I don't think non-crats should close any RfAs. Or requests for 'cratship, oversight, checkuser. Just for the sake of stop any potential drama before it happens. We have enough crats there should be no need for non-crats to close these. -DJSasso (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is fine for a non-admin to close and RfD as long as it is a 90%-100% keep. If it is less than that it will require the determination of consensus and that is the realm of the admin, not the non-admin. There may be a case for housekeeping NAC closures, but they'd have to be discussed first. The reason for NAC of RfDs on enwiki is to aid in the reduction of the backlog. No such backlog exists here. With regards to RfAs/RfBs/RfCU/RfOS these should 'only be closed by bureaucrats. fr33kman ^talk 00:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent was set by NVS for OS & CU. —MC8 (b · t) 01:03, Saturday August 15 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, he should not have closed them. We can accept them because they were valid closes. But it doesn't need to set precedent. NVS always tries to close everything. He has a bit of a hair trigger when it comes to requests for rights. -DJSasso (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! There is no such thing as precedent onwiki. We are not a court, and we are not judges. What one person does can not be allowed to bind another person or the whole project. fr33kman ^talk 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support except for a few things. I don't agree with the last paragraph (I think only admins should close RfRights), and I think non-admins should only close RfDs that are unanimous keep or close. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, this adds yet another layer of b'cracy. I disagree that crats should close OS and CU. These are simple counts with firm policy at meta. Are you saying that a crat is the only one who can count and grok valid votes? I hope not. Why would you add a class system. Crats can not technically grant those flags. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No we are saying that having many different people close them leads to drama which leads to wastes of time which leads to more problems than it solves. Not to mention it allows for a bunch of users to vote quickly to push a user over the number and then close it themselves without allowing for opposes to come along. Not as big a deal on our wiki where we only barely have enough to pass request...but say 25 users from outside the wiki could come along create accounts for the purpose of pushing one in their ranks to CU/OS and in the matter of 5 minutes have 25 votes go through and then close it before anyone else can even vote. Its more the ending time that we need the crat around for. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our wiki is small enough that it is not a big deal in that case, yes. However, instead of placing this policy to prevent drama, perhaps you should address those editors who are causing the drama. That would be a cure, instead of a band aid. Administrators, and even editors in good standing are not stupid. However, this proposed wording would hold us out to be, questioning our intelligence, that we could not count, and use sense with regards to drive bys. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps make sure that those people don't have a leg to stand on in the first place which would actually be a cure because for every drama person you "cure" in your method a new one will come along. It's really not all that big a deal. You could have voted and then one of us who were watching RC could have closed it seconds later. Exactly how much of an issue would that have been for you? There are no arguments, people who are trusted have closed it and everyone is happy. There is no rush. The only time non-crats should close things is if there is a backlog and the crats can't keep up. This is why they allow non-admins to do RfDs on en for example. It would do no such thing, this is how requests for permissions work on every single WMF wiki that I have seen. They are always closed by 'crats. I don't see why we should be different in this. Its not about the counting so much as the end time, you made a call to end it when some might say was a questionable time since we were hoping to find a different OSer other than Eptalon. Especially when he said he wanted it only if there wasn't another option. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the points. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts: This wiki has about 30 active users. I guess about 80% of them are admins and out them have 7 users crat rights. We are still a small wiki. So far, I think that no-admin closure of RFDs aren't needed, because there is always an admin around who can close the deletion requests. And as far as I know, there is no back log on the RFD page. Because of the hugh number of crats, we do not have any kind of back log in RFxs. Non-crats should only close Rfxs in the case of SNOW (means requests by user with only a hand full edits). All other "normal" requests should be closed by one of our crats. In short, as long as we are so small, with no back log, we don't need non-admin or non-crat closures. Imo should the pages simple say:"Non-admin and non-crat closures aren't allowed on this wiki. There is no need for it." --Barras || talk 19:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not true, I closed an RfD today which should have been closed 1 day earlier. We might not have a backlog, but it is always preferable if they're closed at the right time. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed that yesterday, but I was hoping an admin would notice it. We have 40 admins on a wiki with 1000 edits a day and we can't even get a close in 24 hours. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably because there is no need to rush. There is no reason a discussion can't go longer than the set time. You really need to focus on writing articles instead of critiquing what others do or don't do. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Rush? Rushing is when someone wants it before the set time. I could have posted a thread at WP:AN requesting the close, and an admin would have gotten around to it very quickly. That may have been viewed as rushing, but I didn't do that. The rule on the RFD page says 7 days. A rush would be anything less. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No the rule says a minimum of 7 days. It does not say it has to be closed at 7 days. Stop trying to cause trouble. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Lets be practical: the RfD had 100% keep. I don't think that Consensus can be determined only by admins. I don't see it to be a problem if a non-admin closes an RfD. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about determining consensus but about eliminating any possible cause of drama. By allowing non-admins to close you open the door for drama...where do you draw the line? 100%? 90%? 80%? etc. Its easier to just eliminate that debate all together. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-At Dj: I'm not trying to cause trouble. Just pointing out something. I'm going back to RC now. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a way that is pointing fingers and insulting to people. ie causing trouble. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this proposal. While I agree that it's a good idea, DJSasso is right that it might make some awkward mistakes and/or wikidrama. For instance: what if there was an RFA, & after 4 days, there were 3 votes for the nominated person and no opposes? I'm sure a bit naive (or, to use a more correct word, dumb) people like me when I first came could think "Oh, since it's 100% for the person, I guess it can be closed. The sooner the better" and close it hastily. But admins should know about these things more precisely and close it properly. So I'm not decided on this thing. Classical Esther^♣ 09:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text on the talk page does not match the support required for this to be a "guideline" or agree with the proposed guideline. I'm not sure it exactly describes what we already do. That being said, I replaced it as proposed. Jon@talk:~$ 06:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]