Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Articles and content
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than 48 hours
are archived by ClueBot III.
  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.
Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so.
 
Are you in the right place?

Click here to start a new discussion
Centralized discussion

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 8[edit]

Seven discussions still open. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Down to five now. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 12#Country Party of Australia[edit]

Can an uninvolved admin assess the consensus on this RFD (Initiated 42 days ago on 5 February 2015)? Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I can see why that one hung around. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Delete "autochecked" usergroup[edit]

We need this closed one way or another. A result is needed to determine if the config change request should be made.  Cenarium (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Filed in Phabricator, archived, no formal close seems to be needed here. Mdann52 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Cenarium, the discussion's initiator, would appreciate a close. I think that we should respect his/her wishes. Link to the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 119#Delete "autochecked" usergroup. I don't know what Phabricator is, but would the closer link to Phabricator in their close? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

RfD backlog[edit]

Not nearly as bad as it has been in recent memory, but here are some leftovers from February:

Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 February#War in Afghanistan (2001–14)[edit]

A week has passed since the last comments. PaleAqua (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Probably not the last we'll hear of that one. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#removable under more stringent standards[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#removable under more stringent standards (Initiated 52 days ago on 26 January 2015)? Please consider the RfC close of Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#re-adding clear non-politicians (Initiated 19 July 2012) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States#Neutrality RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States#Neutrality RfC (Initiated 46 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by someone else --slakr\ talk / 03:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Rfc: How long should the WikiProject keep track of potential supercentenarians[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Rfc: How long should the WikiProject keep track of potential supercentenarians] (Initiated 43 days ago on 4 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Amy Pascal#RfC: Sony CEO coverage, RS, RECENTISM[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amy Pascal#RfC: Sony CEO coverage, RS, RECENTISM (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done Guy (Help!) 22:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hydraulic fracturing#Request for comments[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hydraulic fracturing#Request for comments (Initiated 54 days ago on 24 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Hydraulic fracturing article include (A) a discussion of health risks? (B) a discussion of the health reasons for which New York State banned the practice?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Guy (Help!) 22:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ag-gag#RFC regarding article title[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ag-gag#RFC regarding article title (Initiated 46 days ago on 1 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Does the present article title comply with WP:POVTITLE? If not, what changes are needed?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:TurboTax#RFC: Should a unproven news report regarding the alleged collection of information be included in the article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:TurboTax#RFC: Should a unproven news report regarding the alleged collection of information be included in the article? (Initiated 45 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#RfC: Infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#RfC: Infobox (Initiated 51 days ago on 27 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the infobox read "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" or "Tributary state of Ming Dynasty, Tributary state of Qing Dynasty"? See above sections for background and already-stated arguments; see Talk:Goryeo#RfC: Should the 'status' field in the infobox be condensed? for a similar RfC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Abraham Lincoln#habeas corpus section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Abraham Lincoln#habeas corpus section (Initiated 50 days ago on 28 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Does the current discussion of Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war) have the right balance of detail? Is it fair? Biased? " Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt#RFC: Should the "Media Role" content be moved to the "Aftermath" section?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt#RFC: Should the "Media Role" content be moved to the "Aftermath" section? (Initiated 29 days ago on 18 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the "Media Role" content be moved to the "Aftermath" section?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015 (Initiated 16 days ago on 3 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Precipitationshed#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Precipitationshed#Request for comment (Initiated 40 days ago on 7 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries#Golden Horde[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries#Golden Horde (Initiated 44 days ago on 3 February 2015)? See the subsection Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries#RfC on disputed listings. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Japonic languages#"Altaic ?" in the Infobox?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Japonic languages#"Altaic ?" in the Infobox? (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Altaic languages#Korean or Koreanic[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Altaic languages#Korean or Koreanic (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bhutanese passport#Spoken Wikipedia file[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bhutanese passport#Spoken Wikipedia file (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Please the RfC close of Talk:Bhutanese passport#Request for comment (Initiated 14 January 2015) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia#First Sentence of Education and Language[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia#First Sentence of Education and Language (Initiated 39 days ago on 8 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:International Space Station#RfC: Should British English be the primary dialect for the ISS article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Space Station#RfC: Should British English be the primary dialect for the ISS article? (Initiated 47 days ago on 31 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Azure#RfC: Returning "Azure" to the primary topic rather than a disambiguation page?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Azure#RfC: Returning "Azure" to the primary topic rather than a disambiguation page? (Initiated 46 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Version 2.0#RfC: Is this revision an improvement to the article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Version 2.0#RfC: Is this revision an improvement to the article? (Initiated 47 days ago on 31 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu#RfC: Should the lead paragraph state the genres of Mr.Iñárritu's films, based on WP:RS?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu#RfC: Should the lead paragraph state the genres of Mr.Iñárritu's films, based on WP:RS? (Initiated 47 days ago on 31 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon#RfC: Is Billboard magazine a reliable source?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon#RfC: Is Billboard magazine a reliable source? (Initiated 46 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Guy (Help!) 21:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Deathstroke#RfC: Writing about codenames from an out-of-universe perspective[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deathstroke#RfC: Writing about codenames from an out-of-universe perspective (Initiated 28 days ago on 19 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Guy (Help!) 21:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Human rights in Northern Cyprus#RfC: Use of the CERD report and language of the article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Human rights in Northern Cyprus#RfC: Use of the CERD report and language of the article (Initiated 58 days ago on 20 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#RFC to rename article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#RFC to rename article (Initiated 50 days ago on 28 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 54#RfC: Has the CMT been “annihilated” today?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 54#RfC: Has the CMT been “annihilated” today? (Initiated 48 days ago on 30 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Brisbane Roar FC#RfC: What does the F in Brisbane Roar FC stand for?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brisbane Roar FC#RfC: What does the F in Brisbane Roar FC stand for? (Initiated 46 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:British Nigerian#Request for comment on using an Economist article and the IPPR 2013 report as sources[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Nigerian#Request for comment on using an Economist article and the IPPR 2013 report as sources (Initiated 45 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Djokovic–Federer rivalry#RfC: Combined clay results vs Rafael Nadal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Djokovic–Federer rivalry#RfC: Combined clay results vs Rafael Nadala (Initiated 45 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:New Morning (Misia album)#RfC: Should the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead make clear "in Japanese"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Morning (Misia album)#RfC: Should the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead make clear "in Japanese" (Initiated 55 days ago on 23 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Merger proposal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Merger proposal (Initiated 66 days ago on 12 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:IHeartRadio Music Festival#Merge proposal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:IHeartRadio Music Festival#Merge proposal (Initiated 117 days ago on 22 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RfC: to amend the table layout consensus to allow rowspan in year column of filmographies[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RfC: to amend the table layout consensus to allow rowspan in year column of filmographies (Initiated 48 days ago on 30 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#"No quorum" closures[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#"No quorum" closures (Initiated 57 days ago on 21 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --slakr\ talk / 03:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter (Initiated 57 days ago on 21 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --slakr\ talk / 03:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should Wikipedia use HTTPS by default for all readers?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should Wikipedia use HTTPS by default for all readers? (Initiated 31 days ago on 16 February 2015)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:War#RfC: Move Economic warfare from grand strategy to weapons[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:War#RfC: Move Economic warfare from grand strategy to weapons (Initiated 51 days ago on 27 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 11#Category:People by ethnic or national descent[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 11#Category:People by ethnic or national descent (Initiated 98 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 14#Category:Russian Orthodox Christians[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 14#Category:Russian Orthodox Christians (Initiated 95 days ago on 14 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Category:Jewish Australian sportspeople[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Category:Jewish Australian sportspeople (Initiated 87 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Category:People of French-Canadian descent[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Category:People of French-Canadian descent (Initiated 85 days ago on 24 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Category:FBI agents convicted of murder[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Category:FBI agents convicted of murder (Initiated 77 days ago on 1 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Australian politicians[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Australian politicians (Initiated 77 days ago on 1 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

File:TcshAndShScreenCapture.png[edit]

(Initiated 0 days' time on 19 March 2015) Free use has been questioned based on the inclusion of certain Apple graphical elements in this screenshot of tcsh and sh running side-by-side on a Mac OSX desktop. Msnicki (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done File deleted by Diannaa. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request for Comment[edit]

The discussion has been going on for 10 days, rather than the typical 30 for an RfC, but the same arguments are being repeated over and over by the same small number of editors who still commenting. Since one editor has said he feels that RfC decisions are not binding on him, it might be time for an admin to examine the RfC, which is becoming an unwieldy length. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thank you for raising this, it needed closing. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hijiri 88[edit]

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

Would an uninvolved admin please assess this discussion? Two users seem to start threads every week arguing about each other and it's becoming annoying. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Stuck: Discussion has since been archived. (non-admin closure)
Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Talk:Aja (pornographic actress)#Requested move 1 March 2015[edit]

Needs assessment by uninvolved admin. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#RFC on Godhra train burning[edit]

Consensus seems apparent, but requires formal closure, because the topic is highly contentious, and the outcome of RfCs is disputed every time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret[edit]

I request closing by an uninvolved admin. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The "Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret" section has been closed but a subsection remains open. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community authorized discretionary sanctions for Electronic cigarette articles. The closing admin wrote: "I have left the primary thread open for now because I'd like to let the discussion about Discretionary Sanctions run for another day before closing to make sure the community really wants that." Cunard (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#RfC: Consensus on band timeline colour schemes[edit]

Note: This thread was originally listed here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We could use an uninvolved editor to gauge the discussion and determine consensus so as to close the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#RfC:_Consensus_on_band_timeline_colour_schemes. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 5#Sean Fagan[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 5#Sean Fagan (Initiated 14 days ago on 5 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 8#Intercollegiate Studies Institute[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 8#Intercollegiate Studies Institute (Initiated 11 days ago on 8 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Guy (Help!) 21:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 9#Plowback retained earnings[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 9#Plowback retained earnings (Initiated 10 days ago on 9 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Guy (Help!) 21:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)#Requested move 26 February 2015[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)#Requested move 26 February 2015, a requested move of a popular and featured article? Thanks, StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Cheers, HiDrNick! 13:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter[edit]

This discussion has stalled. As far as I can see there may be disagreement here about whether the article should hae been deleted but there isn't a killer policy based argument that the delete aspect of the DRV as closed was wrong. Where I am seeing a lack of consensus is around whether the salting should have been reinstated. As the salting was part of the original deletion is is certainly in RoySmith's ambit to reinstate this with the endorse finding but, on challenge, we do not have a clear specific consensus. As such, and bearing in mind that DRVs remit is deletion not salting I think the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close. What does that mean? It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point. The only reason I have not done this myself is because there appears to be a risk of BLP issues to consider and I have not got the time right now to research the question to determine if there is a BLP risk from the unsalting. This does not preclude someone who has got that time from doing so. Spartaz Humbug! 12:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

There is certainly some support for moving the draft to main space, but I still see endorsing the original deletion (and salting) to be the consensus opinion.

The closer's decision to endorse the original speedy deletion was within discretion and reasonable. I do not contest that part of the close.

The closer erred in assuming that salting was the consensus opinion. Not a single editor in the DRV supported salting. In fact, after Draft:Kirby Delauter was posted, five editors commented favorably about the draft. No one commented negatively against the draft.

Because the draft addressed the undue weight and BLP1E concerns present in the deleted article, the original reasons for speedy deletion no longer applied.

Overturn the salting part of the DRV close and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter.

Cunard (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart111 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed, or not, per the consensus of discussion there. The DRV discussion did not reach a consensus on continued salting, in my opinion, due to lack of direct discussion of that specific question. RoySmith did well enough to make a clear decision on the actual question posed in the nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, "removed, or not". St★lwart111 05:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. – RoySmith insisted that the consensus was to maintain salting despite the new article draft. The suggestion that this should go to WP:RFPP does not make sense because that would be asking an WP:RFPP admin to unilaterally overturn RoySmith's close. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart111 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)
  • I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
    • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
    • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
    • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
    • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.
Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Moving Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter[edit]

Redundant to AfD discussion now underway, as noted at the foot of this discussion. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From WP:RFPP here:

Would an admin unprotect Kirby Delauter and move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter? See this close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter and Draft:Kirby Delauter by Spartaz (talk · contribs) (thank you, Spartaz, for reviewing and closing the discussion):

This discussion has stalled. As far as I can see there may be disagreement here about whether the article should hae been deleted but there isn't a killer policy based argument that the delete aspect of the DRV as closed was wrong. Where I am seeing a lack of consensus is around whether the salting should have been reinstated. As the salting was part of the original deletion is is certainly in RoySmith's ambit to reinstate this with the endorse finding but, on challenge, we do not have a clear specific consensus. As such, and bearing in mind that DRVs remit is deletion not salting I think the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close. What does that mean? It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point. The only reason I have not done this myself is because there appears to be a risk of BLP issues to consider and I have not got the time right now to research the question to determine if there is a BLP risk from the unsalting. This does not preclude someone who has got that time from doing so.

Cunard (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Not unprotected This should be taken back to DRV; I am not going to override an endorse close there by my own action. Courcelles 19:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not take this back to WP:DRV for further discussion since this WP:AN close already reviewed the WP:DRV close with the conclusion "the consensus is that reinstating the salting is not an enforcable provision of the DRV close". And "It means that any admin can unsalt this without needing to see consensus on the point" as long as the draft is reviewed by an admin as BLP compliant. Ping User:Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • removed the do not archive thing. — Ched :  ?  07:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Restored the do not archive tag. This should not be archived until the consensus to unsalt is carried out. Cunard (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The unsalting is actually rather irrelevant here, surely the question is whether the draft article is sufficient to overcome the original "delete" arguments even if it is BLP compliant. I personally don't think it is good enough notability-wise - it looks to me like this person's "notability" is hung on a minor news event and a load of local news reports. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Borderline notability means that it should be put through AfD. It easily passes all WP:CSD criteria. There never was a BLP concern, BLP1E is not really a BLP concern, and if there is a BLP concern, it exists in Draft space equally as mainspace. This person is a politician. The salting was a knee-jerk reaction accompanying the out-of-process deletion, and this salting appears to be wholly ignored or unsupported at DRV and here. Courcelles was wrong to ascribe an endorsement of the salting at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
We don't speedy things to reduce drama. In fact, as this has shown, it just ramps it up. Always has. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not often I disagree with you SmokeyJoe, but on few things here I must. Fails WP:NPOL and it's just a drama magnet. Wikipedia is not a social media reporting site, and the only thing of note here is Kirby's brief Facebook rant. Unless or until Mr. Delauter does something notable, then it's best that the article is deleted. Salting removes the temptation of further problems right now. Just IMO, so ...
  • Keep deleted and salted — Ched :  ?  10:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Hey Ched, maybe this disagreement can be resolved. We are talking about different things? Deleting for failing WP:NPOL is a matter for the AfD process, and is not a CSD criterion, and failing NPOL does not give admins the right to unilaterally delete contrary to the leading sentence at WP:CSD. For me, this is about respect for process, and vigilance against kneejerk reactions by a ruling class of Wikipedian. Did DRV approve the deletion with silent reference to NPOL? Possibly. If it is agreed, as you say, that this person fails NPOL, and further that there is drama magnetism at play, then yes, "Keep deleted and salted" is the right thing to do. But please, User:Floquenbeam, send it to AfD next time. If this were AfD, I would argue that reliable independent secondary source coverage exists, and the appropriate place for the content is at Streisand_effect#Selected_examples, justified by this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can agree with 99.9% of that. The one part I must take exception to is the "knee-jerk". Admins. are supposed to "mop-up" things they see as a mess. In this case it seems more that an admin grabbed the mop and cleaned up a mess before it was reported to the corporate office, and the "please clean" request was filled out in triplicate. Now - I'm wondering if putting Draft:Kirby Delauter up at WP:MFD would help resolve things here? Thoughts? — Ched :  ?  20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Pre-emptive mopping may be questionable. It could be perceived as "controlling". Anyway, MFDing the Draft might be sensible. MfD might be good at the isolated question of whether the page is a BLP violation. If the question goes to NPOL, I for one will shout "wrong forum", MfD is not the approval court for drafts. Better to unsalt, move to mainspace, and list at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • All very bureaucratic but the varying admins seem to require just that. For the matter to be properly decided by the full editorial community, the draft should be taken to AfD for a proper keep/merge/discharge from draft/delete discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh Why would we immortalise this trivia? Guy (Help!) 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Good grief, are we really still debating this? Absent a BLP problem, the closer of this at AN (who is one of the most experienced DRV closers btw) said this could be unsalted barring BLP issues. I don't think anyone has identified a BLP problem, potential problem or even an imaginary problem. unsalt and restore if it needs bolding. Folks, this is getting stupid. Let AfD decide if it meets our notability guidelines. This has never been to AfD for goodness sake. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I've just realized how long dead this discussion is/was. Anyone object to me taking this to WP:RFP (where it honestly belonged to begin with). Hobit (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Feel free to take this back to WP:RFPP. I did that nearly a month ago but the unprotection request was declined by Courcelles. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, I missed that that was at RFPP. He did that after the close at AN? Holy Crazy Bureaucracy run around Batman. This started at DRV. Went to AN to overturn and now needs someone to unsalt so we can have an article so we can have an AfD (I assume). This is insane given that he clearly meets the letter of WP:N and the rest of our content policies/guidelines (the spirit is more up for debate of course). Could the relevant admins please inform the rest of us what the next step is here? Back to DRV? RFPP? Something else? @Spartaz, Courcelles:Hobit (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The next step would be for Cunard to tag the draft as {{db-g7}} so we can finally put to rest the idea that this poor sap deserves to be immortalized in an encyclopedia for saying something stupid one day on Facebook. But that's probably not going to happen, so I guess the other alternative is to keep flogging the dead horse on noticeboard after noticeboard and putting up {{do not archive until}} templates on each thread to prevent this sad episode from ever dying a natural death. 28bytes (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You know what? If this had been deleted at AfD, that would be the right thing to do at this point. But it wasn't. It was deleted out of process and the topic actually meets our inclusion guidelines. If you don't like those guidelines, change them. But let the community make the call. If you cheat, you shouldn't get away with it. I realize that's a hard lesson for a lot of people to learn. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The community has had plenty of opportunity to chime in here. This is not an obscure noticeboard. The fact that this thread has to be constantly propped up by {{do not archive until}} templates because it would otherwise archive without action should tell you that the community has little appetite for having a mainspace article for this man. Nowhere, in any of these discussions, has anyone made a compelling argument that this isn't a case of WP:BLP1E. The only "argument" is that process hasn't been followed, which was already dismissed at the deletion review. An IAR deletion confirmed by a DRV discussion is not "cheating", and shady BLPs are not a game. 28bytes (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The DRV salting was found to be inappropriate in the review (see above). Hobit (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now had a look at the draft. Its a classic BLP1E imo. I still feel that DRV has no locus on the unsalting argument but as an individual admin I'm not personally prepared to put my name on this being in article space. Spartaz Humbug! 13:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy to put my name on it, the protection just needs to be removed. Hobit (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the do not archive. I was going to unsalt but would rather @Floquenbeam: for input first. I'll add my own note that the draft is a significant rewrite from what was deleted, and I think should be allowed to stand on its own at AFD if that's what the community feels is proper at this time. I think there may be enough substance in the draft to be considered as a viable article. — Ched :  ?  07:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • meh Support of unsalting. — Ched :  ?  07:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I've decided that I really don't give a good flying furry rats' ass what happens here. — Ched :  ?  00:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This has not been to AFD, true, but it has been discussed to death in many places, including being on this noticeboard a couple of times in the last what, month? Longer, surely? The current situation (deleted and salted) is, in my mind, the correct one. The only reason anyone here knows this person exists is because he said something dumb on Facebook one day. If a few people can't let go, then it's up to them to beat this to death, not me. The problem here is not that I skipped AFD (if it was, that would have soon been corrected). The problem here is those who can't let it go when things don't go their way. I have said from day one that if any admin thinks any decision I made is wrong, they are welcome to undo it. So far, no one has. If that changes and things don't end up going my way, I'm not going to spend the next few months starting multiple noticeboard threads. But it is not my responsibility to undo something I've done, that I've fully explained several times, that I still think is right, that was upheld by review at DRV and here, and that no other admin has yet reverted in spite of my invitation to do so if they think it's right. Please do not ping me anymore on this, there it nothing more I have to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • For those of us who regularly deny that admins are super editors, it would be good if admins did not act as super editors, as they have in the case of this salting. @Spartaz: it would be good if you finished the mopping job you started and unsalt this - that is why you have the mop - putting your name on mopping? Really? Salting for this subject is highly inappropriate, whether you believe there should be an article or a redirect or no article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsalt. What we have here is two groups of editors, both acting in good faith. One group believes that this article should be included, and the other doesn't. I hope that everyone can agree than neither position is absolutely pants-on-head crazy - it's a garden-variety content dispute. The trouble is, some members of the exclusion advocacy group happens to have some extra clicky buttons that members of the inclusion advocacy group lack. The fact that members of the exclusion group are wielding their clicky buttons to advance their position in a content dispute - however well-intentioned - is distressing to good-faith editors who are somewhat lacking in the clicky button department.
Those editors entrusted with clickly buttons must be very careful not to alienate those editors without. The kindest way to handle this is to unsalt the article, and utilize normal deletion processes available to all editors if you feel that the article should be deleted. HiDrNick! 14:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsalt Basically, we're penalizing this article unfairly. Wikipedia doesn't want to create an article based on one silly statement, which is reasonable. But if this article were just about a local representative, it would probably be included, or at a minimum, considered. So because he's made those extreme comments that means the article can't be considered? Please unsalt, so we can consider the page on its merits. The draft does not give undue weight to his remarks, or at least does not give enough weight that we shouldn't consider it. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not care about Kirby Delauter. I agree with Floquenbeam that it's unlikely he's notable enough to merit an article. He's not sufficiently important (notable).
Wikipedia, on the other hand, is important. Since it doesn't write itself, logically the folks who write it (e.g. Cunard, Hobit, Stalwart, SmokeyJoe, Thincat, et. al. sorry if I missed you) are. I have no problem with Floquenbeam's attempt to reduce unnecessary churning by IAR deleting it in the first place, but as one of the smarter Hobbits once said, Short cuts make long delays, as this exceptionally long AN thread demonstrates. IAR is "ignore a rule when doing so improves the encyclopedia," not "ignore a rule because I know I'm right and it will end up deleted in the end." Once any editor who is not an obvious troll makes a good faith request to revert the IAR deletion so that those so inclined can make the content argument -- remember the "admins don't make content decisions" meme? -- it should be unsalted, the article restored, taken to Afd etc. etc. So is there not one admin left who's willing to do the right thing and unsalt -- not because Floquenbeam was wrong in the first place, not because you think the article will survice Afd, but simply out of courtesy and respect to the good faith editors who wish to press their case in the appropriate forum, which ain't here? NE "Diogenes" Ent 16:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A very stirring speech, NE. Of course, it would have been equally stirring if you'd swapped out Kirby Delauter for Eric Ely, or Brian Peppers, or the Grape Lady. I do not care about Kirby Delauter — well, you're not alone there, at least! Lots of people don't care about our article subjects. But what everyone should care about is not demeaning ourselves as an encyclopedia by including the subject of every flash-in-the-pan "viral" news cycle, especially not to make an example of him[ 1 ] for seeming to not understand how the First Amendment works. It's beneath us to host in mainspace something we know is a case of WP:BLP1E just to allow people to have another week arguing about it at AfD when they've already had months debating it here and at DRV. So no, it's very much the wrong thing to do to cave into these demands, which is why every admin who has come by here and tentatively said "yeah, let's unsalt it" has backed away from that once they've seen what this is actually about. You're right that you'll probably be able to find one who unsalts it eventually, because we have hundreds of admins and not all of them will actually look at the situation before trying to "help". But it sure won't be a proud moment for the encyclopedia when they do. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
No. We don't demean anything or anyone by allowing editors write a full biography on an undisputed public figure, and following editorial process to get rid of it should it need to be. What you do demean is editors by admin action such as this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like, for the 3rd discussion in a row, we have a significant majority who favor unsalting... Hobit (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Every month or so I find myself popping in to say I think the community should have an opportunity to discuss whether we should have an article on this topic. So far we haven't been given a chance (though some have given their opinion anyway). It seems to me that only some admins had behaved honourably over all this. Thincat (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Informal AfD: please read the article and discuss below[edit]

This has been superseded by AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter, per this diff with explanation by me. Please comment there not here. --doncram 20:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been asked by a nearly-uninvolved editor[1] to review the above discussion with a view to closing it. The alternatives are to either keep the article salted, or to unsalt it, which can in turn be followed by various courses of action: a) turn it into a redirect, or b) recreate the deleted article and list it on AfD, or c) move the draft into mainspace. A good argument has been offered for keeping it salted, namely that it violates WP:BLP1E, people notable for only one event, especially since the one event is a negative one ('saying something dumb on facebook'). And a good argument has also been offered for unsalting, basically that the article has never been on AfD, and non-admins want a chance to discuss it there. It's obviously been discussed, as such, for long enough, but the point of discussing on AfD is that people could then read the deleted article and discuss it, as opposed to the discussion that has taken place while non-admins could only read the newer draft version, which is much much longer. The deleted article is a stub focused entirely on the facebook incident, while the draft version is vastly bloated and diluted with non-notable biographical facts about the individual, his opinions about stay-at-home mothers, his praise of his own wife, etc etc.

I don't like to close as "keep salted", since there's interest among non-admins in reading it and taking stock of it first, per Diogenes above. Also I don't like to close it as "unsalt" (=recreate in some form), since that would mean the article was in mainspace for probably at least a week, and we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid (not heinous, not illegal, but stupid) thing. As most of you know, the wikipedia bio is normally the first google hit on a person, and being a politician (albeit a low-profile one, without notability outside the one event), Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks. Those were obviously the considerations behind Floquenbeam's speedy.

Therefore, I haven't closed the discussion at all, but instead boldly recreated the article, turned it into a redirect, and fully protected that redirect. That means only admins can recreate the article, but everybody can now read it via the history. (I've added one sentence from the draft about Delauter's apology for the facebook incident, which was reported too late to make it into the article.) Thus there can be a discussion on this board based on access to the article, while we don't disgrace the individual by having it googleable in mainspace. I hope this solves the impasse, however unconventional it is to have an "informal AfD" on AN. Read the article here, and please discuss below. The normal keep-delete-redirect-merge-etc format seems convenient to me, but of course people should discuss in whatever way they prefer. Bishonen | talk 15:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC).

  • Overturn The redirect-protection which is another editorial action taken by another admin based on their own editorial judgement, apparently of the draft, which they have individually considered "bloated". How many ways do we have to say: Don't act like an editor, if you are using tools. The reasoning for not allowing the draft into name space is therefore nonsensical, if the draft is so bloated, no one will get the idea that this person is being put in the stocks for an individual action - But now when you search for Kirby Delauter you get [2] as the first thing in the search which intentionally and unabashedly puts him in the stocks. No Wikipedia article does that. If the draft is to be deleted or redirected, than it should go to Afd where the editorial judgement is taken -- not admin super editing out-of-process on the Admin board (as an aside, I got no ping, so others probably did not either). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. This man is a county councilmember. We generally do not have articles on county councilmembers. Are there exceptions? Sure: there are two entries in Category:County council members and commissioners in Delaware, for example. One of them advanced to the state house of representatives. The other became the Vice President of the United States. Should we also make an exception for Mr. Delauter, because he said something stupid on Facebook? WP:BLP1E tells us we shouldn't, and this firmly falls into that category, unless it can seriously be argued that being a local official or owning a construction company qualify one for inclusion in our encyclopedia. I would hope few very people would seriously make that argument. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. Kirby Delauter is not notable because of a facebook post. They're notable because that facebook post has been discussed on NPR, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CNN, BBC, Gawker, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, Business Insider, Newsweek, NBC, MSNBC, Slate, Politico, Jezebel, Chicago Tribune, Daily Mail, Fox News etc. etc. and so on.
  2. While the rogue / IAR admin's thought process: we're not in the business of shaming people for doing a stupid ... Kirby Delauter may well get googled. We're not and should not be the village stocks. is laudable, the ship has sailed / horse is out of the barn / insert favorite cliche. When Delauter gets googled, the choice is not whether his stupid comes up, but whether it comes up here, we were can at least attempt to provide a low drama, low snark description of the event, or some other site, which is likely to be less kind. It is not our mission to create the world of knowledge, but to reflect it, and that includes folks whom become notable because of stupid; they are not our first priority: As User talk:Alan Liefting rightly illustrates: It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia. We currently provide coverage for folks who are notable for one stupid event: e.g. Rosie Ruiz, Mathias Rust, Mary Kay Letourneau, Margaret Mary Ray.
  3. Therefore Kirby Delauter should exist as either an article or as a redirect to an article that documents why is notable. I suggest Frederick News-Post, the employer of the reporter Kirby threatened to sue and the publisher of the editorial reply that "went viral" [3]. NE Ent 15:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


I'm just checking this page to see where this evolved and see that there is a "ping" mentioned. I received no such notice. Curious what other interested editors may be unaware.

I disagree with the characterization of Cunard's draft. There is room for improvement but it is a solid article. Not every County Councilmember has a wikipedia page, but many do. Wikipedia is taking the one-event guideline way too far on this issue and preventing readers from learning about a local businessman and representative. Please unsalt so that everyone can weigh in on the draft and his notability. Also, doesn't salting the page prevent any discussion of notability in the future? If he were to run for the state legislature, would he then be notable enough? or would the one-event rule still apply? Bangabandhu (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, pinging isn't very reliable Wikipedia:Notifications#Known_bugs NE Ent 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • First of all, this belongs at AfD, not WP:AN. Secondly, allow draft article in history is a BLP1E violation. Draft is fine and shows notability from before the "event". That is, the sources (including an editorial in a major newspaper) from before the event put him over the bar for WP:N. The draft shows that. Finally, trout the admin the speedied this the first time around. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Review of non-admin closure at Manual of Style/Icons[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin please be so kind as to peruse the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Icons#The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it and review the Non-admin closure that has precipitated the confusion? The contested change has been made three times and reverted twice and there appears to be confusion as to the breadth of the result of the original consensus and the ambiguity left in the closing statement by the non-admin closer. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Paging @Technical 13:. I don't see any issues with the close, personally. Those who are edit warring against the consensus found in the most recent discussion should, as usual, take it to the talk page. HiDrNick! 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not criticizing Technical 13 - in fact I haven't participated in this RFC/discussion at all. It's just that some editors are construing the results of the proposal and !vote more/less broadly than others... The original "Formal poll" asked for editors to be "stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles". Some editors (and the contested edit to the MOS) are taking the close to apply to areas other than Formula 1. Clarification and rationale would be helpful. If people are happy with Technical 13 making the clarification, that's fine with me – I don't have a dog in this hunt (my peeve is flag icons w/o the name/abbreviation of the nation, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish). I just felt the opinion of an uninvolved admin might shut everyone up so we can all get back to editing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinging User:SMcCandlish who contested the close in December at User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think that the close is over-broad in its interpretation. It appears to make a general statement about sports generally when the discussion was about Forumula One racing in particular, and the conclusion reached actually contradicts years worth of previous consensus discussions. Basically, the F1 editors lobbied very hard to get their way on this, and people who also really, really, really like flag icons are trying to misconstrue the questionable result of that one discussion as an overruling of something like 5 years of previous decisions against festooning articles with cutesy pictures.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding these tags and clogging up the page. Allow threads to die a natural death, if that's what they're going to do.. Not everything needs a formal closeure. BMK (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
How about we post a comment here everyday until someone responds – that should keep it from getting archived. Seems clear that @Technical 13: has decided not to clarify his close (despite a cordial reminder on his talk page), so the ambiguity remains. I guess there really aren't enough admins to go around. Is it any wonder we're losing editors? I posted this here when a nascent edit war was developing. Wisely, @Jojhutton: reverted only twice. But, if this is archived without clarification from technical 13 or an uninvolved admin, it raises the additional question of what to do about the edit to MOS:ICON – should it be reverted to the status quo ante or left as is? Mojoworker (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't decided to do or not do anything. My ex's 60+ year old father slipped on some ice in a store parking lot last weekend, broke three ribs, punctured a lung, went in for multiple operations to fix it, and has been in ICU half the week. Clarifying my close on a topic on Wikipedia has been at the very, very bottom of my todo list. I'll get to it in the next week or two when my mind has a minute to regroup and I apologize if I seem brash or uncaring, but in comparison to what I'm dealing with in RL atm, I really don't care. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries Technical 13. Quite understandable given your circumstances. Sorry if my frustration was leaking through into my post. Sadly, an admin could clear this up forthwith, leaving you to care for your family. Guess there are just too few admins. Or too many lazy ones? At least too few that will do anything that requires a little work. Someone on Dennis Brown's talkpage was talking about redirecting Chicken shit to ANI – I guess AN would be just as appropriate. If we can't come here for assistance, then WTF are we supposed to do? I realize admins are volunteers too, but if y'all aren't gonna do anything, then turn in your bits and let someone else do it. Anyway, take your time Technical 13, my gripe is not with you. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone can run for admin any time they want, you know Mojoworker, there's no need for anyone to resign and open up a vacancy ;-) Squinge (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In answer to Mojoworker's question, the default is always to revert to status quo ante. This non-admin closure has obviously been controverted, so there is no actual consensus on the issue at the heart of the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
A consensus close does not become invalid simply because someone disagrees with it. It's under review and as long as this review does not end with the closing rationale being overturned it remains valid. Tvx1 02:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Closure Review Request at MOS page[edit]

About three weeks ago, I closed an RFC at WT:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.

I concluded that there was consensus that, while both forms (with and without the comma) are acceptable, the omission of the comma is preferred, partly because the rules about punctuation following the suffix, if there was a comma, are complicated. I concluded that no change was needed to WP:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#RfC:_Comma_or_no_comma_before_Jr._and_Sr.. On the one hand, my close hasn’t been challenged in the usual sense, but, on the other hand, I have been asked to clarify, and it appears that there are low-grade personal attacks. The real question appears to be whether the use of the comma is permitted, and, if so, when. (I have an opinion, but it doesn’t count, because I was only closing, and, if I had expressed an opinion, that would have involved me.) So I am asking closure review on three points. First, was my closure correct, either a clear statement of consensus or a valid assessment of consensus? Second, are there any issues that should have been addressed that were overlooked? Third, is administrative attention needed because of snark and low-grade personal attacks?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Some of these are easier than others.
I honestly would never, ever, have closed that thing. While the use of a comma isn't all that important, an outcome that changes the name of something or someone to something that isn't generally used violates other, more common, guidelines and is thus highly problematic and certainly shouldn't be decided by a handful of people at a MOS talk page. That said, the clear outcome was to prohibit the comma. So yeah, I don't think your close summarizes the discussion. This kind of addresses both your first and second question.
The personal attacks thing is a lot easier. I'd say there are no meaningful personal attacks, at least not on that page (I didn't look elsewhere). In fact, I'd call it downright civil for a MOS discussion.
If someone held a gun to my head and made me close this thing, I'd go with "while this seems to be the right venue, a wider set of thoughts should be gathered, take this to WP:VPR or WP:MOS instead" Hobit (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I probably contributed to the confusion by implementing the proposed change in the MOS after I grew impatient of getting anyone to close to the obvious consensus, and then I didn't notice that DrKiernan changed the MOS wording again; when Robert McClenon finally closed it, it had DrKiernan's wording, not the one that we had voted on, and he noted that no change was needed; I didn't notice until today that that had happened. So now we're arguing over his version or mine. My wording (the one we supported in the RFC) is the somewhat more prescriptive "Do not place a comma before ...", while DrKiernana's "It is unnecessary to place a comma before ..." is more permissive, which has brought up arguments at new RM discussions: Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015 and Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015. See more at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Clarification_on_wording. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to request this... but the debate about whether to allow commas before Jr. or Sr. seems to be spiraling out of control, with multiple discussions happening on multiple pages (it is being discussed on individual article talk pages and RMs, at the main MOS page and at MOS/Biographies). Reading those discussions, I think we risk ending up with conflicting consensuses (a consensus in favor of allowing the commas at one discussion, and a consensus in favor of not allowing them at another). It would be very helpful to have one centralized discussion on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Where should the centralized discussion be? User:EdJohnston suggested that another RFC be opened at MOS/Biographies. Individual article talk pages are obviously not the place for the discussion. Can a centralized place be selected and the other discussions closed? (Alternatively, do we just want to go on with multiple uncoordinated discussions?) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: The village pump is the place for centralised discussion of changing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as it is well-watched and open to editors who are not MoS acolytes. Please use WP:VP/P. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to point out that several of those discussions are requested moves (either following reverts or requiring moves over redirects) which are being disputed because of the disputed wording at WP:JR (and its application to various titles).[4][5][6][7] —sroc 💬 05:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the section originally came in, in 2009, by BD2412, in this edit. It read: The use of a comma before Jr. and Sr. has disappeared in modern times, while the use of a comma before a Roman numeral as part of a name (II, III, IV, etc.) has never been accepted. Neither article names nor headers should include a comma before a Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation, unless it can be demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers. Since that time there have been various minor mods. Sammy Davis Jr. was added as an example of no comma, and then in 2013 in this edit he was converted to an example of "unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers" in spite of evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, nobody has ever found a way to satisfy the proposed idea of "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers", which is part of the reason that a consensus was formed to remove it. Nobody has ever advanced an example of a name where it can be "demonstrated that this is the preferred arrangement by the subject or the subject's biographers". It's kind of crazy to let sources vote when we have settled on a style that makes sense for Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we haven't actually settled on a style. Both the "with comma" viewpoint and the "without comma" viewpoint have ardent adherents in discussions, but neither viewpoint has actually gained a clear consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar's comment misrepresents the original position and the discussion in the RfC. The original wording was already to default to "no commas" (i.e., the preferred style); the proposal was simply to remove the exception based on the subject's preference, which a majority favoured based on reasons enumerated there. There were no "ardent adherents" for the "with comma" camp (this was never actually proposed), although some suggested that either might be acceptable or that the subject's preference should be decisive. The change Dicklyon made reflected the proposal; the words DrKiernan added changed the meaning in a way that was not discussed and had not attained consensus. —sroc 💬 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Is anything happening with this request? Is there an active discussion anywhere on the Jr. comma issue? There are several pending RMs, but I'd like to contribute to the centralized discussion if there is one, or start a new one if there's nothing active. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban for Pincrete[edit]

An editor is engaging in revert warring on several Malagurski-related articles, pushing his POV on the issue for years. He started his editing on The Weight of Chains talk page, and stated that he's an "Englishman with no connection to anybody or anything in former Yugoslavia", ([8]) but oddly enough, edits with reference to sources that are mostly written in Yugoslav languages, he quotes them, often falsely. Now, it's one thing to be dishonest about not having connections to Yugoslavia to seem neutral, but to edit according to sources he doesn't even understand is very damaging to Wikipedia. Not to mention that Pincrete is constantly edit warring (again, just in the last few hours [9], [10], [11]), removing sourced material and sources ([12], [13], etc.), manipulating Wikipedia by moving material to a page ([14]) then nominating it for deletion the next day ([15]), canvassing editors to create consensus ([16], [17], etc.), even writing in French to hide communication with other users in regards to Malagurski-related articles ([18]), he has attacked me on several occasions in the past, and when I write on his talk page to clear up some matters ([19], [20], [21], etc. - I used to be more polite, but I'm slowly losing my patience), he deletes them ([22], [23], [24], etc.). As someone who is interested in this topic area, I can safely say that despite the fact that Pincrete does some good work in regards to finding grammar mistakes in these articles, he is doing more harm than good. I'd like to request a topic ban on Malagurski-related articles for Pincrete. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, 'Plus ça change', is a standard English expression, meaning (approx.) 'nothing really changes'. See here:-List of French expressions in English and here:-[25].Pincrete (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply from Pincrete[edit]

Recent 'ANI's'. In September 2014, UrbanVillager initiated an ANI against myself & Bobrayner, here:-Two editors collaborating on biased degrading of Wikipedia articles No editor supported any action against myself or Bobrayner, a clear majority supported a WP:Boomerang against UrbanVillager. This ANI however 'disappeared into the archive' without action, as no admin closed it.

In October 2014, following numerous requests for him to stop making accusations on article talk pages, UrbanVillager initiated this 'sock' investigation. The closing clerk, JamesBWatson, later modified his closing remarks here:-[26]. The 'sock' investigation was in reality a content complaint, but UrbanVillager had not attempted to discuss on talk, and no editor has challenged the content at any time since.

Shortly therafter, a 'Boomerang' against UrbanVillager was initiated by Ricky81682, here:-Topic ban for UrbanVillager, which was closed by Drmies, with no clear consensus, here:[27].

UrbanVillager's previous ANI's were spurious, and appear to be designed for no other purpose than to waste admin time and the goodwill of any editor who contested his WP:ownership of the Malagurski articles.(The collapsed section below, is my response to this PRESENT discussion, I have collapsed ONLY so that it does not clog discussion, NOT because I withdraw it or consider it 'inappropriate'.)

Personal abuse: UrbanVillager says I have attacked him 'on several occasions in the past' [when?].

In the collapsed section immediately below are examples of UrbanVillager's personal abuse against me (which are all over a very short period and which I have largely copy-pasted from a previous ANI, here:-[35]. I collapse them as I do not wish them to 'clog-up' this page).

Pincrete (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Pincrete is skilled at writing tons of pages of content with no purpose other than to muddy the water and cause independent editors to lose interest in the issue, but everything I wrote still stands and I'm still requesting a topic ban for Pincrete. The most critical articles which he abuses are Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains, The Weight of Chains 2, Revolucija (TV show) and The Presumption of Justice. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Also a note that Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted my comment above. This user has blocked me without reason before and is now deleting my comments. Great. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Since you initiated the thread you probably shouldn't be the one to collapse replies from a concerned user. –xenotalk 14:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Since Pincrete collapsed my comments in the past, I thought Pincrete wouldn't mind. In any case I apologize. Xeno, any comments on the subject matter? --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

NOTE, UrbanVillager and Xeno are discussing this edit by UrbanVillager:[49].'. I later collapsed parts of my response voluntarily.Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

UrbanVillager, you have not responded to my question as to when I have attacked you personally … You have provided no examples of what you consider to be my 'abuse' of these articles … You have not answered my question as to why you initiated this ANI, without having even attempted to discuss disputed content on the article talk pages.Pincrete (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Question, at the risk of behaving like a turkey voting for Christmas, isn't this on the wrong noticeboard,(should it not be 'Incidents'?). I intend to assume it SHOULD and would be grateful if someone would 'name' or 'ping' me if anything here requires my attention.Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

forum shopping advice[edit]

NAC: OP indef blocked for trolling. BMK (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Note: Do not search because I ask you, administrators, a general question, not about a specific edit..As such, I am not naming name or naming the article.

Unrelated background: 2 editors act like they own an article. OK, that happens. The article is about an American film. The search to find a director for a film was hard. One famous director chased them out of his house saying "Go find someone else to direct this piece of shit." Burt Lancaster remarked "Jesus, you must need the money". The owners of the article want this article sanitized. They even successfully got me blocked for edit waring even though neutral parties said in the 3RR board that I did not 3RR. However, I am nice so I am letting them win and let the matter go.

Related background: Now, I am on a campaign to make the article so good it is a featured article. I did make a mistake thinking that the plot of the film needs references but someone showed me that original research is ok if you use your own words to summarize what you think is the plot (choosing what to write and what parts of the plot not to cover). OK

Current issue: I made a very good point about the cast list should be a list of names, just like hundreds of other articles, not put part of the plot next to names of the cast. That type of question is best posed to a wide group since it applies to all films, not just to the owners of the one film article. To that, I am accused on forum shopping (even though I posted on only one forum, Village Pump) and am threatened with being blocked.

Question: Should we let the editors who act as owners continue to act as owners? I am inclined to let them bully, to some extent Question 2 (bigger question): Is it not forum shopping to ask a question on one forum? ...and to address a wider question that applies to many articles of the same type?

Thank you.

Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

See [50]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
This is spill-over from The Sound of Music (film). No one got WZP blocked but WZP for persistent edit warring and possibly even a bit of sock/meatpuppetry. --Drmargi (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
A neutral review by Jetstreamer (stop calling him/her a meatpuppet because he/she and I have little contact except we oppose each other in an AFD) showed that an editor (BL) made a false report about 3RR. However, this post is not about that but about forum shopping. If you post in one and only one forum, is that, by definition, NOT forum shopping. I say it is. Another person claims that if you post a question on only one forum, that is forum shopping. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Uncolsed CFD delaying other things[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 7#Template:StLouisCityMO-geo-stub, which I nominated, is still unclosed despite the fact that it could have been closed a month ago and seems to have a clear consensus. Given that it's delaying more stub sorting related to the city, it would be nice if someone closed it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done - maybe? Cfd closing instruction aren't the best ... what template is supposed to be used for the close?? If I understand things correctly some bot will fix the pages. How does the original template get deleted afterwards? NE Ent 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
While the instructions aren't clear about stub tags (I intend to fix this issue), the markers for the top and bottom od CfD are supposed to be {{subst:cfd top}} and {{subst:cfd bottom}}, not {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}}; the parameter used is the unnamed one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I updated the instructions. NE Ent 11:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User name Nomorejapansea[edit]

I posted this user name to WP:UAA as offensive and promotional. However an admin rejected as "Not a blatant violation of the username policy".[51] The naming of Sea of Japan is disputed. See Sea of Japan naming dispute. I think in these situation, such promotional naming should be avoided. It is like someone who advocate the annexation of Crimea uses a user name "NomoreUkraine". Any suggestion?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, by the letter of WP:IU this user name isn't a violation of policy. However, I will agree that the name is controversial and may lead to disruption. Without User name policy changing to exclude controversial topics from being used in user names, I don't think there's anything actionable here.
By the way, I noticed that you did not notify Nomorejapansea on their user talk page as required. I've gone ahead and posted notice there. Also, this kind of topic more likely belongs in AN/I instead. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
See Wp:IU
  • Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible, for example by containing profanities.
  • Usernames that seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling").
Also this is not a dispute resolution.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've soft blocked the account indefinitely. They can create another one if they wish. If the user had been editing Country music bios or butterfly taxa then there would be no problem, but in this case, in context, the username is a clear advocacy position that benefits no one in those kinds of articles. WP:IU is very clear in this regard. No one will be able to assume good faith or otherwise treat them neutrally. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've gone and updated WP:IU to include controversy in usernames in the Disruptive or offensive usernames section, because unfortunately, it isn't clear in that regard. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 10:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that merely the faxt that a user name includes controversy shouldn't be a problem - as long as the name isn't part of a bigger scheme to try and handle the controversy on Wikipedia - as FreeRangeFrog pointed out, the use of the account is part of the reason for the block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Block review - Skookum1[edit]

Skookum1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have just blocked (warning, response) this user for battleground activity, disruptive editing, and personal attacks. This relates primarily to an ongoing dispute with WhisperToMe, primarily on the articles Indo-Canadians in British Columbia and Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. This was brought to AN/I in February - unfortunately that thread did not lead to any sort of resolution. The problems have have continued apace since then. However, it is part of a long pattern of on-wiki battles connected with this account.

Skookum1’s position on this editor is that they are guilty of neutral point of view and original research violations in the above articles and elsewhere. WhisperToMe has requested review of the content by several editors. None have substantiated these concerns. WhisperToMe alleges that Skookum1 has engaged in personal attacks, edit-warring, and incivility. Several editors have agreed with that assertion (see below).

I do not feel good about making this block - I have worked with Skookum1 on articles in the past, and have a long history of trying to help him through his near-constant disputes on wiki. However, this last episode has convinced me that Skookum1 is completely unwilling to compromise, and that his angry, highly personalized approach is damaging to the project. Dozens of editor hours have been tied up by Skookum1’s battles, and it needs to stop.

Skookum1’s battleground approach is seen in his angry, wall-of-text approach to communication, attempts to canvass discussions, and deep, prolonged grudges against editors that disagree with him. He has left numerous personal attacks in talk page threads. (see below) He has also taken to leaving sarcastic and insulting hidden comments in article space. From what I have read, WhisperToMe has tried in good faith to deal with Skookum’s concerns, and has been subjected to an alarming level of abuse in the process.

Examples (this is far from an exhaustive list, read these two talk pages for more):

  • [52] “Go find a kite to fly … patronizing and arrogant and pretentious” (note that Skookum1 also demands money from the editor in this diff)
  • [53] “You are an essayist with a fetish for format expounding on a vast subject that you have extremely little genuine grasp of”
  • [54] “it's being authored by a student in Texas who doesn't have any clue even about basic Canadian terminology or political realities”

A look at Skookum1’s talk page contributions will show at consistent pattern of angry, belittling comments directed at WhisperToMe, among others.

There has been many recent attempts by editors to reason with Skookum1, including Anna Frodesiak (thread), Moonriddengirl (thread), Viriditas (thread), Resolute (thread), myself (thread), and others at the Canadian Wikipedian discussion board (thread). He has roundly rejected the advice of these editors. I have opted for a three-month block, as it's clear to me that Skookum1 needs a long break from Wikipedia and to regain some perspective (his longest prior block was three weeks: block log). If this behaviour continues after that, an indef block may be necessary. If there is consensus to overturn this block, I will accept that. I do ask that admins do try to wade through the previous discussions before doing so, as painful as that is. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 06:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed. NE Ent 10:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be more politicized than I had realized:
"when a Chinese-background American sets out to rewrite British Columbia history on biased sources to the exclusion of anything else" diff; "since he first invaded Canadian article space...being discussed by foreigners, quite frankly, who don't know the subject matter... content of the article WILL be offensive to the general readership in BC" diff.
I note now that not only personal attacks against other editors but his political perspective has been added to article space in the form of hidden comments. A look at hidden notes within the article Chinese Canadians in British Columbia shows a ton of original research and comments such as this:
"what rubbish this cite is!" "Lai doesn't know what she's [sic] talking about" "this is complete bullshit and from ONE study only, by a nobody" "Sahota is blowing smoke through his hat".
This has been the most unpleasant, prolonged harassment I have observed on Wikipedia in nearly eight years of editing. Edits like this one seem engineered to only one end: to discourage an editor in good standing from contributing. I'm amazed and impressed that WhispertoMe has persisted and tried to compromise, even to the point of investigating submitting articles he wrote through AFC as Skookum1 insisted he should here. (WhispertoMe has been an editor for 11+ years with 388,623 edits, 82% article space, at this writing.) By contrast, Skookum1 doesn't seem willing to go through dispute resolution processes with this. This situation long ago went off the rails. (For transparency, I'll note that my efforts to stick to WP:UNINVOLVED have resulted in Skookum1 perceiving me as derelict in duty.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching this since seeing it on MRG's talkpage, and entirely endorse the block. If anything, I think three months is too lenient—I know "indefinite as in undefined" has fallen out of fashion, but this case appears to me to be an absolute poster-child for "you're not coming back until you agree in writing to abide by Wikipedia's rules". Given that this has been going on for literally years, and that Skookum1 makes it very clear that he sees himself as a lone fighter for truth standing up against a conspiracy by The Establishment, I don't see any reason to assume anything will change in three months. – iridescent 12:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Endorse block, especially having regard for the hidden personal attacks in article space. Hope springs eternal that this approach will have changed in three months. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm3.svg Facepalm I hardly paid attention to this dramafest because I've already been involved in too many of Skookum's little wars. I never actually realized how bad this has gotten. Definitely endorse. I hope Skookum can return in three months with a refreshed perspective, but based on history, my view is that he is unlikely to take a more collaborative attitude when his views are challenged. Resolute 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I also recall working with this user some time ago. Back then he didn't act like this, at least not towards me. I don't know why anyone, ever, could possibly think it was ok to add criticism of other users into actual artiles, even if it is hidden. I don't think a timed block is an appropriate response, this is the sort of thing that easily justifies an indefinite block until such time as the user shows an undertanding of where they went wrong and a commitment not to return to such behavior in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If there's consensus here (and there appears to be at present), I'm fine with this being modified to indef. Agree that Skookum1 needs to show some sort of desire to do things differently before returning to editing. The Interior (Talk) 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you did good. Leave it, and see what happens when it expires. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I support the block, and would support indef. But, should we consider a lone wolf option? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • What a great idea, Anna! Let's wait for the reply at user talk:Skookum1#Maybe the subjects are the problem. As you say, chances for success may be low, but it comes at (almost) no cost, and it is a great chance not just for Skookum1, but also for all of us, to practice patience. (That is, in the second most likely event, that Skookum1 changes somewhat, but maybe not enough to meet everyone's expectations.) I also applaud you for another reason: After The Interior's very fair and even initial post, the discussion here turned a bit one sided, which had a strong tendency towards group think. For example, this edit was characterized as an example that "seem[s] engineered to only one end: to discourage an editor in good standing from contributing", which is a bad faith interpretation. With some AGF, the statement can easily be seen as a very reasonable request to pause editing for a moment, and to not duplicate material that is rightly covered in a different article. Similarly, the reactions to his adding ones opinion in a hidden comment are overly dramatic, in my view. I applaud Anna for keeping that spirit of AGF, and for creatively looking for a way out of the group think. — Sebastian 23:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC), Amended 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I believe your reading of my interpretation as bad faith is ill-informed. But, then, I've been watching this unfold for months, and my conclusions are based on those months of observation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Anna, I don't want to get distracted from your thoughts by the above. If you're willing to keep an eye on this, I would support your alternate proposal. I do not have a lot of hope that the situation will de-escalate at this point without that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that the block is fine and that under the circumstances, indef (which hopefully wouldn't be permanent) wouldn't be remiss. The personal attacks and persistent incivility is troubling enough, the fact they actually added such commentary of editors to articles, even if in hidden text, really pushes it in to completely unacceptable territory. I think Anna's proposal would be fine, even if it doesn't seem that likely it will work. Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll endorse the block as well. It doesn't matter if Skookum was correct in regards to WhisperToMe or not, we simply can't abide by that sort of disruptive conduct. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
  • Good block. [55] is beyond the pale. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

pls accept this link :)[edit]

http://www.tourism.australia.com/statistics/10455.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sancejajb 4everaussie (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is an issue for this board. Please go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist instead. Epic Genius (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) Personally, I think posting at WP:RSN would receive a better response, as the spam-whitelist appears to have all the posts in random order. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Protect page[edit]

I have protected Multisystemic therapy for six month as it appears that the head of marketing at MST services is paying someone to edit the article on the topic per [56]. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you did the right thing? Looks to me like it's only semiprotected. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Closure review[edit]

Can a competent editor re-analyse WT:Protection policy/Archive 15#Own userspace pages protection policy and provide a more detailed closing summary? The closing editor, Nathan Johnson is retired. The close is only one sentence long and appears to be inadequate. Although the consensus that userspace pages be preemptively be protected upon request is recorded, the closing summary does not address the question as to whether or not userspace pages should be protected with any level of protection, or for any duration of time. Also, no comment is made regarding the suggestion for automated protection of new user pages.

I understand that the discussion is around 2 years old, but still a reanalysis is required. After the closure, no action seems to have been taken. The policy page was updated only very recently by me. SD0001 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh wow, I remember this discussion. Making the main userpage only editable by the user to who it belongs and advanced user-right holders (equivalent to TPP or FPP) would require further discussion IMO, probably on WP:VPP. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The request here is only for expanding the closing summary so that it gives the full details. Unless anyone has an objection, I may do it myself. SD0001 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
      • As you made the change to the policy page, I have expanded the close myself, although pre-emptive protection appears not to have reached a secure enough consensus to be implemented, purely due to the numbers opposing it. Additionally, most of the comments refered to situations where protection was applied after a need has been shown, and there appears to be no need to move from the status qou. In any case, WP:IAR covers this, I see no need why this is written into policy like this. Mdann52 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen[edit]

A discussion over renaming WP:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen is currently underway at its talk page. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. SD0001 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A query about speedy deletion tag removal[edit]

An article is tagged (rightly at the time) A7. The author removes the tag (wrongly, of course) and adds more to the article. Another editor comes along. In the case I've just dealt with, the tag was replaced and left on, presumably because they didn't realise the tag was wrong. If an editor comes upon a situation like this and does realise that the tag was wrong, should they replace the tag and then in a separate edit remove it? If they don't do this, the tag remains still illegally removed. (In the case here, it was a fine point of notability that made the tagging wrong, and I've explained it to both editors. It's the procedure of dealing with the removed tag that I'm interested in.) Peridon (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing a deletion tag might go against policy or standard practice but it isn't "illegal". Since you've spoken to both of the editors are you asking whether the tag should be placed on the article again?
Is it still valid considering the improved state of the article? Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If the original author improves the article to where it no longer qualifies for CSD A7, then there is nothing to see here. Move along. —Farix (t | c) 21:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The point is that an uninvolved user has to determine that the article is no longer an A7 case; on the other hand, you should never re-add the tag just because the user who removed it was the original author, if you think it no longer applies. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If A7 is being challenged, take it to AfD. This is pretty obvious. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The point of this is that if one editor sees the article is improved, but does nothing about the removed tag, the tag is still liable to be replaced by someone who only sees that it has been removed. When the actual thing that saved the article is fairly obscure, not everyone will spot it. The article passed notability, not just A7, after it had been improved - but I had to dig to find the section that actually specified 'this is notable' to be absolutely sure. I think some here are missing the point that a speedy tag may not be removed by the author even if they have improved things to GA standard overnight, or haven't fully understood my post. My point about re-adding the tag was to make sure that it then got removed properly by someone uninvolved so that the history would show that. The actual case I'm basing this hypothetical one on had the tag replaced and not removed - because the editor that replaced it had missed one of the finer points of notability, or wasn't sure and wanted someone else to look again. I know that if I had found the article before the tag was replaced, I'd have replaced then removed. Possibly no-one has come upon a similar situation and thought on. Peridon (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Fie on process. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio[edit]

Hey all,

There is a rather large copyvio in the history of Judy Genshaft. If someone can revdel it all, that would be appreciated.

Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, Mdann52. For your future convenience, there's an article template for that - {{Copyvio-revdel}}. :# --Moonriddengirl #talk# 12:08, 19 March 2015 #UTC)
Wow, wasn't aware of that - many thanks :) Mdann52 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

AIV backlog[edit]

WP:AIV currently has a backlog of about 20 listings. Could a few admins please have a look? It's been backlogged frequently this week, I think because one of the more prolific AIV patrolling admins has been on wikibreak, so it may need extra attention from other admins in the foreseeable future as well. Deli nk (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization rename announcements are going out[edit]

Cross-posting to a few places

I'm sending out messages to the user accounts here who may be potentially renamed in mid-April. This includes accounts who are blocked indefinitely and have their talk pages protected. Fear not, those accounts are not being allowed back, it's just a part of the automated process. A great number of these accounts likely just need to log in and visit Special:MergeAccount to make sure they are attached to the right global account and avoid renaming. Also, users who have been renamed may be contacted about their old name being up for renaming. These users are free to ignore the message if they're fine abandoning their old account. We're well over half way in notifying users and my meta talk page exploded along with my inbox, I anticipate this likely happening here. Any extra eyes on my talk page will be greatly appreciated in case I get caught up answering emails first. Thanks, all. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Move review close review review[edit]

I think I correctly assessed the balance of opinion here but it may be that I erred towards vote counting, so if anyone thinks I have missed a compelling argument that should have pointed me to another close, please feel free to either comment here or reverse and enact any change. This is a best-efforts close, I would be completely unsurprised to learnt hat I had fluffed it entirely. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=652180032"