Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

• 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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 30 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 84 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 65 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 62 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)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 61 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)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 61 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)[reply]

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 58 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 48 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 45 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

(Initiated 31 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 67 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 65 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 62 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 61 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 61 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 60 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 60 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 57 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 55 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

(Initiated 54 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

(Initiated 51 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 50 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 44 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

(Initiated 44 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 43 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 42 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 41 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 38 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 33 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 32 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

(Initiated 30 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal

(Initiated 434 days ago on 1 April 2023) The merge proposal was uncontested and carried out six months after the discussion opened. That merge was then reverted; a more formal consensus can be determined by now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – as you say, this "merge proposal was uncontested and carried out", so there is no need to formally close this merge discussion. What appears to be needed is more discussion on the talk page about the edits made after the obvious consensus of the merge discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor MarkH21: apologies for the late ping. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.

• The merge proposal was made on 1 April 2023.
• The merge was performed here and here on 22 November 2023.
• The merge was reverted here and here on 22 November 2023. Immediately after the merge was reverted, the consensus on the talk page was not clear.
• The discussion Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal has been open since 22 November 2023. There have been no meaningful edits to British Ceylon period since the merge was reverted on 22 November 2023.

So it is appropriate for an editor to assess the consensus of the discussion now, since the merge was contested and effectively never took place. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree. While the consensus was clear enough before, your support made it even clearer that consensus is to merge. Please take another look at the yellow, #1 cue ball near the top of this page. Either a new discussion is needed or just boldly go ahead with the merger again. If you feel the need to close this discussion, then close it yourself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Ah you've convinced me. I was being a bit too cautious and it was slightly counterproductive – sorry to take your time! I'll perform the merger, thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo and Happy to Help! and Thank You for your work on Wikipedia! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 81 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 52 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal

(Initiated 8 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 5 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

AmateurEditor wants an uninvolved admin to close a discussion, but he left the request at WP:ANI instead of here. Please read his comments (and reply if necessary) at that page, section "Determination of consensus for an edit at Mass killings under Communist regimes". Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Links are Mass killings under Communist regimes and Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, for convenience. Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link directly to the ANI post: Determination of consensus for an edit at Mass killings under Communist regimes. Thanks in advance to whichever admin assists with this. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is under AE sanctions (one should read all details at the top of talk page). I do not think there is any consensus. To complicate the things, there is currently a standing proposal for mediation on the article talk page. I think the proposed change contradicts NPOV policy, plain and simple. There is an estimate taken from an academic RS. Instead of bringing more RS to expand the range of numbers (as required by NPOV), some participants simply want to remove the reliably sourced information they do not like. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the relatively few editors who opposed this proposal should be repeating their positions on these noticeboards (another did the same at the original ANI post), especially without identifying themselves as involved, because it could be misleading to the uninvolved admins who need to evaluate the discussion. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, removal of reliably sourced information (as you proposed in the RfC) goes against W:NPOV. According to the policy, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ... This policy is nonnegotiable". The quoted book qualify as RS because it was written by established academic reserachers and published in Harvard University Press. If there are other views/publications with other numbers, they must be included. However, if there are no other "significant views" published in RS (numerical estimates in this case), this should stay as the only estimate published in RS. I think there are actually other published numbers. Now, speaking about involvement, it was you who posted this RfC, and it was you who came with request for closure to ANI. Unlike you, I never edited this page a lot. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 13 posts to the article's talk page in the past month and you have participated in the very discussion for which I am asking an uninvolved admin to make a consensus determination. This is what I mean when I say you are involved. I am not going to re-respond to your inaccurate characterization of the proposal. Any interested and uninvolved admin who volunteers will be able to read the full discussion at the article talk page. But why are you even trying to re-debate this here? Does it do anything other than discourage uninvolved admins from wading into this issue and making the determination I have asked for, as the sanctions recommend? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for anyone: should I try to keep this section on the board until it gets an admin response by editing it every two days, or just let it archive and repost the request? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could post a direct link to whatever discussion you think should be closed - there are several going on. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Formal Edit Proposal". AmateurEditor (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are supposed to base their decision on whether or not content policy is being followed on the basis of the opinions of editors. The place to argue content policy is on the talk page. It appears that most editors agree that AmateurEditor's suggestion does not violate content policy. In fact it is unusual to argue that something cannot be moved within an article because it would be a violation of policy. TFD (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the "formal proposal" by AmateurEditor (see link above), two changes should be simultaneously made: (a) to remove the key reliably sourced estimate from the Introduction, and (b) to describe the estimate from the book as "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates". What does it mean "unofficial"? I do not think we have a clear consensus even about (a). As about (b), this is WP:Editorial or possibly WP:OR. There is no consensus about (b) whatsoever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. why on earth does Wikipedia have this egregious little article? Governments of all sorts have carried out massacres. The intersection of "communism" and "mass killing" here is made solely to score a political point. Hmmm Mass killings under Capitalist regimes; Mass killings under Theocratic regimes; Mass killings under Socialist regimes; Mass killings under Dictatorships; Mass killings under Monarchies. Fascinating. (adding: The second sentence in Wikipedia's own article actually gets this right, and then is blithely ignored. "Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made.")Dan Murphy (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have this and this (which seems reasonable to me), I do not see anything seriously problematic. It probably just should be renamed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a vandal fighting bot that reverses large blanking of articles? I've just recently had to revert two vandals who have removed large sections of articles, that normally the bot would have caught. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's User:ClueBot NG. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 23:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be doing its job. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reverts blatant vandalism. I guess it didn't detect the blanking as vandalism. ZappaOMati 23:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it didn't revert because it is not able to distinguish good-faith removal of unsuitable content from a vandal just chopping stuff out of an article. The edit filter tags any section blanking by non-autoconfirmed users, think that is probably the best we can do on that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can this and this be interpreted as good faith? If the bot can't tell it's vandalism, it needs to be tweaked. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to take that up with the bot's operator. I would suggest posting at the bot talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parsing content, including deleted content, is not an easy job to do automatically - Artificial Intelligence is still only at a very rudimentary level. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Sometimes human intelligence is only rudimentary :-) ) Never rely on a bot to do 100% of what we as editors should be doing first dangerouspanda 09:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How could a bot possible distinguish between section blanking by a vandal, and a user removing a big vandalism section that was recently added. If ClueBot reverted all instances of section blanking, it might be accidentally reinstating vandalism into an article. In order for a bot to distinguish, it needs to understand context, which even the most powerful artificial intelligence systems in the world don't adequately do. -Scottywong| yak _ 18:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some days ago, I was editing logged out and blanked a section that was problematic; I think it was a copyvio, but it might have been some other big problem. I definitely don't vandalise while logged out, but a bot that reverts large blanking of articles might well have decided to fight me and thus restored a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Request: I would like to request an IBAN between myself and Cantaloupe2 (see context here) A couple editors have told me that I should post the request here. Corporate 12:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Disclosure You've got a discussion going concurrently at

• Talk:Nouniquenames
• Talk:DGG
• AN Talk

I'm requesting your disclosure in any other locations you're concurrently discussing this matter. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On AN Talk, you claim that you want to be able to edit without being "pounced on". I interpret that as expecting to have full reign in wanting to add whatever you want to advance your paid edits on behalf of clients to show their pages in positive light they wish without having me change it to look any other way. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm involved, so take this with a grain of salt. I've spelled out my reasoning at COIN, but I'd suggest that something may need to be done if Cantaloupe can't learn to interact nicely. --Nouniquenames 05:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...to follow up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) by deleting with their super powers. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, tea or delete? ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never run into that issue before. Seems kind of ridiculous not to let the biggest WP project delete a page on its own site. I hate to ever suggest this, but you may need to ask for help over at Meta, I don't know that many stewards watch this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after I posted here I saw a link to some board there. Thanks Beeblebrox, and I share your concern. Anyway, try to delete those articles and you'll see what I mean. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, so I can't see the error message you are getting. Is the reason it not being able to be deleted is because of the article having a large number of revisions? If that is the case, couldn't you delete X amount of revisions at a time until the article doesn't have such a large amount? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the page in question, but if there were 7 thousand revisions, and the limit is 5 thousand. you would ask an admin to selectively delete 2000 revisions? I just was kinda surprised by the suggestion. - jc37 01:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion only removes certain revisions from public view, correct? Since the entire article would be deleted, all of it would be removed from public view. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, a steward should take care of it. The main reason it's restricted for purely for technical reasons IIRC. (It's the "bigdelete" user-right) Legoktm (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz (talk · contribs) took care of another today, try pinging him? The problem is that deleting such a page can crash the servers, so we don't want people doing this willy-nilly. (A la Ed Poor deleting VFD back in the day). --Rschen7754 01:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nod - I think it was implemented due to a situation with deleting the sandbox? - jc37 01:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The village stocks contains the story of how that came to be, see the section on Scientizzle. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) dammit blade, you beat me to it Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done And yes, it did lock the database and require multiple attempts to force it through the server. I suspect if I had tried to do it to ANI or another much larger page during a peak editing time, it would have been much uglier. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't think it's be that hard on the database (it was a shade under 6000), so I suppose I stand corrected. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It definately was that hard on the database. About 10-15 minutes ago I lost a few edits because the database locked. So, the effects were definitely felt. --Jayron32 03:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I figured picking 11:30 EDT would not be a peak time, but I could've shoved it back a few more hours. MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but should be be using an alternative to deletion in unusual cases such as this? It doesn't seem worth messing up the ability to edit the entire encyclopedia to get rid of a single, and fairly obscure, article which (as far as I'm aware) doesn't have anything highly problematic in its revision history. Converting the page to a plausible redirect (for instance, to DirecTV) and then locking it so that only admins can edit the redirect would achieve pretty much the same thing without any collateral damage. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or lock it blanked and let a bot with permissions revdel a few revisions at a time until it's gone. Then an admin deletes the blank page. I don't know that it would work, but it seems like it would accomplish the desired ends without messing things up in the mean time. --Nouniquenames 16:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this premise is based on a incomplete understanding of how revision deletion works. Revisions are not actually gone when revdeleted, it is just that their visibility is adjusted, they are still all there in the page history, you just have to have admin rights to see the bits that have been hidden. So it would still require the big delete permission to zap it Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have given User:Silas S. Brown a short block for ignoring requests to stop his redirect creation spree and discuss this first. He was creating thousands of redirects to Hangul at a very high speed (over 20 per minute)? It looks as if he was tryiong to create a redirect from every syllable block (the article: "The number of possible blocks is 11,172, though there are far fewer possible syllables in Korean, and not all possible syllables actually occur.") to the actual language. Whether this is wanted and these are good, obvious search terms is dubious (or at least debatable).

Outside review of the block and of the redirect creation is welcome. Fram (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's responded now, with an indication that the script has been stopped, so I guess the block has already served its purpose and could be lifted, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the talk page looks like it was a good faith bot experiment. He should be unblocked and encouraged to learn more about bot writing in the appropriate channels, so he can contribute more in this area. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses and the correct unblock now that the script is stopped and the operator responding. Any ideas on what to do with the redirects (or where best to discuss this?). Fram (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since they're all new, they won't be linked anywhere, so I would check that he's okay with them all being undone and, if so, WP:CSD#G7 the lot. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but would you include the links to e.g. here and here as well? They even include a number of links I can't access because I can't find the source, only the target. No idea if there have been other similar runs. Fram (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'd better write up exactly what I've done: User:Silas S. Brown/Unicode redirects Silas S. Brown (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 20#14,000 Unicode characters to discuss these. Fram (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello Sir, I want to make a Community page named "Youngistan Reunites" which is Trust located at Jaipur. We are doing work on Young peoples on their problems. We have organized several events under this banner. so kindly allow me to make my page with this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngistanreunites (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. --Jayron32 18:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:COI, and WP:UNAME Hasteur (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be referring to Facebook community pages. Such pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia—such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. However, at Wikipedia we have no control over Facebook's community pages. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider spending your time there, admins.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?? That's a pretty typical number. No one usually gets excited until it hits 100, which it hasn't in some time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Müdigkeit (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you then decide to change it to 100, then? --MuZemike 05:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is the usual number when someone should really go and look at it right now, then that should be the backlog point, right? After all, a backlog should show that something should be done right now. If 50 are normal, and nothing to worry about, then a backlog notice with 50 makes no sense.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It displays all mangled up on en.wp, especially at the top (title overlapping the links above and the tabs below), but it's fine on other language Wikipedias. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's back to normal now. It lasted about 5 minutes. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New look?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I saw. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes CSS just fails to load, but usually a refresh fixes it. I get screwed up CSS at least once a day, from two different geolocations/computers each day, but then again, I load a lot of pages each day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I NOINDEX-ed User:Skyring/RFCU_evidence - this evidence page and the User:Skyring has removed it and asked for an explanation - I have explained but the user has as yet failed to replace the NOINDEX template to the evidence page - please can an Admin assist - thanks - Youreallycan 20:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at similar pages - at the RFCU archives here - I find that they do not include NOINDEX tags. In fact, I could only find one. This one. It doesn't seem to be the general procedure. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you want your alleged evidence page republished by search engines? Youreallycan 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't given it any thought. I looked at the instructions for raising RFCUs and found no mention. I was asked by several editors here only a few days ago to launch an RFCU and I'm doing it. All of this material is freely available on diverse WP pages. I show it as evidence, because that's what it is. Everything is accurate and linked to the diffs. What impels you, specifically? --Pete (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am impelled by wanting your so called evidence page not showing up in Google search engine results - please replace the NOINDEX template to avoid that possibility - thanks - Youreallycan 20:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a personal inclination? Given the lack of any policy advice, perhaps we should await advice from admin staff. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one is also noindexed. Like everything else in Wikipedia, it helps if you know people. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noindexed. All RFC/Us are noindexed in MediaWiki:Robots.txt, so any evidence on them outside of the technical confines of Robots.txt should get the template. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The page should be noindexed. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke! Thanks.  Done --Pete (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's appreciated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion about NOINDEXING userspace and projectspace pages

(edit conflict) This page and all similar pages should be NOINDEXED. It may be time for the community to update its attention to which pages in Wikipedia space should be excluded from search engines. The answer, in my opinion, is a large number of them, the main exception being guideline and policy pages. And pages drafted in userspace but intended for Wikipedia space should follow the same presumption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ah, thanks for that. YRC asked me, and I had no clue. Now I get why they aren't tagged since it is automatic, and why they need to be done manually if they are off venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into another round of something that needs a widespread discussion, it might be time to revisit moving userspace out of the eyes of the search engines; there is no good reason to be searching Google for a specific user on Wikipedia, and userpages which are verbatim copies of deleted articles should not be something that a search engine can pull up; many people don't understand Wikipedia conventions, and User:Example/(Insert name here) (deleted as non-notable, and a possible BLP violation, then userfied six months ago) looks pretty much the same as (Insert name here) to many non-editors. It's one of the reasons that my sandbox articles-in-progress always have cryptic names (usually an initialism), so that it's less likely that someone will pull up my work and think it's an actual article. Horologium (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some types of searches, Google is easier to get the results you are looking for than the internal search (at least for me). I can see why noindexing pages that look like articles is a good idea, but user pages are about the only shop window we allow editors and so I don't see a reason to block them. In the spirit of openness I think the principle should be that everything is indexable unless there is a reason it shouldn't be (and for evidence pages and articles-in-userspace there is a good reason). I don't know if it is technically possible, but my ideal would be that userpages (user:Thryduulf, including things transcluded onto it) would be indexed by default, while user subpages (user:Thryduulf/Conversion sandbox, even if transcluded onto another page) would be noindexed by default. A trackable {{index this page}} template or __INDEXTHISPAGE__ magic word overwrite the default noindex. I say trackable so as to make abuse (e.g. shoving it on a fake article) findable. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I will pop in to quickly say (1) NOINDEX is a suggestion that some search engines follow and which others may ignore. (2) Over the years many sites have mirrored Wikipedia's content. They do this to get search engine traffic, and quite happily strip our NOINDEX instruction because they very much want to be indexed. NOINDEX is not a solution. If content shouldn't be visible because it might damage the reputations of editors who might be personally indentifiable, the pages should be blanked as a courtesy to the editors. NOINDEX is not sufficient. I am not aware of any sites that routinely mirror old versions of our pages.
• I oppose noindexing large swaths of Wikipedia. Our search function is inferior to Google's. I want to be able to use Google to find things.
• The best solution is to selectively blank pages that have the potential to cause real life problems for our volunteers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skyring/RFCU evidence

Users are allowed to compile evidence pages. This one is allowable, because any negative assertion is supported by a diff. I expect the user will not leave this hanging too long. Once the research is done (expediently) an RFC/U should be filed, and then the page can be blanked. Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something but did anyone here ever question the current existence of User:Skyring/RFCU? The issue of concern seems to solely relate to whether to noindex it and other pages. (In terms of the first issue, even if it currently isn't routinely done for evidence pages, it doesn't seem there is a good reason not to noindex it and there are good reasons to index it, as long as RFC/Us are also effectively noindexed.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I've copied this message from the village pump as I was pointed out this might be a better place. This really needs somebody who is going to look into this (and that will take a little time).

I'm no regular en-wikipedia user, some days ago I found a range with years and hundreds of vandalistic edits. If I find a few vandalistic edits I can revert them, but the size of this users edits (around 11000) is way to big for me, somebody who's not familiar with the en-wiki workings, to deal with. I've allready 2 times tried on IRC to find somebody who would want to pick this problem up and make sure these edits get checked, and if they are vandalism reverted. So far I haven't been able to find somebody who can help me.

The range is this (79.106.109.221 is one of the around 200 IP's)

The vandalism is on Albanian; soccer; music; mexican drug scene related articles. There is some pretty obvious vandalism (blanking or adding nonsense lines to articles), but also more sneaky vandalism (changing music charts to all nr.1 positions), and maybe even more sneaky vandalism which I haven't been able to spot. But there also seem to be some correct edits. Some of the IP's have been warned or blocked for small times in the past. But the range as a whole hasn't been looked into. This vandalism has been able to go on for over 3 years and thus there is a 6000 edits big problem now. Some of the vandalism still is in the articles.

2 examples: this and this.

I really hope somebody can pick up looking into this, I'm not able to solve the problem because I'm not a regular here (and probably more then one person is needed anyhow). It is allready a shame that a vandal can go on for 3 years like this, but it would be an even bigger shame if this vandal also when spotted (and me asking for help 3 times) could go on vandalising this Wikipedia. Greets, Basvb (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By a vote of 11-1-1 (support/oppose/abstentions), the Committee has amended its procedures regarding the opening of proceedings. The text of the new rule is as follows:

A request will proceed to arbitration if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators;
2. More than 24 hours have elapsed since the request came to satisfy the above provision; and
3. More than 48 hours have elapsed since the request was filed.

A proceeding may be opened earlier, waiving provisions 2 and 3 above, if a majority of arbitrators support fast-track opening in their acceptance votes.

Once the Committee has accepted a request, a clerk will create the applicable case pages, and give the proceeding a working title. The title is for ease of identification only and may be changed by the Committee at any time. The Committee will designate one or more arbitrators to draft the case, to ensure it progresses, and to act as designated point of contact for any matters arising.

For the Arbitration Committee --Lord Roem (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Arising from the current request for clarification of the Civility Enforcement case, there are two declarations of lack of confidence on its talkpage: one declaration of lack of confidence in arbcom and one of lack of confidence in one individual arbitrator. The debate on the case page has been very heated and engaged many people, and there consequently seems to be a good deal of interest in weighing in on these declarations, to support them or to protest against them. But for people who don't actively follow the case, it all takes place on a pretty obscure talkpage, so I thought I'd post links in this forum. The arbcom and its members are, after all, subjects of wider general interest than any single case amounts to, however high-profile. I apologise for not turning the two talkpage declarations formally into proper RFC's and posting them in the "Centralized discussion" box above, but I couldn't face it. There are a lot of formalities and preliminaries involved in, especially, a user RFC, which is of course what the individual-arb declaration would amount to. (In reality, though not formally, there have actually been plenty of relevant preliminaries.) Bishonen | talk 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]