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 possibly COI here (having signed the petition [although I opposed the Jan 2009 poll]), but I'm closing this. It's going to end up as a speedy keep anyway, and keeping it open is undue drama. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably disruptive canvassing. The authors of the petition have made it clear that this is not about Flagged protection and patrolled revisions. The petitioners apparently wish to derail the apparent community consensus to seek implementation of a customized Flagged Revisions system in favor of a naked FR implementation, and they have reverted any attempts to change the petition to more accurately reflect the community desires. There has also been significant resistance to allowing others to voice an "oppose" vote on the page. Parts of the discussions that are occurring on the talk page are fairly constructive, so it might be a good idea to move that somewhere, but the "front" of the petition is deceptive, and apparently an attempt at disruptive canvassing.--
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of full disclosure, I feel that it's important to state that I personally have serious reservations about Flagged Revisions/FPPR, which I brought up on the talk page. I think that the above statement is neutral, but I'm willing to change it if need be.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: per nom. URBAN-ANDY (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Pickbothmanlol. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Exactly what policy is this violating? You can't bloody delete a petition! This isn't an attempt to change consensus (flagged revisions have already been promised and consensus reached) or canvassing, merely an encouragement for the WMF to get a move on. Are you seriously suggesting that petitions shouldn't be allowed or just this one? The WMF has no obligation to listen to the petition, it's just a group of editors expressing their wish to change Wikipedia for what they think is the better; stopping people from doing that is ridiculous. If people are opposed to flagged revisions, they can set up a counter petition, but asking for this to be deleted is ridiculous. Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2009
• Speedy Keep — I was one of the editors who reverted the move and rewrite of the subject of the petition, but I was not one of the authors; that would be Doc. I restored things because the move/rewrite was not what I had signed and view the effort at recasting it as misguided. Jack Merridew 23:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  incidentally, I can easily change the "Author" noun to something else... I wasn't sure what else to use while writing this up, is all.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It is clear enough given our above comments. methinks it best not to refactor at this point. Jack Merridew 23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - if you don't agree with the wording, don't sign it. It does not mandate any policy, nor is it a community discussion of such. It is an attempt to do what Jimbo Wales suggested and to raise merry hell because nothing is happening. Policy has been, and will be again, discussed elsewhere.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - I'm not seeing the issue with the existence of the page. Jimbo signed it after all, so presumably he doesn't either. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Deletion is not the answer to anything without a problem. If it's a discussion you don't like, make your point and move on, don't delete it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Part of the issue here seems to be related to the fact that this page is being actively protected from becoming a discussion (see the page history). The normal "make your point and move on" dynamic has therefore been short-circuited. If some policy is required, simply for the discussion to occur, then I could add WP:CANVASS, WP:DEMOCRACY, WP:VOTE, or something similar to the nomination.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh? I see healthy discussion on the talk page, with 15 sections there already. I'm thinking you may be confused about what a petition is. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I know exactly what a petition is. Others clearly wonder what place a petition has on English Wikipedia however, which is a subject that was touched on even at the talk page of this project page. Personally I thought that a petition was a curious means to bring up this subject again, since it does directly contradict the norms here. The defensive reaction towards adjusting the document to make it more socially acceptable have essentially precipitated this nomination. I coudl easily turn this around as well, since I'm not aware of any policy based acceptance for petitions, and there seems to be policy which seriously discourages such activity.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:44, 18 December 2009 (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.