This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RoslynSKP (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 2 December 2013 (→Ottoman Empire/Turkey naming dispute: moving post). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:36, 2 December 2013 by RoslynSKP (talk | contribs) (→Ottoman Empire/Turkey naming dispute: moving post)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:
| Shortcuts |
 | This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Courtesy deletion?
I know that occasionally ArbCom pages (and others) are subject to courtesy blanking. Today, however, while looking at some ancient Misplaced Pages history (2006 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Robert I, which itself is not blanked), I found that it's talkpae and all subpages (proposed decisions, workshop, evidence) have been subject to something called "courtesy deletion" by User:SlimVirgin (as of August 11, 2007). Nothing on the page explains why such a bizarre courtesy action (not supported by our policies, as far as I can tell) has taken place. As such, I'd like to ask ArbCom (and SlimVirgin) for clarification: is there any reason those pages should be deleted (again, the main RfArb/Robert I is not even blanked...)? If not, I'd like to ask that those pages are undeleted (no objection to regular courtesy blanking, if any good reason for it can be presented.). IFF there are reason for those pages to be deleted, they should be stated on the RfArb/Robert I, and the policy on courtesy blanking and revision deletion (present at Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy) should be modified to include this concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just a bit of background, when I talked to SV, the action was taken to try to give the subject a chance to make a clean break from Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, the main page had to be restored because as it turned out, the subject had comeback to Misplaced Pages using sockpuppet accounts, so the main arb page had to be undeleted to provide background. Speaking only as an administrator, I have no problem with having the rest of the pages undeleted. SirFozzie (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- It seems likely that if the same circumstances happened today the pages would have been courtesy-blanked rather than outright deleted. I'm hesitant to suggest the pages be undeleted outright, however, if there isn't evidence it's necessary for some reason. 2007 arb activities were before I believe every current arb, including Brad, and I can't speak to the merits of the action with any authority. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just another note. Back in 2007, arbitration pages were indexed by search engines, and it would be reasonable to assume that these pages would have made up the top google hits for the editor. Deletion was, at the time, the only way to mitigate that. Today, no-index is attached to all arbcom pages and is generally respected by most search engine bots, so the harm is mitigated. I agree with David Fuchs that unless there is a current issue involving the editor behind the account, no purpose is served by undeleting and then courtesy blanking. Risker (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I don't have much to add to this. As SirFozzie says, it was a case of someone wanting a clean break. I'll leave it for others to decide whether to undelete, but I agree that it makes sense to leave it unless something relevant has changed. SlimVirgin 04:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. As there is no reason not to follow our own policies and undelete (followed by courtesy blanking), I still believe this page should be undeleted, as 1) to not set a wrong precedent (deletion creep...), and 2) to avoid suggestion of censorship through deletion, when such an action is not necessary. Misplaced Pages prides itself on its transparency. When needed, we keep some things hidden (deleted revisions, and so on), but if this is not required here, we should follow regular procedures. There is also the 3) consideration that such an exception to the rules can lead to a Streisand effect, which certainly would be contrary to our intention here. Since nobody actually argues that the page needs to stay deleted for any particular reason (all cited reasons are, as noted above, obsolete), will a clerk undelete and blank it, or should I file a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Let me just step in to clarify noindexing actually works. There are sites that mirror Misplaced Pages which strip out the noindex tags. Do not rely on noindex to hide content from search engines. Our license allows our content to be copied. If content needs to be hidden, blank the pages or delete them. Jehochman 13:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Back in 2006, this was also the case, yes? As in - blanking the page was satisfactory to avoid the page coming up in off-wiki searchers, yes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Motion proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools
A motion has been proposed regarding activity levels for holders of both CU and OS tools. If you wish to comment, please join the discussion at the motion on the motions page. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Category: