Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:29, 13 February 2015

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 29 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 27 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 95 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 75 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 65 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 57 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Seraphimblade 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 22 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 10 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 108 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 74 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 45 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 14 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Review of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)

• I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
  • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
  • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
  • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
  • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.

Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Misplaced Pages. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her

I would like a review for this closing. I just don't think it reflects consensus at all, but would like others to review it.Casprings (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a fair close for the question "is Breitbart.com a reliable source for that statement?" However, there doesn't seem to be consensus for actually including Shapiro's statement in the article, which is somewhat at odds with "...yes it's appropriate to include that source in the way that it's currently included in the article." in the RfC closing statement. The close does not address the issue of WP:DUEWEIGHT; It merely assesses the question of reliability. My Facebook page would be a reliable source for my opinion, but unless secondary sources took note, I doubt it would make its way into a Misplaced Pages article. By the way, I do not eat children. - MrX 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I read over the RfC, the close, and the previous talk page discussion S Marshall linked to in the close, and... it looks like a perfectly reasonable close to me. 28bytes (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know enough to endorse or not endorse, but the close looks basically within discretion. I'd make two points, though. The question asked was narrower than appears to have been called for. I'll AGF, but note that this can sometimes indicate an RFC question that is not made in perfect good faith. If I had closed this, I would, therefore, have declined to reward the question with an answer about whether the material can or should be included in the article. I would probably have instead invited further discussion. There are pros and cons to this. My approach might end up prolonging the dispute. S Marshall's approach might risk interpreting answers to a very specific question too broadly (i.e. some editors may not have considered the wider issues, because they were not asked to). However, skimming the responses, I'm not sure this is actually the case. Secondly, the close appears to recognise that the source being discussed is controversial and should be attributed. I'm not very familiar with the source, so I make no judgement on this. However, being unfamiliar with the source, I'm not sure whether the words "writing for Breitbart.com" would alert me to whatever it is I need to be taking into account. Perhaps a brief characterisation of Breitbart is also needed, but this is not really mandated by the discussion. So, if I had closed this, the fact that there were issues with the source to which the discussion did not provide answers would have been a further reason for me to invite further discussion. I'm really offering these comments for S Marshall to consider and feel free to ignore - they should not be interpreted as an overturn vote. Like I said, it looks within discretion to me. Formerip (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Just to say that I'm aware of this discussion. The disputed wording is the stable version, or at least was in the article at the time of the October 2014 RfC which considered it. This is also at RSN and DRN, by the way. I'm happy to be overturned if editors feel I've made a mistake here.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Opinions are always citable as opinions." So if I find a statement on anyone's facebook page that compares the president to a Nazi, I can now include it in Misplaced Pages articles so long as I attribute it to the facebook account? I didn't think WP was set up to just past everyone's opinions where ever you wanted so long as you attributed them.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The key difference here is between verifiability (is there reason to be absolutely certain that this is person x's FB page) on one hand and notability and WEIGHT. Why should anyone care what person x's opinion on the president may be, and if we do find it notable, where should it be (it's more likely to belong on person x's bio than on the president's). Guettarda (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The hypothetical assumes the facebook page belongs to the person who said it. But, you admit there are other WP policies that apply and the statement "Opinions are always citable as opinions." is not true or sufficient. For example, WP:ABOUTSELF says that self published sources, like facebook, can't make contentious claims about others and have a whole myriad of restrictions on their use. So do you agree that those policies apply to attributed opinions from a self-published source just like weight and notability?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's true, but not sufficient. And we should always prioritise secondary sources over primary ones. Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You say what's true? That "Opinions are always citable as opinions," or that other WP policies apply to attributed opinions as well? Please look at the policies and questions described and give a direct and succinct answer. If opinions are always citable as opinions, then there are no other policies relevant and any opinion can be cited so long as it's attributed. However, if other policies have to be met, like with the facebook "president=nazi" example, then opinions are NOT always citable as opinions and have to meet other WP standards.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Actually WP:BLP is the policy invoked when any notable source calls a living person a "Nazi" - and it is not the fact that it is an "opinion" in that event, and as noted Facebook is exceedingly rarely usable as a source for anything at all. For material salient to an article and allowed under policy, opinions are always citable as opinions, and are not allowed to be cited as "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice. In any event, the material does not impinge on WP:BLP in the manner some seemed to suggest, and the closure was certainly within normal discretionary limits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reaffirming that there are WP policies that have to be met before citing an opinion.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The close doesn't reflect consensus and misinterprets a previous RFC as the basis for its rational. The previous RFC mainly asked if Breitbart.com is reliable for its own opinion and was allowable with regards to a review by Christian Toto. The closer agreed with that it was reliable for its own opinion but didn't address the issue of allow-ability. However, the closer admitted that the inclusion Breitbart.com into the article is an entirely separate issue here . So this close completely misinterprets the previous RFC to try to apply it to whether the Shapiro quote should be in the article. The close also ignored the BLP issues of Shapiro's quote and the issues of weight.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The close was proper and the RFC was presumably constructed the way it was to address the specific policy claims being cited to object to the segment, as the first one was. VictorD7 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with VictorD7 that the close was proper. Atsme☯ 00:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A Radical Suggestion

There have been too many RFCs and WP:AN threads about this article. Usually when there are too many WP:ANI threads about a topic, they indicate that there is battleground editing, and that it will eventually have to go to ArbCom. However, I don't see battleground editing, just a lot of questions where everyone is acting in good faith but getting nowhere. I would suggest that formal mediation at WP:RFM is the next step for this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's important to bear in mind how unimportant this article is. It made it into the news, it's something that people are worked up about now, but give it a year and things will look very different. I still remember how the Expelled article, at its height, was 20% longer than it currently is and had spawned 2 or 3 daughter articles. Now, few people would care if it was trimmed back to half its length, and no one has written anything new on the topic in more than half a decade. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mediation can not overturn an RfC close as far as I can tell, and a significant number of "declines" at the RfM are already noted. Sorry. Collect (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would take the view that a mediator can overturn the close of a content RfC such as this one, if that's warranted. Formal mediation is a higher stage in the content dispute resolution process than an informal RfC. However, I don't think a mediator could overturn something like an RfC/U.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Restored from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268 for further discussion and assessment by an uninvolved editor. It would be unfair to S Marshall (talk · contribs) and the discussion's participants if this closure review is allowed to be archived without resolution. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - if an RfC can be overturned that easily, why waste time doing it? Just skip the process all together and take it to formal mediation. Perhaps we need to exert equally as much energy into changing the wording of some core contents policies to avoid the confusion. ARBCOM and AE are beginning to look like a traffic jam. Atsme☯ 00:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• Affirm I don't know why this was unachieved. We are so very far from consensus that this closure was improper. The best you could say was the RfC was too narrow for inclusion of the Shaprio quote as there were other issues then if it was a reliable source or not. Still given the contentious nature of Brietbart it makes sense that this was the RfC question (as some people were using it's contentious nature to mean it should not be included). Now that it is resolved that it is a reliable source (if attributed), then we don't have to deal with those claims anymore. --Obsidi (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Affirm close noting appeals of closes should present policy-based arguments that the close was improper, and no evidence is educed that the close was improper. Collect (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of close of RfC at Griffin article

• Short version:

Please review the RfC response and the close, and the implementing edit made by the closer. I tried to discuss with the closer, and that went no where.

The RfC was focused on whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE.

In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC.

The close did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the reasoning provided in the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

The close is going to be important to subsequent DR efforts on the page and I was looking for a more thoughtful close reasoning, that considered the range of views, and considered BLP and PSCI in light of each other. Instead, we basically got one admin's view.

• Long version:

I know this is a bit long; please take a minute to bear with me.

Nyttend kindly responded to a request to close the RfC at Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#RfC:_.22conspiracy_theorist.22_in_first_sentence. The question was whether to name Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence. The issues are at the intersection of WP:BLP and WP:PSCI (conspiracy theories are generally in the realm of PSCI and fringe, and the intersection is discussed at WP:BLPFRINGE. In my view there are live, interesting questions here and anybody who treats the issues as cut and dry, on either side of the issue, is really missing the boat.

I am contesting the close itself, as well as Nyttend's edit to implement the close. I discussed it with Nyttend and I don't think he has heard me (he hasn't responded to my actual objections), so here we are.

This is a troubled article - it has been protected twice, in quick succession, for edit warring. There are strong views on whether/how to describe Griffin as a "conspiracy theorist" and how to discuss his medical views. We need to move carefully and conservatively in editing it. I am trying to work DR carefully to keep us out of AE, but we may end up there.

I've been trying to work DR in bite-size pieces. We were able to agree, during full protection, on modifying the infobox, and that compromise was implemented by an admin.

The RfC was narrowly tailored to discuss just the first sentence of the article. The RfC was well publicized, and we got a good (not great) range of thoughtful input from editors not already involved in the article. I was very interested to have the community weigh in, and to get a close that thoughtfully weighed the tension between BLP and PSCI, and that took into account what the community had to say about that, with respect to the issue at hand. The close will be important for resolving subsequent content issues that we still need to work through.

The close was to take "conspiracy theorist" out of the lead. The reasoning was based on "conspiracy theorist" being derogatory. In the implementing edit, Nyttend rewrote the entire lead.

I have two main objections:

1) In the edit implementing the close, Nyytend rewrote the entire lead, going beyond the scope of the RfC and ruining the careful effort to work DR slowly and bite-by-bite. I asked Nyttend to change his edit to only deal with the first sentence, and he declined, saying that: "If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories." I pointed out that the RfC was limited to the first sentence, but he was not hearing that. He believes his edit to be solid. I don't. I think he is well intentioned but he is not honoring the RfC. The edit short-circuits/forecloses our efforts to work through the content issues and doesn't respect the perspective of several editors, which include involved admins.

2) In the close itself (which you can see in the link above), as well as subsequent comments on the article Talk page]] (at this section, and in discussion on my talk page (in response to my query on his talk page), Nyttend cited the view of a minority of respondents, that the term itself is derogatory; he didn't cite the many (and persuasive) arguments that it was UNDUE to name Griffin that way in the first sentence (in light of the rest of the lead), and Nyttend didn't cite or discuss any of the arguments made to keep "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence, which are not without grounds in policy. The close reasoning did not reflect the actual response to the RfC, nor the complexities of how BLP intersects with PSCI. The issues are not cut and dry here.

In the discussions afterward, it became clear to me that Nyttend came in with clear views on the issue, and that he relied primarily on his own interpretation of PAG in doing the close, and in implementing it. He was unaware that most of the !votes were in favor of keeping "conspiracy theorist" (I know that !vote count is not determinative but it should be considered), and made it clear that he was unfamiliar with the PSCI shortcut to the part of NPOV that deals with fringe/pseudoscience in content in WP. (it is not bad to be unaware of things, but it is bad to close an RfC where PSCI is so central and to be that unfamiliar with it).

Again, this first RfC is going to be important to further DR efforts, and its lack of grounding in what folks actually said at the RfC, and in what PSCI and BLP say, are going to warp those further DR efforts.

I am not at all opposed to taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence (good arguments were made for that). I think the close was flawed and the implementing edit was definitely over-reaching, and will create big headaches for the rest of the work we have to do.

Please review the close and implementing edit. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (edited to make it clear that I don't disagree with the conclusion of the close, but I feel that the reasoning presented in the close didn't reflect the full response to the RfC nor the complexities of the policies involved and will cause problems going forward Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC))

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I would take issue with the close, because it seems to be saying that if material can be shown to be derogatory then the game is up because we will never include derogatory material in the first sentence or lead of an article. But I can think of comparable examples where consensus has been to include such derogatory material (David Icke, David Irving) so, for me, the close doesn't quite add up. On the other hand, I don't think it can easily be argued that the close should have been "yes". It could easily have been "no consensus", but there would have been no practical difference, because in that case the derogatory material should also have been excluded. So, I endorse the close just because there is nothing to be gained from overturning it. I can see the argument that the closer went beyond the scope of the RfC in their implementation of the result. However, the implementation of the close is not part of the close, so I would say that here is, strictly speaking, not the place to examine it. If a consensus on the implementation develops here, then fair enough, but otherwise it might instead be brought up on the article talk page, not for the closer to defend their actions but to test whether consensus supports them. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. In writing the above, I hadn't twigged that there might be additional issues involved to do with use of tools. In that case, yes this is is the right venue for discussing the implementation. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments. I have looked carefully at the RfC and at the subsequent edits and discussions about the close, and I can see arguments on both sides of what is not a black-and-white case. About the most basic part of the RfC close, I think that it is reasonable for Nyttend to have concluded that the outcome was to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead sentence, based on the discussion that occurred. So I do not see a good reason to overturn that. I also think that the subsequent edit warring over the description, near the end of the lead section, of the subject's theory that the scientific establishment is in a conspiracy to suppress his fringe medical advice could have been avoided by simply looking for compromise language. Why not call it, instead, a "discredited theory"? But we are not here to discuss content. I think that there were multiple significant errors in the use of administrative tools in the close. Unlike Formerip, it seems to me that because this is AN, the use of those tools needs to be discussed along with the close itself.
  • The explanations given for the close demonstrate a disturbing lack of understanding of NPOV, BLP, and other important policies.
    • At Jytdog's talk page, Nyttend said: "We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents". There is nothing in NPOV or BLP that would give BLP subjects and their supporters that kind of veto power over content. If there were, then we would have to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whereas it is reasonable to take the "conspiracy theorist" label out of the lead sentence, it does not follow that it has to be taken out of the entire page.
    • The longstanding consensus reached at the ArbCom Pseudoscience case says that obvious or generously recognized pseudoscience can and should be identified as such on our pages. And Jytdog is correct to cite WP:BLPFRINGE (to which I might add WP:VALID). (This is a conspiracy theory about pseudoscience, so please no wikilawyering about the RfC not having been about pseudoscience.)
  • As Jytdog correctly says, the RfC was carefully worded to be about only the lead sentence. Furthermore, a reading of the RfC comments makes clear that several editors specifically drew a distinction between the lead sentence and the rest of the lead section. There was no consensus that could be drawn about the rest of the page, after the first sentence. The closing administrator could in theory extend the application of the close to more of the page, if policy so required, but policy did not require that.
  • After Nyttend full-protected the page, appropriately, to stop edit warring, he then made an edit restoring the page to his preferred version: . An administrator editing through full protection is exercising a serious responsibility, because it is something that the rest of us are prevented from doing. Again, doing so could be justified when there are overriding policy concerns (such as BLP violations). But policy did not require this edit, and Nyttend knew by this time that the edit was controversial. Also, there is a longstanding consensus that full-protection is not supposed to be used to protect the "right" version of a page.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would myself endorse the decision of closure, because most of the uninvolved members who had participated in this Rfc actually disagreed with the inclusion that was being discussed. VandVictory (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• I don't see grounds for overturning the closure; although I think it violates WP:NPOV not to call him a conspiracy theorist or, at least, a supporter of conspiracy theories, in the first sentence, there are arguments in favor of exclusion, although I probably would have disputed the close if I had been active. However, the edit whitewashing the lead is not even consistent with the close; it is clear that there are no potential arguments to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead entirely.

  I hadn't noticed that he edited <strikie>through protection to restore his preferred version. That would normally be grounds for an immediate block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  I admit to tagging the article through protection; but something needed to be done to indicate that the status is solely Nyttend's opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  Apparently, protection was on for less than a minute. Still, Nyttend's edit-warring to restore his own revision, not consistent with his close, was not "proper". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it was set for 24 hours it looks like as it expired today, but it was implemented yesterday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: IMO the page protection issue is a red herring. It was done to stop edit warring and very short term. This said, there is now a proposed lede re-write on the article talk page which is subject to on-going improvement. I posit that some tweaks will make it acceptable to all, thereby rendering this review moot. – S. Rich (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view the proposal to rewrite the lead is premature. I'd like us to wait to see the results of this review. We need to go slow, bite-size. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If this ANI plays out, what will we have? I see three possibilities: 1, The closing is endorsed. 2. The closing is overturned and a new closing is implemented. 3. The closing is overturned and the RFC is opened up for a new closing. With Number 1 the OP does not accomplish much. (The present version becomes the accepted (for now) consensus version.) Number 2 is unlikely because it entails one admin overturning another admin's decision. (Not a rare event, and the closing was done in a non-admin context. But unlikely.) Number 3 entails a continuation of the drama. In the meantime we are moving forward with a discussion to improve the lede on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think reviewing the closure would be helpful for you folks there. The main problem that I think people were hoping to see as Jytdog mentioned was where WP:PSCI fits into play here. The main result of going outside of the scope of the RfC and the use of admin tools at least has been fixed, but the actual closure seems to be something worth looking into. How we deal with fringe topics seems to not have been addressed in the closure, and Nyytend appears to not be familiar with PSCI policy within NPOV based on some conversations mentioned here, which appears to have lead to only a partial understanding of the discussion. A common problem I see in the article is that people cite BLP for removing "derogatory" content, but have trouble with PSCI where valid criticisms of fringe topics (i.e. psuedoscience, conspiracy theory, etc.) stay regardless of being perceived as negative (NPOV doesn't mean non-negative content). The RfC should have been closed with both policies in mind, but the benefit from revisiting the close would help orient future discussion about the tone to take in handling both policies going forward. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - just to be super (maybe too) clear about what i am after here. I am looking for a restatement of the close, that takes into account what responders actually said and that deals with both PSCI and BLP - we will need this to guide further discussions on the page. I would also like a clear statement on the validity (or lack thereof) of the closer's implementing edit. This too will be important going forward. If the do-over of the closing results in overturning the surface result, that is neither here nor there to me; I think there are reasonable arguments for keeping and for removing "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend I don't know if you are following or have read the above, but if not would you please do so, and would you be willing to withdraw your close and implementing edit, and allow someone else to do the close anew? That would ease the situation. I have seen closes done by Dank of really complex RfCs and have respected his work. I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him. Thanks. Nyttend I also want to apologize to you; I was looking for certain qualities (not answers but qualities) in the close and I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... I should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. Sorry that you were pulled into something unawares. I do appreciate that you volunteered to do it. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• comment - Jytdog, it appears you want to choose your own closer and impose certain dictates. Your apology to Nyttend is certainly a respectable gesture, but it appears to be superficial because you haven't changed course. You stated, I was looking for certain qualities says it all. How is this not WP:FORUMSHOPPING? You may have attempted to qualify your desires as not answers, but your following statement I should have not just thrown the close up for anybody to grab... is very telling. The concerns you've expressed go beyond what editors are obligated to write in a BLP, perhaps because your own experience as a writer of prose is limited, and your focus as a biotech is of primary concern as evidenced by the emphasis you've given to PSCI in this BLP. I find it rather disruptive considering we are supposed to be writing about a person's life, not your opinions on laetrile or whether or not you agree in principal with this author's writings. I do hope an admin will take notice because this type of behavior goes beyond the pale. Atsme☯ 14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme - 1) I am writing on a public board where everyone can see. 2) I wrote: "I would likely ask involved editors if that would be OK, and then ask him." 3) I wrote: I "should have done it more intentionally and gotten agreement from editors at the page on a closer, and then asked someone. " 4) I don't believe for an instant that I could "pick my own closer". My point was that the selection of closer should have been intentional and not random. And of course, by agreement of everybody who cares. For folks reading here, the kind of reaction I just got, is why i will not be surprised if this ends up at AE. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• "choose your own closer": exactly, that's one reason I'm not comfortable closing here. (Lack of experience is another.) But thanks, Jytdog, that was kind of you. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks Dank - my intention was (and is, if we get there) that the closer would be acceptable to everybody.Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't mean you were trying to choose your own closer, I meant that I'm not comfortable closing on request because it raises eyebrows. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close. It is my understanding that the main issue is close review is whether the closer used reasonable judgment and whether another closer can understand why they closed it the way that they did. I concur with the close. Having not reviewed the RFC results in as much detail as I would if I were closing, I don't see anything wrong with the close. However, I am puzzled. What exactly is the original poster, User:Jytdog, saying is wrong with the close? It appears that he was asking for certain qualities for the closer or conditions on the close. The RFC had been open for 30 days, so that any experienced editor could have closed it, with or without a special request by an editor. Maybe I have completely misread the policies, but I don't see a policy that permits one editor to impose conditions on the close. It looks to me like a reasonable close in terms of deciding not to use the 'loaded' phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence in Misplaced Pages's voice. I support the close based on what I have seen, but I don't understand the argument by the OP. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"so that any experienced editor could have closed it . . ." I think that may have been the key point. Nyttend didn't appear to be experienced in policies relating to fringe topics, and didn't appear to consider the comments from those addressing the fringe aspect in the RfC because of that. I'm not sure what others think, but if the opposite happened where a closer was not even aware of BLP policy and only summarized from the fringe perspective instead, I'm pretty sure that would be open to review too due to lack of basic understanding needed for the topic. Seems like a review is exactly what's needed when a closer unknowingly bites off more than they thought they were handling. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon thank you for asking for clarification. My problem is with the reasoning presented in the close, which is going to be cited in the rest of the DR process, and the implementing edit. The RfC question limits itself to the first sentence and specifically calls for consideration of BLP and PSCI. If you read the survey and discussion, there was robust discussion on the "no" and "yes" sides, with policy-based arguments, well-stated on both sides. And the counted !votes actually favor "yes" (keep "conspiracy theorist" in the lead). And if you step back a bit more and look at the talk page discussion, as a wise closer would do, you would see that there is some fierce discussion going on with respect to the tension between BLP and PSCI - we've already been to BLPN, RSN, and the fringe noticeboard. What was needed, was a close, that actually listened to what the community said and dealt with the policy issues that were raised, and was thoughtful. (remember, this is a BLP article of a guy who makes his living writing books and making movies pushing FRINGE ideas... and if you look at the Talk page discussion, we have believers in his ideas participating. and it is a BLP. Lots going on. ) If you read the close first and go look at the RfC, you would think it was SNOW. It was far from that. As I said, I found the arguments presented by responders, based on UNDUE, to take "Conspiracy theorist" out of the first sentence to be persuasive. I am OK with the surface of the close, to take it out. But the reasoning presented in the close is very thin, and doesn't reflect the discussion at all, nor does it mention PSCI. And based on discussions with the closer it has become clear to me that these are the ideas that he came in with. He found an echo in some of the comments (a minority of them) and went with that. He didn't actually close the RfC - he just made a SuperVote. And his implementing edit went way too far and rewrote the whole lead. Those are my objections. I hope that is clear. I am sorry if it was too long. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I want to say two things based upon the subsequent comments here. First, I think it is incorrect to accuse Jytdog of forum-shopping, because it is well within Misplaced Pages norms to ask for a review of contested closes. (After all, that's why we have DRV for deletion decisions.) Second, I think it is necessary, not optional, for Nyttend to comment here, and tell us whatever he might think about the ways that he used administrative tools. I raised some significant issues there, and I see nothing subsequently to make me change my mind about those concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Added comment – The RFC was opened while another thread about the lede was ongoing. That thread was addressing the lede in a broader sense and we seemed to have agreement that describing Griffin as a conspiracy theorist somewhere in the lede was appropriate. What Jytdog's RFC did was to open another thread that produced the same arguments from the same people. And while the RFC was on-going, Atsme opened a thread that was broader in scope, but still concerning the same issues (NPOV & UNDUE). And now we have a fourth (or is it fourteenth?) thread here where the same old stuff gets argued. Nyttend's closing (and edit) had the immense virtue of great virtue of establishing a consensus version for the lede as a whole. With the present version (provided by Nyttend) in place, editors are proposing and discussing a re-write that will use either "conspiracy theory" and/or "conspiracy theorist" in the lede. WP:CCC is in play at the bottom of the article talk page. With this in mind, reviewing admins of this request should simply close the request without action and advise editors to strive on elsewhere. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

How can it be true that Nyttend's edit "established a consensus version" and also true that a consensus contrary to Nyttend's edit had developed elsewhere and also true that editors are now working on an agreement about how to undo the controversial part of the edit? That does make it sound like an edit that was against consensus which has caused editors unnecessary work. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support close as no arguments indicate that the close was improper, which is the sole criterion here. Collect (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. To clarify my earlier response, I support the close as a plausible interpretation of the arguments (although it gives inadequate (apparently no) weight to WP:PSCI), but note that the closer's edit was contrary to the close in that there is consensus that it should be noted he is a conspiracy theorist in, at least, the first paragraph, and unanimity that it should be prominently noted in the lead that he supports conspiracy theories, if not that that he is a conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This Noticeboard is not the place to relitigate the issues raised in the RfC. OP has not demanded that the close be set aside, only that there is sufficient, policy-based concern to be uneasy about its conclusion. Where there is good faith, reasoned concern about a close, a review by a second Admin is warranted. The matter can be put to rest, one way or the other, so that editors can work on improving other parts of the article. There will be no harm done if a thoughtful review affirms the original close. Whatever the outcome, all editors will have increased confidence that the result is robust and stable. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Close. Consensus is clear, there is nothing left to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy I have not requested a review of a close before and i have no sense of where we are. can you spell out your comment for me a bit? (are you actually closing or are suggesting a close? what consensus is clear to you?) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If Guy was closing this discussion s/he would have used {{archive top}} and given a rationale. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit exceeding the scope of the RfC

The issue that isn't being addressed properly here is the way the edit by Nyttend went beyond the question posed by the RfC re the first sentence. Link to the RfC question: -- and here's the portion of the edit Nyttend made that exceeded the scope of the RfC: . Closing an RfC is a matter of determining the consensus of the community; there can't be a consensus for an answer to a question that wasn't asked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to note here, the editors working on the page agreed during full PP to make an edit request to the infobox, that Griffin is "Known for: Conspiracy theories". That discussion is here and you can see it the infobox here G. Edward Griffin. Nyttends' edit removing "conspiracy theory" from the lead altogether not only went beyond the scope of the RfC but went against the consensus that we had established. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that Nomoskedasticity opened this distinct subthread, because the narrow focus by some editors above, on the close itself, was resulting in not seeing the forest – the ways in which administrative tools were used to go beyond the close itself, in ways that went against policy – for the trees. As I said above, those administrative actions reflected significant misunderstanding of policies, including NPOV and BLP, as well as misunderstanding the scope of the RfC discussion, and made improper use of editing through full protection. I am disappointed that Nyttend has not commented here, nor acknowledged that some of us have raised these concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity: So what? Look at it this way – the RFC was closed with a determination that CT should not be used in the first sentence. So it was properly removed. (You can't argue with that change.) And then Nyttend makes 2 more changes in the next sentences. But those two additional changes are based on the same determination that using CT in the lede was improper because the "derogatory characterization" is a "fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view." What do you want this AN to do? Give Nyttend a scolding? (The task of a closer, let alone an admin, is tough enough. And very few appreciate those roles.) Or do you want the AN to say CT should be used in the subsequent sentences? If that is your solution, then it contradicts the RFC determination. (This solution is not going to happen.) In any event editors are now working on a new version of the lede on the talk page. Join in. You will see that CT is (now) used in the first paragraph via a quote from Sean Easter. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, I get it that you agreed with the close, and I've already said that I do not have a problem with the close itself, but I could not possibly disagree with you more about the supposed power of administrators to go beyond what was in the close itself. There were serious mistakes here, and there needs to be some reassurance that they are not going to happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to say "supposed power of admins". Any non-involved experienced editor could have closed the RFC. (And "supposed" has a rather derogatory tone about it.) As Misplaced Pages is a project where anyone can edit, nothing prohibits a closer from editing an article. Before anyone is going to formally admonish Nyttend for those other two edits, you got to convince the admin community that Nyttend's determination regarding NPOV was incorrect. I don't think that is going to happen. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not so. I stand by what I said. Unless anyone thinks that we need to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, there is no uncertainty about what is being asked here. OP is asking for a second Admin to review the closing. It's not helpful to suggest that anybody here wishes to "give Nyttend as scolding." That's a straw man, it's not constructive and it's arguably a personal attack which insinuates other editor(s) come here with an inappropriate motive. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Two objections were made above when this AN was opened. One was about the close and the other was the edit. This subthread is about the edit. As to both objections, nothing is going to change. WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures may be of some help: basically the close will stand. The edit itself is simply part of the process we follow when improving articles. Contributors would better spend their time thinking about how to improve the article (and contribute on the talk page) because this AN is a dead horse. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, that reply was neither helpful nor responsive. I suggest you drop the stick. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually found his reply helpful and informative, and agree that we should be spending more time writing prose and less time poking sticks. But wait, there's only two editors who are actually writing prose. Hmmm...this may require further review. Atsme☯ 15:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue about the edit goes to Question 4 asked by Arthur Rubin which inexperienced editors here have not understood. If the additional edits to the lead were an "administrative action" then for another admin to revert them would be WP:WHEELWARRING which admins stay away from since they can be sanctioned for that - it takes a discussion like this one to overturn them. If the edits were just part of a close, another admin can overturn them. The other piece of it, is whether the edits outside the first sentence were based on the RfC or not and were essentially an admin making a SuperVote on the RfC, which admins are not supposed to do. These are serious and subtle questions and are what AN is for. There is no doubt that Nyttend's restoration of his edits through protection was an admin action, as that is something only admins have the ability to do. Separate questions have been raised about that, but the full resolution depends on the status of the initial implementing edits beyond the first sentence. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple questions

There are multiple questions that should be resolved somewhere. Only the first one is really being discussed here. (If someone wants to respond to individual questions, please do so. I've signed each of my comments individually.)

1. Was the close, stating that "conspiracy theorist" should not be in the first sentence, correct.

   In my opinion, it was the wrong choice, both as a matter of guidelines and as a matter of consenus, but plausible, so it should probably stand. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Closes which are within reason should not be overturned. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   I think the close was necessarily subjective, but specifically with respect to the first sentence, it was a reasonable conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   i think it was a reasonable conclusion, given for the wrong reasons. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, his actions are supported by policy. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Absolutely correct. No other way to see this. Wasting too much time on this.--Pekay2 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Was there consensus as to whether "conspiracy theorist" should be included in the first paragraph.

   I think there was consensus, in favor, that the fact that he is known for conspiracy theories should be in the first paragraph. There certainly wasn't consensus against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   No clear consensus - but I tend to think positive consensus is required for inclusion of what was clearly viewed as a contentious term. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   In the discussion, several editors said explicitly that they were drawing a distinction between the first sentence and the lead as a whole, and there was no clear consensus either way about the rest of the page, outside of the first sentence. Several participating editors said that there were issues of due weight with respect to the first sentence specifically, which sets the first sentence off, relative to the rest of the page. Therefore, for a closer (whether an administrator or not) to determine that the phrase should be deleted elsewhere on the page, either there had to be a policy basis for doing so, or it would be a super-vote. Administrators making such closes are expected, even required, to understand applicable policies correctly. As I have explained above, this close reflected a serious lack of understanding of policies, and of previous ArbCom decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   no. There were 9 "no" !votes, and 13 "yes" ! votes and 1 "neutral" !vote (which was neutral on the first sentence and "hell yes" for somewhere in the lead). Of all those, only two (arthur rubin, alexbrn) specifically discussed the lead. and I'll add that three of the "no" !votes (DocumentError and Carrite and JonRichfield seemed to me, to be saying "no" to the narrow question of "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence only but were fine using things like "promotes conspiracy theories" outside the first sentence. That makes it 17 to 6 !votes in favor of saying something like "he promotes conspiracy theories" which is overwhelming. the implementing edit not only removed "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence but all reference to "conspiracy theories" from the lead. That did not reflect the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Consensus is not required for the removal of fundamentally noncompliant material, with particular emphasis on BLPs. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   NPOV is the issue. Concensus is not relevant since it can't change policy in this RfC--Pekay2 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

   NPOV is the issue. It fails NPOV to imply that it is part of a mainstream view that he does not support multiple conspiracy thories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

3. Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead part of the close?

   Clearly not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Uncertain- where the closer appears to have felt that a positive consensus is needed for inclusion, then this might well be part of what he viewed as the proper close. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   It certainly was not part of the RfC question, as it was written, and the RfC discussion appears to have been conducted based on the understanding that it was about the first sentence only. That does not rule out a close that goes further, based on policy, but the basis on policy here was incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   No. Here is the actual close, so it is fresh. Doesn't mention the first sentence nor even the lead; seems to aim to cover the whole article: "Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist"."Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes. The admin acted properly by removing improperly sourced contentious material that is fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. The closer followed both WP:Consensus#Administrative or community intervention Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) and WP:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome ...closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Absolutely yes. The closer was very clear.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

4. Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead an administrative action, so that reverting it is a violation of something (probably an ArbCom decision, Arbitration Enforcement)?

   That needs to be established. I would say, not, but it would be problematic to reverse it until a consensus at an administrative noticeboard is reached. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   That would likely have to be discussed in a new section entirely - if it were intended to be an admin action, then it would absolutely need to be reviewed in a full discussion with positive consensus needed to overturn such an action, and not in this rambling discussion. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   I am not aware of any ArbCom sanctions or other editing restrictions that would interfere with an uninvolved administrator reviewing what happened and either supporting or reversing any of it. But I see that as becoming moot, in light of subsequent work by editors at the page and the talk page. What I am interested here is some clarification of what was appropriate and what was not appropriate, and an indication from Nyttend that he is interested in learning from this situation and doing better going forward. I'm not interested in seeing anybody get punished, but I am interested in seeing some learning. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   That question is way over my head. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Yes, reverting an admin's action to remove noncompliant contentious material from a BLP was tendentious and disrespectful of the sanctions and RfC closer. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Atsme that doesn't respond to the question that was asked. The question is whether, specifically, Nyttend's implementing edit should be considered an "administrative action" or something else. Your response doesn't deal with the question of how to classify that edit, nor why it should be classified one way or another. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog you asked Was the decision to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the lead an administrative action and I answered Yes. Nyttend's response on his TP was pretty clear: as was the following excerpt from his explanation on your TP: Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad. . Considering the WP:Forumshopping it appears you are engaged in now, and the fact that you refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK, it appears Nyttend has far more insight than you give him credit. Atsme☯ 01:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Is there any other way to see it?--Pekay2 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I expressed no !vote at the RfC. Collect (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that neither did I. I only became aware of it after the close, because I watch Jytdog's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to add some things. First, I request that Nyttend comment here. Second, I have one additional question:

1. What are the limits to administrators editing a page through full protection, and was Nyttend's edit within those limits?

   I think that editing a page when the rest of us cannot do it is a very serious action to take, and is easily abused. The only time that an administrator should do so is when policy requires it (for example, to remove a BLP violation). Otherwise, stay off a high horse, and make an edit request on the talk page like the rest of us. Full protection is intended to prevent edit warring and disruptive edits, and not to preserve anyone's preferred version of a page. Here, it is complicated because Nyttend appeared to believe that policy required his edit, but he was wrong about that. I think there is a serious need for a consensus that editing through full protection is not something to be done carelessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   Where an admin has made a determination that a claim of fact made in Misplaced Pages's voice is something where policy dictates that it ought be made only as an opinion of others, then it is proper for him or her to remove such a claim made in Misplaced Pages's voice, which should be reserved only for statements of fact, as an administrative action per the ArbCom BLP decisions. If such is the case, that admin should state it here before this gets too far afield from that issue as BLP requirements are not overridden by local consensus. Collect (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   I looked back at the ArbCom BLP case, and I didn't see anything in the final decision about Misplaced Pages's voice versus attribution to a source. Where does it say that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   WP:NPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

   WP:NPOV/FAQ When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion

   And in many many discussions. Collect (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

   Agreed and understood. It just wasn't in the ArbCom BLP decision, and the ArbCom Pseudoscience decision indicates that obvious or generally recognized pseudoscience can be identified as such in Misplaced Pages's voice, rather than presenting it as a matter of a source's opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

   Perhaps JzG can also respond to this question. I respect Nyttend's decision as an admin which I've already stated above with inline text attribution validating his adherence to policy. Atsme☯ 15:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm continuing to see editors saying that administrators should do the kinds of things that Nyttend did because that's what policy requires, mainly the BLP policy. I feel bad about repeating myself, but I feel a need to repeat what I said earlier:

• At Jytdog's talk page, Nyttend said: "We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents". There is nothing in NPOV or BLP that would give BLP subjects and their supporters that kind of veto power over content. If there were, then we would have to delete Kim Jong-un#Human rights violations and about half the content of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whereas it is reasonable to take the "conspiracy theorist" label out of the lead sentence, it does not follow that it has to be taken out of the entire page.
• The longstanding consensus reached at the ArbCom Pseudoscience case says that obvious or generously recognized pseudoscience can and should be identified as such on our pages. And Jytdog is correct to cite WP:BLPFRINGE (to which I might add WP:VALID). (This is a conspiracy theory about pseudoscience, so please no wikilawyering about the RfC not having been about pseudoscience.)

Look, I get it, about the importance of BLP. But it is a misreading of BLP to say that anything negative about a person must be deleted. What Nyttend edited through full protection to remove was not something that BLP requires to be removed, and I'm basing that on a decision by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – It seems some editors want the RFC to go both ways. One, they say the RFC was strictly confined to the first sentence; but, two, they argue that consensus was for inclusion of conspiracy theory/ist somewhere in the lede. They are willing to accept the determination as to One (first sentence), in which case this AN is unneeded. But the Information page WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says "Most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." And "Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself." With this in mind, where is there context or information left out of the discussion or new information? Where is there a compelling reason? Where is the overwhelming consensus? The answer to these questions is negative because much of the discussion in this AN is a re-litigation of the CT question and not worthwhile. Moreover, didn't Nyttend make the determination on NPOV? (One more thing, why are editors giving Nyttend grief by asking Nyttend to comment here and implying that Admin misbehavior is at issue?) – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

S. Rich, you are framing what others of us have said, as things that we did not say. I don't think that anyone said that there was consensus for removing the phrase from the first sentence and for keeping it elsewhere. What I, for one, have been saying is that there was consensus for removing it from the lead and no consensus either way about removing it or keeping it elsewhere, and that administrative tools were used heavy-handedly to go beyond what the RfC (in which I did not participate) had determined, in ways that are actually contrary to policy and an ArbCom decision. It is perfectly reasonable to discuss those problems at AN. I am not asking that Nyttend be punished or sanctioned, and it is unhelpful to imply that anyone is asking for that. It is perfectly appropriate to ask that administrators respond to concerns about their actions, and cause for concern when they do not respond. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough with the questions already. Nyttend closed this, and other Admins are ignoring this 'go nowhere' conversation. Wrap it up and move on.--Pekay2 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate to close this discussion, unless it is to ignore Nyttend's closing edit. If Nyttend refuses to comment on his reasoning, it must be assumed that anything he did not explain with reference to policy, including his closing edit, is not part of his close. Discussion on the article talk page cannot go anywhere unless it is determined exactly what is required by the close. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

status update

As this thread lingers, editors on both sides of the issues in the article have gotten antsy and have started to aggressively edit the article and edit war. Probably close to page protection again (that would be the third time). I have decided to step away from the article as the editors there are dragging themselves to AE. It would be very helpful to the folks still working on the article if this thread could get attention and resolution. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you included yourself in that accusation of "aggressive" editors. Passive aggressive behavior is equally as disruptive, Jytdog, and your pretense as peacekeeper is disingenuous, especially when you are at the core of the problem. It should not have taken us 2 months to convince you that contentious material in a BLP could not be stated in Wiki voice. You also don't seem to understand the difference in executing bold edits for policy compliance vs what you're falsely trying to portray as antsy and aggressive editing. My attempts to correct the policy violations and expand the article may have been bold, but I have proposed those same changes on the TP for nearly 2 months, but you kept SQS to prevent them. The removal of PP, and the RfC calling out the policy issues gave editors a green light to fix the fundamentally noncompliant policy issues that were pointed out by the RfC, but your "side" reverted the changes. It appears you will do just about anything to prevent Griffin from becoming a GA candidate - like filing that completely false 3RR claim against me. It's shameful behavior. You say you want to avoid ARBCOM but you never change course. I consult you to drop the stick and move away from the carcass as you have already been advised to do by several other editors. Atsme☯ 20:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cute vandalism

I just found this somewhere in my old files, back from 2006. As it was used for some form of vandalism, it got deleted. But despite the foul language it gave me a smile seeing it again, and I thought any stressed out administrators might enjoy it for comical relief. — Sebastian 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't toy with me, fella. I can't see the damned thing because it's been deleted. The frustration is almost enough to make me ask for my admin bit to be restored. (Almost.)

More seriously, it's been 8 years so I don't see any harm in it being quoted for all to enjoy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, quoting won't do it justice, because it's a picture. Also, if you had known me in my more active past you would know that I tended to be particularly hard to admins, because I expect more from them. Please forgive me this harmless chance for being a bit partial the other way. — Sebastian 04:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that makes me long for the good old days of Misplaced Pages:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what, this may actually be where I had it from in the first place. Thank you for reminding me of that! — Sebastian 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lulz, that picture is reason enough for someone to become an admin to see. Chillum 06:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh gosh... yes, I agree with Chillum. Samuel L. Jackson meets Flipper meets the Unicorn meets Lost. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth me putting up for an RfA? It would certainly be an interesting application. Probably the shortest RfA on record. Curiosity killed the Irondome. Irondome (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is it possible to nominate deleted revisions of pictures for "featured picture status", or only on 1st April? Bencherlite 20:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• Dang now I really want to see this :( someone should definitely put it on imgur or something EoRdE6 20:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Send me an email if you really want to see it. Guettarda (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not that funny. -- llywrch (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Made beer come out of my nose... Chillum 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Email sent. Finally cracked. I want the beer coming out my nose thing too. Irondome (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh it's good :) You just don't need that, especially if you're in economy. Cheers mate! Irondome (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for review of closure at AN/I

I request a review of the closing of WP:ANI#Conduct_of_J_Doug_McLean.

The closing editor suggested a content RfC as a way to deal with "insults". I made no complaint of insults.

They said they had looked at "a number of diffs", and are clearly not fully aware of the context of this conduct, which has persisted over many months.

I wrote more details and attempted to discuss the matter with the closing editor at User_talk:Drmies#ANI_closure. They sent me straight here without comment and without answering any of my questions. Please will another admin review this? Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC); edited 15:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• In other news, I have stopped beating my wife. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have taken offence at my underlining. I wasn't trying to shout, merely to abide by WP:REDACT. Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well spotted. I did not answer any of your questions because they were loaded, and I don't like answering those. My thanks to Robert McClenon, who clearly has more patience and better phrasing than I do. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I have tried to reword my questions in a way that doesn't presume a particular answer. I would appreciate answers from either of you. Burninthruthesky (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse closure in the absence of a stronger explanation by the original poster (OP) of why the closure was incorrect. What exactly anyway is the OP requesting? The issue has to do with postings to Talk: Lift (force), which have been lengthy and tedious. The OP did not request any specific administrative remedy, such as a block or a topic ban, that could have been imposed at WP:ANI. The OP and one other editor did propose a voluntary ban on postings by the subject author to the talk page, but a voluntary ban is just that, voluntary. The OP then did propose to implement the voluntary ban by consensus, but, in the absence of consent by the subject author, there can't be a voluntary ban. They didn't propose a formal topic ban. If a formal topic ban had been proposed, I would agree that it should have been discussed, rather than closing the thread. The closer stated that this appeared to be a content dispute, and proposed that a Request for Comments (RFC) (or RFCs) be used. Maybe the closer could have waited another day or two before closing the thread, but I think that the closure was not "premature" and was within the closer's judgment. The reference to insults seems to have been misunderstood, which was that an admin could be asked to keep an eye on the RFC, and hat any irrelevant comments, and hat any insults, possibly blocking the insulter. It wasn't clear that the OP was asking for any feasible administrative remedy, and it isn't clear that the OP is asking for a specific feasible administrative remedy now. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a sensible response. I appreciate the difficulty of closing a request for a voluntary ban without explicit consent from the editor concerned. Personally I would have left it open and resumed discussion if the subject continued editing without accounting for his conduct. Another editor wanted "closure" which was, quite reasonably, interpreted as a request to close the discussion. I would have preferred acceptance by the subject, but he didn't respond.

The problem I have with the close as it stands is the message it sends that "none of them cross any kind of civility boundary". Is misrepresenting the opinions of other editors really allowed? Is it ok to persist for months on end repeating the same argument, and dismissing out of hand any rebuttals, often by usingmake strawman arguments? Burninthruthesky (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC); edited 20:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this problem for months, and when I finally asked for help from the administrators, not one of them joined the discussion. Eventually one came along to close it, saying there was no problem. I questioned the grounds for that closure and the only response I've had from that admin is that they don't like the way I've worded my questions. There has been no substantive response to the factual questions I have asked regarding how this decision was made. I have not been to these admin noticeboards before this incident, because I've never needed to. I came here to ask for help from the community and at the moment I don't feel I'm getting very much at all. A hostile environment is bad for editor retention. Please will you give me some assistance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burninthruthesky (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The original poster explicitly requested closure: "I agree it would be better for all concerned to have closure on this." So an admin took his request at his word and provided closure. It isn't the admin's fault that he believed that the original poster wanted closure. Maybe the original poster actually wanted closure in a way that would have been deeply unfair, imposing a so-called voluntary topic ban that wasn't voluntary, and without community discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Looking again at WP:CLOSE, I see it does use the term "closure". Personally I think closure would have been better achieved if the subject had responded, but WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Even some input from someone not involved in the discussion would have been helpful. To clarify, I'm not saying the decision to close the discussion was wrong. My problem is that the closing comments were made without consideration of important context. Just to take one example: unless I am mistaken, the comment I mentioned on 31 January misrepresented my views and the views of another editor. If I did make the assertion I am claimed to have made, I ask for a diff of where I made it. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The original poster is contradicting himself as to what he was asking for. He says that he finally asked for help from the administrators. He also says that he came here to ask for help from the community. Which? Was he asking for administrator assistance using administrator tools, or was he asking for advice from experienced editors? WP:ANI is the place to ask for administrator assistance, such as a block or a topic-ban. He didn't get an administrator reply until he asked for closure, probably because he didn't make a case that a block or a formal topic-ban was warranted. If he had wanted advice from experienced editors, which would have been reasonable to ask, he could have gone to the WP:Help Desk. I know that, at the Help Desk, I would have advised the use of a dispute resolution procedure, such as a Request for Comments. He got that advice in addition to closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that I'm contradicting myself seems a little disingenuous. WP:ADMINS "should be a part of the community like other editors." WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE provides ANI as the only venue for discussing user conduct issues and suggests reported users "may be warned by an administrator". I asked for "any steps necessary to protect the community" because my message is supposed to be neutral and I wanted the evidence to speak for itself. I felt I was prohibited from discussing the matter with other users or on the helpdesk because of WP:ASPERSIONS. In the ANI discussion, I presented a short summary of the evidence. I brought more evidence as the discussion progressed, but it dried up. No administrator attempted to discuss the matter with me or seek clarification. The discussion of evidence with administrators didn't start until after the discussion had closed. This seems the wrong way round. The advice that I seek dispute resolution instead of going to AN/I appears to contradict the cited policy, which says conduct issues should be brought to AN/I. I understand the procedures for dealing with content specifically exclude discussion of conduct. For example, WP:DRN says, "Please refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only." WP:FOC recommends not bringing up conduct during content disputes. I patiently waited until the main content dispute was settled before bringing up conduct (which by that point spanned several users and content issues). Then I'm told it looks like a content dispute. Is this maze of contradictory instructions Misplaced Pages's way of saying we don't care about user conduct? Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The original poster says that a hostile environment is bad for editor retention. That is true in the abstract but irrelevant. WP:ANI is typically a hostile place, because it is where administrative actions, such as blocks and topic-bans, which by their nature are controversial, are discussed. As one other editor noted, at Talk: Lift (force), there is one editor who is verbose and pedantic, the subject, and another editor who is sometimes uncivil, the original poster, so that the original poster shouldn't be complaining about hostility. The OP made a controversial request, a topic-ban under the disguise of a voluntary ban, then requested quick closure, and got quick closure, and now is unhappy. You don't always get what you want. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comment "another editor who is sometimes uncivil, the original poster" misrepresents what was said. That editor did not name the person he felt was uncivil and didn't take up my invitation to clarify. Please strike that.

I did not request "a topic ban under under the disguise of a voluntary ban, then requested quick closure, and got quick closure". The suggestion of a voluntary ban and desire for "closure" were both made by Steelpillow and I agreed. As I said, I haven't been to these boards before and I'm not entirely familiar with the available processes. The only reason I didn't ask for a formal topic ban was because I wasn't sure it would be appropriate (or necessary) in the absence of any activity by the subject.

When I mentioned a hostile environment, I was actually referring to the original discussion which I escalated, and for which don't feel I've received much support from the community. Frankly I'm not finding this discussion much better. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC); edited 10:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Endorse closure. Doug McLean has demonstrably cooled down. Even the interminable content dispute was resolved amicably in the end. While I deeply sympathise with the struggles that Burninthruthesky has suffered and at one time things did need damping down, that has now happened. Several community members (myself included) with enough knowledge of both the subject and dealing with disputes eventually took a hand in that. I doubt that J Doug McLean had been relishing the heat and duration either. He is a good deal more gentlemanly than many a contentious editor. This is a cold case now and I no longer think that any kind of admin action would achieve a useful purpose. So no, I do not wish to support re-opening a discussion that has been overtaken by events. I am content with the decision to move on and would thank the closing editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree there's little benefit in reopening the discussion. That's why I didn't push for a compulsory ban. My only concern is that an official finding, that the conduct we experienced was acceptable, might be taken as licence to continue with similar tactics in future. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The conduct evidenced was judged not to be an ANI issue, which is a slightly different thing from being acceptable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Trust me, I sympathize with the problem, but ANI is not the way out of that--and it was not clear to me what was being asked for in the first place. "J Doug McLean should use fewer words" isn't really an adminny thing to say; as far as I could tell, this was still in a stage that editors could handle on the talk page, and I tried to indicate ways in which they could proceed. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that there's no point in discussing any further the past conduct of a user who clearly got the message and is currently absent. I sincerely hope he will decide to return. Please close this discussion. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no agreement between myself and involved admins, I would like to request closure by an uninvolved admin. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct issues should be reported to ANI

There appears to be some confusion over policy in the minds of some of those entrusted with enforcing it.

On a number of occasions I've seen people referred to dispute resolution as if that is something separate to WP:ANI. According to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, "the difference between a conduct and a content dispute is that, in a conduct dispute, the actions of a user (such as how an editor edits or the comments the editor makes about other users) is the overriding issue". If a user feels conduct is the overriding issue, they are entitled to have their concerns about conduct heard. Reporting a conduct dispute at ANI, rather than any other noticeboard, is entirely consistent with WP:CIV, WP:HARASS and WP:DR. Taking a conduct dispute to WP:DRN or WP:RFC is explicitly against policy. WP:CIV only recommends seeking WP:DRN, "if the other person isn't damaging the project or being uncivil / unkind to other editors".

I get the impression from ANI that many people equate 'incivility' with using bad language. WP:CIV covers much more than mere vulgar abuse.

It's true I didn't contact the Helpdesk about the matter above. I was very cautious about discussing such a sensitive issue on-wiki. However, I did do my homework on relevant policies before deciding to deal with the matter. I suggest administrators do the same. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC); edited 12:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

WP:UAA needs to be cleared - possible a bot not working? BMK (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The bots appear to be working fine - it's UAA that's broken. I've cleared a few. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Still a considerable backup, both bot-reported and editor-reported. BMK (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, admins, you asked us to give you those lovely mops, so we did. Can a couple of you find your way to UAA to clean up the backlog there? I know it's not as glamorous as the noticeboards, but somebody's gotta do it, and this is a case where only the mopped-ones will do, us lowlanders don't have the wherewithal. BMK (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

UAA is the tip of the iceberg; also see Filter 148, Filter 149, and Filter 354. I tried to keep them clear over the past week or so, but it's too big a job for me and I have to get back to copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also open CFD discussions from 18 November and 24 December. GiantSnowman 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

OMG! Is this an admin work slowdown? We've got to give in to their demands, or we're crippled!! I suggest we double their salaries, effective immediately!!! (And send them all a nice bouquet of digital poseys for Valentine's Day.) BMK (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What happens if admins make the wrong decision?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a general question -- Please do not relate it to any discussion I've recently been in. I am setting out events but I want you to treat this as a hypothetical situation, not as a real thing. My pupose here is only to learn a bit more about WP policy and not for anyone to take any action.

Imagine a user creates an account. They use a word such as "hand grenade" or "assault rifle". They also include a bit of Nazi symbology such as 18 or 14 or a combination. They translate the name into some language other than English. To me the Username policy is clear: this is a disruptive username; the fact it's in another language is specifically mentioned by policy as being not relevant. Now imagine this user has been blocked on a different language wiki (for the username) and continues to edit here. They make good edits. Someone notices the username and reports it. The handful of admins who take part in the discussion seem to think that a name like "handgrenade" is acceptable if it's in a foreign language and they don't appear to be aware of the clear Nazi symbology of 14 or 18 or 88. So, those admins allow the name. What should a wikipedian do? Just leave it? Make the case again? Gustavail (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not looked at the discussion you are seemingly referring to. In general you bring the topic to a wider audience, ask for consensus, and then abide by what consensus is found. However, you don't want to go forum shopping. For this problem specifically, if the user is really a troll, give them enough rope to hurt themselves with. They'll be dealt with as problems arise. Killiondude (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This would probably be the place to bring something like that for review. Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about User:Sturmgewehr88. Community consensus at WP:RFCN was that the name was okay - see here. This was not the decision of one single user (and the closer isn't even an admin anyways). ansh666 03:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gustavail: So I'm curious about a few things now. First, you start with "treat this as hypothetical" and "not to take action", but end with a request for advice, which I interpret would mean you'd "make the case again" if you were so advised. Sorry for not AGF, that's just my first thought after reading it and I wanted to ask. Second, what Nazi connotation does 14 or 18 have? Heck, I was informed of the connotation of 88 almost a year after I created this account. Plus all of those admins were very well aware of the "clear" Nazi symbology which managed to fly over my head for three years.

I just want to put out two things: just because some wannabe Nazis realized that H is the 8th letter of the alphabet 40+ years after the fact doesn't mean that the number 88 has been eternally tainted as Nazi-ish and therefore unmentionable. Then there's also the fact that they technically use two seperate 8s while I'm using the number 88. Sorry if I'm entering TLDR territory. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I will speak to the specific instance, as this is clearly not a hypothetical situation. I think that it is at the very least possible that User:Sturmgewehr88 chose his particular username for personal reasons while entirely unaware of its connotations. But, no matter how inadvertent his choice, now that he is aware that he has a name which can easily be (mis)understood as "Heil Hitler's Assault Rifle", he should have no problem with changing his username in order to avoid giving continued egregious offence – no matter how originally unintentional – to other editors. (For similar reasons, we wouldn't let someone be User:Assholes, even though his name happened to be Albert Simon Sholes.)

In other words, I'm certainly willing to chalk this up to being a good-faith and entirely inadvertent mistake, as long as this editor is willing to take a minor, good-faith step to avoid this confusion going forward—by requesting a username change. This fix seems to be particularly important and worthwhile given that this editor spends a substantial amount of time welcoming new editors. (More than three hundred of his last thousand edits are welcome templates for new editors.) Some fraction of those new editors are going to be made to feel very uncomfortable by the apparent connotations of the username in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The closure of the prior debate was in line with the consensus at the time. If this name is disputed again it should be done at RFCN, not here. Chillum 05:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

RFCN, while all well and good, is a poorly-attended backwater that pretty obviously came to the wrong conclusion in this instance. Bouncing it back there is as good as ignoring the problem. (And the problem with how this particular username is likely to be perceived isn't imaginary; it takes very little Googling to find the exact same moniker in use off Wiikipedia by exactly the sort of people one might, unfortunately, expect: caution, Nazi and white supremacist imagery.) This noticeboard is a perfectly reasonable venue for a wider audience – including administrators – to address the issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is RFCN dropping the ball as it were, it is more consensus being on the other side of things. I don't think a wider venue will change he answer much. Regardless if you want to discuss it here, why not. Chillum 16:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer the question in the title, nothing. It's virtually impossible to be deadminned on Misplaced Pages, even if you're 13, using Misplaced Pages to stalk someone, or a known pedophile. Jtrainor (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, really. The 57 names on this page would seem to suggest that it is indeed very possible. A 58th is currently passing at ArbCom, as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jtrainor: Unless you have evidence to back up that statement, particularly the part about "known pedophile" I would like to ask you to remove that comment. It is off topic and very offensive. Chillum 16:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, username discussion, take 2

Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs · logs) - first RFCN discussion

• Allow username - A username that would be simply "hand grenade", "assault rifle", "revolver", "bazooka", "broadsword" or "missile" is not against our username policy, no matter the language. Weaponry does not equate hate speech or invitation to violence. In this specific instance, yes, the chosen language and the use of the "88" leads to perfectly reasonable assumptions of Nazi sympathies by the user. As pointed out above, the same and/or a similar username is currently used on other websites by people who display this undesirable ideology. However, what we have here is an editor of many years on Misplaced Pages, who hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) displayed any worrying behaviour in regards to Nazi ideology, so I am inclined to give them the benefit of doubt and reaffirm the RFCN consensus. However, I am sure StG88 realizes the assumptions that are made with regards to their chosen display name (seen from their userpage section on the topic), and it would personally be reason enough for me to want to change usernames, so I definitely reiterate that it is an option they might want to give serious thought to. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow name. I don't know whether we should enforce a username change here. If I'd innocently chosen a name like that and subsequently had the connotations pointed out to me and was informed that the exact same name was being used by Nazi supporters elsewhere on the web, I'd want to dissociate myself from it and change it faster than yesterday's underpants. Squinge (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  But the user isn't pursuing anything remotely resembling Nazi ideology. Quite the opposite, in fact - he seems to be friendly, collegiate and welcoming towards everyone. And if he's happy with the name possibly being misunderstood from time to time then I think that's his choice. Squinge (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for very obvious reasons. We should not allow ourselves to be put into the position of apparently allowing Nazi-related names. Possibly the user's interest in Nazi-related things is quite innocent (many adolescents go through a similar phase) but, then again, it may not, and there's little or no harm in insisting on a more neutral username. Misplaced Pages may be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but that doesn't mean that anything goes. BMK (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow but strongly urge voluntary username change, per my comments in the last RFCN. While I still don't think this is a clear violation of the username policy, it's becoming evident that it irks other users; I'd ask that Sturmgewehr88 consider changing his username out of consideration for them. Yunshui _水 12:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow per User:Sturmgewehr88#Sturmgewehr88. The user's explanation is lucid and believable. To anyone with interest in WW2 history, the "88" is well known. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow as there is neither the intention to display a specific ideology, and it is in reference to a specific piece of military hardware. Should we disallow "M1Garand" as a username? Anyone named "Tiger" or "Sherman" should perhaps suffer the same restriction? My own chosen username is from the nose art of a specific P-38 Lightning, a WWII warbird. There is nothing offensive about it, except what others choose to read into it. I think some assumption of good faith is due. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow based on his contributions and explanation. None of his contributions even look like anything nazi related, nor "white power " related. His contributions (back as far as January 2015 ) consist of welcoming users, editing Japan-related articles, no editing whatsoever on any subject even remotely related to Nazi Germany, or White power movements or ideology. Yes the "88" and the german part of his name had me suspicious as well, but he's (I'm assuming ) proved himself to be a valuable contributor. Allow it , and no name change. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 16:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Require name change. No one appears to be grasping this so Allow but stop welcoming new users or change name and continue. Cannot have both. I broadly agree with User:KoshVorlon here, however I disagree with a blanket allow, based on Sturmgewehr88's proclivity to welcome new users. (A laudable tendency). The username will be the first impression that new users get. Many are mature, and aware of history and perceived neo-nazi "indicators". It makes for a potentially damaging first impression. Sturm has always seemed a friendly and welcoming colleague. If Sturm may want to consider a name change of his own volition, then that's another matter. I take on board the concerns that some colleagues have, as Sturmgewehr88 is active in welcoming new users. I think many colleagues are just being plain insensitive here. Sturm must make his choice. Irondome (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• While consensus does not appear to be against this name it is offending some people. I encourage Sturmgewehr88 to choose a different name. Chillum 17:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow: There is nothing wrong with naming your username after a weapon. I hope people aren't upset that my real name is after a general who tore through a particular US state during the Civil War! seicer | talk | contribs 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow: There is no upol here. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Require name change. I didn't realize that other people could reasonably see this as extremely offensive, and I regret the unfortunate coincidence is a perfectly fair and reasonable attitude on Misplaced Pages only as long as it is followed by I will take immediate steps to avoid using this (unintentionally) highly-offensive language in the future. It's not okay to say, Gee, I'm sorry that some people find that really hurtful and offensive, but I'm going to keep using it because I like it. That this editor has made a large number of good-faith edits and that there is nothing about his on-wiki conduct to suggest any involvement by him in Nazi or white supremacist viciousness is both true and largely irrelevant to this discussion. (Indeed, the fact that his editing seems entirely divorced from those topics is the only reason that we're having a discussion here now, instead of simply blocking him immediately and permanently.) That this editor is heavily involved in welcoming other users – some of whom will interpret his username as extraordinarily inflammatory – is a particularly potent argument for a name change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow The "88" bit is irrelevant (would we ban "Olds88"?) -- for arms we allow "Colt45..." as a name, "Rugerlover" as a name, and many other "armament names". Absent any reason to believe the person intends the name to be disruptive, leave it be. IMO. Collect (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow per others - this does not fall under WP:IU when considering the user's stated background and areas of interest. However, StG should either stop welcoming new users or change their name if they wish to continue doing so, to avoid the inevitable misunderstandings. Besides, being interested in the technological and military innovations of Germany during WWII - which were considerable, and consequently influenced or even were used in the later advances on both sides of the Cold War - does not even remotely make one a Nazi sympathizer. Could you imagine if nobody developed the assault rifle (sturmgewehr), ballistic missile, or submarine further because they were associated with the Nazis? ansh666 21:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - He likes guns so has chosen a gun-related name and his edits seems fine, Had he been vandalizing Nazi-related articles and or his userpage then it'd be a completely different matter, As noted above he has explained his username issue here so personally I see no problem with it and I see no point blocking. –Davey2010 21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow The name itself is not patently offensive. This is a user with 4000+ edits and trusted with rollback. They bothered to take the time on their user page to explain the background of their username. ZERO evidence of support for neonazi views. Yes, some people will be offended. And? Ban all usernames that might be offensive? Require an editor change their name if another editor complains? Or if 5 complain? No. If the name is not patently offensive, deliberately designed to be offensive or belittling, allow the name. If people are offended by the name, they can avoid the person. Not the first time that's happened, won't be the last. Ravensfire (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment User:Ansh666 makes a good point on the users' enthuisiasm for welcoming new users. Here is where the potential issues lie. .I would say keep the name, but recognise it is not the greatest first impression of the community, and stop welcoming. The point is the user must make a leap of empathy. Irondome (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - this again? We had this discussion only 12 months ago. I stand by my comments in the first discussion. St★lwart 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Observation The user's explanation is incorrect. There's no such weapon as the Sturmgewehr 88. The famous "88" was officially designated as Flak (Fliegerabwehrkanone) and the tank variant was the Kampfwagenkanone (KwK). The user's claim that the gun is abbreviated as StG88 is not found in any source that I'm aware of. There is a gun known as the StG 88, but it's a true assault rifle and not the Panzer cannon that the user claims. Why combined Sturmgewehr with 88 is anybody's guess. Had he chosen to use the names Flak88 or KwK88 instead of this novel combination there wouldn't be an issue. (If anyone finds information that contradicts what I've written here, I'll gladly stand corrected.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you look at his user page more closely, he has not claimed either of these things: he is well aware that there is no gun called StG88. He combined Sturmgewehr (assault rifles, which he clearly likes), with the 88mm gun (specifically 8.8 cm KwK 43 though it could be the PaK or Flak variants, which he also clearly likes), two unrelated things. The abbreviation is for his name, not any weapon. ansh666 02:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow. We elect "Warfare" usernames to arbcom and we're gonna freak out about a couple digits ... and let's face it, it's a bit prejudiced -- ooh, they have a German sounding name, they must be Nazis. NE Ent 01:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an incredibly ahistorical observation. I suggest you bone up a bit on a little conflagration we called "World War II". You may have heard of it, it was in all the papers. Lots of people died and stuff. I believe the expression "Never again" originated in connection to it. BMK (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow - the combination of a type of weapon (less of a problem than User:NuclearWarfare) and a 2-diget number isn't disruptive, IMO. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Require name change per BMK and TenOfAllTrades: this is a highly offensive user name. I suspect that some people in the above discussion aren't aware that 88 is code used by neo-Nazis for "hail Hitler" : . Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Allow. The fact that "88 is code used by neo-Nazis" does not mean that no one else can ever use that number; that would be PC gone silly. Even in conjunction with a German(!) word, fine; the name is not disruptive. Cheers, Lindsay 12:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• My last comment on this. I am very frustrated and disappointed by the editors above who treat this thread as being part of some bizarre campaign to ban or declare offensive all uses of German words – or even just even words for German weapons, even weapons widely associated historically with Nazi Germany – or all uses of particular numbers (especially the number 88), or usernames that happen to contain words with numbers. The editors arguing against (or derisively dismissing) any such restriction are attacking an argument that nobody actually made.
  It shouldn't be necessary to say this explicitly, but it is possible for one or more words to be acceptable or inoffensive when taken individually or used in one context, but to be particularly offensive when put together or used in a different context. User:Fudge (editor likes chocolate), User:Porch (editor likes lemonade), User:Packer (likes football), and User:Monkey (likes primates) are all reasonable, non-inflammatory, inoffensive usernames. Nevertheless, we'd object to User:FudgePacker and User:PorchMonkey, even if the editor was only expressing an innocent fondness for boxed confectionery. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I will paste here part of a comment I did to another user since I think it is also a good answer for your comment:

Let me summarize here what the last admin discovered and stated on 2012: Ratel but using the sockpuppet Jabbsworth plead to ARBCOM to be unblocked promising he will never use sockpuppets and openly mentioned to ARBCOM three sockpuppets (RxWatch, OzOke, and Hill-Mitchelson) he was using. On 2012 admin User:Elen of the Roads noticed that Jabssworth never mentioned but hid to ARBCOM that he was also Ratel, and he never mentioned but also hid that he was Ticklemeister. User:Elen of the Roads also discovered and noticed that he was also using another sockpuppet (Medic58), that he also kept hid during his last and all the previous SPI and also hid it to ARBCOM. So he was clearly breaching his promises to ARBCOM, deceiving them and the users, plus dishonoring his own words. That was the kind of disruptive behaviour that was sanctioned by User:Elen of the Roads by re-establishing the block that ARBCOM had forgiven to Jabssworth. Now since 2013 up to now, Ratel using JabbaTheHot evaded that last block, breaks his promises, he is caught and blocked again some days ago and you say that is a clean start, that he is not being distruptive and therefore he deserves to be unblocked again? --ClaudioSantos¿? 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog