Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2016/October

Non-admin closes

I updated the text on who should close a DRV to reflect the reality that there are no longer enough active DRV admins to provide an admin close for all reviews. Given that I have opposed this in the past I believe that it reasonable for me to make the change without prior discussion to reflect my pauline conversion on the road to .. well wherever. Please feel free to disagree, discuss, argue and/or call me an idiot. (well maybe not the last one but if it makes you feel better go for it). Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• It's not really necessary to tweak the wording, I think. This is one editor who's not active at DRV and not interested in it; the only reason he cares about that close is because it was me who made it. Simply put, I've replaced Nyttend in his affections. I suggest closing this discussion and paying it no further attention.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure what S Marshall is saying.

I have always agreed that, as a rule, non-admins should not be closing DRV discussions; the exceptions are experienced non-admin editors who abide by WP:NAC and who know what they are doing. Especially when the required close is obvious. S Marshall certainly fits, and his several closes over the years have proven that exceptions to the rule are OK. Any non-admin who plays the traditional role of admin in closing discussions should understand that they must then be following the rules of Wikipedia:Administrators. A particularly important section is Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, something that semi-active admins will have trouble with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm... do you think that non-admins should "apply" for the ability to close DRVs? I would say that all they'd really need to verify the "application" would be the backing of 2-3 admins who can vouch for their quality. After all, all that was really needed for someone to become a campus or online ambassador was the approval of 2-3 experienced editors. DRV is a bit more complex so I'd say that it would be admins that should approve someone going for this. What do you guys think? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is something that I think that non-admins could vote on, just the ability to pass this. I know I'd be all for it. I don't close DRVs but I do participate on occasion and I would have no problem with someone closing a DRV if they have the confidence of several admins. I'm not super duper familiar with S Marshall but I know him enough to where I think he can close a DRV responsibly. (IE, we run into each other on Wikipedia but we don't necessarily work together all the time.) So that would be two votes of admin confidence for him as far as DRV goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• S Marshall is the most regular DRV participants, and his most recent close of a trivial repeat and withdrawn DRV discussion was completely appropriate as well as informative and humorous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, SmokeyJoe.—S Marshall T/C 07:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)