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

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

"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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 67 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first. If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 53 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 45 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 41 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

(Initiated 35 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	12	15	27
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	8	37	45
AfD	0	0	0	20	20

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 61 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Bibliomaniac15. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 59 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Pppery. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 28 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 16 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects#Add Wikifunctions or not?

(Initiated 275 days ago on 20 August 2023) Could an uninvolved admin please determine whether there is a consensus to add Wikifunctions to the Main Page? Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 118 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charcoal feather (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 112 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 99 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 35 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 23 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. @Chidgk1: I have added my closing remarks at the talk page and archived the discussion. Hope it seems fair to everyone. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1#Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Daniel. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 19 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 18 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 12 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024#New article

(Initiated 10 days ago on 11 May 2024) Split proposal for a new article surrounding an issue under arbitration sanctions - the conflict in the Middle East. Any involved editor closing it will be seen as taking sides, as such an uninvolved third-party admin is needed to close the requested split to prevent tensions on the talk page rising. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

VisualEditor A/B test back on

Hey all. We're looking to start the A/B test in a couple of hours. My sincere apologies for the short notice :/. If you notice any new bugs, or any substantial problems, please bring them to us as soon as possible so we can resolve them; we'll be monitoring the situation closely and will be able (and willing!) to disable it or put the test off if there's something big that needs resolving. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This still seems dangerously premature, because VE is still making unasked-for format-changing edits in parts of the article away from where it has been asked to edit. I have this minute repeated this test where I changed only one word, but VE altered the formatting higher up, and there have been numerous other recent reports like:

• WP:VisualEditor/Feedback#VE makes changes to formatting on lines that are not being directly edited
• WP:VisualEditor/Feedback#Unwanted change to named ref
• WP:VisualEditor/Feedback#Makes extra changes

If we are throwing it open to newbies who will not check for unwanted side-effects, there seems a substantial risk of articles being damaged. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty disingenuous to apologize for the short notice when there was absolutely no reason to rush to deploy this test. What, exactly, are you apologizing for? It also seems pretty disingenuous to pretend as though you'll disable the test when a number of editors have repeatedly called the test premature and destructive. I guess it makes it okay if you start with "Hey all" and throw in an emoticon, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

John, MZ, I'm going to monitor Special:Contributions/newbies this week and try to review all edits with the VisualEditor tag, looking for breakage and abandoned messes. Also, just spoke to Philippe about this, and he assures me that if a significant amount of trouble comes down the chute, it will be shut off. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how me being sorry for the short notice for the test has anything to do with your feelings as to the test's necessity; I'm apologising that we've taken an action that has potential ramifications for the community without giving the community more of a heads-up. We're not pretending; we will disable it if it's screwy. If you've been paying attention, you'll note that this was initially scheduled for last week...but that we called it off because we thought that serious problems were a surefire thing. Can't ask for better evidence we'll shut things down than us actually shutting things down. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Explain to me, using smaller words, how it's possible to apologize for a completely voluntary action? Rather than giving short notice and apologizing, you could simply give sufficient notice and wait (there's no rush). Or better yet, not run a premature test at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

While I'm here, can you explain to the community your plan to disable the test? Do you have a maintenance script written to undo this user preference for every new user you've set VisualEditor on for? And what constitutes being "screwy"? Stripping HTML comments? Mangling references? Loading content from a completely different wiki? Spurious <nowiki> tags being inserted into the page? Go on, explain just how screwy VisualEditor needs to be before you'll consider disabling it.

Finally, can you explain why you feel it's appropriate for our newest editors, the ones who've been told for eleven years to use [[this]] to make a link and to use {{this}} to insert a template are the people who should be targeted for an opt-out experiment? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the whole point of "newest" imply they have no previous experience editing? I know that in reality it means "just registered an account" and hasn't edited yet, but theoretically they wouldn't have previous knowledge of {{template}} and [[link]].. The whole reason they are targeting new users (from my understanding) is they're the ones who don't know the { } [ ] < > type coding stuff, and so they're the ones who need a visual editor the most. Charmlet (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No. They have previous knowledge having used the default wikitext editor. When they try to use regular wikimarkup in their edits, VisualEditor mangles their inputs. It remains completely unclear why new users are being targeted. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Er, you're saying that completely newly registered accounts who've (unless as an IP) never used the Wikipedia editing box have knowledge using Wikimarkup? Remember that this only targets newly registered accounts, not accounts that've already made edits. Charmlet (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I spent a good portion of yesterday looking at every VisualEditor edit. Please do your homework before questioning whether I know what I'm talking about. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not to be a hard ass or anything; but if duplicate small and big formatting issues are piled up in any article like that, it probably is a really rare case. Can it be addressed; certainly; but at this stage it seems to be a bit harsh to consider duplicate small and big templates as a valid reason to stop testing. Why not just parse out these pages and watch them for the time being? I'm certain only a few hundred cases would exist at most; and many are probably broken in some other fashion. If you want, I can take a crack at it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Less than 500 cases combined in article space it seems. It is at User:ChrisGualtieri/ListforVE. Probably not all exhaustive, but the big big issue is one that is probably unnecessary. Outside of article space the count was much higher... a lot of old talk page archives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The "big big" issue is not important in itself, but as an example of VE making unexpected changes away from the area being edited, although the User guide says that "In general" it should never do that. When I read that the A/B test was on again, I hoped that meant the problem had been fixed, and repeated that quick demonstration test from a few days ago, to discover that it had not. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the issue isn't important by itself; but I believe that some extensive testing was used prior to the rollout, and this rare example - which should almost universally go to single small/big templates, is not a high priority fix. I don't expect perfection with it, but if this is the only example seen thus far, that's not the worse-case scenario. Though I do agree with your assessment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• The big-big issue is certainly not a high-priority one, but it is far from "the only example seen thus far"; it is only a trivial demonstration of the serious issue, which is that VE still makes unexpected changes in parts of the page it was not asked to edit. I'm sure there was extensive testing, but the product is very far from problem-free - see the Bugzilla list and the 24 new reports in the last 24 hours at WP:VisualEditor/Feedback. Problems are still being found which seem quite elementary, like loss of all formatting on copy-paste. JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that we have User:Charmlet/VE-notice and User:Charmlet/VE-user for when the need to revert buggy VisualEditor edits arises. MER-C 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Someone can feel free to move them to Template: something if you'd like, I couldn't come up with a good name. Charmlet (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those, Charmlet. Just used one. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes that looks good - I tried VE on Hyderabad and it mangled up the code in images with alt text - we cleaned it up but it took some time....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried it implementing peer review comments at Thaddeus Stevens and wound up having to redo everything because it messed up the formatting. Didn't make my day.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely it says something when long-time users are having difficulty with VE (myself included) and it's being enabled for half of all new users... bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court decisions

Could someone semi-protect (or consider semi-protecting) Defense of Marriage Act, Hollingsworth v. Perry, and California Proposition 8? I'm already reverting too much and don't feel that the edits to the articles are egregious enough for me to say at this point that I can protect the articles on my own despite my involvement.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, things seems to have quieted down, at least for the moment, so semi-protection may be premature. Perhaps the best course of action would be just to keep an eye on the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Can people also watch Vance v. Ball State University, the recent harassment case? Bearian (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll watch these articles, and would be happy to consider semi-protecting them if things get worse. Feel free to drop me a line directly on my talkpage if you'd like me to review them again, as I may or may not be able to keep up on them in real time. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

There is a backlog at WP:RM that takes up nearly half the page and extends more than a month back. It's clear from the talk page that there are a few non-admins who are trying to help close and perform non-controversial moves that lead to redlinks, but administrative powers are needed to address the growing number of moves leading to bluelinks (moves over a redirect) that non-admins can't perform. Any help would be much appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

{{db-move}} can be used by non-admins. But I'm not sure why anyone would want to close those things, admin or not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Nathan. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I just non-admin closed a handful I found to be pretty obvious Calidum Sistere 04:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for your help too, Calidum. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please close debate

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

---

After over a month of debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates, my count of the responses is 8 keep, 8 remove and 1 in the middle. I am fairly certain this should be closed no consensus, but await an admin to put this 8 week debate to rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you sent out a batch of talk-page notifications on the 25th (including one to me, who had already commented), there have been some new opinions registered—one just a quarter of an hour ago. I'd give it a little more time, myself, but you may be right. (And I make the current count 9–11–1, for what that's worth.) Deor (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that since the RFC bot (talk · contribs) just closed the debate, I would call for closure here. I just got around to reading WP:POST and saw the discussion listed there last week. It will probably be listed there again this week. So I will give it another week. I may even see if there are other ways to broaden the responses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You might try WikiProject Biography, since the discusion deals specifically with the use of navboxes in biographical articles, and those particular articles are within the purview of the project's "Arts and entertainment" working group. Deor (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Account creator user right

Would an admin please action this RFC closure, the closer (User:Nathan Johnson) couldn't himself because he isn't an admin. A list of users who have the account creator right and are not active on the ACC tool can be found here. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why can't he close it?--v/r - TP 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

He has closed it, but he hasn't actioned that closure, as only admins can remove user rights. Nathan's closure means that the account creator user right will need to be removed from all the users on Callanecc's list. I'd do it myself, but it's late here now, and there are a lot of users on the list. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

But he can update the policy to reflect the RFC.--v/r - TP 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Callanecc: Can you cross reference that list with the Staff and Sysop lists and remove folks who would otherwise have the same rights from any alternate accounts they might have?--v/r - TP 16:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, how does your RFC deal with situations like this? He registers folks accounts in person and not on the ACC tool.--v/r - TP 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now gone down 5 on that list and everyone of them had a valid reason to have account creator: Staff working with students, course instructors, and a self-appointed volunteer at universities. So I think more thought needs to go into that list before anyone acts on your RFC.--v/r - TP 16:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm 1 for 12 now. I think serious attention needs to be given that list. It's clearly not as cut-and-dry as the list makes it out to be and the RFC appears to have been fault at the start having not taken into account administrator alternate accounts and course instructors/volunteers.--v/r - TP 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

For anyone else working this, I have to go to a meeting, I left off at Another Believer. Everyone above him needs the right still for ep or because it's an alt account of an administrator.--v/r - TP 16:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I was automagically notified of this discussion. Did I forget to do something? Or do something wrongly? Let me know. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@TParis / Callanecc - that list is automatically generated, it's not meant to be used to say "everyone here ought to have it removed". Besides, due to the toolserver being... well... the toolserver, I think it's gonna be running either 9 days or 7 hours behind real time due to replication lag. I'd advise not using it for authoritative information. [stwalkerster|talk] 22:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, but I have separate concerns about the RFC itself. I'm concerned that it didn't take into account EP and administrator alts.--v/r - TP 01:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussions in need of closure

• WP:NFCR#File:PBS idents
• WP:NFCR#File:Prince logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:Women's World Squash 2008.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Geelong2008Logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:AFCS-Uniform-HU2.png
• WP:NFCR#File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG
• WP:NFCR#Lots of images of sports uniforms
• WP:NFCR#File:2013 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Gnnsjb001.jpg
• WP:NFCR#Screenshots of websites
• WP:NFCR#excerpt from famous music review
• WP:NFCR#File:1930 Rover Light Six Sportsman Saloon by Weymann (Photo).jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:LibertyFlames.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Scrabble Showdown (title card).jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Windows 95
• WP:NFCR#File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)
• WP:NFCR#Illmatic and the Source excerpt image
• WP:NFCR#File:GG Allin sshot.jpg
• WP:NFCR#Video game images in Color Graphics Adapter
• WP:NFCR#File:BBC News titles.png
• WP:NFCR#Bradley Joseph
• WP:NFCR#File:Watson's avatar.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Logo WSA Wolrd Series.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Djarum Indonesia Super League.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Adaptations of Les Misérables
• WP:NFCR#File:OasisTowerRender.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Botola vf.PNG
• WP:NFCR#File:Atlantic Coast Conference logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:División de Honor.PNG
• WP:NFCR#File:Ivy League logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:LourdesGrayWolves.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Pac-12-Uniform-UA.png
• WP:NFCR#File:PaladinsLogo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:UFL-Uniform-LV.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Poster World Junior Squash 2012.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Logo World Squash Federation.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:NFL(Australia).png
• WP:NFCR#File:UFL-Uniform-OMA.png
• WP:NFCR#KOFY-TV
• WP:NFCR#File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG
• WP:NFCR#File:TheSprektors.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif
• WP:NFCR#Question
• WP:NFCR#File:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Server Core Notepad File Save Dialog.gif
• WP:NFCR#File:Osaka University logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:Frosty paws.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg
• WP:NFCR#Energy Tower (Midland, Texas)
• WP:NFCR#File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg
• WP:NFCR#Huge category
• WP:NFCR#File:NBL Logo 2009-2010.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Waterboard3-small.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Nighthawks.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:New York Rangers.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:Unknownpleasures.jpg

Thanks. Werieth (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Retrolord's user and talk pages

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

---

I am not in the slightest bit concerned about being one of the named users, but in deference to being possibly WP:INVOLVED I am making this request here. I am asking for the removal of the section at User:Retrolord#Royal Decrees and the bold face statement in caps at the top of User talk:Retrolord. This immature nonsense makes a mockery of Wikipedia for any one who happens on those pages. I'm not sure if this is covered by WP:POLEMIC or WP:Userpage or not, but I think it has to go if we are to maintain a serious profile for Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would know anything about serious. I've been told I'm a clown. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• I've removed them and left him a comment requesting he not restore them. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Is it this easy...

...to avoid accountability for your actions. I would be interested to hear opinions/comments on the following "hypothetical" example:

• a user has had more than one report filed at ANI, by different users, within two weeks
• the user was duly notified on his/her talk page for each report
• during the time each report was active, the user was editing daily on Wikipedia
• the user made no comment on any of the ANI reports
• the first report has already been archived
• the second report has concerns expressed by several users, but no response from the individual in question, after more than five days
• failure to engage in a discussion at ANI is, in this example, an extension of some of the other disruptive behaviors which generated the reports in the first place

Is it really that simple? Can someone engage in behavior which is of concern to other editors on Wikipedia, and then repeatedly choose to ignore ANI discussions without consequence? Disclosure: within the context of the hypothetical, I have neither reported the user to ANI nor am I the user being reported. Taroaldo ✉ 01:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't the right place for a question like this, But I'm at a loss as to where the right place would be, maybe the village pump?. However, I'll nibble. The answer would be no. Persistent non-response to an editor's complaint is not acceptable. Ok, if in the first instance of being reported to ANI, they don't show up but cease the behaviour that they were reported for then there is no issue. If the editor behaviour is raised at ANI again but by numerous editors then there is a case for a preventative block, pending admin investigation. This has happened before and will no doubt happen more in the future. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out a better place to ask this question than here. It isn't really a hypothetical, but if I start citing specifics then there will be a third discussion open, which wouldn't be productive. My main concern is that there doesn't seem to be a practical process in place to deal with this type of situation. Neither of the two reports I cited received any administrator comment — perhaps everyone was waiting for a response from the user. If a user is uncivil/disruptive in their interactions with other editors sufficient to get an ANI report every few weeks but is not so blatant as to attract immediate administrator intervention (i.e. outside of ANI), then that user can seemingly ignore the ANI discussions without consequence (so far as I have observed). Failure to manage this effectively will only serve to frustrate productive editors who may end up leaving the project as many have done before them. Taroaldo ✉ 10:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin help required

I'm not sure if I've posted this in the right place (probably not), but I was hoping for some admin assistance please on a technical issue that has been raised at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013#Spelling in quotations. All the Eurovision articles are written using British English, and we currently have implemented the template {{British English}} on all of the article talk pages. However, we have since found out that we may also use {{British English|form=editnotice}} on the article's edit notices - but we've hit a technical glitch; to achieve this action requires an administrator. Is there anyone with a spare moment or two that would be willing to assist us with this task? Thank you very much in advance, as this help is much appreciated. Wesley ☮ Mouse 06:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice please.

I left an enquiry here with an administrator. As can be seen, the administrator concerned, User:Georgewilliamherbert, undertook to review the issue on May 23rd. But since then I have heard nothing from him, although (as can be seen) I have made a couple of enquiries on his talk page. Can someone advise me please on procedure in this situation? I still wish my enquiry to be addressed, as the editor who is its subject is still (in my opinion) stirring up related problems elsewhere. Should I, for example, place the situation on AN/I?Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, once you brought it here, you'll need to advise both Andy and George ... because posting it here is the equivalent to ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

New proposal for admins

Many recent incidents, not just the two concerning me vis a vis Jmh649 and Bwilkins (they have been notified), have me quite concerned about standards of admin behavior. Those two admin both blocked me within the last two weeks and the blocks were unanimously overturned. Why do they feel it's okay to make such blocks?--because they know nothing will happen to them. The stigma of blocks cannot be erased. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bwilkins_block_of_PumpkinSky. How Bwilkins can think he was doing me a favor when he edit warred, protected the same page, and then blocked me is mind boggling. Look at comments by others in the thread. Essentially they say he violated every possible rule in this situation. And what are the repurcussions to me? NOTHING. Such incidents are getting more and more common. I'll let the other victims speak for themselves.

And don't tell me you know how us non admins feel unless you have been on the receiving end of such actions. And don't tell me admins are just users with some bits--we all now that's hogwash and there are special rules for admins. And people wonder why participation in wiki has been nosediving for 6 years.

So, to raise the standards of behavior of admins and make them think before they act, I have a new proposal:

• "Any admin who blocks someone and said block is overturned as being unwarranted shall be blocked themselves for the same amount of time."

It's high time admins got a taste of their own medicine around here and acted like admins should be acting. PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would oppose that because it would be trivial for me to game that on IRC to get any admin blocked, and I'm sure it would be just as easy for anyone else to game. This is the wrong solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose That looks to me like the very definition of a punitive block. Aside from giving the admin "a taste of their own medicine", what possible benefit is derived for Wikipedia from this proposal? Not to mention the obvious fact that this would be hugely open to abuse. I realise that you're pissed off, PumpkinSky, but this strikes me as an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction to your recent block; it's contrary to the blocking policy and contrary to basic common sense. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Well, I know that I always think before I act. My post on ANI this morning, significantly after the well was poisoned by overnight discussion, shows that my thought processes were extremely clear and correct - and although some apologies for the thoroughly non-AGF responses by my fellow-editors should be forthcoming, they never will - and that's fine with me. There's no consensus that the block was unwarranted, and penalizing anyone for doing what they believe is protecting the project will lead to a) fewer admins, b) fewer admins willing to make difficult blocks (which this one was not, by the way), and therefore c) more damage to the project in the long run. Making ridiculous proposals when a) you're already pissed about ArbComm and b) your pride is hurt really does not help the project - this "proposal" was poorly thought out and was more reactionary than anything (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)