Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale

Note: if you start a new section that needs to be seen by moderators, please ping Valereee and/or Xeno as otherwise we might not notice it.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:ACAS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4

Closing statement

has been posted at WP:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement -- RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, closers. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, if you'd please archive everything above this section to Archive 4? Thank you for all your help here, it's very much appreciated. Valereee (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:

Done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well to the closers, to MJL, and also to Valereee for doing so much of the heavy lifting before and during this RfC. It was much more work than I expected! –xeno^talk 13:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7-day runoff RfC as requested by closers of WP:ACAS

The closers have here asked for a runoff RfC:

Question: Should we enact C?

C: All WP:MASSCREATEd articles (except those not required to meet GNG) must be cited to at least one source which would plausibly contribute to GNG: that is, which constitutes significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source.

Please simply sign in the appropriate section without commentary. This RfC will be open for at least seven days and will be closed at closers' discretion. MJL, would you please ping the participants? Valereee (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support enacting C

Oppose enacting C

Discussion of runoff

Feel free to discuss, but realize the closers won't be reading. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, I had suggested ranking the options for question 2, and in doing so I had envisioned they would be evaluated as ranked choice votes. In retrospect I can see that wasn't obvious. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I really wish I'd made this clearer sooner. By my count, when all other options are eliminated, the count is 32-25 for C over D. @Valereee and Xeno: I imagine it's too late to revisit this? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanamonde93: Could you clarify what would be changed in the revisitation? –xeno^talk 16:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Xeno: It seems to me that a !vote in which options are ranked should be closed as if it were a ranked choice vote, and if the tally is evaluated as such, I'm seeing a consensus, albeit weak. Obviously I !voted myself, so I'm not unbiased, but I'm asking if it's reasonable to revisit the closure of 2A. I wouldn't suggest it for purely procedural reasons, but it might alter the outcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think what the closers asked for was basically just to confirm that, in the runoff above. Are you instead suggesting the closers should just consider it as carried, without the runoff? –xeno^talk 16:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Closing discussions =/= counting !votes and enact something that has a slim majority.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]