User talk:BrandonWM: Difference between revisions
Add topic→"RfCs should not be closed by anyone other than functionaries unless there is a technical reason to do so, ie. already being implemented or cannot be implemented": Reply
Line 15:
:Well, this conversation seems to have been partially had on Discord/IRC, but I'll note what happened for record-keeping purposes. Functionaries are users authorized to carry out serious actions on a wiki, including blocking and making administrative decisions, ie. Meta sysops/bureaucrats and TestWiki consuls. As Void, Raidarr, and myself have now stated. I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue pressing a concept which has been debunked by countless users. In addition, you keep on pushing a narrative that is solely your own, without cause. If you want to have this objectively stupid discussion, sure. But your position has continuously been proven wrong by many users, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue. [[User:BrandonWM|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM|contribs]]) 03:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:: You don't seem to have addressed the purpose of this message at all. The issue is that there is no restriction on who can close an RfC, and for you to simply enact one does not make sense. There is no such rule, and I would not call it a "convention" either given that proposals on Community portal have been closed by anyone, and that consensus is against this RFC process. I am worried about using the functionary nomenclature to distract from this. Furthermore, even if it was a convention, that doesn't mean you should revert any closes by non-functionaries. As user Void [https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=249158&diffmode=source once said], {{tq|An unwritten convention does not constitute policy. }}, though unfortunately you seem to be using their name to claim support for yourself. Please don't enact rules in this way, especially in obvious, clear-cut cases where conventions would apply even less. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 03:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:::It's convention? Again, as Raidarr stated in the conversation we ''just'' had, it's followed on a great number of wikis. You seem to want to pick and choose which conventions to follow and not follow. As was said before, just because it's not policy not to edit others' userpages, doesn't mean you should. The same applies here. The user in question shouldn't have judged consensus and then closed the RfC unilaterally, and multiple users agree with me, as has been seen in the Discord channel.
:::I'm not enacting rules at all. I'm simply re-iterating what has already been deemed convention, and reverting a close. [[User:BrandonWM|BrandonWM]] ([[User talk:BrandonWM|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/BrandonWM|contribs]]) 03:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
| |||