| Revision as of 15:08, 30 January 2008 editJoopercoopers (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,604 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:12, 30 January 2008 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits endorse community discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ] (]) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | ] (]) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse community discussion''' (ie. endorse the nomination) - I discussed this nomination with Jooperscoopers, and I agree that MfD is as good a venue as any for this discussion. I argued for closing down the 2nd nomination, but I now think that a discussion here may help clear the air, and remove focus from the personalities and behaviour (that is the job of ArbCom), and focus it back on IRC (an issue which needs community input at some stage). I will state my views on the page later. It is time to let fresh opinions be heard. ] (]) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:12, 30 January 2008
Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nom)
This is the third nomination of this page. (see First nom, Second nom) The last was closed, to allow Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC to run its course. One month on, the case is still rumbling along with little consensus or conclusion regarding IRC and WEA, other than that the IRC issue will be dealt with separately from the case, at an unknown date by the committee, and that in certain circumstances pages may be 'owned'. This MfD is brought to seek community consensus on a number of matters including deletion of the page itself. It is hoped that this debate, will both clarify matters relating to the page and inform Arbs deliberation regarding it, IRC in general and ownership of pages, in a case which appears to be stalled. I should perhaps note that I believe Arbcom and Jimbo's authority for policy matters should ultimately be derived from community consensus. We might wait for Arbcom's deliberations regarding IRC and WEA, for which they will seek community input; or we may, as I am attempting here, give them initial soundings, that can be fleshed out with a more lengthy RFC.
Arbcom appear to have asserted during the case, that some pages are 'owned' and are in some regards, exempt from the 'edit any page' ethos of wikipedia. Do we approve of pages that can be 'owned' in certain circumstances? What are those circumstances? Does it apply to WP:WEA? If so, does Arbcom now own the page or user:David Gerard? (David appears to believe Arbcom now have ownership.) How should such pages be identified?
There are clearly arguments for the page's retention and deletion. On the deletion side, this obscure page has become the focus of a lot of community drama, ill-feeling and edit-skirmishes. Do we continue to allow a devisive page described in the 2nd nomination as "long-winded irrelevant fluff"? Or, should we keep it and use it as the instruction and policy page for conduct and dispute resolution on the #admin channel? Should it be userfied? Perhaps moved to meta, merged back to WP:IRC, or kept permanently as it is?
One thing that should be emphasised, is the intention here, is to seek a consensus on the issues and not to create a battleground for personalities to take chunks out of each other. What's done is done, Arbs will rule on behaviour - this MfD seeks to move the debate forward.
Joopercoopers (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse community discussion (ie. endorse the nomination) - I discussed this nomination with Jooperscoopers, and I agree that MfD is as good a venue as any for this discussion. I argued for closing down the 2nd nomination, but I now think that a discussion here may help clear the air, and remove focus from the personalities and behaviour (that is the job of ArbCom), and focus it back on IRC (an issue which needs community input at some stage). I will state my views on the page later. It is time to let fresh opinions be heard. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)