This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This RfC seeks to establish consensus on the question: should experienced non-administrators be allowed to close TfD discussions with uncontroversial delete outcomes?
Consensus in favor of this proposal would interpret the WP:NACD guideline as permitting delete closures of uncontroversial discussions by experienced editors where enacting the short-term outcome is within the technical ability of non-administrators. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Non-admins can help with the backlog there ...That's just a misdirection.
... if they are "trusted" enough, they should be able to stand for an RFA.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?
Closing uncontroversial delete discussions does not help much, if they do are uncontroversial admins will not take long to access that either.How long admins take to close a discussion is only part of the issue. This has been explained at quite some length previously. Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
As for your other statement, that's not a problem with TFD, but with RFA.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.
If you go to RFA ...I don't share your optimism, but thank you for your vote of confidence. Alakzi (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
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 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
What if instead of allowing outright delete NAC closes, we instead permitted NAC Orphan 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 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. Monty845 14:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The template discussion notice is covering up part of the lead paragraph. See, for example, Jim Gilmore.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)