Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Non-participants: reply to CommunityNotesContributor |
Tpbradbury (talk | contribs) →Non-participants: summary needs rewriting |
||
Line 522:
**:::::::::It wouldn't no. It would be another RfC closure, as this is an RfC. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:{{outdent|9}} This isn't an RfC, and if it requires consensus here anyway I'd rather we just amend the original language than invent something untested and potentially confusing. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 22:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse except paragraph 3'''. S Marshall's interpretation of RSP is right. However, 'unashamed embrace' of the litter boxes hoax is an inaccurate summary of consensus. That incorrect phrasing was immediately being used in RSP for anyone looking-up the source. Rewriting that part might be the simplest way of resolving this, some editors have helpfully suggested alternative wording. I can believe the closer is usually good, I agree with much of what they say and know closing detail is tricky, but the summary currently doesn't do justice to the editors who spent time analysing the sources. It makes sense to bring up the further explanation added by the closer afterward, up into the main summary, so it's all easily accessible without further clicks, [[User:Tpbradbury|Tom B]] ([[User talk:Tpbradbury|talk]]) 22:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
===Participants===
| |||