Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 249: Line 249:
::::: 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. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 23:25, 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. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk: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 - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 23:39, 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 - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 23:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

== Request that Sue Rangell be prohibited from editing Spitzer material ==

{{u|Sue Rangell}}, in her dispute with {{u|Lightbreather}}, has gone back to revising the article on the political scientist [[Robert Spitzer (political scientist)|Robert Spitzer]] to make him appear to be a gun control advocate rather than an academic researcher. When she made the same change 6 months ago it was [[Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist)#RfC: Is it important to show that Mr. Spitzer is pro-control?|discussed in an RfC]] and at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive193#Robert_Spitzer_.28political_scientist.29 BLP noticeboard], but that has not stopped her from doing it again. Spitzer himself reverted part of the change and {{u|Casliber}} has protected the article. Spitzer is a well-known political scientist and one of his areas of research is the politics of gun control in the United States. He has objected strongly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Spitzer_(political_scientist)&diff=619899656&oldid=619888277 on the talk page] and wonders why this is happening to him again. Our policies on BLP should protect people out in the world from attacks on their reputation, but it doesn't seem to be working here. I feel that the only permanent solution is to ban Sue Rangell from editing Spitzer's article and from removing any material from Wikipedia that uses Spitzer's work as a source.

Since Lightbreather was topic banned from articles relating to gun control, Sue Rangell has been removing or substantially revising all of Lightbreather's contributions to this area. This includes removing material quoted from or referenced by Spitzer's publications. Examples are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_gun_cultures&diff=619345561&oldid=619241250 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_weapon&diff=619358795&oldid=615700639 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_Control_Act_of_1968&diff=next&oldid=618005262 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_Control_Act_of_1968&diff=next&oldid=619359098 here]. Since removing sourced material can lead an editor into difficulties, Sue Rangell may feel she needs to paint Spitzer as pro gun control as justification for removing Lightbreather's work. Some of her edit summaries are less than civil in speaking of a person outside of Wikipedia. She removed a quote from Spitzer, a political scientist whose field of expertise includes the history of gun control, with the comment: "removed paragraph rehashing gun control arguments, quoting political pundits rather than historians, which have no place in the history section." She removed an entire section written with material referenced to Spitzer's works calling his work "a single person's opinion (especially a person who has a clear bias)". [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 00:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:40, 7 August 2014


    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

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

      Requests for comment

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      new closer needed
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.
      If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.
      Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.
      However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Julian Assange#RFC: Calling Assange a journalist

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 6 April 2024) RfC template was removed by the robot 6th of May. Last comment was the 2nd of May. TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 17 April 2024)  Done Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Feb Mar Apr May Total
      CfD 0 0 12 15 27
      TfD 0 0 0 1 1
      MfD 0 0 0 2 2
      FfD 0 0 0 2 2
      RfD 0 0 8 33 41
      AfD 0 0 0 1 1

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by Bibliomaniac15. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Pppery. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done * Pppery * it has begun... 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects#Add Wikifunctions or not?

      (Initiated 276 days ago on 20 August 2023) Could an uninvolved admin please determine whether there is a consensus to add Wikifunctions to the Main Page? Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

      (Initiated 118 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done Charcoal feather (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

      (Initiated 112 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

      (Initiated 99 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done. @Chidgk1: I have added my closing remarks at the talk page and archived the discussion. Hope it seems fair to everyone. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Goldenarrow9 Thanks for your clear summaries. So does ‘weak consensus’ at the top mean I can go ahead and merge everything or does it mean I should do nothing? Or something in between or can I decide for myself? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chidgk1: Please refer to my detailed closing remarks on the merits of each proposal. I would advice against merging everything as there was clearly no consensus on some of the proposed merges. I would say where there is a local consensus, you can move forward with the merge keeping in mind the considerations and pitfalls that have been highlighted in the discussion (and my remarks). On some of the proposals, there was no proper consensus (and I have mentioned as such) - avoid making any changes on those.
      In short, don't just act on the basis of the 1-word status at the top. Instead, read my entire closing remarks along with the context of the discussion to see which merges you can move forward with. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1#Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by Daniel. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

      (Initiated 12 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024#New article

      (Initiated 10 days ago on 11 May 2024) Split proposal for a new article surrounding an issue under arbitration sanctions - the conflict in the Middle East. Any involved editor closing it will be seen as taking sides, as such an uninvolved third-party admin is needed to close the requested split to prevent tensions on the talk page rising. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest#Requested move 13 May 2024

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 13 May 2024)

      Move proposal on a contentious area which has been going more than long enough.

      PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Question about user that refuses to use the talk page

      no harm, no foul. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      Definitely not encouraged; I left them a note [1]. –xenotalk 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      (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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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: [2].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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))[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      It seems that 'keeping an eye out' is the antithesis of good faith.Crazynas t 00:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

      RFC closure review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      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)[reply]
      • Overturn, reopen, someone else close later down the road Was closed waaay too early, and the close looks like a supervote. Discussion had not died down by any means. Saying things like "I spot-checked a few relevant articles, and found a mixture of approaches, with some mentioning multiple nationalities, some mentioning multiple nationalities but downplaying one or more (e.g. "a Brazilian-born Spanish footballer"), some not mentioning any nationality, but instead naming countries the person had played for and some only mentioning one FIFA nationality. I could also see that some editors involved in this discussion have also recently been active in enforcing their preference in the subject-area." and "There was a parallel discussion at WP:BLPN, but I did not feel that this added anything substantive to the discussion here." (which means the possibility of using arguments not presented in the RFC) appears to say the decision is based on his own partial research and biases, a no-no for a closer. Nothing personal against FormerIP, but that was a bad close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
          • I think you are taking the term "bias" in a way other than I meant to use it. I didn't question your faith, just how you reached your conclusions, and using outside information does bias the conclusion. IE: influence. Looking at the other articles (WP:WAX comes to mind) and checking the other discussion. I didn't question your neutrality, and you even made it clear the close was against your personal preference. It sounds like you used (or attempted to use) arguments that were not included within the discussion, and you aren't supposed to do that for a close. Under no circumstance did I mean to infer you had a NPOV or cultural bias. I used the word as plain English, not Wikispeak. I would also note your sentence " I could also see that some editors involved in this discussion have also recently been active in enforcing their preference in the subject-area." which seems a note of frustration because of the actions of others, which might have influenced the decision. You did think enough of it to include it in the closing statement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • I do the same things, verify the claims made in the arguments, those are normal parts of a close. I don't go check other articles to see how applied (or failed to apply) policy or go looking for opinions in other discussions, however. That is where you are introducing arguments outside of that discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • "There was a parallel discussion at WP:BLPN" is a problem and shouldn't have made a difference or even been considered. Any consensus in FOOTY should be reflected on the main page of FOOTY, which is pretty well documented and would contain any real consensus. Would I have looked for other RFCs in the archives? Maybe some, but really, those should be indicated on the main page. Unless the vote links to the consensus, I wouldn't go searching an hour as it is their responsibility to back their claims if they aren't obvious or easy to find on the main page. That is like someone saying "it's notable" at AFD without more explanation. So the short version is, when closing, if a !vote makes you have to go on a scavenger hunt, it is a weak or unsubstantiated !vote, and they haven't done their job in presenting their case. That is their job, not yours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • I didn't ask for an overturn because your conclusion is wrong (I don't have an opinion on what the proper close should be, not an area I know well enough to close). I said overturn because of the methodology in the close, the technicals of the close are what is bad, and that makes for a bad close, whether or not a good close would have the same conclusion. Since I don't know the topic very well, it would be difficult for me to have faith in this close, whereas a clean close I could trust. Again, it isn't personal at all, I think you closed in good faith and don't have a problem with you doing other closes, but I think you made some procedural mistakes that reduce the authority in the decision. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @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)[reply]
          • Struck that portion, oldtimers bit me. The rest stands, however. And for the record, I'm as pro-NAC as they come, so that has nothing to do with my conclusions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
          • It wasn't closed as early as I thought but there was ongoing discussion. Not a particular problem since it had been a month but not ideal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further input welcome/needed... GiantSnowman 19:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      Did you mean Justice Stewart?Nathan T 15:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Argh. I did indeed! Protonk (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Durdevdan uprising article

      See Talk:Đurđevdan_uprising#Title_and_scope_RfC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      AfD in need of a close

      AfD now closed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Could we please have an uninvolved admin close 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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/2¢/Δ's/ 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      WWE Disruptive user

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

      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)[reply]

      User:XiuBouLin/Heaven Sent Gaming

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

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

      BLP Review (Right to be forgotten)

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28640218 -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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]


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


      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      we have a right and duty to leverage the Streisand effect against them as far as we are able: this is an incredibly bad and dangerous statement. You are saying not just that we are permitted to publicize something as much as we possibly can based solely on the fact that they don't want that to happen--which is bad enough as it is--but that we have the responsibility to do so. That's...so wrong I'm not even sure how to express how wrong it is. If we want to protest the law, through the usual legal channels, that's one thing. If we want to do a blackout like we did for SOPA or whatever, well, I would strongly disagree with that, but still, it's whatever. Actually deliberately going after people, through anything other than simply writing neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia articles on notable subjects (which is what you seem to be implying), is just...wrong. Despicably so. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      This is an encyclopaedia. Take your anti-censorship activism elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      And Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 6#File:Tom Carstairs In Concert.jpg. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      And the AFD was closed as a frviolus nomination the moment someone put up a delete vote , That's not on. [3]. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      "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)[reply]

      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 interesting 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)[reply]

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

      Ban request at another page

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

      Poke

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

      Notice of relevant discussions

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      Request that Sue Rangell be prohibited from editing Spitzer material

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

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

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=620166362"