Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy closing by nom -- Ned Scott 05:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova

User is attempting to spotlight their own specific concerns in an issue that is already being discussed on an AN/I subpage (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor), as well as a few other places on Wikipedia. It seems this was done specifically to get Durova to submit to and admin recall, but it is not the title of the page that is preventing this recall from happening. Allowing people to discuss this is one thing, but going out of your way to further split the discussion only makes matters worse, and is simply inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No one is forcing Durova into a recall. Per User talk:Durova/Admin she specifically is open to recall, and per her that begins with the RFC that is nominated for deletion. • Lawrence Cohen 05:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting a formal RfC will not cause Durova to start the recall. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She wrote at User talk:Durova/Admin:

Open a request for comment on me.
If five other editors agree with you, then check out the parameters at Category:Administrators open to recall. I'm one of the administrators who has volunteered to stand for reconfirmation if there's reasonable doubt about my actions. Recall standards at that category have relaxed since I joined yet I'll abide by the original terms of participation.

The RfC is valid, isn't it, as thats what she said? If not, does that mean shes not open to recall now? I don't understand what you said otherwise. • Lawrence Cohen 05:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is still something that is completely voluntary, even with a formally submitted RfC. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I was just asking why it was wrong for people to submit the RfC if they wanted her to stand for the recall she agreed to do, if that was the form she asked for it be requested under. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 05:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knickers-on-a-fish... making this MfD further splits discussion that was already happening on the RfC's talk. can we please close this and take it back there? Ned had previously put a redirect, twice reverted already, but that can stand while it's decided if an RfC is needed. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And recall is not the only reason this was started, it's a pretty superficial reading to suggest it was. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me while I try to remember what the MFD close tags are. I'm withdrawing. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.