DOKUMEN123.COM

Wikipedia community are encouraged to register an account. Shortcut WP:BADNACWP:BADNAC A non-admin closure may not be appropriate in any of the following situations:...

Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC) self-cross out per BADNAC xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Keep--tertiary...

03:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC) PS: The previous AfD close would qualify as a WP:BADNAC, at least by today's standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)...

own AfD as redirect, despite the above !votes. I reverted this obvious WP:BADNAC as it goes against not just one but several of the principles there. Not...

closing deletion discussions as "delete" as a non-administrator), see also WP:BADNAC On Wikipedia, the following activities are usually not minimodding: Placing...

crossbreed. This is my first close of an AfD. If I got it wrong and I did a WP:BADNAC, please tell me and I will try not to fuck up second time round😄 (non-admin...

scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Previous Afd, WP:BADNAC. Non-notable. Run of the mill business news, routine announcements, passing...

resulting in "redirect" must be carried out by an uninvolved admin per WP:BADNAC. Therefore we have to wait for it to be closed.--WikiAviator (talk) 08:40...

contribs) 14:42, January 8, 2025 (UTC) Relisting per WP:REOPEN as a WP:BADNAC; see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_8#Fil-Products_Group. Owen×...

this to RFD myself despite having commented. If anyone thinks this is a WP:BADNAC let me know and I'll revert the close. (non-admin closure) Warudo (talk)...

to be deleted such a discussion can only be closed by an admin (see WP:BADNAC) – so I undid your earlier non-admin closure.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds...

made to this page.‎ The result was merge to Dell. Re-closed after a WP:BADNAC; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 December 24. Sandstein 09:41, 25...

of the discussion, and quickly reclosed the discussion breaking again WP:BADNAC after a third party had undone the original closure, explicitly mentioning...

Comment I want to apologise to User:Praxidicae for the two inappropriate BADNAC. This page is now open. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)...

point where any non-admin closure for this article at this time would be a BADNAC. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC) The above discussion is...

discussion, and then that close was taken to DRV and summarily overturned as a BADNAC, even though that's exactly the outcome envisaged in WP:RELIST. If it had...

closure if you like. Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Per WP:BADNAC, I can't do that since I've commented here. Valenciano (talk) 07:35, 4 April...

knowledge, and easily passes WP:GNG. WP:NSOFT isn't a formal WP policy. WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Note:...

discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting after a WP:BADNAC to see if consensus can be found. Please add new comments below this notice...

Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC) I restored this close per WP:BADNAC and WP:NACD, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any...

discussion had been closed by the nominator, so I have undone the close per WP:BADNAC. No !vote at this time on the article itself. --Finngall talk 15:11, 25...

"no consensus at best" yet it should be relisted (the nominator cited WP:BADNAC). I get it, however a relist is not a renomination so this should be closed...

to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV. I'am re-closing this AfD per WP:BADNAC, as set out in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 25. I agree with...

desired. WP:BADNAC also does not list the imposition of a moratorium as an administrative action that should only be closed by an admin. WP:BADNAC includes...

Keep". He strenously defended his BADNAC [2], and has never admitted that it violated #1, #2, and #3 of WP:BADNAC. I suggest that power-enwiki (whose...

ridiculously obviously bad WP:BADNAC, and Tim Bosnia then edit-warred himself into a block to restore Whiskeymouth's BADNAC, despite repeated user-talk...

admin action. In fact, that is only reason I started this topic. Normally, BADNACs should be sent to deletion review, but in this case I believe WP:SNOW applies:...

IP's close here with this diff over there), I reverted the close per WP:BADNAC. (non-admin unclose) --Finngall talk 17:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Thanks...

review/Log/2019 April 5 where consensus determined the previous close was a WP:BADNAC. It is requested that this discussion is closed by an admin. Please add...

considering closing this with a "keep" outcome but I think it would be a WP:BADNAC#2 (controversial close), so I investigated the topic instead and convinced...

result was no consensus‎. Kudos to Czello for correctly reverting the WP:BADNAC. While a few of the !votes here can be discarded (based on their reasoning...

You clearly did not read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. If you had read WP:BADNAC, the very first thing listed is "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential...

Consensus established to keep. There were two closures which were reverted as BADNAC and NACINV respectively. Consensus favours more towards keep than a speedy...

campaign, 2016. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) That was a WP:BADNAC that no one called out, consensus was clearly to merge. SportingFlyer T·C...

edits should be made to this page.‎ The result was delete‎. I overturned a badnac [1] the keep arguments are very weak and assertive. The source analysis...

@Psiĥedelisto: I cannot close XfDs as delete as I am not an administrator, per WP:BADNAC. dudhhrContribs 22:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC) @Dudhhr: Apologies. You responded...

consensus, but since it likely would've resulted in a delete and per WP:BADNAC, I decided not to close. Instead, I'll add my comments. Though TribLive...

I've undone Shadowowl's own unexplained non-admin "keep" closure,see WP:BADNAC. If there is no further comment, this AfD may be closed by somebody else...

be about, not the island specifically. Also, the previous AfD was a WP:BADNAC pile-on style WP:SUPERVOTE. "Speedy keep" is not an applicable rationale...

without taking the whole Afd into consideration. It is a clear case of WP:BADNAC. scope_creepTalk 14:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Delete based on current sourcing...

discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted after a WP:BADNAC per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 13. Please add new comments...

inappropriate closes that should have been left for other editors as outlined at WP:BADNAC or WP:INVOLVED. The editor has failed to explain their closes when requested...

I briefly closed this as withdrawn but realize I should not have per WP:BADNAC. Sincere apologies! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:22, 12...

in dirtying up this discussion. Si's closure violated both points in WP:BADNAC. He's not an admin so he can't close something as delete. He is also WP:INVOLVED...

community consensus? A: So to answer the first part of your question: per WP:BADNAC point 2, a non-admin closure is not appropriate when "The outcome is a close...

anything important to the target article." This was overturned as a WP:BADNAC at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 20. Please add new comments below...

assertions, but no evidence. User:GiantSnowman where is your evidence? WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Comment...

pointing at those AFDs. I vacated the first one, which I think was a WP:BADNAC. If you spot suspicious AfDs that really ought to be closed by an admin...

@Compassionate727: Well I sure am convinced that your closure was inappropriate per WP:BADNAC. The nominator is clearly in favor of deletion, just because he is suggesting...

2021 (UTC) A: @Garnarblarnar: - As per Q7 below, my interpretation of WP:BADNAC is that non-admins should only be closing AFDs in very rare circumstances...

should be with a solid understanding of WP:SUPERVOTE, WP:INVOLVED ,and WP:BADNAC. If you are not completely sure about whether it's appropriate to use a...

discussion closed the discussion as keep. I have reverted their closure per WP:BADNAC and WP:INVOLVED. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Delete I...

involved in during your time on Wikipepda and how it was resolved? A: Per WP:BADNAC point 2, close calls or controversial closes are not supposed to be undertaken...

forward is to revert himself and let an admin close it as per the guidance at BADNAC. To say "Beyond this, the arguments presented on both sides have shown no...

the bad BADNACS troubling but the candidate's reply to some of them more worrying. Just noting- I've been expressing concerns about BADNACs for a year...

as a keep but after a ping from @Zxcvbnm: I am convinced that this is a BADNAC, now I recommend a relist for more discussion to generate consensus. Since...

Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 17, BADNAC speedy overturned. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel...

might have been correct that Jdcomix' close can be considered a case of WP:BADNAC, reverting without discussion is not the correct way to handle it; see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE...

September 2015 (UTC) @SimonTrew: I reverted your close because it was a WP:BADNAC: "Non-admin closures are not appropriate when the non-admin has demonstrated...

was delete. It has been explained on CptViraj's talk page why it was a WP:BADNAC, which was acknowledged. The original discussion should have been closed...

log page, and because the consensus I see I cannot perform per WP:NACD/WP:BADNAC. As a reminder, per WP:RELIST, this discussion can be closed at anytime...

Note that this discussion was originally closed inappropriately (see WP:BADNAC) by a now-blocked non-admin sock @Artix Kreiger, who proceeded to move the...

January 2024 (UTC) Creator here. Many non-admin closers prefer to follow WP:BADNAC#4 by not closing as "moved" any RMs with move-protected titles. But checking...

not have closed it at all since you are obviously not impartial, per WP:BADNAC. But do tell us, what can an encyclopedia say about this topic that does...

encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Note: I've reverted a WP:BADNAC by Serial Number 54129 after a request on my talk page. As Uanfala's comment...

(performed by article creator who had also opined in the discussion). Per WP:BADNAC I think an uninvolved administrator should re-open the discussion due to...

16 November 2015 (UTC) Is WP:BADNAC not it? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) @Steel1943: WP:BADNAC as Ivanvector pointed out. But...

doesn't apply. Apparently the closure was considered to be a case of WP:BADNAC and has been reverted. I'm leaving it further to an admin to make the final...

(talk) 14:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Overturn and re-close by admin - WP:BADNAC #2 applies here. FWIW, I see many oppose !votes that should be discounted...

issue is WP:BADNAC, what do you think we should do in light of WP:NACRFC? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Its a BADNAC because it...

discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously closed. WP:BADNAC backed out per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 24. Any uninvolved...

could have just been a mistake. If they don't reverse, I'd revert per WP:BADNAC giving my rationale for why the discussion is being re-opened. If by chance...

such redirect). This redirect is the result of what I believe to be a WP:BADNAC of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Islam_in_Russia. UnitedStatesian...

years. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC) I'd argue that was a BADNAC, should have been no consensus at most. The main argument against moving...

article. I have asked Kraose to consider undoing their close based on WP:BADNAC, but they appear to be currently absent from Wikipedia. I would kindly request...

team, which changed the world. Lets not be WP:EAGER to delete this. WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Beyond...

result was no consensus‎. Kudos to Czello for correctly reverting the WP:BADNAC. While a few of the !votes here can be discarded (based on their reasoning...

discussions, especially when "the outcome is a close call", as noted in WP:BADNAC. Adminship would allow me to close more controversial RfCs, which lets me...

month and a half, this user again pops up on my watchlist with several BADNACs, though there are some okayish AFD edits, they still seem to be overly...

(talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC) BADNAC doesn't apply to non-deletion venues. Izno (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC) BADNAC and NACPIT are not policy but...

are generally more experienced in assessing consensus in a discussion. WP:BADNAC may not be policy, per se, but sums it up pretty admirably. It may seem...

the blue. Nightfury 14:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC) It was clear case of WP:BADNAC and he shouldn't be closing Afd's as he is not particularly good at it....

consensus I see at the present time would require me to violate WP:NACD/WP:BADNAC to close the discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks...

6 May 2014 (UTC) While this is only an essay, you may want to review WP:BADNAC. Both you and StAnselm are simply not impartial enough on that talk page...

CLOSE REVERTED. There's pretty good consensus here that this was a WP:BADNAC, and I may have accidentally supervoted removes all doubt. I'm going to...

bias, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cambridge Working Group is WP:BADNAC #2 as too close for NAC. There's a few keep closes that would be better...

"notable" and "relevant for inclusion." This is an inappropriate outcome (WP:BADNAC) that went against the consensus in the discussion (WP:SUPERVOTE) for several...

left doesn't look like consensus to include to me. On the other hand, WP:BADNAC 2, likely to be controversial. – Levivich 18:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC) I...

Sam Sailor, and proceed with admin closure, as requested by OP. Per WP:BADNAC - Sam Sailor made two comments in the discussion, showing a definite stance...

an IP with no other edits, using a deceptive sig. I have reverted per WP:BADNAC. (non-admin unclose) --Finngall talk 17:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Relisted...

years. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC) I'd argue that was a BADNAC, should have been no consensus at most. The main argument against moving...

Vpab15 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC) The explanation was provided: WP:BADNAC WP:SUPERVOTE close/move, the basis of which I still don't know if you understand...

regarding the article. See WP:BADNAC for more. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC) You do realize that BADNAC is about deletion discussions...

discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted after a WP:BADNAC per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 13. Please add new comments...

is a contentious close that should not be made by a non-admin, as per WP:BADNAC. Calidum could have !voted "speedy close". User:King of Hearts reverts the...

might want to reconsider playing the STICK card here. I have now found WP:BADNAC item 2, which is the only remotely applicable p&g supporting your argument...

of discussion shouldn't give any grounds for procedural objections. WP:BADNAC point 2 reads The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several...

Begoon 16:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Yeah, closing a ban is listed under WP:BADNAC. Shucks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC) So, if...

closures of drama-sinks are generally thought unwise (e.g. WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC, an essay). DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) I see. Cheers. nagualdesign...

Afraid not, in this case: this comes under several of the criteria at WP:BADNAC. Non-admins should only close discussions with results they're technically...

closer isn't involved, and admin action isn't required. That is why the WP:BADNAC is silent on it, but the good section only mentions closing no-consensus...

SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I've reopened the discussion per WP:BADNAC and WP:NACEXP. It is technically not appropriate for a non-admin to force-close...

Nardog: – Joe (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Just a comment: the reason WP:BADNAC exists is that for deletion discussions, where a discussion is on the verge...

18 November 2018 (UTC) @Tornado chaser: The above is one of the baddest badnacs I've seen in a while. I said in a thread further up this page that the...

Soumya-8974 has now attempted to close an RfD discussion, which was a WP:BADNAC that I had to revert. Tallest mountain in India was a direct creation as...

situations where it is "not very clear", closes should be left to admins, per WP:BADNAC. Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC) TryKid, I wrote my original...

closures preemptively. (A communication with the non-admin is a must.) As WP:BADNAC says, only a non-involved admin can. I think, one some level, I might have...

16 November 2015 (UTC) Umm not entire sure if Legacypac's aware but WP:BADNAC does state AFDs shouldn't be closed as Delete by non-admins, I did the exact...

involving thousands of words and lots of yelling. About half the list at WP:BADNAC and its #Pitfalls section applies, too. But that assumes that the NAC has...

incorrect or even discouraged. I'm pointing out the fact that WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC both clearly state Close calls and controversial decisions are better left...

2018 (UTC) @TheDragonFire: I've reverted your non-admin closure per WP:BADNAC, as you appeared to have missed the part where I asked for Catflap's email...

IP blocked for 72 hours. jp×g 03:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Robles. ErieSwiftByrd, please read WP:BADNAC before closing any other AfD. FWIW keep is probably right, but just let...

(dc̄) 01:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC) EDIT: Looks like this was a case of WP:BADNAC [10] by an involved user Keresluna (talk · contribs), which was then seemingly...

was bound to start it; DRV was technically okay as we were dealing with a BADNAC under a very technical reading of conventions, which is also an interpretation...

however, I will point out that a NAC shouldn't be done for a redirect per WP:BADNAC, but yes, that was the appropriate consensus, so I agree with having an...

not have closed this discussion: MattLongCT does not meet WP:NACEXP WP:BADNAC#2 and WP:NACPIT#1; this close was inevitably controversial...

(such as a redirect) that can't be accomplished by a regular editor WP:BADNAC. Requesting that an administrator who does have authority to address the...

reopening of deletion discussions is left to an uninvolved admin at WP:BADNAC, this is not a deletion discussion, and the closure was clearly inappropriate...

change editor) are not appropriate due to conflict of interest. See WP:BADNAC. Whoever closes this, it should be someone who is not a subject area regular...

been soft deleted or relisted. Barkeep49 reverted that as an obvious WP:BADNAC [320]. I followed up and found four more closes by DMySon today, three of...

Council/Proposals/Men as out of process,[1][2][3] WP:INVOLVED,[4][5][6][7][8] WP:BADNAC,[9] a form of WP:GAMING,[10][11] edit warring,[12][13] and the like. I have...

necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Support - Despite what WP:BADNAC says, some non-admins seem to feel that they are capable of making controversial...

later Walter closed it formally; an inappropriate closure according to WP:BADNAC. Dan56 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Dan56, vacated and re-closed...

me. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC) @Wugapodes:. It is a WP:BADNAC to close something that you do not have the capability to carry out. I suggest...

AFD info at article Talk page" and advised them at their Talk. This is wp:BADNAC. After they were notified, they re-implememted it, in what becomes edit-warring...

(UTC) @Hijiri88: I do not mind a reversal of my closure, but to call it BADNAC is your own questionable judgement, not a matter of fact. I am absolutely...

Mississippi 03:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Support Seems reasonable and I hate badnacs. scope_creepTalk 08:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Support Not closing your own...

least. --В²C ☎ 00:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC) If anyone around here knows about BADNACs, it's you, not Exemplo347. The first thread on your talk page has no less...

two "no consensus" closures at AFD, and one of them was overturned per WP:BADNAC (on reflection, I realize my closure was bad and I shouldn't have closed...

I tried to close one such sub-thread as I was not entirely aware of WP:BADNAC, but thought it useful since no fresh opinions were being given, more than...

January 2020, but was self-reverted following a discussion about it being a BADNAC. 10:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in...

have explained in detail at User talk:CptViraj why the closure was a WP:BADNAC and have relisted it for further input. Please add new comments below this...

misconduct. It is very rare for any editor to be brought up short for WP:BADNAC issues. This, too, is an opportunity for gaming the system. In summary;...

desired. WP:BADNAC also does not list the imposition of a moratorium as an administrative action that should only be closed by an admin. WP:BADNAC includes...

community grant to allow this to happen. TFD already allows this per WP:BADNAC. Due to the extremely low participation at FFD and the even lower admin...

header. GSS closed it as Keep. This was promptly overturned at DRV as a WP:BADNAC and relisted, at which point GSS voted "Strong Keep". Owen× ☎ 13:23, 26...

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 29, was originally closed as a BADNAC. I do wish to note explicitly and for the record that consensus is not achieved...

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I've overturned the BADNAC at Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation as a SUPERVOTE...

December 2014 (UTC) A discussion at Requests for Closure is questioning WP:BADNAC, specifically, the part about non-admins not closing discussions as delete...

encouraged) to close some XfD discussions. - emphasis mine), the existence of WP:BADNAC, and WP:DELPRO/WP:NACD (Usually, both closing and relisting are administrator...

self-reverted by the non-admin closer after a discussion about it being a BADNAC. — MarkH21talk 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC) NOTE: related AFDs have been...

close. Since the nominator has resorted to edit warring to keep their WP:BADNAC. (Afd participated by @Shshshsh, @Abbasulu @Visviva @Dharmadhyaksha, @DaxServer)...

as a keep but after a ping from @Zxcvbnm: I am convinced that this is a BADNAC, now I recommend a relist for more discussion to generate consensus. Since...

Comment I want to apologise to User:Praxidicae for the two inappropriate BADNAC. This page is now open. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)...

You clearly did not read Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. If you had read WP:BADNAC, the very first thing listed is "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential...

discussion, and then that close was taken to DRV and summarily overturned as a BADNAC, even though that's exactly the outcome envisaged in WP:RELIST. If it had...

confirming what you made clear on your talk page: that your now-reverted WP:BADNAC closure[1] was indeed indeed based on a thoroughly partisan personal view...

October 2021 (UTC) Those interested can also look here at your overturned BADNAC. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @Lightburst: Whether or not...

discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted after a WP:BADNAC per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 13. Please add new comments...

I’m saying, asides that no they can’t, that would generally fall under WP:BADNAC If an AFD has run its course without participants it is treated as an expired...

discussion had been closed by the nominator, so I have undone the close per WP:BADNAC. No !vote at this time on the article itself. --Finngall talk 15:11, 25...

closure is faulty to start with. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC) WP:BADNAC "inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator"...

consensus, but since it likely would've resulted in a delete and per WP:BADNAC, I decided not to close. Instead, I'll add my comments. Though TribLive...

January 2020, but was self-reverted following a discussion about it being a BADNAC. 10:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in...

considering closing this with a "keep" outcome but I think it would be a WP:BADNAC#2 (controversial close), so I investigated the topic instead and convinced...

scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Previous Afd, WP:BADNAC. Non-notable. Run of the mill business news, routine announcements, passing...

Comment I want to apologise to User:Praxidicae for the two inappropriate BADNAC. This page is now open. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)...

discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting after a WP:BADNAC to see if consensus can be found. Please add new comments below this notice...

clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously closed, but backed out as WP:BADNAC. See also WP:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 16#Dream Pod 9. Please add new...

anything important to the target article." This was overturned as a WP:BADNAC at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 20. Please add new comments below...

an IP with no other edits, using a deceptive sig. I have reverted per WP:BADNAC. (non-admin unclose) --Finngall talk 17:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Relisted...

03:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC) PS: The previous AfD close would qualify as a WP:BADNAC, at least by today's standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)...

"no consensus at best" yet it should be relisted (the nominator cited WP:BADNAC). I get it, however a relist is not a renomination so this should be closed...

point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC) I have asked for the BADNAC/BADRELIST to be overturned on their talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:14, 12 July...

I briefly closed this as withdrawn but realize I should not have per WP:BADNAC. Sincere apologies! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:22, 12...

without taking the whole Afd into consideration. It is a clear case of WP:BADNAC. scope_creepTalk 14:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Delete based on current sourcing...

I've undone Shadowowl's own unexplained non-admin "keep" closure,see WP:BADNAC. If there is no further comment, this AfD may be closed by somebody else...

crossbreed. This is my first close of an AfD. If I got it wrong and I did a WP:BADNAC, please tell me and I will try not to fuck up second time round😄 (non-admin...

IP's close here with this diff over there), I reverted the close per WP:BADNAC. (non-admin unclose) --Finngall talk 17:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Thanks...

knowledge, and easily passes WP:GNG. WP:NSOFT isn't a formal WP policy. WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Note:...

assertions, but no evidence. User:GiantSnowman where is your evidence? WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Comment...

closure if you like. Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Per WP:BADNAC, I can't do that since I've commented here. Valenciano (talk) 07:35, 4 April...

made to this page.‎ The result was merge to Dell. Re-closed after a WP:BADNAC; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 December 24. Sandstein 09:41, 25...

discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously closed. WP:BADNAC backed out per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 24. Any uninvolved...

admin action. In fact, that is only reason I started this topic. Normally, BADNACs should be sent to deletion review, but in this case I believe WP:SNOW applies:...

Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC) I restored this close per WP:BADNAC and WP:NACD, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any...

own AfD as redirect, despite the above !votes. I reverted this obvious WP:BADNAC as it goes against not just one but several of the principles there. Not...

resulting in "redirect" must be carried out by an uninvolved admin per WP:BADNAC. Therefore we have to wait for it to be closed.--WikiAviator (talk) 08:40...

@Psiĥedelisto: I cannot close XfDs as delete as I am not an administrator, per WP:BADNAC. dudhhrContribs 22:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC) @Dudhhr: Apologies. You responded...

team, which changed the world. Lets not be WP:EAGER to delete this. WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Beyond...

point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC) I have asked for the BADNAC/BADRELIST to be overturned on their talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:14, 12 July...

might have been correct that Jdcomix' close can be considered a case of WP:BADNAC, reverting without discussion is not the correct way to handle it; see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE...

October 2021 (UTC) Those interested can also look here at your overturned BADNAC. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @Lightburst: Whether or not...

not have closed it at all since you are obviously not impartial, per WP:BADNAC. But do tell us, what can an encyclopedia say about this topic that does...

Endorse. Even among the couple of participants who thought this was a WP:BADNAC, there's unanimous agreement the result was accurate. -- RoySmith (talk)...

clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously closed, but backed out as WP:BADNAC. See also WP:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 16#Dream Pod 9. Please add new...

pointed out to them in the question. Most relists by non-admins are WP:BADNAC (see WP:RELISTBIAS) - the main exception to the rule being clear WP:NOQUORUM...

with a handy shortcut, so BADNAC gets invoked instead. If we articulate that broader principle somewhere, I think we'll see BADNAC cited less often. – Joe (talk)...

both of you. Typically you would ask an admin to review the closure per WP:BADNAC but since I'm not involved in the discussion and given your points and the...

there was consensus or whether this was a WP:BADNAC. That, in and of itself, is evidence that it was a BADNAC ("close call (...) or likely to be controversial")...

seems to be more liberal (and convoluted) than WP:BADNAC.—Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) WP:BADNAC also says The outcome is a close call (especially...

(talk) 19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Sigh. If I were an admin, I'd revert the WP:BADNAC. But, even if that were the case, looking at the article, the AfD, and doing...

Washington Redhawks – Some agreement, but not quite consensus, that this was a BADNAC. There seems to be general cosnensus that any possible merge discussion...

attention on my talk page that I did a WP:BADNAC closure (I hadn't closed any AFD's in a long time, so BADNAC kind of slipped my mind). Sandstein is correct...

discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Overturn. WP:BADNAC#2. Further, that close does not advance on the problem. I read a consensus...

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Relist – definitely a WP:BADNAC. WP:NACD is quite clear: "Do not close discussions...for a page in which...

All Join In – Closure undone per WP:BADNAC: the closer was a banned sock. To be reclosed by somebody else. Sandstein 20:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC) The following...

with enquirers.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Overturn WP:BADNAC. This closer is not an experienced respected closer, but has a history of...

discussion, and the closure was also done by a non-admin despite being a WP:BADNAC, as pointed out by Suriname0 and Liz.[1][2] During the AFD discussion, it...

inadequate closing statement for such a divided discussion, WP:Supervote, WP:BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Interesting view... opposers...

a non-admin). Cunard (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Per WP:BADNAC there is no way as seeing this as anything but a bad closure. Editors who...

Mohd Shahrul Chankui – Relisted per WP:BADNAC. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of...

everything that was said here, but there's clear consensus that this was a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back out the close and relist it. @Superastig: If you want...

people shouldn't close some move discussions". WP:BADNAC is, like most rules, a blunt instrument. As to BADNAC #2, there are some non-admins who are well qualified...

Obvious WP:BADNAC. Relist this and leave it to an admin to re-close. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Overturn and relist per WP:BADNAC; kind of...

cases, with WP:BADNAC arguments carrying less weight compared to examining the ultimate result. It might be worth re-examining BADNAC to see if community...

15:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Overturn This was a contested AfD and so WP:BADNAC is pretty clear on this: Inappropriate closures The outcome is a close call...

31 July 2020 (UTC) Overturn and have an administrator close this one per BADNAC #2 - there's a number of ways in which this could be closed, and given the...

closure, but there is no consensus. In my view, this is a clear case of a WP:BADNAC, as the AfD raises complicated and contentious questions of how to apply...

involvement in the previous AFD (only a month earlier) would have made that a WP:BADNAC. So I didn't. Instead, I argued it should be closed (within the AFD, as...

WP:BADNAC, so the AfD should be relisted, perhaps speedily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Speedy overturn - WP:INVOLVED BADNAC closed...

administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Void NAC. WP:BADNAC item 2 clearly applies. Not to mention, In general, XfDs other than AfDs...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) WP:BADNAC - a rather controversial close. An administrator should handle this controversial...

22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Endorse There was no BADNAC here (and I'm usually one of the first to call BADNAC), and I don't see any issue with the discussion...

Nate • (chatter) 23:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Endorse. There's BADNAC and then there's BADNAC. The result here is keep which is a good NAC result (the most...

would offer. I’ll stop short of closing because I don’t want to receive any BADNAC accusations, but I would be willing to co-sign something similar to below...

This redirect discussion was improperly closed by a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC) and should be reopened. The non-admin closer, Captain Galaxy, should not...

Cindy Dock – WP:BADNAC undone in my capacity as an individual admin (and per unanimous agreement below). Sandstein 10:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC) The following...

(XfD|restore) This AfD was inappropriately closed by a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC #2). Because it is a close call and likely to be controversial, it should...

Dream Pod 9 – Relisted as WP:BADNAC. Thank you SportingFlyer for pointing out that this was a non-admin close. This clearly didn't fall into the realm...

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Overturn to keep this was a WP:BADNAC as the outcome was at least somewhat controversial, as shown by valid "keep"...

actually had value. Kori (@) 15:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Relist Not the worst BADNAC I've ever seen but this should have been relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48...

Chris Powell (politician) – Void close. Clearly a WP:BADNAC, The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely...

policy. The proof of a BADNAC is ensuing controversy and unhappiness. The proof of a GOODNAC is that is helps. The frequent BADNACs by overconfident pagemovers...

(WP:RFD/AI), the closure was especially inappropriate for a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC/WP:NACD), and the discussion shouldn't be closed by an involved party who...

should be sentance case. The rough concensus seems to be to move. I agree WP:BADNAC#2 is a factor though, which led to this MR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:54, 20...

Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC) void close (both the WP:BADNAC and GeneralNotability's post-endorsement) and relist. Had I known about...

and have done so as a WP:NAC which you can't of course implement. See WP:BADNAC. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Note lister also tagged...

compromise close such as this. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Clear WP:BADNAC close as there were several valid outcomes. I agree we're not generally...

at the moment, IMO. Not suitable for a non-admin to close this (per WP:BADNAC), and I'd assume if an admin was in the process of closing the AfD, they'd...

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila – Overturn to relist as WP:BADNAC. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC) The following is an archived...

several more days Frank Anchor 03:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Relist per WP:BADNAC. Mellohi does not appear to have much experience participating at AfD, and...

2023 (UTC) I'd add this is probably not suitable for a non-admin close (WP:BADNAC). Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC) {{close}} by editor Shibbolethink...

18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Relist but no trout. This is not clearly a BADNAC, but it's an aggressive enough call that the community, per NAC, is unlikely...

particular maybe a bit more bold, but it does not appear to fall under WP:BADNAC. There was little discussion since the 12th of April with the last comment...

(UTC) I've saved us all some time and WP:G11'd it. This was probably a WP:BADNAC, but G11 applies and is faster. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)...

Sarah Jeong – Void NAC. No comment either way on the AfD, but clearly a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back out the close and relist. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58...

fighting vehicles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Per WP:BADNAC. With the prevailing consensus to delete, the non-admin closer User:Zeke...

(talk) 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Reopen and WP:TROUT the closer; per WP:BADNAC.2. I argued for keep, but agree that no consensus had been reached. Narky...

there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial is a WP:BADNAC. The closer had acknowledged that Consensus seems to be borderline, resulting...

Lola Lennox ‎ – Void close per WP:BADNAC case #2 (outcome is a close call). It's not just that the nose count is close, or that the keep arguments are...

September 2016 (UTC) Relist so an admin can correctly close it. Per WP:BADNAC WP:NACD, non-admins should not be making close calls. This issue has been...

great edification debt once wrote, "If a NAC requires verbosity, it is a BADNAC." Shutting up now.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:14, 2 September 2018...

object to it just because the closer doesn't own a mop. I could invoke WP:BADNAC to re-close it the same way, but I'm not going to do that because it would...

just because they are NACs, but in this case, I think it's clear that WP:BADNAC #2 (The outcome is a close call) applies. Opinion in the AfD was pretty...

(XfD|restore) No consensus close by non admin on a thrice relisted afd, WP:BADNAC. 2 Delete !votes, 1 redirect, 2 keeps (1 by article creator, 1 by co founder...

of the article in question. This instance is a clear case of Wikipedia:BADNAC. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Overturn/re-open NAC was...

no attempt at relisting, and a non-obvious closure was made against WP:BADNAC#2. Closer seems to suggest here that the closure was due to the keep !vote...

  // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Speedily reopened and relisted per WP:BADNAC. I agree that a non-admin should not have closed this discussion. While...

Ángel Abrea – WP:BADNAC speedily undone and discussion relisted Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC) The following is an archived debate...

We're here because of pure disruption and a lack of understanding of a WP:BADNAC close by a user who just rage-quit. Delete the talk space page and close...

All Join In – Closure undone per WP:BADNAC: the closer was a banned sock. To be reclosed by somebody else. Sandstein 20:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC) The following...

Obvious WP:BADNAC. Relist this and leave it to an admin to re-close. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Overturn and relist per WP:BADNAC; kind of...

with enquirers.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Overturn WP:BADNAC. This closer is not an experienced respected closer, but has a history of...

(XfD|restore) I just now noticed this somewhat contentious AfD was a WP:BADNAC which was closed by a non-admin who was later blocked as a sock. It's been...

Washington Redhawks – Some agreement, but not quite consensus, that this was a BADNAC. There seems to be general cosnensus that any possible merge discussion...

improperly raised.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Historic BADNAC for sure. Take it to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)...

everything that was said here, but there's clear consensus that this was a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back out the close and relist it. @Superastig: If you want...

Nate • (chatter) 23:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Endorse. There's BADNAC and then there's BADNAC. The result here is keep which is a good NAC result (the most...

closure, but there is no consensus. In my view, this is a clear case of a WP:BADNAC, as the AfD raises complicated and contentious questions of how to apply...

behaviour in the preceding discussion, which was the sort of vague rant about "BADNACs" that keep popping up on the talks of brilliant closers who haven't taken...

Havelock Jones (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC) I do not see this as a WP:BADNAC, either. I've given your argument many times here at MRV to endorse other...

Sarah Jeong – Void NAC. No comment either way on the AfD, but clearly a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back out the close and relist. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58...

(talk) 19:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Sigh. If I were an admin, I'd revert the WP:BADNAC. But, even if that were the case, looking at the article, the AfD, and doing...

something. Andrewa (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Overturn <uninvolved>, BADNAC and INVOLVED and SUPERVOTE, probably for an admin to reclose. The is at...

(UTC) What are you suggesting I am wanting to change? Very few NACs are BADNACs, but some are from time to time. I would like RMNAC harmonised with NAC...

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC) The closer agreed that it was WP:BADNAC#2. Don't baselessly accuse me of misconduct. — MarkH21talk 20:49, 22 January...

Mohd Shahrul Chankui – Relisted per WP:BADNAC. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of...

discussion, and the closure was also done by a non-admin despite being a WP:BADNAC, as pointed out by Suriname0 and Liz.[1][2] During the AFD discussion, it...

September 2016 (UTC) Relist so an admin can correctly close it. Per WP:BADNAC WP:NACD, non-admins should not be making close calls. This issue has been...

discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Overturn. WP:BADNAC#2. Further, that close does not advance on the problem. I read a consensus...

(UTC) Overturn clarifying SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC) WP:BADNAC. NAC-ers should not be closing contested discussions, nor controversial...

Ding – Void close. I don't get what's going on here, but it's clearly a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back it out and relist. Um, Kirbanzo, you support overturning...

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Overturn to keep this was a WP:BADNAC as the outcome was at least somewhat controversial, as shown by valid "keep"...

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila – Overturn to relist as WP:BADNAC. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC) The following is an archived...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) WP:BADNAC - a rather controversial close. An administrator should handle this controversial...

just because they are NACs, but in this case, I think it's clear that WP:BADNAC #2 (The outcome is a close call) applies. Opinion in the AfD was pretty...

this RfC which follows years of contentious discussions. To avoid a WP:BADNAC, an administrator close is needed when The outcome is a close call (especially...

Ángel Abrea – WP:BADNAC speedily undone and discussion relisted Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC) The following is an archived debate...

Pedimental sculptures in Canada – This is a classic case of a BADNAC with a terrible close summary, and as per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators...

then-admins in lengthy follow up discussions. I submit that the proof of a BADNAC is subsequent controversy. I also note the RfA test for temperament, not...

a non-admin). Cunard (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Per WP:BADNAC there is no way as seeing this as anything but a bad closure. Editors who...

there was consensus or whether this was a WP:BADNAC. That, in and of itself, is evidence that it was a BADNAC ("close call (...) or likely to be controversial")...

under WP:BADNAC criteria 2 (though I understand that is an essay). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Comment WP:BADNAC doesn't say...

mishandled. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Relist Clear WP:BADNAC and an improper speedy. (That being said, I can't see this being deleted...

improperly raised.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Historic BADNAC for sure. Take it to AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)...

Comment I want to apologise to User:Praxidicae for the two inappropriate BADNAC. This page is now open. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)...

outcome. An uninvolved administrator should look into the issue and see if WP:BADNAC applies. Haleth (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Endorse The redirect was...

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Relist – definitely a WP:BADNAC. WP:NACD is quite clear: "Do not close discussions...for a page in which...

Billy Shreve – Void close. Inappropriate close, per WP:BADNAC, item 2. – -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC) The following is an archived debate...

19:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Overturn. Extreme case of WP:Supervote and WP:BADNAC. All RM closers should know that gasoline vs petroleum spirits vs automotive...

controversial. if we agree on the reading of BADNAC that the last line doesn't exclude BADNAC challenges, invoking BADNAC#1 should be enough to survive Voorts's...

Presidency of Joe Biden (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) WP:BADNAC. This was closed after less than 48 hours with the rationale "The result...

SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Overturn, revert the close as a BADNAC, an action that any uninvolved admin may do unilaterally. SmokeyJoe (talk)...

not speaking to a summary of the discussions, pushes me towards saying BADNAC. The standard 2 month moratorium is more reasonable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:15...

WP:BADNAC, so the AfD should be relisted, perhaps speedily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC) Speedy overturn - WP:INVOLVED BADNAC closed...

your involvement in this close, but you have even shown those here. WP:BADNAC states as the first reversal reason for a bad non-admin closure: The non-admin...

that has a wider impact. --Masem (t) 03:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Overturn as BADNAC, to no consensus. Not a terrible discussion, but nothing I would call sufficiently...

cases, with WP:BADNAC arguments carrying less weight compared to examining the ultimate result. It might be worth re-examining BADNAC to see if community...

odd one to fret over. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Overturn BADNAC. It could have been reasonably closed as "delete", and so it was not an...

(talk) 12:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Vacate and trout Citing WP:IAR after a BADNAC? WikiLeon's eating trout for dinner every night this week. Closer should...

(talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is a classic WP:BADNAC, points 1 & 2: in this case, the non-admin has demonstrated a potential...

administrator and this was a close call and contentious, therefore it is WP:BADNAC/2. It is also a supervote, the closer did not assess consensus of the discussion...

"no consensus" is the correct closure. (And yes, this was probably a WP:BADNAC. The closer should be a bit more circumspect with regard to closing AfDs...

SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC) And I predict we're going to see a WP:BADNAC protest of the merge target article AfD in 3... 2... 1... Jclemens (talk)...

Dream Pod 9 – Relisted as WP:BADNAC. Thank you SportingFlyer for pointing out that this was a non-admin close. This clearly didn't fall into the realm...

of the article in question. This instance is a clear case of Wikipedia:BADNAC. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Overturn/re-open NAC was...

Double Live (Rheostatics album) – Relisted. I've backed out the WP:BADNAC and requested that the closer refrain from any more WP:NACs until they have more...

(UTC) With respect, your anti-NAC digression is out of line. Rubbish. BADNACs, the closing of close calls, provides for the majority of MR business....

This redirect discussion was improperly closed by a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC) and should be reopened. The non-admin closer, Captain Galaxy, should not...

object to it just because the closer doesn't own a mop. I could invoke WP:BADNAC to re-close it the same way, but I'm not going to do that because it would...

independent, reliable sources during the AfD. I asked the closer to revert his WP:BADNAC, but he declined to do so. buidhe 07:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC) endorse the nom...

involved, and are getting into rearguing the facts. Stop badgering. It was a BADNAC. The closing was quite unseemly. It probably should have been closed as...

– Closure overturned and discussion relisted on my own authority per WP:BADNAC. Controversial AfDs should run for their full time and not be closed by...

(XfD|restore) This AfD was inappropriately closed by a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC #2). Because it is a close call and likely to be controversial, it should...

talk page (link), I feel that: This closure is aligned with elements of WP:BADNAC, and that the closer has inaccurately assessed the sources The user based...

close for a non-admin.) --Enos733 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC) I hate BADNACs, but I actually don't think it's an inappropriate close per WP:NAC #2:...

required. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Overturn (relist). WP:BADNAC. There is no evidence in the discussion of “User:WanderingWanda's COMMONNAME...

makes it easy for everyone to understand thier close. That makes it a WP:BADNAC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC) The above is an archive of...

06:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC) There could be some criticism of the WP:BADNAC. The closer’s statement was not an impressive summary of the discussion...

Chris Powell (politician) – Void close. Clearly a WP:BADNAC, The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely...

and have done so as a WP:NAC which you can't of course implement. See WP:BADNAC. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Note lister also tagged...

None of the criteria under WP:BADNAC have been met. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Overturn WP:BADNAC 2 discussion is contentious.....

the close was accurate and accurately closed by an administrator per WP:BADNAC given the closeness of the arguments, and it would've likely been a bad...

at the moment, IMO. Not suitable for a non-admin to close this (per WP:BADNAC), and I'd assume if an admin was in the process of closing the AfD, they'd...

several more days Frank Anchor 03:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Relist per WP:BADNAC. Mellohi does not appear to have much experience participating at AfD, and...

per WP:EARLY due to only being open for just over 24 hours, and per WP:BADNAC as a non-admin close where the result will require action by an administrator...

(UTC) I've saved us all some time and WP:G11'd it. This was probably a WP:BADNAC, but G11 applies and is faster. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)...

Done - (Initiated 2515 days ago on 20 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Resysop...

Lola Lennox ‎ – Void close per WP:BADNAC case #2 (outcome is a close call). It's not just that the nose count is close, or that the keep arguments are...

A7V2 was trying to point out. Furthermore, I believe that this is a WP:BADNAC under point 2 (close call better left to administrator). Either way you...

attention on my talk page that I did a WP:BADNAC closure (I hadn't closed any AFD's in a long time, so BADNAC kind of slipped my mind). Sandstein is correct...

We're here because of pure disruption and a lack of understanding of a WP:BADNAC close by a user who just rage-quit. Delete the talk space page and close...

31 July 2020 (UTC) Overturn and have an administrator close this one per BADNAC #2 - there's a number of ways in which this could be closed, and given the...

contentious long discussion that is difficult to assess, therefore it is WP:BADNAC/2. The closer was also called to close the discussion by the move nominator...

actually had value. Kori (@) 15:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Relist Not the worst BADNAC I've ever seen but this should have been relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48...

there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial is a WP:BADNAC. The closer had acknowledged that Consensus seems to be borderline, resulting...

(WP:RFD/AI), the closure was especially inappropriate for a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC/WP:NACD), and the discussion shouldn't be closed by an involved party who...

15:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Overturn This was a contested AfD and so WP:BADNAC is pretty clear on this: Inappropriate closures The outcome is a close call...

compromise close such as this. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Clear WP:BADNAC close as there were several valid outcomes. I agree we're not generally...

to close. As is possible in a no consensus DRV, and also per WP:NACD/WP:BADNAC, which allow the reopening of non-admin closures by admins, I'm relisting...

no keep !voters had provided any substantial sources. The close was a WP:BADNAC (2), considering the lack of substantial keep !votes and Barkeep49's delete...

message on Alexandraaaacs1989's page for them to reopen this. This is a WP:BADNAC given they are involved, have little experience and it is a contentious...

(XfD|restore) No consensus close by non admin on a thrice relisted afd, WP:BADNAC. 2 Delete !votes, 1 redirect, 2 keeps (1 by article creator, 1 by co founder...

22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Endorse There was no BADNAC here (and I'm usually one of the first to call BADNAC), and I don't see any issue with the discussion...

involvement in the previous AFD (only a month earlier) would have made that a WP:BADNAC. So I didn't. Instead, I argued it should be closed (within the AFD, as...

shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC) No, see WP:BADNAC #4. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2025...

administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Void NAC. WP:BADNAC item 2 clearly applies. Not to mention, In general, XfDs other than AfDs...

Fil-Products Group – Relisted per WP:REOPEN as a BADNAC. Owen× ☎ 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) The following is an archived debate of the deletion review...

might have controversial implications outside of Wikipedia I believe per WP:BADNAC #2 that an admin would be better suited to do so. – John M Wolfson (talk...

(UTC) Pinging @BoraVoro: Mach61 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Overturn. WP:BADNAC clearly states: A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following...

particular maybe a bit more bold, but it does not appear to fall under WP:BADNAC. There was little discussion since the 12th of April with the last comment...

18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Relist but no trout. This is not clearly a BADNAC, but it's an aggressive enough call that the community, per NAC, is unlikely...

Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC) void close (both the WP:BADNAC and GeneralNotability's post-endorsement) and relist. Had I known about...

several admins and regular TfD closers, rather than just saying "vacate as a BADNAC" everyone agrees "split" was the consensus, so there's no need to go through...

(talk) 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Reopen and WP:TROUT the closer; per WP:BADNAC.2. I argued for keep, but agree that no consensus had been reached. Narky...

fighting vehicles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Per WP:BADNAC. With the prevailing consensus to delete, the non-admin closer User:Zeke...

was a clearly controversial close per BADNAC. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Overturn as a BADNAC as it was clearly controversial and "keep...

contentiousness, yet chose to ignore it. I reverted the close as an obvious BADNAC, with a polite notice on the closer's Talk page. The closer chose to lash...

consensus-keep" a poor outcome. Beyond that concern, it's an example of WP:BADNAC cases 2 and 4, as a close-call closure in a discussion that could result...

(XfD|restore) WP:BADNAC by a disruptive IP editor closing discussion as "keep" when that was not consensus. Same editor also did WP:BADNACs on Wikipedia:Articles...

BADNAC, especially for an editor who has been here less than three months. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Weak relist this is clearly a WP:BADNAC...

song are lack. It should be applied the GNG here also. The closing isn't BADNAC, but there's a misunderstood that this is not really passed on NSONG. ROY...

acted rashly, but I only wanted to revert a premature (and possibly WP:BADNAC) close from an inexperienced editor, and Organhaver's decision to revert...

Overturn to no consensus. There is a clear consensus that this was not a BADNAC, but there is also a consensus in favor of overturning this close. As there...

consensus. I consider it a BADNAC. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 07:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC) Reopen Probably the least worst BADNAC I've ever seen, but I think...

you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions...

contentious and therefore it isn't appropriate for a close by a non-admin per WP:BADNAC. I am not stating here any view on the merits of the !keep or !delete arguments...

Kingsif (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse. Technically, this was a BADNAC, since deletion was a possible outcome, therefore it should have been left...

per BADNAC. There is no way a non-admin should be closing this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Relist obvious WP:BADNAC. This...

individual capacity per WP:NACD. Ivanvector, you can relist or re-close BADNACs yourself, assuming you are uninvolved. No need to bring those to DRV. Owen×...

Note that this discussion was originally closed inappropriately (see WP:BADNAC) by a now-blocked non-admin sock @Artix Kreiger, who proceeded to move the...

(XfD|restore) Looking to get this reopened as there was non-admin closure per WP:BADNAC. scope_creepTalk 17:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC) Endorse. This was a perfectly...

the !votes which can be considered. I therefore vacate and overturn this BADNAC "by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their...

on BADNACs when they occur, and sending this one back for a proper admin closure. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) @Huwmanbeing: FYI, BADNAC is an...

challenges; many of these challenges have been successful, often with WP:BADNAC as part of the rationale. These challenges have consumed large amounts of...

ban. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC) Overturn BADNAC -- (Involved) The closing statement simply mentioned the voluntary aspect...

I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC) Revert as WP:BADNAC by Pppery[2]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:00, 23 April 2025...

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Relist This is not a WP:BADNAC, but comments supporting a keep position are not well articulated per nom...

modify it. Koragajja (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) WP:BADNAC#1,2. The discussion was both contentious with 3 Draftify and 4 Keep votes...

were subsequently reclosed as I had originally. (Having seen instances of BADNACs generating poor outcomes, I took the view, as a NAC myself, to reopen any...

the strength of the argument is similar, in addition to this being a WP:BADNAC, an overturn to NC or delete, depending on whether the keep side is slightly...

but one IP. Not seeing any reason to change the close, nor any reason for BADNAC. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC) Procedural close clear Keep...

(talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Close appears to be a WP:BADNAC, with one keep !vote for the nominator not explicitly stating that they...

"sole delete !vote". The AfD nominator is also included here. I believe WP:BADNAC point 2 and WP:NACPIT point 1 apply to this close. 11WB (talk) 00:35, 13...

(talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I believe this is a BADNAC and should have been relisted or closed by an admin. The whole discussion...

I don't see the need to rush and close this out of process. And if the BADNAC isn't bad enough, I'm also troubled by the closer's prior involvement in...

discussions seems clear, but the result cannot be performed by non-admins per WP:BADNAC. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Well, that's now done. Thanks...

controversy over closing, any non-admin close would be (without fail) a WP:BADNAC CNC (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC) The volume of support for the page...

notability. CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse. Not a WP:BADNAC. The AfD nominator expressed disagreement with many keep !votes, so there...

Closed as "moved" by a non-admin editor on March 10, but reopened as a WP:BADNAC. Natg 19 (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Done. -- Beland (talk) 19:24,...

No opinion on overturning to an ATD such as "redirect". And it was a WP:BADNAC (edit: noting that the close was explicitly "provisional" but I still don't...

apply. Frank Anchor 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Endorseish; this wasn't a BADNAC but I think non-admin closers should agree to any good-faith request to...

was closed by Polemic-nerd as keep, but was reopened by Pppery as a WP:BADNAC after I made a request at WP:AN. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:54, 19...

controversial. — WP:Non-admin closure#Inappropriate closures, shortcut WP:BADNAC There were eight DRVs opened from January 2022 through January 2023, and...

AfD due to the lack of closing administrators, so I don't think there's a BADNAC issue here (as there might be if this were an AfD). I agree with Hut 8.5...

subject failed GNG. This was probably not the best NAC but certainly not a WP:BADNAC either since the end result is clearly correct. The fact that an AFD on...

Thompson (businessman) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) WP:BADNAC. The support for keeping, while strong, was not unanimous or nearly so,...

overturned and XfD reopened both in my individual capacity as an admin per WP:BADNAC, and also per consensus in this discussion. Controversial closures, as this...

ResonantDistortion 19:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC) Relist It's not really a BADNAC except for all of the blatant canvassing, but it needs to be closed by a...

several admins and regular TfD closers, rather than just saying "vacate as a BADNAC" everyone agrees "split" was the consensus, so there's no need to go through...

still have issues with the closure, and even one of !keep voters cited WP:BADNAC for concerns about it. The !keep votes before the first relisting were very...

after 7 days, and even though I don't see anything exempting CFD from WP:BADNAC #4 (perhaps we should do an RfC on this), they seem to accept delete NACs...

no attempt to communicate whatsoever. In turn, I believe that this is a BADNAC. Zinderboff (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Relist (involved). Bad...

opinions expressed by editors in the MfD, I believe that this was a WP:BADNAC - i.e., that [t]he outcome [was] a close call...or likely to be controversial...

Edward IV – Result endorsed despite WP:BADNAC. The close should have been performed by an admin and included more explanation of the rationale, but otherwise...

purposes of clarity for the rest of the discussion, I think any close is a WP:BADNAC where delete is a valid option for the closer, even though putting the discussion...

reviews as a result. Anyway, Seraphimblade makes some good points on the WP:BADNAC problem. Anyone could see that an RFC like this is likely to be controversial...

a BADNAC. [175] User's reply either misunderstands or dodges my question regarding listening to which editors and dismisses my concern due to BADNAC being...

per BADNAC. There is no way a non-admin should be closing this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC) Relist obvious WP:BADNAC. This...

deletion/Elias Hossain (journalist) These closes should be overturned per WP:BADNAC: The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or...

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Endorse. It was not a WP:BADNAC; an experienced AfD participant conducted a NAC with a clear consensus,...

suggest harsh punishments. Here they are Closing an AfD but creating a badnac in the process which was sent to DRV by Sandstein – and overturned. RTH...

potentially, a relist. And this is more in the direction of a classic WP:BADNAC anyways.—Alalch E. 14:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC) No action (involved) I too...

in the thread for the limited purpose of addressing a point made about BADNAC, but I wasn't interacting with Springee and it doesn't influence my thoughts...

To editor Robert McClenon: I'm sorry, can you point to what part of WP:BADNAC makes this entire discussion suddenly invalid? Deleting admins don't have...

title where we name a BLP as we have in this instance. Additionally, WP:BADNAC #2, given the contentious nature of this subject, an administrator really...

TarnishedPathtalk 08:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC) I've requested this is reverted per WP:BADNAC given the open RfC above. If members of this WP who have participated in...

Security (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was a WP:BADNAC closed by an editor who has never closed an Afd in their life. Likely paid...

individual capacity per WP:NACD. Ivanvector, you can relist or re-close BADNACs yourself, assuming you are uninvolved. No need to bring those to DRV. Owen×...

WP:BADNAC. Most worryingly, the closer is involved in the topic area [1].... The close very clearly violates 3 out of 4 points outlined in WP:BADNAC: 1-...

February 2025 (UTC) Relist. While I wouldn't go as far as calling this a BADNAC, I do note that one of the Keeps has already been indef blocked at the time...

which automatically violates point 1 of WP:BADNAC. I actually disagree with @Roy about it not being a BADNAC. The fact it was brought to DRV means the...

§ Category:African-American Crooners? I would argue this is a textbook WP:BADNAC (it was closed as keep by the creator, who also !voted to keep the category)...

me. I guess at least two hallmarks of WP:BADNAC are here: probable involvement and controversy. However, BADNAC is part of an essay. We are not a court...

controversial discussions, even no-consensus outcomes, even at XfD. WP:BADNAC is an essay because it does not have global consensus. Levivich (talk) 02:05...

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Speedy undo looks like a clear BADNAC, we don't need seven days debating this. SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 14 March...

to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV. I'am re-closing this AfD per WP:BADNAC, as set out in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 25. I agree with...

rehash of the RM with neither side giving much credence to the other. The WP:BADNAC advice was good and should be heeded by all NACs. To the question of policy/guidance...

but the relevant part refers to "discussions" generally. Additionally, WP:BADNAC also says: "A non-admin closure is not appropriate [when] The outcome is...

was a clearly controversial close per BADNAC. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC) Overturn as a BADNAC as it was clearly controversial and "keep...

closes. For non-admin closes, anything other than a unanimous result is a BADNAC. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Rubbish.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20...

Overturn to no consensus. There is a clear consensus that this was not a BADNAC, but there is also a consensus in favor of overturning this close. As there...

contribs) 14:42, January 8, 2025 (UTC) Relisting per WP:REOPEN as a WP:BADNAC; see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_8#Fil-Products_Group. Owen×...

Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 17, BADNAC speedy overturned. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel...

(talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Close appears to be a WP:BADNAC, with one keep !vote for the nominator not explicitly stating that they...

possible pattern of Involved, Inappropriate and closures (WP:NACINV, WP:BADNAC), Talk page Refactoring (WP:TALKO), policy misrepresentation, disruptive...

campaign, 2016. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) That was a WP:BADNAC that no one called out, consensus was clearly to merge. SportingFlyer T·C...

rationale was "not accepted" (by consensus), which is fine. This is not a BADNAC, as the non-admin closer has not demonstrated a potential conflict of interest...

Consensus established to keep. There were two closures which were reverted as BADNAC and NACINV respectively. Consensus favours more towards keep than a speedy...

shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC) No, see WP:BADNAC #4. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2025...

both of which require an admin and would require an admin to close per WP:BADNAC. On the other hand the redirect code can make editing the proposal/draft...

BADNAC, especially for an editor who has been here less than three months. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Weak relist this is clearly a WP:BADNAC...

should not have been a NAC, but I don't think it quite rises to a level of a BADNAC which needs to be overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 23 December 2024...

(talk) 18:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC) Overturn (uninvolved) This is a WP:BADNAC. This is a highly contentious discussion that was not suitable for a non-administrator...

edits should be made to this page.‎ The result was delete‎. I overturned a badnac [22] the keep arguments are very weak and assertive. The source analysis...

mention of NAC. In fact I made it clear at the closer talk that this is NOT a BADNAC, when the closer had that apprehension. Jay 💬 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)...

keep" type of statement. I think this discussion probably falls under WP:BADNAC (no matter how well-meaning the close was), and should have at least been...

☎ 22:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Endorse, close looks good. It was not a WP:BADNAC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Endorse as AfD nominator there...

closure wasn't clear. Raladic (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC) This is a WP:BADNAC closure. The code of conduct does not specify the means to name and describe...

header. GSS closed it as Keep. This was promptly overturned at DRV as a WP:BADNAC and relisted, at which point GSS voted "Strong Keep". Owen× ☎ 13:23, 26...

apply. Frank Anchor 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC) Endorseish; this wasn't a BADNAC but I think non-admin closers should agree to any good-faith request to...

that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gege Gatt (2nd nomination) is another BADNAC, though that is more debatable. VickKiang (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)...

WP:BADNAC warnings on their user talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC) In what world is a resolved talk page issue (WP:BADNAC) more...

be about, not the island specifically. Also, the previous AfD was a WP:BADNAC pile-on style WP:SUPERVOTE. "Speedy keep" is not an applicable rationale...

through a regular close challenge, and there's relevant guidance at WP:BADNAC. I'm not aware of any pattern of widespread improper closures by inexperienced...

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 29, was originally closed as a BADNAC. I do wish to note explicitly and for the record that consensus is not achieved...

Kingsif (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Endorse. Technically, this was a BADNAC, since deletion was a possible outcome, therefore it should have been left...

No opinion on overturning to an ATD such as "redirect". And it was a WP:BADNAC (edit: noting that the close was explicitly "provisional" but I still don't...

(UTC) For the record, I unilaterally reverted what was clearly a disruptive BADNAC close of this move review. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC) Endorse...

Support TBAN from IPA & PIA. These actions are clearly unacceptable WP:BADNAC. I agree with AirshipJungleman29, whether done in good or bad faith, one...

encyclopedia. I believe this very clearly falls under Wikipedia's definition of WP:BADNAC, specifically the point that a closure may not be appropriate if "the discussion...

not to "keep" rather than declare "no consensus". Additionally, as per WP:BADNAC, non-admin closure is not appropriate when the outcome is a close call (especially...

good reason to. Jaguarnik (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC) A textbook WP:BADNAC, with the editor in question being WP:INVOLVED at the article to boot. I've...

AfD due to the lack of closing administrators, so I don't think there's a BADNAC issue here (as there might be if this were an AfD). I agree with Hut 8.5...

point where any non-admin closure for this article at this time would be a BADNAC. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC) The above discussion is...

Extraordinary Writ: can we please get a speedy revert for this disruptive BADNAC? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 14:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC) Relist this Bad Non-Admin Closure...

rationale was "not accepted" (by consensus), which is fine. This is not a BADNAC, as the non-admin closer has not demonstrated a potential conflict of interest...

I cite that policy since it wasn't included in the RM. So now we have a badnac supervoting after the fact? I don't think so. Nor should anybody else think...

canvassing. I do not think this was an appropriate non-admin closure. WP:BADNAC makes it clear that non-admin closures are not appropriate in situations...

—Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse I simply don't see this as a BADNAC nor as a violation of INVOLVED. Not being able to implement the decision...

"sole delete !vote". The AfD nominator is also included here. I believe WP:BADNAC point 2 and WP:NACPIT point 1 apply to this close. 11WB (talk) 00:35, 13...

consensus. I consider it a BADNAC. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 07:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC) Reopen Probably the least worst BADNAC I've ever seen, but I think...

change the outcome, and perform a mass move. In this case, it is a WP:BADNAC. The claim is being made that this is common and within closing guidelines...

Any non-admin close is bad if the result is close or controversial per WP:BADNAC. Combine that with their lack of experience in general and the lack of explanation...

controversial discussion is an inappropriate thing for a non admin to do per WP:BADNAC point 2. Closing those discussions is an action restricted to administrators...

relistings where there was a clear and obvious consensus to delete [14] as a WP:BADNAC , but they reverted [15]. Can someone clearly and firmly tell them that...

(initially coinciding with "I've been away" above) of their basis for invoking BADNAC. I can see valid reasons for wanting a relist, but the methods chosen were...

both an egregious misuse of a talkspace revert and reminiscent of the WP:BADNAC issues that led to their initial TBANs from closing XfDs and participating...

unwilling to consider other options. He doubled down on this by performing a WP:BADNAC (specifically, WP:NACINV) and claimed consensus where IMO, none existed...

posted it's fairly clear this should not have been closed and was a WP:BADNAC by @Qcne. An editor reacting poorly is not a reason for a non-admin closure...

"keep/delete per above" and nonsensical !votes[236], making out-of-process BADNACs (as here), and insisting they know better than admins and experienced editors...

participants to have closed it. I guess the close could be challenged per WP:BADNAC, but I leave that to administrators to decide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39...

(talk) 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) Please, reopen this discussion per WP:BADNAC. @Super ninja2 close the discussion to supervote. Zsohl(Talk) 13:46, 27...

(although of course close or controversial AfDs should not be - see WP:BADNAC). So again, what is your point and how does it relate to whether BeanieFan11...

because it reads as a statement of tautology. The close was not quite a WP:BADNAC, but good NAC closes are better explained, get given much better explanations...

Thompson (businessman) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) WP:BADNAC. The support for keeping, while strong, was not unanimous or nearly so,...

(talk) 22:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC) Overturn, as a bad close, and thus a BADNAC. Consensus was not achieved that “Big Five” is a proper name. Instead, consensus...

mention of NAC. In fact I made it clear at the closer talk that this is NOT a BADNAC, when the closer had that apprehension. Jay 💬 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)...

February 2024 (UTC) Thanks. The run of OVERTURNs below definitely suggests a BADNAC. It is not helpful for NACers to insist on their closes and necessate heavy...

appropriate than ANI. TSventon (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC) Per WP:BADNAC, a non-admin closure should not be challenged solely on the grounds that...

NAC-er should do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Overturn. WP:BADNAC. Revert the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Relist - given...

have is dueling interpretations of consensus. In other words, it was a BADNAC because the close [was] likely to be controversial. Srnec (talk) 20:02,...

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Speedy undo looks like a clear BADNAC, we don't need seven days debating this. SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 14 March...

☎ 22:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Endorse, close looks good. It was not a WP:BADNAC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Endorse as AfD nominator there...

Extraordinary Writ: can we please get a speedy revert for this disruptive BADNAC? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 14:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC) Relist this Bad Non-Admin Closure...

Security (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was a WP:BADNAC closed by an editor who has never closed an Afd in their life. Likely paid...

I don't see the need to rush and close this out of process. And if the BADNAC isn't bad enough, I'm also troubled by the closer's prior involvement in...

(talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I believe this is a BADNAC and should have been relisted or closed by an admin. The whole discussion...