Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MZMcBride (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 26 June 2013 (→VisualEditor A/B test back on: +reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "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.

      Shortcuts

      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.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Adamantine123_from_caste_topics

      (Initiated 11 days ago on 10 October 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lightburst making poorly disguised personal attacks and hosting WP:POLEMIC content in his userpage

      (Initiated 4 days ago on 17 October 2024) There's a number of proposals made as part of the discussion that require closing as a number of editors have expressed a desire that the whole discussion be closed. Can a admin please close all proposals and then the whole discussion itself. TarnishedPathtalk 03:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Daniel. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

      (Initiated 73 days ago on 9 August 2024)

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Jinn#RfC -- In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 5 September 2024) An RfC about adding a short summary to a section. Last addition/comment was 8 October. All those involved with previous discussion have been notified of RfC (although not all have responded).--Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#RfC – In the article section about "Haifa", should the following paragraph be added?

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 13 September 2024) RFC tag has been removed by the bot. Last comments over a week ago. TarnishedPathtalk 07:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Assassin's_Creed_Shadows#RfC:Should_Assassin's_Creed_Shadows_include_the_Re-enactment_flag_controversy_and_Japanese_reaction?

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 25 September 2024) Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Edward_Heath#Rfc_on_lede_image

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 26 September 2024) An RfC about changing the lede picture for Edward Heath. There has been no activity on the RfC in 17 days, and the consensus isn't immediately clear about the changing of the infobox picture. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
      CfD 0 0 0 4 4
      TfD 0 0 0 5 5
      MfD 0 0 3 0 3
      FfD 0 0 0 1 1
      RfD 0 0 0 68 68
      AfD 0 0 0 1 1

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Category:Riize

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 24 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Category:Tourist attractions in Salem

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 25 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Centuries in Landskrona‎

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 27 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#!(*$

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 2 October 2024) Cremastra (u — c) 20:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Category:Wikipedia pages with colour accessibility problems

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 13 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 147 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

      (Initiated 69 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor asilvering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Yuta_Nakamoto#Requested_move_27_September_2024

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 27 September 2024) The discussion has passed the seven-day mark. I kindly request an uninvolved editor to review and close it at their earliest convenience. Thank you! Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 06:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Harrassing admins into reversing decisions

      NAC: This doesn't seem like it's going anywhere productive, so I'm boldly closing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Seriously?

      I really don't know what I hope to accomplish by posting this here. Probably nothing will come of it, but I'm honestly getting sick and fucking tired of seeing admins step up to perform the duties we voted them in for, only to get harassed and browbeaten into saying "fuck this", reversing their action, and walking off. The whining at User_talk:Tariqabjotu#hmmm is just way over the top, especially as it comes on the heels of this which has led to this move review. And yes, note the reoccurring names, e.g. Obiwankenobi and Timrollpickering. (With our new shiny notification system, I consider that a satisfaction of the "must notify").

      What's been going on around here the last few weeks regarding female/women-oriented articles and issues is just...not right. At all. I hate to post and run, but my future hangover awaits. Tarc (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I think I'll let GOF's words speak for themselves: [2]. The quote is useful: "You may not agree with what Obiwan has done or what I have done at various stages, but I don't feel that Obiwan "harrangued", "harassed", or "badgered" me. We had a relatively pleasant discussion about it and exchanged our views. To be able to do that on WP is refreshing and I think it's a big part of what WP should strive to be. I reversed my reversal as an act of good faith after our discussion; I did not really change my views on the substance of the matter, but I trust that things can be worked out at "move review".
      Also note that I've apologized to Tariqabjotu - I really did *not* mean to harass them, I was simply asking questions about their move. I've certainly gotten a lot of pointed questions about the recent move I did. Tarc, are you saying you're going to defend me from accusations of bad faith, sexism, misogyny, incompetence, and whatever else has been launched at me in the Hillary Clinton move review? That would be weird, as most of that came FROM you. Wouldn't you be thrilled, actually, if I reversed my close and walked off?
      To the point here, a few other users piled on Tariqabjotu's page, language got a little contentious, and my last message was basically "Hey guys, let's assume good faith, and give the admin time to respond". In any case, I hope I can be even more civil next time around. Am still learning... :The most ironic part about all of this is, after Tariqabjotu decided to reverse their close, Tarc comes here to complain about admins being browbeaten into changing their minds, and then he goes to Tariqabjotu's page to ask if they will change their mind. Sometimes, wikipedia is stranger than fiction...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This is patently absurd. There is a distinct difference between what Tarc is asking and what you were asking. Tarc is asking me to reconsider because he wants me to stick to my guns. You were asking me to reconsider because you want me to do what you wanted. They're totally different. He is absolutely correct in describing your remarks, and the remarks of the others who commented there, as browbeating. I twice told you to take the matter to WP:RM if you had an issue with it, and yet you persisted with this "give him time to explain" nonsense (oh, which I even did). Your initial query was acceptable, but we have avenues to contest moves (and other admin decisions) so you don't need to pester the acting admin. And while I rarely (never before?) have reversed an action based on such pestering, I was willing to make an exception here because I believe any closure of that discussion would be acceptable. I also only happened upon that article because I saw it linked from the move review for Hillary Clinton, and I was more than happy to instead withdraw my endorsement there. -- tariqabjotu 05:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I was trying to be civil, and follow the process; that's all; I was hoping to have a quick discussion instead of dragging the whole mess to Move review. Anyway, I respect your decision, and am sorry if you felt like I was browbeating you, it was not intended that way. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • More choice quotes from Tarc, to GOF, commenting on his recent admin action, to undo his previous admin action [3] "What the hell is going on?... This is fucking ridiculous." I think the only pattern I can discern here is that, when an admin performs an action Tarc agrees with, all is good, and everyone should leave that admin alone. But if someone else convinces said admin to change their mind, the admin has been brow-beaten, and when an admin performs an action Tarc disagrees with, he feels free to go to their page to ask them to change their minds, AGAIN.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My observation; although I commented briefly on the RM - you've expended an extreme amount of energy on this topic, to the level where I'd say it's becoming a problem. It might be worth considering if this is such a critically important issue it is really worth having yet more kb of discussion, or whether it might be more useful to actually try and contribute some actual content. --Errant (chat!) 20:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I hope you'll understand that, when I'm accused of incompetence, supervoting, sexism, misogyny, and worse, that I spend a few kb of text to defend myself. I didn't bring this to AN, and I don't even know what the point of this discussion is, so if you want to close it as "nothing left to do" feel free. I'm happy to drop this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This should probably be at ANI, not AN. But, indeed, I have no idea what you intend to accomplish here. Is your criticism with me for reversing my decision or with the two other users you mention for bothering me? Regardless, this is a volunteer project, and no one should be compelled to do anything here. Note that I did not move the article in accordance with their wishes; I just reversed my decision and let someone else deal with it. Where that article is located is about the least important thing in my life right now. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment I simply don't get it, unless this thread is the result of 'previous' disputes (which I've no knowledge of). With the Sarah Brown article, there had been a number of lengthy renaming discussions which had each resulted in 'no consensus' decisions. It was a bold move by Tariqabjotu to rename it, but it is not unreasonable to ask them to explain their decision (they had only explained why they thought the previous name was innappropriate). I don't see browbeating or harassment - in fact I would consider comments from Tariqabjotu such as this reply to be uncivil at best. Sionk (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Just to clarify the two cases Tarc is talking about: Here's the history with regard to Sarah Brown (which puzzled me but I think I have it straight now): Obiwan posted a couple of arguments on Tariq's talk page about this close. Sionk and Timrollpickering joined in to second what Obiwan was saying. Tariq closed that talk page discussion saying "I'm done here" and reverted his own close of the Sarah Brown article, then un-reverted it a couple of hours later. Obiwan then filed a RMV discussion. Previously, Obiwan posted several arguments on Good Ol'Factory's talk page, about GOF overturning Obiwan's NAC close of Hillary Rodham Clinton; GOF took Obiwan's comments in good faith and restored Obiwan's close (also now at MRV). I am neutral, except to say that I think several of the parties have been somewhat uncivil, with the biggest offender being Tarc who filed this notice. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment - sigh, would be better to stay out of this, but also not bad to have all the diffs in one place. Last month, this CfD was closed by an admin, stating consensus was to merge categories back to American novelists. Pretty quickly thereafter, that category was completely dispersed. In my view there were an overabundance of messages strewn across a variety of user talk pages, article talk pages, and a variety of other places. The Hilary Clinton move was contested here and brought to move review here. Then there's the Sarah Jane Brown (I'm assuming we have a redirect because this article has changed names twice in 24 hours), now also at move review. For each of these cases there's been a pattern of an overabundance of posts scattered in various places and not kept in one place. The most worrying, though, is that each of these instances is about women: taking women out of the American novelists categories, and renaming the wives of two world leaders. I think that, although seemingly incivil, Tarc has a point. Victoria (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      How is that worrying? Sionk (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Recommend closing - I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere, and I don't think any administrative action is needed here, other than to perhaps remind people to assume good faith. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment - Tariq advises Obi to take it to review if he has concerns with the close. Rather than respect that, Obi continues to push. That's badgering. I'm worried by this editor's pushiness. I'm not suggesting action now, but I'm glad it's been aired here, so Obi might take the opportunity to reflect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is badgering? I ask a simple question, the closing admin doesn't ANSWER the question and tells me to take it to move review, and I respond thusly: [4] - basically, restating the question more clearly, explaining why I'm asking him and NOT dragging it to move review right away - that's the guidance - you ask the closer first. I didn't know other editors would pile on and raise the temperature, so I tried to cool things down and tell people to AGF, mentioning that the closer had previously done a difficult move and had done so thoughtfully: [5], and thus I was confident there was an explanation. Indeed, once the closer unclosed, and RE-closed, he explained further his reasoning in his second closing statement. I was asking for nothing more. And in any case, I apologized, there, and here, already, so I've already done my reflection, thank you very much.
      My question is, if this is badgering, what do you call Tarc calling me a misogynist, then standing his ground when asked to strike it User_talk:Tarc#Please_strike_uncivil_comment, and to add to that, off-wiki, using the following colorful language towards other editors:
      • "You are a fucked-in-the-head cunt.... You are nobody. You do not matter.... You are a fucking psychopath.... Jesus fucking christ, you are insane."
      • "I haven't lost a thing, especially to an ignorant little cunt like you . Your pathetic argument has been nothing more than 'we shan't offend', an argument bruised aside with ease. I pity you bleeding-heart types. Truly."
      Meanwhile, I don't see anyone rushing to my rescue, for all of the sh*t and namecalling I've had to endure over at the Hillary Clinton move review for a good faith, if ultimately contentious, close, that had the dramatic and likely sexist in Tarc's mind result of moving her article to the same title which is in 72-point-bold-font on Hillary Clinton's website (http://hillaryclintonoffice.com/). Perhaps her webmaster is a misogynist too who hates Hillary Clinton? I can't think of any other explanation for why they would do that.
      But I'm not an IRC fiend, or a friend-of-powerful-people here, so I get nailed to the wall and bullies like Tarc roam free.
      And you, Anthonyhcole, I have had good discussions with you, but you still insist on calling me a sexist, here, and off-wiki, and refuse to relent, for the crime of supporting a consensus-based and policy-based title of an article which had been there for several years, which is supported by thousands of reliable sources, which is supported by the preface of the book written by the subject, and which was even noted to be non-sexist and aligned with policy by the the admin who closed *that* discussion (he said: "I'm hesitant to call the previous name "sexist", as I'm sure that was a good-faith, reasonable attempt to come up with a way to disambiguate this Sarah Brown (in the absence of a formal title); for better or worse, it seems like she's primarily known as the wife of Gordon Brown". But no, it doesn't matter, I'm still a sexist in spite of all that, thus sayeth Anthonyhcole.
      WP:NPA is a policy, not an essay. Why don't you and Tarc try reading it, and doing some reflection of your own.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My my, who peed in your cornflakes this morning? First off, I think Anthony will take it as a grave insult to be compared to the likes of me, please apologize to him. Second, those alleged quotes that you attribute to me are
      a) from an off-wiki web forum
      b) directed at a long-banned Wikipedia user
      c) are being snipped by Obi-wan out of the context of a larger discussion where both I and the target were being rather nasty to each other. I give and I take in equal measure.
      If someone is just skimming Obiwan's Wall-o'-Text(tm), I don't want them to have the mistaken impression that that text represents on-wiki activity in the slightest. WP:NPA does not apply outside of the project, anymore than a public school could sanction a student for saying "fuck" in his or her own home, or that my no-smoking workplace could penalize me for lighting the cigarette that currently sits in my hand.
      I honestly feel this thread has run its brief course, and if an admin wants to mark it closed/resolved/archives, it'd be appreciated. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History closed

      An arbitration case regarding the article Juan Manuel de Rosas has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

      1. Cambalachero is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
      2. MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
      3. Lecen is reminded to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines.

      For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 04:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this
      This is only a notice, please follow the link above if you want to discuss the matter. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      There's that useless, abusive and frustrating broadly construed language again. When will we finally learn that we need to do these determinations to be measurable? If you can't measure it, you cannot manage it. You cannot measure or manage "broadly construed. Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Can I suggest that rather than adding exactly the same comments to multiple threads, Kumioko might do better to start a centralised discussion of the use of "broadly construed" in such instances. Frankly, it is getting somewhat tedious to see the same comment time and time again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Deletion request

      Could an admin please process this? Thanks. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

       Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Bots are supposed to delete pages there, if I remember rightly. Is a bot down? Nyttend (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The "manual" page is handled, well manually. ;) Legoktm (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      VisualEditor A/B test back on

      Hey all. We're looking to start the A/B test in a couple of hours. My sincere apologies for the short notice :/. If you notice any new bugs, or any substantial problems, please bring them to us as soon as possible so we can resolve them; we'll be monitoring the situation closely and will be able (and willing!) to disable it or put the test off if there's something big that needs resolving. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This still seems dangerously premature, because VE is still making unasked-for format-changing edits in parts of the article away from where it has been asked to edit. I have this minute repeated this test where I changed only one word, but VE altered the formatting higher up, and there have been numerous other recent reports like:
      If we are throwing it open to newbies who will not check for unwanted side-effects, there seems a substantial risk of articles being damaged. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems pretty disingenuous to apologize for the short notice when there was absolutely no reason to rush to deploy this test. What, exactly, are you apologizing for? It also seems pretty disingenuous to pretend as though you'll disable the test when a number of editors have repeatedly called the test premature and destructive. I guess it makes it okay if you start with "Hey all" and throw in an emoticon, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      John, MZ, I'm going to monitor Special:Contributions/newbies this week and try to review all edits with the VisualEditor tag, looking for breakage and abandoned messes. Also, just spoke to Philippe about this, and he assures me that if a significant amount of trouble comes down the chute, it will be shut off. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure how me being sorry for the short notice for the test has anything to do with your feelings as to the test's necessity; I'm apologising that we've taken an action that has potential ramifications for the community without giving the community more of a heads-up. We're not pretending; we will disable it if it's screwy. If you've been paying attention, you'll note that this was initially scheduled for last week...but that we called it off because we thought that serious problems were a surefire thing. Can't ask for better evidence we'll shut things down than us actually shutting things down. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Explain to me, using smaller words, how it's possible to apologize for a completely voluntary action? Rather than giving short notice and apologizing, you could simply give sufficient notice and wait (there's no rush). Or better yet, not run a premature test at all. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      While I'm here, can you explain to the community your plan to disable the test? Do you have a maintenance script written to undo this user preference for every new user you've set VisualEditor on for? And what constitutes being "screwy"? Stripping HTML comments? Mangling references? Loading content from a completely different wiki? Spurious <nowiki> tags being inserted into the page? Go on, explain just how screwy VisualEditor needs to be before you'll consider disabling it.
      Finally, can you explain why you feel it's appropriate for our newest editors, the ones who've been told for eleven years to use [[this]] to make a link and to use {{this}} to insert a template are the people who should be targeted for an opt-out experiment? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Doesn't the whole point of "newest" imply they have no previous experience editing? I know that in reality it means "just registered an account" and hasn't edited yet, but theoretically they wouldn't have previous knowledge of {{template}} and [[link]].. The whole reason they are targeting new users (from my understanding) is they're the ones who don't know the { } [ ] < > type coding stuff, and so they're the ones who need a visual editor the most. Charmlet (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No. They have previous knowledge having used the default wikitext editor. When they try to use regular wikimarkup in their edits, VisualEditor mangles their inputs. It remains completely unclear why new users are being targeted. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Er, you're saying that completely newly registered accounts who've (unless as an IP) never used the Wikipedia editing box have knowledge using Wikimarkup? Remember that this only targets newly registered accounts, not accounts that've already made edits. Charmlet (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I spent a good portion of yesterday looking at every VisualEditor edit. Please do your homework before questioning whether I know what I'm talking about. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to be a hard ass or anything; but if duplicate small and big formatting issues are piled up in any article like that, it probably is a really rare case. Can it be addressed; certainly; but at this stage it seems to be a bit harsh to consider duplicate small and big templates as a valid reason to stop testing. Why not just parse out these pages and watch them for the time being? I'm certain only a few hundred cases would exist at most; and many are probably broken in some other fashion. If you want, I can take a crack at it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "big big" issue is not important in itself, but as an example of VE making unexpected changes away from the area being edited, although the User guide says that "In general" it should never do that. When I read that the A/B test was on again, I hoped that meant the problem had been fixed, and repeated that quick demonstration test from a few days ago, to discover that it had not. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the issue isn't important by itself; but I believe that some extensive testing was used prior to the rollout, and this rare example - which should almost universally go to single small/big templates, is not a high priority fix. I don't expect perfection with it, but if this is the only example seen thus far, that's not the worse-case scenario. Though I do agree with your assessment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The big-big issue is certainly not a high-priority one, but it is far from "the only example seen thus far"; it is only a trivial demonstration of the serious issue, which is that VE still makes unexpected changes in parts of the page it was not asked to edit. I'm sure there was extensive testing, but the product is very far from problem-free - see the Bugzilla list and the 24 new reports in the last 24 hours at WP:VisualEditor/Feedback. Problems are still being found which seem quite elementary, like loss of all formatting on copy-paste. JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for those, Charmlet. Just used one. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes that looks good - I tried VE on Hyderabad and it mangled up the code in images with alt text - we cleaned it up but it took some time....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I tried it implementing peer review comments at Thaddeus Stevens and wound up having to redo everything because it messed up the formatting. Didn't make my day.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Surely it says something when long-time users are having difficulty with VE (myself included) and it's being enabled for half of all new users... bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Out of scope user talk page

      No admin action needed at this time. I have observed that these kinds of user/user talk pages are not unusual for young musicians trying to establish themselves. Please also remember to be kind to new editors. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      See User talk:Scientistali--Musamies (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Where was your attempt to discuss the matter before raising it at AN? Where was your notification to the user in question about the discussion at AN? GiantSnowman 14:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      He is a new user. His user page isn't so out of the ordinary for a user page, although he has yet to edit an article. I would say wait and see what else he does. And what GS said, too. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What's wrong with his user page? This is a non-issue ★★RetroLord★★ 14:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It was the user talk page which used to look like this but now looks like this. GiantSnowman 14:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, simple new user mistakes. Not so unusual. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

      I've cleared the board--except for my own request. Can someone have a look please? Drmies (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=561611019"