Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

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

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 34 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 28 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 95 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 92 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 92 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 45 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 44 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 34 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 31 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 28 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 27 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 25 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	1	14	0	15
TfD	0	0	16	0	16
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	100	0	100
AfD	0	0	10	0	10

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 250 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 73 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 70 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 68 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 58 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removed it for real? this time.

 :  ?  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 and 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

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).

• (courtesy pings to those who have voiced an opinion in this topic) @SarekOfVulcan:, @Spartaz:, @SmokeyJoe:, @RoySmith:, @Stalwart111:, @WilyD:, @28bytes:, @Alanscottwalker:, @Thincat:, @Hobit:, @Courcelles:, @Black Kite:, @JzG:, @HiDrNick:, @Bangabandhu: , @NE Ent: y'all wanted a way forward - here ya go. — Ched :  ?  16:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• keep redirect as is. With acknowledgement to @Cunard: for his efforts in the research and writing of the draft, I still feel that as an article "Kirby Delauter" has expended his 15 minutes of fame, and as an article it fails our standards on multiple levels. WP:NPOL, WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. I feel the entire thread above also confirms that as an article, "Kirby" was an accident waiting to happen. I think it's time to put this to rest. Keep the redirect, and delete the draft. — Ched :  ?  16:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• This "informal AfD" is invalid because Bishonen is linking to the deleted draft, which clearly fails WP:BLP1E, and telling editors to discuss that. Please ask others to discuss the significantly improved Draft:Kirby Delauter, which shows the subject does not fail WP:BLP1E. See the last comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 8#Kirby Delauter from TexasAndroid (talk · contribs):

  Endorse the original IAR close, but Allow new draft. Cunard's new draft appears to nicely settle the outstanding BLP1E concerns. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  If we are to hold an AfD (informal or otherwise), it should be held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not WP:AN. The same structure Bishonen has used here (keeping the article as a redirect and the draft in draftspace) still could be used if this were moved to AfD.

  Cunard (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Here is what I wrote in the WP:DRV about why WP:BLP1E is not applicable:

  The subject has received coverage in three aspects of his life: (1) as president of the construction company W.F. Delauter & Son, (2) as a member of Frederick Board of County Commissioners, and (3) as a member of the Frederick County Council.

  WP:BLP1E's first point says the policy applies "[i]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Delauter has received significant coverage prior to this event; here is a small sample:

  1. "Setting boundaries in Frederick". The Baltimore Sun. 2012-05-14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  2. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-10-21). "Delauter says he will bid on county contracts if elected commissioner". The Gazette. Retrieved 2015-01-11. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  3. Marshall, Ryan (2012-05-23). "Delauter defends comment on moving business". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  4. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-07-29). "Delauter wants to bring changes to county board". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  5. Rodgers, Bethany (2014-12-26). "Political Notes: Delauter says he reimbursed county for inauguration". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  6. Gill, Thomas (2014-10-28). "It pays to be a county commissioner". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.

  Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, says:

  Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

  The Baltimore Sun is a major newspaper, the largest circulation newspaper in the state of Maryland. It cannot be dismissed as being a "small, local newspaper". Prior to this incident, Delauter arguably passed Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. After this incident, he clearly does.

  I have created a draft article at Draft:Kirby Delauter to discuss the three aspects of his life. I included the incident in the "Frederick County Council" section because it happened while he was (and still is) a county council member.. Because the event takes up a small part of the article, I do not believe the draft violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects.

  Cunard (talk) 22:30, 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)
  • Does anyone object to me creating an entry at AfD and directing people here? Otherwise, we are just getting more of the same folks. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • NE Ent (talk · contribs) created an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter that directed people to here. I have started the AfD there. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • • Following up: This wp:AN "informal discussion" 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. This section could now be closed. --doncram 20:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Closure Review Request at MOS page

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)

• It might help to get a list of the RMs that are still pending... Also... perhaps a list of any recently closed RMs. The results should be discussed in any future RFC. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  As far as I know, these are the current or recent RMs:

  • Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway
  • Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr.
  • Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.
  • Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr.

  If there are others anyone knows about, feel free to add. Dohn joe (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  I'd ask that the 'Martin Luther King Jr.' page be returned to 'Martin Luther King, Jr.' That page and many other MLK pages were decommatized without an RM or discussion, even though it is obviously 'controversial'. I put a note up on the MLK talk page, asking that the comma be returned pending a time someone might want to start an RM to remove it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 4:52 26 March, 2015 (UTC)

These comma removals should not be controversial, since the MOS says that the omission of the comma is preferred. However, it appears that junior commas are inherently controversial. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Those comma removals should not be controversial, but they are because the wording you settled on in the MOS was not explicit in deprecating the commas as had been proposed in the RfC and editors who don't like it are using this as a basis to discount MOS. —sroc 💬 11:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What I closed was to leave the wording as it was. If the consensus was to omit the "preferred" clause and forbid the comma, then my closing was incorrect. If the implication is that I should have used a supervote to close without consensus and remove the "preferred" clause, then that isn't my understanding of how closure works. What is the consensus at this noticeboard, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The situation of the two Martin Luther Kings (Jr. and Sr.) shows the problem and why the language should allow both forms. Dr. King is known and famous, and that widespread recognition of his name includes the comma. It is used in governmental honoring, on all his books, etc. Not to argue the case here (and I've asked several times for the Martin Luther King, Jr. article be returned to its proper name because the move which moved it was made as 'uncontroversial', common sense to know that it might be controversial, so can an admin please put it back to the previous name? Thanks). A hard and fast rule, one certainly not decided on by the community but by the small amount of people who inhabit MOS pages, and even that discussion seems inconclusive. Maybe let it be "argued out" at the Martin Luther King, Jr. page, which should be a good forum for an extended discussion of this. Suggesting that as an option. Randy Kryn 17:48 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

Request for Closure of Closure Review

This closure review request has been open for nearly a month and has gotten nowhere. Is it time to close it as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that this review has gone stale is no justification to support "no consensus" following your controversial closure of the RfC with a conclusion that did not reflect the discussed consensus, effectively overruling the consensus. We urgently need resolution of this issue.

It should be noted that this controversy has now been used to block page move requests supported by the RfC discussion:

• Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. → Samuel Goldwyn Jr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Samuel Goldwyn, Jr. § Requested move 1 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway § Requested move 2 March 2015)

• John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library

(Not moved: see Talk:John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library § Move discussion in progress)

• Barack Obama, Sr. → Barack Obama Sr.

(Not moved: see Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

• Martin Luther King, Sr. → Martin Luther King Sr.

(Open: see Talk:Martin Luther King, Sr. § Requested move 4 March 2015)

—sroc 💬 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the consensus here? Regardless of whether I made a mistake in closure, I think that something should be done rather than leaving this issue open for more than a month. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've presented a possible option in my latest comment above. Randy Kryn 17:54 3 April, 2015 (UTC)

Requesting adjustment to an ANI discussion closure

Two weeks ago, Drmies closed an ANI discussion, now archived here. Reading through the discussion, you can see the !voting was for a normal WP:TBAN topic ban, not anything more narrow. Alexbrn's initial wording did say "blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles" but every other !vote was for TBAN, and then Alexbrn also demonstrated his !vote was for a normal indef TBAN in his follow-up comment at the bottom of the thread, regarding Sugarcube: 'Boomerang. If would be helpful if the closing admin could go "two-for-one" and TBAN this obviously unhelpful circumcision POV-warrior too.' However, Drmies posted in the close at ANI that the editor is "indefinitely banned from editing circumcision-related article and their talk pages," and "from Circumcision-related articles and their talk pages, broadly construed" at the editor's User Talk.

I didn't think much of it at the time, figuring "it's only a problem if it's a problem," but since then Tumadoireacht has made two edits in the area of the topic ban, here and here, continuing the same behavior but doing it at User Talk pages. A normal TBAN close would not have allowed these edits but the more narrow wording used in the close does.

I brought this to Drmies' attention via email and he agreed with an adjustment to the close. He said he didn't have the time at the moment to dig into it himself, and suggested I bring it to AN where he didn't expect it would be a problem, so I'm bringing it here for discussion and action. The specific action I'm requesting is for an adjustment to the closure language to that of a normal TBAN.

Thanks... Zad68 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this is my mistake for being too specific in my wording (and not thinking/remembering that disruption can decamp to User Talk pages). My intent was that a normal topic ban should apply to put a stop to the disruption. I would support the adjustment. Alexbrn (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm a tad occupied with Verlaine at the moment, trying to follow the beat of his joyous drums. Zad did indeed ask me about this and I have no objection to some further scrutiny of the discussion and the preciseness of my close: if I read a "broadness" into the comments that wasn't there, by all means let's get it right. Thanks Zad, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit rich. Pound of Flesh territory. If another editor welcomes discourse on his or her own talk page it is really of no concern to the likes of Zad and Alexbrn. What exactly is it that these lads fear so greatly ? Discussion anywhere ? Challenge ? / Being contradicted ? A balanced and inclusive article ? Is the subtext a push to have a premature Featured Article status sought for the very flawed Circumcision article ?

Perhaps I should expect a writ from Zad if I discuss genital cutting in my living room or the local pub ? I will pursue with vigour an appeal if an attempt is made to alter what was already a bit of a railroading . Drmies speaks of "disruption" which means "unplanned, negative deviation from the expected delivery" What expected delivery and expectation exists here. Please remind yourselves

Also is Zad in contravention of WP policy in not informing me of this discussion/attempt to gild the lily  ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Tumadoireacht's contribution here is in itself a pretty good indication of why an adjustment would be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not to mention that a pound's worth of foreskin is massive. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn often reminds me of Greta Garbo. So taciturn. So enigmatic. Foreskins sell by acreage rather than weight Drmies, ( http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/01/30/Foreskin/) but the pound referred to above was not money but weight. Since Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice -"A pound of flesh" is a figurative way of referring to a harsh demand or spiteful penalty.

Oh dear - wait - Is this a circumcision related article or talk page ?

May I even speak here in my own defence ? We cannot mention the sale of foreskins cut off by circumcision in the circumcision article (or indeed any of the ways cutters dispose of them including godparents or grandparents eating them) due to the enigmatic brotherhood embargo here represented by two of its luminaries. ( Expect the others shortly if it looks at all possible that I will not be made to walk the plank again) So I am relieved you brought up price Drmies. Do you think maybe the place for mentioning price is the article itself though ? What price freedom ? Still Alexbrn is correct - an "adjustment would be helpful" - just not the one that Zad is clamouring for.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the original discussion is archived here. The request is to adjust the wording of the close to match the community TBAN found in it. Zad68 03:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again Zad is misrepresenting events - there were 8 votes to support the TOPIC ban that Alexbrn proposed ( for me and and 5 votes opposing it.) which he worded thusly:

"In view of this continued uhelpfulness I propose that it would be for the good if Tumadoireacht were blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles

Then, near the end of the discussion, long after all votes but the fifth one opposing the ban had been cast , Alexbrn reacted to a comment seeking the banning of Zad and Doc James ( for alleged Non NPOV partisan editing motivated by religious affiliation ) by newly seeking a TBAN on the editor who made the comment. Naturally Doc James agreed, and there followed a short discussion on the motivation for Doc James pushing for a severe penalty with one editor asking whether Doc was "responding to the personal attack with calls for procedural strikes" . How this gets itransmogrified into "Everyone agrees" to a wider ban is a stretch.

Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages or is there some other agenda afoot here ? To borrow Alexbrn's original phrase "It would be good" to know !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Is it really WP practice to attempt to further prevent any discussion by an editor so topic banned from personal talk pages, the answer is Yes, that is the normal result of the typical "topic ban" on Wikipedia, the topic can't be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with the WP:TBAN policy page. What's happened is that the community supported a WP:TBAN, but the wording provided to you wasn't clear enough. The request here is to provide you clear wording that is in line with the TBAN. Zad68 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes a topic ban widely construed was the result and just needs to be stated. This editor can and should work on something else. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No it was not. A specific proposal was put forward (" blocked indefinitely from all circumcision-related articles") and voted upon as originally worded. If you wish to pursue a website wide topic ban lads then you must make a new proposal, not an amendment proposal and let folk consider it, discuss it, and reach a consensus on whether it is needed.

Now If I am not writing on Circumcision page or its talk page or any of the other 20 or so genital alteration/ mutiliation pages and yet you still want to hound out any discussion on my or other editor's personal talk pages, your motivations for doing so may come in to question and your hounding may boomerang. There is a great deal of discussion of COI at present - if the group of editors who are harassing editors at Circumcision who do not comply with an unbalanced positive presentation of Circumcision do in fact all belong to one ethnic group for whom Circumcision is sacred then it behoves them to declare this conflict of interest. Just as it would behove the Circumcision article to mention that the W.H.O. chief expert on Circumcision who is pushing it as a HIV prevention tool in Africa is also the inventor of and has a consequent commercial interest in, the three main tools used to lop off foreskins in clinical settings. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

IP Vandalism at Linda Lingle

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

---

Can we please do something about this IP editor Special:Contributions/2605:E000:EFC0:6B:11C4:963E:778B:670B? Peaceray (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Biruitorul

This user was blocked in February 2015 per WP:SOCK (See User_talk:Biruitorul#Unblock_granted). There was said "If he edits as an IP again in verboten space he'll be blocked again". So, today this user again abused of socks. See this page User:Afil/Ligia Filotti. It was nominated for deletion by an IP user [8]+[9] and as we can see now this was Biruitorul https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Afil/Ligia_Filotti&action=history He made both actions in the same minute.

94.102.49.88 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Beside of this, i want to add that this user is abusing constantly of AfD. Among other, he nominates for deletion inappropriate articles. For example fresh case - Andra (singer) (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andra_(singer)). FYK: This woman is probably most known Romanian female of 2000s and until present. She's a big, big personality (a star) in Romanian media and entertainment. On his userpage Biruitorul claims that he is Romanian. So, in this case his action is definitely an abuse. It looks like someone nominates for deletion Rihanna's article.

And there are very many other cases of his masked abusive actions. If you want, in following hours i can add more and more proofs. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've notified Biruitorul since the IP failed to do so. Before noticing that the IP had come here, I completed an AfD nomination that the IP had filed for an article that Biruitorul had created yesterday. I don't know if the IP is trying to be WP:POINT-y or what, but I'll leave it at that. --Finngall ^talk 21:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Must I really defend myself against someone with eleven edits, a probable sockpuppet? I, who received a DYK today, and just in the past week have written another article headed for DYK, as well as Toma Ciorbă (a decent article that this user, in a pique of POINTY-ness, has sent to AfD), and myriad other productive actions? True, I slipped up in February, but I've been pretty scrupulous since then. I'm not abusing anything, and I'm not going to play a game of gotcha with this individual who is clearly stalking me. I've done nothing wrong, and I hope this thread can be closed as soon as possible. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the outcome of this debate should be a block of the reporting IP. Not only is this complaint vacuous, not only is the (spiteful) PRODding of perfectly sourced articles a waste of wikipedia community time, but note that the IP effectively identifies himself/herself as having a conflict of interests. Dahn (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Mister Biruitorul, from your "myriad of productive actions" i noticed that you are not notifying users (article' authors) when you start AfDs. Let's look here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150403042653&target=Biruitorul - 4 AfDs started, no one user notified
  

next page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150328151544&limit=100&target=Biruitorul - other 2 AfDs without notifications
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150323022632&limit=100&target=Biruitorul - other 2
• +1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150320135752&limit=100&target=Biruitorul

and so on..

In another train of thoughts can i know why you are doing such things like this, like this, like this, like this (desptite of result of discussion), like this, like this, like this, like this or like this?

What a luck that you are not an administrator cuz all these pages could be deleted traceless! You are thinking you are very important to decide the fate of articles unaided, but it's not so. Let the community decide it together. Remember: Wikipedia it's not yours, Wikipedia it's not mine. Wikipedia is encyclopedia of the world. 94.102.49.88 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Kiko4564

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

---

Hi, I'm here to propose that we formally show this sockpuppeting troll the door with an indefinite ban and to request you give your opinions on my proposal below. The facts are that he not only evaded his block using many accounts simultaneously but even went on to troll and vandalise for the fifth time at least once after his latest block. Therefore I feel that upgrading his indefinite block to a ban is necessary to prevent disruption from him continuing. Can someone also please notify him of this discussion as I cannot do so because his talk page is semi-protected. 87.112.156.248 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

He seems to have been blocked since 11 November 2014. AcidSnow (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure that putting a notice on his talk page would notify him since he is indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nor can he even edit his own talk page, so we will never know if he got it or not unless he comes here. But what good would that do him lol. AcidSnow (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I know about WP:AGF and all, but I always get a little suspicious in cases where the OP's very first edit is at AN... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:40, 3 April 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

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

---

As is indicated by the subject heading, this move discussion has been going on for over a month, the request for an uninvolved admin to assess the discussion was posted at WP:ANRFC almost a month ago itself, and no one has commented in the discussion in over a week. Would an uninvolved admin please assess it? (SN: Why are things so slow-moving at ANRFC lately?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd close it as move if I could but there are too many edits on the existing redirect. To answer the "slow-moving" question, the vote is nearly 50 / 50%, it's about a very low notability person, and there's the porn ick factor. So the downside for the closing admin -- the "losing" side complaining after the close and being accused of being associated with porn makes it the type of thing few folks are going to be rushing to do. NE Ent 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why it should be closed by someone uninvolved with the discussion...and the subject, now that I think about it. And the actress' notability isn't in question (I personally had never even heard of her); this is simply a move request. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Closed as move. Dragons flight (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion of old AfC drafts under db-g13

Dear administrators: As you know, old AfC drafts which haven't been worked on for six months or more are being placed in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and considered for deletion. There are a number of editors who have been picking through these drafts, nominating some for deletion and improving others. However, there are thousands of drafts added to the list every month, and sometimes we don't have time to check them all, especially if we take time out to improve some. When that happens, they filter to the top of the list and are tagged for deletion automatically by the HasteurBot, under db-g13. This is a good thing, because some of the pages, created by new users, contain copyvio, BLP violations, or are about completely non-notable topics, and need to go. However, in my experience, about one in four of the ones nominated by the bot are well on their way to being acceptable articles, and the bot has no judgement about the appropriateness of deleting a particular page; that is left to the admin who sees the tag.

When you come across one of these bot-nominated pages, I hope that you will consider going beyond checking whether the page is eligible for deletion, and also look to see if it could be made into an article with a little improvement. No need to improve it yourself; just removing the tag will give a draft another six months for someone to find time to work on it. If you leave an edit summary such as "removing deletion tag; possible notable author" or some such it will give the draft a little publicity as well. I have personally removed tags from drafts about Olympic medalists, Oscar-winning actors and Chair-holding professors. HERE are ones that I have picked out of the pile, and all were either tagged by the bot or would have been if I hadn't made an edit before that happened.

To those of you who have already been doing this, thanks, and sorry for taking up your time.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permissions backlogs and files lacking permission

Hi all. Just wanted to point out this comment I just posted to the OTRS noticeboard. In short, there are some heavy backlogs within the English-language permissions queues.

An aside from the linked comment, if you are interested in assisting or know anybody who is (being an administrator is not required) please consider taking a moment to review m:OTRS/Volunteering. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Hardin userfication

I have been contacted regarding a past speedy deletion of a page for a Jerry Hardin (not the one currently at that page name). The previous version of the article had a WP:LEAD with the following content according to my contact: "Jerry Hardin is an American basketball coach, trainer, and analytics expert. He is currently the General Manager of Quest Multisport Chicago, a world renowned indoor sports training, practice, and rehabilitation facility located on Harrison Street, in Chicago, IL.[1] Jerry is a regular invited guest of NBA teams and NBA Combine coaches to attend their meetings, practices, and film sessions. Jerry has been studying, the game of basketball since he was 10 years old and bought his first how to coach basketball book. Jerry played basketball in high school, college and for the United States Marines Corps. He has coached and lead men’s basketball programs for Division 1 UIC Flames, NAIA Cleveland Dykes, United States Marine Corps Headquarters Battalion Team at Henderson Hall Barracks in Washington, D.C., and was the head coach of the All-Marine Worldwide Team. He has traveled internationally to coach basketball in Bamako, Mali, West Africa, on behalf of the U.S. State Department. He co-founded Basketball Elite Skills Training (B.E.S.T. Basketball Chicago) to help influence the lives of boys and girls of all ages by using basketball as a vessel to teach character, teamwork, and life values." I am thinking that the page may have been at Jerry Hardin (basketball) or Jerry Hardin (coach). Can someone userfy the prior page and its edit history for me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 April 2015‎ (UTC)

• P.S. I think it may have been Speedied sometime during or after February 2015.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done, you can find it at User:TonyTheTiger/Jerry Hardin, for reference, it was at Coach Jerry Hardin. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Gossip on signpost

Please see In the media. The signpost has posted negative information about principals in a company involved a local property dispute. While sourced locally, there's no evidence of significant national, encyclopedic coverage. WP:BLPGOSSIP requires "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." (emphasis mine) Prior discussion at corresponding talk. NE Ent 21:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is one of the more spurious things I've seen. This topic got national coverage, has extensive articles in reliable sources, and relates to long-running paid advocacy problems on the English Wikipedia (see also Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• This is a bit rash, honestly. I would have been glad to chat with you further to address your concerns. If this was just a minor local story I pulled from the back pages of a local newspaper, I would have relegated it to "In brief". But it's an absolutely huge story in Austin, it has received national attention since February, the human interest angle has made it go viral on social media, and national media attention has repeatedly highlighted the Wikipedia connection. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Sourcing is fine, the connection to Wikipedia is a little tenuous, but it's real enough. The article doesn't violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'd say that the complaint is unwarranted and requires no action. Perhaps the complainant might want to spend their time doing something productive to help build the encyclopedia instead of looking high and low for things to bitch about. BMK (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Ent, if you had done your homework before coming here, ten seconds of Googlefoo would have revealed: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Shall I continue? Please don't waste valuable time in my day with spurious complaints. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks NE Ent for raising this because it reminds me that there are two things I've been wanting to say. First, Signpost has been getting better and better, and the April 1 edition was fantastic! It is a long time since I've seen entertaining April 1 commentary—congratulations to all involved! Second, NE Ent has been getting worse and worse, and the unhelpful commentary wastes resources and often enables trouble makers. Please stop. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)