Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dirtlawyer1 (talk | contribs) at 14:09, 23 January 2015 (→‎TfD mess: reply to Andy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

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

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

      Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 28 May 2024)

      Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not done. No longer able to close, another closer should look into this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Thomas Niedermayer#RfC: Article Lede: opening sentence and nature of death - should the opening sentence be changed to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"?

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024_shooting_at_a_Donald_Trump_rally#Requested_move_13_July_2024

      (Initiated 0 days ago on 13 July 2024) - Consensus appears to been established. LJF2019 talk 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: This is already listed in the "other types of closing requests" section below. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Apr May Jun Jul Total
      CfD 0 0 11 6 17
      TfD 0 0 1 3 4
      MfD 0 1 0 1 2
      FfD 0 0 0 15 15
      RfD 0 0 4 13 17
      AfD 0 0 0 5 5

      Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv converse∫edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 141 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done Soni (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#When can titles contain "massacre"?

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally#Requested move 13 July 2024

      (Initiated 0 days ago on 13 July 2024). Per WP:SNOWPRO, might want to take a look at this one. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Request to be permitted to open an account on Wikipedia and end self-imposed block

      Hello,

      I am the former User:R-41 A while ago I requested a self-block from User:Dennis Brown due to several problems. The worst of which was affected by a health condition I have that made me very hostile. I have sought to address this problem. I have other problems that I have sought to do my best to resolve - I have a problem of returning to make some edits on things that cause me frustration. However the main problem that caused the block was the hostile behaviour caused by health problems that I have sought to resolve. I cannot request an unblock from Dennis Brown because he has been away on a long wikibreak for months now.

      I have contacted several users whom were affected by my combative and hostile behaviour in the past, including User:The Four Deuces and User:Oldsettler to apologize for my behaviour in the past, and to lay out a set of ground rules that I will use to make sure that I take breaks from Wikipedia to prevent further problems from occurring. I will describe these now.

      (1) If I return I believe that I need to be under a six-month probation of observation by an admin who is willing to volunteer the time, and note any combative instances. If combative instances occur, if that admin could inform me I will take a break to calm down. If I fail to take a break and combative behaviour continues, that admin can and should block me.

      (2) I need to avoid the risk of addiction to Wikipedia that I feared may have been the case before. To ensure that, I need to seriously limit my time on Wikipedia. At most 2 hours on only one day of the week - Saturday in the evening from 6-8pm EST, with no exceptions. If I use excessive time on Wikipedia, I need to have an externally-enforced wikibreak.

      (3) I need to open a new account because my inexcusable behaviour that I did in my former account may not be forgivable by all those affected. Thankfully the users The Four Deuces and OldSettler appeared to be understanding and forgiving.

      I don't know if this is the right place to post this, it's been a while since I've looked at Wikipedia policies. If it is not, if you could redirect me to where it is, that would be appreciated.

      --70.53.113.91 (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Normal procedure is to log in to your account (R-41), read WP:GAB, and post an unblock request via {{unblock}} on your own talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the recent conduct of what appears to be a similar IP address to this one who also claimed to be R-41 [1], I don't think that this request should be actioned, and I don't think that R-41's block preventing them from editing their own talk page should be lifted. As far as I'm aware, there's no way of verifying that either of these accounts are in fact R-41. If R-41 wishes to return to editing, Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System might be the most appropriate approach. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The most recent edit by 70.26.113.85 was just over a year ago, 12 January 2014. When blocking R-41, Dennis Brown cited a request by R-41 ("previous and current user request", with a link to a previous request) in the block log, so that part is clearly true. Normal procedure is meant for un-requested situations; we shouldn't impose WP:EVADE in a situation where the block is solely because of the user's request, since if your request is the only reason for the block, we should remove it if you change your mind. Nyttend (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops, sorry: for some reason I read those edits as having been made in January 2015. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought that too. I only realised my error after confusing myself: one of the most recent edits was to R-41's sockpuppet investigation, but that page hasn't had much of any editing recently (and it's all been registered users), so where did the edits go? Eventually I noticed the year issue, but it took a while. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I read this request (particularly item #3) as a request for a Clean start. Of course, there isn't a need to request it. Maybe just a note telling the IP to read and follow WP:Clean start? --Tgeairn (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Point 1) contradicts that: this account is asking for an admin to keep an eye on them as part of a new account. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see it contradicts it, I see it more as "cleanstart plus". The bottom line seems to be that a self-requested block can be revoked on request, and an editor under one is alternatively free to create a new account if they wish. This request here is really nothing more than asking for admin mentoring and shows a good understanding of the editor's previous problems. I hope someone will offer to help. Squinge (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still breaking, came back to vote in an RFA and after seeing why I was pinged, felt compelled to respond as I was heavily involved. I will just say that I think R-41 has the right idea and approach, a probationary period under his old name. Clean start doesn't exactly apply here for a variety of reasons that would take too long to explain. As I was the blocking admin, and worked some of the sock cases, I'm familiar with the case but feel the decision should be the communities, not solely mine. It was a mixed block, part due to previous request, part due to the then current behavior, and is very, very consistent with his medical claims now, thus I find his claim credible. I would support unblocking, monitoring and the probationary period as previously described as being consistent with our ideals, that anyone can make a mistake and everyone deserves a second chance. I probably won't be able to follow up due to real world issues, and leave it to the community to decide. Normal restrictions of avoiding drama and/or meta areas for 6 months would be a good idea. Dennis - 2¢ 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The editor-in-question is currently 'evading' his block, via his IP contributions. That's not a good sign. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • (Non-administrator comment) GoodDay, as Nyttend mentioned in the discussion above, and I agree with, WP:EVADE shouldn't typically apply to requests for self blocks. Anyways, back to the real reason I wanted to post here. I believe that this user is sincere and hope that this request is granted based on the comments of Dennis Brown and others. Since part of the self imposed conditions are things that can be handled in a technical manner (such as (2) I need to avoid the risk of addiction to Wikipedia that I feared may have been the case before. To ensure that, I need to seriously limit my time on Wikipedia. At most 2 hours on only one day of the week - Saturday in the evening from 6-8pm EST, with no exceptions. If I use excessive time on Wikipedia, I need to have an externally-enforced wikibreak.). I would be happy to put together a custom wikibreak enforcer userscript for this user to help them achieve that goal if the community decides to grant this request. Please ping me if that is the case and if that is a desired device. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The IP has been making edits to mainspace articles before & after its request here. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Could be a shared address and considering this was a self requested block not really relevant. Avono (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I think User:Technical 13 and Dennis Brown's approach and proposed resolution is both rational and humane, and captures the spirit of WP ideals perfectly. Merely a comment from an uninvolved non-mop. Irondome (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm neutral supportive regarding unblock, but offer some concern about recent extensive but unsourced changes to articles from the IP that posted this request. The area of interest seems to be Fascism, Socialism, Marxism. The IP's contributions indicate this is User:R-41, as it also posted repeatedly [2], [3] to TFD's talk page - a user with whom he's had some negative interactions [4]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      An unblock would make that less of a problem, in that if it is this user, then we can engage with them and even possibly restrict their ability to do some things. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Dennis would know, I think, but he's busy, ISTR. My guess is that they are related to User:R-41's health situation. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      While sympathetic to the request and strongly opposed to treating this as block evasion, I didn't want to give out-and-out support because I was just slightly nervous that I'd misinterpreted Dennis' position on the situation. Given his support for the unblock and the requested monitoring, I can see no reason to oppose or to ignore the request: I have to support it. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't support this request. I'm sympathetic about the open and honest way this is requested. But item 2 gives me serious pause. When it's stated that If I use excessive time on Wikipedia, I need to have an externally-enforced wikibreak. this person is requesting something I don't believe the volunteer administrator corps can provide. I don't want part of the responsibility on my name if this does go wrong for the requester, nor do I wish it upon any of my colleagues. I believe it's in the best interest of both the requester and Wikipedia to decline this request with sincere regret. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      There seems to be some confusion on the block, which I would like to clear up. R-41 indeed requested a block 17 April 2013. (See: User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 21#I support having a self-block, please guide me through the process) But R-41 was blocked and permission to edit his own talk page was withdrawn 22:40, 31 May 2013 after posting edits on his talk page which were subsequently blanked out.[6]
      After being blocked, R-41 returned several times to edit under IPs, which is documented under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R-41/Archive.
      Furthermore, after posting his request here to be unblocked, R-41 made edits to an article, Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon.[7] JoeSperrazza reverted them [8]. None of these edits were sourced or have edit summaries and notice that R-41 makes 12 small edits within a relatively short period time. This type of editing makes it very difficult for other editors to determine what was changed and would probably lead to conflict in more high-profile articles.
      I notice too that R-41 has not posted here since opening the discussion.
      The lack of candor in the original posting and the recent postings make me question what would happen were R-41 to return. It may not be in his best interests to do so at this time. However I appreciate the difficulties he has and will not vote against his return. I would though like to see R-41 first discuss the issues that other editors have brought up before that.
      TFD (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      It was my estimation that the consensus included salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • Just to be clear, the title wasn't salted by the DRV closer, it was salted by the admin who speed-deleted the article in the first place. The DRV was closed as "endorse" which would generally be seen as an endorsement of the close and protection together. Mine was one of the opinions on which the close was based and I can confirm I didn't really consider the issue of salting, in fact the discussion I had with Hobit and Thincat was one about recreation in draft form. The natural next step is for a draft to be moved to main-space. Nonetheless, I did "endorse" the deletion which included salting. RoySmith interpreted my comment (and others) as an endorsement of both and without explicit commentary to the contrary, I'm not sure how he could have done otherwise. It's overly bureaucratic, yes, but I'm with Joe in thinking this should go to WP:RfPP so that the protection can be removed and the draft can be published. Essentially, we all got caught up on the SD/IAR issue and ignored the protection. St★lwart111 04:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Because nobody had specifically addressed the question of whether the protection should remain and so in endorsing the deletion, we were endorsing the protection. Had I (had we all) had the foresight to see it coming, we might have included a line or two ("oh, and un-salt"). We didn't address it and so Roy didn't address it in his close. Self-trout for that one! Post-close, his response makes sense. I don't think that prevents an admin at RFPP reviewing the case and making a determination about protection. I can't imagine anyone would object to them doing so. They are really overturning the original protection (on the basis that it is no longer needed), not Roy's close. St★lwart111 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      And in my view, the draft doesn't show why he passes WP:NPOL. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Thanks SmokeyJoe. 28bytes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

      Would a functionary please offer some assistance?

      Five weeks ago I emailed an issue involving private information to arbcom. I finally received an answer two weeks ago, but the answer didn't make sense: they recommended posting the issue to an on-wiki noticeboard. However I would be immediately blocked for doing so because it requires private information. There has been no response to my follow-up. One arbitrator responded to a personal email but didn't appear to understand the situation, and hasn't communicated since.

      I have no interest in faulting anyone; I recognize that arbcom is dealing with what may be the largest arbitration case in history. The issue in question does need to be handled, though, as it directly impacts a rather high profile article, and editors' time is likely being wasted while it remains unresolved (explained in my email).

      In lieu of arbcom, who, after five weeks, seems unlikely to consider the matter, would a functionary please handle it? See my latest email to the functionaries mailing list. Manul ~ talk 19:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      For private information suppression see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, or you can email me for an off wiki discussion. If the information is previously published then see WP:NOTCENSORED. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I am told that only functionaries may take administrative action based upon private information. When I made this post I hadn't realized that the gigantic arbitration case is almost over. I'll try contacting an arbitrator one more time when it's done. Manul ~ talk 22:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Bitafarhadi

      Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

      hi sysop, user:Bitafarhadi is back with new user name [9] User:Jeepp 88 , thanks --Florence (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I would suggest you file at WP:SPI as it is not immediately obvious what the issue is here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Protect Article

      Hi Admins,

      Could you semi-protect Sunbeam Alpine, if you have a look at the history of this article I linked it is experincing high amounts of IP vandalism and also I can see that they want to be removing or adding spam links.

      Thanks - Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done Last edit was a month ago. Spam can be reported at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-administrator comment) In addition, EurovisionNim, future requests like this can easily be made at WP:RPP. :) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration Clerks Seeking New Volunteers

      The Arbitration Committee clerk team is currently looking for a few dependable and mature editors (adminship not needed) willing to serve as clerks. The responsibilities of clerks include opening and closing arbitration cases and motions; notifying parties of cases, decisions, and other committee actions; maintaining the requests for Arbitration pages; preserving order and proper formatting on case pages; and other administrative and related tasks they may be requested to handle by the arbitrators.

      Clerks are the unsung heroes of the arbitration process, keeping track of details to ensure that requests are handled in a timely and efficient manner. Clerks get front-line seats to the political and ethnic warfare that scorches Wikipedia periodically, and, since they aren't arbitrators themselves, are rarely threatened with violence by the participants.

      Past clerks have gone on to be (or already were) successful lawyers, naval officers, and Presidents of Wikimedia Chapters. The salary and retirement packages for Clerks rival that of Arbitrators, to boot. Best of all, you get a cool fez!

      Please email clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you are interested in becoming a clerk, and a clerk will reply with an acknowledgement of your message and we will get back to you with some questions. If you have any questions you'd like an answer to before applying please feel free to ask on the clerks noticeboard or any current clerk.

      For the Arbitration Committee clerks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      N1gh7r4v3n

      Could somebody please interfere on the article on Sukyo Mahikari. I have no intension to discourage the edito in question, but seems unfamiliar with certain guidelines. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Please note that I have utmost respect for the editor’s intention. Due to my own experiences I know that the term cult is conflict burden. Within the article there was already a link to Japanese New Religions which is the proper term for a somewhat Japanese phenomena.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Catflap08

      Well i agree that i am not a wikipedia specialist. But Catflap is not neutral. He probably is a member of this cult. This cult is listed as an official cult check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects - People have the right to know that this cult is dangerous, sexist and als they are racists. I didnt write that on their page. But its the truth. One thing is sure. They are a real and dangerous CULT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1gh7r4v3n (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Please read already linked articles carefully! What you are doing is at this point is you own private opinion. As hard as this might be for you right now to understand. There are means to seek for an experienced editor to guide you through some of the regulations on Wikipedia. I will undo you change once more and I do this with no bad intent. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, N1gh7r4v3n doesn't supply a reference to support his claims. He tried to use wikipedia as his reference but that won't work, and I've advised him of that. The article he referenced seems to have reliable sources to back up his claims, however. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 12:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Harrasment

      Recently, I am being threatened with blocking without any explanation by several users (i.e. Psychonaut and DGG). Both of them accused me vandalism and when I requested an explanation from them they chose not to respond. What is the deal with users throwing threats like that? If I am not mistaken, DGG is one of administrators. I need an advice on the issue or may be mediation. It seems that the mentioned users have some personal issues with me and refuse to communicate with civilly. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. It's pretty easy to see what is really going on here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not understand. Are implying that I initiate an "edit war"? Well, thanks for your big help. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Aleksandr, you appear to be pushing a nationalist point of view with disregard for WP:ARBEE in the most disruptive way possible - by nominating articles you disagree with for CSD under the criteria "made up". For someone with 59k edits, I'd expect you to be aware of WP:ARBEE by now and to know how to edit neutrally. Your use of quotes around "edit war" suggests that you're intentionally wasting our time and playing dumb. Woosh woosh woosh.--v/r - TP 23:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I never threatened this user with blocking, and I never characterized his edits as vandalism. DGG and I (completely independently of one another) have repeatedly explained the problems with his edits, either directly to him or in discussions in which he was participating. In particular, I remarked that he is using spurious grounds to remove information about groups he disagrees with, and that he is violating WP:BLP by tagging their members as criminals and terrorists without providing any sources ([10] [11] [12] [13]). I suggest that he be formally warned per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions. Unless he continues the disruption, I don't believe he should be blocked or topic-banned. He is keenly aware of and can identify POV issues in this topic area, but needs to learn that the mere presence of a POV in an article is not the same thing as it failing WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc. Whenever practical, POVs should be fixed via editing, not wholesale blanking or deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Severe backlog at WP:ANRFC

      Literally anyone who loads up WP:AN can see the backlog. A lot of closes do not require administrator input. Jump right in or move along. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      FYI, there is a severe backlog at WP:ANRFC, with over seven dozen sections that need to be addressed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      There would almost never be a "severe backlog" at ANRFC if a couple of individuals (non-admins) hadn't decided that about 90% of all RFCs "needed" to be listed there, regardless of the views of the people actually involved in the RFC. I asked them a few months ago to actually ask participants if a formal close was wanted (WP:RFC directly says that a majority of RFCs should not be formally closed), and they refused on the grounds that identifying and respecting the wishes of the participants in a discussion was "too bureaucratic". I disengaged when every comment there made me start thinking about hat-collecting and résumé stuffing for RFA. "I spent last year writing completely unnecessary closing statements for 500 RFCs!" could become the new version of "I've created Featured Portals!".
      On a related note, if someone could change the "Skip to TOC" link to become a "Skip past the needlessly bloated RFC list" and get to the actual AN board", then I'd certainly use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Non-administrator comment) I'd argue there wouldn't be such a backlog if some of us non-admins hadn't been told in the discussion on the talk page that "only admins should close anything that will require administrative tools to finalize". I'll note that there were a couple three of us working through everything listed and "keeping the red at away" there and most of us have stopped pending the closing of WT:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. From where I'm standing as a non-admin, asking an admin to delete a page is no different than asking an admin to move a page that isn't a simple move or move-over-redirect. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that it's very annoying to be told not to do things that you're competent at, although specifically for deleting a page, your work might not actually save the admin any time (as s/he would feel obliged to review the discussions thoroughly anyway). However closes that might require admin tools appear to account for just 14% of the current list. That should leave non-admins with plenty of work (or make-work) if they want to do it.
          Perhaps we need some sort of WP:DYK-style quid pro quo rule: if you aren't involved in the discussion, then you can only list one discussion per month at ANRFC "for free", and after that, you can only list as many as you've personally closed that month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I have to agree that said baclog contains numerous discussions that do not require a formal close and/or do not require admin involvement. I closed a few the other day and was found that many of them are minor content disputes where consensus is exceedingly obvious. Why do we need to jam up this noticeboard with that sort of thing. Perhaps an RFC on ANRFC is in order to establish better guidelines for what should and should not be posted there, them we can add to the backlog when that needs a closer... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WhatamIdoing, I understand that 14% isn't much. My personal experience is this:
      I was working through a backlog of RfD requests that the "normal" closer felt too involved to close.
      Many of which were clear cut "no brainer" discussions that had strong support one way or the other. (most, or all, of the !votes were for one side or the other or there was only an objection by the creator with no justifiable "reason" other than they were being defensive of their work).
      These were XfD discussions (which are suppose to be closed after seven days nominally with preferably less than three relists for a "21 day" discussion period) that had been sitting around for three or four months because there is apparently only one or two admins that close discussions at RfD.
      I was then told (or it felt like I was told) that non-admins are not competent enough to close any discussion which requires an admin to carry out the result despite there being a specific {{Db-xfd}} for this purpose.
      This made me feel unappreciated for the closes I had done, whether they required an admin to carry out or not, made me feel like I was incompetent, despite getting many thanks and few complaints about the discussions I had closed, and left me feeling bad for helping out in a place where there was an incredible backlog.
      People (including myself) don't appreciate being made to feel incompetent, unappreciated, and bad for doing good work and as a result no longer want to contribute to closing discussions until the issue that caused that bad feeling is resolved. In this case, it will be a matter of how that RfC is closed for me.
      • Beeblebrox, I would love to be part of an ANRFC reform proposal. I'm guessing such a thing should probably wait at least a month or three before being proposed because I'm guessing people are a little burnt out on the topic because of the current NAC discussion.
      — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I've got phase two of the BASC reform RFC on my to-do list as well, so I won't be putting anything together anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      TfD mess

      Please can someone who understands TfD fix the mess at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division and ensure that the previous nomination is relisted properly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      As a quick response, I closed the discussion for now. I'll take a look how to properly re-list the discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I've relisted the old discussion, and collapsed all now closed discussions. Andy, DePiep, does this relisting seem reasonable to you? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Also pinging Anomie as I have seem to have broken the bot. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      OK for me, as far as we can expect. At least it looks like a relist now. Good action by MH. Later on I'll have to research the lot to see if I can contribute to the --now regular(?)-- TfD. About the process: of course earlier process errors can not be undone, but after a first check by WP:DRV I see that all three DRV-respondants did !vote "overturn", not "Relist" (while "overturn & relist" is a weird !vote; and SmokeyJoe explicitly stated the disagreed with the outcome - a don't for a DRV). The DRV nom (Andy, also TfD nom) themselves primarily asked for a re-judgement before relisitng. Curious outcome altogether. So I'm still wondering how a relisting could improve the earlier discussion (that had run for 3 weeks already). As said, later more there. -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @Martijn Hoekstra: Thank you, yes. Those who commented in the collapsed discussion, but have not done so since your relisting, should be notified, neutrally, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The good news from this is that Andy Mabbett has shown and proven that they perfectly well understand what due process is. So next time we don't have to explain that any more. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @DePiep: You appear to once again be making insinuations about me. Given your recent penchant for personal attacks directed at me, perhaps you'd like to clarify? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the clarification: it's not a PA. It's a fact of compliment. I note that it is you who tries to turn this in a PA smear. And note, Andy, that this solution is very generous to your intention (of course, the DRV closure should have been totally different). I know I supported this route because I prefer a clean process. That should be enough for you. Now since you already started to introduce vendetta's (here and the very 2nd post at the relisted TfD), keep in mind that you were approached generously, and better not push the limit of other editor's patience. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Martijn Hoekstra: Can we please tag the proposed target/survivor template, Template:Infobox university, so that the pending TfD notice appears immediately above all transclusions (using the "type=sidebar" coding, of course) of the template? The template page is fully locked and can only be edited by template editors. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      So we have tagging and notification. I'll get on that in a bit, sorry for the delay. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Martijn. Having read the DRV, it appears the nominator's objection was to the non-administrative closure and the closer's failure to provide a meaningful closing rationale, not the substantive outcome. I see no reason why this discussion could not be immediately closed, having been previously open for 25+ days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Ideally yes, Dirtlawyer1, but one more week will not harm/undo earlier comments. The closing admin will have to look at it anyway, now or next week. Reverting the DRV closure is an unneeded complication imo. (Sort of funny sidenote: this misfortune today did not rise from the original non-admin closing, but from the DRV closing). -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      No, Dirtlawyer1, what I actually said in the DRV was " This should at least have been "no consensus", if not relisted for further discussion.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, Andy, there was no need to re-list the TfD for another week: the TfD had been open for 25 days, there were 16 participants, an 11-5 !majority in favor of keeping the template (opposed to your proposed merge), and plenty of rationales to support a consensus closure for any closer who was actually able to articulate one or more of them. As DePiep said above, however, there's no harm in waiting another week. It's a shame you did not propose merging the law, med, business school templates into the "academic division" infobox; that's a merge proposal that a solid !majority would have supported, but that would have required some ability to understand the needs of the template users and to negotiate and compromise on the nominator's part. When this finally closes in six or seven days, that's probably what will happen on the talk page for WikiProject Universities; after all, that is what the "academic division" template was designed to do -- but you knew that, right, from doing your homework before filing your TfDs? Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      "That would have required some ability to understand the needs of the template users..." More baseless snark. From doing my homework before filing the TfD, I know that the 'academic division' infobox duplicates parameters in the 'university' infobox (and is this redundant to it); apart from just one parameter, which is poorly documented and ambiguously used in the six (only) articles which use it. The evidence for all this is in the TfD discussion. I suggest further discussion belongs there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Andy, I'm content to leave the outcome to discussion participants. Despite your dismissal of the legitimate and practical concerns of the daily users of these templates, two thirds of the participants disagree with you. This merge is not going to happen, notwithstanding your responses to every comment by anyone who opposes your proposals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Portuguese speaking sockpuppets

      SPI filed, I notify Teles on meta and will ping him again if/when we find more accounts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I just noticed that Sockpuppet do GRS73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked. Others in the series include,

      If you come across any more can you let Teles know so they can be globally locked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      I will file an SPI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      OUt of scope talk page

      User talk:Mashal Khan Takkar--Musamies (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Another user-rights RfC

      Too early to tell, but there's another user-rights RfC at WP:VPR that might get off the ground. Would be great to have another couple of closers ... feel free to ping me anytime before the discussion closes (which could be a while). - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Vandalism backlog

      Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

      Any help would be appreciated,

      — Cirt (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RFPP has a lengthy backlog too. Gloss 06:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide

      The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

      The following remedy is added to the Landmark Worldwide case: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=643821336"