Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 5 February 2008 (→Closing: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thoughts so far

Obviously I can't close this MfD, and there is a still a number of days to go, but it is looking like the timing of this nomination, as opposed to the previous one, is producing a calmer debate, though I suppose we will never know what would have happened to the arbitration case if the second nomination had proceeded (possibly it would have been as calm as this) and ended a similar way. Anyway, the point I wanted to make here was that I can't see any one arguing to keep the page as a whole so far (while several argue to retain the 'requesting access' option in some form). Carl is concerned that the page may be seen as a scapegoat. Possibly a scapegoat is needed sometime, however unfair that may be, and a page doesn't really have feelings that can be hurt, unlike the participants in the arbcom case. Some are concerned about the history of the evidence - this can be addressed by moving the page and its page history to (for example) Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (or a better named subpage if that link turns out to break anything - for example Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence/Page history of Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins), and then (where needed) changing the existing incoming links (126 - mostly noticeboard, arbitration or user talk page links) to point to this evidence subpage (which could be blanked with an appropriate notice that it is simply an evidence subpage where the page history has been deposited). All other incoming links (ones that weren't intended to point to the page as part of the arbitration case) would stay and be met with either a redirect to the main WP:IRC page or meta - doesn't matter. Edit warring over which one it should be redirected to would be best avoided, of course (a new discussion may be needed for that - or leave it up to Arbcom). Simply redirecting to WP:IRC would be simpler, but putting the page history squarely in the arbitration case pages would symbolically pass the evidence to the arbitration committee and indicate that the community is (almost literally) washing its hands of the page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I like this solution, Carcharoth. I'd also recommend that the page history for the talk page be included, as part of the evidence was that some users were discussing on the talk page while others were not. Risker (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page would move with it. Note that my proposal is not needed to preserve the page history, as even if redirected, the history will still be accessible. My proposal is more a symbolic gesture of "evidence goes here, redirect goes here, end of matter". Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

{{ArbcomDeletedpage}} has been used before when an otherwise deleted page is temporarily needed for an ArbComm case. I think that it, or a more precisely worded tag, would be simpler. That tag was used, for example, in the Allegations of Apartheid case for several pages on allegations of X apartheid that were temporarily needed as evidence. GRBerry 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing

Technically the time for closing this debate has arrived. Could be tricky. Any ideas on how to achieve a peaceful closure? It should be noted that one person who took part in the debate tried to close it (as 'no consensus') and got reverted. I have a view on what the consensus is, but as I took part in the debate, and hold strong views on this, I obviously shouldn't say any more. The question is whether it is better for a random MfD-closing admin to deal with this, or to find an uninvolved "wise head" to try and come up with a fair and just closing decision (assuming such a thing exists)? Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)