Requests for comment/User:SPQRobin

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. The action of SPQRobin was within his discretion. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Can you be more specific about which proposals you are talking about? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]