The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. The MfD instructions are clear that already-operating process pages should not be nominated here. If you want to close or modify the process, please open an RfC. (For the record, I have not been involved in any of the RfCs that led to the creation of WP:AARV, nor have I participated in the board itself since it was established.) RL0919 ( talk) 22:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Previous closure attempt:
closed and reopened
|
---|
In the hope of someone uninvolved coming to the same conclusion (it's not that hard in my opinion), I'm re-opening this. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC) |
This page is an utter mess and embarrassment. I see there was an RFC but this surely cannot be what anyone intended. This should be blanked until a properly structured RFC agreeing if/how this will work has been completed.
Spartaz
Humbug!
16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
argument about whether pinging is canvassing or not
|
---|
*Comment: As this nomination clearly contradicts the outcome of the RfC, I'm pinging the RfC participants. In doing so, I'm relying on
WP:APPNOTE. /failed ping attempt of more than 50 participants in single edit commented out to save space/ thanks for participating.
— Alalch Emis (
talk)
17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
|
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)an utter mess and embarrassmentis the very essence of an argumemnt to avoid in deletion discussions. b) Re. canvassing: The original RfC was advertized at WP:CENT. SN54129 — Review here please :) 18:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented: ... A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. By deleting or blanking this page this soon after the RfC close it seems like it ignores the result of the closed RfC. If editors disagree with the closure, then open a closure review like was done for the election process proposal. If after a suitable period of time the page and process is deemed to not have worked then an MfD may be suitable. However, seeing as a large scale RfC was used to create this then IMO a suitably well advertised RfC would need to be held to reverse it (so that a roughly equal or greater amount of participation can be gained in both the creation and deletion discussion). Although this MfD may be well advertised, the WP:RFA2021 process was likely better advertised, through WP:CENT and watchlist notices. A MfD does not usally have watchlist notices or similar which bring in participation from across the wiki. MfD is, like many other noticeboard and Wikipedia pages, mostly visited by those with either the page on their watchlist or who browse the open nominations. As such I would want to see this MfD be put on the watchlist notices
The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. The MfD instructions are clear that already-operating process pages should not be nominated here. If you want to close or modify the process, please open an RfC. (For the record, I have not been involved in any of the RfCs that led to the creation of WP:AARV, nor have I participated in the board itself since it was established.) RL0919 ( talk) 22:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Previous closure attempt:
closed and reopened
|
---|
In the hope of someone uninvolved coming to the same conclusion (it's not that hard in my opinion), I'm re-opening this. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC) |
This page is an utter mess and embarrassment. I see there was an RFC but this surely cannot be what anyone intended. This should be blanked until a properly structured RFC agreeing if/how this will work has been completed.
Spartaz
Humbug!
16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
argument about whether pinging is canvassing or not
|
---|
*Comment: As this nomination clearly contradicts the outcome of the RfC, I'm pinging the RfC participants. In doing so, I'm relying on
WP:APPNOTE. /failed ping attempt of more than 50 participants in single edit commented out to save space/ thanks for participating.
— Alalch Emis (
talk)
17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
|
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)an utter mess and embarrassmentis the very essence of an argumemnt to avoid in deletion discussions. b) Re. canvassing: The original RfC was advertized at WP:CENT. SN54129 — Review here please :) 18:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented: ... A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. By deleting or blanking this page this soon after the RfC close it seems like it ignores the result of the closed RfC. If editors disagree with the closure, then open a closure review like was done for the election process proposal. If after a suitable period of time the page and process is deemed to not have worked then an MfD may be suitable. However, seeing as a large scale RfC was used to create this then IMO a suitably well advertised RfC would need to be held to reverse it (so that a roughly equal or greater amount of participation can be gained in both the creation and deletion discussion). Although this MfD may be well advertised, the WP:RFA2021 process was likely better advertised, through WP:CENT and watchlist notices. A MfD does not usally have watchlist notices or similar which bring in participation from across the wiki. MfD is, like many other noticeboard and Wikipedia pages, mostly visited by those with either the page on their watchlist or who browse the open nominations. As such I would want to see this MfD be put on the watchlist notices