Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 7 August 2014

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• 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

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#RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Rajiv_Dixit#RFC_can_we_say_he_peddaled_false_hoods_in_the_lede

(Initiated 19 days ago on 5 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 11 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

(Initiated 223 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 78 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 77 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 58 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)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 45 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Done Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

(Initiated 39 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a WP;COI here, closed. Soni (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 35 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

(Initiated 16 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Len_Blavatnik#RfC:_NPOV_in_the_lead

(Initiated 8 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper 🚀 16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Nomoskedasticity. —Compassionate727  13:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Request for comment on greenhouse emissions

(Initiated 89 days ago on 27 September 2024) Lots of considered debate with good points made. See the nom's closing statement. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  13:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 32 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)

Talk:Chloe Melas#RFC on allegation of making a false allegation (resubmission)

(Initiated 31 days ago on 24 November 2024) The bot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPath 23:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  13:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (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 91 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

(Initiated 79 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  14:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 70 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 68 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727  14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 49 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:JTG Daugherty Racing#Requested move 22 November 2024

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 November 2024) Pretty simple RM that just needs an uninvolved editor to close. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  14:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 28 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 57 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)

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

Question about user that refuses to use the talk page

RFC closure review

Giant Snowman raises four complaints about the close (it looks like three, but actually his first point has two limbs). I'll take each of them in turn.

Complaint: The closer was not an admin.
Outcome: The consensus is that this is not an issue in this case.

Complaint: The close will impact lots of other articles.
Outcome: The consensus is that FormerIP's RfC close does not have precedential force and relates only to this one particular article.

Complaint: The close is confusing and incomplete.
Outcome: The discussion did not lend itself to crystal clear conclusions, so some vagueness in the close is understandable. Editors do not feel that the close was too ambiguous to be allowed to stand.

Complaint: The close did not accurately reflect the consensus.
Outcome: This was the point that generated the most substantive discussion. FormerIP contends that "I don't think any other interpretation of consensus was possible", but with all due respect that's a bit of a stretch. It's quite apparent from the review below that other interpretations of consensus would have been possible. Several contributors argue that the close was within discretion, but overall there is no consensus on this point. I think this means the close should probably be allowed to stand.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 22:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello, I would like to request a closure review of this RFC by FormerIP (talk · contribs) please. There are a few elements to the closure that I disagree with:

1. It was a WP:NAC on a controversial topic, and one that will have an impact on hundreds/thousands of other articles.
2. The close is confusing and incomplete - it states that "both nationalities should be referred to in the opening sentence of the article", however does this mean that the wording should be X is a German-American soccer player, or does it mean that the wording should be X is a soccer player. Born in Germany, he represents the United States at international level, or perhaps even something else? Both seem appropriate wording according to the RFC close, yet the RFC was started precisely because the wording in my first example was disputed as it implied ethnicity as opposed to nationality.
3. It does not seem to accurately reflect the consensus.

I participated only briefly in the RFC, but participated more fully in earlier discussions that led to the RFC and am obviously INVOLVED. GiantSnowman 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In response:

1. According to WP:CLOSE an RfC should not normally be overturned on the basis that the closer was not an admin. At the least, I think an explanation is required here as to how my not being an admin might be a relevant consideration.
2. I don't think this is the case, but if clarification is needed, why not simply ask for it? It is true that the close restricts itself to the central question debated in the RfC and leaves a number of possibilities open for precise wording (although not the second of those you suggest here, because the close stipulates that nationality should be dealt with in the first sentence). I think this was appropriate - a close should not be any more restrictive than is necessary. Although I don't personally think it is needed, I could amend it to provide additional guidance about how the opening sentence might be worded, if it is felt that this would be helpful.
3. The votes were more-or-less evenly split and one side based their argument on there being a pre-existing consensus for their position. But they were challenged about this during the RfC and failed to produce any evidence showing such a consensus exists. Indeed, the evidence that was produced pointed instead towards an error on their part (in thinking that WP:MOSFLAG governs article leads, which it clearly doesn't). I don't think any other interpretation of consensus was possible, given that one side of the argument rested on a premise that was completely unsupported by evidence.

Formerip (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn, reopen, someone else close later down the road Was closed waaay too early, and the close looks like a supervote. Discussion had not died down by any means. Saying things like "I spot-checked a few relevant articles, and found a mixture of approaches, with some mentioning multiple nationalities, some mentioning multiple nationalities but downplaying one or more (e.g. "a Brazilian-born Spanish footballer"), some not mentioning any nationality, but instead naming countries the person had played for and some only mentioning one FIFA nationality. I could also see that some editors involved in this discussion have also recently been active in enforcing their preference in the subject-area." and "There was a parallel discussion at WP:BLPN, but I did not feel that this added anything substantive to the discussion here." (which means the possibility of using arguments not presented in the RFC) appears to say the decision is based on his own partial research and biases, a no-no for a closer. Nothing personal against FormerIP, but that was a bad close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • • It is true that I carried out my own partial (in the sense of "inexhaustive") research as part of the close, but I don't think this was impermissible. In this case, the argument of one side rested on the claim of a pre-existing consensus, for which no evidence was presented during the RfC. There was a parallel BLPN discussion, and it may have been that the crucial evidence had been presented there. Or, there may have been prior talkpage discussions unreferenced by the parties but which supported their case. Or, there may have been uniformity of practice in the subject area, which would have at least pointed to the possibility of a consensus existing. In the event, I did not find any of these things (so it made no difference to the close), but I don't think there is a basis for saying that it was wrong of me to try. Note that, in the hypothetical case that things had been different, this would not have involved bringing arguments made externally to the RfC into the close, but it might potentially have brought a different complexion to the arguments actually made in the RfC.

    I think that you should consider either explaining or striking the suggestion that the close was biased. Formerip (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

    • I think you are taking the term "bias" in a way other than I meant to use it. I didn't question your faith, just how you reached your conclusions, and using outside information does bias the conclusion. IE: influence. Looking at the other articles (WP:WAX comes to mind) and checking the other discussion. I didn't question your neutrality, and you even made it clear the close was against your personal preference. It sounds like you used (or attempted to use) arguments that were not included within the discussion, and you aren't supposed to do that for a close. Under no circumstance did I mean to infer you had a NPOV or cultural bias. I used the word as plain English, not Wikispeak. I would also note your sentence " I could also see that some editors involved in this discussion have also recently been active in enforcing their preference in the subject-area." which seems a note of frustration because of the actions of others, which might have influenced the decision. You did think enough of it to include it in the closing statement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that's a personal view of yours, Dennis. Certainly, when I undergo the process of weighing arguments, I feel free to do some outside research to help. If one side in an AFD screams "no reliable sources", I will look at the sources. If I see that they consist of Nobel prize winners that are being quoted in their precise area of expertise, that helps me weigh the "no reliable source" argument without making me biased. Similarly if a keep argument is based on the sourcing, I will take a moment to ensure that the site quoted actually does seem to have some kind of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I try to give the people making the argument the benefit of the doubt, but nothing precludes (or even discourages) a closer from verifying arguments made during a discussion.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I do the same things, verify the claims made in the arguments, those are normal parts of a close. I don't go check other articles to see how applied (or failed to apply) policy or go looking for opinions in other discussions, however. That is where you are introducing arguments outside of that discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• So, in this case, how would you have gone about checking the claim of a pre-existing consensus? Formerip (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• "There was a parallel discussion at WP:BLPN" is a problem and shouldn't have made a difference or even been considered. Any consensus in FOOTY should be reflected on the main page of FOOTY, which is pretty well documented and would contain any real consensus. Would I have looked for other RFCs in the archives? Maybe some, but really, those should be indicated on the main page. Unless the vote links to the consensus, I wouldn't go searching an hour as it is their responsibility to back their claims if they aren't obvious or easy to find on the main page. That is like someone saying "it's notable" at AFD without more explanation. So the short version is, when closing, if a !vote makes you have to go on a scavenger hunt, it is a weak or unsubstantiated !vote, and they haven't done their job in presenting their case. That is their job, not yours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• So, on that basis, I should have just rejected their argument out of hand. Instead, I made some investigations to see if their argument stacked up, found nothing to say that it did, then rejected their argument. Either way, same result. So why are you supporting an overturn of the decision? Formerip (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't ask for an overturn because your conclusion is wrong (I don't have an opinion on what the proper close should be, not an area I know well enough to close). I said overturn because of the methodology in the close, the technicals of the close are what is bad, and that makes for a bad close, whether or not a good close would have the same conclusion. Since I don't know the topic very well, it would be difficult for me to have faith in this close, whereas a clean close I could trust. Again, it isn't personal at all, I think you closed in good faith and don't have a problem with you doing other closes, but I think you made some procedural mistakes that reduce the authority in the decision. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • @Dennis Brown: Why do you think it was closed too early? The close was made 33 days after the RfC started and 27 days after the final comment. Number 57 15:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Struck that portion, oldtimers bit me. The rest stands, however. And for the record, I'm as pro-NAC as they come, so that has nothing to do with my conclusions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment as an involved party Whilst I have some sympathy with the second point made by GiantSnowman, I disagree with his third; closing an RfC is about weighing up the strengths of the arguments put forward, not seeing how many people !voted each way. The "one nationality" side could not provide any evidence backup to their claims of a consensus, which FormerIP noted in his closing comments. Also, I didn't see anyone able to justify the "one nationality" stance, except claiming it was due to a previous consensus (no evidence of which was provided). Even a personal discussion with the most opinionated editor on his talk page resulted in him admitting that he was unable to justify only having one nationality in the introduction (it was thinking above his pay grade apparently), and was only arguing that way because he believed there was consensus. Number 57 15:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are two results we need from the RFC which deals with a sportsperson who was born with one nationality but represented a different nation at international level - how many nationalities do we display in the lede, and how do we display them? The RFC was closed too early, as Dennis says, and we were not afforded time to fully discuss both of these elements. GiantSnowman 15:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How was it closed too early? There had been no further discussion for almost a month – lack of time was not an issue. Perhaps what should have happened is that the closer should have recommended a second discussion to decide between the two, but I certainly don't see a problem in closing the "one or two" side of the debate. Number 57 15:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • • Perhaps a second discussion would be useful if editors want that. I don't necessarily think it's part of a closer's job to initiate follow-on discussion about matters not covered by the RfC, though. Editors can do that for themselves if they want to. Formerip (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • It wasn't closed as early as I thought but there was ongoing discussion. Not a particular problem since it had been a month but not ideal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I'm unsure how this being an NAC has anything to do with the result (no tools were needed for this close). I'm also unsure how this is precedent setting for hundreds-thousands of articles since the close seems tailored to this page (The MOS is, and should effect many articles... that to my understanding is the reason we have a MOS). The close appears to me to reflect the consensus that was found (i.e. that both his German and American nationality should be mentioned in the lead). That the consensus that was established does not quite answer the question of the RFC does not seem to be an issue with the close, just with the discussion (which did not address that specific issue). Responding to above, I agree with Number 57 that discussion had died down (last time stamp appears to be June 23). Crazynas 16:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close - This result was within the closer's discretion. Agree with Crazynas that it applies just to the article about John Anthony Brooks and we can't assume that it settles the issue for all other articles on footballers of mixed nationality. The closer faced a problem in that the issues weren't precisely stated -- e.g. this was not a vote on an actual opening sentence. Given the vagueness of the question posed and the vagueness of many of the arguments, coming up with Both Brooks' German and American nationalities should be referred to in the opening sentence of the article seems well within the parameters and it does not go against any hard evidence offered in the discussion. In my opinion closing this as No Consensus would also have been possible. Regarding non-admin closures, I don't personally object to non-admins closing a thread like this on a content matter. As to future RfCs, nothing rules out having more RfCs about nationality. It is probably impossible to stop them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Further input welcome/needed... GiantSnowman 19:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I was thinking of closing this when it eventually showed up on ANRFC, but as further input has been requested I offer my analysis here instead. Neither points 1 or 2 are good reasons to contest the closure. On point 2, vagueness in a close is often because the closer could not find consensus in the discussion that would support more specific wording; the rest is left for the editors to decide on, with further RfCs if necessary. Point 3 would be a valid reason to overturn the close, but evidence as to why this is the case (that is, why the close is outside the usual range of closer discretion) has not been presented. At the talk page, one editor gives the reason "several editors changed opinion during the discussion and the BLP discussion," but this appears to already have been considered in the close. Dennis gives a fourth point, that checking on related articles as part of the close appears to be personal analysis rather than analysis of the discussion, but it seems like a reasonable response to say that this was just part of verifying the points made in the RfC. Since the close would have been the same without inclusion of this analysis, I would call it a better argument for amending the close rather than overturning it, e.g. by striking out the relevant statements, but as nobody here has called for that (at least up to this point) I would leave it to FormerIP's discretion. Sunrise (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Restored from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264. After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review? Cunard (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• A few things. On point 1, there's no binding precedent on Misplaced Pages. We shouldn't be justifying our scrutiny of closes on the basis that they're magically more important or wide-ranging than they are. Certainly an outcome like this could be pointed to in later discussions, but it's just informational. I agree somewhat with point 2 (as I have no idea what the exact guidance is for the lede based on the close), but my guess is that FIP wanted to express that the discussion pointed toward including both nationalities without specifying the text itself. That's fine. Perhaps, were it worded more clearly, that would be preferable. As to point 3 (the actual complaint at hand), I don't think it's too far outside the bounds of a normal close. As I read that discussion there's some support for stating both nationalities and a lot of hand waving toward previous discussions (I think here is where we're meant to read some of them) indicating otherwise.
• With respect to Dennis Brown, every closer on a non unanimous discussion makes some kind of supervote. Often we frame it as "judging strength of argument" or some such, but what we're doing is assessing input and determining what is germane, persuasive and representative. That, combined with the finality of a closure itself, means we have to make a decision. We're not just holding a lens to a discussion. Like Justice Stevens Stewart, we can usually recognize a supervote when we see it, but don't mistake a closer persuaded by arguments in a discussion for merely imposing a policy preference. Hell, even head counting can involve a supervote. :) Protonk (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean Justice Stewart?Nathan 15:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Argh. I did indeed! Protonk (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Durdevdan uprising article

See Talk:Đurđevdan_uprising#Title_and_scope_RfC.

I wasn't able to draw a consensus from the discussion here, but I am concerned about the article. It is not an easy one, because most of the sources are in Serbian-Croatian. The events described in the article are, in general terms, real events (I am suspicious about one or two of the details, but that's a side issue).

What I am concerned about is the framing of the article. My feeling is that the sourcing generally on this topic reflects what is in the sr.wp article sr:Масакр у Санском Мосту, that there was a massacre of Serbs and Jews in a place called Sanski Most (modern-day Bosnia) in 1941, carried out by the Ustase. Prior to this, there had been some resistance activity in the area, which was used by the Ustase as a pretext for the massacre. The difficulty is that our article places emphasis on the resistance activity as if that, rather than the massacre, is the historical event worthy of a WP article. I'm concerned that this may reflect a revisionist/apologist/nationalist narrative (one that seeks to put war crimes committed by Croats or the Ustase into a context where they do not seem quite so bad, or where they are not the most important part of the story - although it should also be noted that the most significant contributor to the article is actually Serbian). I think this is a case where we ought to have an article about a war crime here, but what we have is an article about events which (according to some) provided some rationale for a war crime. The major difficulty is that there is a paucity of sourcing in English, so re-writing the article would not be a straightforward task for most editors.

Note that I am not making any allegations against any editors. I may have the wrong end of the stick, or editors involved in the article may have created a poor article in good faith by following sources.

I didn't feel I could resolve this issue via a close, so I'm seeking support and opinions about how further investigation or action should proceed. I don't see it as a major emergency requiring immediate resolution, BTW.

Apologies for not providing background reading - that's difficult because there's not much in English. I'll perhaps try to cobble something together later. Formerip (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I am involved in that discussion, but I agree that the article appears to be focussed on the pretty inconsequential "uprising" rather than the subsequent massacre. I'll observe that Ad's approach appears to reflect an intention to show that Serbs revolted against the Ustase before the communists started to fight, rather than some whitewashing of Ustase crimes or "blaming the victim". He created the June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina article, for I believe similar reasons, which I subsequently rescued from drowning in POV, and is now GA and under review for Milhist A-Class. This article is yet another example of him refusing to accept policy or community consensus, wikilawyering over minutiae, refusal to get the point etc. User:Joy may disagree with my summary. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually told Ad people are not going to focus on the right thing if he keeps pushing this talking point, but he wouldn't listen. The sr: article is about the August massacre in that town, not the May one. But it's all beside the point - the readers are just plain not supposed to have to care for these intricate, even petty, talking points that are being promoted. --Joy (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a question of perspective here. The topic here is really an extended and accelerating campaign of harassment and violence, culminating in August 1941. That seems to me to be how the sources tell it, rather than two discrete events a few months apart. I can't find any source that just talks about the May uprising as a standalone event. It's also not the case that this uprising was followed by reprisals then a lull in violence rather. There was a continuation of mass murders growing in significance over the summer, with 3,605 people being killed in total (according to official figures).

What's problematic is that the article doesn't mention this context, and there is no WP article about it. So, the reader is presented with a very narrow view of events, giving a very misleading impression of events in the town that summer (instead of 3,605 murders, 27 executions). I also don't think it's clear that the events described in the article warrant one. As mentioned, I can't find them treated outside of the broader context anywhere, and they do not seem dissimilar to events that took place elsewhere in the same geographic area at around the same time.

I should say that I was probably incautious above talking in terms of apologetics and revisionism. Peacemaker's take is simpler and more likely. Formerip (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On the whole, you're right on the mark. IOW articles in both languages are basically lacking context. But when I had said effectively the same a while ago, I was subjected to a multitude of wikilawyering techniques. *sigh* --Joy (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Restored from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264 to allow for more independent input. Cunard (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we move this all to Talk:May 1941 Sanski Most revolt? It just requires editing, not really administrative attention, now that the sole disruptive user is gone. --Joy (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As the OP, I'd be fine with that. Formerip (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD in need of a close

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

Could we please have an uninvolved admin close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse (2nd nomination)? It's eight days old, has seven policy based delete !votes (six of whom also request salting) and two keep !votes, and has received no new !votes over the past couple of days. And all that is happening there now is that endless walls of irrelevant text are being added to it by the article creator (who seems to have a clear COI, BTW). Thanks. Thomas.W 18:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The article already has an uninvolved admin called DGG, new references has been found yesterday and other contributors gidonb are editing and improving the page, the moderator is probably allowing time for this new references to be evaluated by the community. Thank you Mr. Thomas.W for trying to save time and make this end sooner but the moderator has demonstrated impartiality, used wisdom, plenty of experience and this makes me believe he knows what to do and when. I wish you a great day Jose Cuello (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DGG nominated the article for deletion, so he is hardly "uninvolved". And none of the "references" presented has established any notability for the subject of the article. It doesn't matter how many company pressreleases or newspaper articles with at best a passing mention you present, as I and several others have repeatedly tried to explain to you at AfD, you have to provide proof of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. And so far we haven't seen a single reference that is even close to meet that. Thomas.W 20:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your inside, if you are not content with DGG as moderator, then there most be a way to solve this. Regarding the article, we are working precisely on the in-depth point, i hope you can separate me as an individual from the article, because we both don´t own the content, this is public information with a live of its own, others are contributing and gidonb recently voted for it to be kept, I appreciate very much how you have pointed me towards a learning experience to improve the article; if you are 100% sure, that it does not meet wikepedias policy then you should have no worries since it will eventually meet its demise, please allow everyone to evaluate the new resources that have been found so the community can make an educated and well informed decision. I wish you the best Jose Cuello (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jose, your conception of AfD procedure is mistaken. The person who assesses consensus and closes the discussion must not have previously been involved in the discussion in any capacity. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course I cannot close it, since I have already expressed my opinion. Somebody else will, according to their judgment, based on the arguments there. We have a well-established afd procedure, and it is rarely necessary to bring such matters here also. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WWE Disruptive user

Joe Vonner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been disrupting WWE-relating articles recently by messing up wikitables, inserting false information, etc.. I work hard to keep it clean and he is just ruining it. ClassicOnAStick (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting assistance, ClassicOnAStick; I've blocked Joe for 1,603,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck times. In the future, this kind of thing is better mentioned at WP:AIV (for really simple vandalism) or at WP:ANI (for more complex problems), since this board is more for announcements, discussions, and other less problematic issues. Still, I'm thankful, not complaining. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

User:XiuBouLin/Heaven Sent Gaming

Original pagwe has been deketed with deletion discussion--Musamies (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Weird; Heaven Sent Gaming was AfD'ed and endorsed at DRV; then restored and userfied by Tokyogirl79, then deleted by Tokyogirl79 also, saying she would wait for Sergecross73. The user has recreated the page in his userspace with the content that was archived externally prior to deletion. If we allow the drafting to continue (to which I am absolutely not opposed), the deleted revisions found under User:XiuBouLin/Heaven Sent Gaming need to be restored to preserve attribution. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I specifically told that user I was opposed to restoring this... The article was been deleted and turned down at DRV multiple times in the last few weeks. It's all due to recreation by inexperienced users who do t understand the GNG or "significant coverage from trivial passing mention". As such, I was skeptical when another inexperienced user wanted to take another shot at it, especially because the work doesn't read like a Misplaced Pages article and suffers from WP:BOMBARD issues, so it's not like its a good starting point even if the article subject was notable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no comment from you at the DRV and can find no other DRV. In the absence of consensus against letting this be drafted, there is no justification to delete the draft, and if we do not delete the draft, then we must restore the deleted revisions under it to preserve attribution. The mainspace title is salted anyways. Sergecross73, I understand your concerns, but will you allow this draft to continue existing? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. It was thrown out of DRV, this is true, but my comments were at yet another venue discussing this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Heaven_Sent_Gaming Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I must've been missing something. However, even if I delete the draft, the user has the contents of the page because they were archived externally. Even if salting the current userspace title, there is nothing stopping the recreation of that page under any other draft title. I think we should allow drafting; there's little harm, and it'll have to go through AfC before recreation through the salt (and we know that's unlikely to happen under the current form of the article). I'd hate to specifically go against your wishes, but in this case I'd ask again: will you please allow the continued drafting of the page? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think it's the right move, but I won't stand on your way on it. The community better gripe to you and not me when we're all wasting time at another deletion discussion with an obvious conclusion though. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Due to the salting it would be pretty hard to move it to main space under the same title. I would make it clear to XiuBouLin that she needs to have at least one person who is knowledgeable about this article and its history to review it before putting it back into mainspace. 129.9.75.245 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP Review (Right to be forgotten)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28640218 -According to this Google is suppressing a link to a Misplaced Pages article, the BBC item doesn't indicate which article.

So my questions are as follows ? i) Who at OFFICE can confirm that Google is suppressing a link? ii) Has Google told OFFICE which link has been suppressed? iii) Has the (unnamed) article been flagged for BLP issues? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt anyone at the office would know this, since it's google's doing, not anything the office did. Kosh Vorlon    16:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ars Technica seems to think otherwise: But Misplaced Pages is holding a news conference Wednesday in London, and it's expected to announce what page, or pages, are being removed. Resolute 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, King Canute seems present -- if the EU courts require specific actions, wise companies will follow the ruling. IMO of course. Collect (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As well as forwarding the requests to Chilling Effects I would hope. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

this should shed some light on the situation. This page tells us what links were removed out of google. Kosh Vorlon    14:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me we need a new Category ... "Pages removed from EU Search Engine Results"? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tutelary placed one of the affected articles in Category:Articles which may not appear on Google (but did not create the cat itself?). I would instead agree with a namespace-agnostic name. The affected group includes images as well as articles, the number involved is not (currently) very large, and there's no difference among namespaces relevant to this grouping. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Note on mobile so forgive any typos but that was a test on an article, which I should not have done. I do support a cat being made, though. Tutelary (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• This whole line of discussion strikes me as vaguely mean-spirited. Yes, Misplaced Pages is not obligated to censor itself, and it's unfortunate if we lose traffic due to Google "censoring" search results. It's undoubtedly true that people can, will, or have used the new law to remove stuff that's important and that they just don't want people to know. But the concerted effort to publicise each removed search result as loudly as possible, essentially googlebombing anyone who dares to ask Google to abide by a current law, is not particularly becoming of our community. The spirit of BLP should govern how we interact with living people, and that should include caution and sensitivity when approaching topics that may reflect poorly on living people. That doesn't mean we can't discuss these things, but it does mean we shouldn't just repeat them as often as we can out of orneriness or spite. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing mean-spirited in seeking to undermine a court decision that basically amounts to censorship of public information. If it is understood that attempting to remove information from search engines becomes a recipe for Streisand effect, then maybe -just maybe- this disgraceful EU court decision will become less dangerous. Censorship may help an individual but it hurts much more the greater good. One has to weigh things before deciding what is "mean-spirited". --cyclopia 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Undermining a court ruling is, in itself, not mean-spirited, I agree. Undermining it by throwing living people under the bus, however, is not something we should be doing. I can imagine a case, for example, where someone who was abused as a child just wants that part of their history no longer visible, because it hurts and they've moved past it and don't want it to be the first thing potential employers see. Shall we trumpet their name and stick them in a category that we publicise, to purposely draw attention to them, because we oppose the court decision and their particular life doesn't matter to us while we're busy opposing it? That's what I mean by "the spirit of BLP" - we still have an obligation to be sensitive to those we write about, even if they're caught up in something we institutionally dislike. It's certainly a balancing act, and it would depend from case to case, but I feel that our obligation to not unnecessarily hurt people should be an important part of that balancing act. This discussion (and, indeed, a number of others on this topic, both wikipedia-related and not) has made me feel that that obligation is not only being ignored, it's being purposely thrown by the wayside because hurting people can be a good political tool. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

throwing living people under the bus - That is not throwing anyone "under the bus", it is restoring the previous condition, where public and non-defamatory information was still available in search engines.

because we oppose the court decision and their particular life doesn't matter to us while we're busy opposing it? - Short answer? Yes. It sounds brutal, but only because you are putting it in a kind of "when is the last time you beat your wife?"-way. The point is not that their particular life doesn't matter, it does. But what matters more is that the infamous "right to be forgotten" is nullified. As you say, it is a balancing act. In this case I'd say the balance is deeply in favour of opposing any kind of enforced censorship, even if it can have agreeable results in some few particular cases, like the one hypothetical you postulate.

That's what I mean by "the spirit of BLP" - we still have an obligation to be sensitive to those we write about - I disagree, at least in the way you are declinating that. We have an obligation to be fair, to be responsible, to present things neutrally and objectively and to respect privacy whenever it makes sense. We do not have an obligation to accomodate every conceivable whim of people we write about.

because hurting people can be a good political tool. - I honestly don't get what you imply. Can you clarify?--cyclopia 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't simply an encyclopedia, it's an advocacy group for freedom of knowledge. And to put it bluntly, Fluff, the supposed right to be forgotten and anyone who invokes it against Misplaced Pages are our enemies on both fronts. This doesn't mean we treat them any differently on the encyclopedia side of things, of course, but we have a right and duty to leverage the Streisand effect against them as far as we are able. It is not simply the EU courts that can be convinced they have made the wrong decision, would-be censors should also personally fear the backlash of attempting to invoke the law. --erachima talk 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages isn't simply an encyclopedia, it's an advocacy group for freedom of knowledge". Really? Where exactly in policy (or anywhere else) is this laid out? I wasn't aware that I'd signed up for an 'advocacy group' - and if I have, I'd like to know who it is that gets to decide who our 'enemies' are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for the Wikimedia statement of purpose. As for who our enemies are, said enemies are the ones deciding that. --erachima talk 20:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How about providing a link for this supposed 'statement of purpose'. And how about actually giving a meaningful answer to a simple question. Who decides who our enemies are? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

erachima's comment, for the record, is a good example of the sentiment I was referring to when I said it seems like people are intentionally using harm to BLPs as a political tool. The idea that we have "a right and duty" to harm these individual people as much as we can because they're our "enemies" and we must make them and everyone else fear us is something that I find extremely distasteful and not at all in keeping with our usual BLP attitudes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not harming anyone. That someone dislikes some information to be found on Google does not mean that we are harming that someone. And our aim is not to harm anyone. Our aim should be to counter every attempt at censorship and making them counterproductive. Could this annoy them? Perhaps. But censorship harms everyone, it harms and poisons our society. erachima is right: Misplaced Pages is built on the concept of freedom of information. Who takes action against this concept, takes action against us. Again, let's keep priorities into focus. --cyclopia 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If you find it distasteful, you can feel free not to chip in. Just be aware that a lot of people do find it perfectly within our mission to defend ourselves against censorship. --erachima talk 20:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Googlebombing names indiscriminately and vindictively isn't the only way - or a good way - to fight censorship, is my point. In fact, it's sort of unrelated to fighting censorship in any results-causing way. You can fight this censorship by writing the court that made the ruling, writing your local lawmakers, staging in-person protests, attempting to change Misplaced Pages's policies about when information should be removed, boycotting Google, checking over the RTBF requests that the WMF posts for potentially problematic ones or for ones that are oughtn't have been fulfilled. You can fight the censorship in any number of ways that doesn't involve turning people who (you think) made RTBF requests into evil boogeymen who are no longer covered by our BLP policies because they're "enemies" now. Keep in mind that, as the emerging situation on the Gerry Hutch shows us, you can't even know who your "enemy" necessarily is in these cases, which means that by googlebombing someone "to fight censorship", you may be harming, or at least drawing attention to, someone completely unrelated to this thing you hate so much. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

evil boogeymen who are no longer covered by our BLP policies because they're "enemies" now. - Nobody wants to make "evil boogeymen" of them, nor I have the slightest intent of dropping BLP policy on such people (quite the opposite, since we can attract attention to them). As you correctly point, we don't even know if the BLP subject is the one doing the pull request. But who did it is irrelevant: all that is relevant is to nullify such attempts at censorship, within BLP policy. BLP doesn't say we shouldn't publicize our articles, or that we shouldn't attract attention to them. As long as the article is good, fair, sourced and equilibrated, if anything, we should be compelled to show it off. Imagine that we make a FA of every article which is subject to a "right to be forgotten" request. Would that be a bad thing?--cyclopia 00:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

we have a right and duty to leverage the Streisand effect against them as far as we are able: this is an incredibly bad and dangerous statement. You are saying not just that we are permitted to publicize something as much as we possibly can based solely on the fact that they don't want that to happen--which is bad enough as it is--but that we have the responsibility to do so. That's...so wrong I'm not even sure how to express how wrong it is. If we want to protest the law, through the usual legal channels, that's one thing. If we want to do a blackout like we did for SOPA or whatever, well, I would strongly disagree with that, but still, it's whatever. Actually deliberately going after people, through anything other than simply writing neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia articles on notable subjects (which is what you seem to be implying), is just...wrong. Despicably so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Unethical, and a clear violation of the principles under which Misplaced Pages operates. Abandoning the tenets of a neutral encyclopaedia and selecting individuals for special treatment in order to make a point about censorship is entirely contrary to the objectives of this project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I repeat here: Imagine we strive to make a FA or at least a GA of every article subject to a "right to be forgotten" request, and we manage to get them to the main page. That would be "special treatment", perhaps, but it would violate no policy, it would be neutral, and it would improve the encyclopedia overall, and it would be "simply writing neutral, well-sourced encylcopedia articles on notable subjects". Making publicity of an article or making an article better is absolutely not a violation of the WP principles. Also, again, we are not going after people. We are going against censorship. Which is absolutely in the principles and spirit of WP.--cyclopia 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What is despicable is censorship. What is also despicable is the willful misrepresentation of opposing arguments; I clearly stated that our encyclopedic coverage should treat people by the same standards regardless of what they've done. Which, yes, may even include some cases where it turns out we should remove articles because they were about non-notable people, that being our long-standing editorial policy.
We do indeed, however, have both the right and the responsibility to document, report, and publicize cases in which we are being censored. That you would have us refrain from this duty out of fear that we might fail to mitigate the consequences of someone's unethical actions against themselves is mind-boggling. --erachima talk 00:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. Take your anti-censorship activism elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is also a project to disseminate knowledge. Censorship goes against dissemination of knowledge. Documenting and publicizing attempts at censorship is the bare minimum we can do to promote our goal of disseminating knowledge.--cyclopia 00:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. If all you're talking about is writing quality articles, then that's fine. Cutting the articles to the front of the line to appear on the front page is not so fine in my opinion, but still, whatever. But that's not what y'all seem to be saying: they said that we would treat them the same as any other subject encyclopedically and then do other stuff. The point is that there is no "and then". Our responsibility is to document what reliable sources say on the various topics we write about, no more, no less: we do not report or publicize things on our own. If that coverage starts to include a right to be forgotten request, then of course that can be included in articles (subject to due weight, naturally); I never suggested otherwise. But the point is that our job begins and ends in the writing of the encyclopedia; any action taken that isn't the writing of articles is beyond the pale, and allusions to "publicity" and "leveraging Streisand effects" and " document, report, and publicize" sure sound like things that aren't just writing articles. If you want to create primary-source documentation of censorship, I'm sure there are places on the Internet to do that, but Misplaced Pages is not it.
Furthermore, keep in mind that we are not being censored here (at least for the moment). What Google does with its search results is its own business; Misplaced Pages has no right, moral or otherwise, to be high in Google's search results or even to show up in them at all. Google removing a Misplaced Pages article from its search results is not censorship of us, it is (self-)censorship of Google. If you want to protest that, go ahead; you're neither wrong nor alone in doing so. But don't make the mistake of saying that Misplaced Pages is getting censored here. (And I can already hear the "First they came for the..." responses; please spare me such nonsense, as that speech was made in an entirely different context; the stakes here are so much lower as to be incomparable.) If the EU court starts demanding that Misplaced Pages articles be deleted, and the WMF looks like it could possibly cave (not sure how, as I don't think they're subject to EU law, but IANAL), then you can start going on about Misplaced Pages being censored, and then drastic measures can be considered. But not before then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. There is WP the encyclopedia and the WikiMedia Foundation. WP the encyclopedia should do its encyclopedic work, no more no less, even if I would personally encourage exposure of such articles on the main page (within current procedures, like using GA/FA/DYK). On this, we agree. The WMF instead should take action to publicize such cases and attempt to make such RTBF rulings backfire. Does this make more sense now? You may disagree that the WMF should do that, but in any case I'm not talking of disrupting the encyclopedia (quite the opposite). About the self-censorship, that's just semantics at this level: the point is that part of our information is less accessible now, and this goes straight against our goals and shared philosophy.--cyclopia 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but we are not the WMF. We should not be doing anything beyond writing articles. If the WMF wants to do something, that's its prerogative, of course, and if you want to ask the WMF to do something, go for it, but again, that is not what you had said--you were suggesting that "we" have the responsibility/should publicize/etc.. The WMF, as a distinct nonprofit organization, may or may not have such responsibilities, but we as a community certainly do not. And it's not semantics: Misplaced Pages does not have the right to easy access of itself from non-WMF sites like Google--whether it goes against our philosophy or not (I don't necessarily disagree that it goes against our philosophy), we have no right to tell Google what to do or not to do with its search algorithms. We can politely ask, but ultimately it's their website, their search engine, and their rules; we cannot dictate Google's search results any more than they can dictate our article contents, and honestly I don't see how we can give ourselves the moral standing to even protest what they do with their own things. The law itself, sure, but not Google's implementation of it--Google has every right to do whatever the hell they want with their own site. Google is not public property, and we shouldn't treat it like it is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Notifcation : - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerry Hutch (Given the WikipediaWatch saga, this shouldn't take too long to decide.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2014 August 6#File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.jpg. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• The page https://wikimediafoundation.org/Notices_received_from_search_engines probably answers some of the original questions. --Joy (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And the AFD was closed as a frviolus nomination the moment someone put up a delete vote , That's not on. . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"The right to be forgotten" which is not part of the Misplaced Pages is just simply ridiculous. Why should Misplaced Pages delete notable articles simply because a criminal in this case wants to be forgotten? It undermines the purpose of Misplaced Pages. And is an invalid reason for deletion within a AfD process as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerry Hutch I tried to but it got reverted. There is an overwhelming consensus to keep. Infact last time I checked it was 21-3, further discussion needs to take place somewhere of this issue not on this AfD. Thanks JayJay 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's looking increasingly like Google are the villains of the piece here, because they seem to have acted on a takedown request relating to an on-the-record statement made by a senior police officer, even though the ECJ judgment explicitly states that there is no RTBF if there is a public interest in having access to the information on account of "the role played by the data subject in public life". They seem to be taking a very permissive attitude in terms of what requests they will act on, on the basis of this example anyway. Formerip (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Google wouldn't WP:POINT Surely? XD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Google's stance has been an amusing combination of laziness and passive-aggression. They have neither the resources nor the willingness to judge what requests are valid, so they just approve and publicize them all. --erachima talk 01:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

They don't have the resources? Que? Formerip (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, based on discussions at Jimbo's talkpage, the thing about the police officer might not be accurate. Formerip (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Karlie Kloss slammed her article on here on Facebook, she said it's shite. --Homeontherange (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

She probably just wants people to look at it. Formerip (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ban request at another page

Since this page has become the new community sanction noticeboard, I figured it best to alert its watchers to a proposed sanction at another page: Nick has proposed restrictions on Ryulong in the "Ryulong - request for sanctions" section of WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Poke

Just a poke WP:UAA is deep in backlog. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of relevant discussions

Discussions which may interest those who have an interest in Misplaced Pages disciplinary processes, particularly in relation to the treatment of suspected sock puppets, is taking place on Misplaced Pages talk:Dealing with sock puppets, currently at #August 2014 edits and #Why not notify a suspect?. Knotweed (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an essay, not a policy or a guideline that administrators are supposed to follow. In all actuality, there should be a guideline on how to deal with sockpuppets. In addition, it seems to be User:Dennis Brown's essay page, so you'd probably need to talk to him if you want to really change anything majorly. However, if he wanted to, he could just delete everything and write 'you block them' if he wanted to; Primarily his essay page. Tutelary (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be Dennis' essay, but if it's in Misplaced Pages space and not userspace then anyone can edit it.--v/r - TP 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, is that really so? If it's out in the WP name space, it's all fair game, but if it's a userpage, no dice? Learned something new. Tutelary (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically, anywhere on Misplaced Pages is editable by anyone. We just most often defer to the user whose name is in the URL when considering changing userspace pages. Have you ever seen anything in the terms of use, edit screen, or any policy which says that you may retain copyright as long as it's not in article space?--v/r - TP 23:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I understand that every single edit is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 attribution, even userspace edits. It's just that I think theoretically you should have more authority over an essay that you primarily wrote yourself, especially if it's in your name space. Maybe I'm crazy a bit that way. I don't think there's an official policy/guideline about that, and don't think there ever will, though. Tutelary (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You're looking at it backwards, though. It's not that one editor has authority in their userspace, it's that the rest of us have courtesy while in another editor's user space.--v/r - TP 23:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit more than that. I looked pretty dimly on editors that tried to edit WP:Short horizontal line into an essay promoting that concept that the discussions about dashes and hyphens had merit. If you want to provide a counterpoint to an essay, it's fine to create a "See also" to the counterpoint. Wordsmithing while maintaining the original point is fine. Subverting the original essay into something counter to the original author's point of view is rarely a good idea.—Kww(talk) 02:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And, for that matter, when someone's first edit is to an sockpuppeting essay and he then comes to WP:AN to talk about it, shouldn't he have kept WP:ILLEGIT in mind? Specifically those parts about "editing project space" and "avoiding scrutiny"?—Kww(talk) 02:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Request that Sue Rangell be prohibited from editing Spitzer material

Sue Rangell, in her dispute with Lightbreather, has gone back to revising the article on the political scientist Robert Spitzer to make him appear to be a gun control advocate rather than an academic researcher. When she made the same change 6 months ago it was discussed in an RfC and at the BLP noticeboard, but that has not stopped her from doing it again. Spitzer himself reverted part of the change and Casliber has protected the article. Spitzer is a well-known political scientist and one of his areas of research is the politics of gun control in the United States. He has objected strongly on the talk page and wonders why this is happening to him again. Our policies on BLP should protect people out in the world from attacks on their reputation, but it doesn't seem to be working here. I feel that the only permanent solution is to ban Sue Rangell from editing Spitzer's article and from removing any material from Misplaced Pages that uses Spitzer's work as a source.

Since Lightbreather was topic banned from articles relating to gun control, Sue Rangell has been removing or substantially revising all of Lightbreather's contributions to this area. This includes removing material quoted from or referenced by Spitzer's publications. Examples are here, here, here, and here. Since removing sourced material can lead an editor into difficulties, Sue Rangell may feel she needs to paint Spitzer as pro gun control as justification for removing Lightbreather's work. Some of her edit summaries are less than civil in speaking of a person outside of Misplaced Pages. She removed a quote from Spitzer, a political scientist whose field of expertise includes the history of gun control, with the comment: "removed paragraph rehashing gun control arguments, quoting political pundits rather than historians, which have no place in the history section." She removed an entire section written with material referenced to Spitzer's works calling his work "a single person's opinion (especially a person who has a clear bias)". StarryGrandma (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, for something like the 12th time, I am being pulled into ANI because of Lightbreather. Prior to her being banned from the Spitzer page (and all other gun control related pages) for being disruptive, Lightbreather made over 100 edits to that page IN A ROW. I did not edit the page because I refuse to interract with Lightbreather. Now that she is topic banned, I have made TWO (2) edits to that page. Only two. I have made good use of the talk page when doing each edit. There has been no edit warring. I do not believe that StarryGrandma is assuming good faith with me, and is in fact acting on behalf of Lightbreather who has been topic Banned from editing all Gun related articles. I am not ready to make accusations of meat-puppetting at this point, but StarryGrandma has certainly picked up where Lightbreather has left off. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will be away for the weekend. If there are any questions or concerns I will be happy to address them when I return. Have a nice weekend everyone. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Propose topic ban Sue Rangell from gun control as an AE remedy per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control. Sue, Lightbreather didn't get you into trouble here, you did that all by yourself. Lightbreather hasn't touched this article in 6 months. WP:NOTTHEM.--v/r - TP 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, per Statments made by both StarryGrandma and TP. AcidSnow (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm not very satisfied with the evidence presented. This is inherently a thorny issue; of Sue Rangell's edits mentioned above, the only one that I see as really problematic is adding gun control advocate back into the lead, even if it was cited. Maybe some mention of the characterization should be in the article somewhere, especially if there is more than just the one source, but the talk page discussion pretty clearly rejected that language in the lead, and she participated in that discussion. The removal from Gun Control Act of 1968 hasn't even been challenged anywhere. Finally, having the entire section at Global_gun_cultures for America be one authors opinion is clearly not appropriate, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that removal. In light of the fact that there was at least one problematic edit, and that Sue Rangell is clearly trying to push one side of the issue, I'm only going to weakly oppose, but I just don't think the evidence presented here justifies a broad topic ban yet. Monty₈₄₅ 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you'd support a gun control & BLP topic ban instead?--v/r - TP 18:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I would definitely support a topic ban on the Spitzer article, I think I would only be neutral on a topic ban on all Gun Control Related BLPs, unless there have been problems at other BLPs that haven't been presented. Monty₈₄₅ 18:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @Monty845: If the topic ban was on Spitzer - would that include references to Spitzer in other articles?--v/r - TP 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose These edits don't rise to the level of 'incident', if this is the only evidence. This is hardly even much of a content dispute yet. This should be hashed our at the article talk page rather than escalating. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you review the history, the dispute was resolved on the article talk page. Sue is ignoring the consensus apparently and has caused an admin to full protect the article.--v/r - TP 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems not to quite describe this situation. There was a discussion and RfC some time ago. On Talk now there is a suggestion that the RS refs are stronger for the edit. Discussion is ongoing. It seems civil. More importantly, the OP is not engaging in the discussion but instead immediately jumped here. SR has specifically said at talk that she would abide by a new RfC or consensus after discussion of what she believes are strong refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose we can watch how it unfolds there then and evaluate in a day or so.--v/r - TP 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sue is admittedly a proponent of gun control, but is one of the very few from that side of the aisle who truly maintains a NPOV.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - StarryGrandma's proposal to ban Sue Rangell from editing Spitzer's article and from removing any material from Misplaced Pages that uses Spitzer's work as a source. Sue's personal vendetta against me should not spill over into trying to label Spitzer. His body of work is far too extensive to put undue weight on one aspect (based on the word "advocate" appearing in a headline and a blog by a student journalist). I created the Robert J. Cottrol article on the same day that I began work on the Spitzer article - which Sue followed me to within 1 hour of my first edit there - and no-one has felt the need to swoop in there and label Cottrol as an advocate. As far as Sue is concerned, anything I've worked on is suspect, and although that is aggravating for me, the subjects of BLPs should not be punished for her prejudice. Lightbreather (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Little help...

Category:Requests for unblock is looking kind of full at the moment, with upwards of 50 appeals still outstanding. A few more eyes (and hands!) over there would be appreciated. Yunshui _水 11:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(London) Times report on Misplaced Pages

Today's print edition of The (London) Times (Thursday August 7, 2014), has on page 3 a report with the headline "Misplaced Pages to sabotage privacy ruling by posting deleted links"

Apart from the fact that it's made the usual mistake of equating WMF with Misplaced Pages, the headline and lead are in effect saying that Misplaced Pages and thus Wikipedians) have sufficient dislike for the ruling that they would actively use certain (and potentially questionable) methods to challenge it. The characterisation of those actions as sabotage however concerns me as it would imply unethical means, and as far as I knew Misplaced Pages(ns) weren't actively seeking confrontation on the issue. Whilst it's not necessarily untrue that Misplaced Pages(ns) (and WMF) have a dislike for the ruling, I've not seen anything on wiki that would suggest Misplaced Pages as a collective entity, is organising to deliberately undermine the "intent" of the ruling, It's Google that's blocked links and has been kind enough to forward the requests to Misplaced Pages (WMF) (as content provider.) for review. Since when is one content provider querying something with an upstream a bad thing (And isn't that something that's actively encouraged when reading Misplaced Pages articles?)

However, if the Misplaced Pages (or WMF) line on transparency is going to produce border line smears from the media, I am going to have to give serious consideration to whether I continue to help improve the project (most of my edits are technical fixes or image licensing). Perhaps the admins here would care to convince me otherwise? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said on IRC: I have absolutely no idea what your problem is here. Contact The Times for a correction—I imagine the WMF already have. — foxj 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The media (or Reliable Sources as we rather charitably refer to them) are able to turn out inaccuracies simply by turning up in the office. They need no particular assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation in that regard. I'm also slightly confused what exactly you expect English Misplaced Pages admins to do about this problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (edit conflict) What exactly are you asking here? Like, are you asking if some or all of that is true, or are you asking for someone to convince you that it's a good thing? Or just that you should keep editing in general? It is indeed true that the WMF is publishing the notices they get from Google about what links Google is pulling down pursuant to RTBF. It is the case that some, but not all, wikimedians feel that we have an obligation to publicize the cases and names involved in these Google takedowns (see a few sections up on this noticeboard). As far as I'm aware, however, "The Movement" carries no cohesive opinion about whether that type of publicity is a good or bad idea; it's simply people's own opinions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This kind of thing is probably best dealt with by the WMF communications team, which exists and is paid to deal with this kind of thing. ;) — foxj 14:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's basically two sides accusing the other side of being evil. Europe is saying "ANTI-PRIVACY!!!" and Misplaced Pages says "CENSORSHIP!!!" and we vilify each other.--v/r - TP 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Homeontherange

I blocked Homeontherange (talk · contribs) this morning for pointy tag-bombing on today's featured article. In subsequent conversation he revealed that he was a vanished user since 2006 who wishes to un-vanish. He was involved in arbitration, sockpuppeting and drama in that time, and his conduct this morning is hardly irreproachable. Dawn Raider 6 (talk · contribs) was checkuser-blocked as recently as last October. However, he has requested that the possibility of his return be brought up here. I can't find any active sanctions on his primary account, but the history is convoluted. More discussion and context is available on his talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regardless of if he comes back on his previous account or not, sanctions - including your block - are on the person and not the account so whichever account it is will need to fulfill your block.--v/r - TP 18:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've received a satisfactory apology for the activity that led to my block, which is in any case for 24 hours. What is not clear to me is whether, as you note, the person behind the account is actually under any standing sanction. Acroterion (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This was before my time, so I don't really know how the ban process worked in 2006, but based on the AN/I discussion it appears this was a defacto ban rather then a formal community ban enacted at the close of a discussion as is now common practice. As best as I can find, there is no Arbcom ban or sanction outstanding. Is that correct? @FloNight: @SlimVirgin: Pinging a couple current admins who were active in that discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
      • They've also mentioned @Fred Bauder:. Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not impressed by the recent conduct, beyond already getting blocked for an incident with the Featured article, I first noticed this editor at DRV where they claimed Dating Reality and Things not only passed CSD A7, but meets the notability criteria, which I just can't AGF on, its too absurd. Monty₈₄₅ 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The community ban was a very long time ago. I suggest that the current conduct of the user should be the main way to evaluate whether any editing restrictions are needed now. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog