Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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) 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, 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.

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

• 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/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 20 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 89 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)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 48 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 30 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 4 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fianna Fáil#RfC on 'centrist' vs. 'conservative'

(Initiated 29 days ago on 8 October 2024) - Discussion ceased a week ago. RfC has lasted a month. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	9	0	9
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	0	28	0	28
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

(Initiated 39 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 295 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini

(Initiated 34 days ago on 3 October 2024) No new comments in a bit over three weeks. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

(Initiated 12 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Ivy Wolk

(Initiated 10 days ago on 27 October 2024) Requesting an admin to formally close this discussion. Thank you I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 6 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24#Category:American_women_novelists

I think someone uninvolved needs to step in and close this. It is pretty obvious that this is probably closing as "no consensus", and it cannot be that such an important thing would default to "keep". There obviously needs to be a larger discussion on how to categorize people. There are clear advantages to "gendering" these articles, I won't deny that--there are reasons pertaining to doing research on gender, for instance, as in someone might want to know what women writers were active (but really, those should intersect with geography and gender, for instance). "Woman writers from the middle ages", for instance, or "Women writers from Japan" can be very useful. But to divide the larger, parent category in this way has raised a predictable shit storm (well, predictable to anyone with some common sense) that is dividing the community. I read in the CfD that, basically, the NYT and other media outlets and all the readers who go to Wikipedia from there, are dumb for not understanding the category system. Maybe, but it's hardly our mission to be snooty here. There is a clear appearance, found all over the internet, that this is an essentialist move that ghettoizes women writers, and one can't simply shrug off the arguments proposed there. And categorizing by gender (they do this in the German wiki, uselessly) begs the question of what to do if someone doesn't want to be gendered (in the way someone might not want to be categorized as Jewish or Catholic), or if someone is transgendered, or whatever--or we just don't know. Where do we put the Pearl Poet? I'm willing to bet money that he was a boy, but this is not a betting game.

In short, keeping the gendered categories is, at this moment, divisive and a lack of consensus should not default to keeping it that way. We need a larger discussion to determine how we're going to handle this, what the pros and cons are, what perceptions are, and whether it might not be smarter to allow double categorization and/or gendering only at the lower level categories. This CfD needs closing and the disruptive (good-faith, maybe, but nonetheless disruptive) categorization needs to be reverted. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've posted some relevant comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Not that that's where the discussion belongs, but meh. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In a related discussion, Category:Male film directors now has two different CfD discussions on it; one that was opened a while ago, and the new one I assume created by the newspaper kerfuffle. I don't handle CfDs, and my own personal opinions on the matter preclude me from closing either one neutrally anyway, but I'm sure that having 2 CfDs isn't correce. Qwyrxian (talk)

It's fine ... the older one (about a month old) is an actual delete and the more recent a general rename consistently discussion. NE Ent 21:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The irony... we should create a category for media reports that misunderstand wikipedia's category system, which of course would be a subcategory of media reports that misunderstand wikipedia. Digressing though, I reluctantly think Drmies is right, at least for the short term, but I don't understand why we're so passive in the face of these arguments when they have clear responses; the most obvious of which being 'quit painting all of wikipedia with one brush'... one or two editors is editorialized as "wikipedia", while it's is absurd that gets past editors, I suppose it's an editorial. (Note: I'm not passing judgment either way on the editors involved in this or any other dust up.) We really need to have a better education campaign for the media (or actually, it appears to me, authors, who occasionally bend the ear of a journalist). Shadowjams (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Short term, yes--that's what I was thinking of. This needs larger discussion, but not in a CfD on one (and then a lot more) individual categories. As for educating the media and the occasional involved party with access to such media, that's a tough nut to crack. I agree in part with Filipacchi's argument: at least the appearance of sexism is there (and is noted in many, many reliable sources, not just in op-ed pieces), though misunderstanding is part of that. At the same time I must object to the persistent gendering (in only two genders) that's part and parcel of these categorization efforts. What to many may seem natural is a. not so natural at all and b. outdated--the world don't work that way anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So, basically, the discussion isn't going the way you like it, so you ask someone "uninvolved" to close it the way you would prefer instead. How is this an acceptable use of WP:AN and not an example of Wikipedia:OTHERPARENT? Fram (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fram, what a shitty comment, and what a way to avoid the issue. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't avoid the issue, I have participated in the discussion and given my opinion there, where it belongs. You are, however, avoiding the issue of your forumshopping here. If you don't agree with my comment, you could try to argue why not, instead of simply dismissing it. What is wrong with my conclusion that you don't like the way consensus seems to be going, and are trying to get some admin to overrule consensus and implement your prefered version instead? Fram (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Appeal of community restriction

Restriction was imposed following this discussion and, per the terms of the restriction, subsequently modified here. The restriction was imposed due to several ANI filings I made about the Article Rescue Squadron and my efforts to re-open an MfD on the project's rescue list. As it stands, the main reason for my actions was that I wanted to have an open discussion about the project and its activities with significant community input. I feel that was largely satisfied with the RfC on the group and a second MfD another editor opened up regarding the list late last year. Under no scenario can I envision myself returning to such noticeboard filings as I feel that, if the project should remain a concern, it will have to be handled in a more managed process such as another RfC or arbitration. Even there I see no present cause for such action as the group has seemed to decline in activity to the point of effectively being a non-issue. So the restriction at this point is moot in my opinion and I would rather not have the black mark.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support removing topic ban NE Ent 01:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Since I weighed in at the original ANI thread, I'll respond here as well. I see no reason to avoid assuming the best or doubt the sincerity of TDA's request. This was over a year ago, and I am usually supportive removing "black marks" and reducing restrictions when an honest attempt is made to work within the rules we have here. I therefor support this removal, and note that the closing admin. in that determination is not currently active. I also note that TDA did approach that closing admin. as well. Also: "per NE Ent". — Ched :  ?  02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Whatever the merits of the original ban proposal it's unavoidable that it was a politically contentious issue, and it's been long enough, and the issues moot enough, that there's no need for any continued restriction. Shadowjams (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do you mean "...ban proposal, it's unavoidable..."? Not trying to be picky; I'm just having a mildly hard time understanding the first part of your sentence. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Your punctuation is much better than mine :). The first was politically (wiki politics) charged. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Mainly because I see no reason to maintain the ban at the present time. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There have been plenty of folks topic banned on both sides, and things have calmed down appropriately. I see no reason to monkey with success, and a topic ban that a user does not intend to violate is no particular hindrance to their editing. Without a desire to reengage, there is no compelling reason to remove a working restriction. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per (NOT Jclemens) & NE Ent, Ched. No need to keep restrictions that a user does not intend to violate - judge next on their own, not by default. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, there IS a good reason to keep them: users who say they will not go back to the same topic area have, eh, I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises, in my experience. I'll withdraw my oppose if he'll stipulate that I get to block him and/or discretionarily reinstate the topic ban, previous INVOLVEment or not, if he goes back to what I perceive to be battlefield involvement in the topic area. I have no particular reason to think that he will be one of the 50% who make campaign promises they never intend to keep, but if some teeth were put into those campaign promises, I'd be happy to accept them at face value. What says the appellant? Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  ".. I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises ..." .. and that is exactly the problem, Jclemens, and exactly why I have not a single bit of confidence in you anymore (I guess that got reflected in the last ArbCom elections), in ArbCom, and actually, in almost all of Wikipedia. Restrictions for the sake of restrictions, restrictions which are just way beyond reasonable, etc. etc., and make sure that they stay, and make sure that they get enforced. But I still hope that other editors have more faith in the editors that make this encyclopedia than in the ones that think that they need to police it (and seen the other !votes here .. I don't think that that hope is completely futile). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yep, I think Jclemens' approach is exactly the wrong one, and is diametrically opposed to the Wikipedia ethos. We should be aiming for minimum sanctions, maximum freedom, and maximum support for our content creators - not authoritarianism and high-security containment based on assuming the worst of people. (But I do have significantly more faith in the current ArbCom than I did in the previous one - I think the last election achieved an overall positive result) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, I have lost so much faith in ArbCom over the last couple of years that I can only hope that the 'new generation' will be able to restore some of my faith. As I said, I think my hope is not completely futile (I even saw positive changes in some of the old ArbCom members...). Anyways, lets examine restrictions for what they are supposed to do. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  The problem isn't restrictions for restrictions' sake, it's that users who have actually gotten to the point of community or arbcom sanctions, as opposed to a spat with a single admin or a 3RR sanction, have already demonstrated inability to behave in a collegial manner. Thus, when lifting them, we're faced with the question of "does this user really get it now, or is he deluded and/or lying?" What so many of those of you who like to second-guess Wikipedia's pale attempts at governance ignore is that often, it is one of the latter issues. I won't list unrelated cases here, but anyone who doesn't understand the problem of recidivism hasn't been paying attention. Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I closed the RfC on ARS last summer and at that point I wasn't certain that the topic ban was required. At the time I erred on the side of caution and left it in place. I'm happy that sufficient time has passed and attitudes have changes sufficiently that this topic ban primarily serves as a blot on TDA's record and I would support it being lifted. Worm^TT(talk) 07:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The whole thing was some time ago and it's all settled now, and I see no need for any ongoing topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Ched and others. I am not even sure this ban was really needed from the beginning. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the specific proviso that TDA will undertake no actions which could conceivably be viewed as "pointy" about the topic in future without incurring the possibility of renewed sanctions. Collect (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I get the idea of not wanting to have a topic ban over one's head. But I also don't see any advantage to TDA getting involved in ARS issues. Eh, support with the same note as Collect. I think TDA is wise enough to stay away on their own. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm all about extending an olive branch to people who have seen the light, however if you get back into deliberately disrupting ARS, then expect the resumption of sanctions and more restrictive sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement

Need an uninvolved admin to assess whether article probation has been violated with the closure of a discussion, an incorrect assessment of consensus, and subsequent article edits--please see Talk:Men's_rights_movement#Removal_of_SPLC_section_and_material_in_the_lead. Since I spoke out in that discussion I consider myself a bit too involved, certainly as far as appearances are concerned. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Eek - that's a real minefield you have walked into. Can you summarize your involvement thus far, and give your personal assessment of the state of play? Manning (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba

Main page: WP:ANI § Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba

RB/Reviewer

If someone could remove my rights I'd appreciate it. Thanks. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Prepare for changes to Wikipedia:Changing username and related templates

This is quite a big task. All templates need to be rewritten and pages marked as historic. The first would be to draw up a list of affected pages and templates. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple-ID-abuser

The person behind User:Ali15uk and User:Reddony is a sockmaster and vandalist creating new names and then illegally uploading copyrighted images. If someone can investigate this please.--39.41.191.51 (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI Ansh666 07:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In the news

Hello,

the item "Italian PM" that has been nominated for the "In the News" section of the main page, has already been tagged as ready to be posted for two days. Unfortunately, no admin has realised this request until now (probably because it is not close to the top of the candidates page). So, could you please? Thank you! --RJFF (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with user name

Hi, I dont know if this is the right place to ask for this, by the way sorry if my english isn't perfect. I have accounts in Spanish Wikisource, Spanish Wikipedia and Commons since 2008, those accounts aren't unified (although they all are the same "User:Freddy eduardo") then I created this one here, but at the time when global accounts already existed, this has been very problematic for me, because every time I want to edit here I have to open a "New incognito window" because otherwise logging here logs me off of all the other projects (because this is account is global, the others are not) I thought I could ask for help with this someday but time just went off, now I saw a noticeboard on Meta saying that all accounts will be unified on 27 May, this will leave out any possibility to merge my other account with this one, so my question is: can someone rename my account here in English Wikipedia to "User:Freddy eduardo" so I can merge it with the other accounts before the deadline of May 27? I only use "User:DrkFrdric" here, so I don't care about edits in other projects with this account (maybe I have one or two who knows, probably did it mistakenly thinking I was in my other accounts). Can somebody please help me with this? It's really problematic to open new windows so I can just edit in multiple projects at the same time, I want this account in the English Wikipedia to be locally renamed to User:Freddy eduardo so I can merge it :( --DrkFrdric (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the right place; username changes are done at WP:CHU. Since your English isn't perfect, I've filed the request for you and linked to this comment, so you won't need to do anything. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC Close?

 Done - Manning (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fishing for a friendly admin to close an RfC for me! NickCT (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Echo (Notifications) released

Hey all :). Just to let you know that Notifications, or Echo, has now been released on the English-language Wikipedia. You should start seeing things now: let us know on the talkpage if you see any bugs or have any feedback! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifications?! this is where is starts... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you need a cookie. I've given you one. :) Rd232 ^talk 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's quite easy to opt out. GiantSnowman 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

On a serious note: maybe there could be some documentation. A watchlist notice (mentioning the customisation options now in Prefs), and maybe an amendment to MediaWiki:Echo-none to link the word notifications to Wikipedia:Notifications, so that people clicking the new "0" aren't left bemused. Rd232 ^talk 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Or possibly a new, simple Help:Notifications, as Wikipedia:Notifications is quite ... developery projecty. Or Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ. Rd232 ^talk 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind - I'm not getting to MediaWiki:Echo-none any more - zero messages instead gives the same Echo flyout (with links to the FAQ and preferences). Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a disaster! I did not realise the notification system involved doing away with the orange bar. New users have enough trouble noticing that, and will surely overlook a small red dot. Much more seriously, IP users do not get notifications, and no longer get the orange bar, so IP users now do not get told at all that they have a talk page message. The whole system of IP vandal-warning messages has become useless. We need the orange bar back NOW, at least for IPs. Please comment at the talkpage. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be an oversight, that will hopefully be rectified soon (not that I'm excusing it). I've done a bit of testing, and blocked IP addresses to get a link to their talk page in the default block notice they get when they try to edit. This will direct them, albeit belatedly, to the reasons why they've been blocked, and instructions for requesting unblocks. In the meantime, I suggest being lenient on first time blocked anon vandals, remembering that they probably haven't seen any warnings. An optimist on the run!   12:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been experimentng, too. Even if, as an IP, you suspect you may have a talk page message, it's not easy to find, because there is no "My talk" link. I had to type ~~~~ in the sandbox to find what IP I was, and then type "User talk:xx.xx.xx.xx" in the search box. JohnCD (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• No more orange banner? ... cool. We kin haz Plausible deniability now. — Ched :  ?  12:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I didn't realise the orange banner was gone for good; I don't mind notifications for reverts etc. but the banner for talk pages messages should be brought back for all. GiantSnowman 12:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I really hope the orange banner comes back. Frequent users will probably manage fine without it, but noobs (not just IPs!) seriously need it, as does anybody who only edits occasionally. Please make the removal of the orange banner opt-in! I'm sure some of us, for instance Jimbo, would like to be rid of it. But Ched makes a good point about plausible deniability, though in a very naughty way. I don't want people I've warned to have plausible deniability, because I want to block the suckers! Block, block!! Wham, biff, urkkk!! [/me is led away shouting ecstatically.] Bishonen | talk 14:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC).
  • I'm already not noticing messages. Banner opt-in, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • • "Banner opt-in"..? Not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not, Crisco. Do you want the banner to be default and the removal of the banner opt-in, like I do? Bishonen | talk 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC).
    • Or better yet, banner opt-out please, since IPs can't opt in or out of anything. I already missed some messages and didn't notice them until I checked my watchlist. Nyttend (talk)
      • I think I like this idea even better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, banner opt-out, definitely; new users need it most, they don't know about talk pages or know their way about the screen, and are very likely to miss a small red blob. JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• (multiple ec) As an admin who regularly works in areas involving fringe medical notions and conspiracy theories, I regularly encounter new and/or infrequent and/or single-purpose editors who have a...very tight focus to their interests coupled to an...idiosyncratic worldview, and who often have trouble assimiliating basic concepts like 'edit warring is bad', indenting comments, signing comments, the existence of article talk pages, etc. Some can be slowly guided into being useful Wikipedia contributors, but I suspect that most wouldn't even be aware that they had a user talk page if it weren't for the big orange banner. Without that really clear signal, it may become literally impossible to communicate with some new editors, whether to help them acculturate or just to explain to them why they have been blocked. The banner needs to be the default behavior, because messages from other editors are very important things – particularly for new editors – to be aware of. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Ten, the implementation choice of removing the big orange bar was very ill-considered. Orange bar should be opt-out only, with that capability for registered users only. I would actually support adding a new technical capability for admins to leave "Acknowledgement required" messages - the editor would not be able to proceed with any editing capabilities without being shown the message and clicking on "I acknowledge receipt of this message", and with a user log record of having done so when acknowledged. Zad68 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ha. What a good idea. Why don't we already have this? Please take it to the Village Pump, Zad! Bishonen | talk 14:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC).
    • Glad you think it's a worthwhile idea! Opened Village Pump proposal here, please comment. Zad68 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• The little red blob is far too discreet for any but registered, autoconfirmed accounts, preferably with opt-out for the orange bar. There will be a lot of bitten new users and blissfully unaware vandals and edit-warriors if they're expected to notice the little red number and figure out what it signifies. Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment; thanks for all the reasonable comments :). It's great to have constructive feedback! I've left an update here which hopefully helps clarify what we're doing around these problems - and I agree that they're problems. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Cross-posted from (i.e. also spammed at) the notifications talk page: Hey, all, I've created a cookie-based user script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js to try and replicate some of the OBOD functionality. Obviously it's not as good as the real thing, but it's not totally awful. Let me know if there are any bugs y'all find. (Obviously, it requires cookies to be enabled in your browser.) Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I want my Orange Bar... so I've installed this... and (thanks for the test!) it's working... Orange goodness...Begoon ^talk 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring noticeboard backlog

There is a backlog at the Edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)