Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than 48 hours
are archived by ClueBot III.

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

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

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so.

Centralized discussion

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

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

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

  • Down to five now. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Now down to three. SD0001 (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

RfD backlog[edit]

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

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

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#removable under more stringent standards (Initiated 63 days ago on 26 January 2015)? Please consider the RfC close of Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes#re-adding clear non-politicians (Initiated 19 July 2012) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ag-gag#RFC regarding article title (Initiated 57 days ago on 1 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Does the present article title comply with WP:POVTITLE? If not, what changes are needed?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:TurboTax#RFC: Should a unproven news report regarding the alleged collection of information be included in the article? (Initiated 56 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#RfC: Infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom#RfC: Infobox (Initiated 62 days ago on 27 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

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

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

Talk:Abraham Lincoln#habeas corpus section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Abraham Lincoln#habeas corpus section (Initiated 61 days ago on 28 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Does the current discussion of Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war) have the right balance of detail? Is it fair? Biased? " Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt#RFC: Should the "Media Role" content be moved to the "Aftermath" section? (Initiated 40 days ago on 18 February 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

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

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

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015 (Initiated 27 days ago on 3 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Precipitationshed#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Precipitationshed#Request for comment (Initiated 51 days ago on 7 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Japonic languages#"Altaic ?" in the Infobox? (Initiated 52 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Altaic languages#Korean or Koreanic[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Altaic languages#Korean or Koreanic (Initiated 52 days ago on 6 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia#First Sentence of Education and Language (Initiated 50 days ago on 8 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Azure#RfC: Returning "Azure" to the primary topic rather than a disambiguation page? (Initiated 57 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Version 2.0#RfC: Is this revision an improvement to the article? (Initiated 58 days ago on 31 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu#RfC: Should the lead paragraph state the genres of Mr.Iñárritu's films, based on WP:RS? (Initiated 58 days ago on 31 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Human rights in Northern Cyprus#RfC: Use of the CERD report and language of the article (Initiated 69 days ago on 20 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 3#RFC to rename article (Initiated 61 days ago on 28 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brisbane Roar FC#RfC: What does the F in Brisbane Roar FC stand for? (Initiated 57 days ago on 1 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Nigerian#Request for comment on using an Economist article and the IPPR 2013 report as sources (Initiated 56 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Djokovic–Federer rivalry#RfC: Combined clay results vs Rafael Nadala (Initiated 56 days ago on 2 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Morning (Misia album)#RfC: Should the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead make clear "in Japanese" (Initiated 66 days ago on 23 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Merger proposal (Initiated 77 days ago on 12 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:IHeartRadio Music Festival#Merge proposal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:IHeartRadio Music Festival#Merge proposal (Initiated 128 days ago on 22 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RfC: to amend the table layout consensus to allow rowspan in year column of filmographies (Initiated 59 days ago on 30 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should Wikipedia use HTTPS by default for all readers? (Initiated 42 days ago on 16 February 2015)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:War#RfC: Move Economic warfare from grand strategy to weapons (Initiated 62 days ago on 27 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 11#Category:People by ethnic or national descent (Initiated 109 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been outstanding for quite some time now and needs to be closed one way or another. I think the conversation goes much broader then (and away from) my proposition. I think it is probably a good basis to start a wider request for comment to see if we can establish in policy a requirement to give an explicit source when putting an ancestry-type category on an article (perhaps as part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons?) SFB 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#Category:People of French-Canadian descent (Initiated 96 days ago on 24 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Category:FBI agents convicted of murder (Initiated 88 days ago on 1 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 1#Australian politicians (Initiated 88 days ago on 1 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Stuck: Discussion has since been archived. (non-admin closure)
Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 5#Sean Fagan (Initiated 25 days ago on 5 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves backlog[edit]

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Request_for_comment_-_Capitalise_universe Request Speedy Close[edit]

There have been a couple similar proposals and an RfC on galaxy/Galaxy that just closed hours ago. No consensus to change MoS. Now another RfC on the same thing has just opened by user Cinderella157. We haven't even had time to regroup to decide on our next steps when this appears. It was deleted instantly by an editor (not me) but was soon added right back. Please close this speedily. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Eliza_Jane_Scovill#RfC[edit]

Can an experienced editor assess the consensus at the above page? With eight responses to the RfC the consensus seems pretty clear (6 keep vs. 2 remove); however several of the responses sort of straddle the fence - especially since the original question posed in the lead was changed - and I am still uncertain what should be done with the relevant section in the article, if anything needs to be done at all. Thanks. Banedon (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Exceptions to Small Caps[edit]

An admin is requested to close this RfC about whether there should be certain exceptions for the MOS's general prohibition of the use of smallcaps, exceptions to accomodate specific usages and WP:CITEVAR. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

An admin is requested to close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should Wikipedia use HTTPS by default for all readers?. Thank you. Tony Tan98 · talk 14:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Maintained[edit]

An admin with lots if spare time is needs to close this 150,000+ byte discussion. Its going to take a lot more than a vote count and may need some time to read through. Thanks! (Initiated 14 days ago on 16 March 2015) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 13:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#rfc_3972452[edit]

Will an administrator assess the consensus at this RFC? It definitely needs an administrator, as the article is protected. Thank you. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer#RFC for deprecation of this policy[edit]

Possibly the most one-sided RFC ever. Not only does it have no chance of having any effect at all, for legal reasons, it also currently has zero supporters for a change in policy, with even its proposer !voting "Neutral", against an overwhelming consensus for keeping things as they are. Requesting speedy close. -- The Anome (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Max Verstappen[edit]

Could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus in the following three closely related discussions on the above page:

Nationality of drivers

Nationality: official rules according the FIA International Sporting Code

For real

Thanks in advance, Tvx1 21:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

The closer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion, most of the material in the draft was not really suitable for a BLP -- it's all local coverage. I support the continued salting of the article title for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The DRV closer failed to be clear or explicit regarding the salting of the title. Did he overlook it, of did he consider it a question for WP:RFPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is true, that consensus supported the salting, the original action and the indefinite continuation, I rather doubt it. In any case, I think you should have said so, and pointed any desires for continued debate on the salting question to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. Stlwart111 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". Stlwart111 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. Stlwart111 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not start an WP:RFPP post after starting this AN request since that could be viewed as forumshopping. If you or another editor want to make the WP:RFPP post, that would be fine with me. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Look, it's quite clear that the only possible policy-based outcomes were to redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government if the draft didn't meet WP:N (or, say, if BLP1E is applicable), or to allow recreation of the draft if it did meet WP:N. (On this point, I'd rather not take an opinion - this whole affair has been stressful enough for me). But once the blue shield is down, there's nothing to be done except wait until attention has moved on (or the tech bloggers pick it up, and the whole mess becomes too embarassing to the project). WilyD 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to stay out of this, but I find the blue shield dig offensive. I have absolutely no problem with the community deciding my close was faulty, and I am glad that this discussion finally got started in an appropriate forum. But I do resent the implication that I'm reflexively defending a fellow admin because of cabalistic loyalty. If you take a look at the DRV archives, I think you'll find that I've handed out more than my fair share of trout. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If there's an argument to delete rather than have a redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government (probably the outcome I'd advocate if I weren't already sick of this train-wreck), it wasn't presented during the DRV or in the closing summary. It's a tough DRV to close (and I think you generally do a good job at DRV). But the cumulative effect of endorsing and closing as endorse is exactly how a blue shield works, little misbehaviours/overlooks/blind eyes by everyone to defend their friend/colleague's significant misbehaviour. If the point stings, that's unfortunate, but we can't avoid mentioning our problems because they're painful to deal with - then they only fester. WilyD 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Arguments for deletion certainly were presented at the DRV. A redirect is a poor idea since it is possible that Delauter might end up mentioned in another article (SmokeyJoe suggested Streisand effect, for example.) If a reader is typing "Kirby Delauter" in the search box, they would probably prefer a list of articles (if any) that mention him, rather than being shuttled off to a specific one. As for your doubling down on this "blue shield" crap, I have to wonder: if someone closes this thread with no action, will they too be part of the blue shield? Is the only way to avoid a charge of corruption to agree with your opinion of what should happen with the Kirby Delauter page? You seem to have ruled out the possibility that the people who agree with the deletion and salting are doing so in good faith. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Whether it is in good faith (as assumed) is neither here nor there, it is still admins preventing ordinary discussion by the use of tools and confirmation of the use of tools even where the numbers were against it, and the consensus by those who addressed it was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, you might be assuming good faith (and if so, I thank you) but my concern is with people who are not, and who are moreover explicitly assuming bad faith and attacking the character of the people who disagree with them. Regardless, I don't see much benefit to be had in continuing to argue with you about whether the DRV close was correct; perhaps we can agree to disagree on that? 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I would not think it helpful to read any of that as you do (if you give him the benefit of the doubt ie good faith) statements like "blind eye" "overlook" and even mis behavior could be negligent, not malicious, but mistaken acts (in this case) would still wind up in the same place as intentional acts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Arguments for deletion rather than having a full article were made at DRV, no arguments were made for deletion rather than redirecting to the only page where the subject is mentioned. (The argument that under different circumstances different choices might make sense is axiomatically true, but invariably irrelevant. WP:RFD sorts out cases with multiple possible targets routinely, and never, ever, ever comes to the conclusion that deletion makes sense.) Reasonable, good faith editors can conclude that the draft/subject meets WP:N, and thus should have an article, or that the sources are mostly local, BLP1E and/or NOTNEWS applies, and thus the article should be redirected to the only page on which he's mentioned (as we would with any other politician who doesn't meet WP:N or its stepchildren). I don't believe that anyone endorsing the decision is acting maliciously, I suspect they're trying to protect their friend from having their misconduct exposed and ignoring that we're ultimately here to write an encyclopaedia. Wanting to protect ones friends is an admirable enough trait, but in this context there's no harm in having your action overturned, so there's nothing to protect them from anyways. WilyD 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • When I !voted to overturn the speedy the matter of salting didn't occur to me (it isn't a really a DRV issue anyway). Now I re-read the DRV discussion I can't see anyone saying they supported continued salting though obviously if anyone had been in favour they might not have thought it appropriate or necessary to say so. Interestingly, the last !vote was to endorse the deletion and to allow a new draft. Cunard's draft was presented quite late in the DRV and I think it deserves (and ought to have) community discussion. I don't know the best way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record I endorse both the original deletion and salting, and User:RoySmith's closing of the DRV, for the reasons I offered in the DRV. And I find User:WilyD's "blue shield" remark above (implying that everyone who disagrees with his opinion is corrupt) to be reprehensible and out of character for an editor and admin whom I've otherwise had a good impression of. The fact is, the only reason there's a draft of Kirby Delauter right now is because of a stupid remark he made on Facebook and the reaction to it. That it now contains details about Delauter's family and career as a businessman and local official does nothing to alleviate the fact that he's known for one thing. If, a couple of months from now, people still think this local politician is of lasting notability and therefore merits an encyclopedia biography, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in light of new evidence of that. Perhaps by then tempers will have cooled and there will be less of a desire to make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks. 28bytes (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the admin endorsements of the IAR speedy were well intentioned but they did give a very unfortunate impression which possibly may not be so obvious to war-weary admins. It was not a good idea to have handled a supposedly "textbook" case in a non-textbook manner. If this is the right place for community discussion about the contents of the draft (is it?) I'll give my views. Thincat (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thincat, the proper place for community discussion about the contents of the draft is AfD. In my view, the draft complies with BLP and NPOV (and no one has suggested otherwise), so there is no pressing reason not to move the draft to mainspace and list it at AfD. If, as 28bytes notes, people want to "make an example of him for his ill-considered remarks" in the article itself, the editors can be blocked and the article can be semi-protected or full-protected as necessary. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
He doesn't have to pass NPOL if he passes WP:N. And the largest newspaper in the state wrote an editorial about him. That's mighty fine coverage. And coverage unrelated to the "one event". There is massive coverage about the one event. Hobit (talk)
  • I reiterate that the salting should be undone and there was no consensus to salt, so overturn. I also think Roy Smith was wrong in his reading. He says correctly that there was not numerical strength to endorse, but ignores that fact that non-admin i-voters could not see the deleted article - so of course we were disabled in offering opinions on whatever was deleted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    DRV is not AFD Take 2. We don't need to be able to see the article -- we just need to see if the closing admin read the discussion correctly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
And he read it wrong: there was no consensus to salt, there was not numerical strength to endorse, and he incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
No one requested to see the deleted article. Presumably they'd either already seen it, or felt that their !vote did not depend on what was the article content actually was. I can email you a copy of it if you'd like. 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
28bytes, during the discussion, and still, the deleted version remains here), explicitly cited during the discussion. Final version, without attribution of course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
NB. If it weren't for the speedy deletion, the cached version would carry an AfD notice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I now see, Smokey Joe linked to that cache version without the attribution in the discussion apparently after I participated or I just didn't see it because I took the speedy for BLP at face value that it had a really bad BLP problem, so we should not see it. None of that, however, changes the fact that the consensus was to overturn the salt, and numerically the !vote was not to endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Your point is non-responsive and still supporting overturn - the closer incorrectly discounted the numerically strong views of those who wanted to allow a real attempt to write and judge in the ordinary process an article. The consensus was not to salt by those who addressed it, so he was wrong there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. You say the closer "incorrectly discounted the views of those who could not see the speedy deleted article" but you provide no evidence that there was anyone who could not see it and wanted to. Cunard, for example, stated that he had read the article via Google cache. If anyone wanted to see the deleted text, all they had to do was ask. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense and again non-responsive - we could not see the deleted article and so offered no opinion on it - that is exactly what was said at the time but the closer incorrectly took that as somehow endorsing, and the consensus by those who addressed the issue was not to salt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You keep saying "non-responsive" like we're in court. What is it exactly that you want me to respond to? 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The closer got it wrong - I've offered why I think they got it wrong. I did not ask you to respond at all but if you do, don't go off on how we could see a speedy deleted article, when the very purpose of speedy deletion is for us not to see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, there are a lot of issues here.
    • The deletion was out of process as was the salting. Neither the speedy nor the salting could be justified by our deletion or protection rules. The bar for endorsing such action should be very high. There is no way that high bar was met.
    • The draft had unanimous support in the discussion of all those that indicated they'd looked at it. I believe 5 people supported it and no one objected. It's hard to understand how a draft with 100% support of everyone who indicated they'd read it could be prevented.
    • The above two issues are related the (out-of-process) deletion meant that there wasn't time to try to fix the article before it was deleted. If we'd followed our regular process, we'd probably still have this article.
    • Not a single person in the discussion indicated why this article was important to speedy out-of-process. IAR should be used when there is a reason to use it, not just because someone feels like it.
Hobit (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, I think the right way forward is to move the draft to article space and allow an AfD as desired. That's where we'd be if someone hadn't been working outside of process to begin with and that's where we should get to. IMO the draft meets our notability requirement and is well above any speedy criteria--it should get a discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • DRV reviews deletion decisions. Salting is tangential to DRV's scope: we do discuss and review it sometimes but it doesn't always receive the attention that deletion decisions receive, which I think is why this issue wasn't really bottomed out at the DRV. Personally, I think the purpose of salting is to prevent bad faith editors from perenially re-creating material in despite of a consensus. I think the salting should always be removed when a good faith editor wants to create an article in that space.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with the intricacies of DRV or salting but I wanted to weigh in here because I have read the draft and feel strongly that it belongs on Wikipedia. It seems that bureaucratic/administrative process is interfering with making an excellent article available. Unless I am missing something, it seems that no one can provide a reason for its exclusion from the main space, other than that this is where the process has ended up. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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


Moving Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter[edit]

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

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

From WP:RFPP here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Yes, pinging isn't very reliable Wikipedia:Notifications#Known_bugs NE Ent 20:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • First of all, this belongs at AfD, not WP:AN. Secondly, allow draft article in history is a BLP1E violation. Draft is fine and shows notability from before the "event". That is, the sources (including an editorial in a major newspaper) from before the event put him over the bar for WP:N. The draft shows that. Finally, trout the admin the speedied this the first time around. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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


Closure Review Request at MOS page[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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:
    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)

Question regarding editing administrative archives[edit]

Hey, admins,
I'm unsure whether this is the correct forum or the Village Pump but I'll start here for now. Recently, an editor received a block, in part, for editing the archives of WP:ANEW regarding his case. Part of his strategy in his defense was to ask a lot of questions about the inappropriateness of this editing, but when I actually looked into policy pages, I couldn't find any place where it was specifically prohibited. Many editors use the {{aan}} notice on their own archived talk pages which prohibits editing archived pages. But when I looked at the WP:ANEW, WP:ANI, WP:AE, etc. archived pages, there is no template that states that these pages can't be further edited by users.

Now, I might have missed some place in Wikipedia policies and guidelines where this prohibition is stated but if I didn't, I think it should be mentioned as a practice that could lead to a block or that is discouraged. Can a bot place the archive template on all of the administrative noticeboard archived pages? If this is not possible, I could take on this project but I don't want to do anything without getting an okay...and seeing if there was an automated way to do it! Right now, I'm more concerned about placing warnings on these pages but it is also a change that should be written into Wikipedia policy concerning archived admin pages. Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Without any additional dtail, I don't think there is much we cn do. If the user is altering the archives for the purpose of making himslef/herself look beter and/or his/her opponents look worse, then there is clear grounds for a block. The main rule here is cmmon sense, and there is no way to judge the issue based on this rule just based on the details you gave. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
A while back, the archive bot would preferentially archive threads which had the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} tags on it. I believe that particular function doesn't work anymore with the retirement of one of the bots, but it makes for good clean up practice to close up threads that have (A) reached a consensus, (B) petered out, (C) run its course and the participants are just arguing or (D) blocks/sanctions have been handed out.
Archive threads do have the text "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion". I gnome around ANI and AN a fair bit and where a close is uncontroversial, I slap those tags on. Closed threads should not be edited and offenders should be warned and blocked if the warning is not heeded. Editing an archived thread is basically tampering with evidence and it should not be condoned. Blackmane (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
In practice it happens a fair amount; there's no set policy on archive tags. NE Ent 02:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Time for a discussion on VPP? Blackmane (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be spelled out. Written or not, it's common sense backed by a universal consensus and overwhelming precedent. The concept of an "archive" itself is self-explanatory—it's a place where discussions go when they're closed, and kept as-is for historical purposes. Obviously this site is a wiki so technically any discussions can be edited after they're archived. Doing this obviously falls under the scope of disruptive editing for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained, and it's absolutely important that we don't tolerate those actions. We're not a bureaucracy and don't need to tailor our written rules to cater to one disruptive editor who keeps falsely asserting he has no possible idea what he could've done wrong. The editor who provoked this thought is not a victim of being caught off-guard by an unwritten policy, he's been blatantly playing oblivious to every disruptive behavior he's exhibited despite a ridiculous number of attempts to explain our policies and practices to him in good faith. And even despite this, he was still let off with a warning to refrain from editing the archives, and he deliberately chose to ignore that warning and now continues to plead ignorance. It's ridiculous. Regardless,
    • WP:ARCHIVE explains the concept in detail. WP:ARCHIVE#Continuing discussions explicitly states that "archived discussions are immutable"
    • WP:CLOSECHALLENGE clearly explains the proper recourse for disputing closed discussions. Choosing to ignore that and edit said closed discussion instead simply allows for no excuse. Swarm X 03:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think those policies pages are quite unlikely to be seen by new users who are the most likely to try to edit an archived admin page. I've been around for a while and I couldn't find that sentence and I was looking for it. I don't think we can assume "common sense" will ensure editors will not edit archived pages considering that we have editors from a wide variety of countries, with varying levels of education and experience.
There is no question that editing archived pages shouldn't be done it's just that if we have warnings against doing this on archived user talk pages, it makes sense to place them on archived admin pages where these edits can have a greater impact because the issues are so contentious.
So, my questions remain, a) can a bot place a {{aan}} tag on past and future archived AE, ANI, AN, ANEW, etc., pages and b) if a bot can not do this task, is it okay if I do it? Liz Read! Talk! 14:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This really seems like a red herring issue. If it's disruptive editing, even on archived pages, it's worthy of a block. Elohim55 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sock of blocked user. BMK (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • So, it looks like no strong feelings either way if {{aan}} tags are placed on archived admin pages. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Extension:Gather launching on beta[edit]

Hello, I am Moushira, a new WMF community liaison for mobile products, and I have some updates to share today :). So, Extension:Gather has been in development for a while and is now ready for beta launch on wp:en mobile web by next week, where mobile logged in users activating their beta features option, will have the possibility to create and share public lists of their articles. For more information, kindly check the FAQ. All created lists will be paginated at Special:GatherLists, showing the user name that created the list, list name, and the time it was created, and admins will have the ability to hide/unhide a list if an issue is flagged. The product is an early experiment in lists curation, and as it develops, the community can best define its moderation rules. For now, it has been made sure that all lists are viewed publicly and that admins have the ability to respond to any issues that might raise. I would have loved to update you earlier, but certain technical details were only solved recently, without which any earlier announcement would have been vague. Happy to answer further questions :).--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Um...do you think Wikipedia is an e-commerce website or something? I notice that this week is your first time editing in four years, and Wikipedia has definitely gone through a number of changes since then, but, well, if your answer to my question is "yes", it might be wise for you to read WP:NOTADVERTISING. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Mobile Wikipedia has many shortcomings in basic functionality and usability. It's a bit puzzling that resources that could have been devoted to addressing such problems were instead allocated to a nonessential add-on such as this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Short Brigade Harvester Boris Mobile Wikipedia is still developing :). Testing new features is part of the development that helps analyze different usability models with Wikipedia on Mobile, and features like this aren't supposed to substitute the other basic functionalities that obviously still need development.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Um Erpert, not sure if you noticed but Melamrawy has (WMF) in their username. i.e They're a foundation employee. Blackmane (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a little confused. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Blackmane thanks for giving headsup. I also added WMF before community liaison to help clarity and Erpert, no worries :).
Again, I would have ideally loved to share this update earlier, but it wasn't going to be useful without details. Lets keep an eye on the changes after deployment and please keep me posted then with any further changes that would need to be made, or any other comments :). Thank you!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts echo Short Brigade Harvester Boris, except I'm going to be a lot more blunt: how does this extension improve the encyclopedia? What I am seeing is yet another WMF-dictated extension that may not be consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. You are imposing yet another burden on the community, so there needs to be an equivalent or greater increase in quality or people who are willing and able to build an encyclopedia to compensate. It is very difficult to do the latter on a phone or tablet -- a keyboard is required.
Admin time is a finite resource -- we are here to curate an encyclopedia, not people's lists of favorite articles. MER-C 13:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
MER-C Really thanks for the points you raised. As you have probably read in the FAQ, what this feature allows is creating public lists of Wikipedia articles that could be shared with others. The logic here is to provide a new experience that allows mobile users to have a new usability for Wikipedia on mobile--as in creating lists, in addition to being able to share the lists and promote Wikipedia content, on other platforms, which should help increase readership and possibly attract new users. This is not meant to overburden admin's tasks, however, the lists are being logged publicly for clarity, and for any inconvenience that might raise, admin rights were planned to be given on hiding/unhiding the list from Special:Gatherlist page. As I mentioned, I wasn't able to start the conversation earlier given the lack of some details. However, for better convenience, admin involvement can change, but what do you suggest alternatively? Thank you --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you haven't grasped MER-C's point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and our activities on the site should have the aim of building and maintaining that encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a social network – a point expressed in WP:NOT#FACEBOOK – but this extension provides social media features which have no relevance to creating encyclopaedic content. People can already share lists of articles, through external sites or lists on user subpages, and can already promote WP content by eg linking to an article on Twitter. We should not be encouraging people to make accounts simply to access such features because this distracts from our true purpose. The WMF should not be spending its voluminous donation money on such things, rather on features which will improve the encyclopaedia.
On a point of fact, this does not improve mobile usability as you have described it, because it does not make reading more accessible and nor does it improve editing functionality. BethNaught (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
BethNaught, this feature is an experiment, enabled only in beta. As we move forward we should be able to assess the very concerns that you have addressed and if beta testing metrices didn't show any benefit on mobile usage, then there is no need for it to continue. The point of this feature is not to promote FB behaviors on WP it is a test that provides new experience on mobile. For example, a user can create a list, name it, then they can get back to their collection of articles for quick review, something which can work nice while travelling and browsing lists of sights to see, then the user can share their list of sights visited, which might encourage others to edit or help grow these articles eventually, this is one example, another user can create a list of articles around a medical condition, and maybe a game can start between users who will compete best articles included in their lists, which eventually is an interesting drive to contribute to articles. It is a mobile oriented experiment, but the way how users engage with it, will open venues to desktop contributions as well and will help us learn how do both platforms can complete each other. Reading this I realized that, a user can fast browse on mobile and create a list of their first 10 created articles, while sharing and telling the story of how they started to edit--an interesting drive to invite others to learn about Wikipedia and consider contributing. This could be one usability, and is something to encourage others to consider editing, I need to add more screenshots to mediawiki to help visualize how it works. Needless to say, the mobile site has problems, like the article talk pages, the current userpage, and other things that are hopefully developed within the next 2 quarters. Meanwhile, we can give a chance to some experiments that can support learning about user engagement on mobile :).Many Thanks--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually think this could in principle be useful. However, I skim wikipedia on my phone on occasion and I always just switch to the desktop site because the mobile version is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a usable environment for reading, much less editing. So in that sense I think this is misdirected effort. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The example cited sounds like a TripAdvisor app. I'm not against experimentation but wouldn't giving the mobile version a more editor friendly interface be higher priority than a function that allows editors to merely share lists? Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This is rather like spending money to put a nice stereo system in your car. That's great, a really nice feature, except that the car won't get out of first gear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
To continue with this blundness (I am sorry, the earlier discussions regarding features that did not get requested, did not work and find resistance did not get the message through) - so now this beta is ready, User:Melamrawy (WMF), I presume that all programming efforts are now going to be focused on all the reported old bugs, feature requests, requested improvements etc. that have been waiting in Bugzilla/Phabricator for years, or is the next project another misdirected effort to keep the system in its lower gears? As mentioned, editing on mobile is quasi-impossible, and yet efforts are focused on this, which in no way will help with improving Wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
However, for better convenience, admin involvement can change,
Community involvement in moderation needs to be zero, because that's about how much benefit this extension brings to the encyclopedia. I've heard lots of promises from the WMF about reader "conversion" and editor retention, and this appears to be one of the most transparently ridiculous. (It'll be merely far-fetched if our mobile interface was up to scratch, because then the users you attract would have a fighting chance at making constructive contributions. Fancy that!)
The point of this feature is not to promote FB behaviors on WP
and maybe a game can start between users who will compete best articles included in their lists
Indeed.
Needless to say, the mobile site has problems, like the article talk pages, the current userpage,
Like the others, I ask: why are you not picking this obvious, low-hanging fruit that results in a clear improvement to our mobile platform? MER-C 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, some of low hanging fruit will be indeed picked in the next 3 months, mainly the userpage, talkpages, in addition to allowing anonymous editing, and more will follow, please keep directing me to requests. Would you like to have an IRC office hours to discuss more elaborately? Again, this feature is a test and only in beta, community involvement in moderation might tend to zero, my note here was to flag that you will have the ability to do something, if you need/want to. However, when a similar feature is availed on desktop, at some point, as per the discussion here, then moderation rules would need to be defined. Meanwhile, I started a page to explore possible uses of this test feature for desktop. Thank You.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Those features are wanted by the community because we know they will help us improve the encyclopedia. Consequently, we wouldn't mind policing them for the usual crap. Oversight time is even more precious than admin time. You have failed to demonstrate how your extension improves the encyclopedia. If an extension does not improve the encyclopedia and imposes a community moderation version -- which is unavoidable if article lists are publicly available -- then it should not be deployed in any state. MER-C 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Input regarding "sharing and telling the story of how they started to edit--an interesting drive to invite others to learn about Wikipedia and consider contributing." Please read Wikipedia:General background on risks for women on Wikipedia and the Internet, and ask yourself whether it is ethical, given the risks involved, for us to continually push our volunteers to disclose personal information and give testimonials!
What direction are we going on this site-- towards becoming a respected cultural institution? Or just another Internet company using bait and switch cult recruitment techniques to leverage unpaid labor which does not enjoy standard workplace anti-harassment protections? An honest assessment by a panelist at West Virginia University recently suggested something on the order of, "there's harassment everywhere, join up now and learn to deal with it early... "-- in other words, a repeat of gathering at the Bridge to Selma, this time in cyberspace ... --Djembayz (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So I have a few questions, Melamrawy (WMF).
    • Do pages have to actually exist for them to be included in someone's "list"? If a page is deleted once someone has listed it, what happens? Can they include already-deleted pages, or perhaps even pages that have not yet been created?
    • Is there the ability for administrators to delete these lists? Is there an ability for oversighters to suppress anything on these lists?
      • If there is no ability to suppress, this extension should not go live. We have had plenty of experience with WMF-designed extensions being used (intentionally or unintentionally) for trolling, BLP violations, personal abuse, release of private or non-public information and so on.
    • I will note the thread on Wikitech-L in which a multitude of developers and participants in WMF projects have also expressed serious concerns about this extension from the more technical point of view. Who is addressing these, and how are they being addressed? And who is the current product manager for Mobile? Or who is the product manager responsible for this extension?
  • Looking forward to your responses, Risker (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok so after reading this thread the the FAQ, I think I've been able to figure out what this extension does (which was surprisingly difficult, given the amount of words spent): it will let users with accounts, on mobile, create and publish topical article lists based on themes as they choose them. Similar, in an obscure sort of way, to how the Book creator lets us compile multiple articles into a topical "book". The intention appears to be that mobile users will create and share these lists in a social manner, I imagine a bit like we currently see lists from Buzzfeed along the lines of "25 Wikipedia articles you won't believe exist". This strikes me as...well, not inherently harmful, but perhaps an odd direction to take mobile development in a period where we don't even have mobile access to our watchlists (which are also lists, just not lists we can, er...use on mobile?). I echo Risker's concerns about suppression issues, though - we had similar road bumps with Echo, as I recall, and some have already been squashed in relation to Flow: any system by which users can generate content or references to content needs to be secure with regard to hiding inappropriate content or it shouldn't be live on our projects, for the security of our users. I would really appreciate if Melamrawy (WMF) can expand, whether in this thread or elsewhere (functionaries-l is open for business if for some reason Gather-suppression-related stuff can't be discussed on AN?), on how "all lists are viewed publicly and [... ]admins have the ability to respond to any issues that might raise" actually gives us the ability to handle problem content. Instructions here, locally, would be very, very good things to have.

    On the useful side, I do note that the Gather FAQ make a passing mention to the fact that "Though user needs on mobile do not identically meet user needs on desktop, through Gather, we hope to extract lessons and maybe even code that can help with adding more features to watchlists on desktop". Which is, again, not a bad thing, but does appear to be coming at the problem sort of sideways: if you're hoping to learn more about how people use and want to use their watchlists, why not do some research on watchlists rather than hope to get that information from a tool intended to be used entirely separately from watchlists? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings everyone, and thanks for the elaborate discussion. For better clarity, you can test the feature on test WP--make sure you go to settings and enable beta features first please, and check a sample of how generated lists would look like . Watchlists do exist on mobile web Fluffernutter :), they are unfortunately still missing in the app though :/.
To reply to Risker's points, right now, what has been developed so far, is the ability for an admin to delete someone's entire list, from the Special:Gatherlists page, making the list private, viewed only by its creator. During the test and if the feature is likely to continue, there should be a discussion around how a similar lists creation functionality could be moderated, whether on desktop or mobile, and we can use this test to examine moderation behaviors (who would be involved? what are the rules? etc). Currently, this product is being managed by Jon Katz. Please note that we can also help grow the Gather FAQ by adding more questions there. :) lets keep the constructive discussion keeping in mind that we can always change things during the test to make sure we are making the best use of this feature, or even redesigning it all. I am hoping my answer is making things more clear, and I am happy to elaborate more if not.  :) Thank you everyone--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User rights of global banned user[edit]

Spartaz has removed the user right from the globally banned user. I will err on the side of exceptional caution and extremely strict interpretation of policy and redact this discussion since there is nothing to be gained from the username (and directions to figuring out the circumstances of the ban) to remain archived. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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



(Redacted)




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


Resolve a bunch of copy/paste moves[edit]

In complete disregard of their actions' effects on Wikipedia, the South Dakota legislature recently renamed Shannon County, South Dakota to Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota, and as a result, we have a lot of pages that need to be renamed; most, if not all, were in Category:Shannon County, South Dakota or its subcategories. Unfortunately, someone's simply copy/paste moved a lot of them; I tagged {{Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota}} for db-move, thinking it an isolated occurrence, but then I noticed that several of the county's categories had also been copy/paste moved. Could someone please go through all pages with "Oglala Lakota County" in the title, delete all the copy/paste moves, and then move the pages to the correct titles? It looks like most pages in these categories have already been recategorised (properly), so you probably won't need to move anything except these pages themselves. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The 2 articles and the only template have been done; I did the head category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Finished all the categories. If someone can think of other pages which need doing, either mention in here or use {{histmerge}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely

  1. sending an insulting e-mail to an editor he had just sanctioned,
  2. edit warring on an article and then protecting his preferred version, and
  3. lifting an arbitration enforcement block out of process,
Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped

(Non-administrator observation) He indeffed himself, so I doubt he'll be coming back. I don't recall ever crossing paths with him but I wish him the best. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good. We've got rid of another one. Which admin is next? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Very classy comment. BMK (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that discussion should happen at the "Discuss this" link. --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Request review of closure of ANI against Jytdog[edit]

Consensus supports the closure of the ANI without prejudice against a new thread should there be new reasons for one -- Euryalus (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I am requesting a review of the closure of the ANI against Jytdog (Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment) I raised regarding their protracted incivility and harrassment of me. I am raising this review on the basis of premature closure and inaccurate consensus of opinion.
Premature closure. Other points regarding the behaviour of Jytdog were being made at the time of the closure (00.26). I made a posting just 6 mins before the closure. The closure had not been requested by anyone. It is worth noting that the closure was made at a time when the huge majority of people in the UK and other similar time zones clost to GMT would be asleep and these editors would not have had an opportunity to contribute and comment on a large proportion of the comments in this discussion which were very recent.
Inaccurate assessment of consensus. The closing editor stated "There is no consensus for a block or any other action at this time". As far as I can see, there is only one editor suggesting no action. All other editors suggest some action is taken, therefore, the consensus is to take action, but this has not happened. Actions considered ranged from sending Jtydog a cartoon of a leaping trout, to perhaps seeking mental health advice. Any editor that can write this[8] should not be allowed to edit on WP. From my position, simply posting hollow apologies after the event is totally insufficient. This is insulting to editors and damaging to the project. Jytdog is a highly experienced editor. This does not mean they should be protected. It means they should be a mentor. Jytdog knew exactly what they were doing and was pushing harassment to the very limit as exemplified by their comment here "None of what you write is actionable and much of it is nonsense (which should make it clear why i described you inexperienced)"Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC). If a newbie came on board and posted a message to another saying "just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck"[9] would we really just turn around and say "oh well, at least they apologised". __DrChrissy (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the closing - Admins are responsible to the community, and should not necessarily be arbiters of who "wins" or "loses" a dispute. If a situation can be curtailed (and excessive dramah prevented) by closing an AN/I report without action other than warnings, that is a responsible choice on the admin's part. (BTW, if you think I am a Wikifriend of Swarm, the admin who closed the discussion, I will note that my last block was made by that admin. Further, I cannot recall having muxh, if any, interaction with Jytdog.) BMK (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the close despite the fact that I didn't comment at AN/I. Jdog has apologised, and I doubt will use a swear word ever again. Send all fish products to the doc. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per BMK, with no prejudice against filing a new ANI request if the behavior is repeated. NE Ent 18:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Very good point NEEnt, yes, agree. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support closure per Roxy Formerly 98 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So are all those supporting closure with no action happy to see an editor write "just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck"[10]?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
If the cap fits ... -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That cap ("ignorant fuck") never does. NE Ent 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrChrissy - Did he write that before the closure or after? BMK (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Before: the comment was 24 March, and the close was today. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That is correct. My point is that Jytdog is an experienced editor and should absolutely not be communicating in this way, only to then apologise in the knowledge (due to their considerable experience of ANI - why do they have that experience?) that will only get threatened with a warning. Please note that Jytdog has not even received a warning as a result of the ANI, let alone the totally humiliating action of being sent a cartoon of a leaping trout.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the point at this moment is that he misbehaved, he acknowledged it, and he was warned about future misbehavior. If he were to say something like that now, after the close of the discussion, the acknowledgement of his wrongdoing and the warning, then you'd have something to complain about, but at this time, WP:AGF requires us to assume that he will do as he says he will do. BMK (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No, of course not. It is not the case the an editor repeatedly brought to ANI only receives warnings. Simply assume Jytdog's behavior will be appropriate in the future; if that turns out to be untrue, refile on ANI. (Or you're welcome to leave me a note on my talk page; if I'm not on wikibreak I'll look into it.) NE Ent 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrChrissy: You should be aware, however, that NE Ent is not an admin or even an ombudsman (as he sometimes appears to feel he is), and has no special powers to do anything in regard to your complaint. He can't do anything that any other normal, everyday, rank-and-file editor couldn't do.
Instead, I'd recommend that if Jytdog misbehaves in your direction, you contact Swarm, the admin who closed the AN/I discussion; I think that would be a much more practical choice. BMK (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment No comment on this particular closure but maybe Jytdog could take a break from filing cases on all the dispute noticeboards. It seems like there are a couple every week lately. Repeatedly putting oneself in an adversarial situation with other editors increases the likelihood that ill-chosen words will be spoken. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Liz i completely hear that. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • sorry - I got a bit angry__DrChrissy (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Please look at the history page - this is the tactic that Jtydog uses - extremely disruptive and offensive.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Philg88 - I hope you understand I most definately did not mean what I wrote - I am simply trying to help people understand what it feels like to be the subject of harassment from Jytdog.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy, don't do that again. See WP:POINT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I will not. And I hope User:Philg88 appreciates the reason why I sent the message. This was in no way directed at them.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I have sent a full and unreserved apology to Philg88. I would encourage other editors to look at the history of what I did because this is exactly what Jytdog does. According to Jytdog, this is non-actionable. If you wish to take action against me, it must also apply to Jytdog. Please be assured that this is not the way I normally behave, I just see a mass of people running around trying to hush something up because an established editor has gone off the rails and they are worried about taking punitive action.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope. See WP:NOJUSTICE. NE Ent 21:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose closure Jytdog received complaints about this behaviour from editors at this ANI on March 16th, where Drmies summed it up as "too gruff". I would say this is a gross understatement. Perhaps reread the entry from Atsme, which supports DrChrissy's assertions above. The ANI from DrChrissy should not be viewed in isolation, and IMO was closed with dizzying speed before the entire picture emerged. If this "gruff" behaviour and comments such as look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck are considered acceptable behaviour here, the loss of WP editors can't be surprising. petrarchan47tc 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
as I wrote before, i overwrote that -the final comment was here and i apologized to that user here, which was accepted. Just icky to bring that up again. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not "icky" in the slightest to bring this up again. It is a perfectly legitimate example of your historical behaviour of reverting your own comments after having offended another editor that resulted in my ANI reaching consensus that action should be taken against you for this kind of bullying behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge no one has said the behavior was acceptable; if I'm mistaken please post a diff. NE Ent 22:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
"If the cap fits" ... -Roxy the dog™ [see above] petrarchan47tc 23:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Petra, that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, and I think you know it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the meaning of what you said was unambiguous. If you weren't insulting Dr. Chrissy, what could you have possibly meant? Doors22 (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support closure Jytdog recognized issues with his behavior, apologized, and promised not to repeat these issues. We should take him at his word.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The point is that the ANI had a consensus that action should be taken against Jytdog. None has been taken. The ANI was closed before consensus was reached on what action should be taken.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As I read the ANI section, there was consensus for a warning, which occurred here and was accepted here. So, I believe the ANI was properly closed. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support closure although I was victim of Jytdogs aggressive behaviour too, I support closure due to two points: 1) WP:AGF, hopefully he really changes but we can only see that in a working practice and 2) AN/I will remain open, so if he falls back in the old behaviour he can be send back to AN/I quickly. The Banner talk 22:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Will someone please address my contention that the original ANI had a consensus that action should be taken, but that none has been taken. If this is nt addressed, you are sending out the message that ANI is a completely toothless tiger and it is a total waste of time to contribute to that page.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Every single commenter here who supported the closure of the thread is de facto supporting Swarm's closing conclusion that there was no consensus for anything but a warning, so there's no need for people to say so explicitly again.
    It's really time for you to put down the stick and stop beating the dead horse. There is not going to be a re-opening of the thread and there are not going to be any additional sanctions against Jytdog based on the evidence in that thread. If there is misbehavior in the future, you can be certain that it will be sanctioned appropriately, but for now, you need to let it go and go about improving the encyclopedia, lest you start to move into the area of "I didn't hear that" behavior, which can be construed as disruptive. BMK (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Support closure and allow people to open a new Request for Drama if they really feel they must. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I do hear what you are are saying. You are saying it is fine for all those contributors to make cogent arguements about the mis-behaviour of a clearly disruptive and uncivil editor on ANI, for them to support that action is taken, and for the admins then to take no action whatsoever. Not even a written warning! Think of all those hours that people have contributed in the ANI - wasted. Think of all the bad feeling Jytdog created - so harmful to the project. We civil and non-disruptive editors are expected to take an appropriate course of action by using ANI. What's the point? If anyone sees fit to close this thread - please go ahead...and please remember Jytdog's taunt at the beginning of the first ANI raised - "none of this is actionable". There must be the biggest ever Wiki-smirk out there upon closure of this.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe you are completely not listening to what people have said. Many times others have iterated that Jytdog was issued a warning by Swarm. For you to repeatedly say that no warning was issued is the most blatant case of head in the sand I've ever seen. One of Many linked the diff of the warning above, and I'll link it again, in bold, here. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been advised to "drop the stick". That I what I have attempted to do. Are you asking me to "pick the stick back up"?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
drchrissy, you edited the GMO article today, and you never have before. You are surely free to edit where ever you like of course. (nice edits, btw). You seem to be angry with me per your comments in this thread. I understand that I hurt you. I have apologized to you and have been formally warned by the community for my behavior (which, while it did happen for a while, was not characteristic of me - if it were, I would have received far stronger sanction). In any case. I hope your goal is to improve the encyclopedia and not to turn WP into a personal WP:BATTLEGROUND. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
ARGGGHHHHHH. You are already in breach of your warning. You have sent a message that is completely against WP:GF.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. You will not see me extending the scope of my editing here into articles that you commonly edit; it would be wise of you to do the same. My intention is to minimize interaction with you, and keep it all purely civil. I suggest you do the same. I am not proposing a formal WP:IBAN, but this is common sense following a dispute that gets personal. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
ok, so you extended into the GM Food article, drchrissy. as you will then. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support closure per WP:ROPE and without prejudice to starting a new ANI thread if problems persist. The existing ANI thread is evidence of itself that a problem has existed, he's been given the opportunity to self-reform, and at this point we should give it some time to see if he does. If in a few weeks, he still is behaving in noncollaborative ways, there's no problem starting a thread then. Let sleeping dogs lie... --Jayron32 16:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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


Request to lift Light show's image ban[edit]

I'm requesting that the ban on uploading images that was imposed in November 2014 be lifted. The original ANI about this and my "oppose" rationals should clarify why I don't foresee too many future issues. I see many articles that could, and should, have an image, such as I noted for Talk:Bob_Simon#Lead_photo_request, and some others, and I think those articles would be improved with images. On my talk page, it was suggested back in November that the ban was not meant to be infinite, and could eventually be appealed. I asked Monnriddengirl last month, and she suggested I come here. Thanks for any consideration. --Light show (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Here's the thread link and these are the other editors who supported the ban: User:Masem, User:Ivanvector, User:Laser_brain, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, User:Knowledgekid87, User:Dennis Brown, User:Thomas.W, User:Neatsfoot, User:Diannaa, User:Calliopejen1. The only oppose vote was from the user himself; most of those supporting the ban have had many dealings with the editor and copyright issues.
The problem dates back to 2009 if not earlier. He has been the subject of a CCI since April 2012 under his former Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1 user name, the topic of an RfC RFC/U in October 2012, and blocked at Commons indefinitely blocked on Commons since 30 November 2013 for the same reasons. Each time the problem was addressed in the past, the user proceeded to tell all of us how we were wrong re: WMF policies for PD images, and he alone was interpreting them correctly.
The oppose statement he refers to which will tell us why there won't be any more issues if he returns to uploading is simply a rehash of his position. It has caused problems for others who work on copyright concerns in the past and he's basically saying that he wants to return to that same pattern as an uploader. There's no indication from him re: a willingness to work within the WMF rules and guidelines either before (his oppose statement) or afterwhen he's tried to get the ban lifted. We hope (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons We Hope lists - several prior attempts at making Light Show understand the minimum requirements we require (compared to US Fair Use) seemed to have repeatedly failed. There's no reason that, if LS believes that there exist free or non-free media that can be used on WP , to direct other users on the proper steps or the like to upload the images appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I did direct other users to post a non-free for the RD of Bob Simon, including sample instructions, yet no one was capable. In any case, the key issue is PD, not non-free. I rarely added non-free images since deleting them is totally subjective and thereby arbitrary, ie. #8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. --Light show (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
A lot more people are active Wikipedia:Files for upload here and try to handle all requests when possible. This handles requests for specific files; why not try this in future? We hope (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Bob Simon (who died in February but was an active person in the industry till then), there is a chance a free image can be found, though a check at flickr + google doesn't immediately show any. Non-free policy suggests that we don't immediately drop a free image of a recently-deceased person just because they have deceased if that person still was a rather public figure. In a few months, yes, that might change. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing indicates Light show's understanding of our image use policies has improved, and their knee-jerk conclusion that the death of a long-time public figure automatically authorizes the use of a nonfree image is not promising. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per those above. BMK (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree that blocks of this sort should not be infinite, but I don't see that there has been any effort to consider the reasons for the ban, to understand our copyright rules, or to improve submissions. We imposed the ban because of the inordinate amount of community time necessary to vet this user's contributions because of a long history of misunderstanding or ignoring copyright. I would prefer if we could allow this user to suggest images for upload and have them vetted before being uploaded, a sort of image probation I guess, but I have to oppose a straight lifting of the ban. Ivanvector (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggested that months ago, and agree that's a reasonable solution. However, it was rejected without explanation. --Light show (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Where was it rejected? In the thread you link, the last word on the subject that I see was "you can certainly ask her". Did you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
For the record, after a series of posts to my talk page badgering me after the deletion of a Commons image, the user was told he was not welcome at my talk page; this was in March 2013. Since he was blocked at Commons, I linked my talk page to the Commons DR and said he was free to post his reasons for keeping the image there; nothing was posted by him until after the file was deleted at Commons. I don't feel that working with him would result in anything other than the differences of opinion we've had regarding what WMF rules consider to be in the public domain. To me, it's a question of his willingness to follow the WMF rules. What we've had in the past is him trying to assert his own standards of PD vs those of WMF. Since they're not the same, there are deletion requests and contested deletions. I feel it would be the same situation with the exception of the image not yet being uploaded. We hope (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see any evidence that anything has changed since the original thread. The user is either unable or unwilling to understand the community's concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wasn't involved with the original decision to ban uploading images but in various pages I've been very concerned with the liberal attitude displayed towards copyright and the wrong licenses and claims on certain images. I don't think you can be trusted on this LS, sorry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

An article with long-term BLP vios[edit]

There's a ticket in OTRS about a bio that I've been dreading to touch. It has been vandalized over the years with some silly and some serious BLP violations that merit oversight, however the disruption is so widespread and the number of revisions so large that I'm thinking it needs to be deleted and the last good revision restored. Is that something that we generally do? I'm worried about attribution. If any oversighters are reading this I'd appreciate some advice (or action!). Thanks. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean to say there are BLP vios in the history or in the article as it is currently, or both? Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: In the history. Lots of them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I figure retaining attribution and spending the time rev-deling the offending edits is the better way to go, I'm happy to do so if you'd like. Sam Walton (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: There are 301 revisions by my count, and some of the problematic edits date back 10 years. I'm not sure if individual revdels is the most efficient way to go, so I wanted to ask for an opinion on the viability of nuking it and starting over. It's going to be a lot of work at best, with high possibility of missing revisions that needed to be suppressed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Nuking it and even just writing a stub with the good refs might be a better idea, especially since it makes it easier to spot future BLP issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't delete the page outright and then restore the latest revision: it would prevent proper attribution. I'd say the best options are probably either (1) deleting the page outright, not restoring anything, and writing a stub with the good refs, or (2) revdeleting all revisions except the latest, preventing access to the content but allowing everyone to see the list of contributors. Remember that you don't need to click every little box: click the first, hold down Shift, click the last, and let up Shift, and it will check all the boxes for you — if you've told it to display 500 revisions, this will get everything without much work. Wholesale deletion isn't quite in line with WP:CSD, but this sounds like an ignore-rules situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose it depends which we care more about - BLP or contributor attribution. If the article is genuinely new then the latter is less of a concern - that there was a previous version that was deleted (someone's "hard work") is more a matter of credit rather than attribution. In short; agree with Nyttend's suggestion number 1. Stlwart111 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9, David Fuchs, Nyttend, Stalwart111: Thank you all. I went ahead and nuked most of the revisions, all text and selectively summaries where appropriate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

AN/I propoal needs closure[edit]

On An/I I have restored from the archive the master thread concerning the e-cigarette issue. The final section of this, about a proposal to institute community discretionary sanctions, needs to be closed. Are there any admins willing to wade through the verbiage to determine whether there is a consensus or not? The main thread start is here, and the section needing closure is here. BMK (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple page move[edit]

And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I messed up on a page move to Sylhet Government. Pilot High School — needs to have another move with no period after "Government." Thanks. Carrite (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Sam Walton (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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


History missing after page move[edit]

No problem with the history; it's all there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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

An article about a musician who is not notable (yet) was created at Alex kyza. I moved it to Alex Kyza per WP:NCCAPS, but now not only is it, for some reason, listed at the original title again, but the history got messed up somehow so now it appears as though I am the editor who created the article. Not a huge deal (in fact, I probably wouldn't have even known about it if Lakun.patra hadn't placed a {{prodwarningBLP}} on my talk page; I initially prodded the article myself), but...is there any way to fix this? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone simply edited the redirect you created when you moved the page (the original history is at the uppercase title). Nothing needs to be fixed here - the incorrect casing should just be redirected again. Number 57 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
But I made the redirect after the original article was made (by JohannaLopez012, not me). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Alex kyza was first created at 06:32, 30 March 2015, you moved it at 06:51, 30 March 2015, but then it was created again at Alex kyza at 07:37, 30 March 2015. I've reverted it back to being a redirect. Squinge (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and when you say "the history got messed up somehow", it actually didn't - that's the history of the redirect, and you did in fact create the redirect. The history of the original article is now at Alex Kyza. Squinge (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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


Residency (medicine)[edit]

Something has gone wrong with Residency (medicine) after an edit on 30 March. There is an error message "The revision #0 of the page named "Residency (medicine)" does not exist." Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is happening across the encyclopedia in many articles. Is anybody doing anything about it? Viriditas (talk)
Update: see here. Apparently, a revert and manual restore seems to fix it, but how is this going to fix all of the other pages? Dare I say it? The Machine Stops. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting adjustment to an ANI discussion closure[edit]

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)