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

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 35 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Done}}. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The close has since been rescinded by the closer, so is very much due for closing again. CNC (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 103 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 100 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 100 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 52 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 52 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 44 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 40 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 39 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 37 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 35 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 34 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	2	24	26
TfD	0	0	3	0	3
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	0	5	5
RfD	0	0	48	19	67
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 258 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 81 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 77 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 75 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 66 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 36 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

False "Stage Musical" edits on Dork Diaries

Moved discussion to WP:AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Authority of Wikiprojects

Do the WikiProjects have some authority over the articles they claim to cover? My question is if I create a Wikiproject "Antarctica" which claims to cover all "Antarctica-related" articles, do I (and others in "WikiProject Antarctica") have the authority to arrive at some decision based on a discussion in our Project's talk page and alter all existing articles accordingly without a discussion in their corresponding talk pages? - InarZan Verifiable 10:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be established among the community - whether that be determined on an individual talk page, at the WikiProject's talk page, or a noticeboard such as this. GiantSnowman 11:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If consensus was reached among participants in the project it could be rolled out on articles within its scope, but very cautiously. If it's a trivial issues (for instance, a new infobox or the removal of one deemed not useful, changes to structures of categories or a coordinated effort to remove references to a clearly unreliable source) it's unlikely that there would be any problems. However, decisions made through discussions in limited forums such as individual Wikiprojects obviously can't override Wikipedia-wide policies or guidelines (though some policies and guidelines have arisen from discussions which began as part of a Wiki Project's activities). Why do you ask? Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects provide a coordinating function, not an ownership/power function (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BWilkins. Most articles can fall within more than one Wikiproject, for a start. At best they can make recommendations. As Nick-D says it might be possible to make modest changes, but not if they override our policies and general guidelines. Wikiprojects really have no authority, and if editors at a particular article disagreed and were arguing within our policies and guidelines even on trivial issues there might be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This almost certainly relates to the OP's unwillingness to accept the consensus in of this discussion at the India Project talkpage. That concerned photo montages of people in Indian caste/community/ethnic group articles, which cause all sorts of problems as highlighted in the discussion. It is a highly specific matter and common sense dictates that does not apply for those groups that, for example, exist in notable numbers in present-day Pakistan as well as in India.

I think it slightly disingenuous of the OP not to make this specific situation clear, nor to mention that when they refer to "article talk pages", they mean Talk:Saint Thomas Christians. Of course, I could be wrong about the intent, but any reasonable person with knowledge of the OP's recent behaviour and the WT:INB discussion would likely come to the same conclusion as I do. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Examples of the unwillingnes to accept are here, here and here. I could list a lot more - it has been going on for quite a while and these links are just for today. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) I'm not sure why this is being brought up here. In the discussion at WT:IN (here), there was little support for including collections of photographs of individual members of a community in the info box. A user has initiated an RfC for wider input (here) and we need but wait for that discussion to be completed. Seems like healthy procedure to me. --regentspark (comment) 15:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear RegentsPark, if you are saying that the discussion on this issue is ongoing, can you revert this edit as an admin? Will you justify an aggressive removal of concerned content while the discussion is still going on? - InarZan Verifiable 16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

InarZan, the current local consensus is that there should be no collections of people images in these articles. Perhaps the wider consensus from the RfC will be different. If it is, then the collections can be added back but, in the meantime, we'll stick with local consensus. --regentspark (comment) 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jumping back to what Nick-D said about the general issue (and without any intent to comment upon or imply anything about what's been said since Nick's comment), the policy controlling the relationship between projects and the larger community is set out in WP:CONLIMITED:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

While the "for instance" example is negative, the positive is also true: participants in a WikiProject cannot establish policies or guidelines for articles within its scope without following the proper procedures at WP:POLICY to notify and involve the entire community in the policymaking process. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is basically triggered by the extension of local consensus in WP:INB to all the articles related to ethnic groups in India (these articles are of course part of other projects too). Though, these consensuses are not intended to breach any wp policies, they seem to act as proxy-policies which may or may not be healthy for Wikipedia. Some editors suggest that these proxies are necessary to deal with the peculiar nature of Indian castes or ethnic groups. In my opinion, if a local-consensus is to be used as a proxy-policy, it should be comprehensive; wide participation should be ensured (threshold should be set), a poll process should be there and finally the discussion should be closed by an un-involved administrator, preferably an outsider to the project. -AshLey ^Msg 08:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is more information at the official guideline, WP:WikiProject Council/Guide, especially the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice_pages section. But the summary is this: A WikiProject is (just) a group of editors who want to work together, and no little group of editors gets to boss around anyone else merely by virtue of calling themselves a "WikiProject". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Generalities that apply to most Wikiprojects are not very helpful when dealing with Indian caste-related articles, and to that extent, user:InarZan has been disingenuous in framing his RfC statement. His interest has nothing to do with Antarctica. Indian caste-related articles are notorious for rampant POV, for unimaginable puffery, and for unmitigated abuse of every Wikipedia guideline related to reliable sourcing. These articles (as far as I can tell) are the only ones that come with a "castewarning" template (that give attending admins some discretionary powers). See below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to just indefinitely ban InarZan2 from St. Thomas Christians... I'll sleep on it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there has been some rope and one of the others referred to in that message has already suffered. Nonetheless, I have learned something from this thread. I accept but am disappointed that it seems to be the case that the lunatics can run the asylum, that a project cannot limit the consensus of the wider community when disruption etc is plain to see. Ye other specialist projects can somehow create accepted notability guidelines that extend the consensus, eg: the one that assumes notability of nonentity cricketers who are named in the team for a single first class match yonks ago, do not play and are never heard of again. Even some regulars at WP:CRIC have acknowledged that this seems weird but, of course, it is a nice quirk of the system if you are a cricket buff. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think lunatics are running the asylum is true. OP has carefully constructed a question in general terms and is getting very general answers. I doubt if anyone will answer no to a question of the sort "If montages are accepted in several other wikiprojects can WP:India craft an exception to their use?" The way the question is crafted is itself, in my opinion, disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, in particular to InarZan. My reference to lunatics running the asylum was not a reference to InarZan's query but rather to the notion that a highly specific constraint regarding an existing community consensus, determined by consensus of those involved with a specialist project, can somehow be disregarded by people who know absolutely sod all about the issue and have no experience of it. Yep, this is a challenge of sorts to the boundaries of consensus and I accept that I am out on a limb, but my critical point was that, for example, the Cricket project appear to have been able to usurp WP:GNG and the same applies with regard to the long-running saga of whether or not every school is notable ... yet the India Project gets a kind of hammering despite being one of those huge backwaters that 99.9 per cent of regular contributors really do not want to engage with. Again, I am phrasing this poorly but I am hoping that the gist will get across. It is not worth me spending hours and hours justifying my comments, so people can either take them or leave them.

There is (indeed was, when InarZan posed here) a RfC in progress and although I consider the question posed to be malformed, the outcome will surely suffice for those who quote the various policies etc regarding acceptance by the wider community. Too many contributors here are focussing on the theory and ignoring the blatant underhanded-ness that was implicit in InarZan's query. RegentsPark describes that query as "disruptive", I agree and it seems from current comments that some others do also. To be sure, some good has come of that - and I am grateful for the comments and the expansion of my policy knowledge etc - but even after the disingenuous-ness has been made clear, there appears to be a meta-discussion going on that, yes, is interesting but is not addressing the very real, very substantial problems that relate to the core issue: how do we cope with these India-related articles, and in particular given the WMF "push" there and the often horrendous policy abuses that appear to be burgeoning due to that. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not looking at whatever the India-issue is, WikiProjects have *no* authority (as others have said). It is a problem that many participants do feel that whatever WikiProject they are interested in has authority and attempt to assert it. Bzzt. In theory, WikiProjects serve a function, but this issue is major across The Project. It needs confronting on sight. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  "Not looking at whatever the India-issue is, ...?" Well, then what you've said is vacuous or trivial, because this RfC is all about the India issue, even if it disingenuously avoids mentioning it. It is posted by an SPA who has less than a hundred contributions, all to Indian castes. Do you expect people to drum up a consensus each time a mischief maker challenges the same issue, but on a new caste page? Given that there are tens of thousands of castes, will you coming to bat for Wikipedia's core values each time? What about the castewarning template I've posted above, shouldn't you be confronting it on sight? Talking in vacuous generalities is easy, like you've done, to boot with sophomoric edit summaries. Dealing with the problem is hard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  I was addressing the OP's question, as did others. That's a canard that's regularly trotted out and needs beating with a stick. I've no doubt there's a further issue re castes. Good luck with that. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is true that a WikiProject, being inanimate, has no authority; in fact no will. However project members absolutely have authority which derives from the same policies which empower all editors; and no more. After that, specifics are necessary to further qualify. For example a community discussion conducts on a relevant talk page, which often my be the talk page of an associated WikiProject. If such an RfC closes with specific adopted criteria, project members are compelled by consensus to enact that criteria. And non-members are equally as expected to follow suit. This summarizes my understanding to this regard; which you may promptly disregard if you prefer. My76Strat (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Mebbe sometimes, but see WP:CONLIMITED and WP:CCC. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a real example I would like to see addressed: members of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers have created lead section recommendations in WP:ACTOR which in practice have superseded the lead recommendations in WP:LEAD. Originally, I think they were only intended to supplement WP:MOSINTRO, but in practice they conflict with WP:LEADSENTENCE and possibly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Contrast this with the guidance provided byWikiProject Film in MOS:FILM, specifically WP:FILMLEAD, which appropriately supplements WP:LEAD rather than restricting (or rewriting it) like the Actors and Filmmakers project. I believe that WikiProject Film has gone about this the correct way, while WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has exceeded its remit. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A project can amplify and/or clarify existing policies, such as the WP:MOS. However, the principle of most-restrictive applies: a project cannot override existing policies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

But this is not an instance of a policy overriding a policy, but of an informal WikiProject guideline (WP:ACTOR) overriding Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section in practice. In fact, the MOS:LEAD has been supplanted by WP:ACTOR in actors and filmmakers articles since around 2010, and one can actually demonstrate this with real examples. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving inappropriate and thus revert to my recovery

I created this article José Bencosme because we know in Italy as José Bencosme (how you can see here). I know that this is the full name José Bencosme De Leon ("De" capital also for IAAF, how you can see here) and I used the line "full name" of the infobox to remark this. But everybody know that the athlete simply known as José Bencosme (like "Massimiliano Biaggi" is simply Max Biaggi). But User:Enzino, don't respect my job and he moved first to José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon and when I re-moved explain that I told you, he re-moved to José Reynaldo Bencos what?! I ask permission to fix it. --Kasper2006 (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I expect Enzino's second move was a mistake on his part; there's no reason at all to have the article at its current title. But since all references refer to him as José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon (and with the exception of one photo they agree on this capitalization, too, see IAAF and FIDAL), that seems to be the appropriate title for the article. For comparison: There are multiple sources referring to Biaggi as "Max Biaggi". Due to the back-and-forth page moves, an admin will have to sort out the mess and move the article to itsw proper place. If you still believe that "José Bencosme" is the proper article name, please provide some reliable sources to that effect on the article or its talk page. Huon (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is that when journal articles (or internet articles), talks about him, call him simply "José Bencosme". If you want others reliable sources, I'm able to give you as you want: Bressanone, Bencosme è di bronzo or Josè Bencosme (50"55) or Josè Bencosme e Alessia Trost star alle Gymnasiadi di Doha. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have requested that José's article be moved back to its original place. Kaspar: remember that this is the English wikipedia and article titles are determined by the English language literature of the subject (which exclusively refers to him as Bencosme de Leon in international competition). SFB 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait a tic, why can't we just have it at the full title, and then redirect the shorter "José Bencosme" to that article? In this way we have one article and users can get to it (or link to it from other articles) using either title. Would that not solve the problem? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would. This is just a very drastic escalation of a minor issue. Sorry! SFB 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the full surname "Bencosme De Leon" , but pay attention to these two fact: 1) The second name "Reynaldo" is not necessary like Frederick in Carlton Lewis; 2) "De" is capital for FIDAL and IAAF Competitions. The correct may be José Bencosme De Leon. (Attention José not Josè). --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

At 21:11 20 June 2012 admin Anthony Bradbury moved the wrong name José Reynaldo Bencos to "José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon". That's right but without second name (never second name is used, not "Frederick" in Carl Lewis, not "Jefferson" in Bill Clinton), for this I cite two "official" sources: FIDAL and IAAF. For the same sources the "De" is capital (not "de" like all surnames in Italy). --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All the English language sources I have seen use the "Reynaldo" part. If you can find me a couple of English sources that don't use it then you can move it there. Otherwise, we aren't following the sources for our title. Also- I have seen mixed usage with and without Reynaldo in Italian sources too. In the case of the capital on "de/De", the IAAF contradicts itself on this. I'm not sure which is considered correct. SFB 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Granted, that's fine with me any way you want. José Bencosme De Leon (his sponsor page), José Bencosme De Leon (his facebook page), José Bencosme De Leon ( official European Youth Olympic Festival Guide), José Bencosme De Leon ( Athletics Ireland official site). All 4 sources, for the "De" and for the "not Reynaldo". --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The first two use a capital "D" and the latter two a lower-case "d", so it's still not clear. Either way, I'm rather tired of this discussion now. You can request whichever title you prefer at Wikipedia:Requested moves and use that page for future moves. Further discussion of this minor issue is not the most productive use of anyone's time. SFB 18:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was over? No. So why User:Enzino said: no more inventions and moved the page to José Reynaldo Bencosme de Leon without consensus. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Call for 3 admins to close upcoming verifiability RfC

Hello everyone. I'm currently mediating a MedCab case about the lede of Wikipedia:Verifiability, where we are in the process of drafting an RfC to submit for community comment. We are very nearly done, and we are making the last few finishing tweaks to the RfC page before it is ready to go up live. One of the things that the participants have been discussing is how it should be closed, and who should close it. There is a consensus in the mediation that the RfC should be closed by a panel of three uninvolved administrators, and there is also a rough consensus that we should name them before the RfC starts, to help avoid any drama when it is time to close it. Also, to make sure things remain impartial, we want to avoid choosing admins ourselves, hence this noticeboard post.

So, would any admins be willing to volunteer to close the upcoming verifiability RfC? Ideally, you should:

• Have no previous involvement in any of the debates over the lede of Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Be available around the last week of July, which is when the RfC will likely finish
• Be willing to take the time to sift through the hundreds of comments that we will likely get, and weigh the different arguments

If anyone fits this description and would like to take this on, just leave a message below.

Also, if anyone has any comments or questions about asking three uninvolved admins to close the RfC, or about naming them before the RfC starts, then the feedback would be very welcome. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unless there are objections, I'm available to help closing the RfC. I can't remember having expressed an opinion about the issue before.  Sandstein  17:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'll let the mediation participants know that you're willing to volunteer. So that just leaves two more admins to find. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

[My apologies to Mr. Stradivarius for my accidental rolling back of his last comment a while back - I think it must have been a watchlist mousing mishap.]--Melburnian (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I just assumed that was a mistake. I think we've all done a fat-fingered rollback or two in our wiki-careers. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like we are be all out of admins - though there must be a few out there that haven't expressed an opinion on the verifiability issue yet. I think I'll wait for another day or so, and then I might have to talk to the mediation participants about contingency plans. Again, if you're willing to take this on, just leave a message below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely comfortable with announcing the closing trio in advance of the RfC. I think you should allow admins to respond via email, make your selections but withhold any announcement until such time as the request is ready to close. IMO - My76Strat (talk)

I'm not entirely 100% certain I've never opined on the matter, but I certainly did not participate extensively in the discussion nor did I get into any sort of dispute over it. If you still need admins, wave at me. — Coren ^(talk) 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to help. However, if you already have three, let them : ) - jc37 23:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes RfC close

Further information: WP:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012

After considering the arguments put forth in each section, community consensus on this matter is determined to be that the community should dedicate itself to determining the implementation of Pending Changes that it wishes to be turned on. Many opinions have been presented in the various areas of this RfC as to what works and doesn’t work in Pending Changes as implemented/proposed; the community must now focus its energy on optimizing the implementation of Pending Changes that it wishes to see go live. Because the community must have time to discuss this, and in order to avoid the holiday season which would interfere in both devs’ and editors’ schedules, Pending Changes will become live on 1 December, 2012. To allow developers enough preparation time, we recommend that community discussion about changes to the draft Pending Changes policy be concluded no later than 1 November, 2012. If the community has not, at that time, reached a consensus about how to change the draft policy, Pending Changes will be implemented according to the terms of the Draft Policy until the community can find a consensus.

Thanks to everyone who participated, and thank you very much for your patience.

For the closing admins, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes thanks for all your efforts - Discussion of how to/where to switch on is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 - Youreallycan 14:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The decision gives us about a 4-month window to work out the details ... and it seems to be agreed that there's a lot to work on, and I believe the next rounds of mini-RFCs are going to be very demanding on the closers. I've thrown my hat in at WT:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012#The next closers; if anyone else is interested in getting involved, come one, come all, and we'll sort it out. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

RFPP

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 13:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a major backlog at WP:RFPP, 32 open requests. Would nice if some admins could help there. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Got a handful -- who's up next? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow, that is worse than the other day. Is it fewer admins helping out, or are we just getting a lot more protection requests? On my first cup of joe, but on the way over. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Do WP:BLP and WP:OUTING now no longer apply to people admins dislike?

Since when has Wikipedia's response to sockpuppeting been to post a page detailing the sockmaster's real name (which we know "because he accidentally used his own name to sign up for Gmail"), his employer's address and an exhortation to write to his employer? Normally on finding something like this I'd have G10'd it and indefblocked all those concerned, but given that (a) it's existed for six months without any apparent concern from anyone, (b) at least one of the names in the edit history is someone I generally consider sensible and not the type of person to join a vindictive harassment campaign against someone singled out as an Enemy Of The Wiki, and (c) it's currently linked from a high profile RFA (along with a description of the subject as "thieving, litigious, lying scum") without any of the 60+ participants there raising any objection, maybe there's something I'm missing. In the absence of something I'm missing, it certainly looks to me like in this case The Wikipedia Community™ has lost whatever tenuous claim to the moral high ground it still retained. – iridescent 15:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about the Gmail stuff but with one account, the person appears to have intentionally volunteered their identity on wikipedia, which generally means it isn't outing to mention it. Linking it to other accounts may or may not be okay, I don't know enough about the history to say. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's relevant information, and he revealed it himself; if he turns out not to like it that's just tough for him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

By the time a banned sockpuppeter has taken it to the point where a long-term abuse page on him becomes necessary, I don't see why they should be entitled to any expectation to continued protection under our normal privacy rules (provided they are an adult person and mentally sane). This person consciously chose to raise an all-out fight against this project, even trying to blackmail to community to let him back in with the threat of more socking. He also not only self-disclosed his identity, but deliberately used it in an attempt to influence editing here [1]. If the personal information bothers him, he knows what he has to do to be let back into anonymity here. Under these conditions I don't see any problem with that LTA page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

generic complaints about low moral standards, not directed at specific situation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does this community have a moral compass? I thought we were officially amoral. Kim has removed the outing data and the enticement to contact their employer. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC) If a popular singer has a urinary condition and urinates onstage, do we put that in their article just because we have the ability to do so and can find a RS on it or do we leave it out because of common decency? Yes wiki fans, this actually happened once here on wiki. This and the indcident immediately above tell us a lot about who we are as a community and about the individual users involved. PumpkinSky talk 17:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC) "The Community" lost its way a long time ago. That's what Jack's been saying for the last five years. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Sadly true.PumpkinSky talk 17:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you for this message. I'm sure saying how much everything sucks sure will magically solve all the problems that Wikipedia has. --Conti|✉ 17:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Believe me, I've solved a lot of problems around here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC) "Older people have a duty to fight to change things, as they have far less to lose than the youngsters, and often the time to do it." (Fatuorum, Malleus) Chedzilla (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC) This is one of one of the very few times when I've wanted to be an admin. This is a repulsive situation as well as being sad. Bringing attention to issues which harm the collaborative tone of a community is the first step in fixing it. If its not broken don't fix it, but if it is even in part we need to fix as soon as possible to grow. Growth comes out of mistake, so there's nothing wrong with pointing out possible mistakes as long as we are committed to changing when we need to.(olive (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)) Surely the differences between PumpkinSky's straw man and the actual situation here are obvious. I think Fut. Perf.'s comment above is spot on, and implore everyone to read it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia never had any "moral high ground" to begin with. We're a loose collection of individuals barely agreeing to a set of policies and guidelines. BLP is probably the closest the community has come to a moral stance, and that's still hotly debated. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Nothing applies to people admins dislike, actually. It's a myth that there is a Wikipedia community. There are multiple overlapping communities. Personally I just fill out the OTRS form when I see outing stuff and it gets fixed (N-1 times, actually.) In any event, there is definitely and obviously a WP caste system: IPs get treated like crap unless their edits are crystal clear clean (if not, they're socks of somebody a registered editor doesn't like.) Registered editors get treated okay if they can avoid drama. While there has been -- unfortunately decreasing 1,2 -- a core of admins who act maturely and put WP ahead of their egos, ANI is often a "protect admins from criticism" forum, and some of ArbCom's recent actions and inactions have been unfortunately amateur hour. If any of this is news to Iridescent they've been mostly inactive for too long. I don't suppose they have any suggestions as how to improve the situation? Nobody Ent 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting in late here, but I agree with Kim's removal of these details. Aside from the obvious 'outing' and harassment-type issues, we have no way of knowing whether this editor actually worked for that politician (I presume), and prominently linking the politician to this copyright violator was potentially defamatory. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand much of what's above here. There seem to be some very shrill and shorthand arguments, few of which make a full and coherent case that I can follow. However I don't myself see that this edit is necessarily what's claimed. It comes from an editor who asserts that he has a particular real-life identity but I see no reason to take this at face value. We don't allow subjects of BLP articles to complain about their own treatment without OTRS confirmation of their identity. It seems to me that we cannot be absolutely certain that this person is responsible for the edits. What if it's a political opponent trying to get them to look bad? Nyttend has reverted my removal of personal information but I don't think this discussion has run its course. Nyttend may be right in restoring the material but there would have been no harm in letting this discussion run to a consensus before doing so. I'll ask Nyttend to self-revert (I'm not going to edit war over this.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded it, leaving the info about the self-disclosed name and the matching earlier sock account in, but hedging it to make it clear we cannot vouch for the correctness of the self-identification. I have also removed the employer address. I see no ethical problem with actually doing what was suggested there and contacting that office, in this particular case – given the fact it's such a high-profile public institution, the abuser's edits are clearly directed at our coverage of that institution, and he has repeatedly claimed to be working on its behalf, this matter is different from simply "contacting somebody's employer" to get them in trouble. Have people actually done this and has there been any response from official Senate addresses? In any case, if somebody still wishes to do this, they know where to find the address. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new user-right group

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37 (talk)

New proposal for a user-right group to help with backlogs. Enjoy : ) - jc37 18:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Starhub IP blocking

I'm not sure where to stick this and I'm just flagging this up. I've come across a lot of unblock appeals coming from people with Singaporean ISP Starhub as a internet provider - this is out of all proportion to eg the population of Singapore or number of subscribers. It appears that their IP addresses change very frequently which means that although they got a block message when they appeal it's not their current IP that is blocked. These all seem to be range blocks. For example 218.186.8.13 has sent in about being blocked when the block that is affecting them is 202.156.10.0/24. Does anyone know how Starhub's address allocation works?

I know people will respond with 'make an account' but there is something that is causing a lot of these cases. I've read that some services from this ISP have adverts injected by the ISP - could this be it? Have we accidentally ranged blocked most/all of their address range? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretlondon (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 June 2012‎ (UTC)

It's possible that they are reacting to the IPv4 exhaustion problem by using a widely distributed set of web proxies or Carrier Grade NAT with load balancing, in which case successive page loads by the same user could have different IP addresses. If so, this would effectively make their entire network an anonymizing proxy. Rpoers that ads may be being injected, suggest that web proxies are involved; if so the way that this has been solved in the past for web proxies is for the ISP's proxy to set the X-Forwarded-For header in requests. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project for more on this.

Carrier Grade NAT with a wide source IP address range is a much harder problem to crack, and really the only practical routes for addressing this are either forcing login via anonblocks (the current situation), the ISP segmenting their CGN setup into smaller GGN pools so that IP blocks affect only a subset of their users at a time, or the ISP beginning to offer IPv6 to their customers. -- The Anome (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On review: a reverse DNS lookup for 218.186.8.13 gives the name 218.186.8.13.cache.maxonline.com.sg. Their ISP is using caching proxy servers, and they need to be pointed towards the XFF project as a potential solution. Of course, if they're not using globally unique addresses, this won't work. -- The Anome (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: Starhub/Maxonline are already on the http://www.wikimedia.org/trusted-xff.html list, so it looks like they already have XFF set up, but there's only one proxy listed there. User:218.186.8.13, and any others in the same position, need to ask their ISP to contact the WMF via official channels to get the list extended to cover all their proxies. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you which channel for technical requests? None of them look particularly suitable. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us Secretlondon (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

On the Wikimedia end, xff AT wikimedia DOT org are probably the right people to contact (source: meta:XFF project). Alternatively, you could direct them. or the Starhub customers, to Starhub's abuse department email contact at abuse AT starhub DOT com, and point them to this discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I've emailed them both myself highlighting this discussion (although I really need a Wikipedia email address..) Secretlondon (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions#Reviewer

Also, per the above link, could use some help with taking what is relevant at Wikipedia:Reviewing/Historical and start Wikipedia:Reviewing. - jc37 19:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hide this version

Could someone please hide this version? Contains a phonenumber. Evalowyn (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)