User talk:Erik9/Archive 2

Hi Erik9 I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 6 has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please rename <Category:Labour law cases in the United Kingdom> to <Category:United Kingdom labour case law> and use your bot to fix the pages? Wikidea 15:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not possible, as Category:Labour law cases in the United Kingdom does not exist. Erik9 (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wanted you to move <Category:Labour case law in the United Kingdom> to <Category:United Kingdom labour case law>. Can you do this please? You seem to have put it there to begin with! Wikidea 13:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category was renamed per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_27#Category:UK_labour_case_law. If you wish to have it renamed again, you are welcome to open a discussion at CFD. Erik9 (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you look at history of the Al Rosas page? If you look at the versions prior to Usinterlaw, they all contain properly cited information. VirtualSteve and Mfield both agreed to the content earlier but ever since the edit protection was removed, it has been reverted by other users. I think they could be people out to cover up the issues. I think this article should be reverted to the version by MZMcBride. What do you think? Jerome76 (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
		For helping tag hundreds of unsourced BLPs, I grant you this token of appreciation. It's a great task for a bot, and it seems to be working great. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Erik9 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have taken on the task to tag some unsourced BLPs for G10. Two things if I may say so: 1.) there is a template you can use, {{db-g10}}. No need to write the text manually. 2.) you should maybe try to go with the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I could use a short Google News search to easily add sources to five articles you have tagged for G10 and you could have done so yourself, thus saving us both some time: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Your approach will delete some very notable articles with plenty of sources available, thus hurting Wikipedia much more than the articles that exist for years at a time. For example, Arno Funke is a German legend and has hundreds of sources, two of them written by the subject himself where he confesses everything. It took me at most 2-3 minutes to find sources for all those articles, time you have yourself if you have time to tag them for deletion. Regards SoWhy 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. While unsourced articles about living people of the form "X is a criminal..." are technically subject to speedy deletion per CSD G10, it does seem advisable to perform a short search for sources before tagging them for speedy deletion. Naturally, where sources are not readily available, the unsourced and potentially defamatory articles should not be retained for any substantial period of time. Erik9 (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to look for sources, but your not obliged. It's the obligation of the person adding the negative material to provide sources. Such editors feel free to add negative unsourced material, if they see others are following behind, adding in the sources. If they see the material can't be kept without sources, you'll find they'll add sources from the beginning, saving everybody time. I think what you did was entirely justified, but of course, if you wish to take extra time to search for and evaluate sources, that's also justifiable. --Rob (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting the situation, Rob. Some of those articles were incomplete translations from other wikis, like de-wiki and sources existed there. It's utopia to believe that those editors, who created them years ago will now start adding sources. Remember, in 2005, sources was nothing Wikipedia was really concerned with and deleting those pages where sources can easily be added will lose us much of the material and work done before 2006/2007. This project is a wiki for the simple reason that others edit the material someone adds and fixes such errors. It works because of that. If we start deleting articles that do not meet the stringent sourcing policies in their first revision, we would not have even 1% of those articles that are now GA/FA. If searching for sources and adding them takes the same time as tagging for deletion, shouldn't the former be tried instead? Regards SoWhy 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This came a little late, but I noticed you helped revert two vandalisms to my user page by a vandal. I just want to thank you for your good work. It's people like you who make wikipedia work. Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99.224.189.155 is vandalizing again. Check user history.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that last warnings were given after other warnings, not as a preliminary. --NeoNerd 23:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Your first vandalism warning was provided here. Erik9 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That was approaching three years ago. Last warnings are for use after a period of consistent vandalism. Two incidents over three years cannot reasonably be described as continuous vandalism.--NeoNerd 23:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of your entirely unsupported and ad hoc argument that vandalism warning levels are reset whenever acts of vandalism are separated in some substantive manner, I also considered the severity of your most recent act of vandalism in determining the appropriate warning level. Replacing an image of a living person, even one as extraordinarily unpopular as Fred Phelps, with a photograph of equine genitalia [6] is blatantly unacceptable, and will result in your being banned from editing Wikipedia if you continue. Consider yourself lucky that your account wasn't blocked indefinitely on the spot. Erik9 (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP probably unsourced has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm do you are aware that your recent moves touch the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vintagekits.2C_Kittybrewster.2C_and_BrownHairedGirl and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Baronets_naming_dispute, and that they are contrary to the naming conventions on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#British_peerage?

Wow... so baronets who are the only people of the same name to have Wikipedia articles do not have their titles of notability included in the article titles, unlike all other persons holding British hereditary titles? From my experience working in this subject area when I updated a rather large number of links per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 3, and increased the specificity of certain reference links as discussed on User_talk:Erik9bot#Baronets_1, all of the British notability have articles located at their hereditary titles. (Indeed, I made use of the suffix "nth baronet" in article titles to correctly perform the replacement of template:rayment with template:rayment-b [7], though the titles in the edit history are misleading in a few cases, since User:Vintagekits renamed the articles after my bot edited them.) In any case, Vintagekits has been counting down the days until the expiry of his topic ban on his talk page, [8], [9], [10], apparently planning a series of disruptive pagemoves for several weeks - I was just trying to help clean up the mess. Erik9 (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, at the moment the members of the baronetages (the lower rank of the British nobility) are only notable in connection with other criteria for example a distinguished military career or higher political posts. The fact that they are/were baronets is therefore not crucial in the naming of an article and rather a side effect generally used only for disambiguation. Furthermore you perhaps might have noticed that even articles about member of the peerages (the higher ranks of the British nobility) contain not always a title - mostly in cases if the subject of such an article wasn't known under his title for the greater part of his life. While I agree with you, that User:Vintagekit's approach wasn't ideal and had to happen another way, his moves were with exceptions along the guidelines. Regards

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You (and Vintagekits) claim that baronets aren't notable per se; however, a number of editors would disagree with that contention. Indeed, I get the distinct impression from Vintagekits' comments at WP:RFAR that he conducted the pagemoves for the purpose of impugning the notability of the target articles' subjects:

1. I have an issue with Baronets (multiple issues) - I dont think that its a notable title, I seriously question how their articles are created, I think the sources used in there articles are little more than self-published sources and I disagree with the way their articles are titled.

2. I'd been on a topic banned for a year, but I watched on in silence noting the widespread abuse with naming of Baronets - wherever and whenever possibly Baronets were named with the title - e.g. Sir Questionable Notability, 3rd Baronet of AFD as opposed to simply Questionable Notability. Obviously I couldnt say a word about it because I didnt want an extension to my topic ban.[11]

Of course, using pagemoves as a means of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point is unacceptable. Erik9 (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His intentions may be indeed questionable, however his moves were generally, I repeat myself, along the guidelines. I quote from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#British_peerage: "The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith." (please see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Articles_on_baronets)

The notability of baronets was discussed at various locations and at different times, so they might be discovered difficulty (see a short selection: Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_12#Independent.2Bnon_trivial.3F_Debretts.2C_Whos_Who_etc, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_7#Titled_people.2C_notability_as_a_member_of_a_larger_group, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(royalty)#Problem and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage/Archived_talk_6#Time_for_a_systematic_cleanup). By the way you might find it interestingly that I have created and started at least 100 articles about baronets and have edited many more, and that a hugh part of the articles User:Vintagekits has moved were included in those.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In support of not using titles of nobility for baronets except where necessary for disambiguation, you've cited nothing but the bare text of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#British_peerage itself, which, as I've explained above, my experience suggests may be incorrect. Your links to various discussions have successfully shown that there's currently a dispute over whether baronets are inherently notable. However, the proper remedy for (reasonable) concerns over article notability is to bring the articles to AFD (unless the articles have already been discussed at AFD, and retained), not to move the articles in an effort to disparage their subjects' notability by removing their noble titles. Indeed, that Vintagekits didn't nominate any articles about baronets for deletion suggests that he knows full well that such nominations would be unlikely to result in deletion. Erik9 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but in my eyes, your experiences have led you wrong then. However, if you think baronets should always be kept under their titles and are always notable, please feel free to start discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people). Provided you have persuasive arguments, I'm sure the community and I will support you. A last notice yet: I think that members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage will carefully continue the moves User:Vintagekits has begun (User_talk:Vintagekits). Regards and furthermore happy editing

As Vintagekits is topic banned from editing material touching upon baronets, any editors contemplating performing the moves listed on User_talk:Vintagekits#List_of_proposed_moves should thoroughly review Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users. Erik9 (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed it referring to WP:NFCC1, however acording to the statement with the file it is a public domain work, so where exactly do you see a problem?

--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... I should not have made that edit, at least not based on one of the reasons provided in the edit summary. I have self-reverted [12]. Erik9 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Need wider community input and perhaps pause this task while this discussion (and any child discussions spawned therefrom) runs its course. –xeno ^talk 03:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about your closing. Nobody suggested replacing with the CATEGORY, only the TEMPLATE {{R unprintworthy}}.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:R from other capitalisation. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please watch User:Wmg325. If I undo his edits again, I will break the three revert rule. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions provides two relevant exemptions that would render the rule inapplicable to your reversions of Wmg325 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits:

* Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond...

* Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Erik9 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the templates you put in the holding cell per this discussion. I do think it would be better though, since you are not an admin, that you don't close discussions as delete anymore. Garion96 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting the templates. In WP:DPR#NAC, the following objection is made to non-administrative closures as "delete":

Non-administrators should not close even unanimous "delete" decisions, as they lack the account feature to delete pages (that feature is only turned on for admins).

However, for templates which are transcluded on a significant number of pages, closure of TFD discussions as "delete" is not immediately accompanied by deletion, since all uses of the template(s) must be removed, replaced, or converted before any deletion may occur (which is why, of course, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell has a "ready for deletion" section). My closure of this TFD discussion advanced the deletion process considerably, since I also performed the bot-work necessary to remove all transclusions of one of the deleted templates [13], and manually removed the singular usage of the other template [14]. Had an administrator closed the discussion, and not wanted to remove the templates manually, they also would not have been able to perform any deletion at the time of closure. Instead, the deletion of the templates would be delayed until a bot operator, most likely myself, had removed them from the articles in which they appeared. Erik9 (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. The difference is that then an admin would have made the decision, not you. That is one of the reasons admins go through (an excessive with the current standards) selection process. Garion96 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A TFD discussion such as this doesn't require the exercise of administrative discretion, since there is really only one possible outcome. I try to be quite careful to limit my closures of TFD discussions as "delete" to clear, uncontroversial cases, because, since the ultimate decision regarding the disposition of the template(s) is made by the administrator who is requested to delete them, a non-administrative closure as "delete" represents a wager that any administrator would concur with the outcome, rather than overturning the closure to the retention of the template, and requiring me to revert all bot actions taken. Erik9 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just not close them and see if the admin does all the work or puts it in the holding cell. After which your bot could go through them. Besides, this discussion was obviously not uncontroversial. Although I did agree with the result of the your closing it would be better if you simply do not close discussions as delete. Garion96 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I readily concede that Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_4 was closed incorrectly. It is also, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the only TFD closure I have performed which has ever been overturned at DRV. I have considerable experience at TFD, having closed a large number of discussions, including those with "delete" outcomes. Indeed, it was on the strength of my judgment and prudence in TFD closures that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 7 was approved, after Quadell, the officiating BAG member, asked "Do you have a lot of experience working with TfD debates? Are you confident you can fairly decide when there is consensus for a change and when there isn't?" [15], a question which would be wholly irrelevant if I were simply using the bot to process discussions which had already been closed by administrators. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the task was approved after I performed TFD closures resulting in deletion during the trial period, and submitted them as evidence. Would an administrator have closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_4 as delete? While we cannot answer that question, this much is certain: administrators themselves are not immune to mistakes in TFD closures. Considering my overall history of TFD closures reveals a highly favorable record. Erik9 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the clean closure on Aleksey Vysotsky. Thanks – Williamborg (Bill) 03:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to drop a line and say "thanks for the award". It really is an ego boost when someone gives one of those to you. Thanks for the recognition! Matt (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You closed this TfD as no consensus. Considering the extreme weakness of the keep arguments, I'd argue that this isn't really an accurate assessement of the debate, especially when there's only actually one cogent comment in favour of keeping anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The extreme weakness of the keep arguments" is, of course, a highly subjective assertion that, in any case, is not established by conclusory assertions without supporting evidence. One factor, however, weighs very heavily in favor of a "no consensus" closure: the TFD discussion had been open sixteen days, during which no administrator was willing to delete the template (the standard length of TFDs being seven days) Most such discussions which no administrator is willing to touch for an extended period of time owe their protracted lengths to the fact that they have no ascertainable outcomes, and are properly closed as no consensus. Erik9 (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want "supporting evidence" then try reading the keeps. To wit:

1. "Keep per PRL" (where PRL had changed his mind and opted to delete) on the grounds that "it highlights the underground (and any other transport information) information" - this is just a reiteration of the template's purpose, not a rationale to keep it.
2. Keep "as it improves the ease at which users can access information regarding transport on wikipedia" - this is WP:USEFUL, and doesn't address any of the delete arguments.
3. Keep as it was "introduced to aid standardisation and brevity within travel sections" - while this is a cogent argument, it fails to address the deletion argument, which is that articles are not improved by having the prose reconstructed as a series of bullet points.
4. Keep, "useful information, even on an encyclopedia".

TfDs often stay open for weeks on end simply because there isn't enough manpower to handle them. Cases which are not open-and-shut are often left the longest simply because they require more effort to close than unanimous decisions. I see now that this was a non-admin closure, so I'd ask that this be reopened until it can be reassessed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay, not a policy, the former having no force other than persuasive power, and not necessarily reflecting consensus. Even so, WP:USEFUL deals largely with AFD discussions, in which perceived utility does not justify the retention of articles violating Wikipedia's content policies. Consequently, the very essay you are referencing describes a number of situations in which "usefulness" may represent valid grounds for inclusion / retention:

There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion.

Surely, insofar as templates are intended to be useful for some purpose (which is why, indeed, CSD T3 applies to "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion..."), a claim of utility can hardly be an invalid argument per se in a TFD discussion.

Your list of keep arguments also omitted the following:

*Very Important - This template, if anything, discourages pages being written as tourist guides as it does not need there to be a section on transport links necessarily. It is a quick visual aid that adds great ease of use and has great value as it enables users to quickly find out information regarding the location of a place within Greater London. It would be a great shame should it be deleted as it improves the ease at which users can access information regarding transport on wikipedia. George5210 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it preposterous that, in arguing for the deletion of the template on the "strength of arguments", you completely ignored an argument for retention (indeed, one which claims that the template facilitates the enforcement of Wikipedia:NOT#TRAVEL) simply because the editor placing the comment did not prepend it with a boldface "keep", although he clearly favors the retention the template. If I were feeling particularly mischievous this evening, I could have responded to your query with a laconic invitation to take the matter to DRV if you disagreed, then embarrassed you by establishing the utter untenability of your arguments in a forum receiving far more attention than my talk page :) Erik9 (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually ignore that comment: it's #2 in the list I gave. I simply omitted all the content-free fluff from the argument. As for your evidently high opinion of your own talent at closing TfDs, we'll see how that DRV goes now that I'm apparently being forced into it. I'd have gone there first if I'd realised that this was an NAC anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eviscerating the content of a comment in order to more easily refute the remainder using an incorrect application of an essay provision? Criticizing a TFD closure on the sole remaining asserted grounds of the status of the editor performing it, after your "WP:USEFUL" argument was resoundingly refuted? I do hope you come up with something better than that to take to deletion review. Erik9 (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV is now up here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:DPR#NAC, I have amended this closure to delete. Non-administrators should not be making no-consensus closures; only unambiguous keeps. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether your "delete" closure will be overturned, just as your bogus deletion of Encyclopaedia Metallum was. Rather, the relevant inquiry here is how long you can continue to perform many counter-consensus, counter-policy deletions until you are desysopped. I hope that this occurs sooner rather than later. Erik9 (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To stop cluttering the deletion review... Comments like the one above, not to mention the conspiracy theory response on the deletion review are indeed a good reason you should only close discussions as unambiguous keeps. I could tell you again my endorsing Stifle's closure is not because you closed it, but you will never believe it since I am so transparently obvious, right? Garion96 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." To expect me to assume that you actually have some substantive basis for endorsing Stifle's TFD closure, and some discursive responses to my and DGG's arguments against the closure, when you have steadfastly refused to articulate either, despite repeated requests, is unreasonable, and not required by WP:AGF. Erik9 (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious how they were moved to user space leaving no trace behind. And whether this is a good idea for templates with content that are mirrored and may need GFDL traces left. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Bot accounts have the ability to suppress the creation of redirects when moving pages; I used my bot account with the redirect suppression option enabled when userfying the templates per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_24#Two_US_representatives_templates. I believed, at the time of the TFD closure, that I had removed the templates from the main namespace completely, and that if their content were subsequently split into templates for each district, appropriate references would be provided to the edit history at its current location. If you indicate where the templates are mirrored, I can perform null edits with summaries noting the location of the edit history. Erik9 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Erik9. I have nothing but respect for the work you do on Wikipedia, and your bot work in particular is fantastic. Also, in general I think you've shown good judgment in the way you've closed TFD discussions. I haven't seen any decisions that were way out of line, and you do a lot of TFD work. However, I don't think you should be doing non-admin closures for deletes, or for cases that are remotely controversial. There really isn't much of a backlog at TFD--at least not enough to call for NACs--and NACs are more likely to lead to conflicts and DRVs and "waste everyone's time" (as Wikipedia:Non-admin closure puts it). Regardless of how good your judgment may be, I have to recommend that you leave closure to admins except in the case of unambiguous keeps. (I'm saying all this as an admin, not as a BAGger. As a BAGger, all I'll say is that my statements at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 7 weren't meant to either support or dissuade NACs, and I stand by my decision to approve that bot task.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity: How can a non-admin (technically) close a TFD as delete? Also, as far as I am aware, non-admins are explicitly discouraged from closing deletion debates as delete. — Aitias // discussion 23:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously explained these issues at User_talk:Erik9#TFD. Erik9 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]