Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 19 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 88 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 48 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 38 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 29 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 3 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	10	0	10
TfD	0	0	7	0	7
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	41	0	41
AfD	0	0	3	0	3

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Redshirt

(Initiated 50 days ago on 16 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

(Initiated 38 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 294 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

(Initiated 34 days ago on 3 October 2024) No new comments in a bit over three weeks. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 11 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 6 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Adam (band)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Speedy deletion of Adam (band)

Self-admitted sock puppet accounts

• 750editsstrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikia6969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thewhitebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rumpsenate2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new
• Rumpsenate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new

OK, this perhaps does need admin attention. According to their home page, 750editsstrong, this is a sock puppet account, one of three run by this individual listed above. There's a link to WP:VALIDALT but I don't see a valid criteria there for these accounts. And although I can see no evidence of actually socking, e.g. using two accounts to look like two people in the same discussion/at the same venue, given this user's pointy shouty behaviour it does perhaps warrant further investigation.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

They didn't use any of the accounts concurrently (though there is 4 minutes between the first edit of 750 and the last edit of Wikia), so while it may not fall under WP:VALIDALT, it doesn't fall afoul of WP:ILLEGIT either, especially because they're disclosed. HOWEVER, since they claim in their RfC thingy that they've edited for 12 years, there's probably a separate, undisclosed master account - and given how they've gone about here I wouldn't be surprised if that account had issues. ansh666 02:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A checkuser may come in handy, especially if the master account is blocked. However, we should not WP:BITE, even to an older user, until violations are confirmed. I will be keeping an eye on them. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor refers to Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion, and evidently thinks of himself or herself as doing a one-person re-run of the experiment. There was an enormous amount of criticism of the experiment, and a clear consensus emerged that the project was a mistake, with many editors thinking it amounted to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. To ignore that consensus, and unilaterally do a re-run is unacceptable, and I have told the editor so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Found two more self declared: Rumpsenate2 and Rumpsenate. They could be incorrect, i.e. claimed but not true, except there's also overlapping contributions and the fact there are two suggests the user is already familiar with running multiple accounts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at that history, they have had problems with page deletion conspiracy and such, so likely the same editor. For fun, I added up all the edits and it's only ~500, so either there are more or that last username was an exaggeration. In any case, I've nominated the article that started it all, Adam (band), for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam (band). ansh666 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposing community ban for Okip

Okip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Okip
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive242#Okip_socking
• Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Okip
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Speedy_deletion_of_Adam_.28band.29
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#An_open_challenge_to_Mr_Jimmy_Wales
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_(band)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention

Even though I'm pretty sure that this section as well as a now-removed SPI report was started by the editor themselves under a new sock (User:We all kip), it's a good suggestion. Coren did the last CU on Okip back in 2012, and Mark Arsten made the last block on User:Okip, but unfortunately both aren't really active anymore. Pinging Future Perfect at Sunrise, who blocked the poster, for their opinion. ansh666 06:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 shooting at Charlie Hebdo

I created an edit notice for the 2015 shooting at Charlie Hebdo page by using {{blp}}. The problem is that the edit notice states that the template is misplaced and belongs on the talk page. I specifically wanted editors to be reminded that the need to conform to BLP when the opened up the edit window. BLPO also applies, but that is a lesser concern. Does anyone have any ideas of a better way to achieve this aim? Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: would {{BLP editintro}} do the trick? --Mdann52talk to me! 13:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've changed it to {{BLP editintro}}. -- KTC (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone has arbitrarily and without discussion changed the article title, breaking the link from ITN on the Main Page. Admin help is urgently needed to fix this. Please see Talk:Charlie Hebdo massacre#Article title. Prioryman (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This was done at 14:08 [2]. –xeno^talk 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all, I'll remember that one. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at this. I think a snow close is in order. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it, when disregarding all of the votes that aren't based in policy (which is about 2/3 of them, on quick glance?). ansh666 06:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Shame no one has the balls to step up then. Oh well. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Composemi

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

---

This user has uploaded copyrighted images of Maithripala Sirisena six times in one month despite warning on his talk page.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page and will watch -- Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Amend unblock restrictions effective Jan 2014

I would like to request that my unblock restrictions be amended. I am currently limited to uploading files through the Files for upload process, however would like this restored/lifted. The original conditions imposed through my unblock appeal can be viewed here here. I was advised to use this process by Bidgee. The person who originally granted my unblock in January 2014 was Yunshui. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support lifting the restriction. Ashton 29 has only had one image (out of a great many) declined due to a copyvio in the last six months, and that one (Flickr entry) was due to a good-faith misunderstanding that even an experienced user could have easily made. I am satisfied that Ashton 29 now has a sufficient understanding of image copyright to be allowed to upload files directly. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Clarification: this applies only to the use of the FFU process, I offer no opinion regarding the other two restrictions. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - perhaps with a specific and strongly worded talk page warning that any resumption of problematic uploading will still result in a re-block and that the other conditions of the editor's unblock still apply. It seems this was exactly what Yunshui had in mind when interpreting the original AN discussion consensus so unless something significant has changed, that consensus should be reflected. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support the amendment to remove the FFU restriction. Question: Are you also appealing the second point concurrently or only the third point? Blackmane (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

An open challenge to Mr Jimmy Wales

Spamming multiple forums like this only ever has one result. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey [asshole]. If I show without a doubt that it is notable, will you step down....or stop editing for 1 month? 750editsstrong (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC) ==Deletions_and_editor_retention== If deleted see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thewhitebox#RFC Thewhitebox (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Full text: Studies show, editing on wikipedia is stagnating. I have been an editor off and on wikipedia for 12 years. Wikipedia has become less and less welcoming for new editors because of more and more deletion and speed deletion rules. There is a very negative company culture about new edits here on wikipedia. Editors who encourage deletion of good faith edits are rewarded, editors who fight against this trend are banned or leave in frustration. I remember when established editors posed as new editors, and almost everyone of their new pages were deleted. The larger community was infuriated, not by how new editors were shown to be treated, but that established editors would pose as new editors. I know there is a 80% chance that my article will be deleted within one hour of it being created. If I have no references, it is within 5 minutes. I remember how Jimmy Wales blessed the wide spread deletion of hundreds of bibliography articles with no notice, writing on the editors talk page what a wonderful job he did. I remember the secret offline collusion in the case - twenty or so editors were working together to disrupt wikipeda and get tens of thousands of articles deleted. Any other time the editors would be banned, but instead any editors who mentioned the case were warned. I remember the dozens of articles from mainstream media that complained how an incredibly notable article was deleted often within 5 minutes. I remember the episode wars over television shows. In which editors wanted to delete thousands of pages on all television series. I remember how I quit uploading non-copyrighted images from the 1890s because they were always deleted in mass, even when I put the right tags on them. I have been appalled at many of the really mean editors who have become administrators and the arbcoms. The arbcoms get Jimmy's blessing. I have been disgusted at how established editors treat other new editors, describing their new article monitoring as "garbage men" stopping "garbage" I am shocked that every time I see an old editors page from 2006 or before, who really fought for treating editors nicely, he has been banned or left in disgust. Every time. There is a new trend the last couple of years. I am appalled at extremely ignorant editors deleting whole sections of articles citing copyright violations. They have absolutely no understanding of copyright. Fair use is ignored and deletion is emphasized. Editors, especially new editors, are consistently treated like shit here by a like minded group of editors. Sadly I see only one solution I have come to one sad conclusion: That Jimmy Wales, the founder of this site, is the person most responsible for this trend. He is most responsbile for this site's negative company culture. I believe that it is in the best interest of the long term future of Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales step down. I beleive wikipedia needs a new company culture that is more inclusive and kind. If you have a better idea how to change this trend, something that has never been tried before, I would love to hear it. Thoughts?	Studies that show why Wikipedia editing is stagnating
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing. The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[3]
The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline	University of Minnesota research finds the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism against contributions made by newcomers and the algorithmic tools commonly used to reject contributions as key causes of the decrease in newcomer retention. The community’s formal mechanisms to create uniform entries are also shown to have fortified its entries against changes—especially when those changes are proposed by newer editors. As a result, Wikipedia is having greater difficulty in retaining new volunteer editors. "Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit"[4] Again, If I show without a doubt that it is notable, will you step down....or stop editing for 1 month? 750editsstrong (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Adam is a Dutch band most well known for their viral video, "Go to Go" in which the band members have orgasms while singing. "Go to Go" Video In the video "Go to Go", three of the five Adam band members have orgasms while singing the song. They are shown staring into the camera, singing and trying to get through their lines as they use a vibrator off screen. As the song progresses they have increasingly more difficulty in trying to remember their lines as they build to a musical climax. They struggle to finish the song, giggling and eventually become speechless. See #Speedy deletion of Adam (band) for earlier thread. I don't know if someone wants to merge that with this.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC) I think just let it stand and possibly put a note on that one referring to this one. I don't see Jimbo much in articlespace so perhaps the OP will consider himself satisfied and go troll Yahoo! News.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Is it time for some RBI and Deny? Blackmane (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC) References

Black Kite -- Since he has two other socks, shouldn't they be blocked too ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting additional eyes in proposed merger in a controversial corporate topic

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Landmark Worldwide#Proposed merger with Werner Erhard and Associates and Erhard Seminars Training regarding merging articles of three organizations which are all related in some way to Werner Erhard and his original Erhard Seminars Training. The topic itself has recently been the subject of an arbitration case in which the arbitrators asked for more editors to be involved as seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide#Additional eyes invited. Any input, particularly regarding how wikipedia handles similar cases of organizations which may have or have had similar relationships, would be more than welcome, as would any other input in general. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at the policy village pump, which I initiated almost a week ago now. It pertains to the banning policy, specifically the extent to which ban evasion can be tolerated. Anyone is welcome to participate. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to streamline community sanctions enforcement

Since this board is where community-authorised general sanctions are enacted and the venue for appeals of admin actions made under the general sanctions, this seems like a better place than a village pump for this proposal.

Currently, discussions concerning enforcement of community sanctions take place over various different venues. GamerGate, for example, has its own enforcement noticeboard, whereas various others don't seem to have one at all and are presumably discussed here or at ANI. I propose we follow the example of WP:AE, which handles enforcement of all arbitration remedies (including discretionary sanctions), and create a central noticeboard to which misconduct can be reported and where uninvolved admins can discuss whether sanctionable misconduct has occurred and, if so, what sanctions to impose. The advantage of a central noticeboard is that it's likely to attract more admins, it's more prominent (and thus more transparent), it reduces the bureaucratic overhead of having to monitor multiple pages, it takes some traffic away from ANI (and into the hands of admins who are experienced and interested in sanctions enforcement), and it's clear where enforcement requests need to go. It also means that you're likely to get input from a wider group of admins, which mitigates against claims from tendentious editors that the process for any one topic area is invalid because it's dominated by admins who regularly admin in that topic area.

Eventually, if desired, it could be used to report violations of things like community-imposed topic bans, but I suggest we allow it to get off the ground before widening its remit. Thoughts? Comments? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A centralized GS board would be fine, but per existing AN / ANI policy, participation should be open to all editors. NE Ent 20:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought that goes without saying. Comment by non-admins is welcome at AE, as long as the comments are on-topic and constructive (which is about the same as AN/ANI except that it's actually enforced). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Its enforced because its practically a personal fiefdom of a few admins. Generally the more noticeboards and distribution of tasks there are, the less likely you are to get 'more' involvement. Suspect this would just end up as another rug to hide things under/playground for admins. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. AE has 1,139 watchers; the GamerGate enforcement page 74. I know which process I'd use if I wanted to force something through on the sly (hint: I'd pick the one that was less watched than my talk page). And it's enforced because we don't allow people to hijack discussions with off-topic remarks like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not simply merge the community-sanction processes into AE itself? We wouldn't be concerned about the formalities about "whose turf" that is, Arbcom's or the "community"'s, would we? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons why we cannot merge the processes. I recommend that you fellows take a look at a proposal made by Arbitration Committee clerk Callanecc: WP:CDS. This is the perfect time to implement it. It proposes to standardise the system of community discretionary sanctions, which already exists, but which is run on an ad hoc basis. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a bit on those "many reasons"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noting first that I'm not working on community discretionary sanctions as a clerk. It does have to do with whose jurisdiction it's under, there are different processes and procedures which apply to arbitration enforcement and community sanctions no matter how close we try to make them. For one, having two different procedures for how they are enforced and appealed (see both provisions at Template:Arbitration standard provisions) and the haphazard community version of primarily completely admin discretion for both enforcement and appeals will cause confusion. Secondly actions by admins doing arbitration enforcement cannot be lessened as ArbCom has the authority to protected them and has before whereas admin actions enforcing community sanctions are protected by an understanding, so there are two different processes operating there as well. I can definitely see arguments in favour of merging the process, though it would need both the community's and committee's okay, since WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is in their domain and mentioned in their procedures which would need to be changed (which can't be done without a motion). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps the point of having *non-arbcom* sanctions is missed in this proposal. The community can certainly act independently from Arbcom, and should not have its ability to address issues withdrawn. In many cases, community sanctions have been applied in situations where Arbcom has refused to act; it makes no sense at all that Arbcom should then have sole control over the very sanctions it determined it should not apply in the first place. It perhaps might be better to think of it as different types and levels of sanctions which can be applied by different people, as part of a hierarchy of sanctions. Risker (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Quoting parts of the proposal: ...uninvolved admins ... more admins takes some traffic away from ANI (and into the hands of admins ... input from a wider group of admins, which mitigates against claims from tendentious editors ... Not why sure it "would go without saying" this isn't an attempt to restrict discussion to the subset of editors who have passed an Rfa. NE Ent 22:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please go and wikilawyer elsewhere. OR better still, go and write an article instead of derailing noticeboard threads with nonsense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• oppose I'd prefer to see these discussions continue at ANI/AN personally. I think a wider cross section of the community should be involved than shows up at AE or would be likely to show up at a new noticeboard. I don't feel ANI or AN are overwhelmed and I think the wider range of contributions here is largely (though certainly not entirely) a feature, not a bug. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not having a "wider range of contributions", but the nature of threaded discussion, which is often not conducive to dispute resolution. That's why AE works, and it is also why pages like WP:GGE work. AN/I doesn't allow for the regulation that AE does. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The point I'm making is even if the AN/ANI discussions would be well served by more regulation (something I'm not certain of by any means), the likely loss of contributors would be problematic. I view that as a problem at AE already (the very small number of admins who work that). At AE it can't get too "fiefdom-ish" because ArbCom has the final say. With the community sanctions, that's less clear. Given that these are community sanctions, they should be discussed by the same community that is creating those sanctions. And as wide a community as possible IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

These things aren't generally discussed at AN/ANI—some are (in my experience usually because a conduct issue is brought to ANI and somebody points out the existence of the general sanctions) but others, if they're discussed at all, are discussed on obscure subpages like WP:GS/GG/E. I'm proposing that we have a simpler, consistent process. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - continue with the current scheme is best. I cannot see the point in making these changes - I cannot see any advantages in the changes. Contributing needs to be open to the community, as now, so that the watchers may also be watched.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There ... isn't a "current scheme", hence this proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, for what it's worth. The proposal is to take action that would predictably improve the breadth of community attention to community enforcement requests. I don't see any disadvantage to this. At the very least it would give all community sanctions operations, across the whole encyclopaedia, a single. A single page to watchlist. I think mixing it up with WP:AE would be a mistake. Arbitration generates a legalistic protocol, but community sanctions don't (or shouldn't) have the same baggage. --TS 02:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Discussions that result in sanctions on AN/ANI often end up in a shit fight, not to put it too finely. A DS/CS/GS board should be made as a subpage to AN, much like ANI is and any open discussions/cases should be announced possibly by, but not limited to

1. having a transclusion much like the requests for closure (although that could become quite messy as the open requests attests)
2. having an infobox listing open discussions/cases, much like the existing WP:CENT/WP:VP one, or perhaps resurrecting the old RFC/U type one.
3. requiring that an announcement, much like the one Arbcom uses when they announce the end of a case or an amendment.

Basically, anything that brings in community engagement in a structured manner would be good. In a way, one could liken this to RFC/U but with sharper teeth. Blackmane (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support – I certainly support the proposal for a centralised CDS enforcement page. I too would like a merged ACDS/CDS enforcement page, but that might be more work than it is worth. I strongly support the WP:CDS proposal. We've already got community discretionary sanctions. This proposal does not change anything, in that regard, other than that it takes the present ad hoc process of running a community sanctions regime and codifies it in a way that will make everything easier. Structure is what we need. It has worked well for Gamergate, and it will work well for other CDS areas as well. RGloucester — ☎ 16:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

UAA backlogged

Just a poke, whoever can help. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 06:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Closure Review Request at Talk: Ayurveda#Objection to improper closure

An editor disagrees with my closure of a Request for Comments at Talk:Ayurveda#Objection to improper closure. This noticeboard, rather than the talk page, is the proper forum for review of the closure. Also, admin attention to the talk page is requested, because a few of the comments are getting close to personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support closure No expert, no common/quality commenter on Alternative medicine claims any relation between Ayurveda and pseudoscience. Finding expert on Ayurveda who would claim that is even more impossible. Why? Because it is absurd to claim that some medical substance that is highly prevalent since Iron age is pseudoscience. Anyone who still wants to promote this absurd should be topic banned for having very bad understanding of whole medical field. Once you are very wrong it becomes very hard to trust. నిజానికి (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that the strong comment has been withdrawn. It wasn't addressed to McClenon anyway. As far as a closure review goes, it's unnecessary. McClennon can unilaterally undo it. That's the quick and easy way to solve the problem. The obviousness of the lack of real closure should make this a WP:SNOW decision.

No fault is assumed here. At the time it may have seemed proper, but it is the following discussion which reveals the necessity of undoing the closure. To avoid misunderstanding, I'm going to refactor a couple comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in the following discussion which 'reveals the necessity' of anything. It does however reveal that some people didn't like the result. And I'm sure that when the RfC is closed again, the same people still won't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Was this RfC advertised widely or were the participants all generally already involved in the topic? It looks like it was mostly people already involved, and in this case, that might be a pretty big COI. I'd urge a new RfC with a lot more voices. That said, the RfC close was reasonable given the discussion and I (also a non-admin) endorse it though I'd not have closed it that way. (I generally won't close something in a way I disagree with even if that's the consensus to date, I'll either skip past it or participate.) Hobit (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hobit, others had notified on fringe theory noticeboard, listed on at least 3 different RFC subject areas and more. That's why on first 2 days there were many votes. Also when the sanctions of this page were being discussed on ANI and then AN, RFC was still running. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. No matter how many sources presented involved editors will continue to disagree it is pseudoscience. See Talk:Ayurveda#Sources_which_support_characterizing_ayurveda_as_pseudoscience for the sources. Most of the comments in the RfC were made by involved editors. A RfC with only uninvolved editors would be very different. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no response to my reply regarding that irrelevant laundry list. Only 1 citation that had included as an 'example' in a single sentence and has no scope or clearance. Don't worry because no one agrees with such irrelevance on just any page. Even you had to misinterpret references for making Wikipedia:POINT. Also you had explicitly mentioned this RFC on many user talk(pages) while the time it was still on going, about 9 users were clearly uninvolved and 6 of them disagreed with you. Just have a look at any other RFC, even 5 uninvolved votes would be an achievement. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources characterizing ayurveda as pseudoscience are not an irrelevant laundry list. QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Show one? Also show if those so called reliable sources have included even 2 sentences for describing your point or they have even a tiny inch of relevance in traditional medicine. I should also mention that you had forumshopped for this pointed content on Administrator noticeboard.[5] Better to state that you had the best amount of opinions that you wanted. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I already presented evidence it is pseudoscience but you put a hat on it. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How it was even incorrect to hat article dispute on a administrator noticeboard? Everyone knows how to view it and recognize its irrelevance. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Folks, surely the argument of whether Ayurveda is pseudoscience or not and related evidence is not relevant for this board, is it? All that's relevant here is whether the discussion was closed properly - the content argument itself belongs elsewhere, doesn't it? Squinge (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

AfD closures by IP users

I see that AfD are being closed by IP users. Policy says that NAC are not encouraged but if they must, they should be closed by editors 'in good standing'. Could someone please refresh my old admin brain and tell me what the exact definition of 'in good standing' is and if it covers IP users. I see an eventual problem however much in good faith, of contacting such users if further discussion with them is required. Many thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, the phrase "in good standing" should be removed as it assumes that there are closers who are not doing so in good faith, which goes against AGF. If there is a disagreement then it can be discussed. If there are problems then AGF can be withdrawn, but all closers should be assumed to be "in good standing". As far as I remember, IP's shouldn't be closing AFD for the reason you've already pointed out. Blackmane (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with Blackmane! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should drop "in good standing", as we need to have at least some idea that the user in question knows enough policy to be able to close discussions well, and has the temperament to be able to deal with other editors civilly if the close is disputed. We probably don't want brand new users closing discussions, for example. There's no definition of "in good standing" anywhere as far as I'm aware, but I don't see any problem in using common sense when deciding which users count. For starters, we should be thinking of users who have been here a reasonable amount of time and who aren't under any active sanctions. And if we're talking about whether they're qualified to do non-admin closures, I would exclude users who have a pattern of making bad closures. Since there isn't any way of reliably telling whether an IP user has been around for any length of time, they shouldn't be closing discussions, in my opinion. Also, seeing as there's no guarantee that IP users will be using the same IP as they did to close the discussion, it would be hard for other editors to contest the decision. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A definition of "in good standing" in a slighly different context was discussed at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Pre RfC Summaries#2. Definition of "editor in good standing". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In that context, "editors in good standing" should probably be replaced by "experienced editors" much like ANI. I'm sure there have been cases where editors in good standing have made bad closes and editors who may have a checkered past who have made good closes. Whether an editor is in good or questionable standing, their experience at AFD is the key. Blackmane (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: I am surprised that we do not already have an express prohibition on XfD discussion closures by IP users. I believe that there are multiple problems and inconsistencies with permitting such closures, but I would like to review actual examples before commenting further. Could you please provide examples of recent AfD (or other XfD) closures by IP users? Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I just looked and on the AFD page, users in good standing is worded just that way, there is also no specific prohibition with IP users closing AFD's either (save the normal prohibition that governs all NAC's. While your (Kudpung) question appears good faith, I'd suggest closing it, because of the implication that being an IP user somehow disqualifies a user from being in good standing. (That and we have users that display userboxes like this and have similar sentiments on their pages like this ). I understand the concern, IP address could be a vandal or someone evading their block, and yes it's true, it could be, but we have checks and balances for that kind of thing. Just evaluate the close for it's rationale , not wether the user is an IP user or not. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured Picture for 12 January

Resolved

I just saw a report at Main Page/Errors and I have to go to work like right now - Template:POTD/2015-01-12 exists but the protected version was apparently not created and we have yesterday's FP still on the Main Page. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this