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. 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.

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/Incidents#Thomas_B_forum-shopping,_circumventing_page_ban,_refusing_to_drop_the_stick

(Initiated 20 days ago on 27 March 2024) – The discussion converged to a consensus. The reported user requested a closure on my talk page. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion appears to have concluded; there are no replies in the past six days, and there appears to be a consensus. I second the request for closure. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thirding the request for closure. As someone who has been reported at various conduct noticeboards, a report hanging around for 20 days is nightmarish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Battle_of_Kosovo#RfC Should Muzaka and Jonima be included in the infobox?

(Initiated 161 days ago on 7 November 2023) I mistakenly assumed an admin would automatically closure the RfC, so that's why the discussion has turned old. However, it stills needs a final result. Latest comment: 87 days ago and 16 editors involved in the discussion. --Azor (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 113 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#RFC

(Initiated 62 days ago on 14 February 2024) First time I've ever requested a close, please lmk if done wrong. Think conversation has slowed and it's been a while since it started. toobigtokale (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I closes

(Initiated 61 days ago on 15 February 2024) As the first round of Phase I reaches 30 days in action, I'll be listing discussions here as they reach time. Once the final discussion has been closed, this heading can be archived. Proposals ripe for closing:

• Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA, initiated at 02:19 (UTC) on 15 February 2024
• Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial), initiated at 03:00 (UTC) on 20 February 2024
• Proposal 4: Prohibit threaded discussion (trial), initiated at 11:33 (UTC) on 18 February 2024
• Proposal 12c: Lower the high end of the bureaucrats' discretionary zone from 75% to 70%, initiated on 1 March 2024
• Proposal 13: Admin elections, initiated at 05:53 (UTC) on 23 February 2024
• Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements, initiated on 23 February 2024
• Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions, initiated on 17:56 (UTC) on 27 February 2024
• Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process, initiated on 1 March 2024

Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I've closed 3b and 7. I believe 13 and 14 are also overdue now too. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Updated, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every proposal can now be closed. Soni (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

and I think now any and all can be closed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

4 was closed User:Wehwalt. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 46 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting X3

(Initiated 40 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Paul_Atreides#RfC_on_the_infobox_image

(Initiated 38 days ago on 9 March 2024) Trying this one again. Latest comment: 3 days ago, 98 comments, 21 people in discussion. Admins are involved, vigorous WP:NFCC discussion. Closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this; I was about to do so myself. The consensus seems pretty clear, but given this is a copyright issue I think a formal close is beneficial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 26 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:StoneToss#RfC:_Exclusion_of_StoneToss's_website_from_the_article

(Initiated 22 days ago on 25 March 2024) Has been running for 10 days but discussion has slowed down considerably recently. Contentious topic, so requesting formal closure here. — Czello ^(music) 12:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Is the OCB RS?

(Initiated 21 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:StoneToss#RfC: Should the revelation of StoneToss's identity be referred to as doxxing?

(Initiated 20 days ago on 27 March 2024) Discussion has slowed. 6 days since last vote. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	5	4	9
TfD	0	0	8	3	11
MfD	0	1	0	2	3
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	13	13
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Brion Vibber Interviews

(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 February 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 17#Template:Officially used writing systems in India

(Initiated 30 days ago on 17 March 2024) Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (21st nomination)

(Initiated 15 days ago on 1 April 2024) Would also appreciate the closing admin determining whether there is a consensus to title blacklist, in addition to whether there is a consensus to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done, and i'll leave it to you to implement the title blacklist, Pppery :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 101 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Charles_XI_of_Sweden#Requested_move_13_January_2024

(Initiated 94 days ago on 13 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 2601:249:9301:D570:9012:4870:54CD:5F95 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 92 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 83 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 77 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:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 77 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 70 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David_III_of_Tao#Requested_move_9_February_2024

(Initiated 67 days ago on 9 February 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2 World Trade Center#Split proposal 16 February 2024

(Initiated 60 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tupelo_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_17_February_2024

(Initiated 59 days ago on 17 February 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1933_German_referendum#Requested_move_23_February_2024

(Initiated 53 days ago on 23 February 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor bd2412. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Edward_V_of_England#Requested_move_29_February_2024

(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 February 2024) – Requested move open for a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Lusitania#Requested_move_29_February_2024

(Initiated 46 days ago on 29 February 2024) – Requested move open for a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Reubens_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_23_March_2024

(Initiated 24 days ago on 23 March 2024) Please review or relist this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:GA_banner

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

---

Can an admin close Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:GA_banner Thanks! Obtund^Talk 06:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That discussion has run for less than four days. Is there any particular reason to cut short the normal seven-day debate? JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a unanimous keep. Obtund^Talk 16:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment. We give these things a week to run unless there's a good reason; a lot of editors are only active at the weekend. What's your hurry, anyway? It's barely used anywhere. Mogism (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

CBS Records

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Clearly this is a content dispute. Seek WP:DR and/or Wp:PP as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For the article CBS Records, should the article only contain information on the current business entity that was created in 2006, or should it contain information on both business entities and include the division of CBS that existed under that name from 1962 to 1988? All the links coming into the article are for the the pre 1988 entity. User:Steelbeard1 insists that only 2006 information is to be at the article despite reliable sources showing a business entity of the same name from 1962 to 1988. He deletes all changes to the article back to his preferred version despite the use of reliable sources showing CBS Records existing prior to 2006 and despite all the incoming links being to the first business entity. He has now reverted to his version three times and is now removing links in other articles that point to "CBS Records", there are several hundred incoming links for the pre 1988 business entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Snow close request

Anyone interested in snow closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

pulp-pedia

Dear administrator,

My article "Ahmet Yalçınkaya" is copied by a website calling itself "pulp-pedia" at the address http://lohere.net/kulkapedia/samuel/Main_page . It is really annoying as they directly copied the article from Wikipedia and added profanities to it. Is not there any way to block them or at least to prevent them do this?

It is very important for my poet friend Ahmet Yalcinkaya and for me. I am the editor of the original article after his name. We need urgent help. Thank you.

A. Edip Yazar Editor of the article "Ahmet Yalçınkaya" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipyazar2 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The licence Wikipedia uses allows content to be reused for any purpose, provided the source is attributed and any derivative work (such as this one) is licenced under the same terms. It's just childish vandalism and the content has obviously been copied automatically, I suggest you ignore it. Hut 8.5 16:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That has got to the lamest Wikipdia parody I have ever seen. I agree, ignore it. I'm sure everyone else will. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I commented on this website a while back and my larger concern is why Wikipedia allows the trademarked puzzle globe to be defaced which is not part of the license agreement. Ignoring it is a viable option but action is in my opinion the better choice. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got a point there about the logo but there is nothing any en.wp admin can do about it. This is a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. This guy is probably a good contact for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This was raised on Geoff's enwiki talk page last month, see User talk:Geoffbrigham#Pulp-pedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm afraid there is nothing else to be done from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible attempted outing

Could someone please take a look at this thread? StAnselm (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Still redacted it, but either way I don't see the problem with this. Any user can log on to the WP IRC server and see a user named ArtRubin. It's not like he's trying to hide who he is or obscure the link between his WP account and WP IRC account. Its equivalent to pointing out someone's account on meta. Sædon^talk 09:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reminder concerning "review by ArbCom only" blocks

This is just a general reminder for administrators of a statement that has been posted in the past.

At times, in blocking an editor, an administrator will note that the block "should only be lifted by the Arbitration Committee" or that "any appeal from this block is to ArbCom or BASC only." This notation is appropriate in circumstances when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. This could include situations where discussion would reveal or emphasize information whose disclosure could jeopardize an editor's physical or mental well-being, where on-wiki discussion would identify anonymous editors, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified.

In such cases, the blocking administrator should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee mailing list by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. This is important so that the arbitrators can evaluate such blocks as needed and will have the background to consider any appeals or if any further actions concerning the blocked editor are required.

If an administrator is unsure whether this type of block is justified, he or she should feel free to e-mail the Arbitration Committee mailing list before blocking.

Thank you.

For the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)