Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Speedy Keep, and not just due to the avalance of Keep !votes already in. If any current arbitrator would like this deleted, please talk page me and It will be speedily deleted. — xaosflux  Talk  05:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC
Rejected Arbcom cases are not archived. Because Uninvited Company move the bulk of the arb case to this sub page, it was not deleted when the case was rejected. Due to the fact that the entire rejected case is copied here, it is functioning like an archive, which is against standard arbcom practice. Additionally, the continued existence of the page is divisive and has functioned to promote and prolong community arguing while accomplishing nothing. This is a rejected case and should be deleted like all the others. pschemp | talk 06:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Too obvious to elaborate even. --Irpen 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think ignoring standard arbcom practice for this case is a good idea. No point in following process for the sake of it. Catchpole 08:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Note that rejected ArbCom requests are not deleted, but stay accessible at . I don't see a reason to treat this case differently just because it is on a subpage; if it should not be googleable, redirecting will do fine. Kusma (討論) 08:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All these comments are still in the history from when they were moved, and accessable there. This, however, is an unauthorised archive. pschemp | talk 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a fair application of WP:IAR done by Uninvited Company to shed light on a broader issue. Agne 09:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Newyorkbrad's remark here. --Van helsing 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep  the page, arbs are as entitled to express their opinions as anyone else (although as obiter dicta the authority of these statements may be negligible). However, the user comments copy/pasted from the RfA don't really belong. I dislike people moving comments from one context to another. They are not from arbs, nor are they commentary on the opinions of arbs. They give a false impression. I have thus removed my comments from that page, and would encourage others to do the same. -Docg 11:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (No objections to userfying it either--Docg 18:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure about removing them, as the choice seems to be oblivion or there. It's a choice that no one really should have faced.  I thought Irpen's, Giano's and Bishonen's "statements" were quite good from the original.  They were pretty temperate and well spoken, and I hate to see them lost to eternity.  All we may really need is a header saying, "Comments ported from the rejected RFAR" or something.  It's better to have those carefully crafted and weighed statements than the hair pulling and shin kicking that follows.  Geogre 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oblivion is where failed RfArb statements usually go, so I see no reason why this should be different. OTOH, if people wish their earlier statements to be recorded on that page as a contribution to a discussion on IRC and Arbcom, that's their choice, I have no objection. But moving other people's comments to a new context without informing them is poor form. I don't want my comments there, since I've no interest in prolonging, or being involved with, that debate. I tend to think that the comments should be removed, with an invitation to those who do wish their earlier comments on that page to do so. But I can't get worked up about this either way.--Docg 13:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Geogre, your editorializing is not necessary here. If we are to open up that subject, I would love to keep the part where Bishonen challenges David Gerard to provide diffs showing Giano's personal attacks and gets pounded with thirty-two of them.  --Ideogram 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are "responding" with a "fight" here to something said to you? Didn't think so.  So, why are you here?  David Gerrard's citations didn't answer the question at all, as there were no personal attacks in them.  In fact, they rather seriously indicted David's understanding of either "personal" or "attack."  Now, please go on inserting comments randomly wherever they will do least good.  Tell us how you feel about Giano again.  In fact, you should feel free to do so everywhere.  After all, there is some small chance that someone, somewhere, talking about something else, might want to know.  Geogre 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Doc, the old talk from the arbcom case should not be commingled with comments. Separate those up. I'd prefer to see this as not a subpage of RfAr... I think it is very good to have a page with a place for people to give their views (without discussion) though.. Arbitrators or anyone else, all on the same page.... but not here, and not with the "don't edit this page unless you're an arbitrator" badging.... just create it as an essay. keep but move and refactor. Where it is now and how it is structured now, is unacceptable and divisive. ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that this is for the talk page only, not the personal essays? Did anyone notice that? pschemp | talk 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, but thanks for the reminder. I think others did too... But I think there are some non arb essays on the talk page, mixed with comments and questions on the arb essays. I think having the talk from a case commingled with essays from non arbs, commingled with comments from others on those essays, is not helpful. I'd archive the talk from the case the normal way, move the main page to a different namespace and open it to all, not just arbitrators, to make position statements, with no replies on that page (if THAT page then had a talk, sure). But the current structure is a mishmash and needs fixing. No change in keep but refactor as my considered opinion on what needs doing. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On further discussion with folk (on IRC as it turns out) raising some good points to me, I think userify is a good second alternative. I don't change my !vote from keep but demuddy but if it gets userified and the case leavings get separated out and archived, I'd be fine with that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with catchpole. Moreover it isn't a valid argument to say we delete some history in order to "maintain peace". It would be like the Japanese government deleting certain descriptions about the Nanking Massacre from history textbooks - it would only provoke another conflict. Hereby upon using the above argument I claim a conflict of interest: I am an ethnic Chinese. --Deryck C. 12:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's not keeping the peace, but it's not accelerating any hostilities.  The arbitrators have expressed their views, and this is the page for talking about those views.  Some people have been remarkably hostile, some have not.  That's just plain normal for Wikipedia.  Besides which, I rather like getting some views documented.  If nothing else, it helps when the fifty-third chorus of "Where is the evidence that ArbCom agrees that there have been problems" gets sung.  Geogre 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wont make the obvious comments which would be adding petroleum to an already raging fire. Giano 13:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a case of rather large significance and saving it as a reference point would be helpful so that possible future disputes don't end up reinventing the wheel. TheQuandry 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Get it out of RFAR land, now. Any volunteers? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That does sound like the best option. Maybe one of the arbitrators who made a long comment would want it.  -- Cyde Weys  18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I don't know why Josh is feeling that way, as he hasn't offered a rationale publically, but, given the fact that the page was created by members of ArbCom, has hosted the views of several other people on ArbCom, Josh's position on that body is not germane to the discussion.  Sooner or later, the use of a particular IRC channel is going to have to be dealt with.  The best solution would be a code of conduct that the users themselves endorsed and adhered to.  The next best would be ejection of those who have documented abuses of IRC.  The third best would be to jettison the thing, as it doesn't represent Wikipedia, isn't for "administrators," and is hypothetically not under the jurisdiction of any Wikipedia body.  We don't link to MySpace chat pages and urge users to go there, so, unless IRC is somehow more "Wikipedia" than that (and therefore carrying with it ArbCom oversight), there's no reasoning for linking to those snake pits with our pages.  If "people will just create their own anyway," then why are they fighting so tooth and nail to preserve this?  If it's no big deal, why is it such a big deal?  If certain problem users feel free to "quit Wikipedia," why are they still operators there?  No.  Barring prosecution of an actual ArbCom case, this is the better solution.  If Josh doesn't want to weigh in with a view, that's fine, but telling other people that they can't, or that it has to be a user page, is a bit contradictory.  Geogre 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really just that I don't want this thing conflated with any official ArbCom activity; it's not, at this point, since the case was rejected. Since the case was rejected, "Arbitrator's views regarding IRC" are the views of individuals, not ArbCom per se. That's the only reason I don't think it belongs here, but rather some equally accessible, equally visible room next door. It would even be preferable as some sort of subpage of Village Pump, or other places where policy is discussed and debated. Certainly I have my own opinions about the channel and the use of the channel, but since I don't think ArbCom has any authority whatsoever over any of the channels, I don't think my opinions are in any way special here. If the community wants ArbCom to have authority over the use of the admin channel, the community will have to make it clear to us in unambiguous terms. I really don't see that happening. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Userfy - I have changed my vote to userfy. This is the best solution. No info would be lost. And as a member of the arbcom, I respect jpgordon's opinion. pschemp | talk 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per most comments above. However, if the decision is Userfy, note that User:Uninvited Company is the arbitrator who proposed the page (though I would be willing to rent out a slice of my userspace if he declines and no one else volunteers). Newyorkbrad 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, we don't delete discussion, as long as it is civil. Ever. Userfy if you feel like it, but it should not be an enforced outcome of this MfD. -Amark moo! 00:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually we do delete discussion when pages get afd'd. That would make "ever" incorrect. pschemp | talk 04:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's different in the case of deleted articles, because then the discussion has no relevance to anything. So yes, it isn't that we never do, but not things like this. -Amark moo! 04:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's never been a thing like this before, so what precedent are you attempting to cite? pschemp | talk 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not citing a precedent, per se, I'm saying that it's a bad idea to delete discussion that is still relevant to some issue. -Amark moo! 04:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and start archiving rejected ArbCom pages ASAP.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Although not officially archived, information on many rejected cases can be found at Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. (This reminds me that it's time for us to update that page.) Newyorkbrad 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE, UPON REQUEST FROM AN ARBITRATOR, THIS TALK AND PROJECT PAGE HAVE BEEN MOVED. The page can now be found at Wikipedia:IRC channels/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC. —  xaosflux  Talk  02:51, 3 February 2007 (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.