Wikipedia talk:Petition against IAR abuse/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What this is

If its contents can't be changed, how can I sign the petition? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What is this about?

IAR has existed for 8 years. Why the sudden uproar? Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The recent BLP controversy is what most likely sparked it. See these links for more information surrounding it:

-Killiondude (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is really about IAR. This seems more to be about BLP and admin discretion in the matter of BLP. IAR just got caught up in this messy business. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea that their campaign was within the bounds of admin discretion was only ret-conned onto the specific BLP dispute well after the event. IAR was very much their initial justification. MickMacNee (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck gaining consensus... for whatever it is you're attempting to gain consensus for. Oh, but you're not attempting that because it's a petition, so you aren't aiming for a percentage, just numbers. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't do petitions, so... I guess just have fun. :) Cheers. Lara 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No consensus is being sought for anything, just your pretty pink sig will do. Would shock a few people I'm sure. The party bags are on the right anyway, whether you sign or not. MickMacNee (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not entirely new. There were some low level debates a while back about how IAR applies to admin stuff rather than editing stuff. Never really went anywhere since there were no non theoretical issues.©Geni 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is this supposed to accomplish?

What is this petition supposed to accomplish? I see the banner. "no deadline, no target figure, no call for action and no intended recipient". That basically says this is pointless noise. I can't imaging that's what this is really about. So... what are you people trying to accomplish? Anyone who signs anything with such an unclear purpose seems to be lending their signature rather casually, IMNSHO. I'm certainly not about to put my name under something so ill-defined. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No ulterior motives, no obligation for you to sign if you don't want to...it is what it is, it says what it says. MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hard to believe this isn't about a particular incident. An WP:RFC (or WP:RFC/U if that's what's going on) would be more productive. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeking any action, and the viewpoint is a simple one, so I realy don't see what an RFC achieves any better. Yes of course it has its genesis in the recent BLP campaign, but I had noticed this behaviour in some admins long before that, and it can obviously keep on happening in future if or when that blows over. This petition is not targetted at any particular incident or user. It is about supporting a principle. It's up to others what they make of it, whether they ignore it or keep it in mind for future reference. MickMacNee (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You dogged repetition of the tautology "it is what it is" is not helping your case in my eyes. You seem to be very concerned about something, but you also refuse to explain what, or what you'd like done about it. If you don't want to accomplish anything, this would seem to be a pointless waste of resources. I, for one, would find it a lot easier to give you credibility if you explained yourself. You're free to ignore me, of course, but that would make this a vague petition that ignores people voicing concerns about it. That would seem rather hypocritical, given the wording of same petition. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, the point is giving admins, the ArbCom, etc. a nudge and a reminder on how to best deal with WP:IAR. No more, no less. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As an admin it is my duty to judge and use my special buttons to follow consensus. I am making it very clear right not that I will not be nudged in the slightest by any process that does not respect consensus. A petition is nothing more than one point of view that has been campaigned, that is not even close to recognisable as consensus. If you want to "nudge" and honest admin who follows consensus then you need to establish a consensus, not present a petition. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This won't show much unless...

This won't show much unless there is an opposing point of view. There is no way to tell how many people came to this page and did not agree with the premise of the petition, as such it is a bit one-sided. While this page make serve to allow individuals to show support for a viewpoint, it will not demonstrate what the community feels about it as only one side has been invited to the table. That is why we usually have discussion or polls instead of petitions. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We've had petitions about Flagged Revs, don't see why we shouldn't have one about this. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One bad idea does not justify another. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A number of people have pointed out a number of problems with both this current and the Flagged Rev's petitions. I think those would be reasons why we shouldn't have one about this. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't start the vogue for petitions, and for the ones that are pushing for policy changes or other actions such as FR, I made all the same points you just did about consensus and opposition viewpoints, with no response. People weren't even bothered about its factual innaccuracies and misuse and misrepresentation of a Jimbo quote. But this petition calls for no action or change, it doesn't even misuse a Jimbo quote to support it, so I honestly see no issue. There is nothing stopping anyone collecting names of those who don't agree, or half agree, or whatever. If you want to keep a tally of unsigned visitors, use this handy tool, and draw whatever conclusions you wish to do so. MickMacNee (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any policy can be abused

Any policy can be abused. This petition with no call for action has no reason for being. Lets make one up for every policy, because everyone should agree that abusing any policy is bad. --Onorem ♠Dil 23:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a petition that people don't violate policy at all? If we get enough signatures then all of the admins can retire as there will be no more problems. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"everyone should agree that abusing any policy is bad". Yes. Yes they should. And if everybody did, this petition would not have been created. But they didn't, so it was. MickMacNee (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Condemning" administrators

In addition to sharing the concerns expressed above by DragonHawk, Chillum and Onorem, I'll note that the condemnation of administrators themselves (as opposed to their actions) is an unfortunate choice of words that I could never get behind (and that, as noted above, cannot be changed without invalidating all of the signatures).
It would have been prudent to allow for discussion before going live with this, MickMacNee. I abhor IAR abuse, but I honestly don't see what you seek to accomplish. —David Levy 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrators are nothing more than their actions with the tools. Anything else is to do with them being editors. Condemning someone as an administrator says nothing about them as an editor, still less about them as a person. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of IAR is not an admin problem, it is something all groups of editors do. I don't think it fair to single out all admins because a couple of them did something that some people disagree with and arbcom approved it. You are painting with too broad a brush and it is tasting a bit of sour grapes.

If there is a serious proposal regarding IAR abuse that does not single out a group of editors and is not based on a single incident then I may consider discussion, though probably not in petition form. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Admins are able to cause far more disruption than non-admins, as the BLP case demonstrates. A few non-admins mass-CsD tagginf wouldn't have caused anything like as much drama. DuncanHill (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree, Duncan. To me, an administrator is a person, so condemning an administrator means condemning a person. There would have been no ambiguity if the statement had been worded to indicate that signatories condemned the actions in question. —David Levy 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should condemn the specific actions of certain administrators and not the admins themselves or everything they've ever done on Wikipedia, but I think that's semantic nitpicking really. I'm not going to refuse to sign a petition whose spirit and intention is so important, just because the wording might have been better. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think people are more upset that arbcom said it was okay, not what the admins did. Why not a petition against arbcom supporting IAR? Why is it the whole system being denounced when only a couple of individuals acted? Is the problem really with admins as a whole? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no hesitation in signing a petition calling for the removal of those Arbs who supported the motion. DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo supports the motion, should there be a petition calling for the removal of him? Woogee (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If he's supporting the action as an ordinary editor, that's his prerogative. If he's supporting in his capacity as founder/leader/god-king/person who hears appeals against Arbcom decisions/Lord High Everything-Else, he's out of order. And indeed, he's made it impossible for anyone to appeal the Arbcom decision by taking sides. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's personal feelings about his response, expressing an opinion when it is sought is not a wikicrime. Hypothetically, if Jimbo Wales were to use tools not available to others to impose his own will with flagrant disregard for established policy and community consensus, which is basically what we're objecting to here, then I don't think a coup would be out of the question. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Petitions are evil

These ill-advised petitions only address one side of an issue and violate WP:CONSENSUS, since there's no process to address those who oppose them. Woogee (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welsome to start a petition expressing opposition to this one. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly an efficient means of discussion, though. Someone who agrees with the petition's crux (but not every detail) is unlikely to author a counter-petition.

The instruction to line up if one agrees 100% with the author's precise, unilateral wording (and walk away if one doesn't) fails to gauge much of anything within the community. —David Levy 00:18/00:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people is the counter-petition. Nifboy (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's a forum in which editors are invited to express individual viewpoints. —David Levy 00:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As is this petition, except there's only one viewpoint. Nifboy (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, and that renders it considerably less useful (IMHO). —David Levy 02:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It gauges how many people support the statement - it's not rocket science. People are free to leave comments aswell if they don't agree 100%, it's a personal choice. There is nothing being decided or called for, so it cannot by definition violate CONSENSUS. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all of that. I don't understand what the community stands to gain from it.

When I wrote that this "fails to gauge much of anything within the community," I meant that it fails to gauge anything meaningful. —David Levy 00:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really have to. It's a simple petition. People can guage what they like from it. MickMacNee (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but people also can opine that it's a waste of time and effort.

Please keep in mind that I share your concerns regarding IAR abuse. I just don't see this petition as a constructive endeavor. —David Levy 02:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This "one viewpoint only" system seems contrary to our system of consensus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Militancy"

“

We the undersigned, condemn in the strongest possible terms, any administrator that invokes IAR as an excuse for using their tools as a form of militancy or activism on Wikipedia.

”

"Militancy"... really? This is just too hyperbolic to take seriously, almost approaching our legal counsel's well-known law. Militants blow up buildings and cut people's heads off; they don't click buttons on a website. This really ought to be toned down. Fran Rogers (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, well... some of us cut people's heads off too. >_> Lara 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no problem with that, as long as you keep that hobby off-line. Just don't do it on Wikipedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"mil·i·tant (ml-tnt)

adj. 1. Fighting or warring. 2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist." The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition

No points for telling where the hyperbole in this thread is. Skomorokh 02:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of us well remember Militant Tendency, who used a combination of entryist tactics and direct disruption in an attempt to impose their own policy positions on the Labour Party. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure people have got enough brains to be able to judge what the word "militancy" is referring to in the frame of reference, and are not likely to assume I am accusing some admins of suicide bombings or something. MickMacNee (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What a waste to go through the stress of RFA just to blow yourself up in "martyrdom". Srsly. Lara 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think that we are dealing with Wikipedia's very own Militant tendency. DuncanHill (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody tell Lara that Millie Tant is not a living person. Her lack of references could be teminal. MickMacNee (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course you're not accusing admins of suicide bombings. -_- I'm just saying that the hyperbole is over-the-top. Choosing to label your opposition "warlike" is equating a minor squabble on a website with a battleground - just fanning the flames further. Fran Rogers (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole is always over the top, that's why it's called hyperbole. It is a legitimate literary and oratorical device, though tastes do differ. That said, the first meaning that sprang to my mind when I read the word militancy in the petition was its usage in British politics of the 70s and 80s, to which I think the parallel is good. DuncanHill (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another petition

Please see my petition, which you'll surely sign if you aren't a horrible person who condones abuse. —David Levy 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Skewer the damn cats & eat 'em. My favorite part of The Book of Eli. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close (or, Petition against petitions on Wikipedia)

Let us ignore for a moment the leading nature of this petition ("IAR as an excuse", "form of militancy"), its general nature and lack of context, the fact that it has no "intended recipient", the absence of a "call for action", and the absence of an effective means to discuss and reach a consensus to address the concerns that have been raised... or we could, you know, discuss.

Though it is easy and tempting to counter needless drama with even more pointless drama, I dare to suggest that this approach is not only unproductive but also counterproductive. For the children (and the kittens too), please let us avoid an orgy of bureaucracy, stem the tide of petitions and counter-petitions, and close this "petition"—by tagging it as a page retained for {{historical}} value or redirecting it to one of the ongoing discussions about the latest BLP deletion fiasco. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The only people causing drama are the people who, for whatever reason, want this petition gone. It breaks no rules or regulations, and does no harm. This isn't about BLPs specifically, or any particular current event, so your suggestion to go and discuss in another venue is rather pointless. If you want the concept of petitions outlawed generally, go and gather consensus somewhere else in the normal way, but there is already plenty of precedent for them - and that stems from prior petitions that had some rather glaring faults and drama potential - factual errors and misleading statements, attempted end-runs around the Foundation's rights, and attempts to write policy even. Nothing of the kind is present here, so as they say, where's the beef? of your actual motion to mark this as historical. MickMacNee (talk)

I tend to agree, MickMacNee. As I stated at this petition, it would be a fallacy to think that such a thing would have any real power to impact policy, other than raising awareness. It would also be a fallacy to assume that trying such a tactic would do anything but hinder one's goals. I think the petition is good, as it will raise awareness of the issue, but I believe that any real changes will have to be worked out at the policy's talk page. I wonder, however, in both the interest of awareness and NPOV, should a section be provided for "against" signatures as well? Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What some people don't seem to understand is, this petition is not calling for anything, let alone a specific change. There is nothing to notionally oppose, just don't sign if you don't agree. If you added an 'against' column, it would become a poll, just a really bad one, because it isn't asking a question or making a proposal. People are even pushing back on the concept of 'oppose' sections in Requests for Comments, so I've no idea why they are needed here. NPOV is for articles anyway, people can be as POV as they like in project space, CIVIL and SOAP notwithstanding. Maybe we need a variant of the essay template for petitions. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That really is part of the problem. Good discussion and action would be beneficial to Wikipedia. This petition is just more static drowning out the noise, having no real goal in mind. I probably agree with you on admin activism and BLP issues, my objection is that this form of... whatever it is, it thoroughly unproductive in an area where we need productivity. Less heat, more light please. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether its productive is entirely subjective. It isn't anything more unproductive than being a form of essay that people can sign. MickMacNee (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Who would oppose condemning invocation of IAR "as an excuse for using their tools as a form of militancy or activism on Wikipedia"? (emphasis added) Or perhaps the better question to ask is: Who would publicly voice their opposition to that? ;) –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, my "beef", as they say, is that I believe that this petition, and petitions in general, do cause harm by undermining the consensus-building process. Petitions can unnecessarily polarize an issue and divert time and energy away from discussion to what is essentially vote-casting.

And while this petition may not be about BLPs specifically, the timing of its creation and the content of the comments all strongly suggest that the petitions existence is not independent of the recent BLP-related deletions. If you insist that the petition is related only to the use of IAR by administrators, then I still can point to relevant venues for discussion: Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia talk:Administrators. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, your points seems to be generally against the use of petitions in all forms. That discussion can happen elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. As a rule, petitions are not entirely open-ended, with no intended recipient, and no call for action. You're right that I dislike the idea of petitions on Wikipedia in general, but I take even greater issue with a "petition" that is designed like this. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly welcome a productive discussion on the subject, but a petition is nothing more than one point of view being campaigned. If we are seeking both the truth of what the community thinks and to expand through discussion our opinions on this subject then this petition is not only useless but counter productive. Lets have debate instead of campaigning or we will be stuck with words like "militant" in our final opinion instead of a statement that was honed through intelligent discussion. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said I was seeking the truth or wanting a discussion? You can do all that yourself, the existence of this petition isn't stopping you. MickMacNee (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That really is the problem, instead of getting to the heart of the matter, we are just indulging whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. It is all heat and no light. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a long tradition on Wikipedia of seeking to prevent editors actually declaring their beliefs, a tradition which I think is unhelpful not just to editors but much more importantly to readers (who are infinitely more important than editors, let alone admins). Readers need to know "where are coming from" if they are to read Wikipedia critically. The attempts at suppression of the information readers need for this tends, I believe, both to embed subtle POV problems and to play into the hands of those who are "Wikipedia True Believer", that is, those who think "The Project (TM)" is more important than the encyclopaedia. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that we ask that discussions be productive, but we really encourage people to express their beliefs. What we object to is the presentation of beliefs without a good forum for the presentation of opposing points of view. In other words we favour debate over campaigning. I have already said that I support discussion and even action on this matter, my objection is to the one-sided nature in which it is presented. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Campaigning encourages debate. This petition does nothing to prevent or impede debate. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Y'all make some very good points. Mick is correct, in that had I read the opening statement closer, I'd have realized that there is no goal here. Black Falcon is correct, in that this is similar to creating a petition for, say ... world peace. It may turn a few heads, (and I see nothing wrong with that), my point is that in the end this will really accomplish nothing. People are most likely to put their names on one of these and walk away, feeling that their civic duty is done. Others may be attracted to a real concern and actually open or join a discussion. Personally, I feel that had there been a specific issue to address, that it would be better handled on the policy's talk page, or a discussion forum such as WP:Areas for Reform. Zaereth (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we appear to be discussing the usefulness of petitions as a whole here, I might as well add my 2 cents: wikipetitions are basically a form of civil protest. No, there is no specific proposal on the table, nor is there a specific hoped for outcome. Rather, there is a statement being made, a sort of "unreasonable shit has happened, and the system as a whole has failed". Perhaps others will turn there heads, realize the flaws in the system and propose fixes (to an extent this is already happening in the BLP-RFC). Perhaps arbs will think twice before commending out-of-process admin actions taken w/o consensus. And perhaps not. But if one does not try to raise his voice, one won't know. And if that voice is civil and not disruptive, then there is no reason to silence it. Rami R 01:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that arbcom is allowed to go against consensus. From m:Foundation issues: "Maintaining room for fiat to help resolve particularly difficult problems. By convention, Jimbo Wales and later Arbitration Committees retain certain authority on the English Wikipedia (and other wikis set up similar frameworks) -- to make binding, final decisions such as banning an editor."

We only have consensus rule because the foundation says so, the reality is that we are ran by fiat and this fiat chooses to allow consensus to manage in its absence. If you read the actual legal non-profit society papers you will see it is clear that the foundation and their appointees(arbcom) are in charge. Protesting on Wikipedia won't have much effect on that, perhaps if it made the news... Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Then they need to stop selling the lie of operating by discussion and consensus. I'd rather they just came out and said honestly "Fuck consensus, fuck the community, this is the way you will do things", and deleted all the projectspace pages that imply anything else. DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

They are not lying, it is there in their principals that I linked to. What you call "fuck consensus" they call "arbcom". To their credit they do a fine job most of the time. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I will also say that if the foundation, or its extension arbcom wants to be more cautious about BLP than the community does then that is fine and well, it is after all you who carry the legal liability. But I do agree with Duncan that if that is your stance then just publicly state so. Waiting for admins to do something that exceeds consensus and then endorsing it is far more disruptive to the community than simply invoking your authority to make it so. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose closure. The petition makes me feel good. Re: "Fuck consensus, fuck the community" Would someone please inform me on my talk page when the orgy starts. Thanks! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose closure. I have not signed the petition, but this thread should make it obvious why the petition should not be closed. Pcap ping 09:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

template you can add to your user and talk page

Be it known that {{BASEPAGENAME}} has signed the Petition against Ignore All Rules abuse.

Just add: {{Subst:User:Ikip/iar}}

Whatever your feelings about flagged revisions, the flagged revisions petition established:

there should be no oppose section, all comments beyond signing the petition go to the talk page.
there is no such thing as "bad" canvassing in a petition. Petitions are not like AFD's, RFA's etc.
editors can add links to this petition in their signatures. This has actually been done numerous times, by several admins and an arbitrator.

Ikip 00:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Background

On January 20, administrators Rdm2376, Lar, and Scott MacDonald, deleted over 400 unsourced biographies of living persons articles with a promise to delete 50,000 more. Rdm2376 was blocked three times, Coffee reverted the block.

Scott MacDonald wrote that he holds "Community consensus" in "utter contempt".^[1]

A Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread was opened. An arbitration opened the arbitrators gave the three administrators amnesty, and ask the community to open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people to let the community decide if 50,000 articles should be deleted with no previous discussion.

Coffee was blocked for editing a protected page, Coffee protested, stating: "The "communities view" doesn't really matter in this case, ArbCom passed a rather simple motion that everyone has pretty much interpreted the same way...There's no reason to delay adding it to that policy, other than plain and simple policy wonkery, which I will not tolerate."^[2] As of this writing, a new request for an arbitration committee case has been opened about Coffee's behavior.

All editors are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Ikip 01:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

But this extends beyond where it originated from. Simply south (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate, and I will add this....If you are talking about flagged revisions, blp problems etc. you are welcome to expand that here, but I think my starting point is adequate. Ikip 01:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the petition is being driven by the wider principle rather than this specific case and bringing it up explicity is unhelpful.©Geni 02:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment for the others, but my signing the petition is in opposition to the position of some admins that they can ignore consensus when they think it is right. It came up now because of people deleting unsourced BLPs; perhaps in a few months we will have deleted many thousands of such articles in accordance with community consensus to do so and another administrator will "ignore all rules" and restore them. I would oppose such an action for the same reasons. Ucucha 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If two more editors who feel like bringing this up is unhelpful, without anyone saying it is helpful, I will remove this section. Thanks. Ikip 04:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you don't like ignoring the rules, but do you really need to be creating a new one that only applies to this one section of this one talk page? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes ikip, i was meaning that despite what area or discussion this may have originated, the whole implication and from what i have seen in the past doesn't mean just in the BLP discussions but across Wikipedia itself. I think though it is interesting to see the background so to what was the final spark to this is\was. Simply south (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Question. Is there a centralized place where those first 400 deleted articles are being addressed? -- Banjeboi 10:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Central place were all 400 articles are being examined

Per Ben's question:

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/BLP

Also: Wikipedia_talk:ARS#Lists_of_articles_deleted provides different lists, with categories, google cache links, etc.

To request an article be undeleted so you can work on it: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Restoration_of_articles

Ikip 05:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Great petition, I'm deleighted to endorse it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This should be renamed: Petition against Anarchy and Tyranny. I'm sure everyone would sign. ;) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Moved from the petition page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose WP:IAR is one of the WP:Five pillars; WP:CONSENSUS obviously is not. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

actually pillar 4 says "Find consensus". Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And this petition is not against IAR - it's against abusing it. Regards So Why 13:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing most people (indeed everyone) is against abusing it. That's why I'm supporting it, although I'm not sure it is neccessary. Arbcom deals with any abuse quite adequately.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent events would challenge that view, imnsho. Reso lute 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your milage may vary. But I view this petition perfectly to be perfectly consistant with arbcom's actions, and indeed my own.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is about people disagreeing with what a few admins did who used IAR as an excuse. IAR is only barely involved and only because its name was invoked. This is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue of BLP and administrative discretion. IAR is just the whipping boy for this particular scandal, it is like blaming the hammer because some fool broke something with it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you moving our comments MickMacNee, I don't appreciate you doing it a second time after I reverted you asking you not to. I am not going to edit war with you. You don't really have the right to remove opposing points of view from a page you created. Citing the reason "it is a petition" is no excuse for not giving equal ground to opposing points of view, "this is Wikipedia" where you don't own the pages you created. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the last time I was asked to sign a petition, in the street as it happens but could just as easily been on-line, there wasn’t a column on there for “disagree”. The whole point of the petition is to gather support. If you want to oppose, create a counter-petition, raise concerns on the talk page or politely stay away from it.Leaky Caldron 17:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the fundamental principals of Wikipedia is that opposing opinions are always welcome. Being a petition does not excuse this page from that. If someone wants to make a one-sided forum then they can rent a web space. You can't just decide to use a format that does not welcome opposing points of view here and then point to that format as justification for sweeping opposing points of view under the rug. Wikipedia welcomes opposing points of view. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I though I had already replied once?. Anyway, give me five minutes, and I'll turn this redlink WP:PETITION into a blue one, then you can say all you want about the nature of petitions on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a petition. A petition, by definition, is adressed to somebody and is asking them to do something. I can't see what this is. It looks like a statement of opinion, in which case discussing or objecting to it is really quite proper.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By whose definition? You've never seen an open ended petition before? MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By definition petitions petition someone.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It petitions the community in general and admins in particular. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work that out. DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not as it stands it doesn't. It just makes a statement, rather like one might find on an RfC. No big issue really, I can't imagine anyone opposing something so obvious. These are principles that I'd hope all users always adhere to.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with Scott MacDonald about what constitutes IAR abuse because it's clear we're never going to agree on that one. I still believe in the principles of fairness and free speech, and since as far as I'm aware we have no established protocol here for petitions, there are no "rules" to ignore. If editors want an "oppose" section on the petition page, I say go for it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Contains Mild Peril and Chillum above. I strongly agree with the proposal, but it seems quite reasonable to have an oppose section. Please put it back in the page. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a proposal, it's a petition. If people 'oppose' it, they either simply don't sign it, come and express their opposition here, or fill in the redlink below. Anything else, and this ceases to be a petition. This is not counter to the principles of free speech, this is just common sense. MickMacNee (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Petition in favour of IAR abuse DuncanHill (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ha, When did you stop beating your wife?. Precisely, no one is in favour of abuse. Hence, everyone can sign a petition against it. I don't believe I've ever abused IAR, and trust I never will.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  - Mr. Macdonald, if you are going to use logical fallicies, please use them correctly: "Loaded question, also known as complex question, presupposition, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy." Where was the question here? Ikip 01:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  - If you are unhappy with the specific wording of the current petition, then either discuss it here or make a better one yourself. But people calling for an oppose section on the petition itself seem to me to be opposing the idea that abuse of IAR is a bad thing. I won't comment here on your behaviour as an admin Scott. DuncanHill (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  - "believe" being the operative word. You signed it, but in my eyes, your reason for doing so quite obviously contradicts the petition statement. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    - You opinion of my actions varies from mine. However, I fully support the wording of the petition and always have. Anyone who is opposing it shoudl think again.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
      - I am curious to see if you will live up to your belief, or if you will abuse IAR to overrule ArbCom in the fashion you threatened on the WR posting you later edited. It seems patently obvious Doc that you aren't particularly interested anyone's time line but your own. Given that you are already impatient for more of your preferred style of action, it remains to be seen whether your words and your intentions coincide. Reso lute 23:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        I have never failed to live up to it. My £prefered style of action£ is to used agreed processes. I hope very much that's what we are able to do in the current situation - agree a process and use it to solve the outstanding problem. I'm fairly impatient for that to happen (if you count waiting three years as impatience). Overrule arbcom? No. I have much respect for arbcom. I've suspended use of speedy deletion at their suggestion, in the hope we can solve this in other ways.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        Well, obviously I remain skeptical. I don't want to turn this into yet another page debating the BLP issue specifically, but I will state that your impatience is not a virtue at this point. You are someone with the influence and ability to keep this ball rolling, even if the process becomes bogged down at times. And it will. You simply can't have something this massive roll smoothly from start to finish. Threats like you made on WR do not help one bit. Even Jimbo preaches the reality that cleaning up the mess will take time. A process will evolve out of this, of that I have no doubt. But it is your decision on whether to say "sod the community" or to help lead it. Reso lute 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      - Your rationale for signing varies not only from mine, but every single signatory that gave a rationale before you, and there must be over 60 that did. No, you, and the attendent WR chorus line, do not fully support the statement as written, certainly not the parts about community and consensus, and even while signing it at this late stage, you are still trying to justify your minority viewpoint on the general idea of what IAR is and is not for with some subtle, and in Lar's case not so subtle, dissenting rationales. This would be fine, there is obviously nothing wrong with being in a principled minority, (although please, not with admin tools you are minded to use as part of that minority), but when you also say things like "Whatever justification they mayor may not have been for recent admin action, future speedies are regarded as unjustifiable when a proper timed process has been agreed by the community", not so coincidentally about your own proposal, then I think an altogether different picture of your philosophy emerges. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        I read the text of the petition, and I did not view it as being inconsistant with my views. I wouldn't presume to know what all the other 60 signatures before me thought. You say "every single one of them" has a different rationale from me. Maybe, maybe not. All we can say is that they agreed with the text of the petition, as I did. Beyond that, their rationales and interpretations will no doubt vary. Probably most will have rationales that differ somewhat from mine, but neither you not I can know that. I'd rather speak only for myself, and not assume the rationales of others.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
        You've addmitted to "trolling Micmacnee very successfully" on IRC. I think that brings matters to a conclusion.©Geni 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        LOL. I genuinely didn't see this before I wrote 'quit yanking me' in the below post. MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        
        (ec)Somebody must have redefined what the word 'community' means around here then if you agree with it all. This is obviously false, and you and your views of IAR are patently not on the same page as anybody who signed before you. That doesn't take guesswork or inferrence, it's clear from their own words compared to your own recent statements and actions. In short, quit yanking me. MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        Whatever. It is not clear to me. Some no doubt do interpret this differently from me. Others have given no rationale, so I don't know. I sometimes wish I had your self-confidence. Anyway, I stand by my endorsement, and by my recent actions, which hadn't really anything to do with IAR anyway. Reflecting back, there is not need to invoke it at all here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        IAR was one of many reasons given before the arbom retcon came down, the justifications pretty much changed hour by hour depending on who was objecting and to which rampager, because in essence, your real reasons couldn't in all good sense be said out loud, even though they often slipped out anyway. That's the beauty of the wiki, it's all there, who said what when and why. Makes reflection, accurate reflection, much much easier. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        You misunderstand reflection. Reflection is about considering things with the benefit of hindsight, and changing your mind a little as to the significance. The deletions broke no "rule" so invoking IAR isn't neccessary. We all serve the project and its aims (or we bugger off) - consensus is naturally important, and indeed is the best method for serving the aims. But we're not an experiment in democracy - thus consensus is not of the first order, and never has been. We're an encyclopedia with certain core policies that are not negotiable - even with conensus. If consensus isn't serving policy objectives, then we ignore consensus until it does. In the current case, I absolutely agree that a way forward by consensus is absolutely, unquestionably the best way. Doing it other than by demonstratable consensus is second-best, regrettable and to be avoided if at all possible. So we make every effort to get consensus and more forward together. But forward we must move - and sometimes that takes WP:BOLD leadership. That principle isn't ignoring the rules, it is the rules, and always has been. To follow conensus blindly would, indeed, be to ignore all the rules on which this project is based, and indeed would be a clear and inpermissable abuse of IAR.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        Well, yes, there's another serious issue, that this farcical rampage was somehow a form of 'leadership'. A good leader would actually have a plan that recognises the core objective in his plan of action, not simply declare that in three years he has failed to persuade anyone to do anything and then start shooting anybody and everybody. You simultaneously broke no rules, and a hundred rules, because of the shifting sands that is your idea of what is and is not a consensus backed policy or not, depending on what is important to you or not. CSD is a policy for example. There are no 'inviolate' core policies, except the 'you are not the leader' one, and the office crap. Everything here was decided by consensus, even the holy church of BLP. Everything else you mention in 'reflection' is pretty much just lifted from the retcon theme, its certainly not of your own divination. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is simply about giving all points of view a fair hearing. If you don't want all points of view expressed then perhaps such things would be better placed in user space. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions_petition that established everything you see here. Scott MacDonald can always create Wikipedia:Petition in favour of IAR abuse, opposing this. Ikip 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would I want to do that. I am against IAR abuse, and have no trouble supporting this petition.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I see why you, Lar, Coffee, and Jack get along so well, the same sense of "humor" Ikip 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have humour not humor. But I'm serious here. Why would I want to support abuse? When did you stop beating your wife?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Macdonald, if you are going to use logical fallacies, please use them correctly: "Loaded question, also known as complex question, presupposition, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy." Where was the question here? Ikip 01:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What day did you stop having "utter contempt" for "community consensus" and decided to stop "drama" and "disruption" Your words, not mine. What was it, two days after you were writing articles and soliciting consensus? Your revisionists history rings so hollow 6 days after your "disruption". Maybe in 2 years, when wikipedia has half the contributors it does now, because of the behavior of editors who want to delete 17,500 editors articles, people will believe your version of history, but not know. Ikip 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The continual suggestion that anyone who opposes this petition condones IAR abuse illustrates the need to allow the expression of actual opposition on the page of prominence.

MickMacNee's more reasonable suggestion that realistic criticisms of the petition (e.g. of its specific wording) be expressed via other petitions ignores the impracticality of such a measure (a separate petition for each viewpoint, no matter how slight the difference) and excludes those of us objecting to the idea of using a petition for this purpose.

I ask that MickMacNee please explain why he wishes to bar opposing viewpoints from the petition page. Citing the conventional format of a petition (as though a wiki shares its limitations and is bound by them) and "precedent" (as though the fact that something has occurred before automatically means that it's a good idea and cannot be reconsidered) is insufficient.

For the record, I'll reiterate that I share the underlying concerns on which this petition is based, and I also will note that I opposed its deletion (which I believe would have been counterproductive). This is why the "with us or against us" format frustrates me. —David Levy 00:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am done explaining what petitions are here. If you want to argue why there should be some special arrangements for wikipetitions in general, that's why I created Wikipedia:Petitions, for centralised wikipetition policy making. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're "done explaining what petitions are here" (i.e. repeating over and over again that something must be done a certain way because it's done a certain way), as this has failed to convey whatever benefit to the wiki you apparently believe exists but refuse to elucidate.

I reject the assertion that you're entitled by default to create a Wikipedia page on which only people who agree with you are permitted to express their opinions, with the onus on others to establish a new policy to the contrary. —David Levy 03:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Well said. Nobody can claim WP:OWNership of this page.

I repeat myself again, see Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions_petition that established everything you see here. Ikip 01:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And I repeat that the fact that something has occurred before does not automatically mean that it's a good idea and cannot be reconsidered.

As I've requested of MickMacNee above, I ask that you please explain how the wiki benefits from the disallowance of opposing viewpoints on the primary page. "That's how these are done" (scare quotes) doesn't suffice. —David Levy 01:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I will laugh when the flagged revision editors argue this. You ask a question, I gave you an answer, you labeled my question. It appears there is simply no answer which will suffice. Have fun. Ikip 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

An answer that actually explains the benefit[s] to the wiki (instead of citing precedent) would suffice, even if I disagree.

Please just tell me why we're better off without opposition permitted on the primary page.

If you wish to cite specific arguments from Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions petition that you regard as applicable to this petition, please do so. —David Levy 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I respond >> you argue >> I respond >> you argue. Not enjoyable, or productive for me. The text is all there. I will ask User:WereSpielChequers to respond here, if he wishes, he created the petition I believe. Ikip 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What text? What am I looking for? Why won't you tell me?

Alternatively, why can't you just explain how the disallowance of opposing viewpoints on the primary page benefits the wiki? All that I'm getting from your responses is "that's how it was done before" (scare quotes again). If you mean something beyond that, it isn't coming across. I'm sincerely attempting to understand. —David Levy 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I simply thought this was too vague and aimless to accomplish anything productive. But I find MickMacNee's persistent attempts to move dissenting opinion off the project page to be out-of-line. If something can't admit to discussion, disagreement, other opinions, then it has no place on Wikipedia. I find it highly hypocritical to create a petition calling for better regard of consensus and community discussion, but then attempt to disarm any dissent or objections. Is this for real, or just an exercise in WP:POINT? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. As an admin I will wholly disregard the outcome of any process that does not embrace consensus, so if you are trying to make a point then point not made. Create a proper discussion where all points of view are welcome and then admins will take notice of the result. If a "petition" does not accept contrary points of view(regardless of what you call it) then it is just scribbling on the bathroom walls. For starters it would help if it was not worded along the lines of "Admit that beating your wife is bad", ie it should not be presented in such a manner where there is already a presumption of guilt. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't really consider this petition an attempt at changing process or policy, but rather, an attempt at enlightening people as to the community's frustration with IAR being used to defend unilateral actions that do not necessarily improve the encyclopedia. It is, at most, a friendly reminder that just because we have IAR does not mean we should use it without first considering the consequences. Reso lute 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it is not really a petition if it is not, you know, petitioning someone to do something. I have no problem with people expressing frustration, it is the complete avoidance of the real issues coupled with the refusal to allow contrary points of view that is the problem. If it was in userspace I could see this, but this is Wikipedia project space. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This petition has an oppose section: Wikipedia:Petition against kitten abuse. It does not seemed to have done it any harm. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ab-use of this rule is un-possible

It's impossible to ab-use or even mis-use WP:IAR; the sole conceit required is that such intentional ignorance of the rules is for the furtherance of the overall WP:5P goal of improving the encyclopedia. Declaring an "ab-use" suggests that there is some other rule which supersedes ignoring all rules, which is quite the logical conundrum. -- Kendrick7^talk

Objections

Oppose WP:IAR is one of the WP:Five pillars; WP:CONSENSUS obviously is not. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
actually pillar 4 says "Find consensus". Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
And this petition is not against IAR - it's against abusing it. Regards So Why 13:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing most people (indeed everyone) is against abusing it. That's why I'm supporting it, although I'm not sure it is neccessary. Arbcom deals with any abuse quite adequately.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Recent events would challenge that view, imnsho. Reso lute 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Your milage may vary. But I view this petition perfectly to be perfectly consistant with arbcom's actions, and indeed my own.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is about people disagreeing with what a few admins did who used IAR as an excuse. IAR is only barely involved and only because its name was invoked. This is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue of BLP and administrative discretion. IAR is just the whipping boy for this particular scandal, it is like blaming the hammer because some fool broke something with it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose drawing anything (conclusion, "support", etc.) from this "petition". After behavior and comments on the corresponding talk page, I have to come to believe this is primarily about WP:POINT-making and drama-mongering. While I have concerns with anything that disregards consensus, this isn't a viable vehicle for addressing that. The ends do not justify the means. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe that MickMacNee is acting in good faith, and I share the underlying concerns on which this petition is based. However, I regard the wording as unfortunate and unacceptable, and I don't see how anything constructive can result from this poorly defined endeavor (which, as MickMacNee openly acknowledges, lacks specific goals). —David Levy 03:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I don't really see this as a "bad faith" thing; more like "misaimed" combined with localized wiki-dissonance. I don't think MickMacNee is acting with malicious intent, but I do think they have let their emotions cloud their thinking on this issue. (Happens to the best of us, myself included.) Unfortunately, this page suffers as a result. We all know about using good intentions as a paving material. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Arbcom's already given it's opinion, policy supports removal of any information not referenced in Bio's.

Move on and build the encyclopedia. BTW - in response to the template created above, here's mine: Over here _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged Revision Petition

Now if Scott MacDonald and Jack Merridew want the Flagged Revision Petition to have an oppose section, we can add one here.

Scott MacDonald: "rm, start your own petition" (removing oppose section by Gurch) 23:07, 17 December 2009.[3]
Mr.Z-man "petitions don't have an oppose section. This isn't another vote on FR, its a statement to the foundation" 19:28, 17 December 2009.[4]
Scott MacDonald: "That's what petitions are. They are a list of those who wish to request something. This is not a poll." [5] Ikip 04:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Scott MacDonald: "rm, start a different petition if you want, elsewhere" (reverting Pedro) 20:51, 17 December 2009.[6]
Jack Merridew "move to talk page; don't clutter the petition, please" 20:34, 21 December 2009.[7]
Jack Merridew removed link to other project. 01:30, 22 December 2009.[8]
Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions_petition#Opposed moved opposes from talk page.
Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions_petition#Opposition_petition_Wikipedia:Petition_Opposing_Flagged_Revisions moved opposed links to talk page.

Ikip 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip: (1) An occurrence on one page does not policy make. Just because something happened somewhere doesn't mean it has to happen that way everywhere. (2) Consensus can change. (3) The opposition on the flagged revisions petition page consisted of opposition to flagged revisions. The opposition here consists of opposition to the "petition" itself. • If you have counter-arguments -- in particular, for #3 -- please explain. I'm willing to listen to original ideas, but if all you are going to do is point to the flagged rev's petition, that fails to convince me (and others, obviously). —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One demonstration of ownership does not justify another. I was taught that at a young age (not about ownership, but about the whole two wrongs not making a right thing). Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support all petitions having an opposition section, start a RFC here, and we can gauge community consensus on this. I will support this RFC. I just want consistency in process. Ikip 15:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip: That seems fair. I think the RFC would be off-topic here. Can you do me a favor, and check out WP:PETHARM, and comment as you see fit? If you've got objections or counter-points, feel free to add them. After a short incubation, I'll post an RFC there. Thanks —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support, and this may be a crazy idea, instead of petitions we could have discussions where ideas are debated and a consensus is formed. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow Chillum, that is a ground breaking idea--how did you come up with it? you deserve a barnstar :)

MickMacNee was rebuffed and reverted several times on the flagged revisions page, so he only wants consistency. I think the proposal will be so snowball support.

The result would be to:

WP:Flagged Revision Petition: merge the oppose petion and restore the oppose section of flagged revisions together.
add back the oppose section on this petition.

Ikip 16:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Petitions considered harmful

The more I think about this, the more I realize how dysfunctional (from a Wikipedia standpoint) petitions are. So I did what every Wikipedian does in such cases -- I wrote an essay. Wikipedia:Petitions considered harmful. Comments, improvements, and counterpoint arguments are welcome. Discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:Petitions considered harmful, not here, unless it's directly bearing on this petition. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, the real dysfunction is we have 1200+ unsorted essays. Is there a Wikiproject:Essays? I'm tempted to start it! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Essay Categorization and/or Classification. I've seen their activity on my watchlist recently. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest closing this petition on the same day the RfC closes (Feb 1, I believe). It's getting tail-eatingly navel-gazingly weird. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an open ended petition. It is not exclusively tied to the Rfc. MickMacNee (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Dealing with petitions
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deadline

Is there a set deadline when this closes and be put forward? Simply south (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Close? Put forward? To whom? It's an open petition that reflects that a significant number of the community does not support abuse of a certain policy. It is by definition addressed to everyone who does so and does neither require a deadline nor a close. Regards So Why 12:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As suggested at the VP thread, a petition is by definition something that is calling for some sort of action.

This page could perhaps be retitled as an "open letter against IAR abuse", or something similar, if it is desired that it remain open-to-signature-additions indefinitely. That seems to make logical/practical sense?

I think it should be either retitled or closed-at-some-point. I have no strong preference for which, atm.

(Complicating matters, is that the BLP issue that this started in response to, has moved on. I'm not going to postulate on how it should effect what we do here, as that's probably too subjective for everyone to agree on.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

And i've stated above that thius is not just about BLP matters. Simply south (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but do you have any useful replies for the questions/suggestions from SoWhy and myself? -- Quiddity (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.