User:Kappa/Kaaos – Relisted. I agree with the commenters that this is a close or contentious AfD that non-admins shouldn't close, and that Buidhe erred in closing it as "redirect". I'm therefore undoing the closure on my own authority as an administrator. Sandstein 07:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Kappa/Kaaos (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This was a non-admin closure. I do not believe the closer interpreted the WP:NOCONSENSUS correctly, additionally it was relisted May 29 and the editor closed it 3 days into the relist after 3 straight keep !votes. User:Buidhe closed it as a redirect which is a De facto delete. I did ask the editor to reopen this MfD on their talk page. I am asking that this result be overturned and/or we allow an experienced administrator to close this. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] There were more votes requesting delete than keep, as I stated on my talk page, and one of the "straight keep !votes" said that they did not object to redirect. b uidhe 21:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] As usual, if the outcome isn't immediately obvious, it shouldn't be a non-admin close. One person argued to redirect, one person explicitly rejected it, one person said they were ok with it, and nobody else addressed it. — `Rhododendrites ^talk` \\ 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] The idea that only a sysop can close discussions is an appeal to authority: i.e. a logical fallacy. Our admin corps is largely well-meaning, but they don't necessarily have the judgment of Solomon. And that's why we need to have deletion review at all. We shouldn't overturn Buidhe because he's not a sysop. We should overturn him if, and only if, he made the wrong call. Which, in my view, he did, because that discussion did not reach a consensus to redirect. Re-close by someone else, and I don't care what their permission set is because they clearly won't be needing the "delete" tool.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] The weakness in S Marshall's argument is the fourth word, "only". Of course, non admins can close discussions. It is not an appeal to authority, but pedestrian case of credentialism. RfA tests a number of things, and many of them relate to suitability to close a non-consensus discussion with their reading of rough consensus. Closing such a non-consensus discussion is a challenging judgement call on whether the direction of the discussion can be divined, and whether further participation will more likely be a net negative use of volunteer time. A non-admin is advised to not close a contentious discussion. This is excellent advice, because the purpose of a non-admin closing a discussion is to help. If their close results in an unhappy participant raising a formal review, then the non-admin close has not been helpful. If an exceptionally good closer can provide a good enough closing rationale, that is great. A good admin closer is more likely to have their judgement call respected, because the questioning participant can reveiw the closer's RfA, including questions relevant to closing discussions. In this case, while I note that the closer closed the discussion exactly according to my !vote, the closer did not provide a reasonable rationale that makes it easy for everyone to understand thier close. That makes it a WP:BADNAC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Kappa/Kaaos – Relisted. I agree with the commenters that this is a close or contentious AfD that non-admins shouldn't close, and that Buidhe erred in closing it as "redirect". I'm therefore undoing the closure on my own authority as an administrator. Sandstein 07:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This was a non-admin closure. I do not believe the closer interpreted the WP:NOCONSENSUS correctly, additionally it was relisted May 29 and the editor closed it 3 days into the relist after 3 straight keep !votes. User:Buidhe closed it as a redirect which is a De facto delete. I did ask the editor to reopen this MfD on their talk page. I am asking that this result be overturned and/or we allow an experienced administrator to close this. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were more votes requesting delete than keep, as I stated on my talk page, and one of the "straight keep !votes" said that they did not object to redirect. b uidhe 21:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, if the outcome isn't immediately obvious, it shouldn't be a non-admin close. One person argued to redirect, one person explicitly rejected it, one person said they were ok with it, and nobody else addressed it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that only a sysop can close discussions is an appeal to authority: i.e. a logical fallacy. Our admin corps is largely well-meaning, but they don't necessarily have the judgment of Solomon. And that's why we need to have deletion review at all. We shouldn't overturn Buidhe because he's not a sysop. We should overturn him if, and only if, he made the wrong call. Which, in my view, he did, because that discussion did not reach a consensus to redirect. Re-close by someone else, and I don't care what their permission set is because they clearly won't be needing the "delete" tool.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The weakness in S Marshall's argument is the fourth word, "only". Of course, non admins can close discussions. It is not an appeal to authority, but pedestrian case of credentialism. RfA tests a number of things, and many of them relate to suitability to close a non-consensus discussion with their reading of rough consensus. Closing such a non-consensus discussion is a challenging judgement call on whether the direction of the discussion can be divined, and whether further participation will more likely be a net negative use of volunteer time.

A non-admin is advised to not close a contentious discussion. This is excellent advice, because the purpose of a non-admin closing a discussion is to help. If their close results in an unhappy participant raising a formal review, then the non-admin close has not been helpful.

If an exceptionally good closer can provide a good enough closing rationale, that is great.

A good admin closer is more likely to have their judgement call respected, because the questioning participant can reveiw the closer's RfA, including questions relevant to closing discussions.

In this case, while I note that the closer closed the discussion exactly according to my !vote, the closer did not provide a reasonable rationale that makes it easy for everyone to understand thier close. That makes it a WP:BADNAC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.