Misplaced Pages

Support

Hopefully allows us to move forward while addressing concerns previously raised. Nobody Ent 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:RFC/COI

This is a RfC initiated in accordance with the ArbCom remedy in a recently closed case.

View by ASCIIn2Bme

Proposal

Delete WP:COI/N and WP:COI. (Ok, for the bureaucratically inclined: mark the former as {{historical}} and the latter as an {{essay}}.)

Rationale

Because the guideline is only "discouraging" COI editing, the brazen will not be discouraged, while claiming to operate within the guideline. And because the only recourse is to discourage them some more with lots of messages and threads, if you do that, you are really only providing them with ammo for a WP:HARASSMENT wikilawsuit (e.g. at ArbCom). It is thus clear that the COI Misplaced Pages guideline and associated drama board is only serving to antagonize and burn out people, while driving away only the somewhat ethically minded "bad apples" (mildly conflicted editors like experts editing in their field) and setting up traps for the clueless would be "enforcers". So, the guideline and particularly the associated drama board are a net negative for Misplaced Pages: the only people who stand to gain from it are those who ignore its advice. And that's in the lucky case when they even disclose their COI. If you ever get suspicious and try find out for yourself, oh my! The ArbCom case says, citing policy: "Focus on the edits not the editor". If there are blatant WP:SPAM problems, there are plenty of venues for dealing with that. For the more insidious NPOV problems, I'm not sure Misplaced Pages has a good answer, but third opinion, RfCs, WP:DRN, RfC/Us and ultimately arbitration are probably superior to the toothless and counterproductive WP:COI-style drama.

Support

1. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Current practice is that when a listed category is contested, the entry is moved down the page the to a holding area, where some discussion may follow. However, the instructions are unclear about what should happen next. They currently read: Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.

My reading of this has always been that if any objection is sustained, the renaming cannot proceed through the speedy process. To my mind, this accords with the general principle that a speedy process (such as speedy deletion) is reserved for uncontroversial issues where there is an assumption of consensus for the action. However, another admin recently read it as allowing admin discretion in assesing the objection and any comments made in response to the objection.

I see three options here:

1. To explicitly allow admin unfettered admin discretion in the handling of contested proposals for speedy renaming
2. To clarify the guideline so that it explicitly halts any speedy renaming in the face of a good faith sustained objection
3. Status quo: continue with the current wording

My preference is for option 2. I suggest that the guidance be changed to say something to the effect of:

Any editor may contest a proposed speedy renaming. This should be done by moving its entry to the holding area under the heading "Opposed nominations", and adding a brief explanation of their reasons. Other editors may append their comments on the objection.

The speedy renaming may proceed only if the objection is explicitly withdrawn, or if an admin assesses that the objection is either frivolous or has been made by an editor who is not in good standing. Otherwise, the contested requests can be removed from this page after 48 hours. The nominator (or any other editor) may then submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions on how to use CfD.

Any thoughts? Ideas? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for deletion tools is being discussed elsewhere and clarity at NFCC would help - the issue is best resolved by consensus on best practice of NFCC handling. Sometimes revisions displaying NF content may need to be deleted and not just edited out - but when? What criteria? How narrow?

WP:NFCC is mute. It just says it's not allowed, but not whether, when or how they may be removed if they happen. The policy doesn't say whether removing a displayed free image (by editing the page) is usually sufficient or if it must also be removed from history like any copyvio. If the line isn't at either extreme but somewhere in-between, or specific circumstances may affect the decision, then there is no guidance on best practice.

This RFC is to ask users interested in NFCC to help draw up brief guidance in WP:NFCC for appropriate handling/removal of non-free images that breach policy #9:

1. When is editing to remove the displayed image sufficient? When is deletion appropriate (or not)?
2. Are non-free images in page history ok or should they be deleted sometimes? When if ever would it be appropriate (or not) to selectively delete a revision from page history that breaches NFCC restrictions on display? (they can't be removed by editing)

FT2 

Brews ohare (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Biographies (bio)
• Economy, trade, and companies (econ)
• History and geography (hist)
• Language and linguistics (lang)
• Maths, science, and technology (sci)
• Media, the arts, and architecture (media)
• Politics, government, and law (pol)
• Religion and philosophy (reli)
• Society, sports, and culture (soc)

• Misplaced Pages style and naming (style)
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (policy)
• WikiProjects and collaborations (proj)
• Misplaced Pages technical issues and templates (tech)
• Misplaced Pages proposals (prop)
• Unsorted

• Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.