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 discussion was keep (NAC) Sceptre ^(talk) 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self explanatory -- Majorly ^talk 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, grow up Majorly.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering tasting your own medicine Doc. Majorly ^talk 02:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as creator for now. Delete if it becomes less than useful. If the community can comment on our confidence in our arbiters without drama, that would be a good thing. DepartedUser (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (Come on, Majorly. I think we mostly agree on the underlying facts, but seriously?) Anyways, as I see this page as premature and pretty unhelpful right now, I say delete. SDJ 02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Despite the pointy nomination, the page does appear to be maintaining a certain level of userfulness currently. Therefore, I think it's worth keeping, at least for now. SDJ 15:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the poll is terribly misguided, and I suspect many others will. But we can record that opinion on the poll. If this is deleted all we will get is the silly accusation that some "cabal" opposed the "people" opining. Better to demonstrate that the "people" may actually hate the idea of the poll, and that it may just be a disaffected "cabal" in support. Archive it in a few days when it becomes inactive, but there's no reason to delete. --Scott Mac (Doc) 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a drama-magnet in the midst of a situation filled with plenty of drama as is. Leaving it up to prove a point? I don't think that's a good idea, Doc. SDJ 02:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fed up giving whiners and trolls reasons to shout paranoid accusations about evil cabals. There's drama either way -indeed this debate is also pointless drama. Let's just ignore it all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I would question why we care about trolls enough to give them a forum such as this. This page, frankly, stretches WP:AGF to its limits. Resolute 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep expression is no bad thing, no matter how painful that which is expressed may be GTD 02:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scott Mac's initial comment. --B (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - per Scott's intelligent comments. Suggest a good hard slap for a badfaith MfD, which is especially funny coming from someone who was saying how important the page was... // roux   03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, drama for drama's sake. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. All those whining about drama are the ones creating it. People were saying the poll was a waste of time, so I MFD it. Now they want to keep it. There's no pleasing some people. And it's the same old people every time. Majorly ^talk 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Decisions decisions (sigh) - tough this, OTOH WP ain't censored, OTOH it could be construed as a fair bit disruptive (or constructive). Certainly a structured format for feedback is better than a mass of text. My opinion would be swayed by the character of the exchanges that ensue - if they descend into acrimony, then I'd be thinking delete, if constructive keep. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikipedia Review. I'm sure it would fit right in there. CIreland (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many sitting Arbs and Arbs-elect are over there, sadly! GTD 03:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not enough, I think you mean. WR couldn't have made this up even if it tried. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Popularity contest and invite the winners onto the float for the homecoming court. Durova^Charge! 03:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote for funniest comment of this MfD. So far. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you trying to turn this contest of miscellanea about the popularity contest into a comedy contest? If so, I might have to MfD this page as an abuse of MfD! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to;
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Lynching or
  • Wikipedia:China Syndrome

  Jeers, Jack Merridew 14:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mind-bogglingly stupid, the whole of it as well as each individual part. Self-explanatory, really. --Cyde Weys 04:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a magnet for trolling and disruption of ArbCom's mission. Even if you disagree with members of the ArbCom, this is not going to be a productive forum for voicing those concerns. It is basically an invitation to post unsupported ad hominem attacks against the ArbCom, and serves little purpose towards actually improving the workings of said body. A phenomenally bad idea all around. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the proper forum? Right now, I think if there were a serious straight up or down vote on whether or not we should get rid of arbcom completely, it would have approximately the same chances as Rod Blagojevich. It may be that no particular solution will ever gain consensus, because, as always on Wikipedia, perfect is the enemy of good enough, but I think we've reached a point where not having arbcom at all would be an improvement over what we have now. --B (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needed today as never before. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if they can't handle a bit of feedback then they lack the appropriate temperament to remain on ArbCom. - Mark 05:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A village pump subpage seems perfectly acceptable to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doubt it will be used for good helpful purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If they can't stand the heat, stay off the arbcom. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People complain about a kangaroo court, then create a lynch mob. Well done, people! This is going to turn into a giant fucking drama fest and do absolutely NO GOOD. We get the point: some people don't like the current ArbCom. So next year, you run for it if you don't like it. Lobby Jimbo to change the way we do this dispute resolution. Put angry banners on your user pages. But for christ's sake, STOP THE DRAMA. And to those who are claiming that the ArbCom has no confidence in the community, stop talking for everyone else, while we're at it. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and block the person who nominated it for deletion. Bstone (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Attack page. The point of Wikipedia isn't talking about Wikipedians. Create an RfC if there's a specific problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For good or ill, some opinions were recorded. Deletion would make the opinions actually more important than they currently are in a fairly obscure page. In fact, even raising this MfD would seem to increase the importance of those opinions, which, I suspect, was quite contrary to the intent of the nominator. Collect (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but make clear that it is an opinion matter only and has no binding effect. Timing was, however, poor. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page serves no use. It has no power to keep or remove administrators; it is a source of continued wiki-drama and wiki-stupidity of which there is already enough, it is potentially an attack page and any use it might have could easily be had through already existing venues. It is exactly this kind of garbage that breeds the on-going hostilities around here. It's time to grow up people and get back to writing the encyclopedia. JodyB _talk 13:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a stupid and useless piece of kvetching and an open invitation to the many users who have been justly sanctioned to continue to pretend that it is everybody else who is wrong / to blame / evil / POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Waste of time as it actually serves no purpose but for certain members of WR to invade Wikipedia in an almost "official" looking manner. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - How else do we give sitting arbs feedback? The two who were re-running this year were soundly defeated. That should have given the rest of them an idea about how the community feels, but judging by at least one of their actions since then, it didn't take hold. Keep the page so that the arbs can see that they are screwing up. Tex (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a good bit of fly-paper for drama. Protonk (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even the person who nominated the apge for deletion has been taking part on it both before and after the deletion. DOesn't strike me as very self-explanatory.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Not probably the best way to handle such feedback. I'd prefer a more discussion oriented form. But it isn't a bad idea at all. And even if it isn't such a great idea it is pretty harmless. None of the delete arguments are persuasive. The most interesting argument is that made by Guy that this will be a magnet for people who have had run-ins with the ArbCom. If so other people will presumably make up for it by saying that they do in fact support the current arbitrators. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needed. Does not cause drama, it causes DISCUSSION which is very GOOD for wikipedia.--Patton123 16:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As of right now, the only drama coming from this is by those trying to get rid of it. If it leads to drama later on, then we can talk. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless someone sends me a bottle of Jack Daniels, in which case, delete, smerge, or whatever you like, I won't be in a position to care.--Alf ^melmac 18:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Conversations need to happen, and deleting the page will not delete the discussion-- it will just relocate it somewhere else. But if people want to talk about potential alterations to the project, you can't stop that process with a delete keep. Delete this, and you just legitimize other forums as the only vaid placeses these sorts of meta-discussions could occur-- and that would be a bad thing to do. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we can't have these things on-wiki we just prove those right who think these things should be taking place off-wiki. I wholeheartedly disagree with the purpose of this page but the best way to encourage more review sites is to censor discussions on-wiki. Remember what happened during the non-admin rollback idiocy? You shut this one down and another will just appear instead and before you know it the whole thing is out of control. Have you learned nothing? EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe give it it's own page (instead of a subpage) and make it a formal WP page like WP:ANI and the like. (Judging by the ratio of keep vs. delete votes one would think this is a moratorium on christmas!) Kevin Baas^talk 19:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the Arbitration Committee and Jimmy Wales serve at the pleasure of the Wikipedia community of editors. rootology (C)(T) 19:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.