Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WP:AN2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 delete, proposal was rejected so the board is premature. >Radiant< 10:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2RR

Also:

• WP:AN2
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2RRHeader

A new, well-meaning proposal at WP:2RR was recently created, and this was created as a mirror to WP:AN3. However, since WP:2RR has no community support, we shouldn't have a report noticeboard for it. Mangojuice^talk 15:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• KEEPMango, I asked Jimbo to say his opinion on this reform and well-meaning proposal, we will wait his attitude. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 15:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck. Still, we should not have an "official noticeboard" for a rule that hasn't been adopted yet. Mangojuice^talk 15:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is premature and malformated, an accepted policy proposal to support this should be developed first, only after acceptance would an Admin notice board be required. Wikipedia:Two-revert rule is a proposal in it's infancy. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Added additional subpages. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I would reealy hate to see how much stupid stuff projectspace would have if we created the process for proposals before they actually became more than proposals. This will only lead to people actually trying to report 2RR violations, which is bad. They can be undeleted if and when the proposal passes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we don't enforce policies that don't exist. Koweja 17:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, we don't have 2RR violations in the policy, so this is lame. Just a dumb proposal and no one has ever discussed of such a policy and such a page to report such stuff. Its currently being proposed and we have to see how thigns goes. Terence Ong 18:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now. Proposal means well, I'm sure, but until it becomes a policy, it doesn't seem to make sense for it to have an admin noticeboard. At such time as the proposal gains steam, it'll be easy enough to undelete the concerned pages, no? Luna Santin 22:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete template and reword as a proposal. There's nothing wrong with proposing a policy, but to make such a page that confuses the viewer into thinking that it is active isn't cool. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No point on having a name and shame board for a non-existent policy. Asterion^talk 16:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this isn't even a policy yet ST47Talk 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, anything here can be put on the 3rr page. Just H 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - good faith editor and all that, but it really isn't active yet and there is no consensus. Besides that, I prefer 3RR to 2RR. Yuser31415 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is simply jumping the gun. Next, we'll have a 1RR or 0RR noticeboards. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating our -1RR policy. Next time, you are not allowed to think about how nice it would be if instruction creep had not outlawed reverts. Please keep this in mind when your block expires." -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, wait a second, there's a difference. One revert means there's a disagreement. However, if you have two reverts, you can bet that there will probably be three. Passing the first revert means that there is at least one editor who is not willing to discuss the problem. 2RR just means that intervention occurs earlier. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, due to rejected proposal, Keep if 2RR were still in the proposal phase though. As a side note, what exactly is the benefit of lowering revert levels by one number? -- Chris is me 15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The proposer has never really explained it, apart from to say that he thinks it would be better. Mangojuice^talk 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no policy yet to support the page. feydey 19:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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.