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 28 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)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 141 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 91 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 59 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 59 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)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 45 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 45 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 37 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 36 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 35 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 28 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 19 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	14	33
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	24	46	70
AfD	0	0	0	11	11

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

(Initiated 54 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 53 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 51 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 33 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 129 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 129 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 110 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 104 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 98 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 91 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 27 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 16 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 11 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 10 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)

Crimea

There is a present move request at the Crimea article, which would move that to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the former Ukrainian administrative unit, whereas Republic of Crimea would deal with the present unrecognised Russian territory. This has seen a significant amount, near unanimous support for this move, though not for a secondary proposed move regarding a different article. Having that article, with deals with only the Autonomous Republic, being titled "Crimea" is causing editing problems, as people are confused as to which Crimea it refers to. I suggest an administrator look into the move request, and perhaps consider moving Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea early, so as to prevent these issues. RGloucester — ☎ 23:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has opened a new thread at WP:ANI on this regard. RGloucester — ☎ 01:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing here as I've said on ANI: We've had move-warring on these articles. The last thing we need now is hastily implemented further moves triggered by discussions on admin noticeboards, without secure consensus, side-stepping the normal processes. There is a requested move, which was only opened two days ago and is still drawing a lot of participation. Let it play out normally. There is no need to "fast-track" anything. We can wait a few days more until the consensus there is clear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a slow-moving freighter, rather than a speed boat, no? What's wrong with patience? Howunusual (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would agree with Fut.Perf. On hot topic articles, slowing things down is usually better than speeding them up. The regular process is the best course to take. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• In that case, our Crimea article will remain fully protected, outdated, and violate NPOV, along with terribly confusing readers as to what the article is about. I understand where you guys are coming from, but this really feels like an exception. Try reading the lead of the article, as it stands. It just doesn't make sense, in context. Meanwhile, we have people establishing forks like Republic of Crimea (country) because no one knows which article refers to what. RGloucester — ☎ 01:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • At the very least, the article should have a notice saying that a discussion to move the page is in progress. That way people will know that something is being done about it, and maybe they won't make more irrelevant requests. It might also encourage them to participate. CodeCat (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
    • We have templates for notifying readers that an article may be affected by current events. I really wish people would relax and move away from the mindset that the instant anything happens it must be described in full on Wikipedia right now this very second oh my gosh I can't believe no one has updated the page yet! The project needs to care more about quality and less about up-to-the-second news. After all, that's what Wikinews is supposedly for, not that anyone acts like it exists. --108.38.196.65 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• • A fully protected article can be edited by an admin, if the admin is inserting text that has a clear consensus on the talk page. Get a consensus, ask an uninvolved admin for any changes that would make it make more sense after developing the consensus. The purpose of the full protect isn't really to prevent any editing, it is to prevent any editing that doesn't have a clear and obvious consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem. We can't edit it until the requested move is complete, as the scope of the article is dependent on that RM. That's why we had requested the fast track, however, I suppose I understand what you are saying. If there is nothing we can do, there is nothing we can do. RGloucester — ☎ 14:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion has now been 6 days, and there hasn't been anything new for the last 2 or so. The consensus is still clearly in favour of the move. Could an administrator please make the changes? CodeCat (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point I would agree that a closure would be quite legitimate. The distribution of opinions appears quite clear and stable now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I would agree with you. The key was to slow it down enough to get all the opinions and to insure it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, but it has served its purpose so an admin can probably go ahead and close it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Want to do the honours? You didn't participate in the poll, did you? (I did, so I obviously can't close it.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look and close, although I may leave the splitting and merging part to the people who are actually editing the article and know the material better, such as yourself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't close lots of these, I handle more personality disputes than content disputes. It didn't take but about 10 seconds to get a complaint on my talk page, which I expected once I started wading through the discussion. Lots of passion there, understandably. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you closed... well, the "wrong" discussion I suppose. The one I was referring to is on Talk:Crimea, concerning a move of that article to Autonomous Republic of Crimea and of Crimean peninsula to Crimea. CodeCat (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I closed one that was an RFC and mentioned at the top of this discussion. I would request a different admin close the discussion you are referring to, it isn't good to have the same admin close two very similar discussions in the same day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And it seems Dbachmann went ahead and implemented one half of the proposal already, by moving Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and somebody else then half-implemented the other part, not by moving but by redirecting the Crimea title to the existing Crimean Peninsula, but nobody has so far made a formal closure. It would still be good if we could have one, to provide lasting documentation of the state of consensus with respect to that second part (the first being quite obvious). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of people are rather vocally against the close, including one who is really losing their cool. I suggest just letting him run out of steam, I'm not bothered personally, I expected as much considering the count. I will probably just sit back and let it be reviewed. It was an easy or obvious close, but I trust the community to review it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal needing input

User:AnomieBOT III will currently convert attempted interwiki redirects into soft redirects. It has been proposed that the bot also apply {{prod}} to such redirects in article space, as WP:Soft redirect discourages these. Please comment at WP:VPR#Proposal to automatically ProD redirects to other language versions of wikipedia, instead of turhing them into soft redirects. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 13:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

RFP backlog

Could someone please deal with the increasing WP:RFP backlog. Thanks. JMHamo (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit notice

Could someone please create this page containing this template {{British-English-editnotice}}? Alex ^{discussion ★} 21:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Relisted as an edit request at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Verbalisation. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Azerbaijan in 1918 in the Template:Country data Azerbaijan

Wrong venue. This is a content issue that has already been raised at Template talk:Country data Azerbaijan. Once you have consensus to change the template data, please use {{Edit protected}} on that talk page to have a template editor perform the edit. De728631 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

• thumb|130px|Flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic made by Mammad Amin Rasulzade
• thumbnail|First meeting of the parlament of Azerbaijan Democractic Republic. Observe the crescent on the middle field of the flag
• thumbnail|Delegation from Azerbaijan Democtatic Republic in Paris in 1919. See the photo of the flag behind
• thumbnail|See the flag with the small crescent on the red field behind soldiers of ADR

Dear administrators. In Template:Country data Azerbaijan the flag File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg was used to show the flag of Azerbaijan in 1918. But this flag with large crescent crossing all three fields is wrong. The original flag of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (from 9 November 1918 till 28 April 1920) was with the crescent on the red field. See the flag made by the chairman of the National Council of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic Mammad Amin Rasulzade in the Museum of the History of Azerbaijan.

Also you can see the photo of the flag on the photo of the first meeting of the Azerbaijani parlament on the 7th December 1918 - the crescent is small and on the middle field.

In the photo of Delegation from Azerbaijan Democtatic Republic in Hôtel Claridge [Avenue des Champs-Élysées] during Paris Peace Conference (1919) you can see the picture of flag behind the members of delegation.

Also here is an article about Flag of Azerbaijan (Whitney Smith. Flag Lore Of All Nations. — Millbrook Press, 2001. — С. 13. — 112 с. — ISBN 9780761317531):

AZERBAIJAN (ah-zer-bie-JAHN): Ali Bay Huseynzada, the leading nationalist of Azerbaijan, created its modern national flag. The colors of that tricolor stood for the Turkic people (blue), their lslamic faith (green), and the commitment to modernization. In the center of the flag was the traditional Muslim star and cresent. The eight points stood for the eight Turkic peoples, including the Azerbaijanis. This flag was used from 1918 to 1920, when Azerbaijan was independent, and it was revived on February 5, 1991. After the fall of the Soviet Union, independence for Azerbaijan under this flag was proclaimed on August 30, 1991.

As you can see even Whitney Smith claims that the modern national flag was used from 1918 to 1920.

We can also see the flag with the crescent on the red field behind the soldiers of ADR (See attached photo).

There is also an article by Azerbaijani historian Sabuhi Ahmadov in Russian. Observe the image of the Azerbaijani flag from 9 November 1918 in this article. It is the same with the modern one.

But this variant with the large crescent, that used in this template about ADR is wrong, it is just a variant, but not the correct flag. The file File:Flag of Azerbaijan 1918.svg should be replaced with the File:Flag of Azerbaijan.svg. Could somebody do this, the page is protected. --Interfase (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

File needs deleting

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

---

This file is overdue for deletion: File:Phenomenology_of_Perception.JPG. 122.60.204.74 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Lyndsey Turner

So I just tried to create a subpage to see if this person was notable enough for an article but am not allowed to create said subpage? Would someone be so kind as to create it for me? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume by subpage you mean an article. Lyndsey Turner was deleted several times and protected from recreation by JzG. If you believe it deserves an article and you can make one which doesn't fall foul of the reasons the previous ones were deleted, I'd suggest you contact JzG directly and ask for the protection to be lifted.

I'm a little confused though by your saying you tried to create a page to 'see if this person was notable enough'. How would creating the page tell you that? Wouldn't it make more sense to work out if she's notable, and only create the page if you decide she is? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Subpages in article space are generally frowned upon. Maybe a Draft: or AfC page would help more. ansh666 16:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

An article by an editor in good standing should be allowed, as this person appears to be at least marginally notable. The previous issues appeared to be mainly that the article was created by a banned sockpuppet. Another version was deleted due to "legal issues" via OTRS, though I can't see anything obviously problematic in that version (though I can't see the ticket). I'd note that a further version was deleted as G4 (previously deleted in a deletion discussion) although there has never been an AfD for this article as far as I can see. Pinging @JzG:. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• How singular that two people have been motivated to do the same thing just after Fairyspit's latest sockfarming attempt was stopped - I wonder if this has cropped up in conversation somewhere? So, we have a real-life problem which is not unrelated to the obsession of user:Fairyspit with creating this article at any title he can get away with, which has led to a strongly expressed preference from the subject not to have an article at this time. If an article is created then everybody involved will have to spend a lot of time dealing with the endless socks of Fairyspit, who is obsesed with Ms. Turner and Benedict Cumberbatch. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• From Guy's comment I can't see how we can protect any article from unwelcome socking and the subject feeling harrassed is to write something brief and full protect it indefinitely. I'm not sure that BLP really covers the concept of articles being created as part of an online campaign by an obsessed person but this surely needs to be considered against the maxim of do no harm. If someone seriously wants to put an article up, I suggest you prepare a decent draft and put it up at DRV for discussion but I can't see how we can entertain any unprotected or semied article at this time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

• This is .. tricky. I'd agree that if notability is marginal, the subject's wishes should be taken into account. On the other hand, she has won awards (she is, bar one from 28 years ago, the only director at Critics'_Circle_Theatre_Award#Best_Director without an article), and at least one of her plays has an article itself. There are a lot of sources out there. Legal issues and sockpuppetry can be dealt with through our normal procedures. (Incidentally, I don't see that the article can go through DRV as it's never had an AfD). Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Any deletion can be looked at by DRV so having this discussion there is fine. I suggest we close this one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Guys, I was trying to create a subpage in userspace, not mainspace. Permission error is what I am getting. So will an admin kindly create that subpage for me, or shall I just create a new sandbox? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• There is a DRV going on at WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 22#Lyndsey Turner (stage director) Thincat (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • DS, I suggest you wait for the result of that discussion before considering any draft. If DRV agrees that we should write something new we can look at then at that time. In the meantime, I'd close this request and move all the discussion to DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I will start in a sandbox then. The deleted version will not be restored as it was deleted for legal reasons going by what I see written over there. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins with access, please check Ticket:2014012210016753. This is still an ongoing real-world problem. I have asked for something I can post openly, please bear with me. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

From the subject, with permission:

Whilst I understand and support completely the project of Wikipedia, I am currently in the middle of an attempt to stem a small but significant tide of harassment which has recently become a police matter. As the case is still active, I feel that it would be damaging to the protocol of the investigation to allow a page to be created, knowing that it might well become a focus for further intimidation. I do hope you can understand my concern in this matter.

Let's not be evil. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: that's helpful, and it must be very difficult to know how to handle these things. Thincat (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fairyspit

I think it would be fair to characterise this user as banned by now, given the history of sockpuppetry and abuse of Wikipedia for stalking?

• Fairyspit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fairyspit
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit

I know it's a distinction that makes little difference but I think it's worth ticking the box. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Guy, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thirded. No harm in formalizing this. GiantSnowman 20:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse commban "My way or else" is not the way to build consensus, and their edits do feel uncomfortable and stalkery. We don't need someone like this here. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files

There is backlog over at Category:Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files if an admin has a half hour to spare. LGA _talk^edits 20:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting merge about the short-lived independence of Crimea as a country

A few hours ago @Dennis Brown closed a discussion about merging Republic of Crimea (country) into Republic of Crimea (a federal subject). I believe this was an erred decision as the two entities are completely different things.

For this reason I have created the following diagram which explains the situation:

Diagram showing the merge, short-lived independence, and separation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol that gave birth to the Republic of Crimea as a federal subject of Russia.

As you can see the confusion strives on using the same name for two different things. Let me explain:

1. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a subdivision of Ukraine completely separate from the city of Sevastopol.
2. These two subdivisions decided to merge to form a new independent sovereign country called "Republic of Crimea". Which we hosted at Republic of Crimea (country).
3. Then, this new independent country requested accession to the Russian Federation.
4. However, the accession was granted separately: one for the Autonomous Republic, and another for Sevastopol.
5. The short-lived "Republic of Crimea" (as a country) was never acceded to Russia.
6. The Autonomous Republic, as it was now a federal subject rather than an autonomous republic, changed its name to "Republic of Crimea" (which we host at Republic of Crimea).

I strongly believe that redirecting Republic of Crimea (country) → Republic of Crimea would create confusion to our readers.

Furthermore, we already have several articles about short-lived sovereign states which sets a precedent for this kind of articles.

The Republic of Crimea (country) was quite well developed already and explain the situation at hand.

All these arguments were explained in the merge discussion but for some reason they were not considered "qualitative" enough as other arguments as WP:CONSENSUS establishes. I believe this to be an error of judgement and for that reason I do not seek any sanctions against Dennis.

Therefore, having said all this, I hereby request that this merge is reverted and that Republic of Crimea (country) remains as a standalone article.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think other things need to be considered beyond just whether they're different. I'd ask, is it practical? Is there much that can be said about one that does not concern the other? I don't think so, really. They are so closely intertwined that if you talk about one, you'd have to twist yourself into all kinds of shapes if you want to avoid infringing on the "topic-territory" of the other. They may be separate entities, but they are only notable in combination, as part of a single historical event. CodeCat (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do believe this is practical. The article about the Republic of Benin (1967) sets that precedent which lasted only one day. In 50 years from now future generations will be looking about information on the Republic of Crimea as a country but they will instead find an article about a federal subject. I believe that what's best for Wikipedia is to keep a standalone article on the country so that when future generations search for this information they find an article focused solely on the short-lived nation. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • But what information is there, that is not already covered by Republic of Crimea, and could not be added to it in the future? CodeCat (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • First, that as soon as you start reading the Republic of Crimea article it states that it is a federal subject. That will be confusing to our readers. Second, that Russia recognized it as an independent sovereign state is a pretty big deal (source USA Today). You don't need to talk about that in an article about the federal subject. And finally, legally alone there are reasons why this article should be kept: this independence is what allowed Crimea and Sevastopol to be annexed. Without this independence they wouldn't have been able to join Russia due to restrictions in international laws and in Russian laws. So, the entity did exist and was notable by its own.. regardless of how short its existence was, for what purpose it was created, or its lack of recognition. We don't know if in the future this might set a precedent and the article is developed further scholarly. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental question here, is, is it necessary to have an article which largely duplicated Republic of Crimea, and which was confusing to the reader because of its title "Republic of Crimea (country)"? I think it was unnecessary, especially considering that it was merely a stepping stone into entering the federation. There is no reason, fundamentally, why this cannot be explained in the article Republic of Crimea, and in Sebastopol, centralising the information and making it easier to understand that there was a brief nominal independence where the two were unified. Regardless, this is not the discussion to be having here. The merger discussion is closed. One can talk about whether it was correct or not to close the discussion, but the merits of the arguments themselves are better left for the talk page of Republic of Crimea. RGloucester — ☎ 22:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I will only say that my closing was based upon the actual discussion and not outside information, in accordance to standard closing procedure. I feel my closing, while difficult since it went against the count, was inline with the consensus but have no issue with it being reviewed. If my fellow admin feel I should be reverted, I will leave it to their judgement. If we want to discuss new information or anything outside of errors in my closing, this is really the wrong venue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are always mentioning the counter but you have never addressed the fact that the Republic of Crimea (country) united both the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol. Your closure denotes that you gave a lot of weight to the belief that they are "the same country" but they are not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Looking at the history [1] there does seem to be some cowboy action going on with those that disagree with the close. It isn't my place to enforce, so an involved admin may want to drop a note or two explaining that we don't unilaterally ignore consensus simply because we disagree. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• You need to understand that the reason the article is being reverted is because they are challenging your declaration of consensus. They don't believe that consensus was achieved and I agree with them. Per, WP:IAR they can safely revert your closure. Admin closure is not final especially when it's highly contended. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• But there is a proper way to do it, otherwise you have a revert war, chaos. The proper way is review, not everyone saddling up and playing cowboy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. If you want to go the proper way then you, as the closing admin, should revert the action per WP:NOCONSENSUS as your action has been contested by several editors. But here we are, you are the one allowing this to happen by not reverting your action. People make mistakes. Don't want this to happen? Revert back, and either let the discussion go for more days or declare it as "no consensus". —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Consensus" does not mean that everyone agrees with a potential action, it does not mean "unanimity". As WP:CONSENSUS says, discussions are "not a vote". It is often a "less-then-perfect compromise", as the policy states. Dennis was not party to the discussion itself. He is a neutral third party, and he has determined what the consensus is in this particular case. One can contest his determination with a review, but one doesn't just overturn everything because one disagrees. One goes through the appropriate channels. Please do so, rather then demanding that he overturn his decision. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let me remind you once again that Wikipedia is not a bureacracy. His "determination" is being contested by several editors. I didn't create WP:NOCONSENSUS and that policy is very very clear about what should be done in cases like this. If you want to go through the "proper" channels then go read that policy. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• But it's not Wikipedia is not a bureacracy so I don't have to follow findings I don't agree with. You can challenge the finding but wait until the finding is negated or overturned before acting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin determined that there was consensus to merge per arguments. However, I noticed the following phrase in policy: "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." This opens can of worms and I think should be changed in policy, because it means that all decisions by admins in contentious subject areas can and will be successfully overturned by one of the "sides". Let's not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That depends on whether there was "consensus" or not. This is disputed. I believe that there was a "level of consensus" as that describes. I believe that the piece you are referring to is not with regard to RfCs or discussions, for which their are official channels to dispute, but with regard to individual actions on the part of an administrator. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read the policy. Dennis is a well-respected administrator. His decision was tough, but he justified it. Everything is contested by "several editors". We must now wait for a third party administrator to review this case, and see what he decides. In the meantime, I suggest we sit tight. Neither of us are fit to determine whether there was "no consensus" or not, as we were involved parties. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There was definitely no consensus. That doesn't automatically mean Dennis Brown was out of line to make the decision he did, but there's no way one can pretend there was any sort of consensus on that merge discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn Merge - Clearly a case of no consensus, the merge was ongoing while a-lot of other high drama was taking place involving the Crimea article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support action by Dennis Brown. I think Dennis Brown was an uninvolved administrator, and he did exactly what he suppose to do: he made closing based on the strength of the arguments, rather than on head count. That is consistent with policy. Dennis Brown was absolutely right. Most important, this is not the place to re-negotiate administrative decisions one does not like, as long all procedures were properly followed.My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, Dennis suggested this was the place to initiate a review of his actions so... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, Dennis was not right.

I examined every single supportive opinion and they all came to the same argument: "they are the same thing, therefore they should be merged". But they are NOT the same thing. The Republic of Crimea (country) united Sevastopol and the Autonomous Republic. The Republic of Crimea (federal subject) is the Autonomous Republic but as a federal subject (and without including Sevastopol!). This is huge. Sevastopol's trade and commerce alone doesn't even compare to the Autonomous Republic's thanks to the Port of Sevastopol. This is why we are challenging this determination, because the administrator did not give due weight to this fact.

His very own explanatory closure shows this: "The arguments claiming that this is actually the same country with the same political system and leaders, but with a different name (a technicality towards unification with Russia) are stronger than those claiming it is an independent country." This clearly shows that the administrator was completely unaware (i) that the Republic of Crimea (country) incorporated both the Autonomous Republic + Sevastopol, that (ii) the Republic of Crimea (federal subject) only includes the Autonomous Republic, and (iii) that the federal subject is not a country but the administrator closed this discussion believing so.

This is a fundamental difference that negates all other arguments. Per WP:CONSENSUS, a policy, "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." But this argument was not considered as qualitative at all by the closing administrator even though it was explained several times in the discussion.

So no, Dennis was not right. And this place, WP:AN, is the place to discuss these matters.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've refuted this argument before. The fact of the matter is, it is irrelevant whether Sebastopol is included or not. Once again, Sebastopol was only included in the temporary republic for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of acceding to Russia, which they did do separately. Functionally, the various systems of governance did not change within the Republic when it acceded to the Russian Federation, nor did they in Sebastopol. They were merely a vehicle that never had a chance to exist on their own, as entities independent of the entities they have now become within the Russian Federation. "Sebastopol's trade and commerce" are largely irrelevant in this situation, as the supposed "independent country" never existed long for this to have any effect. Furthermore, there was never any intent by the so-called country to exist as an independent state. Their only purpose, once again, was to accede to Russia. This was an entirely political matter, and if it concerns you so much that Sebastopol was included in the Republic for a day, then this can be explained in the Republic of Crimea and Sebastopol articles, as it already is. Such a fact does not necessitate the need for an article that functionally would have no content of its own, no history independent of the history of either the Republic of Crimea or Sebastopol. Not to mention that such an article would be confusing to readers, as they'd have to go about between Republic of Crimea and Republic of Crimea (country), when in reality, they are looking for the history of the process as a whole, not fragmented. RGloucester — ☎ 04:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is where you are incorrect and proof of this is within the treaty itself which states (rough translation) that, "The Republic of Crimea (country) is considered to be adopted in the Russian Federation from the date of signing of this agreement." The systems of governance did change because the Autonomous Republic and Sevastopol were now united as a single united nation. This single united nation was the one adopted by the Russian Federation. Then, once adopted, Russia immediately added two new entities into its geopolitical system: the Republic of Crimea (federal subject) and Sevastopol (federal city). Source: "Since the Russian Federation is adopting the Republic of Crimea, the Russian Federation is adding new entities: the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol." The purpose is irrelevant. The fact that it was an entity fundamentally different than the Autonomous Republic and fundamentally different than the federal subject makes it unique. Add this uniqueness to its notability plus its historical significant and this is merit enough to warrant a standalone article. These are facts, backed up by reliable sources. This is not an opinion. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem. The territory of Crimean autonomous republic (a part of the Ukraine) was already occupied by Russian army at the moment of declared "independence". Hence it was in fact never an independent country. In this regard, all later official "treaties" with Russia are hardly relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I'm aware of the fact that the entities changed de jure, that is, in law. However, they did not change de facto, that is, in practice. There is no reason to confuse the reader with such technicalities. All the reader wants is an explanation of how the Republic of Crimea and Sebastopol came to be at present, how they entered the Russian Federation. This can easily be explained in the article on the Republic, and on Sebastopol. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note - In light of the edit warring that has been taking place at Republic of Crimea (country) since this discussion was closed I've fully protected it for twelve hours to hopefully allow time for things to calm down a bit. Dpmuk (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - Dennis was not involved in any of the discussions pertaining to the various Crimean crisis articles. His closure was determined based on the merits of the arguments presented. He was willing to take a tough position for the benefit of the project, which is something too few administrators are willing to do. In past dealings with Dennis, he has always strived to be both impartial and efficient. I appreciate that he has taken initiative on this matter, as the mire of Crimea articles was really dragging down Wikipedia's coverage of the crisis there. RGloucester — ☎ 04:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Revert merge - There is plenty of information about the independent state to constitute a separate page. For example the pages involving the ascension process and international recognition should be merged into the article about the independent state. Furthermore there was no consensus at all to merge, rather the opinion of 1 editor (dennis) usurped the entire process and arbitrarily decided to close and merge without letting the discussion run its full course.XavierGreen (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Dennis Brown's close. As this discussion is a review of the close, and not another RfC, the question we should be asking is "Was the close consistent with policy, and were there any procedural problems with it?" In this venue, much like at deletion review or move review, arguments about whether to merge should not the focus of discussion. Instead, we should focus on how the close dealt with those arguments. In a contentious debate such as this one, there were always going to be editors who disagree with the close, so "multiple editors disagree with the close" is not a valid reason to overturn it. To me, the close seems a thoughtful summing up of the arguments made, and not in any way a "supervote". At four and a half days, the period allowed for discussion was short by RfC standards, but I think this is reasonable given that the discussion was well-attended. As Dennis implies in the close, it may be reasonable to revisit this debate in a few months when the political situation becomes more stable, but for now I don't think there is any need to overturn Dennis's decision. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have already refuted this above. The reason for this review is not based on arguments but on the process followed by Dennis which was contrarian to WP:CONSENSUS. His closing remarks makes this very clear: "this is actually the same country" when it is not. Per WP:CONSENSUS he must have given due weight to this fact, but he did not. This is why we are here. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert merge - Clearly no consensus existed to merge. A majority vote in favor of keeping the article was overturned on the basis of a subjective claim by one administrator that he felt like the arguments that the de facto independent Republic of Crimea and the Russian subject Republic of Crimea were the same -- without taking into account the fact those entities claim different territories and had different relationships with the city of Sevastopol. The wordiness of the arguments =/= the validity of the arguments. As I said, there was obviously no consensus, and Dennis Brown should have at least waited rather than wading in early to cast his supervote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a horrid accusation. This was clearly not a supervote, which Dennis would have no interest in, as he is not involved in these Crimea articles at all. Dennis did not ignore any facts, I'm sure, as that would not be like him. He weighed, on balance of policy, whether it would be better for the encyclopaedia to have one article, or two. Whether it would be better for the reader, based on policy concerns. He determined that it would be better to have one. And there one has it. RGloucester — ☎ 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't assume bad faith, and I take Dennis at his word he is uninterested in the content dispute beyond attempting to act as an administrator. I believe he both came to the wrong decision and disregarded WP:NOCONSENSUS in overruling the majority and moving the page in a unilateral action without any apparent consensus. What do you call that but a supervote -- regardless of intention? It certainly doesn't pass the smell test for WP:CONSENSUS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen I don't care to get into the intricacies of these things, and remain strictly neutral, but if Dennis was going to close against the number of !votes, I think there should have been a much more detailed rationale. Knowing that Dennis found one side's arguments more convincing than the other is good to know, but his logic could have been spelled out. It was almost inevitable that if you did not give a detailed rationale, people would complain and this indeed is what seems to have happened. I would reopen discussion and in due course, let another admin take a look at it. I should also add that once it was clear (was it ever not) that Dennis's actions would be controversial, it might well have been best for him to step back a bit, not urge enforcement of his decision or advocate that his decision can only be overturned by certain means. I don't argue with what he said in those diffs, but it would have been perhaps better if he had let someone else make them. In this sort of discussion, someone would have.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Revert merge the administrator mistakenly confused 'good arguments' with 'his own POV'.--Wester (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse. Disclaimer: I was the one who submitted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Crimea (country), at the time unaware of the merge discussion which took place in parallel. The whole Crimean business turned into an unholy mess. The motto "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" soon turned into "encyclopedia where anyone can add their own version of Crimean crisis article". Currently, we have similar or related content at Crimean peninsula, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea (country), Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Accession of Crimea to Russia and who knows where; couple of hours ago User:Incnis Mrsi forked another one, Political status of Crimea. Articles were moved, copied and forked contrary to WP:CFORK, WP:CWW, and any reasonable definition of common sense. Our anarchic model failed big time, and we failed to offer consistent information to readers when they needed it most, busy in our esoteric navel-gazing whether the article is about a country, a region, or an event, so we created one for each. If we apply WP:BRD to article text, shouldn't we apply it to new articles as well? When you create a new article and it gets redirected, shouldn't we apply the same principle that onus of proof is on the one who adds the content, not on ones seeking for integrity of the encyclopedia. Somebody has to step in administratively and stop the uncontrolled flourishing of content forks. No such user (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Move image to Commons

I uploaded commons:File:Banana boat.jpg to use in Banana boat, but it appears there's already an orphaned File:Banana boat.jpg that was intended for Banana Boat, and now the names conflict. Would someone mind moving File:Banana boat.jpg to the Commons? hinnk (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright help needed

Hi, guys.

It's past time for my periodic appeal for copyright help. :)

Some of you may be aware that we very nearly lost User:Wizardman, who has been pulling a lot of weight in copyright cleanup. He threw his hands up in disgust over the apathy towards this problem here and the next day decided to leave altogether. I've very happy that he has decided to come back to some extent, but he's letting copyright work go for now. I support that. Never mind that he deserves to take pleasure in the work here, his loss to the project would be immense for other reasons than copyright. :)

But we nearly lost him because this work isn't getting done, and we need more help. Most of the time, this isn't difficult - it just takes a few simple steps. (Admin tools sometimes required; sometimes not.)

At WP:CP, you compare a flagged article to the source; check copied content for "backwards copying"; check for rewrite; remove copied content (if not compatibly licensed) or replace it with rewritten content, if proposed; check to make sure the user has proper notice and (if repeat offender) is blocked or strongly cautioned if appropriate.

WP:SCV is even simpler. These are new articles, and backwards copying is less of an issue. (When it is, it usually means copying & pasting within Wikipedia; check for attribution.) Removing copied content doesn't generally involve taking away anybody else's work other than the person who did the copy-paste. Quite often, this is WP:CSD#G12 territory.

At WP:CCI, you check the links to see if there's signs of copying. If a CCI subject seems to have introduced substantial copied content, you remove it or you flag the article with {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP for handling.

(More detailed directions are available at all three pages if you want them.)

Please, even if you give just like 30 minutes a week or so, we could make this a manageable task, if multiple people do. You don't need to bend to it until you burn out (a condition I've had to manage multiple times over the years). Just chip away a bit now and then. Even if you just take the easy pickings and leave the hard stuff for somebody else, you'll be easing the burden considerably. We have a few good people who toil away in that area, but the work is substantial, and we can't afford to burn out anybody else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is an underlying problem that keeps the copyvio treadmill going at the speed it does. Far too often I come across editors who add multiple copyvios over an extended period of time, somehow escape community scrutiny and only manage to find their talk pages after I block them. In fact, I indeffed no less than four such editors during the weekend Wizardman left (in fact, this is likely the reason he left). Please pay attention when you are handing out copyvio warnings -- non-communicative copyvio editors should be blocked, not warned. MER-C 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)