Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 30 December 2011

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

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

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 108 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 87 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 78 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 77 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article

(Initiated 28 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder

(Initiated 33 days ago on 21 December 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 35 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster:  Relisted. ToThAc (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 10#WP:DISNEY categories

(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Category:Molossia Wikipedians

(Initiated 14 days ago on 9 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 13#Redundant WP:COMICS categories

(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Timrollpickering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15#Redundant WP:RUSSIA categories

(Initiated 9 days ago on 15 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Free and open-source software#Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software

(Initiated 251 days ago on 17 May 2024) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Free and open-source software § Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 121 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 87 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dundas railway station, Sydney#Requested move 25 December 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 25 December 2024) – The discussion has reached a point where there is some agreement in favour or acceptance of moving most of the articles concerned to 'light rail station', with the arguable exception of Camellia railway station which may be discussed separately in a pursuant discussion.

There are, however, points of disagreement but the discussion has been inactive for twenty days now.

I wish to close the discussion so as to migrate and subsequently fix up the articles to reflect the recent reopening of a formerly-disused railway line.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

(Initiated 13 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

(Initiated 9 days ago on 14 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its been more than 7 days and there appears to be a consensus. There haven't been new opinions for almost three days now. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

 Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  09:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Quick stats on salted pages

Did a count earlier today, and we have a grand total of 35,613 create-protected (salted) pages across all namespaces on the English Misplaced Pages. Does anyone aside from myself seem that this number is a big high as far as openness is concerned?

Not to say that we should unsalt all of them, as quite a few of them are justified. However, we could likely do without quite a few of them at this point. --MuZemike 22:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could rank them by protection start date? Also, we should focus on the article namespace, really. - Jarry1250  22:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how start date is going to be particularly relevant in a lot of cases. Obscene or attacking page names will never be appropriate, while by the same token something that was aalted lad week because someone was recreating it could have become more notable in the meantime. I definitely agree that namespace should be used in prioritizing any review. Articles of potentially notable topics are a more pressing matter than WP space pages that wee salted for whatever reason. Any guess what the number of actual salted articles is? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the number seems a bit high to me also. I think it would be helpful to have some kind of mechanism for periodically reviewing salted pages. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol, WP:BAMBI, I'd forgotten about that. There should be some fun trips down memory lane looking through Special:ProtectedTitles. Tarc (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's reassuring to note that MASSIVE C*CK is fully protected. 86.148.65.105 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

List created

I've created a list of ~450 articles as a test. I'm sure there were good reasons for protecting these at the time, but I can't see how keeping these "whack a mole" protections protected is really useful today (I filtered out the obviously bad titles). If no-one objects, I'll unprotect them, and then we can monitor Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Jarry1250/unprotect (I take full responsibility for this). - Jarry1250  17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to unprotect them I suggest you do it on a case-by-case basis. Unprotecting titles of non-notable people repeatedly created years ago won't do any harm and might help, but no good can possibly come from unprotecting List of faggots. Hut 8.5 15:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, missed that one. Please remove any you notice from the list, I've already removed quite a few. - Jarry1250  20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/Administrator instructions

I just created an administrator instructions page for Possibly unfree files. It would be appreciated if someone could look at it, that everything is fine with it. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 08:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks good to me from a technical standpoint. However, you failed to attribute your source for the page (Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions), which you should have done via edit summary. This has broken the attribution requirements of the GFDL. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Hope this corrects it. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 11:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Request to review role of Sikh-history as administrator in Jatt Sikh article

I would like to ask of the Administrator's board to review the role of user Sikh-history (]) in his role in acting as an administrator for the Jatt Sikh article.

I have been trying to add information on the article - of various reputable sources and published material, both directly using the edit function, and via the discussions page, however, all my edits seem to be reversed by the administrator and I receive an un-necessary nasty warnings in return.

My efforts to add information to the Jatt Sikh article and remove "original research" can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jatt_Sikh&action=history under the IP address 86.17.132.217 , Sikh-history's attempt to remove the information along with its cited sources are clearly evident after my edit.

I believe the cause of edit-wars between myself and SH (Sikh-history) lies on the basis that the quotes and sources from which I am citing from seem to offend SH due to his sectarian orthodox Sikh views (even though the article has nothing to do with Sikhism itself, as it is an ethnoreligious group called Jatt Sikhs - i.e. the descendants of Jatts who's ancestors decided to convert to Sikhism). I do not mean to offend SH if his Sikh views reject caste system and tribal/clan identity, but I am simply trying to provide well sourced information about the military history of these people, along with general cultural information which come from refutable sources (and are well referenced, as you will be able to see if you revert to my edits, everything is specifically cited).

I have even tried discussing the matter with SH directly on his talk page by creating a section called "Please stop including sectarian Sikh opinions on an article related to an ethnoreligious (Jatt-Sikhs)" and giving him a long explanation on why I though his behaviour on the article was incorrect, and for justification of various sources which I believe are "original-sources" from the internet and not properly researched or published historical sources. However, all my attempts to discuss the issue with him on his talk-page are deleted (explained as "reverted non-sense", and in turn, I receive another warning from this horrible, rude and unnecessarily offended administrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sikh-history&diff=467696344&oldid=466141265

86.17.132.217 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way is he acting as an admin? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. You've done it again.Actually World Sikh news is valid in this instance because it directly quotes a leading intellectual in studying Jatt Sikhs Progfessor Kishan Singh that refers specifically to Jatt Sikhs. Falcon has already bee quoted, so please do not try and add his quotes multiple times. Thanks SH 10:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting/reverting all well-sourced edits to the article constantly if they do not fit his orthodox Sikh views, and sending warnings and "ban threats" in return. Failing to have a proper discussion about how his sources are invalid, improper, unpublished and poor "original research". Failing to have a discussion about why my edits are actually credibly (and at least tell me why he thinks they're not, though I am 110% sure they are...and deleting any attempts of me trying to discuss this on his "talk" page. Absolutely shameful, puts me off Misplaced Pages, I highly doubt he is an academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.132.217 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make him an admin, it just means he has ownership issues. This is an editing dispute issue, and should be addressed under WP:DR, not at this page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sikh-history is not an administrator here on English Misplaced Pages, period. I took a look at this article when you first posted but, alas, I really could not understand where the alleged problem lies despite having spent a fair amount of time on India-related subjects this year. I think that perhaps you should ask a few questions at WT:INB. Don't accuse anyone of being this or that, just pose a neutrally worded request for some more eyes to take a look at the issue. For the record, yes, I have had dealings with Sikh-history previously, but no issues of dispute that I can recall. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sitush can you provide an alternative explanation into why my edits are being reversed by Sikh-history? I am only receiving warnings on my ip-address for my well researched and cited contributions. And thankyou The Mark of the Beast.

I think the article talk page is perhaps the best place for this discussion. My suggestion is that, rather than blanket statements about bias, you make clear content suggestions (keep each one simple) and wait for editors to respond. As Sitush suggests, if you don't get a response from other editors, then drop a note on WT:IN. --regentspark (comment) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. How do I undo the ton of warnings I have been sent by Sikh-history due to his arrogance at even looking at the sources I suggest? 86.17.132.217 (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My Comment - There have been a number of problems with talk , and his edits to article Jatt Sikh. Firstly, his additions to countless other articles have been reverted. He seems to delete valid sources at will. On the article Jatt Sikh, we have a long standing problem in trying to differentiate it from articles such as Jat people so we decided to use only those sources which were related Jats and Sikh specifically, in order to avoid WP:OR. The alternative was deleting the article and merging it with others. The sources the above IP used from Falcon etc have been multiply quoted by him, and despite them being defunct sources based on a defunct Martial Race theory I still included them, albeit in a limited manner. The problem I think lies with all Indian Caste based articles in that everyone want to "big up" there own little tribe. I have had the same problems with Khatri, Tarkhan (Punjab), Labana and countless others. Thanks SH 08:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The validity of your sources are discussed in the talk page of the article. Just because 'http://worldsikhnews.com/13%20August%202008/The%20Malaise%20of%20Jat%20Consciousness.htm' is a sikh source does not make it a valid source, esp. without a single citation from any published book or historian. I did not re-quote Falcon, Falcon was cited in the reference WITHOUT a quote, I simply provided a quote to PROVE my point. And the Martial Race theory being defunct is absolutely ridiculous, if it was, then why are there still ethnicity based regiments in the Indian, Pakistani and even the British army whom recruit soldiers from a particular background? The recruited tribes where well researched by geographists and genealogists of the time (during the British Raj) before they where recruited, hence why I quote from their work. You might be facing difficulties with articles of other tribes, and exerting Sikh influence of them, but I am simply stating what has been quoted, as a Military History enthusiast. 86.17.132.217 (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Image Error

Searching for Puna-Hawaii I find one of the maps is in error. The Kau District is highlighted on the Puna detail page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Puna,_Hawaii. The map's URL (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HawaiiIslandDistrict-Kau.png/250px-HawaiiIslandDistrict-Kau.png) describes the map as a reference to the Kau District but the search is for Puna. I'm assuming the images just need to be swapped out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msuner (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for reporting. (For future reference, posting on discussion page is generally the correct place for comments about article content.) Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Request re-opening of ANI thread

In my opinion this WP:ANI report ("Attack page") was closed prematurely, less than 5 hours after it was opened by User:Lhb1239 aka LesHB. It was closed by the same admin, TParis who removed the material from my talkpage before ANI discussion could unfold, twice. The administrator left a note on my talkpage to which I responded, by objecting and asking for clarification. In my respectful disagreement I asked for specific example(s) of what constituted a personal attack, to no avail. Yet I went ahead and revised the list of links and my comments, re-posted, but it was speedily removed by the same admin. A bit later (at 23:35) I said that I would like to hear others' comments at the ANI thread, however TParis closed the thread as resolved only 20 minutes later, preventing any further discussion. By that time, two alternatives had already been brought up, one by another admin.
      I think the ANI report should be re-opened, re-titled to a more neutral wording, and allowed to progress more naturally. And is that the place to address false accusations of harassment by User:Lhb1239? I hope this is the right place to request this and, if not, please excuse. (Please note: I would have posted this request on TParis's talkpage if our side dialogue had not devolved.) Thanks. El duderino (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

...and what exactly are you looking for in that? You're both in the wrong to a degree, and the "way forward" for both of you has been provided. No blocks will be coming from the discussion, so what exactly is your goal other than to air some dirty laundry about someone you're in conflict with? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I saved you from further scrutiny, but feel free to bring more attention to yourself.--v/r - TP 14:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:POLA is now part of policy

See . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not, its a guideline. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#Policy vs. guideline. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, look, yet another "policy" that was never discussed or approved by the community. Why do we even bother to pretend this is a community based project? Silverseren 20:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps we should discuss this more broadly before implementing. --JOJ 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope we do, because I believe a majority of the community will say that the "policy" as it is currently written and even how it was conceived by the Foundation constrains our ability to cover certain subjects to a ridiculous degree. We can't write an encyclopedia and make sure we don't offend anyone in the world at the same time. We've probably already broken that by existing in the first place anyways and offending someone's religious beliefs. Silverseren 21:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we, the community, have much of a choice on this? The WMF passed that as a resolution, and as we all know, when they want to forge ahead with something they'll do it. My view is that no one has the right to walk through life unoffended, and it's your own choice to view certain pages (and just don't visit those pages if you don't want to see it; if you insist on it, well it's not my fault you're incapable of using your brain), but I'd rather not expend the extra kilobytes if it won't have any effect in the end. I've been down that road too many times. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We can only but try. We need to make the Foundation understand that if creating a source of all the world's knowledge and, more than that, a source of education, there's certain topics we have to cover and we have to cover them fully. This "policy" hurts that endeavor and constrains it, forcing us to remove images and other such things that inform the reader about a subject. If we have to also factor in whether they would offend someone or not, it lessens our ability to actually be an educational source on a number of subjects. Silverseren 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits and problems with WP:POLA are (and I'm on the fence on this), the current text is awkwardly worded and basically impossible for admins and other editors to make any reference to. It appears to require reading several off-Wiki documents (which aren't even summarised as part of the guideline) and the final paragraph tells you to read two documents to understand how it works but then says that part of these documents has since been superseded. The current text seems to have been unilaterally added (in very good faith, I stress) by ASCIIn2Bme (talk · contribs) and I think that it needs to be entirely re-worked so it's much clearer. That said, I'd advocate removing it as it seems unclear what this new set of rules is trying to achieve at present. Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means, get involved. My poor writing skills surely account for some of the awkwardness. But there's some inherent difficulty writing this clearly because the Resolution was written in the first person (We, the WMF) and the resolution doesn't actually state the principle of least astonishment it urges the community to implement. So, there is a bit of divination going on over that. There are some preliminary WMF materials that did explain the principle. Their binding status is less clear though. To make matters worse, those materials are effused with a discussion of the putative personal image filter. We only work with the customer's—that is the WMF's—material on this. It wasn't even clear until one or two days ago if the principle applied outside of Commons or not. That was clarified by email on Dec 28. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The wording is much approved now, and I do agree that what you've had to work with from the WMF is pretty hopeless. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when does the Foundation make policies about content? I mean, WP:CHILDPROTECT is an example of a Foundation made policy, but that applies to editors, not to article content. The only other thing I can think of is WP:OFFICE and I have yet to see an office action that was done properly or with any consideration for the community. So I have even less faith for this, let alone if we're meant to interpret what they mean from various materials. Silverseren 22:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you read - Misplaced Pages:You don't own Misplaced Pages#The community does not own Misplaced Pages? it sems related to your comments. - Youreallycan (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make things any better though. Silverseren 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well you can't win them all, if you have extreme stuff that you want to publish why not get yourself a blog. Youreallycan (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about "extreme" things here, though. A tiny yet vocal handful of editors is trying to ride the coattails of this WMF thing to strip images from Muhammad. More eyes from the outside over at the Arbcom case couldn't hurt. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The "decision-making mechanism" works something like this: (1) Someone squeals like a stuck pig for their minority views on Talk:Jimbo Wales. (2) Jimbo Wales concurs. (3) Resolution from WMF implementing minority views as law magically appears as a "policy." (4) Actual decision-making process at ArbCom is neatly sidestepped. It's fundamentally un-democratic. The quicker the archaic notion of a "benevolent dictator" is removed from the formal structure of WP, the better. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The BLP resolution was a similar case. Both, however, are pretty much plain common sense in terms of what they say about content. --JN466 23:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Depending on how they are worded, perhaps. The BLP resolution has been continually upheld by the community in regards to BLP content. This "least astonishment" thing, however, has been the subject of much debate within the community and, quite often, has seen itself overturned in terms of community consensus. Silverseren 23:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Hey, lighten up, stuff is always like that at The Office. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

All that says is "to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content". Which doesn't mean anything. So why even care about it? Prodego 22:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Be very careful what you say. I got my ass handed to me when I said something similar. To some people "curating" has a very clear and obvious meaning. See . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Making content choices on articles requires care and consensus. If content is controversial then that consensus is difficult to get, and particular attention should be paid. This should be obvious - but a little common sense can replace all our policies. Prodego 23:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo and two Arbitrators disagree with you that the Resolution is not saying anything new even if we completely ignore the image filter stuff (see diffs above). The principle of least astonishment is this cool new thing when dealing with controversial/offensive material. I'm not going to do any further arguing on their behalf though; it's better to let them speak for themselves. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog