Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Closers for RfC on paid editing[edit]

Discussion is at WT:COI. There are good reasons why closers don't usually sign up until an RfC is over, but I'd prefer to have closers for this one sooner rather than later. It's been a problem with big RfCs over the last few years that closers have needed a fair amount of time to get up to speed and to come up with a closing statement, and that has seemed to sap the interest and focus of the community. I'll try to do better with this one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Last time I signed up to close an RfC the closure got badly highjacked, closed horribly (at least last time I looked) and was turned into a farce. I'll not participate like that again - I'm embarrassed enough by the first one - so much so that I withdrew rather than have my already-sullied name attached to it. the panda ₯’ 22:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: I made a waffly vote in the so-called "bright line" RfC last October, here, then withdrew that vote before the RfC closed. To my knowledge, that proposal hasn't resurfaced, and odds seem low that it ever will. Now we have an RfC coming up as a reaction to the new Terms of Use that require disclosure of "paid editing", which is different ... and actually, I felt I was neutral on the yes/no question for "bright line" as well, I just wanted to see some discussion of the conflict with our CC-BY-SA policy. Still: technically, I entered a vote in a related area, and SlimVirgin has objected on that basis to my offer to close the upcoming RfC. I'll be happy to stay in and do my best or drop out. I'd like some feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue was just raised by SlimVirgin, but I agree with her and I suspect that others are likely to feel the same way when they drop by the page during this summer weekend. No offense to Dank, who I am sure is a fair admin, but I think it's best on something quite so crucial that we find one who has not been previously involved in this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There isn't even an RFC yet, so why is so much going into finding closers. Until an RFC is properly formed and started, we have no way of knowing who can and cannot be uninvolved enough to make a close. Right now all we know is that there will (most likely) eventually be a RFC about COI editing. What we don't know is what the question(s) will actually be. There could be an ultra specific question about COI editors working in a certain area where you may be involved heavily, and in that case you wouldn't be a good closer. Until such a time there is an actual RFC formed, we don't know who would make a good closer and we are being way too premature in attempting to find closers. I would even take it a step further and say we should probably wait until at least a week into the RFC before a closer or closers are decided as sometimes RFCs take different directions than the intended direction. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • All good points. It's looking like there might be drama if I close this, so I'm leaning against closing now, but all comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Core and TLSuda. We don't yet know that there's going to be an RfC. If it goes ahead, we don't know what it will ask. The best thing is to wait until it has started (if it starts), then ask for closers at WP:AN/RFC. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Not a problem, I'm out. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications[edit]

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, WormTT(talk) 10:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Lion 2: The Movie[edit]

Can someone undelete Lion 2: The Movie? The article was pretty long and sourced so I think that a G7 was an inappropriate move. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for history on whether we could decline G7 requests on the basis of wanting to keep the article, or whether the "sole author" had the right to request deletion. I found a appropriate quote from Xeno (intentionally pinging) : "G7 does not allow users to revoke the release of the contributions under the GFDL". The information under the "Save Page" button is consistent: editors "irrevocably agree to release {their} contribution" under Wikipedia free-licensing system. However, it might be more ethical/tactful for a new article to be created instead of reusing the content in question; I would be happy to provide a list of the sources that were in the deleted article. Alternatively, have you tried reaching out to the editor? Explain why you want it kept, and if he agrees to overturn the G7, then everyone's happy. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  04:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, using the sources without having the attendant history might be a licensing violation it its own right. –xenotalk 13:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That sounds strange and yet...oddly possible at the same time, however as I understand it, use of references may be done independently and not have a copyright issue. In other words, attempting to gather the sources from the G7 deleted article itself would be an issue but anyone using those sources in reference to the subject independently is OK. The original author does not own the rights to use of the sources, even when pertaining to the same subject, but only if we use the G7 article as the basis to collect the sources. In this case, yeah, we shouldn't be taking their sources to re-create the article as that would be a licensing issue but if I happen on the same sources independently it would not be. I agree we might just want to contact the author and request their permission to undelete the article. Seems the simplest route, although simply adding attribution to the editor while mentioning the deleted article in a new article in the edit summary should suffice as the edit history is not the issue because they were the only contributor. We only need to attribute them and the deleted article.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: The original editor has said nothing either way. Also, I'm pretty sure the original editor wasn't the only person to make edits to the article, can you check? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
23W was the only user to add content to the article. The only other edit was your revert of the redirect. Mike VTalk 17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would work (attribution of the source list in the first edit). courtesy ping @RHaworth:xenotalk 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline) includes "Bare references". Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Too much headache over this. If nothing else, restore the article and build the new one on top of it. It's that simple.--v/r - TP 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Concur. Unless there's some serious and obvious reason to uphold the G7, restore and allow a new article to be built on it just as a CYOA move. A little extra compliance never hurt anybody. And if the G7 requester gives some serious reason for wanting the old article gone, we can probably revdel/seldel the old article. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually...why all this discussion? Is just beginning a fresh new article such a burden? Isn't that what we do encyclopedic articles. Why do we have to copy a deleted article to begin with? Are the sources that hard to find?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
        • GFDL/CC attribution requirements is what I got out of the discussion. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Hmmmm. Not seeing it. No one owns the article or the subject and sources. What...are you saying if anyone attempts to start a fresh article and happens on the same sources they are not in compliance. I'm not finding that within the spirit or policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. Please elaborate if possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
            • There is a question regarding whether it would be permissible to use the old references to write the new article without attribution. If someone starts a new article from a blank slate (even better if they are a non-admin so they don't even have access to the deleted references) there is no question that it would be fine. As for the G7 issue, I once advocated for keeping an article against the author's wishes, and consensus at AN/I was to follow the author's wishes and delete it over the objections; though in that case, it was moved out of userspace without the authors permission, prior to G7 deletion, so that is a bit different fact pattern. Monty845 22:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

HistMerge needed[edit]

User:Ilovethewikis/Ammy Virk to Ammy Virk . Thanks --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Revdel requests (RD1)[edit]

FYI, Category:Requested RD1 redactions doesn't seem to be monitored. (One of the two listed has been there for three months.) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Two? I only see Origin of the Romanians, but you're right it's been there quite a long time. I cleaned up a dozen or so in the past few weeks, this particular example, if I recall correctly, would require over 1,000 revision redactions, which is quite a pain to do manually. Not having run into such an example, I wouldn't mind advice about the relative practicality vs. importance of this request per Wikipedia:Revdel#Large-scale_use, I'll be happy to break out the time to actually do it if people think it's necessary. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I would say it's not necessary. I've no idea how this came to be a request as I dealt with the original (possible) infringement two years ago and I'm not sure how someone would suddenly have come across it earlier this year. Anyway I deliberately didn't revdel then as I commented on on the talk page (now archived here) and I still think it's unnecessary now. There's very little confirmed copying in what was removed (see talk page comments) and most of it was removed pre-emptively. As such there may be good material in those revisions. For the same reason I would say it also doesn't meet the "blatant copyright violation" criteria of RD1 as we have no idea which revisions actually contain copyvios. All in all I think it's best to just leave this be, although it may be worth to add a note to the talk page so future editors are more likely to be aware of the potential problems. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Joe Decker: At the time of the request there were two. I handled one of them since then. To be compliant with the GDFL and creative commons license, you could perform a selective history deletion, but that would require you to sift through the edits and identify every editor who has made a contribution to the most recent version. (See WP:RUD) Also, I think the caution of large scale use of revdel is directed more towards the second criteria of revision deletion (grossly insulting material) rather than copyright issues. Having run into this issue on Trinity College, Kandy it's actually more efficient to perform the mass revision deletion. Regretfully, each edit has to be selected individually as there isn't an invert selection as there is for restoring deletions. I wouldn't try and do it in one fell swoop by manually adjusting the revision limit in the URL. (i.e. increasing the revision count above 500) You'll run into a 414 error. Mike VTalk 03:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The precise text of RD1 reads (bold beyond first 3 words not in the original):
Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion.
I would say that, if it went with the copyvio there for that long, it probably can't be RD1-ed. And probably few admins have the patience to actually check this, in order to accept or decline the request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Attribution is just identifying the user who made the contributions. The criteria is stating that RD1 can be used to redact the revision's text, but not to redact the revision's username or IP. Mike VTalk 19:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This seems to be a good time for me to apologise for the large number of copyvio-revdel requests I make, and thank those who take the trouble to respond to them so promptly, including specifically Joe Decker and Mike V. It may be that the wording of RD1 should be revised slightly, as I don't see any possibility of conflict between this criterion and our best practice for removal of copyrighted text (as far as I understand it). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No apologies required, first, thank you for all your incredible work dealing with copyvios.
In view of the above, I've gone ahead and performed the RD1 reactions. I thought it would take a while, but I downloaded an extension to save my checkbox-clicking finger. :) --j⚛e deckertalk 01:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion from January, WT:Revision deletion#RD1 wording, about a similar objection to the use of RD1 based on its wording. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigation of Afro-Eurasian[edit]

Would it be appropriate to open a long term abuse case regarding the user User:Afro-Eurasian? You should read the sockpuppet investigation regarding this user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Afro-Eurasian. This user has constantly evaded his block and I think a long term abuse case plus a report to his ISP should stop this user. Checkusers have confirmed many sockpuppets. Thanks! :). --電子888說-TALK 03:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't think so. LTA reports should be made only if there is useful information that can be summarized, and per WP:DENY LTA pages should be avoided, but are sometimes necessary. Information about socking is on the SPI page and should not be duplicated elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's up to an individual to make a report to an ISP although it should be a WMF function. Johnuniq (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I had a quick look at both the current and history SPIs and didn't see any IPs. So it's only the WMF or checkusers who can file an abuse report. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Fake source?[edit]

I am fairly certain a source has been faked, and have some circumstantial evidence to that conclusion, but am unsure how to proceed. May I have some guidance about how to proceed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I think WP:RSN might handle issues like this. If by "fake source" you mean a source with fake information it is clearly in RSN territory. If you suspect that someone has referenced a source that doesn't exist I'm not entirely sure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Inventing or misrepresenting a source, if that's what "faked" means, is a user conduct issue, which is not the purview of WP:RSN. If you want proof that the source has been faked, you'd need to specify it, as you may be able to get confirmation via a relevant wikiproject. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
It's the second situation, Paul. Without outting a user, I suspect they might have fabricated a source in order to overcome a hurdle in a content dispute. I am unsure how to proceed, as noting that info here would reveal details of the user. What if I am wrong? I want to tread very carefully here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If it is too hard for anyone except the originator to check the source then it probably runs foul of WP:V, in which case WP:NORN is the place. You can also write to an uninvolved administrator by email (not me, please, getting ready for travel) to discuss the specific details and decide on the best course of action including what can be exposed publicly. Zerotalk 00:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll find out who's available. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Jack Sebastian, I'm not sure if I'll be able to help but I'll certainly give it a shot if you would like. NW (Talk) 12:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2014): Invitation to comment on candidates[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 27 August 2014.

For the Arbitration Committee,
WormTT(talk) 08:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Jaša Tomić (Sečanj)[edit]


There's a SNAFU concerning Talk:Jaša Tomić, Sečanj (or Talk:Jaša Tomić (Sečanj)), which was speedied per db-move following consensus on the talk page by Bearian, and was followed by an incomplete move. To cut the long story short, some of these two pages carries history that should be restored to Talk:Jaša Tomić (Sečanj), with the article. Since Bearian is currently offline, I'd ask a kind administrator to sort it out. Thanks. No such user (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorted out by Fut.Perf, thanks. No such user (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


The kudzu-like tangle of requests on RFPP has returned, we're upto 35 pending requests and though a lot are stale can someone care to take a weedwhacker to some of these? tutterMouse (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Are external links allowed in Userpage[edit]

see diff [1] and [2] and [3], some links removed twice--Musamies (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

To begin with why haven't you tried discussing your concerns with Smile Lee or even notify them of your post here? Next what are your concerns with the links? They aren't overly promotional, they are buried in with information about the editor. GB fan 12:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
In this case, I'd say no, per WP:NOT#Promotion and ask the user to remove it. Kosh Vorlon    15:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Smile Lee's been notified now. Kosh Vorlon    16:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I also don't find these overly promotional and don't think they run afoul of WP:UP#PROMO. Nothing to fret over. –xenotalk 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As the person who originally removed these links (and more) from this user page, I agree that they are inappropriate. These links should be viewed in light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming (2nd nomination), a promotional article written by this user about the very company he is now providing links to from his user page. Sorry, wikipedia is not there to promote your company, and your user page is not a fallback if your article gets deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In general external links are fine on userpages. We want to worry about promotion or "using wikipedia as a webhost", but to be perfectly honest the latter concern is totally mooted by the web changing around wikipedia since NOT was first written. In 2002, someone might create a userpage as a "home page" of sorts because the alternative was to invest time and expertise (and money) in building an actual web site. Now I can make something nicer looking that a user page in a dozen places around the web (and at a nominal cost).

We also focus way, way too much on policing userspace when in reality it doesn't matter. Smile Lee's user page has been viewed a whopping 370 times in the past 90 days, most of that I'd wager from editors involved in their recent dispute. At a first approximation, nobody on earth has read their user page, so our zealousness in enforcing policies and guidelines WRT that page should reflect this. I don't think we internalize this enough. User pages don't impact anyone except the editor who writes them and anyone who cares to read them (which you never have to do, in any case). There's almost no upside to enforcing these rules except where the page is obviously being used mostly for promotion or is a fake article. Otherwise what's the benefit to the project? We get to feel good that we've told someone "Sorry, wikipedia is not there to promote your company, and your user page is not a fallback if your article gets deleted"? Protonk (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for thinking to notify me about this User:GB fan and User:KoshVorlon. The links were removed by User:RoySmith, on 28 July 2014, which I honestly didn't even notice until 1 August 2014. The links aren't being used as overly-promotional; it's just saying who I am, what I've done, and where to find my blog on the internet. Originally the names of my comics, novels, and other junk, were linked to; which to be honest I hadn't even noticed were so obnoxious. I have instead opted for the titles, for people to search for themselves; I agree that the links were initially obnoxious, I honestly just wish that I had just been notified. I don't bite. If I wanted to promote myself; I'd link to my Twitter, page, Country Music Television page, IMDB, or something like that. If they are still annoying I could turn the Tumblr link into a userbox, but I honestly don't see the point. I would also like to say, I didn't create the Heaven Sent Gaming article, been on here for a pretty long time, and I have no interest in creating an article about me, Isabel, my cat, Heaven Sent Gaming, my Grand Am, or my baby blanket. I will remove the links if they are found to be promotional, but I've seen user-pages with entire bibliographies, that I've found useful when looking up an editor; again these links only serve to tell people who I am, and what I'm doing. And, to User:RoySmith, those links were initially added back in January 2012 they are completely unrelated to the deleted article. Smile Lee (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I have added the more standard user infobox. Smile Lee (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger[edit]

Please could an uninvolved admin review my actions in relation to the article Ralph Drollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I have set out an explanation[4] at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ralph_Drollinger, but have not dealt with a situation quite like this before, so I would welcome a review of whether my actions are appropriate, or whether anything else should be done.

I have no interest in the topic, and am only concerned to end the edit war and uphold WP:BLP. Please feel free to revert any of my actions or add to them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - I'd then (1) conduct an RfC and invite comment on how much weight to give to the issue - a bit like what was done at Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#RfC:Right_then.2C_how_many_paragraphs_should_the_Climate_change_section_have.3F and after this, leave semiprotected indefinitely, as all edits should be accountable and attributable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Cas Liber. An RFC sounds like a good idea, but I will leave it to anyone else to set up an RFC if they see fit.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok...I am totally unfamiliar with the subject. I will take a look and try to frame something on the talk page. I just think we need to obtain and then set the local consensus, so that anyone watching the article in future can refer to it to help adjudicate future disputes...which seem likely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Right - have added RfC but we need to publicise it broadly. Right now it is the middle of Saturday here and I have a number of chores to run and do. Anyone is welcome to circulate else I will do in several hours. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Coiq[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Coiq#Parameter to suppress first line?. Thanks. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Need help with a particular {{unblock}} request.[edit]

As all the positions taken are either basically neutral or in favor of an unblock, and as the AE portion of the block is expired, I think there is sufficient consensus for an unblock with a reminder to the editor that all previously enacted editing restrictions remain in force. Monty845 12:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Affected user: TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Background: TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise back in September 2012 due to violation of a TBAN/IBAN, both originated from the Race & Intelligence RFAR review. The block was specifically indef + concurrent 1 year AE-block, and in October 2013 TrevelyanL85A2 requested an unblock, which was declined procedurally because he wished to have an ArbCom member review it.

Yesterday, TrevelyanL85A2 has posted another {{unblock}}. I request discussions about this request.

Disclaimer: I know TrevelyanL85A2 in real life because of a mutual friend, and therefore I do not feel I am neutral enough to perform administrative actions regarding this request. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I have informed both TrevelyanL85A2 and FPaS of this thread. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Procedural comment Since you've raised this here, I've declined the unblock request procedurally, figuring that it's best that all discussion take place here. Please don't take my action as an attempt to say that TrevelyanL85A2 shouldn't be unblocked; I have no opinion on the matter. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If I'm reading the history correctly, the block is under the perview of enforcing arbitration remedies and therefore should be referred exclusively to BASC for consideration. If BASC agrees to let the community at large decide, that's a new can of worms. I would however prefer to see a demonstration by the blocked user of their positive contributions to other projects. Hasteur (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The 1 year AE-block has expired. What remains now is the standard indef-block. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What Salvidrim! said is correct. This is why that referring this to Arbitration Amendment would also be of no help either, so this matter belongs on this board. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Speaking as the original blocking admin: since the block has been in force for a long time, and Trevelyan has made a reasonable-sounding request saying that he intends to abstain from the contentious topic and start working on other areas again, I would see nothing wrong with an unblock. It is my understanding that the underlying topic ban, as originally imposed by Arbcom directly, remains in force, is that correct? Fut.Perf. 22:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe that the TBAN/IBAN remains in force, although TrevelyanL85A2 has never tried to appeal it. It would be highly unlikely for him to succeed on appealing the TBAN at this time. I believe the second part of the TBAN (which is effectively an IBAN?) could be challenged and modified, but that is not what we're discussing here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No strong opinion on the unblock request. I do have a tangentially related abstract question, though, about unblock decision thresholds. For people considering the unblock, I'd be interested to hear their estimates of the likelihood of constructive editing vs. the likelihood of further disruption, proxy editing, and boundary testing if this user is unblocked. Of course, I recognize these are only predictions, but presumably these are the (subconscious) calculations that we make when deciding whether to support or oppose an unblock. For example, is a 10% chance of constructive contribution and an 85% chance of proxying/meatpuppetry/disruption acceptable, for instance? I guess that's where I'd place my bets based on prior behavior in this case, and I'd argue that's not really a favorable ratio, but I'm curious how others perceive the likelihood of unblock outcomes. MastCell Talk 00:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To answer your question, we would have to look at his previous edits. However, the fact that he has only edited twice (both {{unblock}} requests) since he was banned means that we cannot use recent behaviors to assess this situation. Therefore, I'd fall back on WP:AGF - but that's just me. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I' a bit less analytical and go with my 'informed gut feeling'. I generally look at through the guise of AGF. Has the user done something recent which makes me think that they won't be a positive, do they understand the reason they were blocked and how to comply with policies, guidelines, sanctions etc. Have they demonstrated maturity during the unblock process (eg regularly filing unblock requests isn't mature). How long have they been blocked. What have they been doing since they were blocked: stay away from WMF, editing another project, sockpuppetry. Plus a few other things, but those are the big ones. Particularly in a case like this where it's been so long. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on my reasoning above I'd be comfortable with an unblock. Though I would also remind TrevelyanL85A2 that they have a short leash and anything which smells like a TBAN vio will very likely be met with an indef block and/or community ban discussion. Also violations of basic policies (probably including edit warring) won't bode well and will very likely see an indef block again. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This will probably end up being handled amicably, but some matters need to be decided first. The complex background can possibly be summed up like this: battles raged at R&I topics for years (see WP:ARBR&I); Mathsci ended up being the last person standing, but irritated a lot of people in the process and was subsequently hounded by socks and WO, and was eventually banned after an egregious IBAN violation; a long-term abuser separately hounded Mathsci (and apparently others) on an unrelated matter; the abuser hit upon the tactic of posting "helpful" messages on talk pages of Mathsci's R&I opponents; people edit warred over whether the banned user's posts should be removed. For example, in June 2012 TrevelyanL85A2 restored one such post that I had removed (diff). My request is for any unblock statement to clearly state that TrevelyanL85A2 has an interaction ban with Mathsci, and will not restore comments relating to R&I or Mathsci if an editor in good standing has removed them (TrevelyanL85A2 could always ask an admin for assistance if a problem arose). Re talk page removals: see Arbcom motion and short discussion. If Mathsci ever requests an unblock, a similar arrangement can be made. (Perhaps an IBAN is in place? I forget, and cannot find a log.) Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, there was no specific IBAN - but TrevelyanL85A2's TBAN prohibits him from commenting on R&I editors' conducts anywhere (even if the conduct is not about issues related to R&I). I do not know whether that part of the TBAN was specifically raised because of Mathsci, however. I would support asking ArbCom to amend the TBAN to specifically convert that part into a two-way IBAN between TrevelyanL85A2 and Mathsci (if needed), but that can be done later and is not what we should focus on here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I say why not unblock. The nice thing about a wiki is that if you make a mistake you can fix it. We can always block again. I cannot speak to the TBAN/IBANs but I see no reason not to unblock. Chillum 02:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A major aspect of the old R&I disputes was endless wiki-litigation over all and sundry. Appeals, enforcement requests, amendment requests, etc. It was a massive time sink and a pain. Due to that potential for wiki-lawyering it would be helpful if all of Trevelyans current restrictions were spelled out here plus whatever new restrictions they may have put on them as a condion of their unblock (promises being only semi-enforcable) including a restriction of when they can appeal again. Seriously, if you leave it even kind of ambiguous you will regret it. (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that prior to any unblock the conditions of editing need to be clarified and reiterated. If someone familiar with the case can find the exact wording of the sanctions and the user agrees to abide by them then I think there is a reasonable consensus to proceed with an unblock.

Repeat of past behavior would most likely lead to an indefinite block only to be undone by further community discussion. Not saying that is a rule, just how it is likely to turn out. Chillum 19:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partial interaction ban Pdfpdf - DrKiernan[edit]

Yesterday, User:Pdfpdf, who is aware that editors can blank comments on their own talk page: [5] persisted in repeating posts on my talk page: [6] [7] [8] even though it was obvious that I wished them removed.

After he was warned off by another, uninvolved, party [9], he switched tactics and posted a new enquiry[10] even though he has already been told the answer to that query on at least two previous occasions: [11] [12].

This is part of an ongoing pattern of mild harassment/minor incivility directed at me over the last year, including but not limited to: name calling: you are ignorant contributions are vandalism single-minded inflexibility messiah complex ... bigotry; sarcasm: [13] [14] [15] [16]; screamer caps: [17]; and false accusations that I have misused my position as an administrator or not followed processes: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] (please also note that contrary to what is said in that final post, I never said he was trying to remove my comments).

I have made it very plain that I do not wish to continue discussions with him away from article talk pages, of which he is aware: "I didn't want to have this discussion here, but DrKieran refused to have it anywhere else". I have made it plain that I want him to stop referring to me in discussions, of which he is aware: "Please stop referring to me in any way. Thanks. - With pleasure". These requests have fallen on deaf ears, so I now ask for a partial interaction ban comprising points one and three of WP:IBAN, i.e.: Pdfpdf may not post to DrKiernan's talk page nor make reference to or comment on DrKiernan anywhere on wikipedia, either directly or indirectly. Points 2 and 4 of IBAN need not be enacted as I don't see a problem in those areas. I volunteer to avoid his talk page and avoid commenting about him outside the usual exceptions. DrKiernan (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Amended 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot[edit]

We have got a backlog there. Daniel Case, who usually handles a big share of the requests, seems to be on a wikibreak, and I am just back from a wikibreak, but I only handle trivial cases since English is not my mothertongue. Some help would be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I had to go out of town this weekend for a memorial service, and as it happens tomorrow night US EDT I will be flying to London for Wikimania. So I may well have reduced activity for this coming week. I will be putting a notice to this effect on my talk page (should have done it yesterday morning, actually). Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Question about user that refuses to use the talk page[edit]

no harm, no foul. Writ Keeper  21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is not an incident notice, more of a general question with a novel situation. While I tried to communicate with Medgirl131, I found that apparently she does not want to talk in public, claiming reasons of privacy. Now, that's all fine, anyone has their preferences/quirks... except that, on WP, I find worrying to have a user with whom we cannot communicate in public. I would expect, for reasons of transparency of the process, that any conversation about WP editing should take place in public WP pages as much as possible. Of course it is impossible to enforce public communication -if editors want to email, they can of course- but to actively refuse communication on a talk page is unsettling to me. Is this behaviour allowed/encouraged? What should be done? --cyclopiaspeak! 15:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not encouraged; I left them a note [24]. –xenotalk 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't think that email-only communication means disclosing editors' email addresses - that is another excellent point.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Unfortunately, it seems they Don't care. In this instance, my suggestion if you don't want to email would be to simply leave whatever collaborative note you feel is necessary and hope they govern themselves accordingly. –xenotalk 15:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
If she makes beneficial edits and uses edit summaries (something that may be an issue) and doesn't otherwise make any trouble, it's not worth making a fuss over. If she gets into a conflict of some sort, then she can't demand that other editors only communicate with her by email; her two options in such a case would be to communicate with other editors by accepted channels (talk/WP:-space pages) or to back off immediately. Again, that's her problem. In the meantime, there's no particular reason to poke the bear.
I will note that privacy concerns cut both ways. Using Wikipedia's "Email this user" tool reveals your email address to the mail recipient. Email addresses and headers can often contain information with significant privacy implications; this is something that anyone using email should be aware of. Medgirl131 should not be surprised if other editors decline to email her. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Her edits look okay to me, but she definitely does not use edit summaries. That's how I noticed her -I've seen some sourced info removed without explanation on an article I follow; I reverted, then I looked at contribs, and understood that she was removing redundancy since the information had now a full article by itself. So I wanted to nudge her about using edit summaries, and then I found the notice when trying to edit her talk page.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I further note that Cyclopia's latest edit to Medgirl131's talk page – trying to force her to keep a message on her talk page (despite saying that she "can blank as much as she likes") and insisting that she must post on talk pages – is heading towards harrassment. Cyclopia, it now looks like you're just trying to pick a fight with an editor who hasn't seemed to have caused any concrete harm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no reason to pick any fight, nor I was trying to force anything or even harass anyone. Just reverting a blanking on a talk page is hardly harassment. But I disagree that this doesn't cause any concrete harm. Actively refusing collaboration poisons the environment, makes everything harder, and if you add that she almost uses an edit summary, you get a recipe for trouble. I have no problem leaving her alone so far, but when some communication will be needed I guess this will need to be solved quickly.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
She's not "actively refusing collaboration". She is restricting the way in which she chooses to communicate with others. There is a difference there, and it's extremely unhelpful that you're taking a quirk (see Tarc's comment below) and using it as an excuse for demonization and hostility. This is someone who is obviously uncomfortable with communicating in a public space, and you're making repeated attempts to force her to do so.
You've been around long enough to know that users are entirely within their rights to WP:BLANK their own talk pages (certain very narrow exceptions – none of which apply here – notwithstanding) and that blanking a comment counts, as far as the community is concerned, as an indication that it has been read. (And, for that matter, she has indicated explicitly that she has read and understood the comments on her talk page: [25].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I am perfectly aware of WP:BLANK, and I wouldn't have any problem with regularly blanking pages after a discussion has been done. But she simply refuses to talk. She will simply not answer to any communication on the talk page. One thing is blanking talk pages, another is refusing public communication tout court.
There is no practical difference between "refusing communication" and "restricting the way in which she chooses to communicate", in this case. Excluding public communication on talk page flies in the face of transparency and the openness of WP process, hampers communication between multiple users, makes it impossible to evaluate user behaviour, etc. WP is based on the fact that it is a public collaboration environment. I have no problem with people having different preferences, but such preferences are incompatible with working on WP long term.
Also, I find it ironic that you accuse me of "demonization and hostility" -while I haven't demonized or otherwise behaved in a hostile fashion to anyone, it is hostile to accuse me of such behaviour. I see also no "repeated" attempts to force anyone to do anything -I reverted a blanking once, adding a comment while keeping the previous for context, and didn't touch her page again. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, you did bring up a new editor who was minding their own business to the drama boards because they don't want to participate in the MMO. Like I said below, talk page discussion is great, but it's not why we're here, it's an avenue to building a resource collaboratively where that resource requires discussion. In most cases, it doesn't. Imagine for a minute that this editor is a medical professional or researcher. One day, around the water cooler, their colleagues bring up Wikipedia. Most have used it but never edited it and Medgirl131 shares their experience with the group. Do you think the discussion will focus on how a collaborative resource needs constant communication? I don't. What anecdote do you think will be the most salient for them? I'd be willing to wager it's this discussion right here, where some editor they've never met before brings them before the "admins' noticeboard" because they are focusing only on article contributions. From an internal standpoint you did the right thing (or at least had the right instincts). An editor not using the talk page, specifically one decidedly refusing to use the talk page is a red flag. I can fully understand the impulse to bring up the issue with other editors to see what they feel. But from the standpoint of a new user, it's bizarre and jarring.
And again, what's the remedy you seek? What should administrators do to resolve the problem here? Should we compel this editor to use their talk page by threatening to block them? I brought it up below somewhat tongue in cheek, but that's really the end game for enforcement here. If they don't want to use the talk page and we agree they should, we have to carry that out somehow. That means I or someone else would have to threaten to block an editor who hasn't disrupted the encyclopedia. And if they stick to their guns, we would have to indef them. Does that sound insane to you? It does to me. Protonk (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you actually read WP:BLANK recently? It doesn't say anywhere that someone has to give a satisfactory reply before they can blank. As ToAT has already said, people can blank whatever and whenever they want, with exceptions that don't apply here.
While most aren't as extreme as her, blanking related disputes come up all the time generally because the person won't respond in a manner satisfactory to the person raising the issue (sometimes they say something then stop, sometimes they just won't respond to a specific comment or person).
Our response is the same as it is here. They are entitled to blank, and someone reverting such blanking (or continuing the discussion when it's apparent the person doesn't want to) is in the wrong and liable to be sanctioned if they continue. In this particular case, even if you felt your message was important enough to warrant mentioning it on her talk page (and with only one case it's perhaps not harrassment yet), there was zero reason to revert the blanking and such an action was indeed in clear violating of WP:BLANK.
Her refusal to talk is unfortunate, but not actionable in itself and definitely not justification for you harassing her.
If you can demonstrate she is causing sufficient problems to warrant action, then you are welcome to bring a case in an appropriate place. It that case it will probably be acceptable to warn her of your plans in a neutral manner and also to inform her of any case you've filed.
As has already been said, if that happens, she will either have to talk, or face action likely a block. Note that a case will need to be based on the problems she is causing. Her refusal to talk will only be relevant to the case in that it's the explanation for why there's limited attempts to resolve the problems with her.
Nil Einne (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It is intriguing; I have an acquaintance who also does not wish to write anything in public spaces, as they fear their particular text patterns and phraseology can be scraped and analyzed, thus busting any sort of anonymity. So, unless a specific problem comes up...revert wars, ideological pushing, etc...I'd say just let this person putter on. Looks like they mostly do wiki-gnomish like maintenance/technical edits. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd disagree with Cyclopia, one can certainly "not care". If they're disrupting articles or doing things which require discussion but refusing to participate, that's on them. If instead they're editing articles and not mucking things up (as they appear to be), what are we really supposed to do? Threaten to block them for being insufficiently chatty? That sounds glib (and it is) but what's the remedy here? Let's not elevate talk page discussion above its station. WP is a collaborative project but a huge majority of the work doesn't require collaboration. And it certainly doesn't require us to impose the collaborative spirit on someone who seems to be minding their own business improving articles on subjects which interest them. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
for what it's worth, the user in question seems savvy on biomedical topics and is making constructive contributions generally. she doesn't use edit notes much which I have asked her to do.... and i have advised her that if she makes an edit that is reverted, she should let the reversion lie rather than edit war, since she is not willing to follow WP:BRD. if it comes to edit warring, she should be blocked like anybody if they violate WP:3RR. communication quirks seem completely OK to me but edit warring is out of line, regardless of the motivation. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC) (corrections, my bad, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC))

There's no real trouble with not using the talk page as long as her edits aren't disruptive. If a note needs to be dropped on her page, then do so but add a comment that you are acknowledging their restraint from using the talk page and that it's a courtesy note. If she removes your comment then treat it as usual, i.e. that she has read the comment by removing it. If they have any issues invite her to start a conversation about it over email. If privacy is an issue then create an email account purely for wiki purposes. I'm sure many editors do that already. Blackmane (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Had anyone else noted how well Medgirl131 manages to tools of the wiki? I find that telling. Might it be possible that this is a formerly indef blocked/banned user who is trying to avoid detection? Granted, we should AGF, but keeping an eye out on this user seems a legit suggestion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems that 'keeping an eye out' is the antithesis of good faith.Crazynas t 00:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No ordinary user should ever be chastised (like as done here) for _not_ doing something. Chastise only for actively, repeatedly, doing something bad. Is she reading and altering behaviour to not repeated some hypothetical bad thing? She's right about analysis of writing style. This section should be courtesy blanked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Medgirl131 may be trying to avoid discussions similar to this one therefore I would say let it be. Bus stop (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Durdevdan uprising article[edit]

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 [shallot] (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 [shallot] (talk) 18:58, 26 July 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 [shallot] (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[edit]

AfD now closed. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could we please have an uninvolved admin close Wikipedia: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 talk 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 talk 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WWE Disruptive user[edit]

Joe Vonner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

Ban request at another page[edit]

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)

RFC closure review[edit]

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 |  | 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 |  | 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 |  | 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 |  | 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 |  | 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 |  | 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 |  | 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 t 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)
  • A few things. On point 1, there's no binding precedent on Wikipedia. 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 T 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP Review (Right to be forgotten)[edit] -According to this Google is suppressing a link to a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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". --cyclopiaspeak! 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?--cyclopiaspeak! 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
"Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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. --cyclopiaspeak! 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 Wikipedia'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?--cyclopiaspeak! 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' 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 Wikipedia 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.--cyclopiaspeak! 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.--cyclopiaspeak! 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 "[to] 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 Wikipedia 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; Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.--cyclopiaspeak! 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: Wikipedia 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 : - Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 6#File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.jpg. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 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. [26]. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"The right to be forgotten" which is not part of the Wikipedia is just simply ridiculous. Why should Wikipedia delete notable articles simply because a criminal in this case wants to be forgotten? It undermines the purpose of Wikipedia. And is an invalid reason for deletion within a AfD process as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 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)
She probably just wants people to look at it. Formerip (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


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

Notice of relevant discussions[edit]

Discussions which may interest those who have an interest in Wikipedia disciplinary processes, particularly in relation to the treatment of suspected sock puppets, is taking place on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Little help...[edit]

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  11:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(London) Times report on Wikipedia[edit]

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

Apart from the fact that it's made the usual mistake of equating WMF with Wikipedia, the headline and lead are in effect saying that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia(ns) weren't actively seeking confrontation on the issue. Whilst it's not necessarily untrue that Wikipedia(ns) (and WMF) have a dislike for the ruling, I've not seen anything on wiki that would suggest Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia articles?)

However, if the Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia says "CENSORSHIP!!!" and we vilify each other.--v/r - TP 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

User:XiuBouLin/Heaven Sent Gaming[edit]

Per this discussion, I am restoring the history of deleted revisions currently found under User:XiuBouLin/Heaven Sent Gaming, then moving it all to Draft:Heaven Sent Gaming and tagging as any draft would be. I am also restoring the article's latest talk page and making it follow the draft. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Wikipedia 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 - 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. (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2