Difference between revisions of "Requests for Comment/Community Disputed Wiki Closures"

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Support: ce-fix indentation per established conventions)
Tag: 2017 source edit
(+ close)
Tag: 2017 source edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
  +
:The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  +
::This proposal is a [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]] idea and well articulated; however, procedurally, this is a curious combination of being a mix of the status quo and, thus, largely, but not necessarily wholly, procedurally duplicative. There seems to be some confusion with regard to the [[Stewards|Steward]] convention, which I learned of prior to my becoming a [[Stewards|Steward]], at [[requests for adoption]] whereby manually closed wikis are generally ineligible for adoption at [[requests for adoption]]. ''Generally'' being the key, operative word. My understanding is that convention developed over the years to deal with requests to reopen manually closed wikis after there some was a general agreement or decision having been made, ideally on-wiki somewhere, from the wiki's recently active contributors to close the wiki. At the same time, it likely developed to deal with private or largely very personal wikis not specifically addressed in [[Dormancy Policy|policy]]. In any case, the convention actually exists to ''ensure'' closure decisions are done with community input having been given due consideration, not to otherwise pre-empt that process. So, in other words, there seems to be a misunderstanding in the thinking that manually closed wikis were not ever eligible for adoption or that Dormancy Policy could be upended merely by manually closing a wiki. Generally speaking, when wikis are manually closed, there is always some sort of agreement, whether implicit or explicit, to close the wiki, so there is no issue, but assuming this RfC was brought about in reference to <code>[[mh:freshwebsites|freshwebsiteswiki]]</code> and <code>[[mh:rottenwebsites|rottenwebsiteswiki]]</code>, since that was quite clearly ''not'' the case here, it is reasonable for a [[Stewards|Steward]] to reopen the wiki, as has been done in [[Special:Redirect/logid/638501|both]] [[Special:Redirect/logid/638502|cases]], an update for which will be shared shortly at [[stewards' noticeboard]]. As an aside, the whole [[requests for adoption]] process is actually itself not codified in the Dormancy Policy; rather, it is the mechanism by which [[Stewards]] have reopened wikis and granted rights in accordance with such wikis closed in accordance with Dormancy Policy. We're looking at replacing that process with a '''Request to reopen wikis''' process, and where rights are required, a local discussion would then follow. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 04:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  +
----
 
Given the recent incidents on 'Qualitpedia' wikis, I'd like to hard code a policy preventing wikis being closed without community consensus and allow the community to stage a steward backed 'coup' if one happens.
 
Given the recent incidents on 'Qualitpedia' wikis, I'd like to hard code a policy preventing wikis being closed without community consensus and allow the community to stage a steward backed 'coup' if one happens.
   
Line 34: Line 38:
   
 
== Neutral ==
 
== Neutral ==
  +
 
== Oppose ==
 
== Oppose ==
 
# {{oppose}} on the basis that this seeks to achieve little. The proposal seeks to create a policy that is already in place without any undue mis-interpretation. This seeks to codify the fact the community are able to decide what the community wishes to happen with a wiki, and seeks to enforce Stewards into enforcing such a decision - something codified already at [[Stewards]]. Whether this policy passes or fails has no material impact on the effective functioning of the global community as any community member can open such a discussion already, garner the consensus and Stewards must enforce it. Further, this is written seemingly as an instrument and not a policy therefore passing this wouldn't create a policy, but create a procedural precedent that the community can re-open a wiki if consensus exists, something that happens already. Therefore, I oppose procedurally until this takes the form of a policy and not an instrument. A few other unaddressed queries:
 
# {{oppose}} on the basis that this seeks to achieve little. The proposal seeks to create a policy that is already in place without any undue mis-interpretation. This seeks to codify the fact the community are able to decide what the community wishes to happen with a wiki, and seeks to enforce Stewards into enforcing such a decision - something codified already at [[Stewards]]. Whether this policy passes or fails has no material impact on the effective functioning of the global community as any community member can open such a discussion already, garner the consensus and Stewards must enforce it. Further, this is written seemingly as an instrument and not a policy therefore passing this wouldn't create a policy, but create a procedural precedent that the community can re-open a wiki if consensus exists, something that happens already. Therefore, I oppose procedurally until this takes the form of a policy and not an instrument. A few other unaddressed queries:
Line 54: Line 59:
   
 
== Comments ==
 
== Comments ==
  +
----
  +
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section </div>

Latest revision as of 04:27, 30 August 2021