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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 29 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 142 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 93 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 61 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 60 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 46 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 38 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 37 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 37 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)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 30 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 20 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Define the threshold in national polls to include candidates in the infobox - new proposal

(Initiated 0 days' time on 15 May 2024) An RfC on exactly the same matter was literally closed a few days ago. Prcc27 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	13	32
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	22	48	70
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 55 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 53 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 21 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 112 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)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 106 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:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 99 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 92 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 29 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 17 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)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 13 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 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)

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)

• Just any FYI there are 75 move discussions that are baa logged currently. Calidum Sistere 12:16, 28 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)

• Bump Werieth (talk) 12:55, 28 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)

If there is, in fact, an actual issue with their editing, and there is consensus that there needs to be a block, topic-ban, etc. in response to it, then their lack of comment in the AN/I discussion has no bearing on things. They, presumably, read the notice, and chose not to comment in their defense (or otherwise...), then whatever remedy needs to be applied is applied regardless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Taroaldo - It's impossible to comment without knowing the context of what drove you to this question. All we have is your perception. I thought I knew what you were talking about until you said there had been no admin comments and now I'm at a loss. I'll only say this: some ANI reports are frivilous and others arn't structured in a way that makes sense and a third group are disputes that admin's won't touch with a remote controlled robot and a 20 ft pole.--v/r - TP 01:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• The question is meant to be general but it was prompted by a real situation which still has one active report. I didn't feel it would be appropriate to provide diffs for illustrative purposes at AN while a report is still open at ANI. I have provided links on your talk page so you can see the full context. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• The problem, Taroaldo, is that we can't make any definitive statements when you speak in pointed vagueries. Your initial post amounts to "Can we all agree that evil is bad?" If everyone agrees, so what? Unless we know exactly what situation you are talking about, we can't make any statements about whether or not the situation is or is not being dealt with properly. We have no way to even know if your characterization of the situation is accurate unless we can view the entirety of the situation with our own eyes and arrive at our own conclusions. --Jayron32 04:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• If the question cannot be answered without the example on which it was based, then here is the example: Report 1 was archived without result and Report 2 was de-archived on June 27. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 04:58, 29 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)

OK, apologies for not appreciating the etiquette, I have never listed anything here myself before. I will therefore shortly list the whole shebang properly on ANI and advise both formally.--Smerus (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Smerus (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

New proposal for admins

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

---

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)

You introduced the term "poisoned" into this discussion. I don't support the proposal because I think we need fewer blocks, not more, but your reaction seems to invite something like this. Like many others, I don't share your belief that your block protected the project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• So of course an admin who removes his own bad block before he can be hauled off to ANI or ArbCom, while recording a false unblock notice that remains on the editor's record, would be exempt because his block wasn't technically overturned .... bzzzzzzzt. A good strategy, and one that can be gamed with your suggestion. It's the internet; get over it already (and I disagree with the way you have framed the Bwilkins' block anyway). You got an unblock message in your log from someone uninvolved; quit whining already, especially when you sit by silently when what you perceive as a bad block happens to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, this is not the place to make a proposal of this nature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the problem of WP:INVOLVED admins is being too quickly brushed aside on these boards, but the solution proposed by Pumpkin (tit-for-tat bad blocks) is silly. Arbcom once proposed a so-called administrative supervision (of admins), but I see no evidence it was ever used. There seems to be no practical, intermediate solution between doing nothing and desysopping by Arbcom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) x 2 This is the third time that this has happened to PumpkinSky. Editors will remember the notorious block of PumpkinSky by Moni3, two hours after she called him an "idiot" and a "dingus" (similar to conduct for which Hawkeye7 was desysopped). While I'm not certain that blocking in response is the answer, I think there is becoming an issue here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• PumpkinSky is upset, I get that and I understand it. If I am to be fair, I have to say that what I saw was a block that was done in good faith, but with too low a threshold. Bad cases make for bad law, etc. etc. I recommend closing this at the earliest reasonable time. What we need is admin to address their fellow admin who "mess up" and this has been happening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's happening too much. You know what we went through yesterday to retain an editor, who while he may have been justly blocked, blew up as the result of gross admin baiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And I've injected myself in every one of these situations and others you may not be aware of, and in ways that aren't always published online. They aren't being ignored. That doesn't mean we can paint every situation with the same brush. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bwilkins' response shows he has zero understanding of the error of his ways. This proves that there are serious issues with today's admins corps. This may not be the best idea, but something needs to be done. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Facepalm, and strong oppose One of the most POINTy proposals in the history of Wikipedia, and an absolutely crazy one at that. Besides, given the way it is worded, this scenario could easily arise: Admin X blocks a sockmaster indefinitely. Said sockmaster stops socking, accepts the standard offer 6 months later, and is unblocked. Admin X, who was acting completely within policy, is now blocked indefinitely by Admin Y. Admin Z realizes this is stupid, and unblocks Admin X, and then has to block Admin Y in the process. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• What a complete waste of time this discussion is. Admins, Checkusers (and Arbs too for that matter) have been ignoring all rules and hindering ordinary writing editors for as long as Wikipedia has been invented. Nothing is going to change because most of those who put themselves up for these lofty positions are little more than tin gods with a frustrated lust for power in real life, Wikipedia provides them with the powers and platforms which real life so very wisely denies them. Only Arbs and Admins can change this situation, and they are not going to admit their all too apparent inadequacies by changing anything. Accept that, and Wikipedia becomes a lot easier.  Giano  12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost totally agree Giano, but felt compelled to bring this up, maybe just one admin will change for the better, yes that's a naive thought but eh. PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If you think anything that happens on Wikipedia is going to change the behavior of any "lusting for power in real life" admin, playing out their miserable frustrations by pounding on a keyboard, and then polishing their new brass buckles for their buddies after a high profile block, then you have failed to understand Giano's message. By the way, have you read WP:FLEAS lately? Or perhaps your own posts about "Karma" coming back 'round at 'ya? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Should Admin be blocked if they continually make bad blocks? Sure. But the wording of this proposal is ludicrous. Why would they be penalized the exact amount they were blocking someone else for? That could potentially be very disproportionate to the bad block they have done. I'm sorry if you were wrongfully blocked (I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of your situation), but you need to cool off and think this out a little further. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

[ec](Forgive me I already had this typed out before it was closed, and I think it is relevant) Pumpkin Sky, a few months back, an IP was in dispute with BWilkins regarding his treatment of IPs and was dragging BWilkins to the dramaboards 2-3 times a day for a few days. I suggested to that IP that if they were to open and RFC/U on BWilkins that I would contribute my unpleasant experience with BWilkins. This would show a pattern, and I believe a few other instances would be brought up by other users, too. This thread will not result in anything, so as I suggested to the IP back then, please start an RFC/U if this issue continues to bother you enough, and I will throw in my 2 cents there. Rgrds. --64.85.217.10 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Infobox World Heritage Site TfD tag

An admin is needed, please, to add a TfD tag to the protected {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}; please see details at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Salix (talk): 13:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on editing other user's article talk page comments with Flow

Wikipedia:Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Flow#Request for Comment on editing other user's comments with Flow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPP

There's a sizeable backlog at WP:RFPP. I'm going to start wading through the requests now, however if a couple other admins would like to pop by as well that would be über-helpful. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting talk at talk pages, I need protection against WP:Harass

Hi, I want to ask if the deletion [1] of my talk at this talkpage [2] is allowed? Because I was pointing out to something that seems to happen a lot, I noticed WP:Canvas.

Some months ago I had a discussion with Alexikoua on the [3] and there after some day Athenean became involved and supported him[4], ultimately I was blocked by an admin because they accused me of non neutral(!) editing.

Yesterday I was randomly reading the talkpage of Talk:Janina Vilayet when I noticed that there had been a discussion in 2011 and exactly the same users were supporting each other against another user. I do not know if this happened on other talkpages, probably it did. But these two users are not unrelated to each other, it seems they work together to influence discussions. So when I noticed this at that talkpage I wrote this as response [5] and immediately (because they control my edits)Athenean deleted my content, while Alexikoua threatened me with block [6]

I also need help because Alexikoua is constantly WP:HARASS me, he is watching my edits and complaining to other users without notifying me. [7] [8], [9]. They threaten me on my talkpage with blocking, I tried to talk [10] with them but they seem to have a very personal dislike since several months. The reason is because I think I created one article (based on reliable sources but which I never could finish due to their opposition) Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres A Greek army massacre of Turks, but on the other hand Alexikoua himself is an active creator/contributor to (Turks massacring Greeks articles).[11][12] [13]. Athenean accuses me that I have an axe to grind with Greek people because I created that massacre. [14].

Thank you. DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait. You drop in on a two-years-old talkpage discussion you never had anything to do with, add a negative comment about two other contributors to it for no other reason than that they have been in a conflict with you on an entirely different article, and then you complain that they are harassing you? This calls for a boomerang. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, there isn't any trace of wp:harass. The only case in which we can consider something as such is this one [[15]] (sarcastic comments targetting specific users) and no wonder such a unacceptable comment was quickly removed per wp:talk. Alexikoua (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, it was appropriate to remove your comment. Talk pages are only for discussing how to improve the associated article. Your comment did not discuss the article atall and was properly removed. You were not threatened with a block, you were told if you continue you may be blocked for disruptive editing. GB fan 10:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If Wp:canvass and WP:Harass is allowed I rest my case. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing and harassment are not allowed. You going to a conversation you were not involved in and making a comment such as the one you made is harassment and you should stop. As far as canvassing, I do not see where anyone has recruited other editors that are not involved in a conversation to join a conversation. GB fan 11:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

So, let's address your questions 1 by 1:

1. Was the deletion of your talkpage comment allowed? YES - it was unrelated to improving the article at hand, and was also inappropriate in tone and substance
2. Are you being harassed? No - it does not appear that anyone is specifically following your edits and trying to force you off the project

Here's a couple of extra ideas for you:

1. Do not accuse others of nationalistic editing without clear proof - you claim they dislike you because of an article you were involved in ... holding old grudges would be childish and unproductive
2. Before accusing of WP:CANVASS and WP:HARASS, you should actually read them in their entirety in order to actually understand them, not just bits and pieces of them

(✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

After only 1 day, both Athenean and Alexikoua find out my edit on that talkpage, if they were not controlling all my edits all the time, how could they both ever find out my writing on a forgotten talkpage so quickly ? I gave the links to their accusations, I suspected them of canvass, I should not write that on the talkpage but I did that to point out to admins so they could see their joint actions to influence discussions, but as I see nobody is interested in this. Alexikoua is busy trying to block me by influencing other users I gave the links. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

But I know I am guilty, and I am sorry to have pointed out their wp:canvass. So please block me very quickly for indefinite. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)