Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:51, 18 December 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 222 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 77 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 68 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 57 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 44 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)

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

(Initiated 40 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 38 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 34 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 15 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 38 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 7 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)

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

(Initiated 88 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)

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)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 16#Category:Origin stories

(Initiated 22 days ago on 2 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 14#Template:Support-group-stub

(Initiated 10 days ago on 14 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727  15:17, 24 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 90 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 78 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)

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

(Initiated 69 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 67 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 48 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 31 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)

Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 27 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 56 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

Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her

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

This is a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:

"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."

There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The policy cited by the OP has to do with closure of a user conduct RFC, which doesn't appear to be applicable. The RFC was a article content RFC, which has different and less rigid closing guidelines. If the OP thinks that the close was improper, the venue for considering that is WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get bureaucratic about going to WP:AN.--v/r - TP 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open , it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢ 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the RFC. The only thing I'm asking for is that it's closure gets reviewed and hopefully overturned. If you and other editors feel that it doesn't even suffice as an RFC because it didn't seek external input, then that's fine with me.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:ANI and retitled to "Closure review: America: Imagine the World Without Her". Cunard (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't an RFC. That said it still falls under "other closures" on WP:Closing discussions. From my view of looking at the arguments, from a policy perspective the closure seems appropriate. Could have been more detailed, but, with proper attribution, it seems a fairly straightforward understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE. Given you need to show the closure to be unreasonable understanding of consensus and that the closure wont be challenged "if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy." It doesn't seem like the closure should be reversed to me. --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus. No consensus was presented or agreed upon by the editors involved. On top of that, valid policy based arguments were completely ignored. Sorry, but WP:AttributePOV does not override WP:QS which specifically states that questionable and self published sources should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. Even the WP:Selfsource, that you referenced, defines where self published sources can be used and that's in articles about themselves or topics about themselves. A film review, is a review about a third party and is not about author or source itself. That means on articles about different topics, they are not considered reliable. If WP:AttributePOV was enough to merit inclusion of opinions simply because they are quoted and attributed, then we'd could put facebook messages from young earth creationists alongside peer reviewed scholarly works. Sorry, but WP has clearly defined policies regarding reliability and questionable sources have very limited use on wikipedia. So the comments/opinions citing WP:AttributePOV for inclusion of questionable sources are actually against policy and not aligned with it. WP:AttributePOV is for sources already deemed reliable and says nothing about self published works and questionable sources being permitted in any article so long as they are properly attributed. We have multiple policies that strictly prohibit that.

Without revising the discussion here. The point is that the closure admitted to ignoring arguments after demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion. That means their rationale for closing is inherently flawed because they didn't understand the purpose of the discussion to begin with. Furthermore, when this was pointed out, they admitted to just siding with "majority opinion" which is also against WP policies regarding consensus. There was no consensus, valid policy based arguments were ignored while other arguments that violated WP policies were included, and that lead to an erroneous closure review.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is a review of the closing, not a second bite at the apple. With that in mind, after looking briefly at the merits, I would conclude that the close was within expectations (although a bit brief) and there is no obvious failure in process that forces us to overturn it. This doesn't mean it is "right", only that it is within procedural expectations. Every close is always "wrong" in someone's eyes, and the purpose of review isn't to judge the merits of the discussion, it is to weigh them only enough to determine if the close is reasonable, and that someone who is completely uninvolved could come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that everyone uninvolved MUST come to the same conclusion, only that the closing is reasonably within the range of "sane". On that point, it passes. Now, that said, it was only a local consensus, it was not a real RFC. You can go to WP:RSN or follow the instructions at WP:RFC to do a proper RFC, with the goal of getting opinions from people who aren't emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion. That is always the best solution, as it will offer unbiased insights. If so compelled, I recommend doing so slowly with a neutral and balanced approach, without indicating your preference in the wording of the initial proposal. Dennis - 2¢ 18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know how you guys can offer input without addressing the points/arguments put before you. When closing an argument the closer is suppose to ignore arguments that are against policy and is suppose to evaluate the arguments put forward by those involved. The closer did not do this and has admitted to this. He/she didn't understand the scope of the discussion, admitted to ignoring policy based arguments, and admitted to going with a simple majority which is not how consensus is determined and is also a violation of rules pertaining to consensus. So, no, it wasn't "within expectations" for multiple reasons. It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing" it's a matter of WP policy and allowing the use of questionable sources to make claims about third parties on articles/topics not about the source itself is against WP:QS and WP:Selfsource. Local RFCs are not allowed to change or ignore policy unless the policy is changed. Again, it is not "sane" to allow Ken Hamm's facebook quotes to stand along side peer reviewed scientific works about the age of the earth, and that's what the closure of this RFC does. It shows a lack of understanding of the relevant policies determining the appropriate use of questionable sources, ignored valid policy based arguments, and went with a simple majority instead of evaluating the merits of the arguments. That's not how closing is suppose to be done.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't guessed by now, the best solution is to do a real RFC instead. Because the last wasn't transcluded to a larger audience, I think it would be in good faith to do so. If your interest is finding a solution, to get input, to get a true answer from the community, that is your best option. Dennis - 2¢ 22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis were you going to actually address the arguments made about this closure being against policy or just continue ignoring them?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the timestamp, I had thought this was already archived.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the closer didn't understand the scope of the RFC and admitted to ignoring policies and policy based arguments in the RFC, there is also an issue of Forumshopping that was done on this topic by the creator of this local RFC. This issue has been brought up and discussed on multiple noticeboards and noticeboard talk pages numerous times, with the creator trying to find some avenue or spin to insert Breitbart.com as a reliable source even though multiple editors in almost every discussion explained why it couldn't be used or explained specifically where it could be used. The RFC certainly didn't disclose these other noticeboard discussions.

RS Noticeboard

NPOV Noticeboard

RS Noticeboard again

RS Noticeboard again

Verifiability Talk Page

Sorry, I don't know how to link directly to a topic, but just do a search for "breitbart" or "Victor" and you'll see that's quite a bit of forumshopping.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267. Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to respond to the accusation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Scoobydunk as it relates to this RfC, here is how I see that it is not forum shopping:

RS Noticeboard: About the Blaze, not Breitbart

NPOV Noticeboard: An accusation by another user (not the RfC starter) that Breitbart.com is WP:Fringe and a very long quote is WP:Undue. (RfC was on if it is a WP:RS so it is a different topic)

RS Noticeboard again: Started by someone other then the RfC, closed almost immediately do to ongoing discussion on the talk page.

RS Noticeboard again: This was the RfC creator, but there was only one response and he was told: "Be bold! Include it and attribute it clearly" Not Forumshopping he was not creating the RfC to overrule this consensus (of 1 person), but because others had objections.

Verifiability Talk Page: Doesn't seem to be about the topic at all.

--Obsidi (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze discussion included discussion about Breitbart.com because the two were likened to each other. It was clear that the reliability of Breitbart.com was also discussed on this noticeboard post.

NPOV Noticeboard: This noticeboard also discussed the reliability of Breitbart.com and when/where specific quotes could be used. The subject was addressed and Forumshopping includes "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards". The issue was raised here and addressed here and the opener of the Rfc didn't like it, so tried to seek answers elsewhere. This is where I was an uninvolved editor and became involved.

RS Noticeboard again: This is still another example of trying to ignore what was said in previous noticeboards by "Raising essentially the same issue".

RS Noticeboard again Still another example of bouncing between noticeboard conversation to get a desired answer.

Verifiability Talk Page This is about the same topic and this is another attempt at finding a niche excuse to try and justify the inclusion of the desired source.

On another note, I did/am not currently accusing the opener of forumshopping, but am saying that this **issue** was being forum shopped. So who opened the other noticeboards is irrelevant to the fact that Breitbart.com was discussed on multiple noticeboards and generally rejected as a reliable source. The Rfc opener participated in all of those discussions and continued trying to manipulate the subject line to include the desired sources. Once the opener found the single answer they were looking for, they used it as a platform to include multiple different articles from the source in question that weren't covered under the scope of the Rfc. That's exactly the type of behavior that wp:forumshopping speaks against and is the type of behavior that would overturn a discussion close.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

But does this mean the discussion about citing this movie review from Breitebart.com is over? Is this fact stuck in this article for every & ever? Speaking again as a disinterested Wikipedian, I can see at least two further arguments that could be made to remove it, or replace it with one from another source. (I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.) Instead of Wikilawyering over whether this one discussion was properly closed -- or whether this properly fits some definition of "a reliable source" -- why not move forward & try to discover one of these arguments. Discussing them may not end up removing this one citation, but IMHO doing so would lead to improving this article. (And if I am right about this matter -- the discussion was properly closed -- maybe someone else would kindly close this thread.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not this discussion would carry on is irrelevant to whether it was closed properly. None of the people who've commented on the closing of this article actually addressed the concerns/arguments as to why the close was invalid except for Obsidi who addressed only the forumshopping aspect. The point of a closure review isn't to get more opinions on the discussion, but to discuss if the closer was justified in their closing. When serious questions are raised as to whether the closer understood the scope of the discussion and understood how consensus is defined, then those points need to be addressed. The closer already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion and also used a "majority" excuse in justifying the close which is against WP policies regarding consensus. Consensus is not determined by majority vote, but by an analysis of the arguments presented and the policies in play. The closer admitted to ignoring arguments that are clearly supported by WP policy, which is not how a consensus is reached. Furthermore, there was no suggested consensus that people agreed upon, the closer merely treated it as a vote, which, again, against the rules regarding consensus. Also, this is not wikilawyering which is an attempt to use loopholes in WP policy to try and bypass other WP policies. Requesting a closure review is the next step in a process of a discussion available to all editors. A closure review is not some arbitrary WP policy that acts as a loophole. So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to liken my participation in a valid step of dispute resolution as wikilawyering. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yu managed to find an opinion which was cited as opinion to come from a "QS" - where the general finding is that a major source is RS for opinions in any case - RS means they "did not make the opinion up" and that is what counts. The quote was majorly trimmed to meet objections of "undue" before this last series of objections, and the RfC close clearly allows it in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, RS and QS are clearly defined and has nothing to do with "did not make the opinion up". QS included sources that have a poor reputation for fact checking, have little editorial oversight, or mostly based on personal opinion and/or rumors, and other things. Either way, the Rfc did NOT address concerns about QS and completely ignored that relevant objection. The only person who actually addressed the concerns of QS, documenterror I believe, quickly fled the discussion because the amount of information needed to comprehend the matter was too much for him to read. Scoobydunk (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Llywrch: No, the RfC merely determined that Breitbart.com is a reliable source for a review from Breitbart.com. The question of whether a mention of the review should be included in the article is mostly separate, but the reasoning that Bb is not a reliable source for Bb was found not valid. HTH, Samsara 12:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Samsara: BB is only reliable for Bb when the article or topic is about BB or the author of the questionable source. This is clearly covered in WP:QS. So for BB to be included in an article/topic not about Breitbart.com itself, then it must first be established that BB is not a questionable source. So the RFC should have been moved into a new dispute resolution noticeboard to establish if it was a reliable source or questionable source, since there are guidelines that strictly limit the appropriate usage of both. Here's a quote directly from the RFC issue raised "The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here." To determine whether the source is allowable on an article that isn't about the source itself, then questions about its reliability must be verified. If it's a questionable source, then WP:QS state that it should only be used on articles/topics about itself. Therefore, the close ignored valid policy based arguments. Thank you though for taking part in the discussion again, instead of trying to wave me off. Scoobydunk (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This closure review has nothing to do with the editing rational on the talk page. This is strictly to discuss if the close was properly done. This thread was kept open by Cunard because there wasn't sufficient discussion and people are still not refuting the arguments made about the improper closing. As per wp guidelines regarding closing a RFC, they can be rescinded if there was forumshopping or are non-compliant with WP guidelines. This closing was forumshopped to override previous noticeboard discussions regarding Breitbart.com. On top of that, the closer admitted to ignoring policy based arguments in the discussion and just siding with majority opinion, both of which are against WP policies for establishing consensus. Those are the issues that are relevant on this thread, not the discussion currently taking place on the talk page. I've already provided links of the closer, Samsara, admitting to ignoring policy based arguments and dismissing them as well as his admission to just siding with the opinion that had the majority. I've also provided links to show how the RFC opener bounced around to multiple noticeboards and noticeboard talk pages trying to find wedge he/she could use to include their questionable source into the article. That editor even then proudly posted on the talk pages the results of their forumshopping which can be found | here.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267. Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the "unarchive" it seems people refuse to offer valid rebuttals or address the arguments about how/why this closing should be overturned, even in the face of blatant forumshoppin on the topic itself.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Unarchived from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267. Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on Cow cleaner 5000

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

Cow cleaner 5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disrupting the Weekly Shōnen Jump article by calling it a terrorist organization and was indefinitely blocked back in August 2014. Since then, he has created 39 confirmed socks and 14 suspected sockpuppets. More recently, this user edited as Texas Titan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kazakhstani2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who attempted to have the article deleted and doing the exact same thing as his previous accounts (, ). This activity sockpuppeteering is the final straw. I propose that an indefinite community ban should be placed on Cow cleaner 5000.

• Support as nominator. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Not entirely sure what is wrong with this person. Blackmane (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per reasons shown above. Lor 00:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per waste of time -- this is a defacto banned check user blocked sock account. NE Ent 00:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Why? It won't change a thing for the socking user (they'll keep socking), and it won't change a thing for admins (revert & block socks). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Meh per above. This is not a person who will be getting unblocked anyway. Sanctions should not be punitive, and that's really the only effect formalizing the ban would have here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Procedural question A number of times, editors have chosen to oppose a CBAN, particularly after a checkuser indef block, much like NE Ent's rationale above. Perhaps it's time for a change to the CBAN policy specifying that a checkuser indef block be viewed as a ban and does not necessitate community !voting to make it a ban? Blackmane (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - We block, He creates another account, Ends up at SPI, then ends up here, We block, He creates another account, Ends up at SPI, then ends up here, ..... Yep it's just going to be one big merry-go-round. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: You seem to have mis-understood what Blackmane's proposing here. (S)he's proposing that the CBAN be automatic - that is, that we never have to come to AN for checkuser indef blocked users, as the CBAN will automaticly take effect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Is Davey2010 not opposing the original ban proposal rather than Blackmane's suggested alternative? Squinge (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd misread something somewhere .... Probably due to lack of sleep!, Thanks for spotting the error, (I apologize for editing this whilst closed) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. In practice, editors are extremely reticent to revert editors who aren't de jure (community-)banned for fears of 3RR. In addition, as noted above, CUs tend to run checks of their own volition when sockpuppets of banned users are involved, at the very least to find sleepers/autoconfirmation busters. —Jeremy v^_^v 07:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Tango link changes need reverting

New editor User:John B. Sullivan recently made a mass, and apparently undiscussed change, of links to tango.in, for example changing https://tango.info/works/HomerManzi to https://tango.info/0000000117983750 (in fact, all of his edits before today do so)- the target page is not the same and the former is the one with the list of works, which is clearly what is intended. I've asked him to desist, but please can someone revert those already done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, 1) it were not links to tango.in but it were links to tango.info. 2) The ISNI links are stable, the others could change. John B. Sullivan (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the changes may be ok as the first one that I checked was diff at Juan d'Arienzo which changed https://tango.info/JuanaDarie to https://tango.info/0000000059365582 and the first web page includes "ISNI: 0000000059365582" where the number is the second link. See ISNI.

@John B. Sullivan: No one should make a mass change to articles without some kind of discussion first establishing that the changes are desirable. In principle an ISNI is good I suppose, but a meaningless number is hard to maintain at Misplaced Pages—what are other editors supposed to do if someone changes a digit in the number? Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The same that they are supposed to do if someone changes a character in any link. Regarding "meaningless number" - the meaning is ISNI, and as your diff shows, the number matches the one provided by the Authority control template. John B. Sullivan (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

While the ISNI page may be more of a permalink than the name page, it is not the same content, and that is quite important. It would be possible (and maybe useful) to run a bot to check that the tango ISNI page (where we have the ISNI) includes a link to the "works" page that we link to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

The ISNI pages have some content more, and some content less. Content on both can change. You want to run a bot on https://tango.info to analyse the link structure within tango.info? John B. Sullivan (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence to substantiate the claim that "the others could change", not to mention the likelihood, or otherwise, of that happening. In the meantime, the ISNI-target pages are unlikely to meet WP:EL, and these changes, which are unhelpful to our readers, should be reverted ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Any link could change, but a correct link claiming to be an ISNI link, could only change and be correct if the ISNI is changing. Can you substantiate your claim "the ISNI-target pages are unlikely to meet WP:EL" and that the changes are unhelpful to your readers? Especially in the light of the fact, that the ISNI International Agency uses in notes - exactly the ISNI links ? John B. Sullivan (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is disruptive behavior by John B. Sullivan. I agree with Andy that all such changes should be reverted. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So your claim that the original links "could change" was pure FUD. Please will someone revert these damaging edits? No consensus for them has been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Backlog. Over 24 hours have passed on some requests and some have continued vandalism going on since last night. Please and thanks. Gloss 18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this an area where non-admins can close unnecessary requests? i.e., this obviously isn't going to be actioned. Dusti 18:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No usually it's left to admins (as with UAA and AIV). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS could do with more admin eyes

WP:ERRORS, where people are directed to leave comments when they see (what they perceive to be) errors on the main page (in the news, DYK, Today's featured article, etc), could do with more admin eyes looking at it. Some comments (even simple things that don't require consensus to change) are going 8-12 hours without an admin response, which for such a visible page is frankly appalling. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Advice needed to request image name change at Wikimedian Commons.

I know how to request an image name change at Commons, but do not understand the implications if the text there below the image concerned. I am therefore acting on the advice that I shoud consult an administrator. The problem is this: The image is entitled Cobblestones01, but in fact shows granite setts and has been posted on the Engish Wikiedia page Setts (paving). I provided a correct definition for the page a long time ago to avoid confusion without realising the need to change this image title at Commons.s not o Action requested: if the text below the Commons image is no obstruction, may I go ahead with the normal change name procedure at Commons? Kim Traynor | Talk 02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What you do on Commons isn't relevant to our concerns here, as long as it's in line with Commons policy. See WP:CONEXCEPT for the relevant policy here. This is a good example of Commons:COM:RENAME #3, so go ahead. Do you have filemover rights? If not, let me know, since I have them and would be happy to help. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Craig Wayne Boyd

Can I get some eyes on Craig Wayne Boyd please? Kriers1735 (talk · contribs) keeps restoring copyvio content snipped from this page and refused to acknowledge a talk page post on it. Ten Pound Hammer • 06:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The "early life" section was copy-pasted from Facebook. I removed that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Brahmanbaria

Hi! Article "Brahmanbaria" recently suffered from a move war. One user tryed to move the article to the new title "B-baria City, Bangladesh", but other users reverted his moves. But they did not do it properly. Instead of moving the page, one editor blanked one page and copied the content to the other page. The result of this is that the page history is now fragmented. Part of the history is here and part is here. I ask administrators to take care of this and to unite these histories because of Misplaced Pages's licence which needs attribution of every author. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

All fixed. Graham87 04:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

UNICRI training document on hate speech

We are mentioned in the new UNICRI training document on hate speech. It uses the Sarkeesian vandalism incident as an example. For me, the resolution was a bit slow, but it seems that Ms. Sarkeesian was, in the end, pleased with the results and how we handled it. So: good job. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Close Review Request after overturn and reclose

I request a review of the closes at Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_1 and Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_2 to determine whether the closers interpreted consensus incorrectly. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Background

A previous on this same RfC resulted in virtually unanimous Overturn. Then Edokter preformed a half-close on just part 2 (which I find faulty in itself) and which created this mess of two half-closes on a single RfC. Cenarium then preformed the remaining half-close on part 1.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC June_2014_RfC which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. Consensus can change, however there has been no redebate of that question for good reason. Supporters do not waste time initiating redebate in order to not-change standing consensus, and Opposers do not waste time initiating redebate when they know that the result is going to go against them. June_2014_RfC is a standing consensus result. No action had been taken on that outcome due to Superprotect. When Superprotect was withdrawn, there was a raging debate in the community whether any admin would, or should, simply step up to implement June_2014_RfC as a standing consensus-action. Many people were arguing respect for consensus itself, arguing that RfC result be implemented as a simple consensus-action. Others argued against it. The first part of this RfC was established as a place for the community to engage in that debate. The question was "Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC". This question was an exact reflection of the debate I saw in the community. Part of the reason for the RfC was to inhibit any supporter from taking action, as a formal debate was underway to carefully decide how to proceed. If the first part of the did RfC pass, the second part asked if the community wanted include terms that we should try to work with the WMF before taking action. The second part would issue a Formal Community-Consensus request that MWF do it for us. The second part explicitly proposed a ban on community-action-to-implement for the duration.Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 2 close review

I attempted discussion with the closer Edokter on his talk page. He was entirely non-responsive there. He did briefly comment here on Administrator's Noticeboard, but he immediately went non-responsive. I was literally in the middle of posting a formal Close Review request on his half-close when I saw that part 1 got closed. I informed him of my intent to challenge his close, but that I was holding that action to investigate the new part 1 situation.

Part 2 had 6 bullet points, and overall ended with tiny majority support. The closer properly closed as no-consensus on bullet point 6 (I botched #6 during drafting, it was only supposed to note the expiration of the 7-day hold). However there were several Support-all-but-#6 votes in the Oppose section, as well as Oppose-only-#6 votes. That establishes solid support for 1-through-5, and the closer essentially notes that they are worthy of proper consideration for consensus. A closer needs to offer a good explanation if he does not follow the majority. He gave the astounding explanation that he simply didn't want to bother!?! More specifically his explanation was "There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se". That a poor rationale for denying #2 (saying the results should be delivered to the WMF), that is wrong on #3 #4 #5 (issuing a Formal Community Consensus request to the WMF), that is a HUGE error on #1 (imposing a temporary ban on community action to implement). Note that he deliberately declined to close the first part of the RfC. Had the first part passed (and it still could under review), Edokter's failure to issue consensus on #1 could have resulted in someone acting on media viewer as a consensus action, without notice to the WMF, when there was a consensus to prohibit such action. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 2 close review

Alsee, where during the progress of the RFC did you mention that you had "botched #6 during drafting" or seek to withdraw or amend it? If I had seen you do so, I could have raised objections to the remainder. As it was, for the sake of brevity, I only discussed the greatest failing in the proposal. If you think that was an "Oppose-only-#6 vote", you are in error. NebY (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 1 close review

RfC Question 1 ended 75 Support 36 Oppose. More than 2 to 1 support.

I attempted discussion with the closer Cenarium on his talk page. I was the third person to show up objecting to his close. We had extended discussions, but I ended them when it was clear that further discussion of abnormalities in his analysis would be fruitless.

The point where I gave up re-explaining my original concern was just after he explained which votes he struck for cause, and his cause for doing so. The closer stated that he struck "As per other-person" votes as somehow invalid. That is not merely abnormal, that horrifying. People use "As per" as a quick way to effectively copy-paste the arguments listed by someone else. The fact that two people present the same valid argument for their position is certainly not valid cause to strike the second person from participation, and strike them from contributing to consensus. I most dearly hope the closer has not been doing that in his other closes.

The original and main abnormality that I was trying to discuss with this closer was the exact same problem in the original overturned close. I'll just quote my challenge to the original close, with one small strike:

The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change. Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

The only difference between this time and last time, is that this time the closer himself points out the problem this creates. The central theme of the closer's explanation, one which he repeats and stresses, is that this RfC did not contain the sort of discussion and debate needed for a closer to directly analyze and issue a consensus on the media viewer setting. And after noting that he can't evaluate and issue a new consensus on that, he proceeds to do so anyway. After changing the question, and finding no debate on the changed question, the closer is cut free from the debate that did happen and wanders off with his views on the issue that wasn't debated. The closer is using the absence of debate on a not-debated-question in order to incorrectly issue a no-consensus on the not-debated-question. Example:

Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This person doesn't even mention media viewer, exactly because media viewer isn't being debated. He's presenting an argument that any standing consensus should be implemented. It is perverse for the closer to use his deliberate silence on an issue not-being-debated as justification to issue a no-consensus on the issue not being debated.

It is especially troubling when the closer is trying to claim that his off-target against-the-numbers no-consensus result has the effect of reversing the outcome of a previously an established 93% consensus. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 1 close review

• Speedy keep. Can we please be done with all this? The issue's been going on since early in the Northern Hemisphere summer, and reviews of reviews of are a bit much. I haven't looked at Alsee's position and have no idea whether the close is in line with my views on the MediaViewer issue; my opinion here is simply that this is comparable to continued AFDs of an article, problematic simply because the continued discussions get in the way. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't seen much of a problem with a string of counter-consensus closes with AFDs, though, and it's fairly clear that this RFC is being closed against consensus based on a "let's not rock the boat" philosophy.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Nyttend if you want to compare this to a second AFD, the comparison is to an AFD that SUCCEEDED and someone else came a long and recreated the article. If the first AFD was valid then there's a good chance the second one is as well. Alsee (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• It was again closed by some spineless lackey of guy with overeager kowtowing to the WMF, that desperately want this extreme anti-community behaviour of the WMF hidden as far from public as possible. The consensus was clear, the first RfC was to be affirmed. There's not a single reason besides "The WMF will not listen to the community in any event, so why bother?" If we kowtow to those guys'n'gals in San Francisco all the time, we can just give up pretending that this project is a community project at all. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to be more civil, but it's very hard to be civil with people, who demonstrate extreme uncivilness like the closers of this RFCs with clear consensus absolutely opposite to what's proclaimed by them. Consensus is clear, was clear, and it's as well clear that the WMF is on an extreme hostile path against the communities and doesn't want to be bothered with community input. The main (and perhaps only) reason for MV was: It was the first major project of that team in SF, so it had to be implemented come what may. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Get rid of mediaviewer. Get rid of it. I don't really care what all of this is, but what I do know, is the consensus in the original RFC was established, the consensus in the RFC to affirm that RFC was 2-1, and this RFC is obviously to implement mediaviewer. Let's get rid of it! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I was preparing to close this (needed a few hours free in a row) and was glad to see someone else did. I was planning on closing with "Tell WMF that the community would like this to be opt-in" as it isn't clear at all the community has the authority to do that itself. But I'd not finished thinking about it. Not a satisfying close, but a reasonable one. I don't _think_ I ever participated in this discussion (I don't recall being involved ever, but apparently I was because I got notified about this) and I honestly don't care about the outcome. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hobit I notified you because you commented on the first close review. The fact that you *didn't* participate in the RfC itself makes your evaluation particularly valuable. Alsee (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• RFCs sometimes end up going a way their proposer doesn't like. This is a thing that happens, because it's rare that everyone commenting in an RfC thinks in lockstep with the individual who started it. I can understand Alsee being annoyed that he put a lot of effort into these RfCs and didn't get the results he wanted, but again...that's a thing that happens. We don't reverse RfC closes because we don't like them or because we would have closed differently; we would only reverse them if there is obvious error or malfeasance (and in a case of malfeasance, it's likely to be Arbcom's remit more than AN's). Barring those things, there's nothing stopping you from waiting a month or two and opening a new RfC, if you're convinced it would go differently next time; that's far more likely to get you results than demanding constant re-litigation of closes already done.

  Specific to this case: Both closes appear adequately-reasoned to me; while there is room for disagreement on whether either of them was an ideal close, or whether they weighted points the way I or Alsee might weight them, there's nothing obviously defective that jumps out from either of them. Cenarium, especially, provided extensive explanation of how his decision was reached and, again, while you or I might close it differently, his explanation provides sufficient support for his close. Edokter's close also appears reasonable; the proposal was for items 1-6, and the voters reached no consensus to implement steps 1-6. An adapted proposal striking step 6 could have been put forward and the voting re-started, but it wasn't, and it wouldn't make sense to close based on "some people thought they were voting on this thing, but some other people decided to vote on this other thing that wasn't proposed, so everyone was voting on something different, but I'm going to pick one that only some people voted on and act like everyone was voting on that." That's a common problem that arises in RfC-type discussions, and it nearly always leads to exactly this: a split vote and no consensus. The usual response is to sit back, regroup, and next time, try to craft a proposal that addresses the issues that split the last one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• (e/c)The OP should 'WP:drop the stick- multiple closers have closed against your prefered outcome - so drop the stick, and live with it, as policy counsels, and as we must all do from time to time. Endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Also, the OP again demonstrates a misunderstanding of wp:consensus and WP:NOVOTE - "per" votes don't add any more reasoning, and votes do not matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• This is a severe problem when we have something complex for admin closure, by definition the more hasty closers are likely to be those that close, where as the more thoughtful and painstaking closers will be left behind. This is not to say that these closes are necessarily incorrect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
  
• Endorse close, especially Cenarium's detailed and well-written close (which is what Alsee demanded last time, BTW), and {{trout}} Alsee for admin-shopping. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, please do not misrepresent "what I demanded last time". I literally quoted what I wanted last time. This closer exactly repeated the error, and I'm asking for the exact same thing I asked for last time. I'm asking for a close that accurately reflects the debate. I'm asking for a close analyzes and issues some sort of result on "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and some sort of result on "Implement June_2014_RfC". Alsee (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Chill. Whatever is being asked here is unclear ('counter', 'overturn', wah…). This likely indicates things have gotten bogged down somewhere. If whatever needs asking again, then please try to phrase the question simply, clearly and accessible to all (eg. Should Media Viewer (a new way to view pictures) be enabled by default on the English Misplaced Pages?). If the problem is instead bureaucratic/sysadmin/WMF/etc objection then, I presume the techniques used by German Misplaced Pages can be used. And yes, things may change over-time and one needs to reassess after a suitable break—for instance, I've stuck with Media Viewer since it's release; I only (selfishly) disabled the Media Viewer last weekend when I had some image work to do and tested whether it would be more efficient to disable the viewer in the short-term. So, chill-out, step-back, contemplate the higher-level overview from a distance, it may be that the process (whatever the previous/latest outcome) is snagged on something else. Likely all that is required is a small UI tweak to make it "good enough" for most people, if that's the case lets focus the energy there and contribute civilly, cooperatively and positively. —Sladen (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close It's pretty clear the admin went against consensus , but yet insisted that consensus supported his close, which it didn't. Overturn. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close on both. Part 2 gave no rationale for going against the majority, and part 1 shouldn't have tried to issue a close on an issue that wasn't being debated. Alsee (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, you already stated your vote - you should indent your comment and label it Comment so it does not look like you are stacking (if you do so, you can delete this comment, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you refering to the close review request itself? Alsee (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Closer response I closed the first part of the RFC, while Edokter closed the second part earlier. It seems that Alsee is hell bent on making the point that the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status bears no relation to the question of which media viewer default status we should use now. As if it were a purely formal issue on the relevance of the July RFC, as if the situation had not changed since then, as if the current community's stance on media viewer is irrelevant. This is a deeply flawed notion, rejected by the voters in this RFC. For reasons independent of the community's will, the consensus in the July RFC could not be implemented at the time. The situation has significantly evolved since then, to argue on a purely wikilegal basis, without taking into consideration any of those developments, without any more regard for the underlying issue, is a pointless endeavor that has been implicitly or explicitly rejected by the vast majority of commentators. Alsee did in fact acknowledge that we should reinterpret the question in light of the present situation (notably, the consultation and the improvements made to media viewer), I quote "The RfC clearly asks people to review that outcome , and people can intelligently respond based upon that outcome.". Yet, now, probably because the consensus to disable media viewer by default has dwindled enough that it's difficult to make a case for it, Alsee backtracked from this assertion, saying that people didn't actually agree with it, I quote "I fully respect that argument and I actively invited it in the RfC. However participants overwhelming rejected that argument as wrong or irrelevant.". This is clearly false, the vast majority of commentators expressed their view on the underlying issue, i.e. which media viewer default status we should use now, which for Alsee is a (I quote) "utterly trivial issue". It is a fact that the narrow question of reaffirming the previous RFC was debated by only a minority of commentators (half a dozen, the few votes that Alsee selectively quotes), the large majority of commentators actually commented on media viewer, Alsee himself did. The obvious truth is that, contrary to Alsee's claim, in order to answer the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status, we need to answer the question of which media viewer default status we should use now.

The community has consistently rejected the kind of pseudo-legal argument that would bind us to a decision on an issue without actually examining the issue at hand, and that's exactly what voters did here, they commented on the substance, and expected the outcome to be determined on the substance, disproving the wikilegalistic theory that is being promoted by Alsee now in order to sidetrack the real debate which didn't show the results he expected. More than 90% of votes with a rationale commented on media viewer itself, so for Alsee all of those are irrelevant and should be discounted. Whether he wants it or not, for voters, this RFC was on the media viewer default status, the comments show this, there's just no way of wikilawerying that fact away, and there was no consensus to disable it by default for either registered or unregistered users, so there was no consensus for implementing the previous RFC because it was the determining factor. Independently, there was no consensus for reaffirming the previous RFC, due to the lack of comments on this specific issue and the fact almost all voters implicitly or explicitly tied this question to the former. It isn't the closer's fault that the voters commented on an issue that was not exactly the issue that was being asked to be debated by the initiator, or only a subset, it is the initiator's fault for not having understood that the community is, by tradition, more concerned with the substance than the form. It was proper to close on the media viewer default status, since it is overwhelmingly the subject being debated in the RFC and it was necessary in order to answer the question being asked. Now, concerning my 'horrifying' discount of 'per votes', I mentioned those as not contributing to my analysis of arguments, which is kind of obvious since they don't bring any new argument to the table, they were considered when weighing arguments though. I do not believe that Alsee will ever be satisfied with a result that doesn't give him what he wants: as we have seen, he has wikilawyered to such an extent as to contradict his own previous statements, he accused the other closers of bad faith, his opponents in the RFC of bad faith... Yet, many, if not most, of those people were likewise flabbergasted by the WMF's actions, and voting oppose in this RFC, or failing to reach consensus on implementing the previous RFC, is in no way an endorsement of those actions, as I've made clear in my closing statement there is consensus that the WMF acted rashly and with disregard to the community. With regard to the future, I've actively invited the WMF to publish feedback on the latest media viewer version and address the main issues people have. If in a few months there are still concerns, a new RFC properly reviewing the situation (not just a vote) can be held.

TLDR : To determine consensus on the question being asked, it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, and the lack of consensus on the later implied the lack of consensus on the former. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said people commenting on Media Viewer were "irrelevant and should be discounted", I explicitly stated they should be included! People were debatating whether it would be wise to follow through with consensus, given the MWF's (temporary) blocking of that consensus. Comments on media viewer itself are legitimate reasonable contributing arguments in that debate. In answering that question many participants deliberately did not comment on Media Viewer itself, they saw no need to. Participants who did comment on Media Viewer often only offered a superficial comment on Media Viewer (which your close stresses repeatedly). You cannot ignore what was being debated, and you cannot use the legitimate absence of debate-on-another-question (which you stress) as an excuse to ignore what people DID debate and issue a no-consensus on an issue participants weren't debating. Anyone who thought consensus might have changed could simply Oppose. The result was more-than-2-to-1 Support for following through on an established consensus. It is perverse to issue a "no consensus" the not-debated question and claim that is has the effect exactly opposite of the original established consensus and exactly opposite to the clear consensus here. I'm simply asking for what I asked for after the first overturned close - an examination and close on "Reaffirming and implementing an established consensus". Only 31% 32% called that consensus into question, or opposed following through on it. Alsee (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But I did answer this question, in my closing statement, I first mentioned that you had acknowledged the importance of the new developments, and later, I pointed out that the consensus was no longer standing, as you just recognized yourself. If my closing statement was mostly focused on media viewer, it is because it was, by far, the most important, and certainly the determining factor in whether the July RFC should be reaffirmed and implemented. Cenarium (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In the RfC preamble I ensured that participants could take into account both the Superprotect matter and the Consultation matter. If any participants had concerns that the original Consensus was somehow "no longer standing" that is obviously good reason to Oppose Reaffirm and Oppose Implement. At most 32% had the view that the original result might no longer be an accurate reflection of consensus. And as Supporters noted, anyone with a good-faith-belief that consensus actually had changed should run an RfC seeking to establish a new consensus. That's how consensus works, that's how consensus has always worked. People who agree with an established consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus, and people who don't like a consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus when their true belief is that consensus hasn't changed.

In an AFD where the article-writer promises improvements, it is a routine matter for people to consider the promised improvements and to vote Delete because the improvements wouldn't matter. Are you suggesting that you would close any AFD as no-consensus simply because the article-author promised improvements, and the Oppose-delete-minority said they wanted to see how the improvements turned out? Alsee (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog