Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was  Keep (per WP:SNOW etc.)Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Petition against IAR abuse
This is the most policy wonkery I've seen in ages. IAR is a policy that tells any editor that if a rule gets in your way of properly maintaining the encyclopedia, the you should look past it. The ArbCom is now making assertions to the same, which I would assume why this "petition" was opened. To ask for there to be a policy on a policy that says you don't have to follow set policy is pure disruption, and is drama-mongering.

The FlaggedRevs petition, was a totally different story, as the idea of a FlaggedRevs trial was already accepted by the community, and the petition was simply asking for the Foundation to make that request a reality. This is a misuse of the petition process, as they haven't discussed this anywhere previous to this and are attempting to disrupt Wikipedia purely to make a point. Therefore I think this should be deleted, as an out of process way to attempt to change policy, this is what RFC is for. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Coffee should have declared that he is one of the named parties in the Arbitration Request that triggered this. He also neglected to notice that several of the signatories have engaged in the request for case and its talk page, so to claim that they have not discussed this anywhere previously is incorrect. DuncanHill (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wasn't one of the parties that started it, I'm just named because of an unblock which absolutely no one cares about. Also the amount of discussion that the FlaggedRevs policy had is nowhere close to the small laments about IAR during the past day or so by a random amount of editors, that have not actually started an RFC on IAR. That would of course be explained by the fact that you all know that an RFC like that would go nowhere, per the ArbCom's motion. So you resort to attempting to make it look like people actually think that we should have a policy on a policy about ignoring policies. What a paradox. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 04:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No need to actually read it.  The page is obviously a good faith attempt by wikipedians to influence wikipedia policy.  We do not delete such things.  Even if it is a bad idea, deletion causes lose of institutional memory, and dooms us to repeat the old mistakes.  Whether it is a good idea or not, deletion makes it look like censorship.  The mention of "RFC" and "Arbitration Request" further make deletion a bad idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no hint of disruption, or anything going near WP:POINT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A petition is not disruptive, which cannot be said of an attempt to squash a legitimate petition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Coffee, I fail to see how this is any different from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition. It makes no difference what's being petitioned – either Wikipedia users have the right to petition for/against something pertinent to Wikipedia or they don't. But don't try and twist this around just because you don't like the motives of the petitioners. It's obviously not a "misuse of the petition process," and it's a far cry from WP:POINT. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Pointy nomination. Even if I opposed the point it makes, there's a lot of policy generation, commentary and just plain whining in Wikipedia space which is perfectly allowed. Orderinchaos 04:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator There is no recognised petition process and this petition seeks to change no policy at all. This Mfd will be as far as it ever comes to causing unnecesary drama. For the record to address the sort of deletion rationale given, Scott Mac's FR petition had nothing to do with the actual FPPR trial discussion process at all - it's a very long story that cannot be retold here in full, but suffice to say have a look at its talk page - it is a fantasy to think he intended that petition to be part of the FPPR trial discussion, although by hook or by crook he somehow managed to get lucky and mislead most people into thinking it was about FPPR, and not catch on to what he had originally meant it to be for or about - that was probably down to the innaccurate and out of context use of the Jimbo quote. MickMacNee (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. A petition on a Wikipedia-related policy matter and as such is perfectly appropriate for projectspace. Nsk92 (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per SmokeyJoe. As I've commented elsewhere, I don't regard the petition as helpful, but its deletion certainly would be unhelpful.  —David Levy 04:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wonk. Wonk wonk, wo-wo-wonky wonky wonk wonk wonk.  WONK.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as no valid reason has been presented to delete. LK (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I really don't give a rat's ass about the petition, but if there are people who genuinely support it (and there already seems to be a fair number of them), then let them give their rat's asses if they so choose. If anyone wishes to stifle the amount of ass-giving, I suggest they debate the points made by the ass-givers in the ass-giving forum itself, not by attempting to squash that forum. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:12, 22 January 2010 (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.