On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 4:18 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's my view - if you do it right, people will just assume you're an admin, so what difference does it make?
Well, the convention is that you put "non admin closure" in your closing statement. The new Zman AFD closing script does that automatically.
The problem is that there's been a charge that AFD closes that don't strictly adhere to the wp:nac essay, particularly "no consensus" closes, are being challenged for no other reason then that they were closed by a non-admin. How accurate the charge is I'm not certain but my view on this is that the phrase "comment on the edit, not the editor" should be extended to AFDS, "evaluate the close, not the closer[1]". If it's a bad close (not just one you don't agree with) then it should be reverted or taken to deletion review even if closed by an admin. If it's a reasonable close, then it shouldn't matter who closed it.
That being said, wp:nac was written for a reason. If the non admin is unfamiliar with deletion policy and has no experience judging consensus (or lack thereof) then the only AFDs he should be closing, if any, are ones that are unanimous or near unanimous keeps.
- The only exception is if the closer, admin or not, has a COI and/or
!voted in the AFD.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
AfD closures are not supposed to have to be reviewed much. Admins are (supposed) to be trusted by the community to be able to judge the consensus in a debate. If there is not a clear consensus to keep, and a no consensus closure means no clear consensus to keep, having a non admin close such a debate means that people will be more likely to review the close. Without the backlog on AfD, that just means people will be doing extra work, which is not needed.