Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:

1. Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes
3. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
4. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy? (which was archived but then restored to the main Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page in wait for a proper closure)
5. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover

The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please have the two flagicons RFC closed? Some lists are being subjected to the mass removal of flags, despite my request for this not to be done until the RFC is closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is best to have an uninvolved admin assess the consensus in the RfCs so that editors in the future who review those discussions will be able to easily see what the consensus was. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Pst to admins looking for an easy close – #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed, for closing Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover. The other discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Still no closure? Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

Would an admin (or admins) close:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement
2. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Must images of historical importance be "subjects of commentary" before we can claim fair use?
3. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins

For the second RfC, the creator wrote:

I want to add here that I'd like the RfC to remain open for 30 days and be closed by an uninvolved admin, not one involved in previous discussions about fair-use images please. I'm requesting this because this issue is affecting several content contributors, and it's likely to continue being contentious unless it's sorted out by clear consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Number 3 on that list closed. NW (Talk) 03:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, NuclearWarfare, for closing that RfC. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving Circuit de la Sarthe to Circuit des 24 Heures

Not an administrator noticeboard issue. Obtain consensus on the talk page and request a move in the usual way.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The promotor, the french department of sports and the ASN use the name Circuit des 24 Heures, more Wikipedia:Verifiability is not possible. As discussed at Talk:Circuit_de_la_Sarthe#Name_of_the_track, please move Circuit de la Sarthe to Circuit des 24 Heures. Thanks and Regards, --Pitlane02 talk 15:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I was considering this, but apparently, "Circuit des 24 Heures" has never been the title of the circuit, instead being the name for the entire facility. Circuit de la Sarthe is the long circuit, Bugatti Circuit is the short circuit. Are you sure you want it moved? The Cavalry (Message me) 11:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Some people repeat this argument every time, but until now there is NO official or serious sources for this view. And when the "Circuit des 24 Heures" is the entire facility, the lemma is also wrong (IMHO), because the article describes the long AND the short distance. BTW: The french article presents the same position, and nobody gainsays that the track was named "Circuit de la Sarthe" in the history. Thanks and regards --Pitlane02 talk 12:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps, I've forgot the magic four words: Yes, I'm sure! Because at moment we've only facts for the renaming! Thanks and Regards --Pitlane02 talk 07:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Physics Nobel Prize templates

 Done --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please move the set of templates in Category:Nobel Prize in Physics templates from Template:Nobel Prize in Physics 1901–1925 to Template:Nobel Prize in Physics Laureates 1901–1925 to be consistent with Category:Nobel Prize in Literature templates, Category:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine templates and Category:Nobel Prize in Physics templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I realized only two of them need to be moved by an admin. I moved the rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe my instructions above were complicated. Please move Template:Nobel Prize in Physics 1901–1925 and Template:Nobel Prize in Physics 2001–2025 over the redirects at Template:Nobel Prize in Physics Laureates 1901–1925 and Template:Nobel Prize in Physics Laureates 2001–2025.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty simple and non-controversial move. Where is everybody?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectator, Nick Cohen & Wikipedia

[1] - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a thread about this at the COI noticeboard, seen here. -- Atama頭 23:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• A topic ban of David r from meth productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unquestionably in order; this is not the first journalist biography where his POV editing has led to issues, see Richard Littlejohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 18:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, Hari is overused as a source on Wikipedia... Sceptre ^(talk) 18:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yes. I like his writing but there is usually a strong feel of opinion about it. I suspect that being gay, Jewish and subject to attack from militant Zionists for daring to criticise Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories has contributed to a lack of critical appraisal form people who would normally be more circumspect. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Revdel link

MER-C (talk · contribs) posted a link this morning to an edit page on strategywiki, inviting people to... misbehave. It'd be great if someone could revdel that edit. Thanks.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing how that falls under the revdelete policy. Brandon (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction #3 Purely disruptive material.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? In what way was that "inviting people to misbehave"? I cannot even find anything relevant on that other page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the link is to demonstrate that editing of others' comments is possible. The link is not substantially different than, say, the edit links on this page. That said, I understand Ohm's law's point and have revised my comment. MER-C 14:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So, Ohms law, do you still think it needs deleting? Because I certainly don't, and also don't see why it would have needed deleting in the first place. WP:AGF anyone? Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Please assist Template:Editnotices/Page/List of people affected by bipolar disorder needs to be moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of people with bipolar disorder per a page move. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)