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 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)

 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 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 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 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 36 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)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	27	46
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	3	5
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	23	48	71
AfD	0	0	0	14	14

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 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 111 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 105 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 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 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 12 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 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)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 7751 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Poot 2024-05-15 00:14 2025-05-15 00:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Spore (2008 video game) 2024-05-14 23:39 2024-11-14 23:39 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jewish Institute for National Security of America 2024-05-14 06:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller Nava Mau 2024-05-14 03:45 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Andrey Belousov 2024-05-14 03:31 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Category:Hamas 2024-05-13 23:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Izno Sde Teiman detention camp 2024-05-13 20:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Çankaya Mansion 2024-05-13 14:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, WP:GS/AA Rosguill Second Battle of Latakia 2024-05-13 13:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Alien 2024-05-13 13:23 indefinite move lower to semi, time heals; requested at WP:RfPP The Night Watch Shays' Rebellion 2024-05-13 08:08 2025-05-13 08:08 move dang it. Not used to move protection, I guess.... Dennis Brown Chuck Buchanan Jr. 2024-05-13 02:01 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse 2024-05-13 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Michael Ealy 2024-05-13 01:22 2025-05-13 01:22 edit,move Persistent vandalism: racist swinery Drmies Template:Nelson, New Zealand 2024-05-13 00:51 indefinite move Highly visible template that is vulnerable to macron vandalism Schwede66 Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2024-05-12 21:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per ARBPIA Daniel Case Interracial marriage 2024-05-12 19:14 2024-11-12 19:14 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry RoySmith Template:FAQ/FAQ 2024-05-12 10:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers User:Arjayay/Rang HD 2024-05-12 10:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rang HD -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Rangiya 2024-05-12 09:27 2024-10-16 06:56 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: confirmed socks edit the article Ymblanter Vaush 2024-05-12 07:35 indefinite edit,move per WP:CT/BLP Primefac Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015 2024-05-12 04:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq Later-no-harm criterion 2024-05-12 03:07 2024-06-12 03:07 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: Protected per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston Draft:Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:41 2024-08-11 20:41 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Lewis Raymond Taylor 2024-05-11 20:35 indefinite create Persistent sockpuppetry JJMC89 2024 Kharkiv offensive 2024-05-11 12:11 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR --requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Drake (musician) 2024-05-11 09:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Slovenia 2024-05-11 09:29 2024-05-18 09:29 edit edit wars on the page Tone Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (7 May 2024 – present) 2024-05-11 03:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Czech Republic 2024-05-11 02:43 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:ARBEE Daniel Case Ben Shapiro 2024-05-11 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBAP2 Daniel Case Eden Golan 2024-05-11 02:03 2025-05-11 02:03 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish

Review of an improper RfC closure

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. was initially closed by an involved editor without discussing the arguments made in the discussion. I left a comment on the closer's talk page explaining that WP policies require that only an uninvolved editor can close the discussion and that, when closing, a summary of the consensus needs to be given. I then boldly undid the close given the clear violation of policy, but that was later undone by another editor who didn't vote in the RfC, but had left comments expressing a view on the subject and was also the editor who had nominated an image for deletion (see notifications on my talk page for speedy delete nomination, then file for discussion) that led to the RfC. That discussion between me and the second closer was at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg, which has since been deleted, but can't admins view the old content of the page? I tried to address the problems with the closure on the talk pages of both editors, but neither was willing to address them (see [1], [2], [3]).

In addition to the issues with the closure by the involved editors, the closure was not made correctly for several reasons. The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).

First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country and so Wikipedia articles containing fair use images already can't be freely reused in the many countries that don't have liberal copyright exceptions like the U.S. fair use, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which many countries' copyright laws don't have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).

Finally, while the result of the closure is given as "no consensus" to host the images subject to the RfC, the policy for many years has been to consider such images on a case-by-case basis and so the way the closing summary is stated it nonetheless changes existing policy. If there is no consensus on the outcome of an RfC changing a policy, shouldn't the result be to keep the status quo? AHeneen (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

AHeneen, I have undeleted File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Note: This shouldn't be closed until at least the last point is addressed: if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept? In this case, because of the wording of the question, the closing summary (by involved editors) changed the existing policy. AHeneen (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's more complicated than that. When everything's simple and straightforward, then, yes, you're right: When there is no consensus, then the proposed change is usually not made (although see WP:NOCONSENSUS for some examples of when the default differs). But this does not appear to be a simple and straightforward situation. The closer may have found, for example, that there was no consensus for the old version and no consensus for the proposed change. "No consensus" means "no consensus against the proposal" just as much as it means "no consensus for the proposal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The problem is 1) the closers were both involved editors and didn't really summarize the arguments made and 2) at the start of the RfC, the consensus was to accept such images on a case-by-case basis, but the question posed in the RfC was phrased in the positive ("Should the English Wikipedia host content that is public domain in the United States because the country of origin does not have copyright relations with the U.S.? "). The closing summary, in part, was "There is no consensus to host content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. " For the various reasons explained above, a lack of consensus should mean that the status quo be kept. AHeneen (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I answered the general question that you asked: "if result of RfC is no consensus, shouldn't status quo be kept?" The answer to that question is "it depends". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about the misunderstanding. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is now the oldest discussion on this page. The RfC closure really needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved editor. AHeneen (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Doing...—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with this quite a lot. Firstly, the close was procedurally flawed because it was made by an editor who had participated in the discussion. Secondly, I don't agree that "No consensus" accurately reflects the discussion. I feel that the consensus was to reject the proposal on the basis that the copyright status of the content could change in future. Thirdly, ironically, I don't actually agree with the consensus on this point. It would be simple (and it would be standard Wikipedian practice) to create a template that says "PD-because-no-copyright-agreement-with-USA", tag the affected files with this template, and use the template to populate a category which tracks such files and enable their removal if the copyright status changes in the future. But with my RfC closer hat on I would have to say that illogical though it seems to me, there was a consensus and it was to reject the proposal.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Your third point is irrelevant and semantically speaking, "there is no consensus to host such content" and "there is consensus to reject the proposal" which was to host said content, is the same thing. As for the closer, Wikipedia really needs to get over the whole "involved" nonsense. As indicative of the ever growing list of requested closures, if the result is obvious there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone just doing it. That is what being bold is. In any case, the original closure's decision was in direct opposition to what they wanted anyways. I could see a problem if they ruled in favor of what they wanted but, come on. This nonsense has been going on for well over a month now. It is time to drop the stick and move on with our lives. --Majora (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Nope, neither of those points is correct. "No consensus to host" and "consensus not to host" are not equivalent, and the fact that the consensus doesn't make sense is not irrelevant.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It is irrelevant in the vein that you did not participate so your opinion on the matter is moot. And in terms of English, those two ideas are equivalent. Whether or not Wikipedia views them as equivalent is different (and another layer of pointlessness that doesn't need to be there). --Majora (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

S Marshall: As mentioned in the OP, consensus is not merely tallying votes as per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Here, there were many quality arguments given for allowing the images with specific copyright tags with no response by those opposing (so there wasnt't really any attempt at reasoned discussion or consensus building). There was also basically no discussion about the status quo that allowed such images on a case-by-case basis. The semantic issue about consensus is better explained this way: there was no agreement through reasoned discussion about how to proceed forward (keeping in mind the principles mentioned in the first sentnce of this comment). This is a problem because of the way the RfC was phrased (in the positive, even though such images were already allowed).

It may be easier to understand this argument in a different context. Let's say someone starts an RfC about repeated wikilinks in articles that says "Should articles be allowed to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes?" Since this is phrased in the positive, any result other than a clear yes would be a change to the current policy (WP:DUPLINK: Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader.). If there is a lot of disagreement about the appropriate circumstances for when multiple links are appropriate, then using the result of the closure of the copuright RfC, the result of the RfC would be "there is no consensus to have more than one wikilink to the same article, excluding navigation boxes" and the status quo would be changed. AHeneen (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN/CXT

Hi, Wikipedians. I wanted to give you an update on WP:AN/CXT. Since that discussion was closed about eight months or so ago, we've cleared out about 10% of the articles involved, which were the easiest 10%. The work is now slowing down as more careful examination is needed and as the number of editors drops off, and I'm sad to report that we're still finding BLP issues. The temporary speedy deletion criterion, X2, is of little use because it's phrased as a special case of WP:SNOW and I'm not being allowed to improve it. The "it's notable/AFD is not for cleanup" culture at AFD is making it hard for me to remove these articles as well, so I'm spending hours trying to get rid of material generated by a script in seconds. I'm sorry but I'm discouraged and I give up. Recommend the remainder are nuked to protect the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For more context on this issue, please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 revision. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, S Marshall, and I don't fault you for your choice. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Isn't there some way to use the sortware to delete all of these in bulk, if only as a one-time thing? Seems like a huge waste of time if it's being done manually by hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Easily doable as a batch-deletion. I could have it wrapped up in 15 minutes. Unfortunately community consensus did not lean towards approving that option. In fact, most CXT creations which have been reviewed needed cleanup but turned out to be acceptable articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support a nuke, a mass draftification, or some loosening of X2. The current situation is not really tenable due to the density of BLP violations. However, ultimately, the broader community needs to discuss what the appropriate action is under the assumption that we are not going to get much more volunteer time to manually check these articles. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, the broader community doesn't need to discuss that. It's completely needless and the community has had a huge discussion already. All that needs to happen is for WT:CSD to let me make one bold edit to a CSD that was badly-worded from the get-go, and we'll all be back on track. That's it. The only problem we have is that there are so many editors who want to tell me how to do it, and so few editors willing to get off their butts and do it.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A kindness

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

---

If someone could please quickly close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Nassar on WP:SNOW or WP:BLP grounds this would be a kindness, as the article creator (who feels remorse over having created the article) is experiencing some emotional distress over the matter. Herostratus (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Herostratus. Yes, that would be much appreciated, if you think a premature close is in order. And I would go with remorse, angst, fairly minor emotional distress, but a moderate feeling that I appear like a bit of a dope for creating it in the first place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've closed it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MSGJ. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

WikiExperts

Hi! I'm begining to see ads for a company called "wikiexperts.biz". According to my reasearch, a company called "wikiexperts.us" was banned from editing in October 2013. It also seems that [4] (wikiexperts.us) redirects to [5] (wikiexperts.biz). Isn't editing for promotional purposes against the rules? Are they allowed to edit? Regards, Jith12 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, that's problematic in a million ways. For now, I propose that you go underground and find out which Wikipedia editors work for this joint. Exciting! Drmies (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Looking through the Internet Archive they're definitely the same company, with essentially the same website. The current version has been up since May 2016, so there's likely plenty of their edits already live. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

From what I can recall from the last go-round, they are not particularly good at hiding their COI, so unless they've really upped their game the edit should be easy to spot even if they don't admit who they are. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• "I'm begining to see ads" -- where? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Hi! I'm seeing ads on Google Search results. You know how sometimes there is a "promoted" result before the real result? When I search for Wikipedia, I see a "promoted" result for WikiExperts. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well, nothing anybody could do. They have a right to operate and advertise (just as much as Wikipedia has a right to ban them and enforce said ban with blocks of involved accounts). It's always been a tug-of-war and will probably always be. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi! How exactly would I "go underground" to figure out who these editors are? Regards, Jith12 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably work for WikiExperts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Ha ha! As a minor, I don't think that I'm allowed to do that! Jith12 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Internship then? Amortias (T)(C) 22:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How would they know you're a minor? Give it a try--you might make some money off of it! Drmies (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

And hopefully also get them shut down for using child labour ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you say "Accessory before the fact"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

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

---

There is a backlog at AIV that's pushing about 4 hours now. Anyone able to clear it out? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Artist biography article template

Saint9920 moved Wikipedia:Artist biography article template to Wikipedia:Luckid and made it an article about a non-notable musician. I don't know how to move it back because when I tried I received an error that said "You appear to be trying to create a page with (or move a page to) a title with a double-namespace prefix." Justeditingtoday (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the template back and restored it to its previous state. You were probably typing the whole "Wikipedia:Artist biography article template" in the new title field, but note you don't need a prefix (e.g. Wikipedia, Template, etc.) because that's in the drop down next to it. I note as I'm typing this Saint9920 has now recreated Wikipedia:Luckid... someone should probably move that to wherever we store drafts these days (AfC? Userspace? Draftspace? I dunno). Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've move-protected this page, so people won't again be able to move it to bad titles, but we'll still have to watch for replacements of the text. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and for clarifying where I was erring in attempting to move it myself. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

SPI backlog

There appears to be a backlog at SPI, the oldest non-edited entry dating back from 6th February. Could any available admins assist at all? I have been involved in a couple of cases and would like to see them progress. Thanks Nördic Nightfury 10:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Arijeet Patil and long-running pruning on young adult fiction

This editor, Arijeet Patil (talk · contribs), has been a problem lately, with a recent block for it. They edit exclusively and frequently to young adult fiction (largely Potter), to prune what they obviously see as "excessive" detail. However there is a clear consensus against this, with the resultant edit-warring and thus a block. They ignore talk:, either on their user page or on the articles.

This shouldn't go on. Even WP:CIR is starting to look plausible, because if you're getting this much pushback from other editors and still not discussing it, that doesn't work here on WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support WP:CIR indef - This editor's ignorance of everyone but themselves has gone on for far too long. Twitbookspacetube 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• A) Where is this "clear consensus against this"? B) What kind of edit is one of the most problematic? --Izno (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at their contribs history and their talk page. They've only been active this year, yet all of their removals that I can see get reverted promptly, often with user talk: warnings. No-one else is supporting these prunings.

The main problem though is that they just carry on making exactly the same edits, often simple reversions of others, and they refuse to discuss anything, even when blocked for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

One major issue has been un-wikilinking such that the term is no longer linked with the article (as opposed to removing for overlinking).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked them indefinitely. You can't collaborate with a user who refuses to speak to anyone or acknowledge their concerns even after being blocked once already. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Open CheckUser requests

Could someone with CheckUser rights please swing by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bertrand101 and have a look at the request that has now been open for 28 days? It was relisted by DeltaQuad on 1 February. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect link in the "Are you in the right place?" notice at top of this page

In the "Are you in the right place?" notice at the top of this page (and probably other pages too), it says "Review of the deletion or undeletion of a page → deletion review.", but links to Wikipedia:Revision deletion instead of Wikipedia:Deletion review. It's hard enough to find the right place to raise anything, without being sent off on wild goose chases by an apparently "official" template that is presumably seen many times a day by many admins. Please could someone fix it? DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Look at deleted version of a page

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

---

I have just started a stub article on Dame Moira Gibb, a British public servant. The page logs indicate that a previous version was deleted as "(A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance" by TexasAndroid. It might (or might not, I have no way of knowing without seeing the old version), be helpful for me to see the old version - could an admin supply me with a copy? Normally of course I would ask TexasAndroid, but he does not appear to have been active for over six months. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, but the "Are you in the wrong place?" notice at the top is not the most user-friendly of experiences (as evidenced by the fact that an incorrect link in it took over a year to be fixed). DuncanHill (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I just checked it and to be honest there isn't anything to share. It's a one-sentence stub that your article clearly expands on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Deleted page removal

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

---

Hi guys, I was just scrolling through the pages of one of my favorite TV shows, Alias, and I noticed that the following two entries for two of the show's characters have apparently been approved for deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Grace_(Alias), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Peyton

I didn't know what to do so I thought I should let the administrators know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.3.107 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

All PRODed articles are reviewed by an administrator before final deletion. The admins are currently about a day behind, which is actually pretty impressive as far as Wikipedia backlogs go. It will be reviewed when it is reviewed. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I find it disappointing that so few admins have enabled 2FA. If you have a smart phone there is really no reason not to be using it, once it is set up it is incredibly easy to use. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mom? Is that you? All right, all right, don't give me that look. I've done it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about addressing long backlogs? There's 30-odd RfCs on here, along with AIV and SPI backlogs only a few posts above this one. If this newsletter was a physical object, it would be soft, strong and thoroughly absorbent. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I'll mention it to those writing it, but if you ever see/think of something that needs including, feel free to contribute! Primefac (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Are you making some connection between the newsletter and toilet paper, or tissues, or something like that? Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• If we really want admins/functionaries to start using 2FA, we could do like Google, FB and etc. and put up a splash screen on every login that says "to protect your account with advanced permission, please enable 2FA", of course with a small link "not now" because consensus doesn't yet support mandatory 2FA. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  Note meta:Help:Two-factor authentication still has 2FA listed as "Two-factor authentication on Wikimedia is currently experimental and optional" - no requirements should force use of beta features. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  Since I don't have anything other than my laptop with Internet access, I would strongly oppose a requirement to use 2FA; I wouldn't be able to log in without using a publicly accessible computer, and that rather defeats the purpose. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  2FA should be mandatory for users with access to private information (functionaries, stewards, ombudsmen, WMF staff). 2FA doesn't necessarily require a smartphone, there are things like physical dongles. In any case, functionaries and above should never log into a "publicly accessible computer" with anything but their alt account which lesser access. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Cookie blocks" - will this require an explicit cookie warning to comply with the EU directive? Does wikipedia already have an explicit cookie warning and I just missed/forgotton it? (Keep in mind that the EU operates under the assumption that any US website that targets EU citizens data must comply with EU data regulations) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is what you mean, but cookie usage is addressed in the "Privacy policy" and "Cookie statement" links at the bottom of every Wikipedia page. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• That wouldnt suffice in any case, since it requires informed consent. But from reading up on it, I think the new one would be exempt anyway as its authentication-based. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy

Someone already requested a closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy, which concerns outing/paid editor/harassment/COI... whatever. However, Casliber says that more than one closer, preferably three-person, may be needed. I wonder whether more than one closer is necessary. If so, this indicates that the discussion would be another one of more difficult discussions we've seen lately. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not obvious from the discussion and the number of editors participating and the number of proposals made that it's a difficult and controversial topic? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

To me, closing the whole discussion is very difficult because of the controversy of the topic. However, I concentrated more on milieus and proposals. To be honest, I saw two milieus and one concrete proposal receiving support from the majority. I concentrated on the straw polls and arguments. How about this: close separate milieus and proposals separately? They aren't that difficult to separately close due to other milieus and proposals not likely to pass. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing each one separately probably makes more sense from a numbers perspective. However, it should still be one group of editors that does it, since there is the possibility (mentioned on the discussion) that some of the milieus could contradict each other depending on what gets passed. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Milieus 1, 2, and 5 are easy to close as the majority opposes them individually. Milieu 3 and concrete proposal 1 received majority support, so those would be also easy to close. But you're right; one same group of editors should do the individual closures. However, I won't be part of the closing group, so I'll await the uninvolved closers then. --George Ho (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be willing to be involved in a group closure on this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess this means we're putting the band back together ;) Primefac (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We still need one more volunteer for this. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

New adminbot request - File revision deletion for orphaned fair-use versions

A new adminbot BRFA has been opened at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot and is open for community comments. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Artegon Marketplace

Could an admin please undelete all revisions of Artegon Marketplace / Festival Bay Mall? The article got hijacked by a promo team and turned into an ad that got deleted via G11. I would like the whole shebang undeleted so I can revert to an older draft and fix it up. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done ping Primefac (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail headsup

The Daily Mail has finally responded to the recent RFC that editors determined that the paper was generally not to be used for sourcing on WP.

I would link it, however, it outs the real-life identity of the RFC initiator, User:Hillbillyholiday (who since has retired), and mentions both User:Slatersteven and User:Guy Macon. However for sake of those looking for it, it was posted online on March 3 and written by Guy Adams.

It is very much an attack piece on Wikipedia, plus gets a number of facts wrong (claimed that we have 30 million "administrators" so that the 57 support !votes in the RFC represent a tiny tiny fraction of administrators). I don't know if this will cause any problems here (it doesn't quite invite people to maliciously edit WP in revenge, but there's an undertone of disrupting the establishment here). --MASEM (t) 13:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’ There we go ladies and gentlemen. If we needed any more evidence of The Daily Mail's unreliability, we now need only refer to their own unreliable story on their own unreliability. But to be fair, they're only off by a factor of 23,000. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

[6] states:

Wikipedia’s decision to censor the Mail — the only major news outlet on the face of the Earth to be so censored — was supported by a mere 53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site’s 30 million total, plus five ‘administrators’ .

The article on TSTMNBN does not say that Wikipedia has 30 million administrators, nor that Wikipedia had 5 administrators. I fear that misuse of a cite for a quote which is inaccurately depicted shows not show that the site is "unreliable" in its commentary. Further, I am uncertain that where any outside site has committed "outing", that such is a violation of Wikipedia policies which only apply to editors on Wikipedia. And, as I often note, "headlines" are written by "headline writers" and often do not agree with the content of articles. I find "headlines" from any newspaper or magazine anywhere to be "unreliable" ab initio. Collect (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The 30 million refers to the number of people who have registered accounts over the years. The "five administrators" refers to the number of administrators participating in the RfC. Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If most of those 30 million actually edited, we'd have well more than 5 million articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The ban was supported by just 0.00018 per cent of site’s ‘administrators’ From the headline. Which equals approximately 23% of an administrator. I can only assume that this means one of our admins is a head in a glass jar. TimothyJosephWood 14:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I mixed up the byline and the prose on that (but that's still sloppy reporting to have bylines exaggerate as such), and as noted, if we really had 30 M active editors.... And I wasn't 100% sure on the outing aspect, I'd rather be cautious. Regardless, my concern presently is less about the DM's reliability and more that the article is highly condemning of WP and has opinions and elements that we as administrators should be aware might lead to some malicious activity. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the question is the number of "named accounts" (registered users). Wikipedia:Authors_of_Wikipedia gives a value thereof as " The number of registered users with login names is 30,369,908 (roughly 30 million people), and there are a similar number of unregistered users" and "So the total number of individual people who edit Wikipedia is at most 56,000,000, but probably far smaller." The use of 30 million is therefore a pretty reasonable figure for TSTMNBN to use. Collect (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You are pretty clearly trying to whitewash the fact that one of our admins is a dismembered head. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be true, but again, "activity" is important here. It's like trying to justify minimial voter turnout in an election by using a list of all registered voters over time, including those that have long-been dead (even if Chicago elections seem to go that way :) . I know we track around 3000-4000 very active editors (>100 edits/month) so reasonably activity editors will be much larger but it isn't going to be a jump by many orders of magnitude. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem, the article makes it clear that 30 million is decidedly not the number of active editors. Please re-read it; it says "Thirty million people have now registered as ‘editors’, of whom around 130,000 have been active in the past six months." -- Softlavender (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they state that, but it's a little bit like stating the number of people who have ever voted in an election in the history of the US, and reporting Trump's popular vote as a percentage of that number, as if the statistic was somehow meaningful. TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The following wikimarkup...

<div>As of {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY2}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC), The English Wikipedia has {{NUMBEROF|USERS|en|N}} registered users, {{NUMBEROF|ACTIVEUSERS|en|N}} active editors, and {{NUMBEROF|ADMINS|en|N}} administrators. Together we have made {{NUMBEROF|EDITS|en|N}} edits, created {{NUMBEROF|PAGES|en|N}} pages of all kinds and created {{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|en|N}} articles.</div>

...Gives you the following result:

As of Wednesday, 15 May 2024, 02:35 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 47,400,802 registered users, 121,501 active editors, and 859 administrators. Together we have made 1,219,157,320 edits, created 60,667,653 pages of all kinds and created 6,823,800 articles.

...With the latest figures for today's date. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure that applies. They can only use the statistics available; I don't think there is a way to know how many editors out of the 30 million are actually non-retired. In any case, they definitely have a point in that the RfC was in a hidden part of Wikipedia, not centrally publicized, and (in my opinion) in a locus inhabited by editors predisposed to nix items as RS without knowing the full scope of the DM's reportage or importance. They (the DM) made their point by using numbers ... the fact that only 53 editors out of several million made the decision is accurate and valid. Softlavender (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the RS notice board "hidden"?, no more then the content of the DM which you can only read if you go to it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, something on Wikipedia (a public website) called the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is not at all "hidden". That is just a falsehood. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So this is what US "LEFTY PRESS HATES" would call a Daily Mail fact?Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My point was that it was in a very little-traveled part of Wikipedia, with few current watchers, and populated by and (in my opinion) editors predisposed to nix items as RS without knowing the full scope of the DM's reportage or importance. The RfC was not publicized in Centralized Discussion or on talkpages of the Wikiprojects it most affected. Softlavender (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No. That is why is called the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard." That noticeboard is linked prominently from Wikipedia's central policies on reliable sources. And the discussion was in fact noticed on other pages of Wikipedia (including this very page). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The RfC was mentioned (extremely non-neutrally) at AN but not added to WP:Centralized discussion or any project-talk where the editors most affected would see it. WP:RSN is not generally watched by many editors beyond the stable of regulars and the very temporary watching of editors who have a question posted there. Softlavender (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, no. It's the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard." The central notice board for discussing reliable sources. Moreover, there are no projects that are not interested in reliable sources, and that are not effected by reliable sources, or at least if they claim to be, they should be shut down. At any time, in a months time, anyone, including you could have put more notice, if more notice was needed at all (but it was not or you would have done so), anywhere on Wikipedia or off Wikipedia. And other people did do so, and not just on the Administrators' Notice Board. So, it's a plain lie that anyone hid it or that it was hidden. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I said the RfC was not added to WP:Centralized discussion or mentioned on any project-talk where the editors most affected would see it. WP:RSN is not generally watched by many editors beyond the stable of regulars and the very temporary watching of editors who have a question posted there. I'm not sure why you are harping on the word "hidden" (which was obviously a metaphor), much less calling me a liar. Please remember WP:NPA. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You could have added it at anytime to centralized discussions and noticed anywhere you wanted as others did. Your "metaphore" is obviously inapt, so it inapt it looks like a plain lie, as far as NPA is concerned that's commenting on the lie not you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fame at last, worship and weep mere mortals. But jokes aside, so they get that I am either "Left-wing political leanings or wider anti-Press agendas" motivated based on the fact I am an SF fab form Essex (whilst ignoring the rest)? Whilst I would hate that we banned on newspaper because of a deliberate act of vandalism, I think their own article shows the kind of bias and laziness (to give them the benefit of the doubt) that caused me to want it banned. It also ignores the fact I have called for other news outlets to be banned (lets be generous and assume gross laziness). It also ignores the fact that I (and others) did link to it;'s many egregious violations, so lets do it again [7], this was not a mistake it was a deliberate lie. It is this kind of crap that made me vote keep it out. So DM, get your facts right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to the Daily Mail's false name calling, that Slatersteven notes: Five closed, but no they were not all administrators, and it's probable that more than five administrators participated in the discussion. Another falsehood in the Daily Mail article is the suggestion that the month-long discussion was secret, and that only those who "haunt" the Reliable Source Noticeboard (that's decidedly not secret) participated -- all false. I don't even watch the page, and I found out about it in public, while it was on-going. Now, of course, its not an absolute "ban" anyway, The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia. Further, it looks like the Daily Mail is only one who is anti-free speech and anti-free thought - sorry, in a free world, people are more than allowed to determine the Daily Mail is "generally unreliable", but perhaps the Daily Mail does not like free speech. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• But... but.. If I my name is mentioned in The daily Mail, does that mean I am now a celebrity? :( BTW, there is now a redirect to the RfC at WP:DAILYMAILRFC. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

YEP WELCOME TO THE CLUB OF THE Daily Myth TARGET OF THE HOUR. I wonder if we will see a spate of disruptive additions of the DM as a source. Some of the comments make me think we willSlatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

"Michael Cockram is a ginger-haired 35-year-old from Bournemouth..." Not too sure what the colour of my hair has to do with the price of eggs. Wrong, anyhow... Natch. --Twisted oddball —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Did I get this right: The Daily Mail condemns a community decision by consensus that determined that they are not to be considered reliable because of their proven track record of making false or misleading claims by posting a lengthy op-ed full of factual errors that could easily have been discovered by actually reading the discussion and our policies? Regards SoWhy 15:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, we now have a post on the articles page that suggests people start an RFC for using the DM as a source for sports news.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• The response should be added to Daily Mail as clearly notable for that article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone at the Daily Mail is outraged? Well I'll be. I'll stick to The Daily Mash instead. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as another point, based on forums talking about this DM article, there's a inset in the printed version that asks "Have you been wronged by Wikipedia? If so, please tell us your story by sending an email to" a DM email address. We should be wary of similar bickering pieces in the future, depending... --MASEM (t) 18:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note Of 16 !votes cast by administrators, 13 were "support" and 3 were "oppose" Of votes cast by clear SPA accounts, at least 3 were "support". This count is the best I can come up with. Collect (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Under no circumstances should this whinging, bullying, alternatingly disingenuous and hyperbolic screed be causing anyone who has any idea what they're talking about to cast doubt on Wikipedia community processes. The RfC was a little atypical, but it took place in an RfC at a noticeboard. Those are two separate mechanisms to ensure participation. Despite the Mail's histrionics, this wasn't actually a big deal that needed to go through centralized discussion. The Mail was unreliable for almost all purposes before, and it's now explicitly unreliable for almost all purposes. That's it. It could've been added to centralized discussion, sure, but that's certainly not a requirement for something like this, that may attract some press but doesn't have much of an impact on Wikipedia itself. There's no free speech issue and there's no "anti-press" agenda. There's just our content policies and guidelines and the extent to which publications like the Mail serve our purposes (or don't). I say "publications like the Mail" because despite being the only one named in a blanket RS-related RfC like this, there are plenty of others likewise functionally disallowed as unreliable, not to mention an extensive, published blacklist. This only feels like a big deal for Wikipedia because it's receiving exaggerated and often incorrect coverage press coverage. As I said, this RfC didn't actually change much, but I'll be really disappointed if we allow ourselves to be bullied into calling the close into question... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes weirdness

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but here goes. So I was editing greenhouse gas and after saving the edit was surprised to see it show up on my watchlist as a pending change. As far as I could tell my edit did not appear to be vandalism or otherwise disruptive, so I approved it.

Is this how PC is supposed to work? Was it a temporary glitch? Did I do a bad thing by approving my own edit? It seems odd that someone who has the privilege to confirm edits has their own edit show up as unapproved.Sign me "Addled in Ames." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Never had this, and I have the same privilege to approve pending changes. Yes (however) I would consider it bad form to approve your own edits.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd assume it's because you (partially) restored a non-accepted edit (the one DrStrauss had reverted). The same thing happened to me once when I edited an IP's edit without accepting it first. I'd say it's not a bug but a feature, i.e. requiring that an edit by a non-autoconfirmed user is explicitly accepted. As for bad form, I see no reason against approving one's own edits since they could as easily have accepted the IP's edit first and then edited it. Regards SoWhy 20:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, there were no intermediate edits, so Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's (by the way, nice username) edits should have "gone through". I wasn't disputing the climate change edits you made but because it's a somewhat contentious topic I tend to try and ensure sources are added with new material (I only have a layman's understanding of the process). Maybe it was a bit heavy-handed, if I warned your talk page feel free to remove it as I was just getting to grips with Huggle. Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem at all DrStrauss, you were entirely correct to delete an unsourced addition to a possibly contentious topic. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at the log for the page, [8] what is with that last entry, simply "protect" performed by a non admin? Makes me wonder if there is something wrong with the page at a technical level. Likewise, if the previous revision was accepted, it should automatically accept the revision of any auto-confirmed editor, let alone a reviewer... As to the appropriateness of accepting your own revision, often you wouldn't want to do something like that, but here I think it is actually fine. Your edit should have been auto-approved, so your really just fixing a technical defect. Even in a case where there is a technically legitimate reason to have the edits be pending (you edited after non-confirmed editor, and it hasn't been approved yet) your edit isn't actually the one that needs to be reviewed, it is the edit of the person before you that needs the approval, and your independent when it comes to approving THAT edit. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  The "protect" is a remnant of the extinct WP:AFT tool. It was not protection as such. The situation here is a bug I've seen happen before on rare occasions. And yes, it's fine to accept your own edits if this happens. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Backlog at open proxy check

Can some admins please help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests? We have 9 block requests dating back almost a month, and 3 unblock requests over there right now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Add unionpedia.org to the spam blacklist

The privacy policy of Unionpedia (http://en.unionpedia.org/Privacy:) say "All the information was extracted from Wikipedia". Unionpedia is a Wikipedia mirror, but it is used as reference: Special:LinkSearch/en.unionpedia.org. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 17:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the relevant guidance is WP:CIRCULAR not a spam blacklist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

TRM

I'm of the opinion that The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s current block should be reduced to maybe a week or a relatively short number of days, as opposed to the full month that he's currently serving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee - "Appeals of blocks or bans directly related to Arbitration Committee decisions or arbitration enforcement:  Discussed and decided by the full committee" DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I had raised this question on Bishonen (talk · contribs)'s page and it was recommended I bring it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, who do you think will win in a fight, ArbCom or Bish? DuncanHill (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It was actually a user named Rexxxs or something like that who said to take it to AN. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• The ArbCom page says/implies the appeal should go to their email address: WP:Arbitration Committee#What happens to incoming ArbCom email.3F. The editor who is blocked or banned should probably be making the appeal, I imagine. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The advice to bring it here, per WP:AEBLOCK, is correct, except for "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction"—the appeal would have to be initiated by the user. I have long supported TRM (here, for example, is my comment from 1 January 2014), but quickly reviewing cases like this is a bad idea. I have not examined the evidence presented but I have seen a couple of recent cases where TRM was clearly continuing snark. That has to stop. Being right is an excuse for a small number of snarky comments, but it is not acceptable to be a PITA for years. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • PITA? Oh, OK, I get it. Well, a month seems harsh to me, especially when someone told him "F.U." recently, and also that he was accused of being anti-Jewish, and as far as I know no action was taken against those users. But if TRM has to appeal it himself, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The F.U. was a more direct way of saying what I said above—the snark has to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec)As I recall, BB, the unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism against TRM were about a year ago. I recall defending him, and a certain editor criticising me for it. I think one might find relevant comments here. DuncanHill (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought the Holocaust denial thing referred to this, which is just a few weeks ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well you hadn't mentioned that before. Good to see your defence of him in that thread. DuncanHill (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I had forgotten that other item from a year ago. Whichever user sort-of accused him of anti-Semitism, just because of his views on circumcision, was over the line. And I consider Holocaust denial to be a subset of anti-Semitism, which is why I was thinking of the January 2017 item. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree the block should be significantly reduced, if not lifted altogether. Looking at his block log, this is not even close to a reasonable escalation. He hasn't had a block for over 72 hours before and every single block has either been undone as incorrect or reduced to only a few hours. How Sandstein then decided on a month is beyond me. As noted by Iridescent at AE (and apparently ignored by Sandstein) the most recent diff was in response to being told to "fuck off". The decision to fully protect his talk page was also a bizarre one, but I see that has been undone by Bishonen. Jenks24 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
• I did indeed advise Baseball Bugs to take it here, because there's an aspect that deserves community review. The problem in this case is the misuse of AE. The AE request was filed at 21:01 UTC. There was one comment suggesting "cut him some slack", and then a decision was made by a sole admin Sandstein at 21:41 UTC, a mere 40 minutes after the request. That's a denial of any opportunity for debate, and a decision taken unilaterally without consideration of even the small amount of debate that had occurred (no slack was cut). The block was at the extreme end of what was available ("initially up to a month"), and well beyond what Wikipedia:Blocking policy #Duration of blocks indicates as standard: "While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations". I contend that AE was never meant to be misused in the manner that is exemplified at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement #The Rambling Man (permalink). It is within the community's purview to examine and comment on actions such as these, and, if necessary, to restrict the actions of any user when that would be in the interests of Wikipedia. I content this is only the latest example of a pattern of Sandstein taking unilateral action at AE either without, or in defiance of, the discussion that should take place there. --RexxS (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No administrator is required to seek consensus to enforce an arbitration remedy. AE is just a convenient place to make requests. Any administrator could take unilateral action where they see a breach. Saying that, this case is a clear example of how flawed the Arbitration case is in relation to TRM. TRM works in areas to enforce quality standards that are severely lacking. DYK, ITN, ERRORS etc. Processes that affect what appears on the front page. By its nature almost everything he does is criticism there, because that is the very purpose of enforcing quality standards. And so editor's feelings get hurt because rather than get a pat on the back, they get 'this is badly sourced, this is wrong, this has been reviewed incorrectly' etc. TRM's arb restrictions are so easily gamed, any affronted editor just has to poke him a few times and BAM, TRM gets blocked for retaliating.

Lets just go with the Errors thread with Floquenbeam. TRM reports an obvious problem with the quality of an article on the main page, Floq says it is not, TRM says yes it is and here is why, Floq (an Admin) replies with 'oh well'. At this point most people would be getting frustrated with the clearly uninterested response here. 'If you are not interested why are you here?' is the least of the responses at that point. Leaving aside Floq's 'Fuck you' response which would have gained a lesser editor a block, its symptomatic of some of the admins these days. There have been more than a few recently who have made comments along the lines of 'an admin isnt required to take action'. Well no, but if you are responding to a query on a noticeboard specifically set up to notify admins of errors only they can fix, and the best response you give is 'oh well', then the *priviledge* of having advanced tools in the expectation you use them to improve the encyclopedia is being wasted.

At this point the community either needs to ban TRM completely from the areas where he is making sure the communities quality standards are being met (which would be a loss for everyone and make the front page a shit-show unless someone else picked up the slack) or it needs to seriously look at setting aside the restrictions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, not any administrator "could take unilateral action where they see a breach", because of WP:INVOLVED. I am concerned that AE is being used to do an end-run around the INVOLVED policy, where an admin who is barred from taking action themselves simply needs bring a complaint to AE. Some other admin can then be counted on to impose an irreversible sanction, possibly despite other admins' contrary views, because it only needs one admin to impose a sanction, even if a hundred refrain from it. This area is ripe for reform: requiring a reasonable time for discussion, in conjunction with a reasonable consensus to act, seems to me to be the very minimum of what should be expected, given the otherwise inevitable erosion of the INVOLVED policy. --RexxS (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I warned Floquenbeam for personal attacks, and I apply the same warnings to non-admins, without prejudice. El_C 10:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the convention on AE, usually, that more than one admin comments—not to mention others getting to comment—before closing? I view the haste of closing an AE case so rapidly as somewhat problematic, which I already commented about. I also suggested the talk page not be protected for the full month—thankfully, that was overturned. El_C 09:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the specifics of this particular block, am interested in views on a minimum 24-hour period for any AE request to remain open, with an exception for obvious vandalism or serious disruption. Most AE requests don't require an urgent minute-by-minute response, and this is not the first acrimonious debate on how long requests should remain open. A fixed waiting period before action doesn't presuppose multiple admins will actually comment within that time, but it might, perhaps, give people a greater chance to weigh in on controversial issues. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I agree that the block, if needed at all, seems excessive- as did the total protection of the talk page(perhaps that aspect was an error?) I also am of the opinion that 42 minutes was far too short a time for others to weigh in(even if technically not required)- even if only to allow all involved to calm down for even a few hours. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. I feel that the vast majority of the comments cited in the complaint did not warrant action- and the few that arguably might have(emphasis on might) didn't warrant a month(such as the one in reply to being told to 'fuck off'). 331dot (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Price (actor) recreation

Thomas Price (actor) was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Price (actor) in April 2010, but was re-created about two weeks ago. Cirt is the the admin who closed the AfD, but he/she has not edited since April 2016. So, I am wondering if another admin could check to see if this "new" version is an improvement over the one which was deleted and thus not eligible for CSD per WP:G4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is how it read:

"Thomas Price is a Hong Kong film actor. He is half-Chinese and half-British, born in Hong Kong and educated in Australia.

There appear to be some issues with COI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Life and career

Price was the joint lead, co-starring with Byron Pang, in the film Amphetamine. This film is the second of a Hong Kong film trilogy by award-winning Hong Kong film director Danny Cheng Wan Cheung (who has adopted the stage name Scud). It is a very unconventional story for Hong Kong cinema in its detailed examination of male homosexual love; it examines the 'limits of passion'. Price appeared in two earlier films, Permanent Residence, the first of the trilogy, examining the 'limits of life', and City Without Baseball which tentatively explores a similar theme. The third, as yet unreleased, film in the trilogy, Life of an Artist, examines the 'limits of art'.

Price is a former professional disc-jockey and appeared as a model for TV commercials and newspaper advertising, representing major brands.

In Amphetamine, Price's character, named Daniel, is at the epicentre of unrequited love between two young men, who have very different motivations in their attraction to each other. The film was nominated for a Teddy Award at the Berlin International Film Festival of 2010." +some links...

I think this is about the above, can this be moved?Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)