Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.201.228.200 (talk) at 21:46, 1 May 2013 (→Appeal of community restriction: remove IP for privacy.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "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.

      Shortcuts

      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

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Adamantine123_from_caste_topics

      (Initiated 5 days ago on 10 October 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

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

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

      Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

      (Initiated 60 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:RfC re including chart quantifying increase in election denial rhetoric

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 17 September 2024) A RFC on a WP:BLP that is winding down and could use a close from an experienced closer. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
      CfD 0 0 0 0 0
      TfD 0 0 0 4 4
      MfD 0 0 5 1 6
      FfD 0 1 0 3 4
      RfD 0 0 0 36 36
      AfD 0 0 0 3 3

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

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

      (Initiated 141 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)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

      (Initiated 60 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Czech_Republic#Requested_move_1_October_2024

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 1 October 2024) RM #8, 257 comments, 54 people in discussion. Discussion has mostly died down, and all arguments have probably been stated at least once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24#Category:American_women_novelists

      I think someone uninvolved needs to step in and close this. It is pretty obvious that this is probably closing as "no consensus", and it cannot be that such an important thing would default to "keep". There obviously needs to be a larger discussion on how to categorize people. There are clear advantages to "gendering" these articles, I won't deny that--there are reasons pertaining to doing research on gender, for instance, as in someone might want to know what women writers were active (but really, those should intersect with geography and gender, for instance). "Woman writers from the middle ages", for instance, or "Women writers from Japan" can be very useful. But to divide the larger, parent category in this way has raised a predictable shit storm (well, predictable to anyone with some common sense) that is dividing the community. I read in the CfD that, basically, the NYT and other media outlets and all the readers who go to Wikipedia from there, are dumb for not understanding the category system. Maybe, but it's hardly our mission to be snooty here. There is a clear appearance, found all over the internet, that this is an essentialist move that ghettoizes women writers, and one can't simply shrug off the arguments proposed there. And categorizing by gender (they do this in the German wiki, uselessly) begs the question of what to do if someone doesn't want to be gendered (in the way someone might not want to be categorized as Jewish or Catholic), or if someone is transgendered, or whatever--or we just don't know. Where do we put the Pearl Poet? I'm willing to bet money that he was a boy, but this is not a betting game.

      In short, keeping the gendered categories is, at this moment, divisive and a lack of consensus should not default to keeping it that way. We need a larger discussion to determine how we're going to handle this, what the pros and cons are, what perceptions are, and whether it might not be smarter to allow double categorization and/or gendering only at the lower level categories. This CfD needs closing and the disruptive (good-faith, maybe, but nonetheless disruptive) categorization needs to be reverted. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've posted some relevant comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Not that that's where the discussion belongs, but meh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In a related discussion, Category:Male film directors now has two different CfD discussions on it; one that was opened a while ago, and the new one I assume created by the newspaper kerfuffle. I don't handle CfDs, and my own personal opinions on the matter preclude me from closing either one neutrally anyway, but I'm sure that having 2 CfDs isn't correce. Qwyrxian (talk)
      It's fine ... the older one (about a month old) is an actual delete and the more recent a general rename consistently discussion. NE Ent 21:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The irony... we should create a category for media reports that misunderstand wikipedia's category system, which of course would be a subcategory of media reports that misunderstand wikipedia. Digressing though, I reluctantly think Drmies is right, at least for the short term, but I don't understand why we're so passive in the face of these arguments when they have clear responses; the most obvious of which being 'quit painting all of wikipedia with one brush'... one or two editors is editorialized as "wikipedia", while it's is absurd that gets past editors, I suppose it's an editorial. (Note: I'm not passing judgment either way on the editors involved in this or any other dust up.) We really need to have a better education campaign for the media (or actually, it appears to me, authors, who occasionally bend the ear of a journalist). Shadowjams (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Short term, yes--that's what I was thinking of. This needs larger discussion, but not in a CfD on one (and then a lot more) individual categories. As for educating the media and the occasional involved party with access to such media, that's a tough nut to crack. I agree in part with Filipacchi's argument: at least the appearance of sexism is there (and is noted in many, many reliable sources, not just in op-ed pieces), though misunderstanding is part of that. At the same time I must object to the persistent gendering (in only two genders) that's part and parcel of these categorization efforts. What to many may seem natural is a. not so natural at all and b. outdated--the world don't work that way anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      So, basically, the discussion isn't going the way you like it, so you ask someone "uninvolved" to close it the way you would prefer instead. How is this an acceptable use of WP:AN and not an example of Wikipedia:OTHERPARENT? Fram (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Fram, what a shitty comment, and what a way to avoid the issue. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't avoid the issue, I have participated in the discussion and given my opinion there, where it belongs. You are, however, avoiding the issue of your forumshopping here. If you don't agree with my comment, you could try to argue why not, instead of simply dismissing it. What is wrong with my conclusion that you don't like the way consensus seems to be going, and are trying to get some admin to overrule consensus and implement your prefered version instead? Fram (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Appeal of community restriction

      Restriction was imposed following this discussion and, per the terms of the restriction, subsequently modified here. The restriction was imposed due to several ANI filings I made about the Article Rescue Squadron and my efforts to re-open an MfD on the project's rescue list. As it stands, the main reason for my actions was that I wanted to have an open discussion about the project and its activities with significant community input. I feel that was largely satisfied with the RfC on the group and a second MfD another editor opened up regarding the list late last year. Under no scenario can I envision myself returning to such noticeboard filings as I feel that, if the project should remain a concern, it will have to be handled in a more managed process such as another RfC or arbitration. Even there I see no present cause for such action as the group has seemed to decline in activity to the point of effectively being a non-issue. So the restriction at this point is moot in my opinion and I would rather not have the black mark.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support removing topic ban NE Ent 01:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since I weighed in at the original ANI thread, I'll respond here as well. I see no reason to avoid assuming the best or doubt the sincerity of TDA's request. This was over a year ago, and I am usually supportive removing "black marks" and reducing restrictions when an honest attempt is made to work within the rules we have here. I therefor support this removal, and note that the closing admin. in that determination is not currently active. I also note that TDA did approach that closing admin. as well. Also: "per NE Ent". — Ched :  ?  02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Whatever the merits of the original ban proposal it's unavoidable that it was a politically contentious issue, and it's been long enough, and the issues moot enough, that there's no need for any continued restriction. Shadowjams (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Mainly because I see no reason to maintain the ban at the present time. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose There have been plenty of folks topic banned on both sides, and things have calmed down appropriately. I see no reason to monkey with success, and a topic ban that a user does not intend to violate is no particular hindrance to their editing. Without a desire to reengage, there is no compelling reason to remove a working restriction. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Per (NOT Jclemens) & NE Ent, Ched. No need to keep restrictions that a user does not intend to violate - judge next on their own, not by default. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, there IS a good reason to keep them: users who say they will not go back to the same topic area have, eh, I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises, in my experience. I'll withdraw my oppose if he'll stipulate that I get to block him and/or discretionarily reinstate the topic ban, previous INVOLVEment or not, if he goes back to what I perceive to be battlefield involvement in the topic area. I have no particular reason to think that he will be one of the 50% who make campaign promises they never intend to keep, but if some teeth were put into those campaign promises, I'd be happy to accept them at face value. What says the appellant? Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        ".. I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises ..." .. and that is exactly the problem, Jclemens, and exactly why I have not a single bit of confidence in you anymore (I guess that got reflected in the last ArbCom elections), in ArbCom, and actually, in almost all of Wikipedia. Restrictions for the sake of restrictions, restrictions which are just way beyond reasonable, etc. etc., and make sure that they stay, and make sure that they get enforced. But I still hope that other editors have more faith in the editors that make this encyclopedia than in the ones that think that they need to police it (and seen the other !votes here .. I don't think that that hope is completely futile). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, I think Jclemens' approach is exactly the wrong one, and is diametrically opposed to the Wikipedia ethos. We should be aiming for minimum sanctions, maximum freedom, and maximum support for our content creators - not authoritarianism and high-security containment based on assuming the worst of people. (But I do have significantly more faith in the current ArbCom than I did in the previous one - I think the last election achieved an overall positive result) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Boing! said Zebedee, I have lost so much faith in ArbCom over the last couple of years that I can only hope that the 'new generation' will be able to restore some of my faith. As I said, I think my hope is not completely futile (I even saw positive changes in some of the old ArbCom members...). Anyways, lets examine restrictions for what they are supposed to do. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem isn't restrictions for restrictions' sake, it's that users who have actually gotten to the point of community or arbcom sanctions, as opposed to a spat with a single admin or a 3RR sanction, have already demonstrated inability to behave in a collegial manner. Thus, when lifting them, we're faced with the question of "does this user really get it now, or is he deluded and/or lying?" What so many of those of you who like to second-guess Wikipedia's pale attempts at governance ignore is that often, it is one of the latter issues. I won't list unrelated cases here, but anyone who doesn't understand the problem of recidivism hasn't been paying attention. Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        So your approach is to just assume "once bad, always bad"? I think that's an appalling attitude (and it's part of what got you kicked off ArbCom) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I closed the RfC on ARS last summer and at that point I wasn't certain that the topic ban was required. At the time I erred on the side of caution and left it in place. I'm happy that sufficient time has passed and attitudes have changes sufficiently that this topic ban primarily serves as a blot on TDA's record and I would support it being lifted. WormTT(talk) 07:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. The whole thing was some time ago and it's all settled now, and I see no need for any ongoing topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per Ched and others. I am not even sure this ban was really needed from the beginning. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support with the specific proviso that TDA will undertake no actions which could conceivably be viewed as "pointy" about the topic in future without incurring the possibility of renewed sanctions. Collect (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get the idea of not wanting to have a topic ban over one's head. But I also don't see any advantage to TDA getting involved in ARS issues. Eh, support with the same note as Collect. I think TDA is wise enough to stay away on their own. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I'm all about extending an olive branch to people who have seen the light, however if you get back into deliberately disrupting ARS, then expect the resumption of sanctions and more restrictive sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral Support I have no vested interest either way, but I have no problem with second chances. The twisted one formerly known as balloonman. 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

      Talk:Men's rights movement

      Need an uninvolved admin to assess whether article probation has been violated with the closure of a discussion, an incorrect assessment of consensus, and subsequent article edits--please see Talk:Men's_rights_movement#Removal_of_SPLC_section_and_material_in_the_lead. Since I spoke out in that discussion I consider myself a bit too involved, certainly as far as appearances are concerned. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Eek - that's a real minefield you have walked into. Can you summarize your involvement thus far, and give your personal assessment of the state of play? Manning (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba

      Main page: WP:ANI § Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba

      RB/Reviewer

      If someone could remove my rights I'd appreciate it. Thanks. gwickwiretalkediting 00:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Done. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is quite a big task. All templates need to be rewritten and pages marked as historic. The first would be to draw up a list of affected pages and templates. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Not a matter for this noticeboard. --Rschen7754 03:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      [2] Either we need more interested people to vote or someone should WP:SNOWBALL the delist process for this controversial image that is based on original research. 75.210.240.193 (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It didn't fail - the result was that there was no consensus to delist the image. This is a function of the fact that the FAC process requires at least 5 editors to participate before a consensus can be reached. By rule, a no consensus result defaults to Kept. Other processes do it differently, of course, but that seems to be the standard here. We have No Consensus results specifically so that an article, image, or whatever, is not continuously under threat of deletion or delisting. As for Snowball - no. If the issue were so obvious as that, enough editors would have agreed to the delist so as to make consensus clear. We don't speedy delist things merely because other editors did not agree with your position. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Only one editor voted. Voting should stay open until the minimum 5 votes are accrued. It is unclear how the image ever came to be featured. But there is no one who thinks that it should be featured. If it were put to a vote to be featured today, it would fail. 75.208.124.179 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      But turn that around, though - one editor voting should not have the ability to delist anything. The delisting process is set up specifically to require more input before delisting, just as the FAC process requires more than one or two editors to actually list something as featured content. So if there is not sufficient interest in delisting the image, then it's not delisted. I'm reasonably certain that no one here is going to overrule the result in that discussion. You might wish to discuss the matter at the FAC talk page (WT:FAC), but I imagine you'll get a similar result. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I wasn't disagreeing. I am saying that voting should remain open for a minimum of 10 days, 5 days after 5 votes are cast, or 1 day after the last vote is cast, whichever is later. Voting on this featured picture should be reopened until at least 5 clear votes are cast. 75.208.124.179 (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, something that closes as no-consensus can generally be immediately renominated or relisted, particularly in situations like this. Just renom it pbp 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Multiple-ID-abuser

      The person behind User:Ali15uk and User:Reddony is a sockmaster and vandalist creating new names and then illegally uploading copyrighted images. If someone can investigate this please.--39.41.191.51 (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:SPI Ansh666 07:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      In the news

      Hello,

      the item "Italian PM" that has been nominated for the "In the News" section of the main page, has already been tagged as ready to be posted for two days. Unfortunately, no admin has realised this request until now (probably because it is not close to the top of the candidates page). So, could you please? Thank you! --RJFF (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Help with user name

      Hi, I dont know if this is the right place to ask for this, by the way sorry if my english isn't perfect. I have accounts in Spanish Wikisource, Spanish Wikipedia and Commons since 2008, those accounts aren't unified (although they all are the same "User:Freddy eduardo") then I created this one here, but at the time when global accounts already existed, this has been very problematic for me, because every time I want to edit here I have to open a "New incognito window" because otherwise logging here logs me off of all the other projects (because this is account is global, the others are not) I thought I could ask for help with this someday but time just went off, now I saw a noticeboard on Meta saying that all accounts will be unified on 27 May, this will leave out any possibility to merge my other account with this one, so my question is: can someone rename my account here in English Wikipedia to "User:Freddy eduardo" so I can merge it with the other accounts before the deadline of May 27? I only use "User:DrkFrdric" here, so I don't care about edits in other projects with this account (maybe I have one or two who knows, probably did it mistakenly thinking I was in my other accounts). Can somebody please help me with this? It's really problematic to open new windows so I can just edit in multiple projects at the same time, I want this account in the English Wikipedia to be locally renamed to User:Freddy eduardo so I can merge it :( --DrkFrdric (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This isn't the right place; username changes are done at WP:CHU. Since your English isn't perfect, I've filed the request for you and linked to this comment, so you won't need to do anything. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC Close?

       Done - Manning (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm fishing for a friendly admin to close an RfC for me! NickCT (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Echo (Notifications) released

      Hey all :). Just to let you know that Notifications, or Echo, has now been released on the English-language Wikipedia. You should start seeing things now: let us know on the talkpage if you see any bugs or have any feedback! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Notifications?! this is where is starts... Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Seems like you need a cookie. I've given you one. :) Rd232 talk 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's quite easy to opt out. GiantSnowman 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      On a serious note: maybe there could be some documentation. A watchlist notice (mentioning the customisation options now in Prefs), and maybe an amendment to MediaWiki:Echo-none to link the word notifications to Wikipedia:Notifications, so that people clicking the new "0" aren't left bemused. Rd232 talk 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Or possibly a new, simple Help:Notifications, as Wikipedia:Notifications is quite ... developery projecty. Or Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ. Rd232 talk 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Never mind - I'm not getting to MediaWiki:Echo-none any more - zero messages instead gives the same Echo flyout (with links to the FAQ and preferences). Rd232 talk 10:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is a disaster! I did not realise the notification system involved doing away with the orange bar. New users have enough trouble noticing that, and will surely overlook a small red dot. Much more seriously, IP users do not get notifications, and no longer get the orange bar, so IP users now do not get told at all that they have a talk page message. The whole system of IP vandal-warning messages has become useless. We need the orange bar back NOW, at least for IPs. Please comment at the talkpage. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It seems to be an oversight, that will hopefully be rectified soon (not that I'm excusing it). I've done a bit of testing, and blocked IP addresses to get a link to their talk page in the default block notice they get when they try to edit. This will direct them, albeit belatedly, to the reasons why they've been blocked, and instructions for requesting unblocks. In the meantime, I suggest being lenient on first time blocked anon vandals, remembering that they probably haven't seen any warnings. An optimist on the run!   12:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I have been experimentng, too. Even if, as an IP, you suspect you may have a talk page message, it's not easy to find, because there is no "My talk" link. I had to type ~~~~ in the sandbox to find what IP I was, and then type "User talk:xx.xx.xx.xx" in the search box. JohnCD (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No more orange banner? ... cool. We kin haz Plausible deniability now. — Ched :  ?  12:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't realise the orange banner was gone for good; I don't mind notifications for reverts etc. but the banner for talk pages messages should be brought back for all. GiantSnowman 12:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really hope the orange banner comes back. Frequent users will probably manage fine without it, but noobs (not just IPs!) seriously need it, as does anybody who only edits occasionally. Please make the removal of the orange banner opt-in! I'm sure some of us, for instance Jimbo, would like to be rid of it. But Ched makes a good point about plausible deniability, though in a very naughty way. I don't want people I've warned to have plausible deniability, because I want to block the suckers! Block, block!! Wham, biff, urkkk!! [/me is led away shouting ecstatically.] Bishonen | talk 14:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
        • I'm already not noticing messages. Banner opt-in, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Banner opt-in"..? Not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not, Crisco. Do you want the banner to be default and the removal of the banner opt-in, like I do? Bishonen | talk 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
          • Or better yet, banner opt-out please, since IPs can't opt in or out of anything. I already missed some messages and didn't notice them until I checked my watchlist. Nyttend (talk)
      • (multiple ec) As an admin who regularly works in areas involving fringe medical notions and conspiracy theories, I regularly encounter new and/or infrequent and/or single-purpose editors who have a...very tight focus to their interests coupled to an...idiosyncratic worldview, and who often have trouble assimiliating basic concepts like 'edit warring is bad', indenting comments, signing comments, the existence of article talk pages, etc. Some can be slowly guided into being useful Wikipedia contributors, but I suspect that most wouldn't even be aware that they had a user talk page if it weren't for the big orange banner. Without that really clear signal, it may become literally impossible to communicate with some new editors, whether to help them acculturate or just to explain to them why they have been blocked. The banner needs to be the default behavior, because messages from other editors are very important things – particularly for new editors – to be aware of. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Ten, the implementation choice of removing the big orange bar was very ill-considered. Orange bar should be opt-out only, with that capability for registered users only. I would actually support adding a new technical capability for admins to leave "Acknowledgement required" messages - the editor would not be able to proceed with any editing capabilities without being shown the message and clicking on "I acknowledge receipt of this message", and with a user log record of having done so when acknowledged. Zad68 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The little red blob is far too discreet for any but registered, autoconfirmed accounts, preferably with opt-out for the orange bar. There will be a lot of bitten new users and blissfully unaware vandals and edit-warriors if they're expected to notice the little red number and figure out what it signifies. Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment; thanks for all the reasonable comments :). It's great to have constructive feedback! I've left an update here which hopefully helps clarify what we're doing around these problems - and I agree that they're problems. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cross-posted from (i.e. also spammed at) the notifications talk page: Hey, all, I've created a cookie-based user script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js to try and replicate some of the OBOD functionality. Obviously it's not as good as the real thing, but it's not totally awful. Let me know if there are any bugs y'all find. (Obviously, it requires cookies to be enabled in your browser.) Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Many thanks. I want my Orange Bar... so I've installed this... and (thanks for the test!) it's working... Orange goodness...Begoon talk 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      NO FACEBOOK. I WANT MY ORANGE BAR BACK. And why weren't we told about this? PumpkinSky talk 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. With the orange bar, we knew there was a new user talk-page post, and a diff was offered to the last change, so we could get there with one click. Now, we see the little number has changed, but don't know why. One click tells us it's the user talk page. A second click takes us to the page. We then have to scroll down to find the new post or posts. I'm now checking my user talk-page history to make sure I haven't missed one. It would be great to have the orange bar back. I think the bar is probably better for new users too to make sure they see people are trying to contact them. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Edit-warring noticeboard backlog

      There is a backlog at the Edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've tackled a few of the oldest cases, but any additional administrative input would be helpful as a backlog remains. MastCell Talk 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Prince of Peas

      Prince of Peas (talk · contribs) 's whole contribution history is copy-and-pasting things out of the Article Incubator into mainspace. Most of those articles have been articles previously deleted via AfD. The incubator versions are substantially the same as the deleted versions, since they were moved into the incubator at the time of deletion. The issues brought up at deletion were not addressed. For the ones that were not under deletion, the attribution is missing for the copying of material. He persisted in this course of action after being warned by the copy-checking-bot. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This probably should have been posted at WP:ANI, not here. Regardless, I've dealt with the situation for now — I've left him a message saying that they don't belong in mainspace, reminding him that he's committing copyright infringement with his copy/paste moves, pointing him to Help:Move, and clarifying that he'll be blocked if he continue. Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      User:LuckyLouie appears to use phrases like "Copyedit, according to what source actually says" when removing actual sourced content and placing a biased spin

      I have noticed this on two occasions, on pages Thought insertion and Psychotronics. The oddity of using this phrase while at the same time improperly modifying well sourced content to "spin it" stands out. The two occasions I have noticed are here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thought_identification&diff=553056368&oldid=553027521

      and

      http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966766&oldid=552966437 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychotronics&diff=552966437&oldid=552964397

      All of these revisions did actually reflect "what the source actually says" prior to his edit, which spun them to be biased and to reflect his own opinion.

      I am not sure if there is a larger pattern here, but these three instances are obvious cases of the edit description being deceptive. I imagine it is part of a larger pattern of biased editing; regardless the deceptive tagging is troubling to me.

      Damonthesis (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is an incident, which belongs at WP:ANI. Please bring it up as part of the long discussion about your actions that's already happening on that page. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=553106229"