This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You have blocked MeropeRiddle for "reposting suppressible information". There was discussion of whether the name of the hostage should be permitted, and opinion seemed to have shifted toward including it. For example, it has been out in the open on Steven Sotloff for a day now.

Now there is no AFD history to consult, no specific citation of policy, and there is no particular person to ask what the policy is from on high. I have read that the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office requested that British media not publish about the hostage, but we are not British media, we have not had our attention called to any particular DA-Notice, we have no talk page to consult about this process, and any conversation we have about it is banned. In other words, there is no alternative provided to the procedure used by MeropeRiddle of trying it and seeing what happens.

I understand that Britain obviously has a strong lobby here, so their censorship has to be absolute, even though similar policies by China are rejected without consideration. Clearly not all countries are equal on Wikipedia, which is informally required to follow a partisan point of view. I wouldn't even dare suggest that our article be made useful to those people in Iraq; who would? My question is whether the Huginn and Muninn of censorship -- the censorship of what is censored and the continual redefinition of what is censored -- can that be avoided on Wikipedia?

Meanwhile, I still have absolutely no idea whether it would be safe, say, to add a couple of sources about the next victim to the Sotloff article, or to say what his occupation is, or even whether what is there is OK; it's all behind a Chinese wall. I am deeply, deeply unimpressed with the British government's administration of this site. Wnt ( talk) 22:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Wnt: I'm stunned that MeropeRiddle was blocked without warning. Since there seems to a wall of silence regarding this I guess you email your complaint to arbcom-audit-en@lists.wikimedia.org ~ Technophant ( talk) 01:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what isn't being suppressed? /info/en/?search=August_2014_celebrity_photo_leaks A crime was committed resulting in the release of intentionally concealed images of naked women. Lots of invasion of privacy. Lots of "intentionally concealed". No supression. lol. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 02:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is User:Russavia -- it appears to me that she wasn't noticing the template vandalism that Russavia had inserted. Do you know something I don't? NawlinWiki ( talk) 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Look at the edit on Template:User wikipedia/Oversighter. I don't believe it's simply "not noticing". T. Canens ( talk) 13:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

After some more digging around, it looks like you may know more about what I am trying to discuss at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Protected page without log entry and could shed some lights on my questions there. Fram ( talk) 09:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)