Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) 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.
Click here to start a new discussion

Centralized discussion New autopromoted group to implement ArbCom "30-500" protection Clerking at RfA Should Jimbo Wales be able to amend or grant appeals to ArbCom remedies? Community radio stations - notability standards Redirects - should the article history be deleted when a small article is redirected to a larger article?

Noticeboard archives

Requests for closure

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

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Wikipedia:Non-free content review

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on 10 June 2015 ({{Initiated|10 June 2015}}), and at the time if me posting this request, the page has 163 discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please update {{Initiated}} below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(Initiated 216 days ago on 13 June 2015)

About 155 discussions still to be closed.

Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on WP:FFD (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• We're getting close to having all these discussions closed. NFCR is now down to 100 open discussions. Also, in November, NFCR was shut down to new requests, directing new requests to WP:FFD; when all of the discussions are closed from NFCR, the noticeboard will be closed and marked as historical. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk)

(Initiated 67 days ago on 9 November 2015) - review of a move originally proposed 21 October 2015. Experience closing contentious discussions needed, and apologies in advance for the wall of text. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion has waned past the point of productivity. Calidum T|C 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Total discussion stopped December 2, so it is stable and ready for closure. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Original close was voluntarily withdrawn. Listed for a new Admin close. (non-admin closure) Alsee (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

As the closer of the move, it was NOT withdrawn. Where are you reading that? Tiggerjay (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I misread one of the comments there. All my error. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused. I self-reverted my edits. Except for the the comments here, everything should be back to the original state. Alsee (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view (Initiated 81 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#RfC: Sklenár's theory.Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales figures: combined vs traditional

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales figures: combined vs traditional (Initiated 75 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study

clearly defined question in contentious topic area, ?consensus - need closure by uninvolved admin.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that the RfC is only five days old and no one has agreed to end it early. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case should be wrapping up soon, so there's no harm in letting the RfC run it's normal time to allow the remedies can take effect in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that there are walls of text growing since Dec 4, no new editors have chimed in, and an unreasonable repetition of the same arguments, furthering WP:FUD stifles process. No one has disagreed tothe RFC. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case has been going on and on though King wants it to be wrapped up soon as possible, as he has stated repeatedly on the arbcom page, there's no harm in closing the RfC to stop the hemorraging of glyphosate so that small remedies can take effect in the meantime. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This RFC is only the first in 3 whole sale deletions by the same editor group, anticipating more RFC's to come.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom

Requesting a closure of this old ANI discussion. The nominator is accused of systemic targeting a user (me) and nominating his articles at AFD. There was a boomerang, in fact. The discussion is old but not closed. (Initiated 294 days ago on 27 March 2015) Mhhossein (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:NQ Mobile#Stock crash and lawsuit#What the company does#(Copied here from Talk:Nagle)#Whitewashing, NPOV and potential COI

Requesting closure on these old discussions as the only relevant discussion is that the article is out of date which I started and has now been lost. The company recently announced a new Showself entertainment brand and some divestitures which I'd intended on working on. Rgeurts (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Request for closure on Phaedrus (dialogue) which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed

Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) and do a close on this short RfC during the holidays. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_29#Category:Latter-day_Saints_portal

Please close the discussion and rename the category. Thanks.--Broter (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You now have to only close the discussion and delete the old category.--Broter (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Norman Milliken#RfC: Should the article state that Milliken, Ontario is named after Norman Milliken?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Norman Milliken#RfC: Should the article state that Milliken, Ontario is named after Norman Milliken? (Initiated 68 days ago on 8 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Karbala#RFC for notability

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Karbala#RFC for notability (Initiated 52 days ago on 24 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jude Wanniski#RFC on description of the Laffer curve

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jude Wanniski#RFC on description of the Laffer curve (Initiated 59 days ago on 17 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17#APEC Philippines 2015 "Concentration camps"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17#APEC Philippines 2015 "Concentration camps" (Initiated 53 days ago on 23 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II#RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II#RFC (Initiated 56 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)#RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)#RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired (Initiated 56 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg (Initiated 50 days ago on 26 November 2015)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Contemporary worship music#Request for comment: Length and content of article lede

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Contemporary worship music#Request for comment: Length and content of article lede (Initiated 69 days ago on 7 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon? (Initiated 84 days ago on 23 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for closure: Wikipedia talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters

Would an experienced editor assess the discussion on the RfC at Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters#RfC:_Appropriate_detail_of_plot_summary_information and close as appropriate.

This follows a formal RfC initiated 29 Nov 2015, {{rfc|soc|rfcid=4B31646}}. Thanks. N2e (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article

Request for closure on Johann Sebastian Bach ‎ which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed

Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and do a close on this RfC. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article (Initiated 39 days ago on 7 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Levan Songulashvili

(Initiated 8 days ago on 7 January 2016) It would be great if we could close this discussion[1], even though it's relatively recent, so that it directs people to the AFD instead of continuing the BLP discussion. Not sure if that's appropriate or not.--Jahaza (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#RfC:_Rump_Militia

This has only been open one week, however, we have an interest in resolving quickly as it's a current events situation. All of the principal parties have indicated an agreement that they would like to see rapid resolution of the RfC faster than 30 days, including me, the proposer. (User:Leitmotiv) LavaBaron (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Why not leave the RfC open, but change the article now as a temporary measure to be re-evaluated after the 30-day period ends? If it helps, my evaluation at this point is that "armed group" is the most likely to eventually reach consensus. Sunrise (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Sunrise:. I'm pinging @Leitmotiv: with that advice and will defer a decision to him. LavaBaron (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/CobraNet/1

Making a community GAR was a bad choice. Although, I (suppose) consensus is clear, there's no one to close it. In fact, a huge backlog at GAR persists, help out if you can. You don't need formal closure for GARs but posting here was the last move. Also, there's a RfC on the talk page of the article, if you're willing you can participate. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 34 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RfC: The statement that

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RfC: The statement that (Initiated 38 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 35 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon#RfC: Merge and disambiguate

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon#RfC: Merge and disambiguate (Initiated 47 days ago on 29 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article? (Initiated 42 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Green children of Woolpit#RFC: Uncited, original-research conflation, in the article introduction and headings, of three types of explanations into two

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Green children of Woolpit#RFC: Uncited, original-research conflation, in the article introduction and headings, of three types of explanations into two (Initiated 40 days ago on 6 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city (Initiated 38 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study.

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study. (Initiated 41 days ago on 5 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list (Initiated 35 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation (Initiated 38 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests#It was a protest AND a riot. It should be called that.

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests#It was a protest AND a riot. It should be called that. (Initiated 35 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#RfC: Show or hide the victims list?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#RfC: Show or hide the victims list? (Initiated 39 days ago on 7 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016#Request for comment (Initiated 37 days ago on 9 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:PolitiFact.com#RfC: Is the Ted Cruz info relevant?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:PolitiFact.com#RfC: Is the Ted Cruz info relevant? (Initiated 36 days ago on 10 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Islam and war#Merge discussion

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islam and war#Merge discussion (Initiated 43 days ago on 3 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Maronites#Attention needed

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Maronites#Attention needed (Initiated 43 days ago on 3 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#RFC: when are community radio stations notable?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#RFC: when are community radio stations notable? (Initiated 38 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mariah Carey#RfC: Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mariah Carey#RfC: Are "African American" categories supported by sources and policy? (Initiated 48 days ago on 28 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies (Initiated 29 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect (Initiated 46 days ago on 30 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Two individual subsections have been closed, but there are several more. Sunrise (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Request_for_comment: Talk:ExxonMobil#Request_for_comment:_ExxonMobil_among_most_vocal_climate_change_deniers

Discussion has gone stale. Requesting assessment of consensus and closer of discussion. Thanks Springee (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a 22 December RfC which is still under RfC template announcement with divided opinion. Should it wait until 22 January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I had assumed 3 weeks was sufficient but if 1 month is standard then that is fine. Springee (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV and information pages

Perennial attempt to apply WP:CORE to projectpages. It's off-topic and out-of-scope at that noticeboard.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Help talk:IPA for English#RfC: Should we continue recommending the sign ⟨ɵ⟩?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:IPA for English#RfC: Should we continue recommending the sign ⟨ɵ⟩? (Initiated 30 days ago on 16 December 2015)? Thanks --mach 🙈🙉🙊 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Topic bans for Gamergate?

Yes, the Gamergate controversy mess again. It is well known that there are SPAs and more-or-less SPAs operating there, of which ForbiddenRocky (talk · contribs) is a prominent one. All sorts of elaborate rules have been created, some apparently by ArbCom, but the net effect seems to be to stifle valid debate about the entire concept of the article, let alone its appearance. The fall-out has, of course, been massive and extends well beyond en-Wikipedia itself. At least anecdotally, there have been site bans here for off-wiki harassment relating to it.

We've got to break this cycle before it subsumes a massive number of experienced contributors who could probably sort things out but, like me, tend to be discouraged by the sheer ferocity and tenacity of those who are far too closely attached to it. I propose that we start with ForbiddenRocky, who recently hatted a comment by me in the belief that it should be on some sort of subpage. Splitting things apart like this falls into the hands of those who want to control through wikilawyering. How many newbies would look at the subpage, or even realise it exists (I certainly didn't until recently). My comment discussed no editor in particular, specifically mentioned "both sides" and was a terse analysis of the problem that is at the heart of why the article is as it is. I subsequently added this.

Yes, topic banning ForbiddenRocky purely on the basis of this one thing is ludicrous but I am becoming very frustrated with the pattern on that article and I am sure that other people could find other examples (I've seen loads but am not in a great state to look for them right now). It needs to be opened up and I think the easiest way to do that is to offload those who spend far too much time there for, apparently, very little gain - bearing in mind that the article seems to be as unstable now as it has ever been and that the same arguments keep arising week in, week out involving mostly the same people.

I'm happy to voluntarily ban myself (I've said very little there anyway and don't think I've edited the article at all) if only we can find a way to break the deadlock. Even topic bans of, say, one month in duration would probably help if we could find some metric for application.

Not sure where to post this - I do realise that it is not an isolated incident, hence here rather than at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I had thought of something based on if an editor's contributions indicated > X% of total edits to this or related articles (which I think are mostly BLPs). However, the 30/500 rule in force might make that impractical - my brain is a bit fried at the moment and I can't work it out. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You did two reverts of ForbiddenRocky, which is not permitted. You should have asked for help before the second revert. However I agree that you talk should not have been hatted. 08:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)

Isn't it on the talk page? That plays straight into the hands of the wikilawyers. Regardless, my main point here is not that specific incident but rather how to find a way out of the morass. Perhaps it needs some sort of revision to past ArbCom remedies - I really don't know because it isn't the sort of thing I'm usually involved with. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

As an editor of video game articles, this is one of those topics Id rather not get involved with under any circumstance. However, I am neutral on the matter and could provide a fresh perspective on the whole situation. → Call me Razr Nation 10:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Dont do it. Also no doubt someone will claim you have a COI because you love gaming mice or other such nonsense ;) Gamergate is a conflict between a tiny subset of forum/reddit/chan gamers (and I mean *tiny* given the % of the population of the world who play electronic games), journalists and rent-an-activists. For the majority of the happily gaming population and the entirety of the games industry proper, it is a non-event. Best keep it that way. Let them argue amongst themselves and keep doing your thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend towards this sentiment but then I think, hey, if we keep brushing this under the carpet then the attrition will continue. It only takes a few experienced contributors to turn a mess round, provided they get a level playing field. Quite a few of the higher-profile caste articles were pretty much sorted out in this way and, yes, those too tended to be frequented by SPAs. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

786 edits to that talk page, which is over half their total number of edits. But they rank only #6 for most contributions on that talk page... Drmies (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Only in Death hits the nail on the head. According to recent surveys around 178 million Americans are regular gamers (multiple hours per week). Average age of men being 35, women being 43. 99.9% of these people couldn't care less about GG and the only reason they'd even heard of it, if they have at all, is because of the abuse and harassment GG has heaped on women because that's all they're notable for. The article right now is a battleground of a tiny subset of vocal gamers fighting over something that's barely notable in the community that it concerns. If the article stuck to the actual notable events surrounding GG, that are mostly years old now, it would be a fifth of its size. Capeo (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The claim that you discussed no editor would sound way more plausible if you hadn't responded to a comment of "I've put in an incredibly bold edit," by an editor you have repeatedly attacked as an SPA with, "The idea of SPAs making incredibly bold edits here doesn't surprise in the slightest, although of course they shouldn't be allowed within a mile of the article anyway." 107.72.99.29 (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

"They" is plural, ie: SPAs shouldn't be allowed within ..., etc. And this is the last time I respond to an anon in this thread. Anons in this topic area are in my opinion almost entirely people trying to avoid scrutiny. I see, by the way, that ForbiddenRocky has now activated the Wikibreak Enforcer. I suppose that is a start. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sitush - there's a bit of a pattern on that page of people turning up, claiming to be super-neutral and only concerned about article quality, then making the suggestion that we ignore usual source policies/block a bunch of users/include a bunch of stuff that goes against UNDUE/delete the article entirely. This pattern does not generally increase article quality and frequently leads to a suspicion that such users are not really all that neutral after all, I would avoid repeating it. Artw (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There is certainly a pattern of people getting shouted down by entrenched contributors, quite a few of whom seem to contribute to little but that and related articles. That so many people have queried the quality and even the "sense" of it (ie: they read it and haven't got much clue what it is dealing with) suggests that new blood would be A Good Thing. Not mine, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

When editors show up to ask and question the neutrality and then get labeled as Gamergate supporters by entrenched editors simply because they are questioning the article's narrative, that is a problem. I note I have not looked at the page since September per my voluntary ban, but what Sitush is saying is what has been happening even before the ArbCom case and was the basis for it. Note that there needs to be a larger discussion on dealing with ongoing controversies and the methods of the media today and how they intersect with WP policies that GG is only one recent example of, as what I've seen happening across WP lately is the use of UNDUE and FRINGE as shotgun approaches to shut down any deviation from mainstream sources, encouraging the type of behavior Sitush describes. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't beiieve this is the right approach to this discussion. This was an extremely contentious arbcom case, bringing it here when the community was already unable to handle the situation seems unlikely to produce the desired result. A filing it WP:AE or WP:ARCA seems like a better approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps. I did say that I wasn't sure where would be best. I don't think there is anything from the case that could be enforced, so I guess ARCA would be the better of those two options. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nononononono, AE, not ARCA. All the arbs are off this weekend to prep for the Alabama game. Please? Drmies (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit late here, but I feel that the issue with the Gamergate article is that the current SPAs owning the space have an admitted ideological bent, and they see their positions as one of defending against an inevitable wave of trolls and harassers. Therefore every new face at the article is viewed with suspicion, and eventually treated as an enemy combatant which is just a continuance of the battleground behavior that landed the article at ArbCom in the first place. My suggestion from several months ago (supported somewhat by Gamaliel) was to just topic ban every editor who has ever contributed to the talk page or article space. Maintain the 30/500 ratio to keep out the trolls, and let the neutral, experienced editors take over. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Giant mug of NOPE We don't reward Trolls/Harassers/Sockpuppets efforts by topic banning those who are upholding the policies and procedures of Wikipedia. Don't like how the consensus stacks up, File an ArbEnforcement action and see if there is valid arguments for topic banning (though I doubt you'll find any support). Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between upholding and gaming. No-one will ever convince me that, for example, MarkBernstein should be allowed to continue editing there, bearing in mind the Twitter feeds, blogs etc to which he contributes his acerbic commentary in relation to the subject. Similarly for the SPAs (of all persuasions, not just specifically ForbiddenRocky). I am looking at filing something somewhere but still can't get my head round which is the most appropriate venue. - Sitush (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That the comment above has been condoned by administrators familiar with WP:NPA for hours is discreditable to the project At long last, have you all no shame? MarkBernstein (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sure their shame is in the same place yours is. Why dont you go blog about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The aversion of some Wikipedians for those of us who write elsewhere is very strange, but also neither here nor there. MarkBernstein (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly where you see the personal attack in that? Do you object to your commentary being described as acerbic? Or is any discussion of whether your contributions to the article are a net positive, no matter how they are voiced, necessarily a personal attack? Or am I looking at the wrong comment? GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am almost certainly one of the accounts that would be topic banned under any of Sitush's proposals, so make of that what you will. I think it is generally agreed that this is simply the wrong venue for the relief sought. As such, I think it wise to simply close this discussion and move on. Then again, what I think of as wisdom is not always correct. Dumuzid (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer request for Bazaan

Hello,

I am passing along a Standard offer unblock request from Bazaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This request was sent to UTRS. The user has requested that the content of the unblock request be forwarded to the noticeboard. The relevant content is as follows:

I agree to another Standard Offer if necessary, although it would be the second time. I would like the content of my unblock request to be forwarded to the noticeboard. I promise to never repeat the behaviour which led to my initial block, and the subsequent indefinite block.

Why do you believe you should be unblocked? It's been six months, please give me another chance. At least give me a rope.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit? Most South Asian, but wide ranging

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how. I purposefully brought a sock puppetry ban on my account. It's my fault. I have suffered enough, including tremendous personal attacks.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block? Plenty of accounts have been blocked in my name, although most aren't mine.

The ones used by me are Bazaan, Rainmaker23, Uck22, JKhan20 and Merchant of Asia.

The user has not received any additional blocks on the account and is therefore tentatively eligible for Standard Offer consideration. Thanks, Nakon 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• See Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan. BMK (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• There were issues concerning Bazaan and his or her socks other then sockpuppetry itself, which the editor doesn't mention. Search on "Bazaan" in the noticeboard files. I'd like to hear what the editor has to say about that behavior. BMK (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've modified Bazaan's block to permit him to edit his talk page: if we're willing to consider unblocking someone, the situation isn't so bad that talk access should remain disabled, and it's easier if the user can post messages on his own talk page instead of relying on UTRS assistance. Nakon, would you mind sending Bazaan an email asking him to make further replies on his talk page? Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  I've sent User:Bazaan an email update regarding their talk page. Thanks, Nakon 02:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from the sockpuppetry, there was some copyright issues way, way back. Is there anything else, from a content perspective, that would merit a conditional unblock? By which I mean, an "unblock conditional on an acceptance of a topic ban in articles relating to XYZ." Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I may be unusually strict, but I oppose any sort of standard offer when there has been sockpuppetry/ I don't think that anyone who has engaged in sockpuppetry can be trusted at their end, at least not until the twenty-second century. That is my opinion. It just reflects a distinction between editors who make mistakes and editors who choose to game the system. I know that other editors are more forgiving than I am, and I am very forgiving of flaming, but not of sockpuppetryl Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Further note from Bazaan's talk page:

  I am responding to issues raised in ANI. I again commit myself to never repeating the behavior which caused my indefinite block. In 2013 and 2014, I had differences with a few editors of WP:Bangladesh, which unfortunately swelled into a rather traumatic cycle of personal hostilities. This included pointless edit wars and conflicts over what pictures to be placed in what article. The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further. Initially when I joined Wikipedia around 2007, I was much younger and faced several issues like copyright infringement. But I now have a stronger understanding of Wikipedia policies. I believe I have matured over time. My contributions were never questioned for pushing an unacceptable POV, but a few people at times disagreed with its relevance. However, I used reliable and credible references. If my editing privileges are restored, you will not see any dramatic rise in editing activity. If there are any issues, it will be brought to either DRN or ANI. I've learnt my lesson truly well. I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences. Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake. I have always made good faith contributions. Never in bad faith of gaming the system.

  This was left as an unblock request, which I've declined because it wouldn't be right for me to unblock him as this discussion's still ongoing. It was a procedural decline (don't think of it as a frivolous request), and I've asked him to use {{helpme}} when writing future comments for this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Bazaan writes "I believe I have matured over time", but he also writes "The absence of Wikipedia administrative or arbitration personnel caused the situation to deteriorate further" and "I don't deserve a topic ban as I never had serious content disputes. It was mostly personal attacks over pictures and relevant sentences." These don't appear to me to be the statements of someone who has "learnt [their] lesson truly well", as they are still blaming others and not taking responsibility for their actions. And for an editor who used multiple sockpuppets to write "Lastly regarding sockpuppetry, please have a look at the first investigation. As one administrator notes, he didn't even consider what happened to be sockpuppetry. I opened a second account after being blocked. My mistake." is not acceptable. Perhaps we can accept that one sockpuppet was a "mistake", but what about the other three they admit to? (That's assuming we can take their word that other accounts which were blocked as theirs were incorrectly identified.) I'm not yet closing the door on this, but, at least so far, I do not find the editor's comments to be persuasive. BMK (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Although I'm often in agreement with BMK's opinions, in this case I do believe a few of Bazaan's statements are somewhat excusable. Articles about the sub continent can be very contentious considering articles about India and Pakistan ended up at Arbcom. Perhaps Bangladeshi articles should fall into that category given the nation's history with India, but that's a discussion for another page. The sockpuppetry issue is certainly of concern. Perhaps a quick check by a CheckUser would alleviate this concern. [Iff] no socking is revealed in the last 6 months, I could probably support a conditional unblock. Bazaan has admitted to having issues in Bangladeshi articles in the past and letting him back into this area may not be healthiest. If no socking is revealed, then I could support an unblock provided a 3 month topic ban from Bangladeshi articles is levied to encourage Bazaan to edit somewhere else so the community could regain some confidence and to truly prove that he has "matured over time". However, if socking is revealed within the last 6 months, then the offer is off the table. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have similar concerns to Blackmane; given how controversial such articles can be, and the past troubles this editor has had while editing them, Most South Asian, but wide ranging doesn't seem the best space to dive straight back into. Perhaps a 3-month topic ban from all sub-continent / South Asian articles would be a good place to start? GoldenRing (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Cram101

Not sure were best to bring this up. Basically this group appears to has created 10s of thousands of textbooks based on Wikipedia content.[2][3]

They do not state the books are from WP.[4][5]

They appear to be created by artificial intelligence.[6]

Even the sample on their website is from us.[7]

We had a couple of dozen references to them which I have removed.[8] Have pinged legal to see if they are interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before [9], the official stance (in the form of a crafted template) that OTRS agents are directed to reply to tickets about reuse of Wikimedia content:

"Dear Stifle,

Thank you for bringing the reuse of Wikipedia content to our attention.

As you may be aware, we encourage other sites to reuse our content. Wikipedia contributors license their content using a license called the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), which allows reuse of text either in its original form or with modifications provided that certain conditions are met. There are hundreds of web sites that do this. A list of some of them is available here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FORK

While we encourage all reusers to comply with the requirements of CC-BY-SA, including proper attribution for authors, we are aware of the fact that many web sites do not do so correctly. Thank you again for bringing this site to our attention.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Landry"

Just FYI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but the difference here is that they're not just making $ selling WP content (which is fine), but grossly and blatantly ripping people off by misrepresenting what they're paying for. EEng (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy for them to use our content. These people also make textbooks based on Wikipedia content[10] but they at least attribute better (after I brought it to their attention).

The main thing is we cannot use derivatives of us to references ourselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We all know that we can't use circular references. And you shouldn't be happy for them to use our content -- not the way they do [11]. Commercial use is fine; repackaging WP's material in meaningless ways to rip people off isn't. I'm not saying we can do anything about it, just that it's not OK. EEng (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify I am okay with them using our content as long as they follow our license. It is unfortunate that Amazon and Google do not simply removal all these "books". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up and removing the uses. I've added them to the list of common book mirrors in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. Fences&Windows 01:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Posting login credentials for restricted online sources

I'd like to confirm if there is a consensus on posting credentials to access restricted online sources that are used as reliable sources. To me it somehow violates the spirit of WP:NOT, even if these same credentials might be somewhat readily available through other websites. It seems that Wikipedia would be aiding the circumvention of other websites' access restrictions.

I have warned a particular user about this in the past, but they have resumed this practice. Before taking action, I thought I'd get more feedback on this practice. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would expect that posting something that goes against the terms and conditions of another website (with potential legal ramifications from a non-lawyers perspective) wouldn't want to be something we keep here. Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I found essay Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost, which also mentions that content should only be shared if it is legal, which would make sense for username/passwords as well.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

If we're talking legal policies, I'm not sure an essay would cut it; seems like a policy or guideline would serve better, imo. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about any particular database, it's very likely that WP:TWL has or is trying to reach an agreement with that database to provide access to Wikipedians. Someone posting login details for that database would potentially compromise those negotiations. I'm not sure of a particular prohibition against posting login/password information, but someone willing to do that is probably willing to share their Wikipedia account details somewhere else. See WP:SECURITY. It also sounds a bit like a WP:COPYLINK situation, except it's not a copyright problem but a contract problem. Finally, I feel like it probably violates the Wikipedia TOS, specifically the section on "Committing infringement", which covers more than just copyright. In fact, I feel like that's something you can hang your hat on, but I'd suggest asking for someone at WMF to look at the specific situation and, if necessary, enforce the TOS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The case I was initially referring to was a domain specific website, and not one of the more general repositories that TWL provides us access to.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, unless I misunderstand the concern you're addressing, I feel like this is a TOS-type issue which probably should result in a office action or something similar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

User names for administrator attention has a backlog going back at least a week. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Posting about it every week on AN is hardly necessary nor helpful, especially when the latest post is only a few threads up. Everything is a backlog by definition. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of revision of two Arbitration motions

This serves as a notification that two previously announced Arbitration Committee motions ([12][13]) have been revised.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Bravo – that is much clearer than the originals. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Revdel requested

Can someone please Revdel this- I don't want company spam in the history of my talkpage, and it clearly meets criteria 3 for redaction- purely disrupted material. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable request to me, so consider it done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Could you also Revdel this as a grossly offensive edit summary? Thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone has done it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) disbanded

The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is hereby disbanded. Any complaints related to misuse of the advanced permissions CheckUser or Oversight (suppression) will henceforth be investigated by the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Complaints can be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee via the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-l). In the event of a committee member being the subject of the complaint, the complaint may be forwarded to any individual committee member. That committee member will initiate a discussion on one of the alternate mailing lists, with the committee member who is the subject of the complaint unsubscribed from the list for the duration of the discussion. Over the course of the investigation, the Arbitration Committee may draw upon the experience of members of the functionaries team to aid in the investigation.

Support: kelapstick, Doug Weller, Keilana, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, DGG, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, Salvio giuliano, Courcelles, Guerillero, Callanecc, Cas Liber

For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted for the Committee by Kharkiv07 (T) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) disbanded

Removal of CU/OS tools from the community members of AUSC whose terms have expired

AUSC community members who do not hold CU and OS tools in their own right are given them during their period on AUSC. As their terms have now expired, the checkuser permissions of:

• MBisanz (talk · contribs)
• Joe Decker (talk · contribs)

and the oversight permission of:

• Joe Decker (talk · contribs)

are removed. The committee thanks them for their service.

Support: Doug Weller, DGG, Kelapstick, Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, Gamaliel, Guerillero, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Doug Weller talk 16:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cross-posted for the Committee by Kharkiv07 (T) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Removal of CU/OS tools from the community members of AUSC whose terms have expired

Adding Template:Empty-warn-deletion and other post-deletion notices to Twinkle

Not sure about the rest of you, but I didn't even know these templates existed until recently. I have been doing a terrible practice of first using Twinkle to request speedy deletion, then deleting it (never mind if this was done too hastily, let's assume it wasn't). That way the user gets that important info they need about why the page was inappropriate, along with a welcome template, etc. I know of other admins who also follow this less-than-ideal procedure.

So, I thought this workflow should be incorporated into Twinkle. This would be a whole new interface change, that I figure would mimic the Block module. That is, you have a "delete page" checkbox, and another for "add deletion notice to user talk page". The latter would welcome the user if they haven't been already, and issue a deletion notice if they've haven't already received a notice about the page being nominated for deletion. We'd need to map each rationale to one of the existing post-deletion templates, or create a few new ones as needed.

Any thoughts or suggestions on this matter? Is this effort worthwhile - as in, would you use it!? =P

Related: Around midday GMT on 15 January I'm going to deploy a big update to the Twinkle CSD module. This will just make it so that admins can delete under multiple rationale, enter in URLs for copyright vios, etc, just like you can for requesting speedy deletion. More on that later! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Cool! That sounds absolutely appropriate for certain types of speedy, like ones dealing with copyvio, since those almost never can be successfully contested. I'd be more concerned about enabling an instant A7 with no warning, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I had the same thought, however the page could have been up for a while with no modifications, in which case A7 without prior notice might be appropriate. I feel like Twinkle functionality can have a big influence on what users do, so maybe there should be an additional confirmation for certain criterion like A7 — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You wouldn't be "enabling an instant A7 with no warning", that option is available to every admin anyway, and some (many?) use it (I do, to give an example). Whether a page gets tagged for A7 by an editor and deleted two minutes later by an admin, or gets deleted straight away, won't make much of a difference for the user being informed / warned. I have no objection to the proposal, automatically informing the user isn't a problem, but this shouldn't be used to impose new restrictions on what can be deleted. Fram (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Big update to Twinkle CSD module

I've just deployed a big update to the CSD module. You can now delete under multiple rationale, and the deletion summaries are generated by the corresponding speedy deletion template. This means they live in one place, and you don't need a Twinkle developer to update them. If a page is already been tagged for speedy deletion, the CSD module will presupply the edit summary created by the speedy template, just like it does now if you delete manually. You also can use the same parameters you can use when requesting speedy deletion. For instance, if you delete under G12 you can provide URLs which will appear in the deletion summary.

Other unrelated changes you'll notice are that talk pages now open in a tab by default, not a window. This change has been a long time coming, and I assume it will be welcomed by most. E.g. beforehand you needed to disable popup blockers!

Let me know if you have any issues. Regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This, and the section above, all sounds like good stuff to me. As a long-time Twinkle user, I thank you for all your hard work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure, so to offer a promotional statement for those who haven't been using Twinkle to delete pages... Delete a page, it's talk page, and all of it's redirects, in as little as two clicks. If you have "When to go ahead and tag/delete the page" set to "As soon as I click an option" in your preferences, you can do all of this in one click. I don't really recommend that though, so as to avoid mistakes. Your choice! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff MA- have I also noticed a change in what happens in an edit-conflict- being able to save the changes without reloading the page? Or do I not know what I'm talking about??? Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm not sure, wouldn't have been part of this release — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)