Requests for comment/User:SPQRobin

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. The action of SPQRobin was within his discretion. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


User conduct User:SPQRobin[edit]

As a member of langcom, the user chooses to ignore the currently valid policy on proposals for closing projects; instead of closing invalid proposals and proposals that are against policy, user reopens them and thereby encourages what the new policy was supposed to prevent. Should a user who refuses or is unwilling to adhere to current policy remain a member of langcom? Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

notified

This is quite surprising. The only relevant policy states "However, in the event that a LangCom member considers a discussion harmful, with no reasonable possibility of a decision to close the wiki, the member may close the discussion immediately. (...) Any other responsible WMF user, not affiliated with the wiki proposed for closure, may also close a discussion considered disruptive, for stated cause, pending review, and it should not be re-opened except by a LangCom member." I do not consider a proposal that does not fully meet the policy as "harmful" or "disruptive". Therefore, being a LangCom member, I re-opened the proposal. SPQRobin (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It is harmful, and you are encouraging it. I was part of writing the new policy (as you might recall), and the purpose of the policy was precisely to prevent these sort of proposals. What you are doing is telling everybody "Ah, well, we have a policy, but if you feel like ignoring it and dropping in some unfounded stuff, you can do that anyways."
Yes, I am questioning your judgement. If you cannot see that it is harmful to let people ignore policy then you should not be part of this. Alternatively, you can delete the policy entirely. What you should not do ignore one part of it, and then come back and slap the other part into my face. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about which proposals you are talking about? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This is in reaction to Robin's re-opening of the Buryat-closure proposal. The new policy explicitly states that inactivity or present absence of users are not valid reasons for making a proposal. Robin seems to think that the policy can just as well be damned, and we should all go back to the nilly-willy that reigned before it. Seb az86556 (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The policy grants that a committee member "may re-open it if that member finds the discussion to be of value". This gives committee members broad discretion to exercise their judgment in favor of allowing discussion to continue. In this case, frankly, I don't see much value in the discussion myself, but I do value the proposition that a committee member can veto hasty closures – it safeguards open deliberation.

    If there is disagreement about interpretation or application of the policy then it may be appropriate to have an RFC for clarifying the policy with respect to what is considered harmful or valuable. I don't see anything in this incident that I would consider misconduct on the part of SPQRobin. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    • Obviously, I do. This RfC is to find out whether a user who is unfit or unwilling to make proper judgement-calls should remain a member of langcom. Seb az86556 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • We shouldn't assume this user is "unfit or unwilling to make proper judgement-calls". It would be more appropriate to use this RfC to find out if that is or isn't the case. Mathonius (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I am not assuming, I am saying. Feel free to disagree. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't think your question can be answered if people disagree with your premise that SPQRobin's judgement-calls are improper. Mathonius (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Obviously Seb. Reiterating the same point does not advance the discussion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • This is not a "request for discussion". Seb az86556 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Robin did the right thing. The discussion is useful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This whole page is silly. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC