Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination)

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 debate was This discussion is clearly tough to close – we have strong feelings on either side, and much conflict has been caused because of it. The overwhelming majority of people who have commented want this page deleted, they feel a process that has no official role here should not have its own page. People commenting feel that there is no special reason for this channel to have its own page. There is only one person who wishes to keep the page, and this is because they feel it must have an official role here. The channel itself cannot be deleted, it’s under the jurisdiction of a third party (Freenode) and users that frequent the channel are not going to go away. I have therefore found that the page should be redirected to Wikipedia:IRC channels and the access request section should be merged into the main Wikipedia:IRC channels page. Further to this, an RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:IRC channels) should be opened to look at the role that wikimedia IRC channels play within the project to air the community views – this will no doubt help the arbitration committee decide the future role of the channel (as they look set to decide on). Ryan Postlethwaite 01:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryan Postlethwaite is a chanop at #en-admins. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 should be emphasised; the intention here, is to seek a consensus on the issues and not 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)

[edit] Keep or Delete WP:WEA and other options

• Delete: According to evidence in the case, the page was not promoted to Wikipedia space without any discussion. It was just placed there. It seems to be a policy page for something that isn't Wikipedia, so that makes it like a manual page for a software program elsewhere. Wholly inappropriate, regardless of the "edit war" there. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  I am confused by the double negative in your statement. Can you clarify? Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Whoops. It was not promoted with discussion. It was promoted without. Amended. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Userify: Move the page into the user space of whoever owns the channel. If and when Wikipedia formally accepts responsibility for the channel, then the page can be moved back to project space. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the page and the channel and the arbitration and forget the whole thing and move on. None of it is any use as far as I can see. DrKiernan (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Metafy or userfy pending arb com decision about the status of IRC channel. Note that WEA (the page, not the channel) has been the venue of clashes, not their cause; its fate is in fact a minor question but whatever helps defuse the situation should be done. Kosebamse (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Userfy, or Metafy It needs to be out of Wikipedia space unless it sanctioned by the community and subject to popular/consensus oversight like other pages and processes. Lawrence § t/e 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It's been nothing but a hamper on the community since it came into existance. Requesting access can be done some other way. SGT Tex (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Whatever The page is there to inform people about the channel, if it is deleted the channel will continue. Geez, it is just a page describing a way for admins to talk. This is making a problem where there is none, but the page being deleted will not really effect the IRC channel. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  True, but that's no one's aim here. I don't imagine that DreamFabIconWrks will go out of business if we delete their advertising page from Wikipedia, but Wikipedia does not advertise. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Having a page that talks about a channel where people go to work on Wikipedia is not advertising. It is directly related to improving and maintaining Wikipedia, so your analogy is not compelling to me. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete it. Users can request access on IRC, or on a subsection on the main IRC channel page. Majorly (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No project-space page is worth the amount of drama this has caused. Its continued presence is clearly harmful to Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• At the very least, keep the page as a place to request access. John Reaves 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That can be handled by a page with an appropriate name "/request access" or something. Similarly, complaints can be diverted to arbcom, or where-ever. No need to overload a page with lots of different functions. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to let the current page be used were the result of this be to delete. As far as letting arbcom handle it: 1.) They have no control of IRC whatsoever and 2.) they're already bogged down. John Reaves 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but there are people who want an on-wiki place to note problems with IRC and see some action taken. It is very easy to go to IRC and complain about aspects of Wikipedia (or even individual users). Sometimes someone will even do something about what you are complaining about (ie. join a debate, delete a page, or block someone or whatever). The reverse is not true. It is difficult to come from IRC to Wikipedia and make a complaint about what has happened on IRC. In part this is due to differences of culture, process and the basic nature of the two mediums of communication. If there was a noticeboard or somewhere to report IRC abuse, then this might help. It would require chanops or channel loggers to be trusted to be neutral and review the evidence, and to be active on Wikipedia and respond to any concerns appropriately (kicking from the channels and (where the on-wiki identity is known) leaving a warning on the user page on Wikipedia, maybe?). Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• My impression is that the page is being used as a scapegoat for certain users' dislike of IRC or perceptions of its misuse. I remain unconvinced there are any problems with the page itself that extend beyond that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete A disruptive vehicle for one person's views and perception of IRC, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  I don't believe the page itself is disruptive. Certainly it has been the scene of disruption, but that's a different thing, as is the general argument that IRC is disruptive. Neither of those is particularly relevant to this MfD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Changing to strong delete for the good and wel being of the project. Who is Carl? Giano (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There is no reason to have the WEA page. The basic IRC page (with instructions for finding it only) is more than enough. ^Avruchtalk 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the access request part and a basic description into WP:IRC, get rid of the rest. I don't see the point in completely getting rid of WP:WEA when we have WP:IRC as well. Mr.Z-man 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Carl (or anyone) - if you think it would be beneficial to open up another section header here relating to a more general discussion of IRC in the light of Jimbo's fiat and how much control the community should assert, please do. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  I don't - this is an MfD about a particular page on wikipedia. Using an MfD to try to change something about IRC is somewhat parallel to Colbert's crusade to save African elephants by editing articles to say their population has increased. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, quoting Carch below "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza are examples of large MfD discussions" - which effectively changed wikipedia consensus. I'm saying, lets have a discussion - I'm not inciting a 'reality fraud' (Colbert). --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-access request parts. MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki with soft redirect I suggest to meta. The page is useful but Wikipedia community is too divided along quasi-political lines to maintain it adequately. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  FGS, someone just delete it, or we will have Sidaway ranting about for ever, life is too short. Giano (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  It may surprise you to learn that I've seldom discussed the page. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Really? Sudden attack of verbal constipation? Or was it just entirely to your liking? Giano (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Beyond a general feeling that such a page has a general utility, I have no strong opinion on the matter. Its creation took me by surprise, frankly. --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge access request section into WP:IRC; the rest can go. I note the existence of m:IRC channels which might provide a suitable home; it already has access request data for non-public channels like #wikimedia-admin. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Note. In case anyone's interested, WikiDashboard provides edit analysis on a page-by-page basis. The top editor for WP:WEA is Giano II (talk · contribs), with 65 edits, followed by Geogre (talk · contribs) and David Gerard (talk · contribs), each with 37, and Ideogram (talk · contribs) with 34. I clock in with 12, probably back from when I processed access requests. I believe these totals include the talk page. Regrettably the data dates from mid-July. Mackensen (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  I grepped the history myself and, of those who have edited the page ten times or more, I got:

  14:Bishonen, 17:Geogre, 19:John Reaves, 21:Duk 32:Majorly 51:David Gerard 61:Giano II

  I don't know why there is a discrepancy between the wikidashboard figures from mid-July and these from 14:42, 30 January 2008 [1], unless some edits have been removed by oversight. In particular, I can find no trace of edits by User:Ideogram in the edit history. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, I see that you said the wikidashboard figures include the talk page. Mine do not. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Userify to David Gerard's User space. Even there, he won't strictly own it, but it will make clear the distinction between Wiki{p||m}edia-endorsed venues for discussion versus others, such as this, which the presumptive owner appears to intend to run as a private, albeit Wikipedia-influenced, club. Jouster  (whisper) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Meta and leave a soft redirect. In theory, a page on that IRC channel can be useful, but it has proven to be nothing but a headache on Wikipedia. I've said from the beginning that it should be moved to Meta. Alternatively, just delete the thing and be done with it, and let's get on with working on the encyclopedia. --Coredesat 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Per mackensen. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: In light of this, I think a transwiki to Meta is a bad, bad idea, as it will effectively allow WP:OWN, according to the page's author. I.e. doing such a thing is to heighten the drama and declare a winner to the owner, as he, at least, seems to perceive all dissent to be at en.wikipedia, and yet the page is purported to be not a meta page but a page about "en.wikipedia.irc." Presumably, meta has its own IRC administrator's channel (I don't know). Utgard Loki (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • watch this space. —Random832 16:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I think Mackensen the right idea here, though I don't think a Requests section is even necessary, just provide a list of ops who can provide access at m:IRC channels as is already done for e.g. the checkuser channel. krimpet✽ 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to meta - To keep it out of the reach from the WP-mob. _→AzaToth 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:responses removed - not the place people --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete a factual line on WP:IRC and WP:ADMIN noting that a channel is independently run on freenode for the benefit of admins (and pointing people to a meta or userpage) will suffice. Having the page on en.wikipedia gives the false impression that the channel is, or ought to be, under the control of the en.wp community.--Doc^g 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge a bald description with access request details into WP:IRC and then delete. We should not have a whole page in Wikipedia-space causing this amount of trouble for something which the community apparently has no control over. Given the controversy the page has caused I would recommend marking the thing historical in order to preserve old links/diffs but I don't think that would solve the problem. --Hut 8.5 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userify-ish – Move it to someone's userspace (Jdforrester's or David Gerard's) for the sole purpose of providing details of how to request access to the channel. —Animum (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It is long past time to put this little vanity page out of our misery. Nandesuka (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to WP:IRC per Mackensen, with an emphasis on "the rest can go". I agree that m:IRC channels would be a good place to have access details, and that can be linked from WP:IRC, which can also have a subsection for access requests (a low volume in any case). Care will be needed to ensure that similar edit wars and "descrptions" of the channel don't appear at WP:IRC, either now or in the future. Please see the talk page for my proposal for a more complex (though really fairly simple) procedure to excise the page and deposit the evidence at the arbcom case, fix the incoming links, redirect to where-ever, and have the community symbolically wash its hands of this page. That would be my preferred option, but I'm noting here my support for a simple merge to WP:IRC for the benefit of whoever closes this debate. Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks, Meta or Wikisource but here it is a drama magnet. --Solumeiras (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I've waited some time before commenting here and tried to write the intro in as neutral a way as I could muster, because I believed a community debate on the issues was necessary. I am nonetheless quite partisan. There's a lot of talk above calling for deletion on the basis the page is a drama magnet. My reason for deletion, is the page appears to be like few others on wikipedia - it appears it is, or was secretly owned, and none of us may edit it without the editorial approval of 'still unknown' parties. This is patently wrong and against our longstanding ethos that we are an encylopedia that anyone can edit. That ownership has never been fully declared to the community, and those users who attempted to edit it are currently facing charges at an arbcom case for attempting to add a 'criticism of the channel section'. Discussion on the talk page was met with 'this is not the place for criticism of the channel', and then simple reversion. That the situation became dramatic is hardly surprising. But we have a fundamental problem if we tolerates such pages, the content of which would normally be developed from the compromise and consensus of the community. The page should be deleted because it may never reflect the consensus view in these circumstances. The content at Wikipedia:IRC channels should be amended to include brief notes to reflect the current uncertain quasi-official status of IRC, the ongoing Arbcom deliberations and if necessary, links for obtaining access. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete per WP:NOT#WEBHOST - if David Gerard wants to have his own page about the channel, over which he has sole editorial control, then he can host it on his own web server. —Random832 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• If we are determined to hold this debate, I support moving it to meta as a sensible compromise. I note to whomever closes this, though, that this is a viper's nest of policy issues - absent a ruling from the arbcom or Jimbo on the question of exactly how official or unofficial the channel is or exactly who runs it, declaring that it must be "hosted in his own webspace" or whatever is an argument that is longer on rhetorical flourish than on substance. Given that the channel appears to exist in a penumbra that goes at least somewhat beyond "wholly unofficial," deletion seems inappropriate. If we must take premature action, at least preserve it on meta, where we are generally looser about some of the issues that people seem to have with this page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Absolutely none of that is an argument about keeping. Suppose the channel is totally Wikipedia. Whee! Now we need a policy page that comes from our process. Suppose it is 100% not Wikipedia. Whee! Now we need to divest ourselves of this advertising. Suppose it's half in and half out. Whee! Now we can leave the damned thing out until we have a reason to have it, and then we can figure out what its policies are. It's simple: if it's less than 100% Wikipedia, it has no place here, and if it's 100% Wikipedia, then it has to be derived by the usual means. All the hand wringing about laws and gods and divinities at JamesForester's bar & grill is utterly beside the point for an mfd. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And absolutely none of that relates to Phil's suggestion to move it meta. Mr.Z-man 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In fact, it is. Is this a Meta-owned thing? I believe I was speaking of Wikipedia, which includes Meta. If Meta has rules for running IRC and regulates it and deals with its problems, then Meta can have a page. However, there is no reason to move this there unless there is an established case that Meta owns the IRC channels and therefore should have the page. Given the link I cited above, where the author of the page said that he wanted it moved to Meta to keep anyone who disagrees with him from editing it, to do so would be to endorse a violation of WP:OWN and to make a move solely to please individuals, and not for any reasoning. See, also, the comments above that resulted in a storm of controversy, where Aza Toth said that moving to Meta would keep it away from the "mob" at en. That isn't a reason for a move, either, that can be endorsed by MfD. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Is that case still on? I thought they accepted in in two hours, surely they aren't still deliberating? Wow. Anyway, delete from WP space/userify to David's space till a final decision is in. Relata refero (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete completely. I really doubt the folks at meta want this toxic waste after we decide to get rid of it. On the other hand explicitly giving them labeled as toxic waste would in some small step help ensure that whatever page is there (and there will be one) shows how little respect Wikipedia editors have for the channel. Eliminating the access request portion will help the channel die off, moving it to WP:IRC would theoretically help limit the degree the folks on the channel are an unrepresentative faction of users, as they appear to be today. Since having an access page at all hasn't prevented the folks in the channel from being an unrepresentative faction, I think we are better off with no mechanism for adding new users. Userfication would make the actual status - a small club controlled by a handful of users - more clear. So I won't object to userfication or transwiki, but think that total deletion with no replacement anywhere is the best possible outcome for en.Wikipedia. For the avoidance of doubt, I also would like to remove all reference to the channel's exitence from WP:IRC. GRBerry 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with your opinion over it. You have never been in the channel, and you therefore are not a good person to form an opinion over it. The channel, while it has its bad points, is a very useful forum for admins, and should be advertised as much as possible in order to reduce this silly fear about it. It should definitely not be removed from the main IRC channel page. It is going to exist whether you like it or not. Majorly (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The channel is bad for en.Wikipedia. I've seen plenty of evidence of that on en.Wikipedia. And here is the only place that we should look for evidence, because the channel logs are not supposed to be published and when that rule is routinely broken, they can't be reliably published. I'm aware of large numbers of bad decisions made because people were in the channel, and I've never seen evidence of any good decisions made or bad decisions averted because people were in the channel. As far as I can see, the actual evidence is that the channel is 100% harmful to en.Wikipedia. Whether or not I've ever been in the channel (and if you are honest, given the level of sockpuppetry around here, you'll admit that even if you had (which I'm sure you don't) a continuous log since the founding of the channel you wouldn't have a clue whether or not I'd been in the channel), it is the evidence on Wikipedia that matters, and to the best of my knowledge the evidence is uniformly that we would be better off if the channel went silent and stayed that way. GRBerry 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. (1) the channel exists, (2) its name suggests it's a part of wiki-en process, (3) the people who frequent and run the channel are Wikipedia admins, arbitrators, etc. The conclusion must be that the channel is indeed a part of English Wikipedia's process and as such needs to be described and regulated on the English Wikipedia. The page should go iff the channel is completely deormalized. Otherwise, the channel should be properly formalized, and the page should clearly define the authority of the community, the ArbCom, and Jimbo over the channel. Zocky | picture popups 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• How long do you think it will be until we get a page that "[...] clearly define[s] the authority of the community, the ArbCom, and Jimbo over the channel"? The page being unclear is what caused this problem. Given the problems the page has caused, isn't it better to move it, or reduce to a single paragraph in WP:IRC, until the limits of authority have been sorted out? Otherwise this whole thing will erupt again - progress of some sort (on the nature of the page, not the channel) needs to be kick-started, and this debate seems to be the best way so far (as opposed to, say, edit warring on the page, or going in circles on the talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter The channel is the source of the problems. You can't delete that with an MfD, so the outcome of this will change nothing. Mønobi 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  Deleting the page gets rid of the source of the on-wiki aspect of the disruption. The channel is in no ways an "official" channel, and it's pretty evident that it's impossible to solve issues with it on-wiki. --Coredesat 05:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Query: Is it the information someone wants deleted? Notability is scarcely an issue. I disapprove of accurate information being deleted anywhere at Wikipedia. If pages are to be "owned", may I put in a modest bid for Heracles? --Wetman (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with WP:IRC per all of the various reasons already stated many...many times above. The channel itself is a very good tool for administrative oversight...especially when quick second opinons are needed. However, there's no reason for this to exist as it is now, the information would be far better consolidated into the more obvious page. Trusilver 03:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If WMF wants the page to be owned by someone then they need to come out and say so. In the absence of an unambiguous statement from the Foundation, this page will continue to be seen by many in the community as an insult from an arrogant, self-appointed elite. --MediaMangler (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete We don't need a page on this IRC channel. WP:IRC says enough about it. Captain panda 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Captain Panda and many others. Risker (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page ownership

• Community ultimately decides ownership - I agree with Jooperscoopers, here. The community ultimately makes these decisions. Some pages the community own, some pages the community delegate to committees, like arbcom, or individuals like Raul et al and the FAC/FAR processes. Whoever owns the pages needs to be responsive to community concerns. That hasn't been the case with WP:WEA, and the process by which the page was created and owned was not clear. Start from scratch. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community ultimately decides ownership and should aim at a decision whether WP:WEA is a vanity page, policy page, or whatever else. And again, its fate is of little relevance, the real problem is the consequences of behavior on IRC, and the question of authority over the IRC channel. Kosebamse (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community ultimately decides ownership Absolutely. Everything here, from the simplest thing to the Board elections and the employees hired by the Foundation (Sue Gardner, Mike Godwin) to serve and work for the community are ultimately decided by the community either with on-Wiki process or board elections. It's preposterous for any page to be exempt from our core way of doing things. Lawrence § t/e 16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community ultimately decides ownership - Or "no pages are owned". That's why there is a "edit this page" tab at the top. I also echo Lawrence Cohen above. SGT Tex (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community determines what is and what is not policy for Wikipedians, and therefore the community decides what may and may not be at Wikipedia name space. There is no private ownership of any Wikipedia page. If a party wishes to make a private page, then that is for user space (and then subject to MfD). Utgard Loki (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community decides ownership per foundation issue #3. Ultimately, the community has the responsibility to determine the content of all pages, using the wiki process; sometimes we choose to delegate certain portions of this power to specific individuals or groups, like Arbcom or the Featured Article Director. *** Crotalus *** 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community decides ownership and so far I believe the community has trended towards the "no pages are owned" policy without exception, since the creation of Wikipedia from what I can tell. MBisanz ^talk 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Community decides ownership per MBisanz above (and I'll take the opportunity to sound a note, although not a strident one, of disagreement with Crotalus). Jouster  (whisper) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Foundation decides ownership ultimately the foundation owns the wikimedia servers and all the wikipedias. As a non profit foundation they have process they must follow and limitations in what they can and can't do and are mandated to do things like board elections where stakeholders (i.e. the community) elect them. But within that framework, they are ultimately the ones who decide what happens on any wikipedia. They have generally speaking, delegated most of their authority to the community and AFAIK have never conflicted with anything the community has decided by definte consensus. But there is an unwritten? rule IMHO that there are some areas we can never overide, everything on meta obviously and everything on here which should direct to meta e.g. the privacy policy, copyright rules etc. The arbitration committee is a community approved process. But it doesn't change the fact it's foundation directed and its decisions are considered binding. I see no evidence that the community feels we should overide the arbitration committee nor any evidence that the arbitration committee may necessarily decide they will overide any decision we reach (the arbitration committee usually follows community consensus if there is any). But if it does ever happen, the the arbitration committee is the ultimate authority until and unless the foundation decides they've overstepped the mark. The point is not that the the arbitration committee or foundation are likely to overide anything we do but that we should never forget that the foundation ultimately overides the community and the arbitration committee has the authority from the foundation to overide the community if there is ever an absolute need. In other words, I'm not saying that we can't make a decision here, all I'm saying is that if the arbitration committee feel it is necessary to overide us they do have that authority. N.B. In the very unlikely event we really do ever hit upon a constitutional crisis where the foundation decides one thing and the community decides another and the community feel the foundation are violating the framework of their non-profit organisation, then this will have to be decided by a court of law. But this is very, very unlikely to ever happen IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Community-Foundation issues should always be considered in the light of the relevant US laws (or local laws for the chapters), the Foundation's board elections, and the possibility of forking that is ever-present due to Wikimedia projects freely licensing their core products under the GFDL. I agree though, that in reality the community will usually follow the lead of the Foundation (though not always), and that the Foundation aims to (or should aim to) listen to and respond to the core concerns of the community. Most of the time, the community and the Foundation work in harmony, with the more complex issues usually arising from the above legal, electoral and licensing points. The key point is that the community needs the Foundation to actually run things, and the Foundation needs the community to do the detailed organising, writing and building of the individual projects. Neither can do without listening to and working with the other. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Ownership is complicated but is defacto decided by the community Ultimately, Jimbo and the foundation theoretically call the shots here, they own the servers and run the board. However, it is clearly in their interests to move with the consent of the community. Jimbo is not a Godking as often stated, he's more like a constitutional monarch, Royal Assent may theoretically be refused, but in practice never would because we might demand Regicide or revolution. I think that croatus is right above, in certain rare circumstances, it is useful for the community to provide itself with pages or tasks where ownership is delegated and restricted - arbcom decision pages, FAC promotion etc, - this is necessary for the efficient running of the place - however, such exceptions must be clearly announced and enjoy the consent of the community. Pages can never be owned because important people decide they are and 'forget' to tell anyone. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion status and venue

• Move to a discussion page. If discussion is meant then a discussion page (perhaps structured, or modeled on RFC) is more useful than MFD probably. The only discussion at MFD of any issue is "do we delete the page, yes/no". None of the other issues stated, usually get touched. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's rather procedural - we can surely discuss wherever we choose - is here any worse than anywhere else? I see this as a toe in the water. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza are examples of large MfD discussions. The idea is (or was) that MfDs get more attention. I'd support moving the debate at some point, but much like Categories for discussion, miscellaneous pages should really have somewhere to be discussed, rather than just have deletion considered. Marking something as "historical" is an oft proposed option at MfD. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Postpone - given that the arbcom has indicated that they will take control of these issues, deleting the page is premature. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Hold discussion here - MfD is as good a venue as any for this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Postpone per Phil _→AzaToth 17:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Hold discussion here The community doesn't need to technically delay this (again) in deference to Arbcom. If this page(s) doesn't survive this test, Arbcom can always make a controlled, sanctioned page later. Lawrence § t/e 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Discuss here and now: Why wouldn't we? If ArbCom is going to take control, then they can when they do. I don't see why we have to wait for Godot to arrive to determine community consensus. I know that I will die one day, but that doesn't mean I want to get buried now. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Discuss here, but postpone implementation pending an arbcom ruling making it moot. Nearly everything at Wikipedia is discussed on-wiki; indeed, even if you disagree with their decision, surely you find it as heartening as I do that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat exists as a way to recall and reference the discussions surrounding that contentious RfA, and we are not forced to rely on third-hand IRC or IM logs when we look to (re-)evaluate that decision. Our ability to discuss on-wiki, and, coupled with it, insofar as legally possible and practical, a prohibition on discussing off-wiki, should be one of our core values as a project. We have one of the greatest collaborative tools ever invented, and it lends itself perfectly to ideals of truth, honesty, and openness. Not to use it—and, indeed, not to use it when confronted with an issue where our ire is raised precisely because of the lack of implementation of those ideals—would be counterintuitive, foolhardy, and destructive beyond measure. Jouster  (whisper) 22:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Table discussion pending outcome of active arbitration case. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Continue discussion here, now. If Arbcom is interested in preempting it, that is their prerogative. But I wouldn't hold your breath; Godot has been gone an awfully long time. Nandesuka (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• discuss here - but won't the people who disagree not vote, if we're asking, at the MFD, whether it should be discussed at the MFD? —Random832 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point Random :-), this section was created to initially host FT2 objection - if eveyone had piled into here in the first couple of days, it would be clear this wasn't the forum for a debate, it's rather moot now. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• discuss here convene an RFC after arb case closes Let's hope some of the viewpoints voiced here might be useful to the arbs in their deliberations - but we need a full debate regarding IRC in the future. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other issues

• After reading this page, the Talk pages and community-editable pages over at the RFAr, and some portions of the involved parties' Talk pages, I'm torn as to whether to declare we have too many administrators and policy wonks, or not nearly enough. Either way, I want to take an opportunity to endorse arbitrary GodKing fiat, even if it goes against my views of what should be done here. It'd be nice to move on (and to condense my Watchlist by an order of magnitude). Jouster  (whisper) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cute reference, fond memories of that cartoon. I sometimes wish for a little bit of fiat to end the craziness, but what if it goes the wrong way? (Whichever way is wrong...) ^Avruchtalk 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

by definition, the way it goes is right. DGG (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If you still think there is an absolutely "right" answer at this point, you haven't been paying enough attention to the levels of hyperbole, paranoia, trolling, assumption of bad faith, accusations of cronyism and cabalism, baiting, citing of logical fallacies, incivility, process and policy wonkery, and just plain asshole-ish-ness that have characterized the arguments of people on both sides of this case (and yes, I know that constitutes an attack, but it's not a personal attack, it's an attack on how they're editing, and I'm just telling it like it is for the betterment of the Project, anyway). I just want a fiat to end this process so we can all move on. How many bytes of debate has this whole situation generated, and how many are in an average featured article? I know my watchlist is so full of edits related to the RFAr that my editing of articles and level of vandal-fighting has slacked off, and I doubt I'm the only one (I still haven't had an opportunity to use this shiny new "rollback" button, dammit!). Ah, well. At least I can tell people I got yelled at by Jimbo now. Jouster  (whisper) 06:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When Jimbo says something, its very rarely the end of the drama, it generally tends to get worse after that. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there is an answer that everyone will agree is right. That was sort of my point, I guess I wasn't clear. Its always the issue with governance by fiat - there is no right way, there is only the way. Thats why its generally better if we can figure stuff out alone, because when we ask Daddy to intervene everyone loses. ^Avruchtalk 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Channel ownership

• Community does not decide ownership, this is not a question for discussion. The IRC channel is obtained through Freenode. Freenode deals with free content projects, not with userbases and contributors. The existence of the channel thus exists because of contact between the Foundation and Freenode. Unless the WMF explicitly delegates control of the channel to the community, it is simply factually wrong to suggest that the community has control over the channel. They don't, as a basic matter of fact. At best the community could come to agree that they want to ask the Foundation to cede some control over the channel to them, but that is not something that can be done on a MfD. As long as the channel has a Foundation relationship, though, it is not meaningful to say that the community can set the policy for the channel. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the ownership in question is of 'pages' not IRC - that's a separate issue, feel free to start a new section if you want to discuss that. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If IRC is under Foundation control then the community does not have the authority to set policy on it. One may as well demand that the en community be able to create and maintain a policy page for the Foundation Wiki. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, the community may decide it wants an admin channel it can set policy on and so may create one - where there's a will there's a way. I'm pretty unconvinced by 'this is just impossible' arguments. I think your point is pretty moot giving jimbo's fiat though really - he thinks (and always did apparently) that he and Arbcom may have authority over the channel - if the channel owners aren't ok with that, perhaps we will have to look at another channel. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a channel could not be created via Freenode, by my understanding. And so this is a very, very theoretical proposition. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In a section about 'page ownership' :-) Joopercoopers (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Phil, you have missed the point. You are talking about the channel. We are talking about the page on en-wiki describing the channel. This debate is (or should be) limited to issues of page ownership and when it is acceptable to have pages describing off-wiki processes, and whether such pages can be 'owned' (and if so, when). That is an issue that en-Wikipedia is fully entitled to debate, and which has nothing to do with Freenode. Please, by all means create a section called "channel ownership", and move your comment and this thread there, but don't muddy the waters in this section titled "page ownership". Carcharoth (talk) 08:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the channel is controlled by James and David, and if the channel has a non-incidental relationship with the project then the page describing how the channel works is, ultimately, in control of the people who control how the channel works. That does not mean they have sole authority to edit it, but it does mean that they have the right to go "Ummm, no, that's just not true" and be listened to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Freenode deals with free content projects, not with userbases and contributors. - The contributors are the project, and freenode certainly does allow community-driven projects. Moreover, the foundation explicitly[2] does not have any involvement in the channels that exist now, and even if it did, freenode allows unofficial channels, starting with "##" rather than a single "#". And no-one said the new channel had to be on freenode. —Random832 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The contributors are not the project. It's a nice slogan, but it has no relationship with the truth. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• If tomorrow all contributors leave, where's the project? It's not a slogan, Sandifer, it's the damned truth, whether you like it or not. In fact, it's the only truth that really matters on this project. The sooner you deal with the fact that you can't shut the actual contributors up, just by commanding them to shut up, the better off you'll be. 24.182.64.206 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• If tomorrow the WMF shuts down and takes away the webservers, where's the project? The project is not the community. It is not unrelated to the community, but it is not the community. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would guess that someone, somewhere, would take a database dump of Wikipedia (there would probably be a good case, legally, under the GFDL, for forcing the WMF to provide an up-to-date database dump version) and, as is their right, restart Wikipedia. Only they would have to call it something different. And use a different logo. They could even use different policies to those the Foundation use. See here. As I've said elsewhere, the community needs the Foundation to get certain things done, and the Foundation needs a community to get certain things done. The Foundation has the alternative of getting a new community to edit the encyclopedia (and other projects), Nupedia is a good example of an attempt to use a different community. Citizendium is a more recent example. The community has the option of joining a different project, or setting up a competing project. The stuff that is truly free in all this is the content. At some point in the future, some encylopedia (or whatever it is called then) will inherit the work of many of these different models and projects, because at the end of the day all the Foundations and Editing Communities in the world are just a means to that end. Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• And that would result in a project. But that project would not be this project. This project is more than just the community. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• My point is that it is easier for the community to migrate, than it is for the Foundation to find a new community. Though having said that, the turnover of Wikipedia editors suggests that communities can be built and destroyed quite rapidly. Instances of migrations of communities are fairly common. Look at what happened to USENET and BBS and internet forums in general. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Fortunately, it also turns out there's no shortage of those with self-inflated egos willing to hang out on an IRC channel telling themselves how cool they are. So whichever way we go, everyone is replaceable. Nandesuka (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• If phil's point about the relationship between the foundation and freenode being the only one that matters, I think we need to get rid of the official irc program all together. if the community does not have a substantial say in how something related to en.wikipeida is run, it's not part of en.wikipeidia and should not be a) discussed here as if it does (the page should be deleted), and b) no action or decision can be taken based on 'consusus discussion' on irc. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The community has a substantial say. But so far they haven't said anything. They've just howled in generic rage without reference to, well, any actual objections or reason. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (e/c)b) no action or decision can be taken based on 'consusus discussion' on irc - I think its generally agreed upon both on wiki and on IRC (where doing things "per IRC" is a running joke) that doing things using IRC discussion as a substitute for on-wiki consensus is a Very Bad Idea. Mr.Z-man 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the simple and obvious fact than an owned page is contrary to the fundamental spirit and foundations of Wikipedia is enough to have this contraversial, troublesome and divisive page deleted. Giano (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the community is not the project is simply wrong. The community creates all content. The community elects and had final say over who sits on the Board. The Board grants special positions on the board itself, such as Jimbo's. The Board decides who to hire, like Sue Gardner, Mike Godwin, and Cary Bass. As the community has it in their power to completely scrub the board with a simple election or two, and in turn scrub all paid employees or any business relationships, the community is the project. It's absurd to claim otherwise. Lawrence § t/e 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closing and continuing discussions

Please see here for a comment on the MfD part of the closure. I don't want to say too much more there, in case it prejudices any decision. What I do want to say here is that the non-MfD parts of the discussion should probably be continued or archived somewhere else. Any ideas for suitable venues to continue/archive the sections above? Or should they be allowed to continue here for a bit? Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2008 (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.