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 46 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)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX

(Initiated 4 days ago on 13 August 2024) I'm not seeing any comments in two days and I'm reading clear community consensus for a TBAN. Admin close required. TarnishedPath^talk 14:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 107 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 104 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 104 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 76 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 57 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 56 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 48 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 46 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)

 Not done This discussion was archived by consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 45 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 43 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)

The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia) can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 41 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)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 41 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 39 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)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 33 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	36	36
TfD	0	0	2	3	5
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	14	33	47
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 262 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 85 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 82 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 80 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 70 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 41 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)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July#Gaza genocide

(Initiated 26 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Can someone restore my IFD'd images? Now I can't look back at my old Ref Desk questions

Resolved

 – OP asked deleting admin to restore, and they did. --64.85.215.111 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is for the images linked on my talk page. I mean I could take it to IFD review, but they were drawings used to illustrate a question on the Science Reference Desk, of course they don't have to match all the criteria for article quality, like matching every single criterion of the Chemical Drawing Guidelines or being in SVG. Now I can't look back at my old questions and ponder what they mean. I really don't understand mindless deletion campaign. Can't people leave Reference Desk images alone? Sure they weren't used in any article, but this mindless deletion makes old Ref Desk archives un-understandable. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding this a particularly compelling reason to summarily overturn another admins properly done actions. I think you will have to ask for a formal review if you want those decisions overturned. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This does look like a strange rationale for deleting images. I suggest you talk to the deleting administrator or go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Hut 8.5 14:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is orthogonal to the encyclopedia itself: if it helps the project's main goal at all, it is in encouraging experts to create content which can later be used to improve articles. That means that images created for use on the reference desk should ideally be high-quality enough that they could be used on articles. It does not further the project's goals to make exceptions to our image quality guidelines for the sake of a peripheral sub-project. If particular images are needed for temporary retrieval then the best thing would be to poke the admin responsible for a copy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support undeletion as a general rule. The Reference Desk archives are a useful accumulation of questions and answers at varying levels of technical detail. People considering new reference desk questions are instructed to search for old answers in the archives. I have not seen these images, but the point is, if they were in use on the Reference Desk and attracted no complaint then, and now in retrospect someone is griping about some supposed quality issue, not that they're pirated, then by all means, they should be regarded as in-use images. They might be proposed to transwiki to Commons in the usual manner, but that is all. Wnt (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

topic ban for User:Santos30

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Disruptive_editor_User:Escarlati

Santos30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is POV-pushing his personal views about Crown of Castile, Cross of Burgundy and several other articles. His attempts in Spanish wikipedia were reverted and he was finally blocked for sockpuppetry. He moved to English wikipedia a few months ago, distorting several articles to represent his personal views. He has been edit-warring to keep his changes. Several editors have failed to convince him via discussion. He doesn't acknowledge reliable sources, and he pours poorly-interpreted sources to support his POV. He is slowly moving Crown of Castile into fantasy territory to match his POV. This has been going for long enough.

Despite this, he makes some good work on American Independence articles, I am hoping that the topic ban forces him to stay in articles where he is being constructive.

So I propose a topic ban on:

• flags
• coats of arms
• anything related to Crown of Castile / Crown of Aragon, broadly interpreted (he can still edit and create articles about American viceroyalties and governorates, but he should only reference the Crown of Castile to say that it was founded by the Crown or that it was part of the Crown)

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Crown of Castile or how broad a topic ban related to it would be, but would the proposed topic ban cover xe's created articles? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hum, for the viceroyalties and governorates, you can write a lengthy article with only one passing mention to the Crown of Castile in the lead (e.x. Viceroyalty of Peru). But, hum, damn, they were legally part of the Crown of Castile.... I added an exception, I made it difficult to game.

In most of those articles it would cover only all those flags and coats of arms in the infobox (an infobox with no images is an improvement from using the wrong images).

For the American revolutions and battles, The Crown of Castile had already disappeared. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nathan Johnson:

1) The topic is not the articles that Santos30 has created. Those articles could have another kind of problems: Battle of Torata (no sources) or Arthur Sandes (copyright problems [1] [2])

2) The topic is that user Santos 30 (Domenico at Spanish Wikipedia) has two goals about Crown of Castile and Cross of Burgundy. And to get these goals he has modified several articles with his personal point of view. I have not participated in the topic about Crown Castle talk, but I did participate in the topic about the Cross of Bugundy.

3) User Santos 30 with his alter ego Domenico has been blocked twice at Spanish Wikipedia [3] because he modified articles without consensus when talk was still underway (July 9, 2008 and June 11, 2010).

4) In July 2012 he back to the same behavior changing flags in several articles while a talk was underway. He had been warning to stop three times [4] [5] [6]. Then he decided withdraw from Spanish Wikipedia (July 28, 2012) [7] and came to English Wikipedia, Simple Enlish Wikipedia and Commons to get his goals, first with 83.34.153.98 account and later with Santos 30 account.

5) In August 9, 2012, I asked a request at Wikimedia [8], they recommended me to request at every Wikipedia, meanwhile at Spanish Wikipedia Domenico was blocked per six months because sabotage (WP:POINT) when an administrator confirmed his puppet accounts Leonciolima [9] and Santos 30 [10] (since August 13, both puppet accounts are blocked forever at Spanish Wikipedia). August 17, 2012, finally I made a request in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Santos30/Archive, after Santos 30 recognized the account 83.34.153.98 DQ just commented that there is no abuse of multiple accounts on English Wikipedia, but I think the problem continues.

6) Backing to the topic: After Domenico/Santos 30 left Spanish Wikipedia, he eliminated the Cross of Burgundy flag in several articles at English Wikipedia (July, 27): [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. July 31, as a result of his editing changes in Spanish Empire an edit war was reported [18] by user Trasamundo. A long discussion took place from July 31 to August 12 in Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 4#Flag of Carlism & Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 4#Continuation.

This is very important: He did not stop to change flags in other articles [19] [20] (July, 30). In August 5-6, when the conversation was still going on, even without achieving consensus, Santos30 returned to his usual behavior and began to change flags in other articles: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. I have asked him: "Why are you asking for a third opinion if you are changing right now the flags in several articles?" he answered me: "Americas was incorpored to Crown of Castile and whats your problem there?. You can open a new discussion there". (!)

In August 7, user Trasamundo decided to support Santos 30's point of view. I want to quote his words, because this is what Santos 30 calls consensus:

Santos30's tactic is to ignore everything and repeat again and again the same slogans fruit of his particular deductions as it was been quoted above. Of course I see useless to keep this discussion with someone who has made WP:GAME as their way of operate, and after tons of references he despises everything that is said and simply raises its solution because a user has put a comment on their talk page. Well, my deepest gratitude to that user. Although there have been references to the use of the white flag with the cross of burgundy in the Spanish empire, if Santos30 is going to leave this absurd issue of the Carlist flag and and close this discussion then I am able to support the replacement of this cross of burgundy for this cross of burgundy. And now to wait for the next crusade, will be to remove the yoke and arrows and the eagle from coat of arms of the Catholic kings because they were falangist symbols 500 years later?

— Trasamundo (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In August 12, user MarshalN20 joined to the talk: "You have asked for several "third opinions", and all of them have been favorable towards the return of the Cross of Burgundy flag to the articles from where they were removed"; Santos 30 answered him: "Third opinion for the article of Spanish Empire yes, and thank you, but you came late because already we have a consensus to put the military red cross of Burgundy here. Without the modern white flag". (!) Obviously, in September 3, someone came and changed the flag [26].

7) Same problem in New Spain article. July 27, with his account 83.34.153.98, Santos changed the flag [27]; in August 5, somebody disagreed [28], and Santos 30 reverted him [29].

8) From November 21 to December 2, the same discussion took place in Talk:New Spain#flag was the "estandarte virreinal" (please review that talk, you don't need to be an expert). At the same time, Santos 30 reported user Escarlati in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Disruptive_editor_User:Escarlati, I agree with Escarlati's comment, with Maragm's comment, and with Enric Naval's comment.

9) Finally, I agree with this request. I really think Santos 30 is pushing his personal point of view without any consensus because I think Trasamundo's words can not be considerated as a truly consensus. Jaontiveros (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going on holiday for 4 days. Can someone explain to me why this request is getting no answers? Is it because the topic is not familiar to English people? Is it because most sources are in Spanish? Do I need to cross some extra "t" before I make this request? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes goes live in three hours

Just a reminder that WP:Pending changes goes live in a little less than three hours. The policy is in the usual place, at WP:Protection policy. Requests should be handled like any regular request, i.e., at WP:RFPP. As a kindness to your fellow editors and admins, please do not drown RFPP in requests on the first couple of days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Krenair just pointed out on IRC that no one filed a bug request to enable it. Has anyone talked to a dev about getting it turned on? I just asked in #wikimedia-tech. Legoktm (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nvm, looks like it was never turned off. Special:Log/stable. Legoktm (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a question about what needs to be done, and who is able to do it at being discussed at Wikipedia talk:PC2012/RfC 3. It is currently turned on at least for certain testing pages. If turned on generally, it is at least suppressed somehow. If someone knowledgeable on the matter could comment there it would be appreciated. Monty₈₄₅ 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the question is answered, thanks. Monty₈₄₅ 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will try, as the person at least partially "to blame" for this, to be available to answer any questions, help with any backlogs, absorb gratuitous abuse, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very confused, as I thought the community rejected having pending changes in mainspace? No objection, since in my mind it's a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PC2012#RfCs_and_community-wide_discussions for the executive summary. Monty₈₄₅ 22:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We should probably expect more of that as well. Every Step of this long process has been listed at WP:CENT at the very least, yet somehow vast portions of the community are still under the impression that PC was rejected a long time ago. I don't know how that happened but we should be aware that some users will be genuinely shocked and possibly pissed off when they see it being used again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this header be updated? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It should probably just be de-linked as it is now entirely irrelevant. Another detail that was missed was the actual protection interface, which still has not one but two warnings not to use PC. I don't have a clue how to even edit such a page. Anyone know how to fix that? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It'll be via a MediaWiki page, but I don't know which one offhand (there at least four that contribute the various options an d menus on that interface). CBM (talk · contribs) or Amalthea (talk · contribs) might know (there are a handful of other admins who know their way around that namespace, but those two are active). Or you might get a knowledgeable lurker at VPT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will try that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there any chance of getting Pending Changes listed in the options under RPP in Twinkle? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure it will be, but may want to ask somewhere around WP:TW. Monty₈₄₅ 01:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I already left a request there earlier. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So, in terms of implementation, the RfC says that admins are allowed to use pending changes where there has been vandalism, BLP violations or copyright violations. Does this have to be in response to a current problem or can we just merrily start adding PC to pages if they've had vandalism/BLP/copyvio issues in the past? If there are a few pages I keep an eye on that are (say) minor BLPs, can I just switch pending changes on for them, or do we have to wait until there's some incident? I'm so glad there was such an extensive RfC process, by the way, and now we are just flailing around trying to work out what the fuck needs to start being done. A+ for planning, D- for implementation. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd advocate turning them on as needed going forward. NE Ent 22:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, but NE Ent's advice is good, especially for this stage of things. I'd make an exception if they're already under long-term SEMI due to previous problems, in which case I hope you'll consider "downgrading" the protection to PC on some of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good! This is a good idea for low to moderate traffic articles with problems. I can see how it might not scale for high traffic articles, but for the unloved ones that crop up on OTRS this is progress. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, PC does not work well with high-traffic articles. (congratulations admins, you now have another slightly vague phrase people will endlessly try to argue with you about, as is already happening at RFPP!) I think slowly adding it as needed is best until we have a better idea of what the typical response time for review will be. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

23 hours in

23 hours after Pending Changes has gone live and we've got 10 articles under pending changes, of which 4 are indefinitely protected. Today, PC was added on Chris Nathaniel, B.o.B, Star Trek, Peyton List (actress born 1998), Victoria Justice, Zakir Naik and Puppy mill.

The pages Federal Analog Act, Islamic University of Gaza and A Scause for Applause seem to have had PC protection turned on from before today. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Some folks seem to have never got the memo that we weren't using it the last year and a half. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The stealthy way that this mess-of-a-concept was kept alive against consensus is not right. What do we have to do to fully kill it? North8000 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, three articles that were probably accidentally not taken off pending changes is all that is needed to declare months of discussion moot? That's some wackadoodle logic right there. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

PC protection was applied to those three articles on 6 September, 5 September, and 5 November respectively; it's much more of a "never got the memo" situation than a stealthy method of keeping it alive or accidentally not removing it. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that accusation is 100% Grade A Bullshit. There have been five RFCs in the last two years or so. Each one of them listed at WP:CENT the entire time they were open. Altogether several hundred users participated. Nothing stealthy about that, nothing against consensus about that either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's the problem really - if you tell someone that unless they call an orange, a small off duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, you're going to electrocute them every 5 minutes - eventually they'll call that orange a small off duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, just to get you to bugger off. PC went pretty much the same way - beaten into people until they said yes in an effort to get everyone to stfu about it through boredom. Fish^Barking? 22:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Or alternatively PC went through a robust consensus process which frankly few other policy discussions went through including many recent ones, which are now taken as consensus even though there was a fair amount of opposition and large numbers never saw the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• It appears in all of these cases that the PC protection was added simultaneous with semi-protection (thus making it a non-issue for all but the Federal Analog Act article where the semi expired after several days). Looking at the instances, I think PC protection should be removed from the IUG and Scause for Applause articles as their rationales would not be supported by the current consensus, while the semi-protection on both articles is sufficient. The Federal Analog Act article seems to have PC protection that is consistent with the consensus approach and so it is fine to keep it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I did precisely that to Scause for Applause after a request at RFPP, not having seen this discussion. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be the first time that an administrator has picked the wrong listboxes in the protection user interface. I've done it myself — luckily noticing it before committing. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes protection icons

Like all protection methods that are displayed in the top right corner of a page, I have created {{pp-pc1}}, and {{pp-pc2}} to tag accordingly to protected pages.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• You've looked afterwards at the result of your handiwork and now know that those are confusing, problematic, and completely unnecessary, I hope. Pending changes already causes the appearance of something in the top right corner of a page: MediaWiki's own pending changes box (the "flagged revisions tag") that appears automatically. Your templates not only duplicate that badly (since MediaWiki's provides revision information that yours do not) but sit on top of the MediaWiki tag partly obscuring it and making it harder to read and to click on. You've positioned your icon right over the top of the flagged revisions' drop-down arrow in the Monobook skin, in fact, making it nearly impossible to click on. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Is there an explanation somewhere of why these protection templates are useful? Why not just have the software give the right messages on protected pages instead of introducing extraneous edits on pages people are monitoring? What purpose does it serve to add and remove a template? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I find the little icon handy, though I agree, it would be better if the software detected the protection status and applied the appropriate icon. Monty₈₄₅ 21:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I can't argue with your observation that you find them useful, but I still question their general utility. For pending changes, all readers already see a system header to that effect, regardless of whether their changes are auto-reviewed. For edit protection, those unable to edit see a "view source" tab with an explanatory hover-text; those able to edit see a protection warning when they try to edit. Are you saying that it is useful to you to know whether less privileged editors can edit a certain page when you are not attempting to edit it yourself? Or do the existing mechanisms not provide enough detail? Either way, it seems like something a gadget or script ought to be able to provide. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I do find it useful, as it can inform what is going on. Sure you can go view the history, but its not as easy to see the current status that way. Monty₈₄₅ 22:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
        • For the case of these templates and this form of protection, not only is it exactly as easy, it is easier, since there is more in the MediaWiki-provided information that is given automatically without need for any templates at all. The problem here is reinventing the existing MediaWiki UI, reinventing it badly, and reinventing it so that it obscures and denies access to the existing MediaWiki UI. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have filed a request to discuss this side-issue at TFD with a link back to here. Please add any further comments there. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Request to lift restriction

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

---

On 12 November 2012, I was indefinitely restricted from making non-admin closures. Although I am not willing to make more closures, I would like to see the restriction removed. In the case I choose to perform any closure, I will seek administrative mentorship before eventually performing any. I understand the mistakes I made while closing several discussions and I consider that I have learned from them. The original discussion can be seen here. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: There were multiple and serious problems with your NAC's, not all of which were even mentioned in the previous ANI, such as the one IRWolfie mentions on your user talk page. Your subsequent behavior on AfDs, specifically continued use of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, does not inspire confidence in your grasp of AfD argumentation, nor does the infuriatingly lackadaisical way you argued in the last ANI. I don't believe your attitude has improved so much over the past three weeks to justify entrusting you with NACs, mentorship or no mentorship. Sorry, but my conclusion is that you just don't have what it takes to do this job right. Maybe in a year I might believe that you have improved significantly. But in three weeks? No way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  From your comments, I can reach two conclusions: 1) You seem to have an axe to grind on me after I tried to help at the Australian Christian Lobby discussion; and 2) You have a very vague and erroneous conception of me. I won't comment further. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

  Your WP:AGF button get turned off again? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose Two weeks in and you're asking for removal? Come back in a minimum of 6 months for a review, or else you're just being disruptive (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While I have just reviewed the intial discussion, I would consider an appeal after only two weeks as direct evidence that the user has not acquired sufficient experience with how Wikipedia works to be closing anything, AFD or otherwise. The request as worded barely makes any sense anyway. ou say you are "unwilling" to do more closures, but you want the restriction lifted so you can do them anyway. You volunteer to ask an admin for advice first. Logically, for an admin to advise you they would have to review the entire discussion. At that point they could just do it themselves, so what's the point? I am sure a time will come when the restriction is gladly lifted, but now is just too soon and there is no demonstrable benefit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Unsnow and partial support. The ban statement was incorrect in its claim Hahc21 agreed to refrain from closing anything "on any forum" in Wikipedia when, in fact, he agreed not to edit Afd pages, which is not the same as any forum. Support ban on closing Afds until they gain more experience. NE Ent 01:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The restriction was based on community consensus and user agreement. Hahc21 did not indicate any disagreement with the terms of the imposed restriction at the time. There wasn't a longer discussion by the community on the restriction only because Hahc21 stopped it in its track by agreeing to it. -- KTC (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of any restriction at the present time. Way way too soon. -- KTC (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Asking to have the community revoke a restriction so soon after it was imposed is a bad idea. Removing the restriction based on such a request is nearly always a WORSE idea. GJC 07:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as the initial proposer of the restriction. The lack of citing policy/guideline during deletion discussions, such as here and here, is also concerning. Till 13:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see non-admin closures as a bit of a barely necessary function as it is. So anyone that misuses or makes closes mistakenly if they aren't an admin shouldn't be allowed to make any more until the community decides they are of the quality to be an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - far too soon. GiantSnowman 13:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm very sorry, but I must oppose your request as the ban had only started two weeks ago, and I believe this is too soon for a lifted request to return to non-admin closures. I'd personally recommend that you wait a few more months, and then re-apply again. I also seem to agree with some of the above. TBrandley 17:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

New Policy Change

Per this RfC the community has agreed to the following policy changes regarding administrators and bureaucrats:

1. Any admin that voluntarily, involuntarily, or due to inactivity, had their bit removed must wait 24 hours upon requesting them back to allow for a thorough examination. Any discussion currently going on regarding resysopping of the editor in question must be concluded first before any action be made.
2. Regardless of how or why the tools were removed, if an editor makes 0 edits throughout a continuous three years, they are required to go through a reconfirmation RfA, should they wish to have their tools back. That means a total of 3 uninterrupted years must have passed, with 0 edits from this user, for a reconfirmation RfA to become mandatory if the user wishes to have their tools back.

The following changes in the appropriate policy pages will be made to reflect this consensus.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 01:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Will those that have already been de-sysoped for inactivity be notified? Agathoclea (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Santa Clause movie being promoted in Wikipedia

Would an admin please semi-protect the redirects Santa Clause and Santa clause. More than four years of changing the redirect between the person and the movie seems a little too much.[30] and [31]. The Santa Clause movie also was being promoted in the Santa Claus article.[32]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please can someone take the unable to proceed so i can create an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calaber007 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What a completely lame edit war. Whoever argues that the redirect Santa Clause is intending to go to the movie needs a trout lump of coal. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it really WP:PROMOTION? "Santa Clause" may be a plausible typo for "Santa Claus" but in English usage it still refers to the movies in question. Somewhere there should be a {{redirect}} or other dab navigation template bringing people to the right place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That is very true; the top of the article Santa Claus should say that Santa Clause redirects there, and should point to the movie article as a likely target. Regardless, Santa Claus should redirect to Santa Claus, though. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"in English usage it still refers to the movies in question"? I doubt it very much - a disappointingly-large proportion of English speakers have trouble with spelling - or alternatively an encouragingly-large proportion refuse to be bound by such Stalinist orthographic conventions. Either way, you seem not to be citing any source for your claims that what looks like a typo is instead an attempt to locate a minor cinematographic product. Please provide one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

My own Google-foo suggests that 1 in 20 references to "Santa Clause" are to the Tim Allen movie, with the rest being typos. So I'd agree with where the redirect points now. A hatnote seems reasonable. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of dabhats in these sorts of circumstances, too. Always good to help get folks to the article they're trying to get to as quickly as possible. If I were trying to keep things as simple as possible, I'd send Santa Clause to The Santa Clause and put a dabhat to Santa Claus at The Santa Clause. (That was fun.) But I wouldn't object to reversing that (as is the case at this very second). Shouldn't this be a discussion over at one of those articles, though? jæs (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm with jæs on this, "Santa Clause" may be a misspelling in one context but it has a specific meaning in another. A dabhat at Santa Claus seems appropriate. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The majority of top results in Google (UK) are for the film, or for one of its sequels. An exact match, or with minor differences such as "The" or capitalisation, should have priority over a misspelling - "The" is often omitted when at the beginning of a title (such as in default sorting in Wikipedia categories) - so the redirects should go to the film article unless it's an accepted alternative spelling of Santa Claus. It isn't promotional just because one of the articles is about a commercial product, and the difference between the two names is enough - we have never had disambiguation links connecting Claus with Clause. Peter James (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the age of the film and its sequels, I don't think there is any promotion going on here. Just good-faith attempts to point readers to the material they are probably looking for. It has gone on for several years, and there are no visible patterns? I don't see any indication that anyone is trying to benefit economically from these edits? Just some people who searched the film and thought that there should be a hatnote? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Since this is a content issue with differing opinions expressed here, I created an RFC at the redirect talk page here to help resolve the matter. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 23:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

This board is pretty backlogged and could use some attention from an admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

True. I did a little work there, but I'm packing it in for bed. More people there, please. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to De728631, Writ Keeper, Reaper Eternal, Bwilkins, and anyone that I missed. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 17:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

History swap

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

---

Could an admin do the history swap, after Talk:2008–2012 global recession#Requested move was closed by Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) (a non-admin) in violation of WP:RMNAC as move to Great Recession (which has a significant edit history). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Anybody there? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I have this situation wrong: Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) performed a non-admin move close as "MOVE"; the requirements for a NAC are:

• The closer has not participated in the discussion, nor recently participated in similar or related discussions. --He did not.--
• The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days). --Since there seems to be no disputing the close decision itself, I assume this was a good call.--
• No history merge or history swap is necessary. --A history merge swap IS needed, so he fails this criteria.--
• There are no more than a few associated subpages that need to be moved along with the move of the page under discussion, such as voluminous talk page archives. --Meh, non-issue.--

After closing the discussion as "move", yet failing to actually complete the move, when his closure was undone and he was asked about it, he responded by RE-closing the RM and stating "I simply closed the thread. An admin can merge the history if xe feels it's necessary. WP:BURO.", and he still failed to ask any admin to actually complete the move. Therefore, it appears that:

• Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) erroneously closed the RM as a non-admin because a history merge swap is necessary, and should be cautioned about performing further RMNACs;
• An admin is needed to complete this move & perform a history merge swap.

Is this correct? Rgrds. --64.85.220.158 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a correct summary of the events. Except that a history swap is needed instead of histmerge (due to conflicting edits in the edit histories). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Corrected to history swap. --64.85.220.158 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If we take the text of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions at face value that it is a guideline, despite not being tagged as a guideline, then its a case of violating a guideline. While guidelines should be followed in most cases, they lake the force of a policy, merely violating a guideline is not generally sufficient to reverse an action. The concept that a non-admin should not close a discussion in a way that requires an admin to act comes from exactly this sort of situation, unless an admin is willing to carryout the close, we are kind of stuck. That said, I've seen cases where non-admins have closed a discussion and then had an admin carry it out, but they were extremely experienced editors, and evidently rightly judged the willingness of an admin to do it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about the following?
  1. Perform the merge per April 2011 consensus
  2. Place {{histmerge}} on 2008–2012 global recession
  3. Place {{Db-move}} on Great Recession

Would that work? (Please note, I've not read the actual merge discussion, if that's relevant to the process.) -- Trevj (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Who broke the CSS?

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

---

Writ Keeper in his new home

A group of marauding Wikipedians will shortly be sticking the perpetrator on this log fire. Please bring a pitchfork.

What in the world happened to the CSS? Menus all over the page. Someone is headed to the WP:STOCKS.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same thing. I don't like this, whatever it is; someone needs to change it back. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't I tell you all a few days ago that Writ Keeper was testing something in his sandbox? But no one listened to me. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup .. it's pooched (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a thread at VPT, too; probably best there. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Seems to have gone back to normal already. Although I would like the spectacle of somebody in the stocks too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I still have this problem.I am using Chrome--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't resolved for me either and I'm using Firefox. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hit CTRL + F5. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am using Safari and I have the same error. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For Chrome, I had to "Clear Browsing Data > Empty the Cache". --j⚛e decker^talk 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not CTRL+F5 for everyone; there are more detailed instructions at WP:BYPASS. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about us discussing the problem here, Writ. We don't try to fix problems at WP:AN, we just bitch about them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's why all the exciting fixes are going down at VPT. TL;DR: people are reporting that bypassing or (preferably) clearing the browser cache entirely is fixing the problem; instructions on how to do both can be found at WP:BYPASS. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Its spilled into IRC. Monkeys and fish are everywhere, Writ, you broke the damn wiki ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and this problem is occurring. TBrandley 19:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.21wmf5 was rolled out today; it has numerous changes in skin related CSS. Errors seen are due to caching issues, so clear your cache then purge any page. Having said that, the collapsible navigation menus in Vector are still broken. — Edokter (talk) — 20:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WOW :P, clearing your cache in FF has worked thank (whoever) Mlpearc (powwow) 20:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

CollapsibleNav seems fixed as well. — Edokter (talk) — 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Find out who broke it later, fix it now. My76Strat (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I got the same problem, I switched to another style temporarily, switched back, hit CTRL+F5 and the problem disappeared. We all make mistakes, so just chill the frag out. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cache issue it is not. Safari with cache turned of and still the same amusing view! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record: I have no evidence that Writ Keeper is in any way responsible for this unfortunate event, none at all. It was simply an accusation I threw out there, because of a long-standing grudge, and since it was without direct evidence one could call it unfounded. That doesn't mean, of course, that he didn't do it. He's quite devious. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Ban proposal at WP:ANI

Resolved

Over at WP:ANI, someone's proposed banning Purplebackpack89 from edits related to the Article Rescue Squadron. Ban proposals belong here, not there, but the discussion is advanced enough that it would be disruptive to move it, so I'll simply ask you to go over there and leave comments. The section is "Dream Focus, CallawayRox, and the ARS drama machine, again", it's the subsection entitled "Topic Ban Purplebackpack89 from ARS". Nyttend (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind; the other discussion has been closed. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with AIV bot(s)

Anyone know how to get the AIV bot to work properly again? It has stopped removing entries from WP:AIV after an admin blocks the account or IP. I posted run-on messages at the bot's talk page, but I don't think JamesR checks in that often at the moment. At present, we're removing blocked entries manually.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they are working sporadically, and currently dead. I also thought they seemed to be slower then usual the last few days. Monty₈₄₅ 23:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to file a request for one or two new bots. Both bots' userpages link to the source code, so it shouldn't be that hard to create a couple of new ones. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The bots are back up now. Does this happen often enough that there is a pressing need for more clones? Legoktm (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are to be more clones, we better find a way to make sure they don't all go down at the same times... Monty₈₄₅ 00:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know why they are working again?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing something in the process hung and it finally got killed, at which point the toolserver re-started the job. But the operator would probably know better. Legoktm (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're going to have to assume I know nothing (not difficult sometimes). Who is the "operator"?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Operator is JamesR, as you said above; bot userpages pretty much always have the name of the operator at the top of the page. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:HBC AIV helperbot5 is operated by User:JamesR (toolserver) and User:HBC AIV helperbot7 is operated by User:Wimt (apparently somewhere in Germany). Both of them would be the people to contact. It's probably worth seeing if we can get bots 1-4 & 6 back up too. Legoktm (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, you confused me, Legoktm, because, as Nyttend stated, I already contacted JamesR, so I assumed you meant someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

[Update to my last comment, not a reply to anything said since then] Per WP:BOTACC, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, who must be prominently identifiable on its user page." Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CFD backlog

Does any brave admin feel like taking a stab at the massive CfD backlog? There are over 200 discussions ready to be closed at this point, pretty much all of November. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Small stab taken; I got the 1 November discussion and the 19 November discussion. Part of the problem looks to be a large set of related nominations from the 14th to the 16th; they appear to have gotten lots of common themes from discussion to discussion, and closing them will likely be hard. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some work on it. I see that Good Olfactory is also hacking away at the backlog. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Avoiceformen.com from spam-blacklist

I've asked for the website avoiceformen.com to be removed from the spam-blacklist. My specific arguments refuting the grounds for denying the request have not been addressed. Instead my requests to engage in discussion to clarify the issues have resulted in the request being declined repeatedly with no useful feedback. I'm hoping to engage the community to clarify this issue.

Firstly the Houston, TX based website avoiceformen.com was abused on wikipedia by an Australia based spammer some time ago. I agreed that the individual's behavior was improper, but argued that banning such an important website for the behavior of an unrelated user is as unhelpful as banning Youtube because of a single channel. Removing the blacklist on avoiceformen.com is important to my efforts to document the "manosphere" from a neutral perspective. For clarity the "manosphere" is a broad focus area, with some communities interested in men's rights, and others interested in Game/seduction who oppose the men's rights movement, it is not a single purpose issue. However as the largest men's rights website in the manosphere, avoiceformen.com is indispensable to that documentation effort. The editors declined to remove avoiceformen.com from the blacklist on the basis of wikipedias policies on: External links, Verifiable, Reliable, Notable Sources, and pointed out a possible violation of Biographies of living persons

I responded on various talk pages that:

• Wikipedia's policy states that avoiceformen.com can be linked as an external source for articles about itself

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

• The subject's website can be used as a source

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites.

• The manosphere is notable

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Avoiceformen.com has been described by the SPLC (and elsewhere) as part of the "manosphere". Wikipedia considers the SPLC a reliable source. The SPLC has described the manosphere as a significant movement. The manosphere is also notable in that it has been mentioned in mainstream media publications like Huffington Post, Business Insider, Reason Magazine, and All Voices, among others.

I argue that whether or not one considers the manosphere to be "fringe" is irrelevant. I have clearly stated I do not intend to represent that the manosphere's usage of any existing terms, or understanding of any concept they claim, are valid. I do not intend to represent any website's views as being authoritative for all of the manosphere. I have stated my intention is solely to document the manosphere, and represent their claims as their own in as balanced a manner as possible. Avoiceformen.com is certainly a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. Since a reputable source identifies avoiceformen.com as part of the manosphere, and the manosphere is notable, avoiceformen.com is a reliable source for a notable topic.

I would appreciate any guidance or feedback on this issue.

The earlier discussion on the blacklist is here: Ethicalv (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the manosphere isn't "notable" by Wikipedia standards, and we don't have any reliable sources to write about it. Even its proponents acknowledge that it exists only because of male bloggers writing about it, the same bloggers writing for "A Voice for Men", an activist, alternative news outlet. However, even that outlet isn't "notable" by our standards. It seems like there's no good reason to remove the link from the blacklist. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could share the reasoning by which you reconcile the statement "the manosphere isn't notable" with the fact that it has been written about in major mainstream media, some of which I linked above. Those articles did not mention the manosphere in passing. They were about the manosphere in their entirety. This certainly qualifies as the "significant" coverage required in wikipedia's Notability policy. And you did repeat the same argument I refuted above that avoiceformen.com is not a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. If you disagree with the reasoning I gave, stating that avoiceformen.com is definitely considered a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com according to wikipedia's policies, I would appreciate if you would explicitly provide your reasoning. Ethicalv (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did. Those "links" are not about the "manosphere" nor do they lend notability to the concept or to Avoiceformen.com. The links you provided are about the listing of misogynistic hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center in their Spring 2012 Intelligence Report.[33] "A Voice for Men" are also named in the report. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A voice for men is redlinked for a reason ... a couple passing mentions in mainstream media aren't sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which are fairly high. NE Ent 00:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A redlink isn't cause for it to be on the spam-blacklist. Arkon (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@EthicalvThis seems a little backwards to me. We don't have pages for Manosphere or avoiceformen.com, do we? So why would we need to link to their official websites? Honestly, I doubt that they're notable to begin with, but I'd suggest you delay your efforts to get their website off the blacklist for use in an external links section until after we actually have pages on them (ideally until after their pages have survived deletion discussions). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See, this comment seems a little backwards to -me-. The default isn't for links to be on the spam-blacklist, only to be removed when certain conditions are met. Arkon (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there was a good reason to add this group to the blacklist and yet, still no good reason to remove them. I'm also having a hard time buying the whole "Australia based spammer" bit when the group is mostly a one-man operation. Finally, we have a giant heaping dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Before starting this thread, User:Ethicalv was informed about the notability problems on his talk page. He ignored that information and decided to assert notability once again. It's interesting how the actions of an "Australian spammer" got this non-notable site blacklisted and how the actions of Ethicalv are indistinguishable from the spammer—asking the same questions over and over again, hoping to get a different response. He did this on the blacklist discussion as well. Note, if the user could point to a single reliable source that is part of avoiceformen.com that could conceivably be used as a source on Wikipedia, that would be appreciated. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there isn't one, so this entire discussion seems to be about how to best get the site removed from the blacklist so that the spamming can begin again. Not good. You want to talk about how women are oppressing you? Great, do it on your private website, not here. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(SO MANY EC'S)There may have been good reasons to blacklist this, yes. I don't know the full history here, but looking at the spam-blacklist page, there are quite a few different options other than putting them on the list. Were any of these tried?Notability in this case is a red herring in regards to it being on the list or not. As far as this person being the spammer, no idea, but if so, the second option of 'Will blocking a single user solve the problem?' seems more logical. Arkon (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this intrusion is not unwelcome, but I tried to help the user before by pointing out that "Manosphere" is a neologism and getting avoiceformen unblacklisted is not likely to help him document the so-called cause. Even a Google search for "manosphere movement" only turns up results that say it is not a movement, and even the AVoiceforMen website itself defines it as a collection of websites, etc, and usually more specifically as a "phenomenon". I don't want to quote from a blacklisted website but it is worth considering this, EthicalV. -Wieldthespade (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please point to a single page in the domain of avoiceformen.com that can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Just one. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from, I think his reasoning is pretty...bad. Heck, I think the site itself is terrible. But again, your question really has nothing to do with it being on the blacklist. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've checked out the website, and I can't think of any remotely conceivable reason we would ever link to it in a WP article. Nor has the OP provided any. I do see a plausible potential for further abuse should it be delisted. I therefore see no possible reason to delist the site. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arkon, Mark Arsten: I created a page for the manosphere in my ongoing effort to document it. It is awaiting approval. This blacklisting was causing trouble. That's how the issue came up.

@Arkon I agree that a website shouldn't be blacklisted by default. Thanks for your clarification.

@Viriditas. You said:

"The links you provided are about the listing of misogynistic hate groups".

My point is that those groups were EXPLICITLY identified in the SPLC and those mainstream media articles as a phenomenon noted as the "manosphere". They were not just called "misogynistic hate groups".

And those sites identified are also notable independently of the manosphere. Game/Seduction Blogger Roosh for example (who has been written about in newspaper articles, and talked about on TV shows around the world) is certainly notable. Avoiceformen.com has been mentioned in CBS News, Ms. Magazine, Bangor Daily News, and the New York Times.

Furthermore it is worthwhile to consider whether those groups themselves would be a more accurate source of their own opinions. Taking Roosh for example, without in any way advocating for his positions, it's useful that his blog should be allowed as an authoritative source of his own opinions to maintain balance. While wikipedia accepted sources like the SPLC may identify him as a dangerous hate criminal, he may or may not express a different opinion on whether seducing women qualifies him for being put on a list that the SPLC normally reserved for terrorists.

@Viriditas. You said:

"I'm also having a hard time buying the whole "Australia based spammer" bit when the group is mostly a one-man operation..

There is no evidence it is a one man operation and strong evidence to suggest it is not. The website lists a staff as well as listing podcasts and an associated radio station.

@Viriditas. You said:

"Please point to a single page in the domain of avoiceformen.com that can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Just one.

I would ask that we tone down the provocative and highly conflictual language. We are all working towards a common goal of making wikipedia better. My answer is that regardless of whether the content on the site is objectionable, "all" pages in avoiceformen.com are reliable sources for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. That is the entire argument that I have not received a reply from you on. Ethicalv (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC) To summarize: "all" pages in avoiceformen.com are reliable sources for the opinions of avoiceformen.com avoiceformen.com is notable whether or not one agrees with the opinions expressed on avoiceformen.com is irrelevant to documenting them in a neutral way Ethicalv (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)