Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than 48 hours
are archived by ClueBot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.
Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

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

Centralized discussion

Contents

Requests for closure

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

XfD[edit]

CfD backlog[edit]

There are currently many open discussions, including some from early April. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure.

Thanks to those who have closed the oldest ones from January to March in recent weeks. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  • It's a nearly a month after the previous message and the backlog has only increased in the past month. Please help!! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Administrative[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community sanction proposal - Community Patience Exhausted by Elvey[edit]

Passing 48 hours, 14:2 supermajority in favor of the sanctions being enacted. An uninvolved administrator can close at any time IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As of late July 2015, the backlog is still about one month (and some of the ones in the backlog should actually be easy closes; others?... not so much). --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

Talk:Race_(biology)#Proposal three: Fully diffuse and redirect to dab[edit]

@Kraxler: Should be speedily re-closed. It's the same proposal as the previous one (by its only 'Support' !voter) in slightly different wording: merge all the content to Breed and wherever else, so the title can be redirected to the Race disambiguation page (same as nom's response to the RM, too). Every objection to the first edition applies to the second, and it raises no new issues, ideas, evidence, anything. It's pure WP:PARENT, and the result sought is literally not possible under policy, because we can't merge completely unrelated topics. This noise is disruptive of the ongoing RM.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not really the place for arguments of the merits of the issue, they should be done at the discussion/RfC. A speedy close at this moment (total of 3 !votes) would look like a WP:SUPERVOTE, especially by someone who has closed already a similar discussion on the same page. Either somebody else closes it early, or I may have a look at some later time. Kraxler (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles (Initiated 120 days ago on 4 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I question if this RFC is in the right place. It probably should have been done at MOS as its asking for more than just the article in question. An admin should probably close this one. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments (Initiated 106 days ago on 18 April 2015)? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2 (Initiated 71 days ago on 23 May 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel?. Please consider the earlier discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 150#Military date format in biographical articles in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2015#RfC: How strict should MoS-JA be about name order?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/May 2015#RfC: How strict should MoS-JA be about name order? (Initiated 82 days ago on 12 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette#Merger Proposal - cloud chasing[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electronic cigarette#Merger Proposal - cloud chasing (Initiated 56 days ago on 7 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25#Merger_Proposal_-_cloud_chasing. The page was recently expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Module talk:Main#Print titles of related articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Module talk:Main#Print titles of related articles (Initiated 80 days ago on 14 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC Kosovo Identification[edit]

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at RfC Kosovo Identification? (Initiated 41 days ago on 22 June 2015) In view of the disruption of this RFC, an administrative close is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#RFC: One or Two Articles? Should film series and movement be split?[edit]

Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist (film_series)#RFC: One or Two Articles? Should film series and movement be split?? (Initiated 63 days ago on 31 May 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: closure still needed, on whether the Zeitgeist Movement should have a separate article or not. There is a new discussion here. Alternatively, the draft could use an Article for Creation request.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This RFC was archived by the archival bot. I have moved it back to the talk page. Discussion at the talk page is a bit contentious again. The !votes in the RFC appear to have 14-7 in favor of splitting the movement off into its own article. There is argument over whether that is enough of a consensus. A formal close, preferably by an administrator, is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)[edit]

Will an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#RFC: Lead of Zeitgeist (film series)? (Initiated 63 days ago on 31 May 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of the contentiousness of this article and of recent disruptive editing, an administrative close may be preferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox heading survey[edit]

I am withdrawing my request for closure of this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It'll have been a month by July 26. I'd suggest an Admin close it soon after – it looks to me like there is a measurable consensus now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it has already been 6 weeks since the whole infobox discussion began; the survey started a month ago was just the latest iteration of that same discussion. bd2412 T 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Hillary Clinton#Infobox heading survey[edit]

Discussion has tapered off and it should be formally closed. Calidum T|C 01:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it, the Talk:Hillary Clinton#Portrait discussion is also ripe for closing. bd2412 T 15:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests#RfC: Remove persondata practical steps[edit]

Removal of wikipedia:persondata by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Edit in Wikidata links[edit]

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at this RfC – including whether there should be a follow-up RfC (and what should be discussed). (Initiated 60 days ago on 3 June 2015) - Evad37 [talk] 02:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Microsoft Surface#Surface .E2.89.A0 Surface RT[edit]

The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 53 days ago on 10 June 2015)

This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 20 days ago on 13 July 2015)

Talk:Political positions of Jeb Bush#RFC: Should present position be summarized before discussing evolution of position?[edit]

Could someone please close this RfC that's been open for about four weeks? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Military dates, round 2 (Initiated 71 days ago on 23 May 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Charleston church shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Should remarks made by presidential candidates be included in the article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Charleston church shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Should remarks made by presidential candidates be included in the article? (Initiated 41 days ago on 22 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage? (Initiated 61 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)#RfC: should he be described as a paedophile?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)#RfC: should he be described as a paedophile? (Initiated 61 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 40#Small lede change suggestion(s)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 40#Small lede change suggestion(s) (Initiated 44 days ago on 19 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#Spouse parameter and surnames[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#Spouse parameter and surnames (Initiated 101 days ago on 23 April 2015)? See the subsection Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Spouse parameter. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Cosby#RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby#RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede? (Initiated 49 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Herbert Hope Risley#Rfc: Proposed revisions for the lead section due to OR[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Herbert Hope Risley#Rfc: Proposed revisions for the lead section due to OR (Initiated 48 days ago on 15 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ask.com#RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ask.com#RFC (Initiated 61 days ago on 2 June 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the lead paragraph include that IAC / Ask.com is a distributor of malware?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:March Against Monsanto#RfC Is including a quotation which describes GM food as 'poison' acceptable[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:March Against Monsanto#RfC Is including a quotation which describes GM food as 'poison' acceptable (Initiated 54 days ago on 9 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Newfound River#RFC: Which should be the primary article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Newfound River#RFC: Which should be the primary article? (Initiated 42 days ago on 21 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey#RfC: Should the photos be stacked in the municipalities section?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey#RfC: Should the photos be stacked in the municipalities section? (Initiated 66 days ago on 28 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine grid#RfC - Should the Palestine grid, obsolete system, be used in infobox?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Palestine grid#RfC - Should the Palestine grid, obsolete system, be used in infobox? (Initiated 63 days ago on 31 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:French colonial empire#RfC: When did the French colonial empire end?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:French colonial empire#RfC: When did the French colonial empire end? (Initiated 55 days ago on 8 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#RfC (Initiated 49 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sunrise (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:H:IPA#Request for comment: "foot" as an English example of the IPA symbol "ʊ".[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:H:IPA#Request for comment: "foot" as an English example of the IPA symbol "ʊ". (Initiated 68 days ago on 26 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby RfC June 2015[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Ruby RfC June 2015 (Initiated 40 days ago on 23 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:New Mexican English#RfC: Edit warring?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Mexican English#RfC: Edit warring? (Initiated 63 days ago on 31 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - No real question asked, but advice to use dispute resolution was good. Closed without consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genetically modified food#RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Genetically modified food#RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section? (Initiated 45 days ago on 18 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ramadan#Health section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ramadan#Health section (Initiated 43 days ago on 20 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kill 'Em All#RfC: Should we separate the songs in "Music and lyrics"?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kill 'Em All#RfC: Should we separate the songs in "Music and lyrics"? (Initiated 49 days ago on 14 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 8#RfC for video section (Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)/Archive 8#RfC for video section (Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol) (Initiated 35 days ago on 28 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jimi Hendrix#RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox (second discussion)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimi Hendrix#RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox (second discussion) (Initiated 55 days ago on 8 June 2015)? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Jimi Hendrix/Archive 8#RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox (closed 31 May 2015). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC for web/internet/streaming series naming conventions[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC for web/internet/streaming series naming conventions (Initiated 51 days ago on 12 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: The addition of fields for late-night talk show related articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: The addition of fields for late-night talk show related articles (Initiated 46 days ago on 17 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement about the number of communities and the number of residents?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement about the number of communities and the number of residents? (Initiated 61 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement to the effect that 99% of the population of the communities are in remote areas?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Rfc: Should the article include a statement to the effect that 99% of the population of the communities are in remote areas? (Initiated 61 days ago on 2 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013#RFC: Quote - which version?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Succession to the Throne Act, 2013#RFC: Quote - which version? (Initiated 60 days ago on 3 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English? (Initiated 52 days ago on 11 June 2015)? See the subsection, an RfC, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#RFC: Link the word “production” in NFF[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#RFC: Link the word “production” in NFF (Initiated 57 days ago on 6 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Categorizing WikiProjects and their categories[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Categorizing WikiProjects and their categories (Initiated 55 days ago on 8 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations (Initiated 46 days ago on 17 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sustainable_energy#RfC:_Should_this_article_include_the_international_consensus_that_a_type_of_nuclear_fission_is_sustainable.3F[edit]

Could someone assess the consensus at this RfC about whether information about nuclear breeder reactors should be included in the sustainable energy article? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(Initiated 35 days ago on 28 June 2015)SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol#Title RFC[edit]

(Initiated 27 days ago on 6 July 2015) This one hasn't run the full 30 days but the relevant editors have all commented and discussion has basically stopped so a formal close is probably appropriate. SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done bd2412 T 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment[edit]

(Initiated 24 days ago on 9 July 2015) While this RfC has not run the full thirty days, a vote has not been added in 7 days. Requests have been made to close the RfC by editors involved, and the original poster refuses to close it - I'd ask you to look under "Arbitrary Section Break 02" to get a good sense of the willingness of the original poster to work with his fellow editors. An administrator's close would be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please decline this request. This RfC was launched 6 July 2015 and 30 days would be 6 August 2015. Discussion is ongoing. We will be back 6 August 2015 requesting a formal uninvolved third party administrative close since the article is under discretionary sanctions, see you then, thanks. Kindly allow time for wider community feedback. We have no deadline and no reason not to go the full default 30 days and get as much diverse community feedback as possible. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Most of the discussion is now about the clearly improper phrasing and improper canvassing by the proposer. In my opinion, it should be closed as invalid. But, in any case, Comatmebro is correct that no vote or comment related to the proposal (as opposed to comments about the RfC) has been added in 7 days. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it should be closed and HughD should probably face sanctions for cross posting/spamming. Springee (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
"should probably face sanctions" Other venues are available to you for your editor behavior concerns. Your comment is off-topic here at this request for closure notice board. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
"no vote or comment related to the proposal...has been added in 7 days" Not true. Discussion is vigorous. Please see:
  1. 02:20, 26 July 2015
  2. 01:43, 26 July 2015
  3. 01:24, 26 July 2015
  4. 16:08, 25 July 2015
  5. 15:58, 25 July 2015
  6. 15:42, 25 July 2015
That's just the last few days. Additional diffs available upon request. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) We'll be back next week, thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I stated in my original post that no vote had been cast in the last 7 days - which was accurate - I stated nothing about comments related to the proposal. Please do not use my WP:ANRFC to lash out at other editors. Other venues are available to you for that. Your comment is off-topic here. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW I just cast a !vote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's an ANI post up about this dispute now, as well, alleging canvassing and campaigning by an involved editor. Posting here in case that affects how/when the RFC is closed. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Watts Up With That#Request for Comments (RfC): Denialism[edit]

(Initiated 66 days ago on 28 May 2015) There is some debate about whether or not the wording of the RfC makes sense, which the closer will need to take a look at, but some kind of resolution is still needed. MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Moves and page creations by Tobias Conradi socks[edit]

The long time banned user has unique ideas of article naming and moves per that. There's a lot of them done over the past three months that need to be checked to see if they should be moved back and also to see if any of the new page creations meet G5 criteria. The newly identified socks are (listed in order of effort required):

The relevant SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. Any help in cleaning out the moves that go against WP:NAME and tagging/deleting new creations under G5 would be great. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

We used to have a tool that could nail his socks a lot faster, see [4], but it doesn't seem to be functional. Any idea if we can resurrect that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That would indeed be very helpful; given his interest of moving geography articles across the globe, many wikiprojects have to spend time cleaning up the mess. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the mess from the TimurKirov sock, and I'll do all the article edits for Eldizzino (if there isn't an equivalent for mass-rollback for page moves we seriously need to make one). Someone else is going to have to look at the template and category mess, as I'm not as familiar with that. Also, forgot to ping @JaGa: as the creator of the aforementioned tool. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I think many of the template issues have been addressed already, at least the ones I looked through on Eldizzino. I've done a bit of the moves of articles, but this perhaps explains some of the article moves pertaining to Argentina, but I believe as usual they've been carried haphazardly causing a lot of issues on incoming links, and I've struggled to make sense of it. —SpacemanSpiff 18:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
At least for now I'll take care of the ones from July, and if no one has gotten around to it I'll work through Eldizzino's from June backwards. Seriously, what the hell is with this guy? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've done some more and I also left a note at WT:CfD to see if a bot run could be done on the categories where needed. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating. I recently asked Sigma about just such a "move stats" tool, and he said it was not a priority of his. But something like that would be very useful indeed. Pinging @Cyberpower678, MusikAnimal, and Nakon: to see if they can add anything here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Do we know which editor named "Jason" was behind that tool? Are they still active on Wikipedia? --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Nevermind! I just figured out that the "Jason" of interest is JaGa!! So, JaGa – any chance your move stats tool can be resurrected on WMFLabs Tools?... --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, if you're looking for something like this to be moved to xTools it is unlikely to happen unless we are given the source code. However, one of us might be up for doing a little development. Is there something we need that the move log can't provide? Was this tool built specifically for this sock? What does it do? MusikAnimal talk 22:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It tracks the number of page moves from accounts and sorts them by how old the accounts are. JaGa made it in Seltember 2010 to deal with Tobias Conradi socks, and it was very effective; we nailed several of them (Bogdan Nagachop being one, search ANI with that username and you'll find him carping about the tool for exactly that reason) because they lit up his tool like Diwali, and his MO in that regard hasn't changed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, that discussion is here. Well, there's apparently a new sock in town per the latest SPI report. —SpacemanSpiff 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone with more familiarity with this case know if an edit filter could help here? Sam Walton (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
There's mass moves of multiple articles, categories and templates and the subject focus includes geography and scripts. The thing is that the editors interested in the varied permutations of the subject and type of page are very different, so the connection is made after about a thousand pages have been affected. A look at the move log of Eldizzino can help. The one that I'm familiar with is Bogdan Nagachop. These two are probably representative of the behavior IMO. —SpacemanSpiff 19:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I am afraid an edit filter would not help here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Lord, how many years have we spent undoing the messes of Tobias Conradi? If I get a free moment (some time in August, I've got finals staring me down right now) I'll see if I can resurrect Move Watch. --JaGatalk 19:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@JaGa:I'm active on WMF Labs Tools and am up for doing a bit of development, if you want a hand or someone to take it over. GoldenRing (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm working my way from May forwards, I have no idea what the hell he was trying to accomplish but it's led to complete and total FUBAR. Thankfully I can move things over redirects, or this would be impossible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This is actually the problem with this user: It is not clear what the hell he was trying to achieve. Some edits may be good, some may go explicitly against consensus, some are completely unclear, but there is no system whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Uncle G's comment in this discussion in 2010 was fairly demonstrative. Now I'm through the first 500 and all of the ones in July, and I know someone's done June 24; any assistance would be greatly appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Today's development: In addition to a couple of IPs he's been using here at WP:NCGN, he's been busy at Wikidata, see this.—SpacemanSpiff 11:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, just wow. With some help I think I finally got everything from the Eldizzino account that wasn't a category move, I'll let people who know categories handle that. Even now it doesn't cease to amaze me how fucking pointless most of these moves were and how much disruption they caused. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put together the beginnings of a tool similar to how Move Watch is described above. Please have a look and let me know how it could be more useful. I'm sure there's lots of tidying up to be done. Perhaps not surprisingly, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights currently appears as an outlier... GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note it currently craps out looking at much more than the last 1000 page moves, apparently because there's a user who has no recorded registration date (?!). The wife is giving me a look like she's wondering what the hell I'm still doing up, so I'll sort it out in the morning. GoldenRing (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It'd be worth someone having a look at User:OrganicEarth and User:Dakarias. There's no evidence otherwise, but they're new accounts and have... well, they've certainly hit the ground running with their page moves (and editing). I'll notify them of this discussion shortly. GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't even know why many edits would be considered being a sock. As I've mentioned in my Userpage, I used to edit with IPs- and I've kept editing just the way I used to after making an account. The only page moves I do are misnamed articles, so I don't think that's suspicious, either. Dakar (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard offer for User:Piandme[edit]

User requested to close this discussion through UTRS. Nakon 19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Why do you believe you should be unblocked? "I strongly believe that in life individuals should be given the chance to prove that they will act in a decent and proper way. This is something I did not do in the past, and is something I deeply regret. If I was given another chance I feel I would be able to show that those past misdemeanour's are not a true reflection of my character, and were instead the result of my foolishness. Since my block was implemented I have had the chance to review my actions, and I completely see that they were completely out of line. I want to be given the opportunity to help the encyclopaedia, and not make other editor's lives more difficult, because that was what I was doing. All editors are really working for the good of the site, and not themselves. I was selfish before, not selfless, but I genuinely feel that this enforced break has informed me of this view."

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? "When I edited before, I mainly edited Game of Thrones pages, but I don't really see much point in doing that any more. Although I still watch the show, there are many, many editors who edit those pages, with most of them doing an excellent job. I think my time might be better utilised on pages that fewer editors have the appropriate knowledge of. At the moment these pages probably have lower quality levels than most of the Game of Thrones pages, and therefore my time is probably better spent on them."

Therefore, I will mainly focus on articles relating to Contract Bridge. Many of these pages are in need of a severe clean up, and a number have several factual errors. I hope to improve the quality of these. I may also do some work on TV articles, which are in need of improvements. I basically want to focus on articles that are in desperate need for improvements. Many of the Game of Thrones pages are not in need of this, and any improvements that do need to be made are above my level of knowledge at the moment"

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. "The main reason there is a block in place is because of my sheer stupidity and foolishness. I chose not to listen to many helpful editors suggestions, and chose to do my own thing. I felt these editors were bossing me around, but in reality they were just trying to help.

My main 'crimes' were: SockPuppetry: When I had a block for failing to follow the policy on 3RR I created a Sockpuppet. this was something I continued to do every time I got a block or to to try to support the master account. This is something I do realise was wrong, but at the time I just wanted to edit. I want to follow the rules now, so this will not happen again. Vandalism: I kept using an inappropriate source- a fansite for sourcing. I failed to listen to helpful editors informing me this was wrong, but I kept doing it because the website was one I already visited and it was easy to get the links. I will not do this again."

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? "I'm sorry. I really ask for just one chance, because I know that I won't blow it. One chance, and that should be it ( at least for a very long time). I want to show you that the past was not a true reflection of my character.

The block has given me time to reflect on what I did wrong, an I',mm actually grateful I received it in some ways. It has also given me the opportunity to really get to grips with the site's policies, and I feel in a much better place to edit nowadays. Let me show you these are not just words. Please.

Thank You." Unblock appeal by Piandme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI confirmed), transcribed with permission from UTRS#14038 by Yunshui for consideration under the standard offer. Yunshui  11:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, I Support unblocking. Yunshui  12:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yunshui: Does your support imply that a CU check confirmed there has not been socking more recent than January 2015?  · Salvidrim! ·  16:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I've not bothered with a CU - the last confirmed sock I can find is now stale, so there would be nothing to run checkuser against. I had a (fairly cursory, granted) look over the recent history of a few GoT articles (Piandme's main area for sockpuppetry) and didn't see anything that stood out as obviously suspicious, so I'm not aware that there's any evidence of malfeasance since late January. Yunshui  07:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Has Piandme disclosed all socks? Otherwise how would you know if you have all the confirmed socks? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to me, but I don't set much store by self-disclosure anyway; if we don't find a sock ourselves and they decide not to disclose it, how are we to know? Whilst self-disclosure is both polite and sometimes helpful, it's too easily gamed to be of use in deciding whether recent sockpuppetry has taken place. Yunshui  09:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────However, after reviewing some of the editing involved more thoroughly, I'm no longer inclined to throw my support behind this appeal; colour me neutral (beige, maybe?) with regards to the above request. Yunshui  09:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm yet undecided, but the fact that when the user was blocked they replied with, literally, "Fuck you, I'll just sock" weighs heavily in my balance.  · Salvidrim! ·  16:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was among the admins who had to deal with this person's unrelenting repeat socking comprising dozens of throwaway accounts. Statements like this one or this one reflect a degree of malice that I think is incompatible with productive contributions to a collaborative project. The appeal's wishy-washy generalities, which does not address the aggressive and confrontational nature of Piandme's conduct, and comes only a few months after the sockpuppetry, makes me doubt that a profound change in character has occurred in the interim.  Sandstein  17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the socking is too recent; I know it's been six months (the standard-offer minimum), but combined with their stated attitude I don't think it's time. Miniapolis 21:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the editor first discloses and confirms all socks that were used or not used. We only kept finding some because the editor slipped up and disclosed it and that's not a good start going forward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. You had me at contract bridge. Our articles around that topic could use some improvement. Re-blocks are cheap. HiDrNick! 00:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Based on the diffs supplied by Sandstein, there is more to the user's previous behavior in adding sourcing to fan sites than simple "vandalism". It seems clear it was a deliberate attempt to antagonise other users, not as Piandme says, simply an easy source to go to. As such, I don't believe what is written above shows a clear understanding of why what he was doing was wrong. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    Then ask for clarification on your concerns. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
  • Strong oppose The history of sock puppetry is disturbing, the nature of the sock puppetry is over the line. This user has demonstrated both hostility and bad faith, I think it would be insulting to those he has been abusive towards to allow them back. Asking for "one chance" after being given multiple chances and engaging in block evasion is disingenuous. The user lists sock puppetry and vandalism as their offences but I see no contrition for the general nastiness heaped on other users who disagree. Chillum 14:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal[edit]

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would affect the position of administrator. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This was already announced once on this page, and archived by the bot. If you want it to stay on the page until the RFC closes, you'll need to fake a timestamp or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note! I looked to see if it had been announced, but didn't find it. I didn't think the bot would archive it so fast. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If you do a text search for Kudpung in the latest archive, you'll find it. I believe AN is archived after 48 hours of inactivity, ANI after 24. I just learned about {{Bump}}, I'll used that here: Bumping thread for 30 days. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) .
  • Thanks! I did not know about {{bump}}. I did now find the archived notice. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just so you guys are aware, this and other relevant community discussions are posted up in the centralized discussion, which is posted at the top of both AN and ANI. See? You can even transclude the {{centralized discussion}} template on your own user or talk page so as to stay up to date on any major community discussions! No problem with stickying this post, just a little PSA. :) Swarm we ♥ our hive 03:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well aware, but thanks. Issue was raised at the RfC that this RfC was not publicized enough. I was attempting to respond to that. Yes, the centralized discussions are posted liberally, but realistically few pay attention to that list. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Appeal[edit]

Hi, I was banned from editing according to January consensus. I read about the Standard Offer, since six months have been passed I would like to appeal my ban to be revoked. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • What do you plan to do to address the concerns raised at the topic ban discussion? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I second Hammersoft's question. I notice you haven't said anything about why you were banned. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 19:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, Royroydeb. There was a consensus back in January that RRD was mass creating sub standard, poorly sourced BLP articles on non notable football players. Blackmane (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • To echo the above, removing a topic ban is not automatic or a right, it is simply possible after a given period of time upon verification that the problems that caused the ban will not continue. You pretty much need to explain what you did wrong and what you will do right in the future. Dennis Brown - 11:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: You started this thread, but are not responding to queries in the thread. Yet, you are continuing to edit other areas. If you have any desire to have the topic ban lifted, you need to respond to the above queries. As is, you leave the community no choice but to sustain the topic ban. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The nasty suspicious bastard in me notes that we just blocked a "brand new editor" who created a slew of articles on non-notable footballers... Guy (Help!) 17:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I created poorly sourced and BLPs in haste with low content. If my ban is revoked, then I will be able to create more BLPs to contribute to DYK. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
At your last appeal, in June, the closing admin suggested waiting at least another 6 months before appealing again. What's changed since then? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

MoveStats tool[edit]

I've mentioned it above, but I'll point it out here in case it's got lost: I've created a MoveStats tool at [5]. This originally came up in the context of identifying socks of Tobias Conradi - the goal is to easily identify editors who make lots of page moves very early in their careers. Please leave ideas, feedback and suggestions at User:GoldenRing/MoveStats. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI page for those interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Kokuchūkai[edit]

Could an admin please have look on latest edits on Kokuchūkai and a possible IBAN-Violation between me and the user by whom latest edits on named article were made? There was only a BOT active in between. Cheers. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, please have a look at the edits. Also maybe block Catflap08 for violating our IBAN multiple times, including here. All of Catflap08's edits to that article were IBAN-violating manual reverts. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Either block both of them or neither and close this thread. Catflap had previously made manual reverts of Hijiri's edits, clearly violating the IBAN set in place, but nothing happened even after it was reported. If the recent edits by Hijiri qualify as a violation, then both editors should be blocked. We shouldn't be cherry picking what counts as a violation. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sturmgewehr88: I don't mind taking a block if Catflap08 gets a block as well, but the problem with both your proposed solutions is that they create a false equivalence (the default state should be the one before any IBAN-violating reverts took place, i.e. the version I restored). They tell Catflap08 that he can continue rolling back the article to his preferred version just because he was the first one to revert after the IBAN. It also ignores Catflap08's showing up suddenly in an unrelated discussion and requesting that I be TBANned, apparently just because he doesn't like me (he clearly hadn't read any of the relevant discussion -- he saw "Hijiri88 topic-ban" in the thread title, clicked "edit" and expressed his support). And your solutions also don't address the fact that Catflap08 insinuated that you and I are neo-Nazis based on our usernames -- horribly offensive personal attacks like this would merit a block whether or not there was already an IBAN in place. His wiki-stalking, personal attacks and dubious aspersions about my motives have become worse since the IBAN's imposition. Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Publicising discussions query[edit]

Is labelled as an essay - but appears to have been originally a proposal for a guideline. It appears, in part, to contradict WP:CANVASS in stating "For more advice and common mistakes to avoid, such as inappropriate posting to individual user talk pages, see Wikipedia:Canvassing" which might be misinterpreted as stating that the CANVASS behavioural guideline is only applicable to notices sent to individuals. Ought this be sent to MfD (though I do not think it should be deleted) or ought it be simply be marked as "failed proposal" or "historical" so that people will not rely on it for any validity in itself? Many thanks. Collect (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I believe it is clear the clause starting with "such as" is just an example of one item covered. Perhaps you can use the essay's talk page to propose an alternate wording? isaacl (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus[edit]

Bumping thread for 30 days. ceradon (talkedits) 04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talkedits) 04:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)