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)

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 92 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 60 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 46 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 29 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 ago 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	15	34
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	23	48	71
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 52 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 28 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)

Something strange

Here's something that I present before you all: the revisions in here, a user-talk page seems to be suppressed. I don't understand why is this done, or maybe am I confused with something else? All the revision timestamps are striked out. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Usually when you see a page with struck-out versions, you're seeing something that has either had revision deletion or suppression used on it. Both of those tools have specific guidelines for their use, which you can read about on their respective policy pages, and you can generally assume that if you see a revdeletion or a suppression, it was for one of those reasons. However, the reason edits are revdeleted/suppressed is so that their content cannot be seen publicly, so exact explanations for what was in a given deleted/suppressed edit will pretty much never be provided onwiki. If you have reason to think the revision delete tool has been used incorrectly, you could try discussing it with the admin in question, preferably privately. If you have reason to think the oversight tool has been used incorrectly, you will need to privately contact WP:AUSC about the matter. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that they've been oversighted (what Fluffernutter calls "suppression"), because as an admin I can see content that's been revdeleted, and I get a button to reverse the revdeletion, but neither of those is true with this page's history. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Unlike the revdeletion log, which is accessible to all, oversight's log doesn't appear in Special:Log at all except to the oversighters themselves, so you won't be able to find who did what through Special:Log. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend:, Suppression is actually the technical term. "Oversight", while still the name of the user group, is a reference to the older Oversight extension which is no longer used. LFaraone 03:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay; I was just going by Wikipedia:Oversight, which says Oversight on Wikipedia (also known as suppression) is a form of enhanced deletion which... Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The wiki interface for revdeleted content is really bad -- while it looks as if all the edits in a history have been deleted, they haven't. What happens if some content is removed then all the edit history entries between the addition and removal appear struck out to indicate us regular editors can't get a diff of the edit, because the diff would contain the removed content. NE Ent 22:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean you can't see it, or you can't get the URL itself? I got this diff by going to the page in question and clicking the "compare revisions" button. My admin rights with oversighted material should be comparable to your rights with revdeleted material, so you should be able to get the URL and the oldid numbers for the diff and the separate edits. If you didn't know this, don't fault yourself; I've been an admin for several years and just discovered this a couple of months ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No interface to get URLs {Ya'll (admins) can become non-admins by logging out if you want to get the peon experience}. NE Ent 03:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the interface is still there — follow my directions and you'll get it; I just now accessed it without problems. The most recent page to have normal revdel was Channel Awesome, which I've never before viewed; I've been able to get diffs for revdeleted edits. Get the diff for some visible edits, and then click the "previous edit" button; that allowed me to get this diff, for example. Going farther back will allow you to get both numbers, e.g. this. Nyttend backup (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would note that suppression or normal revdeletion, it's not hard to guess why the material was deleted. The edit summary which introduced the deleted material says it's someone's résumé. This is the sort of thing which could easily introduce private details such as birthdates, phone numbers or addresses which people may not realise the implications of leaving here and are often deleted even if added by the person themselves and without them requesting it. Even if it only had educational or employment details, such material may readily be deleted, particularly upon request of the person who's details they are. As others have said, revdeletion (and our changelog) works means that any edit history between when the material was added and when it was removed will be hidden even if they introduced no problematic details themselves. The edit you User:Ethically Yours made was still on the talk page of the first unhidden reversion which also happens to be the most recent revision, so it should be obvious it's not a problem itself. (If your edit was not deleted you can safely assume the edit wasn't a problem regardless of whether the edit history is hidden.) In fact, it's probably fair to say that most often only the first edit or the first few edits are the ones that needed to be hidden in the case where the edit history of a lot of edits are missing. (Occasionally intervening edits may be a problem too.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User name

Could an uninvolved administrator please read through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#BillMoyers and take appropriate action. The thread has now been open 11 days. TFD (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Madmanbot

MadmanBot (talk · contribs) (operated by Madman (talk · contribs)) is doing good and necessary work, however, it seems to have a problem with the spam-blacklist: when it tries to save a page with a link to a site blocked by the spam-blacklist, it keeps trying, resulting in thousands and thousands of log-entries in the spam-blacklist-log (500 edits in 5-6 minute; try to find the beginning and end of this set - it goes on for hours; and there are two sets with other links since). This renders the log utterly useless, it is impossible to find what editors try to add, and whether spammers were trying to add blacklisted links.

I tried to contact Madman about it, but the post got archived with no response (I unarchived). I suggested to change the bot so that, upon hitting the blacklist the first time, it wraps the offending link in nowiki-tags and retries.

I am very slightly tempted to block the bot, though the nuisance is only to the few admins who consult the log, and the work the bot performs is necessary. Are there others who have access or can help solve the problem? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(2 hours and 22 minutes for the reported set, with 500 edits in 6 minutes, that means about 12.000 attempts) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any chance that we could whitelist the bot? Barring that, your nowiki suggestion sounds best. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Beetstra, I'm bad at replying in a timely fashion to messages on my talk page even when I do read them. I did read your first and bounced the bot as soon as I woke up. I have done so again this morning. I thought I had fixed the looping condition in the code I inherited from Coren, but apparently not. I also have the bot monitored with Nagios to see when it gets stuck, but sometimes emails either don't get sent or are received in the wrong order making me think the service is still in OK state. I'll take a look at the code again once I get home today; since it's the holidays I actually have some time for once. Thanks for the report and reminder. Cheers, — madman 14:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Madman, I withdraw the consideration/suggestion to block the bot now I know you are actually working on it. Hope you can resolve the problem soon.

@Nyttend: - no, the spam-blacklist is absolute, there are no workarounds, those links simply can not be added, barring disabling them in any form (nowiki-tags, remove the http:// or plainly breaking the offending part by removing, adding or changing characters). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's harder than you might think to break only the link causing the problem; remember, the entire page's contents are being reasserted and the error includes an excerpt from the spam blacklist and not the article. I think the best behavior if the spam blacklist is hit would be to just give up tagging the page, keeping in mind there's still a record of the violation on SCV, the spam blacklist now, and the contributor's talk page. — madman 15:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What if the bot says "Hm, the blacklist stopped me. I guess I'll tag the page with error, URL blacklisted, check the spam blacklist for PAGENAME" if nowiki doesn't work? Adding this kind of warning-to-admins should permit us to find the URL easily without omitting the tag. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

... Never mind. I'm still sleepy. The URL hitting the blacklist must be the source URL the bot has identified, not anything previously in the article, as your language reminded me, Beetstra. I'll look into how the blacklist works. If it's just a regex applied to the article's contents that might be a problem but if nowiki does work can't we just add it to the tagging templates? That seems cleanest. — madman 15:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

People like the convenience of a working link in such templates (click and you see what it is maybe a copyvio of). So I don't know if blanket-nowiki-tagging the links in the copyvio-templates is a liked solution to the problem. Bot-wise nowiki-ing the link still shows the link (editors then just have to manually copy/paste the link to get to the page, and that in itself may also be an extra suggestion that something is fishy with either of the two documents). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And yes, it is the source-url (the external 'original') that the bot is adding inside the tag which is the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The templates are only used by the bot but I like your point that having to copy and paste links that were in the blacklist draws attention to them specifically. — madman 15:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Template protection

Hello,

There is an RFC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Template_Vandalism to protect templates inorder to deal with template vandalism. Please participate in the discussion.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Move warring

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

---

Cowboys Stadium. [sic] is in kind of an awkward location because an irritating amount of move-warring and sockpuppetry. The status quo (set here) has been to default to the AT&T Stadium name. Speedy delete the AT&T Stadium article per IAR, or do I open a proposed move? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the copy-paste move [1] definitely needs to be taken care of somehow. Chris857 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I returned it to the move-requested title and move-protected it for 3 months, since the previous 2-month protection proved insufficient. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History

The Committee has resolved by motion that:

In remedy 2 of Argentine History, the following text:

"the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces."

Is replaced by:

"(A) the political, economic, and military history of Latin America prior to December 1983 and (B) any other aspect of the history of Latin America that is directly related to geopolitical, economic, or military events that occurred before December 1983. This restriction applies across all namespaces."

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 00:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

AN:I archive bot?

Cluebot has not archived any sections of WP:AN/I since the 27th. Some sections date back to the 23rd, just a tad longer than the normal 36 hours, I think. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot in question is operated by Cobi, have you tried asking him (either on his talk page, or on the bot talk page User talk:ClueBot Commons)? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now, thanks for the help. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia AD Service

On the article Hangul there is a weird animated gif present: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Michigan_state_police.gif, that links to the AR-15 page, but it cannot be edited out. There are similar gifs present on other pages, like Park Chung-hee or Kim Jae-gyu. Sztupy (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It was vandalism this morning to Template:Infobox Chinese/Korean, which has now been reverted, but presumably a caching problem, probably needing purging the affected pages. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, Sztupy. It was vandalism, which we've now removed. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've purged a few, but is there an easy way of purging all the other affected pages that link to Template:Infobox Korean name? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, unfortunately. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Would forcelinkupdate through the API work? Or is that for something totally different? My apologies if I don't know what I'm talking about here. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Can editors remove block notices from their talk pages?

I've always thought they could. WP:REMOVED says they can't remove "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction". I didn't think that 'an active sanction' meant a block notice, especially as 'declined unblock notices' seems to imply that they can remove anything else to do with a block, but WP:Sanctions does mention blocks. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Had a recent issue with this, Bishonen agreed that mere block notices can be removed, and on rechecking policy and precedent I agreed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Remarkably poorly worded. Bish pointed out that my and anothers' restorations were wrong, snd I reread policy and agreed. I plead migraine + meds and throw myself on 'zilla's mercy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Try pocket, little user. bishzilla _ROARR!! 01:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC).

I've always thought they could, not so much because of what policy says, but because it isn't that big a deal (especially now that you see a user's block notice when you try to edit their talk page, but even before then), and it can sometimes deescalate a heated situation. Forcing the scarlet letter to remain is not going to help anyone "get their mind right". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As I noted on Doug's talk page, there have been previous discussions on this issue, and not everyone agrees. If I have time, I'll try to dredge them up, but I pesonally take the position that active block notices cannot be removed and enforce that position unless it conflicts with the blocking administrator's views.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost certain there've been discussions here, but I'm having trouble finding them. However, this discussion is pertinent, as is this discussion. BTW, if we could ever agree on this, I do think the language should be changed to be clearer.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever you decide, please make the language explicit. I've always assumed blocks were active sanctions and restored when necessary as I regularly see other editors (both admins and non-admins) do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::If WP:REMOVED is really meant to say block notices can't be removed, it shouldn't say that declined unblock requests can't be removed, it should say no block notices or declined unblock requests should be removed. Just saying declined unblock requests can't be removed isn't enough. But the practical problem is more important. What do we do if a blocked user removes the block notice? If we extend the block, why are we doing that? And if he/she removed the new notice, extend again? All we can do is block talk page access, and that doesn't really seem reasonable. Whatever we decide here needs to be added to the appropriate pages. Dougweller (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. If a user removes a current block notice, I restore it and warn them that if they do it again, their talk page access will be revoked. If they ignore the warning, I revoke.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is also known as "kicking someone while they are down" and is rather pointless and rude. -- John Reaves 22:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, John. The purpose of a talk page is to communicate about Wikipedia-related issues. When a user is currently blocked, the block notice informs the user and the community of the block and the reason for the block. While blocked, the user may request an unblock or discuss the block. Administrators may participate in that discussion. Not just the blocking administrator, but any administrator. I take a dim view of talk pages being used for other purposes, and although blocks are not meant to be punitive, their removal by the blocked user does a disservice to the community. We are not here to mollycoddle users who have been blocked. Restoring current block notices isn't grave dancing, and it isn't a scarlet letter. It's simply a fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Any admin worth their salt is going to check the talk page history and the block log, both of which are not editable by a the blocked user. Restoring notices is disruption and should not be encouraged. -- John Reaves 22:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you read the first discussion link I posted above, you'll see that many respected admins (all of whom are "worth their salt") disagree with you. And many do agree with you. Someone said in a subsequent discussion that there were more votes for not allowing removal than allowing it. I didn't confirm the count, and I know numbers are not necessarily what we go by.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Once the user has read the notice, they are aware they are blocked. Once any other user tries to leave a message for a blocked user, they see the block notice and are aware the user is blocked. So if the purpose is to alert the user and the community that the user is blocked, the block notice doesn't do anything extra, and there is zero "disservice" to the community. It appears your only other reason is to not mollycoddle a blocked user, and enforce your dim view of blocked users doing anything except request an unblock. That approach is very disappointing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be disappointed, Floq. We often disagree on these kinds of issues. However, I'm not the only one who disagrees with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they should be removable; insisting on maintaining the badge o' shame doesn't improve the encyclopedia. NE Ent 22:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Should or should not aside, my understanding has always been that block notices can be removed, but declined unblock requests can not. It's always struck me as being a strange compromise.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, blocked users' talk pages are magnets for frivolous conversation. -- John Reaves 23:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It does indeed seem a strange compromise. While it is still a little harsher than I'd like personally, I think a compromise that would at least make more sense and might get some level of consensus is "you can remove block notices and rejected unblock notices from your talk page if you want to, but if you're requesting an unblock (or a new unblock), you need to put it all back." --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside how I might feel about that substantively, procedurally it is a bit ornate and would be hard to implement, both for the blocked user as well as for others.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all strange. Talk pages' primary purpose is to communicate. That an editor is blocked is communicated by both the user contributions and edit notice, so there's no need for it to remain on page after a user has acknowledged it by reading it. On the other hand, there is no log of unblock requests, so the only way a reviewing admin would have of finding prior discussion would be to work through the diffs, a time consuming operation which would not benefit the 'pedia. NE Ent 23:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And the only reason a reviewing admin would need to find the prior discussion is if there was a new unblock request. Hence my suggestion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) If the blocked editor is somehow trying to mislead people by removing something—e.g. a prior unblock decline or the blocking administrator's explanation when requesting an unblock—then it makes sense to put it back. If the blocked editor is behaving himself or herself and just doesn't want to look at the block templates any more when checking his or her talkpage, let's leave it alone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to another discussion (at the Pump), which, in my view, highlights how much disagreement there is on these issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's disagreement, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus not to remove. I also note that the attempted change to WP:REMOVE to implement a no removal policy was reverted, which to me means that removal is ok. Is this discussion now at the right place or should it be moved to the pump? As this is about basically about what Admins have to do if an editor removes the notice, I'm happy for it to stay here. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I see this as two issues. First, what does the current language mean, and, second, what do we want the policy to be? (BTW, I use the word "policy" intentionally even though the section is imbedded in a guideline. It's another oddity that has been discussed before - somewhere - about the imperative nature of the language.) I don't care that much where this is discussed (again ). I'm more interested in it receiving sufficient attention. It doesn't seem to be grabbing that many people here, at least not at the moment. There are also ancillary questions, but I won't make it even more complicated by going into those at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous (group)

On this page there's some floating text saying [[Image:Svetlana font example.png|link=List of mass shootings in the United States]] that looks like a piece of vandalism, but it's hard to remove because I can not see it when using my browser (Firefox) find function CTRL+F. Can an administrator find and remove it for me? Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It was template vandalism. The easiest way to find it is to use the[[Special:RecentChangesLinked]|related changes]] link in the sidebar and filter it to the Template namespace. -- John Reaves 01:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense since its also on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories page as well.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, template vandalism is easy to remove, just harder to detect. I was about to suggest looking at the list of transcluded templates myself but I didn't know of an easier way besides checking all of Special:WhatLinksHere. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is something wrong with my computer it appears not to have been fixed yet, can someone please correct the issue?--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah, Shirik's done it here but server cache has yet to update. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

How long will it take for the cache to update? The removal in question took place over 24 hours ago.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Help:Job queue is responsible for this, so according to this post it can take up to approximately two weeks before template/file transclusions and such get updated. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's gone now so thankfully it did not take too long.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of some LTA accounts coupled with the announcement of the new template-editor userright that has caused this recent spate of high-profile low-detection template vandalism. This may warrant further discussion, but I think that most transcluded templates should have the template-protection level applied and an AbuseFilter tagged to anons editing template-space; would definitely help in detecting, catching and removing template vandalism. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Or people can actually patrol specific namespaces manually. Voila! Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that we may want to exclude certain types of templates (such as navboxes) - and that can't be done by namespace patrol. The edit filter can be told to only list cases which don't start with "{{Navbox" (or some similar condition - I won't give any more possibilities here) - just make sure to use the old version, to prevent a vandal from doing this on his/her first edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Transition User:EdwardsBot/Access list to new MassMessage user group

Hi.

There's a new MassMessage user group on the English Wikipedia, following Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Create new user group for m:MassMessage.

Could any passing admin please transition User:EdwardsBot/Access list to the new user group? This entails modifying the user groups for every user listed at User:EdwardsBot/Access list who is not already an administrator. Administrators have the user right to access Special:MassMessage already.

Thanks in advance. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking this on. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

For all Wikipedians and to all admins: Wish you a very happy new year. Hope your upcoming year stays bright! Good luck and enjoy (It's 12 AM, 1st Jan here and crackers are bursting!) Ethically ^(Yours) 18:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well, EY. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Happy 2014} 00:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for disappearance of Mbz1

Following a recent (and current) discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I am making the following proposal.

Mbz1 was an editor who contributed extensively to Wikipedia, but also engaged in behind-the-scenes subversion of Wikipedia processes in order to press her political point of view, dishonest attacks on other editors both privately and publicly, and a variety of other WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. She was also subject to unauthorised access to at least one of her private email accounts, which was the cause of some of this behaviour becoming known to Wikipedia editors, including some of her targets.

Mbz1 has engaged in block evasion on a continuous basis ever since she was banned, including within the last 24 hours. Far from block evading in order to defend her actions, apologise for her actions, or benefit Wikipedia in any way, she has instead used block evasion in order to insult and harass anyone whom she perceives as aligned with her former political opponents. (One example of many.)

Mbz1 is unhappy that her banned Wikipedia account shows up in searches for her real life name. She was not a minor when she created her Wikipedia account, nor when she began using it for battleground behaviour and attacks on other editors. The responsibility for how her actions are perceived, is therefore hers and hers alone.

Regardless of that, given the obvious distress that the situation continues to cause her, I propose:

1. The User:Mbz1 account be unblocked, with a neutral edit summary, no link to this or any other discussion, and no mention of the issues involved.
2. Mbz1 agrees they will never edit the English Wikipedia again, under any username, nor encourage or advise others to do so.
3. The Mbz1 username is removed from any lists of bans, ARBPIA restrictions, and similar lists.
4. The Mbz1 username is then "vanished" according to the provisions of WP:RTV as though Mbz1 had exercised their right to vanish while still in good standing.
5. The Mbz1 account is then locked (I don't really see what this achieves, but apparently it's relevant).

• Support as proposer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)