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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
4. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 53#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy? (which was archived but then restored to the main Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page in wait for a proper closure)
5. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover

The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pst to admins looking for an easy close – #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed, for closing Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover. The other discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Still no closure? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Closed number 2 for you guys. -- DQ (t) (e) 18:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, DQ! Cunard (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Block review

New admin here with a question about a block I just made on Atterion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Atterion, apparently has a problem with the content of Green Leaves, and, allegedly, a COI with respect to the property (I don't know what prompted that allegation, merely that it has been made). In any event, after some edit warring on the article, Atterion filed an Afd on the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Leaves). Well, that's alright (unless the COI is demonstrable, then it's possible a bad faith nomination), but what brings me here is that soon thereafter, Atterion created 2 sock puppets to also vote in the AfD. After a Checkuser confirmed all three are the same person (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atterion), User:DeltaQuad blocked the two puppets indefinitely. DeltaQuad, though, didn't block the socks. After User:Sitush raised the issue of the AfD on my talk page, and I investigated, it seemed to me that Atterion needed to be blocked as well for intentionally disrupting the AfD process by creating the appearance of additional support for xyr position. As such, I blocked Atterion for 1 week (i.e., to run until after the AfD is complete). However, I have never enacted a block of this type (i.e., one for intentional disruption of WP processes) before, so I've brought the issue here for review. Was the block of the master wrong? I mean, is there any reason to believe that a reasonable person would actually think it's okay to create fake identities to influence the outcome of a deletion discussion? Or was the block too lenient? Input requested, por favor. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Small update: The COI admission is fairly minor; on User Talk:Sadads#Moving pages, Atterion says, "I know because I'm a descendant of that house (hard to believe, I know!)" That might explain the enthusiasm, but probably ends up not having much bearing on the immediate issue of socking. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to expand on Qwyrxian's last, Atterion has at some point said that they return to the house each year to conduct tours etc. I haven't yet found that diff, but it is definitely there somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's a good block. The CU came back as confirmed, so it's fine. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, this was a good block. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Good block, covering the period by which they may be tempted to disrupt process so, on that basis, preventative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. Just figured it couldn't hurt to check in on my first case of the type. I'm still watching the AfD; hopefully there won't be any more disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's good practice for new (and established!) admins to ask for a second opinion here if they're unsure about their actions. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I just closed the AfD as speedy keep, on the basis of this discussion and the discussion at the AfD DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

With the AfD closed, the week's block is no longer preventative. An appropriate unblock request covering all the bases should be honored. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Image in today's ITN article

I uploaded these single frame images: File-1, File-2 & File-3 and later found that animated versions were available. I then uploaded these images: File-4, File-5 & File-6. As it can be seen both sets are exactly the same. The first set, when it was in my computer, wasn't animated. While the second set was animated when it was in my HDD. This notification: (1,642 × 1,534 pixels, file size: 9.25 MB, MIME type: image/gif, looped, 6 frames, 8.0s) can be seen on both the sets. Please rectify the second set of images as the article they are used is second in today's In The News. Thanks. Suraj T 04:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the current top story is Juno, and we have a picture of that spacecraft being launched, I think this is not necessary. I would rather see Juno left as the lead image. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have been mistaken. I wasn't asking for the image in the main page to be changed. My problem is that the second set of images (File-4, File-5 & File-6) aren't animating as they did in my computer. If it is not possible to get them to animate, then it would be best to delete the first set if images ((File-1, File-2 & File-3) as both sets are exactly the same now. Thanks. Suraj T 05:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, they animate fine for me...at least when viewed thus: [1]. RxS (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

But I dont see it animating in the article. Is this a problem on my side?? Suraj T 05:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it animated in the article either. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 14:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

With the current configuration of the image scaling engine MediaWiki uses, animated gifs are static if scaled - e.g. see User:Finlay McWalter/sandbox. If you want a smaller scale animated GIF, scale it externally with another program and upload that. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Closures requested for desysop-related RfCs

The parallel Requests for Comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy (which has four active sub-proposals) have both been open for 30 days now. Closings by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated, and since they are closely related, one closer for all of them would probably be best. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have offered my services in closing this [2]; as there might be potential controversy, I'm gonna hold for an hour or so before acting upon it. Just in-case people shout HELL NO. Best,  Chzz  ►  20:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've not disappeared, I may as well wait for 0:00 proper time (another 1¼ hours)  Chzz  ►  22:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... [3] [4]  Chzz  ►  23:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You're not a level 37 cabal member with at least three discussion closing shoulder tassels, and you don't have the secret headband of consensus detection. Think of the political ramifications of this! Wikipedia will collapse if adminship isn't seen as an upper caste with control over all important happenings! Sven Manguard Wha? 23:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the above post was entirely for humor, except for that last line, that's a barb at what is a real, existing, and problematic admin culture. A round of applause is needed for Chzz here.

Please see the discussion at WP:BN#Closing the desysop RFCs?. Chzz has withdrawn their closing of the second RfC, so that one still needs to be closed. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor Administrative Actions

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch, or don't. Either way, nothing here that isn't already there.

User:The ed17 Deleted this page without warning or consensus [5] User:Timotheus_Canens Open to recall WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Timeshift9 Closed in favour, erroneously claiming consensus User:GorillaWarfare Proposed WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Timeshift9 User:Spartaz Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_5#User:Timeshift9 Closed in favour, still no consensus for delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 August 2011 Given that this user page content is under discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch, what's the purpose of this post? I note that it makes no reference at all to the various dramas concerning this used page recently at WP:ANI and WP:DRV, and definitely doesn't note that the underlying 'poor administrative action' (closing the MfD for User:Timeshift9's user page) was strongly endorsed in a deletion review. I'd suggest that an uninvolved admin close this thread. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I would have expected better than trolling from you Avanu. This is one pissed off user's personal hate list. He "lost" a debate, and is taking it out on the people involved. Nothing to see here. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC) It is being posted per recommendation by an administrator. Simply closing it without any review, as Nick-D suggests would simply provide further evidence that posting things via 'official' channels is not helpful, and that a private list for evidence is the better approach. In additional personal attacks on me are not at all civil and I would suggest that you immediately retract that. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the admin who you think recommended that this be posted? (which I might be per this comment I made). If so, you've totally misunderstood my post: if you think that the issues warrant a complaint, do this properly rather than posting a vague (and inaccurate) shitlist someone else wrote and which is likely to be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you were not, but from what I am seeing there, your words there don't match your words here. I also kind of wish people would stop using the loaded term 'shitlist', since it conveys a pre-conceived opinion and is not in line with AGF. -- Avanu (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish editors would AGF and recognize that those who oppose shitlists are doing so for good reasons related to helping the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that 'shitlists' are bad, but when a significant number of people say 'this isn't a shitlist', maybe it is time to relax and just let it be. -- Avanu (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

AFD that needs closing

Resolved

 – --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This AFD ought to be speedily closed, since the article it refers to has been speedily deleted and is no longer there, yet the AFD is still open. Difluoroethene (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for community sanction against uploading images of Anders Behring Breivik from his manifesto

Hi there. There are numerous ongoing deletion discussions, both here and on Commons, regarding images of Anders Behring Breivik from his manifesto.

Without going into the details, each one has been deleted, and many have been re-uploaded, and then re-put up for deletion, and so on and so forth. We are now in the third round of re-uploading.

The whole thing is compounded by the fact that unlike most FfDs, where the only participants are people that spend time on FfD and know image policy, these ABB discussions are attracting not only Wikipedians who are rehasing arguments that have nothing to do with policy (a lot of ILIKEIT and IHATEIT), but it's attracting people from outside sites that are rehashing the same irrelivant arguements.

It's far past the "it's getting disruptive" stage, and is now in the "please make it stop" phase.

I am asking for a community sanction that essentially says "Any image from the Anders Behring Breivik manifesto is to be deleted per CSD G4 on sight, without further discussion. Repeatedly uploading the image will be seen as a blockable offense" (warning for first upload, block for subsequent uploads).

Maybe in six months we can all have a nice chat about this again, but right now it's just too much. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support wholeheartedly; I'm bored making the same arguments. They're not PD/CC - as detailed in Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_23#File:Anders_Behring_Breivik.jpg (no clear declaration, etc...) and, they fail NFC as living person, and various other reasons (some here).

They're bouncing back-and-forth between enwiki and Commons; there's been massive interest over the 2 weeks since the attacks to keep some-kind-of-image, and our sluggish bureaucracy has allowed that to continue. This suggestion might close the door.  Chzz  ►  23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Example of one chain: en.Wiki upload > Commons upload > en.Wiki reupload. There are similar chains in various stages for the aquatic scene, the police uniform scene, etc. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is just me musing aloud, but... on the face of it I tend to agree that the licensing terms on these images are largely unclear and confusing and we can't sensibly claim they are freely licensed at this point. So, yeh, I support Sven's suggestion. On the other hand he is alive (if detained) se we could possibly deal with the issue - is he able to receive mail in prison? If so, is anyone able to send him a letter which asks him to clarify the licensing in a way which meets ours (and commons) guidelines? Ideally this would resolve most of the issues relating to the images. I'd be happy to draft such a letter, but have no idea where to send it to, or how! :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Better idea; contact his lawyer - any idea who that is? --Errant ^(chat!) 00:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Appears to be Geir Lippestad. (source) —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • He... I'd not want to be the OTRS volunteer that got that ticket. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• The opening of the book 2083 where these images appear states, "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. In fact, I ask only one favour of you; I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know." I don't see what the copyright issue is or why people keep deleting these images. Shii (tock) 02:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's what I've been wondering: it's hard to make a clearer PD release. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • But a lot of the text was taken from copyrighted works, so that is why it was removed from the Commons. We are trying to sort it out on the Commons and having discussions at 2 or 3 places isn't going to work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for a SNOW close

It's been open less than 48 hours, but I think the consensus in this AFD is already pretty clear: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 NATO helicopter crash. The only reason I haven't performed a non-admin closure is that I've commented in it myself. Is there an admin willing to invoke WP:SNOW here? Robofish (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't close it, although I do agree it'll probably get kept. I did, however, stick a {{notavote}} on it, which I believe also qualifies as the near universal signal of widespread irregularities at an AfD. By the way, there are widespread irregularities at this AfD. I haven't checked the edits, but I have a suspicion that someone has been refactoring comments. How else would we get a "Keep: Not news" argument. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That edit was not refactored. Here is the diff --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's an odd one. Either way, there are a good number of unsigned votes and a much higher than normal participation level from IPs. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping

As an FYI, I've initiated a discussion concerning emergency desysopping at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Emergency desysopping (v3). –xeno^talk 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Technical restrictions on deletion

I believe that there is a maximum number of revisions that a page can have and be deleted; that if a page has more than a certain number of revisions, deletion is not technically possible. Can someone confirm this?

Thanks in advance, —WFC— TFL notices 04:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the upper limit for deletion is set by the devs to be 5000 edits; though I think that in special cases the devs may be able to delete pages above this limit. It is highly unlikely that a page with over 5000 edits would later be deemed to be a non-notable topic or otherwise need to be deleted. It can be done, IIRC, but not by administrators using the "delete" function. I can't find the "5000 edit" limit enshrined in policy, but it is mentioned in passing at Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page and Wikipedia:Village stocks. --Jayron32 05:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it can be done by Stewards, who have 'bigdelete'. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think what happened was that compromised sysops kept deleting pages such as Main Page and Canada with several thousand revisions, and deleting and undeleting such pages put a huge strain on the server, so the developers made the change. --Rschen7754 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, User:Maxim is not, or has not ever been, compromised. And FWIW, Canada should've been deleted a long time ago :) –MuZemike 06:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's it, blame Canada... Guy (Help!) 08:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is 5000 edits, and you can easily test this for yourself (at least as an admin) by clicking "delete" on this page: it will fail. (And you'd have to confirm it anyway). Now that we have revision deletion, it is no longer necessary to delete these huge pages. —Kusma (t·c) 09:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, it was a comment like that the caused one of the big pages to be deleted in the first place, think it was either the main page or the sandbox. "go ahead and click delete, it won't go through"--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC threat

I posted the following on Worm's talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC threat

Worm, you have threatened to drag me through an RfC.

Let me give you advance notice that I shall certainly ignore such a proceeding unless you get the approval of a serious administrator.

On the mathematics project, Charles Matthews, EdJohnston, Geometry Guy, Carl (CBM), CRGreathouse are administrators you might consider. EdJohnston is also on the statistics project. CRGreathouse is also on the economics project. You may also ask any member of ArbCom or any active clerk. This is not an exhaustive list. I have great respect for GWH, but given his positioning on civility, I think that he would be an excellent second "wise man" certifying an RfC worth my time.

This advance notice is to spare us both a waste of time like the ANI, where nearly only the only persons present were already involved.

I remind you of the following policies, which are quoted:

• The following is NOT permitted:
  • Personal attacks.
  • RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary - note that repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process.

In particular, I have viewed the ANI proceedings as part of a campaign of harassment by Demiurge1000, which you in good faith became enmeshed. I have spent a lot of time responding to criticisms in the ANI, and under no conditions am I willing to spend time on an RfC in the next two months. I have discharged my obligations to the community by responding to voluminous criticisms by Du1000's summoned clique, in great detail, and I am under no obligation to respond again in the near future.

In particular, you should avoid even the appearance of having your RfC "harass or subdue" me, after your having prolonged and expanded an ANI brought by TFD.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, *shrug*. There's no requirement for anyone to engage in an RfC; it just makes you look like an ass if the rest of the community or our insect overlords take an interest. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  Worm and I discussed an informal arbitration on his talk page. He wants to do something on wiki, which I would agree to only with a person in whom I have confidence.

  It is hard to see any good coming out of these past drama shows, which seem to be a favored principal activity of those who do not contribute to content. Since Worm, Demiurge1000, and Strange Passerby haven't contributed to pages of any interest to me, and don't discuss the content of the pages in dispute, I probably should not have wasted my time responding to them.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sun-free photovoltaics.jpg

I uploaded the image File:Sun-free photovoltaics.jpg which got speedy deleted almost instantly, inspite of me specifically mentioning the licensing information. I asked the deleting administrator here, but he seems to have gone offline. Hence I am posting here. Thanks. Suraj T 12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Answered on my user talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)