- Leona Tuttle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Wrong to NAC a dispute, especially with a delete and then closing with a redirect and not a delete. 166.176.59.169 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy states that closes should not be overturned solely on the grounds that the closer was not an admin. Apparently my close was against one policy, but somewhat consistent with other policies that suggest that a closer who can't do everything advise an admin to complete the tasks. The close decision was correct and should not be overturned only based on my current lack of Adminship. I have no issue with the redirect created by another user afterward, cause it makes sense, the women is on that list. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that there? Can you point me to it? I could see that this would just be a technicality under WP:DRVPURPOSE not 6 though. The essay points to this discussion from July allow for deletions for TFD as does the guideline itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The close seems perfectly reasonable, and trying to overturn it just because the closer doesn't own a mop seems like pointless process wonkery. I would suggest to the closer that he run for adminship, but the last time I suggest that to somebody, they got dragged through the mud for no good reason, so I'm kind of down on the whole admin thing. Rule #1 is that we're here to write an encyclopedia. Everything else is crap. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist If an IP tried to close a discussion they would be blocked. Rules are rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.56.199 (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, or even overturn and redirect or relist. There is little doubt the opener has a strong point and such a closure could not stay. The process here was a mess, NAC AfD closures as delete just do not exist, let alone using an inappropriate G6 speedy deletion to enforce a NAC closure as delete. Frankly it could had been avoided just spending a couple of minutes striking Legacypac's closure and replacing it with an admin's closure, as it was suggested both at RHaworth's talk page and in the relevant ANI thread. Consensus seems consistent with delete, so the easiest thing is (was) striking Legacypoint's closing comment and replacing with an admin closure as delete, but once we are at this point I'm fine even with a closure as redirect (not suggested in the discussion, but it makes sense) or even a relist (still, I hardly see a different outcome for the discussion). Cavarrone 05:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per policy here:[[1]]
- Under Challenging a deletion
- Deletion Review should not be used:
- 1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment
- 2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first,
- 3. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- And, listed further down (this may not directly apply but the principle may apply):
- Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review:
- 2. if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.[3] with the note " A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator."
- Does this answer the policy question? Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine and a general point but I'd say essays and a guideline should trump that, in particular when there was an RFC not too long ago. I don't think we're reverting it. I'm thinking that an admin (preferably the person who actually deleted the page) should strike it out and state that it has been deleted but if not, the closer of the DRV can just strike it and close it as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- also if you use twinkle under G6 XfD it lists Afd, Rfd, Tfd, and three more with a spot to put the deletion discussion link. It uses the word Admin too, I'll grant you. I know Twinkle is not policy, but it is a widely used tool, and an Admin would never need to Twinkle on G6 XfD, because they can just take the action themselves. Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - this was pretty solid consensus. The only keep vote included three articles but only the standard local stuff for a very old person - no long-term national coverage. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin as they lack the capacity to delete pages, but the closure was not wrong other than for this. Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I endorse the outcome, but not how we got there (sigh, bureaucracy). WP:NACD is the controlling guideline here, and it couldn't be clearer: "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome, such as deletion." WP:G6 isn't meant to handle these sorts of cases; you can't shortcut NACD in this manner. Note particularly that G6 is meant for "uncontroversial" deletions, which this kind of deletion never would be. This also isn't fair to the administrators who patrol CAT:CSD and aren't expecting this situation. WP:NACD also trumps WP:CLOSE, which is an essay, and in any event this would fall under "substantial procedural error." The point about non-admin closures rarely being changed is irrelevant: the page is describing a common outcome, and those outcomes involve closes which conform to NACD. This one doesn't. It's a fine point, but the close can't stand as-is. Legacypac (talk · contribs), please go become an administrator. I'm willing to stick my name on the close if it comes to that as it's perfectly valid otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open for your nomination - I enjoy cleaning up messes and am getting tired of not having all the tools to do so. Legacypac (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. I don't know how we can say that non-admins shouldn't do something and if they do, it's irrelevant. Otherwise, it's essentially people shouldn't do it and if they do, we'll only block or something if it's considered disruptive on its own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
