a counter, similarly to many other CSD notices.
1371:, please time yourself closing a brief undisputed XfD of your choice and report back to us how much time will be wastedĀ ;)
904:
help with the backlog there, and if they are "trusted" enough, they should be able to stand for an RFA. Also opposing per
1422:
1379:
432:
care about is that the template is orphaned or replaced; its deletion can come at any (reasonable) time in the future.
1238:, the solution is to have more admins closing discussions, not to let random/unvetted editors close the discussions.
1335:. This will greatly reduce the workload of admins. I find no harm in an non-involved editor closing a discussion as
1463:
1722:
Non-admins shouldn't close anything as delete because it's a waste of time for an admin to review the decision.
776:
And why should admins be absolved of their responsibility? The reason we're proposing to let non-admins close
1852:
1602:
352:
1061:
809:
1880:
1733:
1698:
1556:
1522:
1489:
1387:
1103:
280:
249:
226:
38:
480:
2106:
1544:
cause displaced backlogs and burdensome duplication of effort. I wouldn't make a proposal to give me
1140:
I'm also a bit concerned with non-admins deleting a template assuming it's not controversial when it
162:
587:
560:- if you feel you have the skills and knowledge and judgment to make these kind of decisions, then
1540:
I posted this discussion as an admin who has closed TfDs recently. I can confirm that this would
1418:
1295:
2029:
1056:
805:
568:
1435:
and is ready willing and able to help in this regard, then they should be able to pass RfA. --
2097:
The template discussion notice is covering up part of the lead paragraph. See, for example,
1914:
1876:
1785:
1729:
1694:
1552:
1518:
1485:
1383:
1208:
1099:
388:
323:
276:
245:
222:
2102:
1226:
768:
676:
8:
630:
581:
1719:
Non-admins shouldn't close anything as delete because there's too much risk of an error.
1827:
1440:
1409:
1347:
1291:
1243:
663:
651:
197:
As a result of this structure, non-admin closures of discussions with uncontroversial
1860:
1848:
1610:
1598:
1042:
700:
616:
565:
360:
348:
127:
2072:
2004:
1987:
1972:
1944:
1910:
1897:
1781:
1770:
1755:
1571:
1257:
1169:
1002:
958:
905:
866:
789:
496:
437:
384:
336:
319:
303:
2044:
2022:
1931:
1816:
What if instead of allowing outright delete NAC closes, we instead permitted NAC
1799:
1663:
1311:
1222:
1122:
1081:
888:
846:
822:
765:
750:
695:, strongly. We need to devolve the tools, because we're not getting more admins.
667:
114:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1504:
1471:
1278:
1204:
1179:
1147:
730:
214:
173:
1822:
1436:
1340:
1323:
1239:
561:
380:
202:
169:
158:
1844:
1594:
1038:
696:
612:
487:
increase bureaucracy, but it also (a) saves us time and (b) alleviates the
374:
344:
118:
942:... if they are "trusted" enough, they should be able to stand for an RFA.
2098:
1998:
1966:
1926:. This is the same as the previous suggestion, with *more* bureucracy. -
1749:
1683:
1368:
1359:
1271:, but can always be rolled back later, if necessary, by the community. ā
991:
As for your other statement, that's not a problem with TFD, but with RFA.
860:
715:
1164:
Nobody is suggesting that non-admins should be able to delete anything.
997:
I don't share your optimism, but thank you for your vote of confidence.
2040:
1948:
1927:
1795:
1659:
1118:
1077:
1013:
972:
953:
of the issue. This has been explained at quite some length previously.
928:
913:
884:
842:
746:
262:
172:
of discussions is to reduce, not merely displace, admin backlogs. Per
1500:
1467:
1273:
912:
non-admins shouldn't close discussions as "delete" to begin with. --
1681:
that is probably a topic for a different RfC in a different place.
1319:
183:
necessarily immediately actionable. When a discussion is closed as
2055:
How do you check whether a template has been orphaned for 4 days?
1456:
A comment on WP:NACD that leaves me undecided in this discussion:
989:
closures are not kept in the holding cell for very long, usually.
192:
Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#Ready for deletion
1585:: to those who have voted "oppose", would it be better to allow
645:: If an user was knowledgeable and trusted enough to delete
521:
I have little more to say, other than the fact that even
106:
RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD
1480:
Thanks for posting over there as well. As stated in the
969:
Knowledge:Templates_for_discussion#Completed_discussions
881:
Knowledge:Templates_for_discussion#Completed_discussions
1593:
to close TfDs as "delete" where the result is clear?
1307:
As an admin, I have no problem with this whatsoever.
985:
It is a fact. It's also not what's under discussion.
879:. Non admins can and should help with the backlog on
1812:
Alternative
Proposal: Allow Orphan as a close result
1728:responsibility for it - same as any other process.
1374:As for not taking actions that are both needed and
949:How long admins take to close a discussion is only
1406:discussion should please take that into account.
1380:leaves a note on the inattentive user's talk page
1290:, per Nakon and Chris Troutman. Slippery slope.
1252:What a nice way to describe your fellow editors.
474:I have explained this above. We're talking about
190:After being orphaned, the template is listed at
1875:this alternative workflow formulation as well.
2093:Please reformulate template discussion notice
1996:Ah, okay. Thank you for the clarification. ā
1514:the tasks where they can be most productive.
1134:- IMHO if you want to close TFDs as delete
113:Responding to the request for closure at
900:per Nabla and GiantSnowman. Non-admins
18:Knowledge talk:Templates for discussion
14:
2067:You AGF on the part of the nominator.
1178:Ah sorry it's been a very long day!. ā
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
213:of this proposal would interpret the
201:outcomes would reduce the backlog at
140:The following discussion is closed.
25:
23:
804:the mop (say every three years).--
24:
2121:
1136:(and then physically delete them)
2084:The discussion above is closed.
29:
1376:doable at the time of the close
938:help with the backlog there ...
179:At TfD, deletion decisions are
13:
1:
1076:them to delete an article. --
662:I'm not sure if that's true,
1138:you should become an admin,
940:That's just a misdirection.
481:WP:TFD/HC#Ready for deletion
7:
2111:22:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
1892:. Whatever works, I guess.
967:Non-admins can help out at
10:
2126:
1655:without further discussion
157:Currently, the backlog at
2077:13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
2063:13:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
2049:18:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
2010:20:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
1992:20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
1978:19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
1957:14:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
1936:11:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
1919:18:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
1902:17:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
1885:17:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
1868:13:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
1835:14:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
1804:00:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
1790:18:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
1775:16:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
1761:16:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
1738:17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
1703:17:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
1688:14:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
1668:00:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
1644:14:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
1618:13:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
1445:19:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
1427:23:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
1392:01:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
1364:00:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
1350:08:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
1328:13:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
1300:21:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
1283:02:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
1231:20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
1213:22:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
1192:22:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
1174:14:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
1160:14:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
1127:00:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
1108:18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
1086:18:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
1071:09:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
1047:14:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
1022:15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
1007:15:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
981:14:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
963:14:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
922:13:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
893:11:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
872:08:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
851:23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
834:10:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
814:23:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
794:13:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
772:12:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
755:23:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
740:06:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
720:14:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
705:02:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
686:00:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
658:01:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
638:18:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
621:02:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
133:21:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
2086:Please do not modify it.
2034:16:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1909:per Monty's rationale.
1576:21:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1566:That's a great analogy.
1561:19:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1527:23:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1509:21:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1494:19:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1482:TfD closing instructions
1476:19:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1262:16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
1248:15:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
780:TfDs is because there's
595:22:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
572:19:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
543:23:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
501:15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
470:18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
442:18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
420:17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
393:12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
368:11:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
328:04:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
308:15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
285:03:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
270:03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
254:03:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
231:03:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
217:guideline as permitting
142:Please do not modify it.
1947:problem from above. --
1538:Comment from proposer:
1466:to participate in.) --
339:. Allowing non-admin "
194:to await admin action.
1693:same social process.
1587:just template editors
161:is so large that the
42:of past discussions.
1640:(tell Luke off here)
995:If you go to RFA ...
539:(tell Luke off here)
466:(tell Luke off here)
416:(tell Luke off here)
289:We're talking about
1464:WT:Deletion process
611:admins on board. --
2039:fascinatingĀ :-) -
170:non-admin closures
163:transclusion limit
143:
1866:
1832:
1616:
908:, which lays out
806:RightCowLeftCoast
738:
452:act on yourself.
366:
141:
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2117:
2061:
2027:
1954:
1877:Opabinia regalis
1864:
1856:
1828:
1825:
1730:Opabinia regalis
1695:Opabinia regalis
1636:
1633:
1630:
1614:
1606:
1553:Opabinia regalis
1519:Opabinia regalis
1486:Opabinia regalis
1425:
1416:
1412:
1384:Opabinia regalis
1345:
1316:
1310:
1189:
1184:
1157:
1152:
1100:Opabinia regalis
1068:
1064:
1059:
1019:
978:
932:
919:
830:
737:
735:
728:
683:
674:
654:
635:
633:
606:like we did for
593:
590:
584:
535:
532:
529:
462:
459:
456:
412:
409:
406:
378:
364:
356:
277:Opabinia regalis
267:
246:Opabinia regalis
223:Opabinia regalis
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2125:
2124:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2103:Anythingyouwant
2095:
2090:
2089:
2056:
2025:
2008:
1976:
1949:
1858:
1831:
1823:
1814:
1759:
1634:
1631:
1628:
1608:
1453:
1414:
1408:
1407:
1402:whoever closes
1341:
1314:
1308:
1185:
1180:
1153:
1148:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1014:
973:
926:
914:
870:
823:
731:
729:
677:
668:
652:
631:
629:
613:Kudpung ąøąøøąøąøąø¶ą¹ąø
608:Template Editor
588:
582:
580:
533:
530:
527:
476:uncontroversial
460:
457:
454:
410:
407:
404:
372:
358:
291:uncontroversial
263:
238:
168:The purpose of
146:
137:
136:
135:
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2123:
2094:
2091:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2002:
1970:
1959:
1938:
1921:
1904:
1887:
1870:
1865:to reply to me
1829:
1813:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1792:
1777:
1753:
1741:
1740:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1720:
1714:
1713:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1678:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1647:
1646:
1621:
1620:
1615:to reply to me
1580:
1579:
1578:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1515:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1429:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1372:
1352:
1330:
1305:Strong support
1302:
1285:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1233:
1215:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1144:controversial.
1129:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1096:
1088:
1049:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
895:
874:
864:
853:
836:
816:
798:
797:
796:
759:
758:
757:
722:
707:
690:
689:
688:
640:
632:Rhododendrites
623:
597:
583:Chris Troutman
574:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
397:
396:
395:
365:to reply to me
330:
312:
311:
310:
287:
256:
237:
234:
207:
206:
195:
188:
177:
166:
147:
138:
112:
111:
110:
109:
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2122:
2113:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2087:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2060:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2031:
2024:
2020:
2017:
2011:
2007:
2006:
2001:
2000:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1975:
1974:
1969:
1968:
1963:
1960:
1958:
1955:
1952:
1946:
1942:
1939:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1922:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1905:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1888:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1871:
1869:
1862:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1833:
1826:
1819:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1758:
1757:
1752:
1751:
1746:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1726:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1679:
1677:
1676:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1656:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1645:
1642:
1641:
1637:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1619:
1612:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1536:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1433:
1430:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1415:Pigsonthewing
1411:
1405:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1344:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1313:
1306:
1303:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1275:
1270:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1234:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1216:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1199:
1193:
1190:
1188:
1183:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1151:
1145:
1143:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1093:
1089:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1060:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
983:
982:
979:
976:
970:
966:
965:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
943:
939:
937:
930:
925:
924:
923:
920:
917:
911:
907:
903:
899:
896:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:
873:
869:
868:
863:
862:
857:
854:
852:
848:
844:
840:
837:
835:
831:
829:
828:
820:
817:
815:
811:
807:
802:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
774:
773:
770:
767:
763:
760:
756:
752:
748:
743:
742:
741:
736:
734:
726:
723:
721:
718:
717:
711:
708:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
687:
684:
682:
681:
675:
673:
672:
665:
664:Esquivalience
661:
660:
659:
656:
655:
653:Esquivalience
648:
644:
641:
639:
634:
627:
624:
622:
618:
614:
609:
605:
601:
598:
596:
591:
585:
578:
575:
573:
570:
567:
563:
559:
556:
555:
544:
541:
540:
536:
524:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
477:
473:
472:
471:
468:
467:
463:
450:
445:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
418:
417:
413:
401:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
376:
371:
370:
369:
362:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
329:
325:
321:
316:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
288:
286:
282:
278:
273:
272:
271:
268:
266:
260:
257:
255:
251:
247:
244:as proposer.
243:
240:
239:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:Consensus in
204:
200:
196:
193:
189:
186:
182:
178:
175:
171:
167:
164:
160:
156:
155:
154:
152:
145:
134:
131:
129:
124:
123:
122:
116:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2096:
2085:
2018:
2003:
1997:
1971:
1965:
1961:
1950:
1940:
1923:
1906:
1889:
1872:
1840:
1817:
1815:
1754:
1748:
1744:
1709:
1682:
1654:
1639:
1590:
1589:rather than
1586:
1582:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1457:
1431:
1423:Andy's edits
1419:Talk to Andy
1410:Andy Mabbett
1403:
1398:
1375:
1358:
1354:
1342:
1336:
1332:
1304:
1287:
1272:
1268:
1235:
1217:
1200:
1186:
1181:
1154:
1149:
1141:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1114:
1091:
1055:
1051:
1034:
1015:
994:
990:
986:
974:
950:
946:
941:
935:
933:
915:
909:
901:
897:
876:
865:
859:
855:
838:
826:
825:
818:
800:
781:
777:
761:
732:
724:
714:
709:
692:
679:
678:
670:
669:
650:
646:
642:
625:
607:
603:
599:
576:
557:
538:
522:
488:
484:
475:
465:
448:
429:
425:
415:
399:
340:
332:
314:
295:
290:
264:
258:
241:
218:
210:
208:
198:
184:
180:
150:
148:
139:
125:
120:
119:
78:
43:
37:
2099:Jim Gilmore
1911:Dirtlawyer1
1782:Dirtlawyer1
934:Non-admins
626:Weak Oppose
385:Dirtlawyer1
337:Dirtlawyer1
320:Dirtlawyer1
153:outcomes?
36:This is an
2023:Ivanvector
1863:|Jc86035}}
1613:|Jc86035}}
1451:Discussion
1223:Jackmcbarn
769:OdĀ Mishehu
733:Sandstein
604:TfD Closer
489:meaningful
363:|Jc86035}}
98:ArchiveĀ 25
90:ArchiveĀ 21
85:ArchiveĀ 20
79:ArchiveĀ 19
73:ArchiveĀ 18
68:ArchiveĀ 17
60:ArchiveĀ 15
1945:WP:BADNAC
1205:Antrocent
906:WP:BADNAC
766:×¢××Ā ××ש××
491:backlog.
1853:contribs
1745:Question
1603:contribs
1591:everyone
1583:Question
1437:ScWizard
1343:JAaron95
1240:Frietjes
1092:existing
1067:Chequers
827:ŠŠ°Š½Š“ŠøŃŠŗŠ°
782:only one
447:closure
353:contribs
115:WP:ANRFC
2019:Support
1962:Support
1941:Support
1907:Support
1890:Support
1873:Support
1845:Jc86035
1841:Support
1794:Yes. --
1710:Comment
1595:Jc86035
1548:workĀ ;)
1399:Support
1333:Support
1269:Support
1218:Support
1039:Jenks24
1035:Support
856:Support
839:Support
819:Support
725:Oppose.
710:Support
697:Protonk
693:Support
569:Snowman
375:Jc86035
345:Jc86035
333:Support
315:Support
296:reduces
242:Support
215:WP:NACD
174:WP:NACD
121:Sunrise
39:archive
2069:Alakzi
2005:(talk)
1999:Bilorv
1984:Alakzi
1973:(talk)
1967:Bilorv
1924:Oppose
1894:Alakzi
1818:Orphan
1767:Alakzi
1756:(talk)
1750:Bilorv
1684:EoRdE6
1568:Alakzi
1432:Oppose
1369:Allen3
1360:Allen3
1355:Oppose
1337:delete
1312:db-xfd
1288:Oppose
1254:Alakzi
1236:oppose
1201:Oppose
1166:Alakzi
1132:Oppose
1115:Oppose
1052:Oppose
999:Alakzi
987:Delete
955:Alakzi
898:Oppose
877:Oppose
867:(talk)
861:Bilorv
801:Oppose
786:Alakzi
778:delete
762:Oppose
716:EoRdE6
671:Biblio
643:Oppose
600:Oppose
577:Oppose
562:WP:RFA
558:Oppose
493:Alakzi
434:Alakzi
430:really
400:Oppose
381:WP:NAC
341:delete
300:Alakzi
259:Oppose
236:Survey
219:delete
203:WP:TFD
199:delete
185:delete
159:WP:TFD
151:delete
2041:Nabla
1928:Nabla
1824:Monty
1796:RexxS
1765:Yes.
1660:RexxS
1182:Davey
1150:Davey
1119:Aoidh
1078:RexxS
1063:Spiel
929:Tavix
885:Nabla
843:RexxS
747:RexxS
566:Giant
265:Nakon
211:favor
16:<
2107:talk
2073:talk
2059:KeĻr
2045:talk
2030:talk
1988:talk
1953:avix
1932:talk
1915:talk
1898:talk
1881:talk
1857:Use
1849:talk
1800:talk
1786:talk
1771:talk
1734:talk
1699:talk
1664:talk
1629:Luke
1607:Use
1599:talk
1572:talk
1557:talk
1546:more
1523:talk
1505:talk
1501:Izno
1490:talk
1472:talk
1468:Izno
1458:many
1441:talk
1404:this
1388:talk
1324:talk
1296:talk
1279:talk
1274:Cirt
1258:talk
1244:talk
1227:talk
1187:2010
1170:talk
1155:2010
1123:talk
1104:talk
1082:talk
1058:Ļ¢ere
1043:talk
1018:avix
1003:talk
977:avix
959:talk
951:part
918:avix
889:talk
847:talk
810:talk
790:talk
751:talk
701:talk
680:worm
617:talk
589:talk
528:Luke
523:with
497:talk
455:Luke
438:talk
405:Luke
389:talk
357:Use
349:talk
335:per
324:talk
304:talk
298:it.
281:talk
250:talk
227:talk
128:talk
1830:845
1542:not
1461:-->
1417:);
1320:BDD
1292:BMK
936:can
910:why
902:can
832:š
647:any
636:\\
485:not
426:how
181:not
2109:)
2075:)
2057:ā
2047:)
2032:)
2026:š
1990:)
1934:)
1917:)
1900:)
1883:)
1861:re
1859:{{
1855:)
1851:ā¢
1802:)
1788:)
1773:)
1736:)
1701:)
1666:)
1635:94
1632:no
1611:re
1609:{{
1605:)
1601:ā¢
1574:)
1559:)
1525:)
1507:)
1492:)
1474:)
1443:)
1421:;
1390:)
1326:)
1318:--
1315:}}
1309:{{
1298:)
1281:)
1260:)
1246:)
1229:)
1211:)
1209:ā«ā¬
1172:)
1142:is
1125:)
1106:)
1084:)
1045:)
1012:--
1005:)
961:)
891:)
849:)
812:)
792:)
753:)
703:)
619:)
534:94
531:no
499:)
461:94
458:no
449:is
440:)
411:94
408:no
391:)
361:re
359:{{
355:)
351:ā¢
326:)
306:)
283:)
252:)
229:)
94:ā
64:ā
2105:(
2101:.
2071:(
2043:(
2028:(
1986:(
1951:T
1930:(
1913:(
1896:(
1879:(
1847:(
1798:(
1784:(
1769:(
1732:(
1697:(
1662:(
1597:(
1570:(
1555:(
1521:(
1503:(
1488:(
1470:(
1439:(
1413:(
1386:(
1322:(
1294:(
1277:(
1256:(
1242:(
1225:(
1207:(
1168:(
1146:ā
1121:(
1102:(
1080:(
1041:(
1016:T
1001:(
975:T
957:(
931::
927:@
916:T
887:(
845:(
824:ā
808:(
788:(
749:(
699:(
615:(
592:)
586:(
495:(
436:(
387:(
377::
373:@
347:(
322:(
302:(
279:(
248:(
225:(
130:)
126:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.