Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Proposal to allow non-admin deletions for XfD

In the early days of Wikipedia, admins were conferred with a number of powers not granted to all editors. As a consequence of admins being the only editors who could delete pages, closing deletion discussions was an activity reserved to admins.

At some point, the workload in forums like WP:AFD grew to the point where the existing cadre of admins could not keep up and the queue of completed, but not yet closed, discussions was growing. The solution to this was that in 2008, the concept of non-admin closure (NAC) was adopted. In a nutshell, the policy said that as long as the outcome was a slam-dunk keep, it was OK for a non-admin to close the discussion.

We are currently at a point where non-admin closures are often being questioned, not because they were bad closes (i.e. would have been overturned even if an admin had done it), but simply because the closer was not an admin and the discussion was not a slam-dunk keep. Some of the people performing NACs have been active on the project for 10 years or more, have upwards of 10,000 edits to their name, have extensive experience at XfD, and are as conversant with our policies as most admins.

This is a bad situation. It means we are taking people who are skilled and motivated and telling them that their contributions are unwelcome simply because they do not hold a certification. One might counter that they should simply become admins, but many people do not want to do that. I don't fully understand all of their reasons, but at least one reason is obvious; WP:RFA is as much a hazing ritual as it is an evaluation of somebody's qualifications, which (understandably) turns people off. Whatever the reason, we have very few people applying for adminship these days.

I propose we split the ability to delete files as a result of a deletion discussion off into a distinct "user right", which can be conferred through a much lighter weight process than standing for adminship. Admins will still be needed to apply user blocks, protect pages, delete under WP:CSD, WP:PROD, etc. Anybody with this user right will be able to close any XfD, with the same effect as if they were an admin.

On occasion, XfDs will result in a consensus to perform some action other than a simple deletion of the page under discussion (salt, a rename which requires moving a protected page, etc). To keep things simple, I propose that the non-admin closer would be able to write up the close decision, and then find an admin to perform the required action.

Obviously, this will require some changes to the MediaWiki software. I'm a software engineer. While I only have only a vague familiarity with the MediaWiki codebase, I'm assuming this would not be complicated to implement. We need some way to identify eligible pages, and a check in the deletion codepath for both the user and the page meeting the right criteria. And something in the U/I to render the appropriate button/link.

RfC formally initiated 18:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose - There's a reason that only admins can delete articles, it's because they've been vetted by the community as being trustfowrthy. To open up this ability to any editor, simply because of an XfD close, is a really, really, bad idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My proposal also includes vetting. A user would have to ask for the "XfD closer" bit to be granted to them.  I'm just expecting that granting such a bit would be a much ligher-weight process than the full WP:RFA, because it confers a much smaller range of power.  As an admin, I can delete a page without any input from other users at all (i.e. WP:CSD).  I can block or ban a user, for any amount of time, again without any input.  Deleting a page after it's been proposed by somebody else, and discussed in the open for a week or more, is a much smaller exposure.  And, of course, page deletions will still be subject to WP:DRV if needed, and the bit can be removed if abused.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * USer rights can be granted by any admin to any user at any time. That's hardly the same as going through an RfA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Shouldn't this be moved to WP:VPP and this page deleted? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If moving it to WP:VPP is more appropriate, I have no objection. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as unnecessary. There are lots of admin backlogs on en.wiki, but AFD is rarely one of them (it's currently completely up to date at this moment).  Even when it does fall a couple of days behind, someone usually appears to tidy it up; and let's face it, those AFDs have already been open for 7 (if not 14 or 21) days, they're not time-critical. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nice idea, and the remarks re. RfA are on the nail; but, frankly, I don't honestly see "the problem" requiring this particular "solution"- not one which requires recoding of the software anyway. As has been noted above, AfDs rarely consider issues desperate that they can't wait a while longer, and we have far worse backlogs (AfC springs to mind). &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  18:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose [moved this comment from the talk page where I initially commented] This is not the first time something like this has been proposed, and is flawed in a number of ways. Technically there is I think no way to allow editors to delete some pages but not others. So the only way to grant this would be to allow editors to delete anything. I.e. it is not possible to do it as you describe.


 * Related to that, it’s unclear what criteria would be used to grant the right. If an editor cannot be trusted with admin rights, can they be trusted with file deletion rights? Seems being able to delete pages is important enough to require a similar level of trust to other admin rights. Which means anyone trusted enough is trusted enough to be an admin. See also Perennial proposals.


 * Finally it’s simply not needed. If a deletion discussion is closed by a non-admin as delete then the closing editor can simply put a CSD notice on it. If there are no problems with it then it will be deleted promptly without fuss, by an admin.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose the pure incompetence of many of the current NAC closers at AfD in their endless relistings where I am all but sure some of them set a timer for when to go through the expiring AfDs and just go through and hit the relist on everything that hasn't been commented on or that has been previously relisted with less than two more comments does not give me any confidence that this would actually work out well. I am also not opposed to unbundled rights as a way of implementing closes in discussions: the requested move process and the  permission work *very* well, but part of that is that moves aren't as sexy as deletion, and the culture at RMs is very much focused on finding a workable compromise rather than the all-or-nothing culture that is present in AfDs.Finally, there is the issue of access to Special:Undelete, which the WMF is all but sure never to expand beyond the admin and researcher group, regardless of the outcome of this proposal. Other than the ability to mess with media-wiki pages, access to viewing deleted revisions is the most sensitive right any administrator has. It is far more dangerous than the simple ability to delete pages, because things are normally deleted for a reason, and some of those reasons are very sensitive. There is a reason that people on and off-wiki discuss the one-edit-a-year admins who make that edit to view deleted content only: it really is a very useful, and sensitive, tool.I don't see how it is possible to allow someone the ability to delete a page without giving them the ability to undelete a page or view deleted revisions: it might be possible to make the changes technically, but it is practically something that we would never want to do anyway, and the WMF likely wouldn't allow. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose While technically I would imagine it would be workable to have the delete button only per namespace. So "file deleters" in space 6/7, "template deleters" in 10/11, etc. The idea of debundling the delete button, even in certain areas, has long been defeated on "unnecessary" grounds. While we allow NAC deletes at TfD, the most recent attempt for FfD back in January failed for that very reason. I believe that allowing non-admin access to the delete button, is a bad idea. If someone really wants to help out with deleting there is always RfA. Or if they find something that has to be dealt with quickly there is always the ability to contact an admin in some fashion for quick resolving. --Majora (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons that are so obvious they're already noted by the first reply. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. NACs are often challenged because non-admins are not sticking to agreed criteria for NACs. There are people who have tried to become admins (and some who succeeded) who I wouldn't trust with delete rights, so I certainly wouldn't want to see it available to just anyone. XfDs not being closed promptly is hardly the project's biggest problem. --Michig (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC) I would also note that much of the backlog at AfD is due to a minority of editors who persistently waste people's time with ill considered, often WP:POINTy attempts at deletion, and I suspect these would be among the most enthusiastic users of non-admin delete rights. --Michig (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. has said it all. No  need for  me to repeat it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The unbundling of being able to delete and un-delete pages is (by WMF fiat) a non-starter; giving people just the ability to delete is probably a net negative.  However, the ability for AfD NAC closes to be as delete (and to G6 tag the page) could be done separately, that's purely a policy thing.  But I don't see a need for that either. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ability to delete pages is one of the most powerful of administrative tools, perhaps second only to the power to block editors, and with a similar potential for abuse. Anyone who wants that power needs to go through a vetting process comparable to RfA. I agree with most of the other oppose comments, so feel no need to restate them. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per each and every editor above - No point repeating everyone but in short if you wanna delete an article etc then be an admin. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The time may come when the community feels that more tool unbundling is a good idea. I doubt that will ever include unbundling of deletion and blocking rights. At the very least, the equivalent of an RfA would be the only way the community would support this, at which point I think there would be no significant reason to go for the limited toolset over full adminship. That said, I support the idea of allowing NACs that end in delete, but would still require an admin to adopt the NACer's assessment of consensus. And only then if there is a really bad backlog on AfDs. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see the big problem, at least for AfD.  There is no need for any software changes, as a db-g6 technical deletion is sufficient for a NAC to delete articles.  A speedy undelete criteria would be helpful at DRV, as well as for non-admins to reverse their closures.Administrators are not inherently a good choice to make AfD deletion decisions, as unlike most editors, they don't suffer the loss of the article when it is deleted.  They are also hardened against the droves of defenders of articles created without sources, articles allowed and required by the WikiMedia foundation.But there is another side to this, that any AfD backlog is partially a result of a refusal to police improper AfD nominations, and it would take little feedback to have a big effect in cleaning up nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - WMF is against it, AfD hasn't had an issue with backlogs for quite a long time, and as Tony says many people who do admin-type tasks at AfD (especially relists) honestly shouldn't be doing them. ansh 666 00:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The few well-experienced NAClosers already know they can already do this, but experience has shown that it is not helpful.  Clear cut deletion decisions are not an important administrative backlog.  Also, as others are noting above, most NAC-ers are not particularly competent, not knowing to avoid contentious cases, which include more "no consensus" closes.  Note in passing here that the bad NAC closes are flagged by the failure to use the Non-admin closure tag.  The few experienced closers that can be trusted to close a discussion and delete without a review should be passed at RfA.  The rule of thumb: "No one should delete who can't viewdeleted and undelete" applies.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because if non-admins can't delete, they shouldn't be able to close XfDs as delete. — MRD 2014  Talk • Edits • Help! 02:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Administrators are accountable for all their actions, and would have to look at the XFD themselves anyway to make sure the NAC-deletion was correct or not, which at least doubles the work even when the NAC would be correct. XFDs where the result is an obvious delete are not a significant source of backlog anyway. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * It's obviously not going to pass (it seems to me) so I thought I'd leave a few comments instead, as a regular at AFD who does do NACs -- and tries his best to do them according to policy. It seems to me that there are now a lot of non-policy based NACs in which "snow" and "speedy" are mixed up, in precisely the way that are cautioned not to mix them. I was also especially interested in what Tony had to say about excessive relistings because there does seem to be a lot that are contributing to a backlog -- perhaps the guidelines could be improved in that area? I guess to summarize, if don't feel confident giving non-admins additional tools based on our handling of the tools thus far, would any improvements to guidelines help, just as Unscintillating concludes. To paraphrase the Houston Texans owner - god help me - and speaking as one of the inmates, it does seem as if we're in charge of the prison/asylum/whatever and we need a nudge in the right direction, from admins. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have WP:SOFTDELETE, and the language there was clarified earlier this year after an RfC to make clear that an XfD that has been listed for a week by default should be evaluated as an expired PROD. An administrator may choose to relist it when there are no comments because they consider it too controversial for PROD, but it is at their discretion and the deletion policy foresees the norm here being soft deletion. We also have the essay Relist bias, which I think makes some very good points. My rough view on this is that non-admins should not close or relist discussions that an administrator could reasonably close as delete or no consensus.Delete because, well, non-admins can't implement it. No consensus because its controversial, and non-admins shouldn't be closing controversial XfDs, but relisting a full discussion and just pushing the no consensus close down the line also does not do the project any good. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On relisting, I think aspiring admins do it to be seen to be practicing in administration, and mostly I finding it to look mindless and find it annoying. A good relist has a meaningful relist comment, to refocus discussion, or to call back early participants to a later made important point.  Empty relists based only on the age of the discussion, contrary to many beliefs, do not help attract new participants.  At RfD and CfD, they annoyingly serve to relocate the discussion from the watched page to an unwatched page.  At AfD and MfD, they serve to scramble the nomination list to out of chronological order.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Shawn in Montreal? watch. Well qualified Wikipedians who claim to not have the  interest, knowledge of policy, or frankly temperament?  I think they are the best qualified.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides, it looks like that this will be SNOW closed as not implemented. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)