Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism (2nd nomination)

Improper and sub-optimal refactoring of discussion
This edit by User:Alalch E., while clearly well-intentioned, has caused at least one ip contributor to misplace their !vote above the archive break. I'm not sure this type of refactoring was the ideal solution to the problem (maybe hatting?), and I'd ask Alalch in good faith to refrain from trying to solve it themselves, since they've inadvertently created one more issue which may come up at any potential DRV. I'm not comfortable with Alalch E. clerking discussions at all, but especially those which have already been noted as irregular. Their meta hovering around formal discussions was an issue in their previous blocking, with due respect to that user's current and honorable attempt to improve. I don't want this to be an issue of contention, quite the contrary. I'd like to keep our eyes on good faith process discussion. I commend Alalch E. for their willingness, but I'm asking them to stop. I'll deign not to belabor this further. BusterD (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was pinged. I appreciate your words. I'm sorry for the problematic refactoring, that caused someone to comment out of order. It specifically has to do with how your "question" comment that came after the relist now doesn't have to do with anything obvious. Hatting seems better, but perhaps even better would have been to simply insert an italicized note above your comment about how there is missing context. Perhaps nothing should have been done. In any case, the peculiarities of this MfD: early renomination, early involved relisting then de-relisting (to the extent that it's even technically possible), and someone closing a portion thereof, are not of such importance that they could be an argument in DRV against any particular outcome. For example if it is closed as "keep" or "delete" it will be strictly impossible to say "there was an improper and sub-optimal refactoring, ergo the closer was unable to determine consensus". Equally, if it is closed as "no consensus" or "procedural close" with the closer citing their inability to determine consensus because of "irregularities", that closer's rationale not be taken seriously at all. This MfD is still perfectly viable. I genuinely want to alleviate your concern that there could be a problem with this MfD down the line.There will be no more similar actions on my part. —Alalch E. 11:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And thank you for ensuring that I stay on the right course. You're someone who has a better long-term insight into my editing than probably anyone. I appreciate the friendly gesture. —Alalch E. 12:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are nice to words to say. I appreciate them in the spirit in which they are expressed. BusterD (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

To the point, what is the correct way to address this material in process space to prevent any issues with formatting? Would hatting with comment be sufficient? As a clearly involved editor I'd rather not try to solve the problem myself. Is there a compelling reason to change any formatting? Is a close nested inside another close going to archive correctly? I'm interested is addressing the problem only, User:Alalch E. agreeing to NOT correct it, especially now that they have made an assertion. BusterD (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)