Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	5	58	0	63
TfD	0	1	10	0	11
MfD	0	1	7	0	8
FfD	0	1	1	0	2
RfD	0	0	87	0	87
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 10 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 61 sockpuppet investigations
• 36 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 4 Candidates for history merging
• 6 requests for RD1 redaction
• 38 elapsed requested moves
• 1 Pages at move review
• 26 requested closures
• 125 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (34 out of 8503 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-03 15:10 2024-10-10 15:10 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Subh-i-Azal 2024-10-03 06:26 2024-11-03 06:26 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Portal:Current events/2024 June 8 2024-10-03 03:21 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Panna Dhai 2024-10-02 20:12 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Yadavs in Bihar 2024-10-02 19:16 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Majhraut Ahir 2024-10-02 19:13 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Maratha (caste) 2024-10-02 18:51 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Barua people 2024-10-02 18:19 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Nevatim Airbase 2024-10-02 14:41 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Apollo AR924 2024-10-02 12:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Portal:Current events/2024 October 1 2024-10-02 06:01 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 29 September 2024 Israeli attacks on Yemen 2024-10-02 05:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Jaffa shooting 2024-10-02 05:50 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Thirty-seventh government of Israel 2024-10-02 03:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel 2024-10-01 23:21 indefinite edit Highly visible page as it's currently on the main page Schwede66 Ein Feshkha 2024-10-01 21:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Template:Calendar/styles.css 2024-10-01 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2665 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Hezbollah Headquarters 2024-10-01 17:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Third Lebanon War 2024-10-01 17:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli User talk:The Master of Hedgehogs/Fairy piece puzzle 5 2024-10-01 17:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (27 September 2024 – present) 2024-10-01 17:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Fatah Sharif 2024-10-01 15:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian 2024 invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-01 03:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Aspire (Energy) 2024-09-30 23:32 2024-10-08 04:47 move Persistent vandalism Dennis Brown Eduard Dorneanu 2024-09-30 21:08 2024-10-07 21:08 move Liz Template:Use shortened footnotes 2024-09-30 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Israel–Gaza war 2024-09-30 17:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement PIA Pickersgill-Cunliffe Wanted (2008 film) 2024-09-30 17:28 2024-12-30 17:28 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects 2024-09-30 17:25 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) 2024-09-30 17:21 indefinite edit Move warring: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Gaza List 2024-09-30 16:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea 2024-09-30 13:53 indefinite create Firefangledfeathers Wikipedia:Why the sandbox is shutting down 2024-09-30 01:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Ad Orientem Siti Zainab 2024-09-29 23:51 indefinite create Target of sockpuppets, been through 3 AFDs Liz

Coffee removing Categories and Lists Inappropriately

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

---

Coffee has been removing for the past day wholesale from all Jewish related lists and categories he comes across with the edit summary of "removing unsourced claims per WP:LISTPEOPLE/WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R; do not take the entries I've left here as a sign of my endorsement of their inclusion... I have not looked through all the sources provided yet" [1]

For example, from the Jewish American Poets category he removed Emma Lazarus, that would be the Jewish poet notable for having the poem on the Statue of Liberty, or from the Jewish American Military cat, he removed among them Uriah Levy who was the first Jewish commodore in the US and fought against physical punishment in the navy, certainly notable. At the very least, he should not be removing wholesale these people. On his talk page, he claims he has permission to do so by the OTRS and admin corp, yet that is not how policy works. It's one thing to remove unsourced items on a list or category, but to remove 90% of a list and say you didn't even bother to look at the article to see if it's sourced, is not how it works. The list just lists people. The article is where the sources are. We don't need to make exceptions for special cases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote on his page, if he has a question of sourcing, he should go to the Judaism project page, which has an active membership and people there can help out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I just wanted to note that this involves (at least in part) OTRS tickets, which this venue is not set up to adequately handle. Additionally, is there any particular reason that you did not give coffee more than roughly 8 or 9 minutes to respond to your note on his talk page prior to taking this to AN, Sir Joseph? Discussions surrounding this have also involved anti-Semitic and Holocaust concerns, which I do believe have some weight and deserved a response prior to going direct to AN. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

What 'Holocaust concerns' are relevant to a list of Jewish American poets?Dialectric (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

or people like Isaias W. Hellman, Maurice Kremer, and Florence Meyer Blumenthal, all long since deceased. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, that's why i said i have a small feeling that someone is punking Wikipedia with the OTRS but I was told it's real. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• TheSandDoctor, please explain the OTRS tickets. Also, as I said, we have policy and you can't just remove things. Please tell me, for example why Uriah Levy was removed? He died a long, long time ago. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  As I said, communication. There is a project page that you all could have posted on either to give a heads up or to ask for help. But now there are just tons of empty lists. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I replied to this matter at my talk page. I would ask that Sir Joseph in the future wait longer than 10 minutes for someone to reply to them before attempting a thread like this, especially when dealing with such sensitive matters of potential Anti-Semitism. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Coffee, you're right. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate that Coffee has taken up this discussion on their user talk page, but share Sir Joseph's concerns. Can another OTRS volunteer who was active in these discussions confirm Coffee's interpretation? These articles have existed for years with entries that were referenced in the blp articles, not the list, so this appears to be a relatively new reinterpretation of policy that was not discussed on-wiki before the changes were implemented. At a minimum, Coffee should take the time to check if the relevant items have a source in the linked BLP article before removing, and if Coffee lacks the time to do this, I am sure there are editors willing to take on the task, including, as Sir Joseph mentions, on the Judaism project page.Dialectric (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, his is concerning, especially since he's stating he hasn't looked through all the sources yet.

If even one of the reliable sources states these people are Jewish, it can be included. Throwing down the BLP flag is inappropriate in that case. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There seems to have been a severe failure to assume good faith here. If entries can easily be sourced then spend your time putting them back with sources rather than hurling accusations around here. It doesn't look like anyone has even added a single sourced entry to these lists in the time that this discussion has been going. Why not? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, the articles are all sourced, this is for lists, which point to an article, so yes, try to assume good faith here, yet Coffe's edit summary makes it clear not to add anything back. That is not how it works. You don't remove lists wholesale without checking the article to see if it belongs and then put the onus on other people. His edit summary even says he didn't check to see if it belongs. If you are going to remove 99% of articles, then the onus should be on you to verify that you are removing things that should be removed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Please explain how removing Allen Ginsberg from List of Jewish American Poets without even bothering to check the article is acceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

While you were spending your time writing that diatribe I was spending mine finding a good source and putting Emma Lazarus back into the list of Jewish American Poets. Which of those is the more productive? And Coffee said nothing that could be reasonably interpreted as a prohibition on putting back sourced entries - he simply said not to revert by adding all of the entries without any sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that folks really need to read WP:LISTVERIFY - this specifies that the sources need to appear on the list itself, not just in the linked article, if its contentious. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not just removing entries on lists without sources. It is also removing people from lists with sources that are deemed insufficient under a very strict standard (sources that do not expressly identify whether the subject is an ethnic Jew or a religious Jew are not sufficient, consensus of sources showing that they self-identify as Jewish, and the fact that they are Jewish is a component of their notability (I guess that is why Sergei Brin is no longer listed as Jewish). As most entries do not meet these standards, the fact that they are Jewish is being removed from their biographies, even with sourcing, in addition to removing them from the list. (e.g. List of Jewish American businesspeople) Patapsco913 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, I thought this was our norm because of antisemitism? Anti-semites love pointing out who is a Jew. IIRC, we’ve blocked people for doing the opposite of what Coffee is doing. Not trying to be argumentative, but I was under the impression we didn’t point out that someone was a Jew unless there was clear sourcing showing its significance. I agree this probably could have been done more surgically, but I think the intent was good and I’m not really sure why this is already at AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, If that were true, the various Jewish wikiprojects would be antisemitic. I think the problem is that there is not a clear consensus on when we can identify if someone is Jewish and what kind of sourcing we need. I cannot find anything directly on point in the various discussion boards. As Jewish can be both ethnic and religious (generally Judaism is the term for the religion), it crosses several lines. If a source says they are Jewish (e.g. Jewish Women's Archive, the The Jewish Encyclopedia, or the Jewish Virtual Library), can we include even if it is not relevant to their notability. If a subject's parents are both Jewish, is the subject? If one had a Jewish funeral and burial, are they Jewish? If one is born to a Jewish family, are they Jewish? If the subject is an atheist but of Jewish heritage, are they Jewish (Woody Allen, Albert Einstein)? If one becomes a bar mitzvah, are they Jewish? These nuances should be explained in the biography just like we say that someone is of Italian descent. Multiple sources that specifically state whether they are referring to either Jewish ethnicity or Judaism with self-identification and that their ethnicity/religion is part of their notability seems to be a high hurdle. Patapsco913 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, I actually think we agree because you just wrote the majority of what I would have said. I think it’s ultimately a content call best discussed on talk pages as to the best way to appropriately weight the sourcing. I’m more saying here that based on past experience, we’d typically like a source discussing the fact that they are Jewish. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, What is contentious? Coffee removed 90% of most of the lists. Are you saying most of those were contentious? Pick one from random, and since I've used Uriah Levy here before, what's contentious about him? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which contains WP:LISTVERIFY is a guideline, not a policy. As discussed above, in practice, many lists of people have not included inline citations for many years. While I understand that some editors may want to bring the encyclopedia closer to the guideline, if the changes involve large scale content removal, this should have been discussed on-wiki before being implemented. Dialectric (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni A large-scale rapid content removal across numerous articles with a 'do not revert this edit' message in the edit summary should have some centralized discussion somewhere on WP.Dialectric (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that an on-wiki discussion would have been ideal here. Regardless of the OTRS issues, I think my point was that we also consider large scale additions of “Jewish” categories to be disruptive because it’s usually nazis and their ilk who do it, and for people who don’t follow this topic area, the past experiences of having to deal with anti-Semitic trolls are going to form the basis of what they think is our practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the point that large scale changes to content is disruptive? In this case it is a large scale removal. Some of which can be supported on BLP grounds (which is the justification for VRS/OTRS related changes generally speaking). But a fair percentage of content removed were people who are not covered by BLP and for whom immediate removal en masse overwhelms interested editor's abilities to provide citations so that their inclusion can satisfy the relevant policies and guidelines. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That probably would have been a good start although the standards for inclusion seem to be quite strict: a consensus of sources exactly specifying whether the subject is of Jewish ethnicity or a practitioner of Judaism (mere "Jewish" is not enough), self-identification as such, and the fact that their Jewishness is part of their notability. I doubt if many Jewish biographies could meet the hurdle.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, Not just that, these are made up standards just for these categories or lists. Because of ONE OTRS ticket we are turning Wikipedia topsy-turvy and removing sourced named because of some made up policy? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, these are not "made up standards just for these categories or lists". WP:LISTVERIFY applies to all stand-alone lists, and has been a consensus-agreed guideline for many years. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that this overwhelms interested editors. I have added a couple of entries back, with reliable sources confirming that the subjects themselves regarded themselves as Jewish, to List of Jewish American poets, and that took me in total about 10 or 15 minutes. I could have done more but was hoping that people would spend their time improving the lists rather than trading insults here, but obviously there are many editors who get more enjoyment out of trading insults than improving the encyclopedia. Coffee deleted, on my count, 63 entries from that list, so if a few editors would add a few entries each to the list per day it would only take a few days for it to get back to its former glory but with all items reliably sourced. The same could be done with the other lists. What's so difficult about that? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that one source is not sufficient. Sourced entries are being removed as well. Take a look at the diffs on List of Jewish American businesspeople "one source does not a verified consensus of reliable sources make, nor is it clear this is key to their notability" Patapsco913 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That depends on the source. If one source is reliable and confirms that the subject self-identified or self-identifies as Jewish and saw or sees that as part of their identity then it is sufficient. That is the case with the sources that I added to List of Jewish American poets, but is not with those that Coffee removed from List of Jewish American businesspeople with the edit summary that you quoted. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, that is the new policy I'm talking about. Where does this come from? So I now need to go back in time to the 1700's and find a source that Haym Solomon for example actually stated, "I am Jewish" for him to be included in the list? Let's not make special rules for one religion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Once again, this rule applies to all religions, or whatever other classification is used for lists. Why do you immediately assume that Jews are treated differently from everyone else by our guidelines? There is enough real anti-semitism in the world to worry about it without you making it up where it does not exist. Historical figures should be dealt with by the "consensus of reliable sources" clause. I'm sure that the consensus of reliable sources about Haym Solomon is that he was Jewish and that that was part of his identity, so there's no problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Please try to AGF. You are the one who is saying we have two rules when it comes to Jewish related categories. That is all. Don't put words into my mouth. You said people need to self-identify. People don't often walk around saying "I am Jewish." Yet the last time we had this discussion, that was what people required on this site. An absolute 100% affirmative statement that is why I and I think Patapsco913 are saying it's not something that can be easily obtained even by someone 100% self-identified.

Regardless, again, I think this should have been discussed on-wiki and at the Judaism project site and I reiterate that I think it's ludicrous that ONE OTRS ticket is the impetus for this, to have all the Jewish related cats and lists be turned upside down is crazy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Phil that WP:LISTVERIFY applies in these situations. I agree with Coffee that the standard for inclusion of a BLP being Jewish will be necessarily higher, and require better in-line sourcing, than for historical figures. I agree with Sir Joseph that the scope of these removals was disruptive. That disruption feels justified to me in the case of BLP - our policies are clear on what actions are called for in these cases (immediate removal) - but less justified for historical figures. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

For the third time, in the hope that it will sink in, these rules apply to all categories, not "Jewish related categories". We do not treat Jews any differently from anyone else in our policies and guidelines. If we were to do so then I would argue vehemently against that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Patapsco913, or the military one. I'm looking at that now and more than a dozen were removed that should not have been. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, if that were the case why would Evelyn Danzig Haas be removed despite having an interview where she states she was confirmed and her parents attended temple during the high holy days (Reiss, Susan B. (1995). "Evelyn Danzig Haas - Fine Arts and Family: The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Philanthropy, Writing, and Haas Family Memories - Interviews Conducted by Susan B. Reiss". Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley.) and despite her funeral being held at Congregation Emanu-El (San Francisco) (Cabanatuan, Michael (27 June 2011). "Philanthropist, arts patron Evelyn Haas dies". SF Gate.)Patapsco913 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If you told me which list she was removed from then I could say whether I think she was removed correctly or incorrectly. How can we discuss this properly when people don't even supply such basic information? And can everyone please say "list" when they mean "list". Categories are different things. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I was referencing the sufficiency of sourcing that would be required to put someone on a list. In this case, self-identification and a Jewish burial were not sufficient to define someone as Jewish per the editor removing the entries from the lists. Abraham Haas (died 1921) was removed from [of Jewish American businesspeople in retail] despite sourcing "Abraham Haas: Purveyer of Food Stuffs, Wholesale & Retail, Part 2, Los Angeles". Jewish Museum of the American West. Patapsco913 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

For crying out loud (that makes it three times I've been forced to utter that strangled oath recently), I asked you a simple question so why don't you answer? What list was Evelyn Danzig Haas removed from? How can I respond to your post if you refuse to supply such simple information? And, if you still refuse to make it possible to conduct a reasonable discussion, can you tell me whether those sources were cited in the list article? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, he answered you. List of Jewish American businesspeople in retail. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, he said that Abraham Haas was deleted from there. Where was Evelyn Danzig Haas deleted from? Was that the same place or a different one? It is a very simple question and one that for some reason two of you are refusing to answer. It is impossible to conduct a reasoned discussion when people won't answer such simple questions. Just tell me what is wrong and I'll agree or disagree with you, but if people won't identify which articles they are talking about then they can't expect others to run around looking for which they might be. Anyway, it's two and a half hours away from the new year here and, in the immortal words sung by Jimmy Pursey, I'm "going down the pub". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the source was used for Abraham Haas on List of Jewish American businesspeople in retail and removed as inadequate (the diff is in my last comment). The reason was "one source does not a verified consensus of reliable sources make, nor is it clear this is key to their notability ... thus removing as WP:CAT/R violation" My point is that the hurdle we have to meet for identifying someone as Jewish - whether on a list or in a biography - seems to be pretty high requiring multiple irrevocable sources, self-identification, specificity as to whether the citation refers to ethnicity or religion, and the fact that their Jewishness is part of their notability. Patapsco913 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I still think it incredulous that this is the result from ONE OTRS ticket and while I was told that the ticket is real, I still have the nagging feeling someone is punking Wikipedia. I would love to have as much information as one can share about the ticket to ease my feelings, regardless of the outcome. In any event, regardless of ticketing, we don't change policy and mass edit Wikipedia to remove sourced content. That is my concern. Lists are lists of sourced people, and I don't think I've ever seen lists that now need references on every item on the list to warrant inclusion and these lists should not be different. If there are concerns about people on the lists, then we can discuss individual people, or bring the cat or lists to the WT:Judaism page, but we should not mass remove hundreds of people off lists. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I am opposed to mass removal —OTRS complaints notwithstanding. I am opposed to mass anything. Implementing changes en masse is a recipe for trouble, and at the very least, requires ample discussion at related Wikiprojects or in some other centralized venue. Each encyclopedia entry, in general, should be assessed according to its individual merits. It is my understanding that that is how it was, and I argue, how it is and should be. To sum up: individual attention is required, per entry. El_C 18:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

^{..."opposed to mass anything"...does that make you antiCatholicism? Atsme} _Talk 📧 18:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have had a long discussion with Cofee and TheSandDoctor about this on my talkpage, as I am somewhat of an expert in this area both in real life and on Wikipedia, in view of my more than 10 years of active editing on Judaism-related articles and categories. As I understand from that discussion, this was discussed by a group of five WP:OTRS editors. If anything, the discussion on my talkpage has shown, that these good-willing editors had an insufficient understanding of the issue at hand. The crux of the matter being their lack of understanding the difference between being of the Jewish nation and being of the Jewish belief, and the ramifications of that difference for Wikipedia articles and categories. In my opinion, these edits must stop, and possibly be reverted. I noticed changes on two articles, and disagree with both. Possibly, a broader discussion of this matter should take place as well, as I agree with previous editors, that changes of such magnitude can not be decided upon by some clique of priviliged editors. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Not sure how five editors responding to one complaint can undue an encyclopedia. We're not talking about someone complaining about being harassed so OTRS responds to harassment. This is possibly an abuse of what OTRS is. Who are the five editors and what are their qualifications to decide the proper course of action? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• The first step ought to be for Coffee and his associates to revert all deletions of long dead people as these have zero BLP implications regarding contemporary anti-Semitism. The next step ought to be an effort to discuss the issues regarding BLPs in a calm and sober manner before continuing this campaign of mass deletions without even looking at each biography for sources that can be verified and copied over to the list. Tagging "citation needed" is better than mass removal of content, when removal should instead be surgical and precise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  I have written similarly on the people not covered by BLP. However, I disagree that policy (specifically the cited WP:BLPREMOVE) prefers tagging over removal. We can have, and are, having a debate whether this content falls under that policy. However, I think there is evidence to suggest it does and if so this sober moderate path suggested above is actually not the one supported by policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, if a biography of a living person contains solid references verifying that the person is Jewish, then it is hardly contentious that a link to that BLP appears on a list of Jews. In my view, the solution is to copy over the best of those sources to the list article, not to remove the name from the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  I agree Cullen328 that if a BLP of a living person contains solid references verifying that the person is Jewish then it is hardly contentious for that person to appear in a list article and for the source to be copied over. I'll also state, and I'm guessing you'd agree, that a generalized reference, e.g. The Jewish Encyclopedia, for people not covered by BLP, is sufficient to satisfy WP:V/WP:LISTVERIFY for many entries. The rub comes for the people in between: living people for whom the article does not provide a solid reference verifying that the person is Jewish. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this is as big an issue as purportedly being claimed. The Editnotice for lists of people says that all entries should be supported by references. Every link/guideline given in the edit summary by coffee says that entries in lists should be supported by references. For years I have been removing "alumni" from school/university pages when they are not supported by references. If one person is complaining at OTRS about their invalid entry on a page, then it's not like we can say "well, this person complained and there's no references, but these people haven't said anything so we'll just leave them unsourced"; no, we remove them all. It is the onus of those adding to the list to make sure there is verified reason for inclusion on said list. I will grant you that some of the folks being removed are dead, but WP:V is just as important as WP:BLP, especially when it comes to matters like religion and ethnicity.

The long and the short of it is this: these are not inappropriate removals, they were inappropriate additions that are now being reverted. As a minor note, an editor editing a half-dozen pages will not undue [sic] an encyclopedia and the hyperbole is quite frankly silly. If people are missing off the lists, re-add them (appropriately) and try to remember that we're all on the same team. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Coffee put the editnotice in. That wasn't there before. And removing unverified isn't the point, it's removing en masse those that belong on the list. His edit summary said that he didn't even look at the list to verify or validate if people belonged or not. He just removed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On some, yes, but it was there before this for others. Plus, the editnotice itself has existed since 2011. It's not a DS in that we can't act unless it's put on the editnotice, and clearly it's a long-standing concern. Primefac (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Yes, but the issue is that he has removed mass removals of sourced edits. As someone who uses Twinkle I know that "I am responsible for all my edits." I can't see the emergency in this mass removal that he couldn't ask for help, either at noticeboards, or at WT:JUDAISM. Removing Lazarus or Ginsberg from List of Poets is just obscene for example, and the gutted list of American soldiers, most of whom have been dead for over 100 years is clearly not a BLP issue. We have a flag to determine if an article is alive or not. That could have been used. He also could have done a quick once over to see if the person is alive or not. But to do a mass removal was wrong. That is the issue. Nobody has a problem with V or BLP, it's removing entire lists. Just look at his contributions for the past few days and see how he gutted CATS and LISTS without checking any of the contents. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There are many ways to fix an article, list or otherwise. One is to take a TNT approach, whereby all unsourced info (BLP or not) is removed and re-added as appropriate. The second is to leave that unsourced information there until it can be verified or removed. I think discretion (read: immediate removal) is the better part of valour. Will most of the removed names be eventually be re-added? Probably. Will Wikipedia suffer because a relatively-obscure cross-categorized list be missing a few names for a few days? No. Were "obvious" names removed? Undoubtedly.

Regardless of the initial actions, coffee has said in multiple places that an effort to check all those names and restore the appropriate ones will take place, provided there is assistance. Primefac (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Primefac, Your first point is an ideological issue I disagree with, there is no immediate harm in not removing all these from a list. Your second point in stating that Coffee will restore with assistance is the point. At no point did Coffee seek out assistance. That is what I said multiple times in this thread and on his talk page. He should have posted a message at JUDAISM and Jewish History that he removed a good chunk of people from Lists and Cats and people should go through his edits and re-add those that are properly sourced. But there was no communication at all. All we had was a mass removal of peoples from Jewish lists and categories with no explanation, or explanation that made no sense, since BLP doesn't apply to dead people. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Four things I'll note that seem to have been misconstrued here:

1. When I said I don't have the time to review each case on the lists, I meant that to mean that I was going through thousands of articles directly and reviewing their sources (in about the most thorough way I've ever handled any task on this site) and that was eating up most of my time so I wouldn't be able to focus on such a task as sourcing unsourced claims in a potentially contentious list. I came across these lists not including sources, even when there were editnotices (before the one's I added) on several of such lists noting the requirement for such sources to be added. When I saw that issue, I thought it best to ensure we protected the article subjects first and foremost. I understand here that it appears some of those listed were in fact dead. To that I will note that BLPREMOVE only applies to living people, so if it is found that the inclusions of the dead people (once again I personally, at this current time, do not have the resources to look into this) meet WP:CAT/R I am all for those names being listed back. I also am all for the names of living people being added back, if proper sourcing is provided per WP:BLPCAT, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTVERIFY.

2. Patapsco913 has a long history of adding WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations into BLPs (we've had complaints about this editor dating back to January 2019 according to an OTRS admin), yet is commenting here as if they're properly following policy with their additions. I'll note quite firmly, only a handful of what I've looked through so far (about 3,000 of their 95,000 edits) have properly been sourced or have properly stated what is in the source.

3. This is very much not an abuse of what OTRS for is as alluded above, one of our main focuses when dealing with non-copyright matters at OTRS is handling requests from article subject's about their BLPs. Considering we shouldn't wait for every single person with a BLP to complain to us about an issue that is pretty clearly not being fixed properly and is abundant across several articles (especially after Patapsco913's additions in particular), I decided to tackle this issue broadly and with urgency. I have not taken this task lightly and I don't think any of my colleagues have either. It was almost a given that these types of moves would upset some of our editors, but that was not the reason we went into this. I approached this situation with the consideration of the article subjects' personal safety first and foremost. In this situation I think it is basically obligatory that we handle describing people in this way with the most care absolutely possible.

4. These are not in any way new policies, it just appears new because no one had enforced them. Nor was this the decision of a "privileged clique of editors", these decisions were based in long-standing policies on how we handle such descriptions in biographical articles, stand-alone listings of people and categories about religious affiliations. I do understand that such moves have caused frustration, and I apologize for that. Hence why I have stated multiple times at my talk page that once I'm done reviewing several more thousand edits from this user I will gladly assist in adding names back with proper sourcing to lists, etc.

I would just ask that some of you here understand that I'm currently still in the cleanup phase of this task. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it started with my edit on Edward Kosner where I added he was from a "Jewish family" with two citations (I could have used the Wall Street Journal but it was behind a paywall so I usually leave those out since others cannot see them). It was requested to be removed via OTRS for "Concerns of undue weight, and request for removal." No problem. I did synthesize by saying he was from a "Jewish family" and not just that he was "Jewish." And it is fine that all my edits are being reviewed (I watch them - some I agree with, some I don't - they are mostly not too interesting) Here is an edit I made on Samuel Gottesman based on a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article titled "D. Samuel Gottesman, Noted Jewish Philanthropist, Dies in New York". Is that sufficient? I don't know, I thought it was. Anyhow, my biggest question involves what kind of support is needed to identify someone as Jewish. I will repeat what I said earlier. It seems that there is not a clear consensus on when we can identify if someone is Jewish and what kind of sourcing we need. I cannot find anything directly on point in the various discussion boards. As Jewish can be both ethnic and religious (generally Judaism is the term for the religion), it crosses several lines. If a source says they are Jewish (e.g. Jewish Women's Archive, the The Jewish Encyclopedia, or the Jewish Virtual Library), can we include even if it is not relevant to their notability. If a subject's parents are both Jewish, is the subject? If one had a Jewish funeral and burial, are they Jewish? If one is born to a Jewish family, are they Jewish? If the subject is an atheist but of Jewish heritage, are they Jewish (Woody Allen, Albert Einstein)? If one becomes a bar mitzvah, are they Jewish? These nuances should be explained in the biography just like we say that someone is of Italian descent. Coffee's requirement (correct me if I am wrong as I am using what you state in your edit summaries) of multiple sources that specifically state whether they are referring to the subject as of Jewish ethnicity or a practitioner of Judaism with self-identification; and that their ethnicity/religion is part of their notability seems to be a high hurdle. Sergey Brin did not meet that standard per Coffee's review. If that is the agreed standard then we should go with it but it does not seem to be the standard I have seen applied on wikipedia by many experienced editors who edit extensively on Jewish biographies. So I think it is good for this discussion to take place so wikipedia can firm up its guidelines on this unique situation where ethnicity/culture meshes with religion. (and this is the first i have heard about a OTRS complaint so perhaps the first one in January 2019 was not so egregious).Patapsco913 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this particular series of events, but I see it as a particularly egregious example of a general problem stemming from people being added to lists, both stand-alone and in-article, and to categories, without citations to reliable sources. I believe that we need to consistently enforce the need for verifiability more stringently for people in lists and categories. - Donald Albury 22:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As an OTRS agent (verify) I can confirm we have had multiple tickets this year in particular about this issue. I do think Donald Albury is on point, the issue stems from subjects being added to lists, and categories with insufficient or a lack of citations. I do think removing these categories per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLPCAT, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:LISTPEOPLE is a good move especially on the BLP articles, with the long deceased subjects I do think we can slowly re-add the categories that are "lightly" sourced but should require far more stringent in categories and lists pertaining to living people and those recently deceased. All in all I think Coffee was on point with the spirt and the literal wording of the policies. OTRS is not being "punked" however I can not share the content of these tickets per Wikimedia's access to non-public information policy. Regards, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No way at all do I object to edits that remove BLPs from Jewish categories and lists when the article lacks references that verify the living person's Jewish identity. Coffee's error in this case was to use an argument based largely on BLP policy to delete listings and categorization from many, many people who have been dead for decades or even well over 100 years, and whose biographies contain impeccable referencing for their Jewish identities. I am forced to conclude that Coffee did not even check for a death date or even skim the biography. Similarly, many (but not all) of the BLPs that Coffee has excluded from lists and categories contain impeccable referencing verifying Jewish identities. One example is Shalom Auslander, a living author whose entire career is wrapped up in his Jewish persona, as verified by many reliable sources. And I only had to go through the letter "A" to find that one. By sad coincidence, Auslander is from Monsey, New York, the heavily Jewish town where several people were stabbed at a Hanukkah party only a few days ago. What is the benefit to the encyclopedia of summarily removing Auslander from our list of Jewish authors? Wikipedia contains many, many lists of people which contain unreferenced links to biographies of living people, but those biography articles are well-referenced for the list claim. Some code monkey could write a bot that would delete such unreferenced list entries by the tens of thousands but that would be disruptive. If I did that myself, even manually, I would expect to be stopped or blocked. A more sophisticated and useful bot would find the appropriate reference in the biography and copy it over to the list. I suspect that human editorial judgment is still required for such a task in 2020. I encourage Coffee to use individualized editorial judgment on a case by case basis, instead of taking a counterproductive cookie-cutter approach that is wreaking havoc on categories and lists of Jewish people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I know we're both starting to sound like broken records, but BLP was one of the reasons given; CAT/R (another reason given) specifically states that dead people in lists need to have good sources when it comes to ethnicity/religion. Stop using the BLP as a scapegoat and focus on the question at hand about whether we should be upholding the requirements for lists of people that have been in place for years. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which contains CAT/R, is a guideline, not policy, so not a requirement. In any case, whether CAT/R applies is open to debate - as mentioned above, Jewish can be an ethnic group, not just a religion designation, and WP:ETHNICRACECAT on that same guideline page points this out as well, making no mention of inline citations.Dialectric (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't want to get into the OTRS or mass removal issue.

  But it's been a clear requirement that lists for living people have inline citations for a very long time now, I would say over 10 years. It's true that our enforcement of this has been a bit of a hit and a miss, although this isn't the first time a list has had a massive cleanup of entries which lack inline citations, again this has happened many many years ago so it should surprised no one. So regardless of the best way to handle this, it is very concerning that some editors who regular deal with BLPs and lists don't seem to be aware of this requirement. The only problems coming should be from irregular editors and IPs unfamiliar with policies not regular editors.

  Frankly, I consider this the most concerning thing about this whole mess. How can it be after all this time, that so many experienced editors are so woefully misinformed about our policies and guidelines? I think we need to consider how this has happened, and how we can fix it, since it's clearly causing major problems, far more so than anything to do with the debate over how to handle this particular issue now.

  BTW, by the same token, the requirement for self identification is not unique to any particular religious group when it comes to BLPs. For ethnicity or races, it gets more complicated but we still require excellent sourcing. There have been plenty of people who have tried to argue that e.g. for some African tribal affiliations "everyone knows" what tribe they belong to and we should ignore our sourcing requirements but these suggestion have always been shot down. Coming from Malaysia, I myself can sort of understand how it can be where such stuff tends to be considered easily known, but the sourcing isn't there and so how frustrating it may be, but I don't think we should relax our sourcing requirements despite that, and in any case, this isn't the time or place to discuss that.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

A very belated note. Please note that this discussion is about:

<list moved to the top of this discussion>

and various category removals. If I have missed any out or duplicated any it was accidental, not some evil conspiracy. If there is any more discussion of particular cases can people please link the article and/or list that are being referred to by putting the name between [[ and ]].

I would put this list of lists at the top of this discussion but I'm sure that someone would find a reason to take offence if I did that. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would, so I've done so. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Just found this in a WaPo article: The desire for connection is strong. Moskowitz’s follow-up tweet to the above, while not as viral, still got several thousand likes: “me, yelling at the ‘early life’ section: JUST TELL ME IF THEY’RE JEWISH.”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Seven thousand words about removing unsourced material, but nobody's linked to WP:CHALLENGE yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, this has nothing to do with the articles in question. This is about lists or categories. Nothing is being challenged for being unsourced. What is being challenged is mass removal for a guideline that is not policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, lists *are* articles. There's nothing in CHALLENGE that says or even implies that "Oh, by the way, these rules don't apply to any page whose title begins with the words "List of...". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that we have 1000s of list articles of names, many of which cover mostly blp's, that lack inline citations, and have for years. If one is challenging a specific name, that could be reasonably addressed. Simultaneously challenging hundreds of names across multiple list articles should be preceded by a first-pass search by the challenger to see if the content is referenced in any given linked article.Dialectric (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Our Jewish-anything categories are a terrible mess, as are the list articles in question at the top of this section. We desperately need a way to disambiguate the ethnicity and religion, not to mention nationality and culture, in all of them. EllenCT (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've just scratched the surface here, and the very first question I had was "why exactly are we making a point of having Category: Jewish [name just about anything you want"? I don't think people realize how weird it is to see anyone categorized by religious faith/cultural heritage when the religious faith/cultural heritage has absolutely nothing to do with the primary quality being categorized. (What's special about Jewish linguists, and how are they different from linguists in general?) We certainly don't have "Roman Catholic x" or "Buddhist Y" comparable categories; in most cases, we don't have "X of Bahamian heritage" or "Y of Hungarian heritage" categories either. Really, we need to stop doing this. Risker (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• That is a valid discussion we can have but this is about the mass removals that Coffee did and is still doing. If you want to discuss certain pages, we can do so either on that page or on the Judaism project page, but most of these pages are there for a reason and also as I'm sure you're aware, otherthingsdon'texist is not a valid reason to not have something, in any event. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The point I am making is that there's a big pile-on to say "he's doing something evil!!!11!!" rather than trying to figure out if he is doing something that we should have done years ago, or prevented years ago. The discussion about the *merits* of the edits is significantly lacking. Risker (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised to read that you feel the discussion about the merits of the edits is significantly lacking, when below I have provided six examples of poor edits: Sergey Brin, Isaias W. Hellman, Berle Adams, Noam Chomsky, Allen Ginsberg, and Norman Cahners are all notable Jews, who are notable, in part, for being Jewish. Sources provided below. I note that Coffee did not list any of the "Jewish lists" at AFD. If he had, I would likely have !voted to delete some of them. Instead, he removed entries from the lists. Same with the categories. So, whether the lists or categories should exist or not in the first place is irrelevant to the question of whether Coffee's edits should continue. – Levivich 05:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Risker, the exact same argument has been made against having list of women authors or African-American engineers. Should we then get rid of all of the parent and child categories in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation or Category:Women by nationality and occupation? There are plenty of gender, ethnic and racially identified categories that have been long debated in CFD discussions and guideline pages. And yes, we have Category:People by religion, Category:Buddhists by occupation, Category:Bahamian people by occupation and Category:Hungarian people by occupation along with categories like Category:Hungarian people by political orientation and Category:Hungarian people by religion. If you get rid of every gender, ethnic, race, religion or nationality identified category, you'd be deleting tens of thousands of categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a very significant difference between Category:People of Hungarian descent by occupation – the logical parallel to Category:Jews by occupation – and Category:Hungarian people by occupation. I'm just fine with not having any references to religion when they are not a significant factor in the reason for the subject's notability. And I have a real problem with most of these points resulting in the subject being placed in a 'child' category instead of the main category. Risker (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps this question is for another time, but why is Coffee an OTRS member in the first place? And I don't want to make a big deal about this but shouldn't that bit have been removed or is that separate? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  My concern here is that the mass removal of content is purportedly justified because five OTRS members agreed to it. I've never before heard an OTRS member talk about OTRS as if it were some kind of Wikipedia Editorial Board, or subject matter, content, or policy experts. That's far afield from my understanding of what OTRS is. – Levivich 05:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, here is an OTRS member and admin not knowing where the discussion supposedly took place, so this was also just five OTRS members having some sort of discussion, not in a centralized OTRS board even. [2] That makes it even worse. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bolding mine. WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." WP:Burden: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Lists are not exempt from sourcing requirements. Lists about people's ethnicity or religion doubly so, living or dead. The only difference is with WP:BLP and the availability of discretionary sanctions, replacing poorly sourced or unsourced material means you will likely end up at AE. If the material has been challenged by removal, you need to add a reliable source to verify it in a list. If its a category, the category must be verified by a source and material in the article. Dont like it? Door is thataway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all of the list and category memberships in question here are adequately sourced and have been for a long time (please correct me if I'm wrong.) The problem is that we are faced with an ethnicity and religion sharing the same name, both which can be and often are disjoint, compounded by the fact that the term is also used for a culture and nationality. Only the nationality has a suitable preferred term (Israeli.) Why not split of all those categories and lists into "Ethnically Jewish" and "Religiously Jewish" instead? Are there enough culturally Jewish people who are irreligious and not ethnically Jewish to cause problems with that? EllenCT (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've put a waters-testing proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Splitting categories and lists by ethnicity and religion because I haven't been able to find the proposal in archives anywhere. EllenCT (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, you write "If its a category, the category must be verified by a source and material in the article. Dont like it? Door is thataway." OK, please take a look at Coffee's deletion of two categories at Florence Meyer Blumenthal, where the person's ancestry and philanthropic activities are well supported by reliable sources. Which direction is "the door" for the editors who edit like that? I have asked Coffee to explain that edit with no response. Perhaps you can explain the logic instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• I will also point out that Sir Joseph is currently topic banned from the holocaust and anti-semitism broadly construed. So they should not be engaged in any discussion that involves anti-semitism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Only in death, I'm disappointed that you said this. Nowhere in Sir Joseph's report did he mention the Holocaust or antisemitism. Not everything about Jews is about the Holocaust or antisemitism. It was other editors who introduced the Holocaust and antisemitism into the discussion, and SJ has steadfastly and very obviously been avoiding discussing those aspects of this thread (and also abiding by the one-way IBAN that was part of that same sanction...let's just get that on the table, too).

  I'm glad SJ brought this to the community's attention, because it gives us an opportunity to address it. And as to your other comment about WP:V, Burden, and BLP, you can see in my examples below that Coffee has been removing material even when it is already sourced, even when it's BLUESKY obvious, and even on biographies of dead people. Listing Allen Ginsberg in a list of Jewish American poets, even without a citation, does not violate WP:V, WP:BLP, or any other policy. – Levivich 06:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed we are once again wasting time on another one of Sir Joseph's crusades. Want to Jew-tag people living or dead? Add a reliable source in-line. Dont want to add a citation? Dont complain when someone removes it. All material when challenged requires a citation. Dont like it, go attempt to change WP:V. And WP:BLUESKY will never ever be allowed for religion or ethnicity. If you genuinely think this is acceptable, you need to be banned from editing biographies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, no one has “Jew tagged” anything. I think you should strike these baseless accusations. It is not “Jew tagging” to include Allen Ginsberg in a list of Jewish American poets. You also don’t need a citation that George Washington was American, or that St. Paul was Christian. If I’m wrong, point me to a policy that would require inline citations for any of these statements. – Levivich 06:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:V requires inline citations where material is challenged as unsupported. If you can write a biography about St. Paul that doesnt include a reliable source to his religion, go ahead. But current policy requires that list articles are subject to WP:V and its requirements and also require sources. Feel free to go propose changes to WP:V. And again, 'But its obvious' will never be accepted for religion or ethnicity. Those parameters were removed from infobox:person precisely because the issues were too complex and too many people labelling persons as religion/ethinicity X because 'obvious'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph made the comments: "these are made up standards just for these categories or lists" and "Let's not make special rules for one religion". If anyone had made up standards just for these categories or lists, or if anyone had made special rules just for the Jewish religion, then I would certainly have regarded them as anti-semitic, so yes, these are allegations of anti-semitism. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You say, "I would certainly have regarded them as anti-semitic, so yes, these are allegations of anti-semitism." Well I say, I wouldn't have regarded "special rules just for the Jewish religion" as anti-semitic. Can I claim that, therefore, they are not allegations of anti-semitism? If I create a "special rule" that all Jewish biographies get to be TFAs, is that anti-semitic or pro-semitic? – Levivich 18:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just being disingenuous. You usually seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, so you can't really believe that Sir Joseph was saying anything other than that these claimed "made up standards" or "special rules" were targeted against Jews. I'm talking about what he actually wrote, in the context that he wrote it, not some silly hypothetical rule that you just made up. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, no, I'm being fully ingenuous. :-) Look at the two statements in full:

1. Not just that, these are made up standards just for these categories or lists. Because of ONE OTRS ticket we are turning Wikipedia topsy-turvy and removing sourced named because of some made up policy? He's not accusing anyone of being antisemitic here. He's saying don't make up standards for categories or lists based on one OTRS ticket. I really don't see how you're getting an accusation of antisemitism out of that statement.
2. Phil Bridger, that is the new policy I'm talking about. Where does this come from? So I now need to go back in time to the 1700's and find a source that Haym Solomon for example actually stated, "I am Jewish" for him to be included in the list? Let's not make special rules for one religion. To me that's very tenuous to read into that statement ("Let's not make special rules for one religion") an accusation of antisemitism, in the context of the example from the 1700s. That's a totally cogent point–that we shouldn't require a self-identification source for a person long dead–and it's applicable to any religion or other category. Jewish categories just happens to be the one that Coffee has been editing, but there's no suggestion there–at all–about Coffee's motivations for the editing. In both quotes, SJ is arguing against having "made up standards" for categories/lists based on an OTRS ticket, and against having different standards for one religion as opposed to another. But that's far from accusing a specific editor of having an antisemitic motive. – Levivich 20:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Now you just being ridiculous, as well as disingenuous. In both cases the rules have existed for many, many years for all lists and categories, but Sir Joseph was claiming that they had only been created on the spur of the moment in reaction to one recent OTRS ticket with the intention of targeting Jews in a way inconsistent with the way that we treat everyone else. If you can't see the blindingly obvious then there's nothing more I can help you with. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Only in death's post above, accusing Sir Joseph of being on a crusade, shows that he is not aware that he issue here is rather Coffee's crusade against what he calls "Jew-tagging" (another term I am not happy with). We can do without such unhelpful comments here. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone and their dog is well aware of Sir Joseph's issue in the Jewish topic area. In short, Sir Joseph should be allowed to do whatever he wants with disregard to policy, their opinion is the correct one, and if you disagree its because of anti-jewish bias. The above examples as Phil has succinctly pointed out where he dances around accusations of anti-Jew behaviour in order to skirt his topic ban are one example. He's a tendentious editor on the topic and should be permanently banned from anything related to Jews, Israel etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

And let's get this straight, Joseph had no contributions since October after the last issues with his editing on the topic of Jews, and his first edit when returning on 31st Dec is to cause another drama with veiled accusations per the above. Its one drama after another because he cant leave the topic of who is and isnt a Jew alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, the person "causing drama" is the one who is mass removing entries from Jewish categories and lists, and Jewish content from biographies, etc. The person who responds to that by bringing it to the community's attention, is not "causing drama". They are resolving drama. Put your boomerang away. – Levivich 20:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Uhm, Levivich, go ahead and add that condition to our behavioral policy. It can be part of our 2020 New Year's resolution to eliminate ambiguities in WP:PAG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: My New Year's resolution was to spend less time on noticeboards. So far so good! – Levivich 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we have ample reason to believe that Coffee has been acting on OTRS complaints without the controlled vocabulary infrastructure necessary to resolve them, and as such we should not shoot the messenger. EllenCT (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, EllenCT, I shouldn't have said that Coffee was "causing drama". Stricken. – Levivich 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Coffee stops mass removals

Proposal: Coffee immediately stops mass removals of Jewish-related content, including prose, sources, categories, list entries, etc., from articles.

• Support as proposer, based on Coffee's errors in mass removals so far, his re-instating removals when reverted, and his responses to multiple editors who have raised concerns about the mass removals. Examples:
  • Sergey Brin is a GA-rated biography of a living person. Coffee removed all mentions of "Jewish" in Brin's article, including prose, sources, and categories. In edit summaries, Coffee claimed WP:SYNTH, WP:DUE, WP:BLPCAT, WP:BLPREMOVE, and WP:BLPRS. Coffee's deletions were reverted. Coffee deleted the categories again, citing WP:BLPREMOVE.
    • Is Brin's Jewish identity "controversial"? Is it DUE?
      • Haaretz interviewing Brin [3]:

        Q: "... what does it mean to you to be Jewish?"
        A: "I think probably the most important thing is the background ...I think that's at the core of the Jewish experience."

      • CNET quoting Brin [4]: When you're a Jew, you have a background of hardship, suffering, difficulties–and to turn that into success is part of the Jewish experience.
      • The Jerusalem Post: The world's 50 Richest Jews: 1–10 [5]
      • Biography.com: "... Brin and his family emigrated to the United States to escape Jewish persecution in 1979." [6]
      • The New York Times: "... his family escape[d] anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union ..." [7]
    • It is WP:BLUESKY that Sergey Brin is Jewish. He is well-known for his Soviet-Jewish emigré background, including for his related philanthropy.
  • Isaias W. Hellman died in 1920. Coffee removed all mentions of Hellman's Jewish background, citing WP:CAT/R. The most-often-cited source in our article about Hellman is a biography published by St. Martin's Press, entitled Towers of Gold: How One Jewish Immigrant Named Isaias Hellman Created California. After Coffee was reverted, he re-removed the Jewish content, claiming in the edit summary "WP:SYNTH/WP:OR violations". The biography referring to Hellman as "One Jewish Immigrant" was cited five times in this article, in all versions that Coffee edited. There was no grounds for removing this content, nevermind re-removing it after being reverted.
  • Berle Adams died in 2009. Coffee removed the only mention of "Jewish" in Adams's article, which was sourced to a book called Jews and Jazz: Improvising Ethnicity.
    • In the edit summary, Coffee wrote removing WP:SYNTH/WP:OR violation... source used does not state what his family was at birth, nor does it state anything about Russian ancestry... if it does in a part of the book not available to the snippet reader (from my review it doesn't seem to), the page numbers need to be specified. The page number is 79. It says "Most Jews in the music business naturally rejected charges of exploitation ... Some Jews in the music business were unapologetic ... Berle Adams said of the music he produced ... Yet other Jews in the music business ..." It is very obvious to me that there is no SYNTH or OR here. That Coffee didn't find it in the snippet view is not a reason to remove it. We have a {{page needed}} template for missing pages in citations.
    • Coffee also wrote in that edit summary that the other sources in this article also do not back up these claims, but the Los Angeles Times [8] and Variety [9] obituaries state that services were held at Mount Sinai Memorial Park Cemetery, the largest Jewish cemeteries in California. (Though not dispositive, it's also a hint that he died at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, which is in Category:Jewish medical organizations.) I disagree that these sources do not support Adams's Jewish identity.
  • Removing Noam Chomsky (BLP) from List of Jewish American linguists is almost a WP:CIR issue. Our GA-rated article on Chomsky contains a detailed, well-sourced (e.g., to books by academic publishers like MIT Press and Polity) discussion of his Jewish background, upbringing, and politics. Chomsky is the most famous Jewish American linguist ever. His Jewish identity is BLUESKY obvious; it is not contentious or controversial. In the edit summary, Coffee wrote Chomsky source does not mention him being Jewish. The edit summary suggests Coffee knows Chomsky is Jewish, but still removed the entry nonetheless. This is not an improvement to the list; it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
  • Removing Allen Ginsberg (d. 1997) from List of Jewish American poets (along with many others) has already been addressed in this report, but it's the same CIR/POINTY issue. Ginsberg is probably the most famous Jewish American poet ever.
  • Removing Norman Cahners (d. 1986) from List of Jewish American businesspeople in media. This entry was sourced. Coffee's edit summary said "not backed up by references used". One of the sources was United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which writes, "... Norman Cahners, also Jewish ..." [10].
  • This Dec 30 conversation troubles me, e.g., Coffee's statement in response to an editor's concerns: I would also warn you not begin your edit warring behavior again (how many times have you been blocked for that now?) by going back through my edits I see you already took upon yourself to do with an entirely unrelated article. I would point out to you this discussion has been made aware to my fellow admins working this serious issue, so do try and keep this professional and do not try and subvert policy with your beliefs.
  • This Dec 31 conversation troubles me, e.g., Coffee's statement in response to a different editor with the same concerns: Yes I am currently in the process of enforcing our policies ... I also do not remotely have the time to look for those sources myself while in the midst of a major cleanup of the site, per a consensus discussion with several OTRS members/admins/en-wiki admins.
  • Coffee's statement in this AN thread troubles me. Really all four points, but particularly I would just ask that some of you here understand that I'm currently still in the cleanup phase of this task. I believe that Coffee should immediately stop "the cleanup phase of this task". – Levivich 22:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• The proposal, as written, appears to have some logical sense whilst this discussion is ongoing. That is notwithstanding the above support comment, which I do have some issues with (see my oppose in proposal 2). However, I fully support continuation of Coffee's activities and am fairly positive that consensus will be determined that existing policies should be actively enforced, like coffee is doing overall. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC); amended 00:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons I stated above. I agree with Leviv that Coffee's statement that he is "currently still in the cleanup phase of this task" is worrying. Debresser (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support and adding since he has responded on his talk page with the following sentence, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." as the reason. Being Jewish is not contentious and I think we need to stop this immediately. That is not what BLP is referring to. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support The examples presented above are evidence that Coffee has been editing disruptively in the area of Jewish categories and lists. Here is a example I discovered when I first started to look into this. Coffee went to Florence Meyer Blumenthal and removed Category:Jewish American philanthropists and Category:American people of French-Jewish descent from the article. Any editor who reads that biography and its first reference will recognize that the edit was egregiously wrong, so I reverted it. The expressed concerns are about BLP issues and contemporary anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, but this woman died in 1930, so that is spurious. I tend to be skeptical of calling people "philanthropists" but Blumenthal is notable precisely for that reason - funding worthy charitable causes for decades. There is something seriously wrong in all of this, and it needs to stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• I wasn't originally going to copy over my full reply from my talkpage about this issue, but since Sir Joseph has taken it upon themselves to misrepresent what I actually said here it is (taking out areas that were specific replies to one editor): "I'm merely going through a process to ensure we're properly sourcing contentious claims in articles and removing contentious claims that are not properly sourced. ... I have merely stated what policy states be done in my edit summaries, specifically WP:BLPREMOVE which states:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research);
3. relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or
4. relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.

Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

The lists are not sourced properly per either WP:BLPCAT, WP:CAT/R nor WP:LISTVERIFY. The articles I've edited have not been complying with WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:BLPRS nor WP:V, among others. Two that are especially relevant here are WP:V and WP:BLPRS. Instead of quoting both,I'll quote this section alone in BLPRS as it sums up pretty concisely how both cover the removal of contentious information:

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

I was merely attempting to ensure those policies are being enforced properly, in an area were we should be using the utmost care (not just leaving things "half-finished"). If you think that is permissible to be making lists of contentious information or adding contentious information to articles (BLP or otherwise) that are not properly sourced and cited on our encyclopedia, you can call me very disturbed as well. Because, WP:BURDEN specifically states (and this encompasses every article on our site, including both living and non-living people's articles and related lists):

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Once an editor has provided any source he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

It then goes on to also state something quite similar to V/RS: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Before also stating Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

Here's also a relevant quote from our site's Founder on the matter, who I think understood very well when making this statement "how Wikipedia has worked successfully":

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." - Jimmy Wales "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006

Simply put, not only do I fully disagree with the characterization of my actions I think consensus and policy are behind my actions (even if some are frustrated that this will take some work). I'm disappointed that me clearly stating on here several times that I will assist in properly sourcing and re-adding names back after first removing poorly sourced, unsourced, contentious information on our site is apparently not good enough to assuage some of the frustration here, but I fully intend to keep to my word on that. ..." — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, "I'm merely going through a process to ensure we're properly sourcing contentious claims in articles and removing contentious claims..." That's what I and @Cullen328: would like to know more about. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I was about to add this to that reply, but since you apparently replied so quickly here I'll have to put this below: So what I actually was saying is there are a myriad of reasons for my removals, obviously articles about dead people who have not recently deceased do not fall under BLPREMOVE but they still do fall under WP:V regarding contentious claims. One might argue there isn't a lot of Anti-Semitic worries when dealing with dead people. I would say there could be some logical disagreement there, especially if those people have any living children. As that carries a level of nuance to it, I think it best we err on the side of caution. Others may disagree on that, but regardless we have bona fide policies that already require any sort of contentious claim be sourced, even in articles that are not biographical at all. This hasn't just been controversial/contentious in my eyes, but in the eyes of many readers (and even article subjects) and many other administrators. Nowhere on our site does it state that you, Cullen328, or any other particular editors have to find something controversial/contentious for it to be considered so. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, so according to you and the OTRS team, it's now contentious to be Jewish, is that the official Wikipedia policy now? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you justify that Sergey Brin, Noam Chomsky, or Woody Allen being Jewish, is a contentious claim? – Levivich 05:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, saying "Person A is Jewish" is not contentious, especially when good evidence of that is available only a mouse click away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite incorrect. See WP:MINREF which expressly states four such versions of contentious information:

Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements:

Type of statement	Policy requiring inline citation
Direct quotations	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag)	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons	Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

None of that says that being Jewish is contentious. Again, I ask: what is your justification for asserting that Sergey Brin or Noam Chomsky being Jewish are contentious claims? – Levivich 05:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, please answer the question, "What is contentious about being Jewish?" Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Coffee, please explain in full detail why the assertion that a person is Jewish is contentious. It seems to me that amounts to capitulation to anti-Semitism. Please convince me otherwise in your own words, rather than copypasting from some generalized policy document. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Because, it has to do with a religious affiliation (or at a minimum an ethnic description that can be confused with a religious affiliation) which could be easily seen to be WP:LIKELY to be challenged if not properly sourced in the article. And as I've said before "unsourced" includes not being sourced directly in a stand-alone list per WP:LISTVERIFY/WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R. And this is not the only potentially contentious religious designation by a long shot. All claims of (potential) religions can be construed to be a contentious claim, because such topics have all throughout history resulted in disagreement (and much worse in the case of religious violence or sectarian violence). The massive targeting of Jewish people throughout modern history shows such a designation could also present issues of increased risks to personal safety for article subjects and their families (and if the person has not self-identified in such a manner, could put them in a situation where they aren't prepared on how to increase their personal security if necessary), and so in my eyes should be approached with the upmost caution. To me, we should simply ensure first and foremost that we are clear about whether we're referring to having such a heritage or personally adhering to the belief system in question. Then we need to make sure those claims are then properly sourced before stating them, especially when dealing with BLPs. I'll note why I quoted the last bit of policy was to try to answer your questions with consensuses the community itself has determined, not to avoid answering the question (nor to even give too generalized an answer). I'll further note I do not see being Jewish as a negative thing... and I hope my use of the word contentious doesn't carry that idea with it. I merely mean it is a claim that has a high probability of being contended. As to individual cases I will note Brin appears to have had okay sources backing up his claim, but those sources weren't in the article as far as I'm aware. If they were and I didn't see them I would readily apologize for such confusion. As to the others, I imagine you are stating they were listed in their articles with proper sourcing? But, I do not know that yet as instead of trying to solve this issue I've been attempting to assuage everyone's concerns here today (because I understand some people may take offense or otherwise misconstrue the purpose of these moves). I'll note again that I'm all for us listing these designations if we have proper sourcing backing it up. In any case where proper sourcing exists I will be readily assisting in re-adding that as soon as I possibly can. I'm trying to work this out amicably even though to some degree people have made it seem I'm just being irrational, "on a rampage", or some other such unnecessary accusation. I merely want us to get this right. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, you can be incredibly wordy and non-specific when asked for clarity, Coffee, but especially striking is that you have not yet explained your edit to Florence Meyer Blumenthal, despite being asked several times. You need to take responsibility for all your edits. Are you worried about dangers to her great-grandchildren or something? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll note that while most articles I've reviewed thus far have more recent death dates or are still alive, this particular case was one where I think I could have given more leeway. That's because the risks I mentioned above are (as you point out) indeed lower for people dead that long and their very extended family (even if technically the same policies on WP:CAT/R etc., apply). However, I still was only applying a literal reading of WP:CAT/R in that edit. But, I think it fine if we use a bit more editorial discretion in such cases. After reading through most of the discussion here, I'll note that it seems like most are okay with having such categorizations for long dead people with just one really good source (especially if it's something like the Jewish Women's Archive or a similar generalized reference that can be relied upon). As such I will spend the next day or so going back through various removals, to ensure I didn't make the same sort of removal in other articles using that source or a similar form of sourcing (obviously only if the person has been dead for quite that long). If I find such cases, I will restore the description and report them here so as to keep the community apprised of the situation. Hindsight is always 20/20 as the saying goes, but I want to turn that knowledge into foresight here. So, when I can resume reviewing other articles of long-dead people for the sourcing issues, I will continue to apply this consistent approach of what can be considered enough sourcing for a description to be within discretion. In such cases I may still make a note on the talk page of those articles to state where I think the sourcing isn't getting it right, or where we could at least add more to back up the claim. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That just more of your long-winded evasiveness, Coffee. Your mistake was not in removing the categories from a woman who died 90 years ago. No, you removed categories that were fully justified by the article content and the very first reference. It would have been just as wrong if she was still alive. It seems that you still do not understand that editing in such sensitive areas in a cookie cutter or rubber stamp fashion is wrong and disruptive. Your error rate is way too high. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, that's the second or third time now you have used the term "very first reference" to make it appear there were multiple references backing up the claim in the article. There emphatically were not, (the JWA source while appearing as if it's two sources is in fact only the exact same webpage). Nowhere in WP:CAT/R does it say adding such categories is fine if it's in "the very first reference". What it says is For a dead person, there must be verified reliable published sources that, by consensus, support the information and show that the description is appropriate. - do note the plural sources and use of the word consensus. Can you point me to where it our policies say "the very first reference" equals a consensus of sourcing? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This looks to me like full-blown wikilawyering now, Coffee. I said that the reference was the "very first" to emphasize how easy it was to find, and only that. You boldly removed the categories, and I reverted. Now, we are discussing. BRD. Are you now claiming that the source is inadequate and that she should not be categorized as of French-Jewish ancestry and a Jewish-American philanthropist? Are you actually challenging consensus after reading the source? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

First, I want to make it clear I read the source thoroughly on my original review of that article (and re-read it after you brought it up here). I'm not wikilawyering, I'm just making a point that a literal interpretation of WP:CAT/R seems to require more than one source. I already tried to explain before your reply on 18:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC) that I think the source can work in this case (and limited situations like it), as the person is long dead. Most importantly, I come to that conclusion now because it appears from this discussion that enough people seem to think one such good source (as Barkeep49 put it) can work for long dead people. However, for a living person or a person who died recently enough, I would think it best (and like I said, several replies back, policy already seems to dictate this) that we find at least two or three such reliable sources covering the person as belonging to a potential religious affiliation. I'm not trying to frustrate you Cullen. I just want to point out that what you may perceive to be an "error rate", may actually be the fault of how the guideline is currently written. Would you be interested in starting a discussion on the talk page of WP:CAT/R, to see if we can change the wording to say that one really good source can be all that is needed for long dead people? It seems like that may should have been how it was wrote originally, and if it were I would have never even considered making that particular removal. I will gladly wait until a consensus is formed there, even after one is formed here, before going back to reviewing any more articles - if you're open to that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, Coffee, I am not interested in starting a discussion at another venue although I may well comment there if you or another editor start that discussion. I think that you are going about this process in a dogmatic, rote manner that I believe is damaging to the encyclopedia. Since you are so fond of quoting policy like a mantra, you should spend some time pondering this language from our core content policy on Verifiability: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. If you had followed that sage advice instead of taking the "bull in a China shop" approach, we would not be having this discussion. Your contention that Jewish categories and Jewish lists constitute some sort of unique emergency that requires require immediate and drastic mass deletions is erroneous and lacks consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I get what you're saying. I will try to approach this with a bit less invigoration. I appreciate the more amicable response from you this time. I was at first quite worried about being responsible for leaving the description on anyone's article without good enough sourcing. From here on out I'll try to focus on BLPs specifically a bit more. As far as your final sentence though, I would state that our many OTRS complaints do show that there is some need for approaching how we handle such descriptions with a bit more precision. I will gladly begin the WP:CAT/R conversation since that seems like a workable solution to you; I hope to see you there supporting such a change in policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And here is my opening of that conversation. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support until confirmed to be the correct approach—not, it must be said, an absolute certainty at this juncture. ——SN54129 14:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support fixing them would be better than mass removals. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Mass removals like this without discussion are rarely a good idea and there is enough legitimate opposition for a pause to be taken.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Note - I had already stopped yesterday, and I'll note I've only edited 3 after this discussion originally started. I would be truly amazed if anyone can find a single thing wrong with those 3, or even the vast majority of the 300+ I applied long standing policy to originally. The cherry picked issues by Levivich above could have easily been discussed without taking this to AN, and many are flatly an incorrect interpretation of policy: 1) the 3 lists mentioned must be sourced directly in line per entry according to WP:LISTVERIFY/WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R, 2) Brin's article did not have all those sources present backing up the claim when I reviewed the article, 3) Hellman's article was linked to a dead link to support the claim and there was no archive of it available (that has now been fixed, and I hold no qualms with that), 4) Adams article only needed the page number to have the claim restored and that page number was found. However, for how few issues were found here there are many, many, many more examples of entirely terrible sourcing that were being used to back up similar claims of ethnic origins or religious affiliation (and many hundreds more that I haven't been able to address yet). This issue was extremely prevalent on WP:BLPs as well, and with this demand for a pause those issues will remain there in continuous violation of our related standards WP:V/WP:BLPRS/WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R. I will respect the wishes of our community, but I ask that if everyone wants a pause it would also be helpful if they could devote time to ensuring the remaining hundreds upon hundreds of articles with such claims be properly sourced. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, our article on Lynn Tilton stated that she came from a long line of Kaballah scholars (not to be confused with cabal scholars), sourced to her own statements as reported by New York Magazine [11] and Bloomberg News [12]. The time code for the Bloomberg interview is in the reference, as is a quote. The NYMag source also reports her statement that her father is a descendant of Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidic Judaism. Multiple sources cited in the article report that her fund is named Zohar, after the "the Kabbalah bible". So why remove that she was born to a Jewish family? Why remove her from Category:American Jews? Your edit summary said it is a violation of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:BLPCAT/WP:V/WP:UNDUE. I don't see it as unsourced, contentious, or undue, that Lynn Tilton, who publicly self-identifies as a descendant of Kaballah scholars and Baal Shem Tov, who names her fund after the Kabbalah books, identifies as Jewish. – Levivich 01:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: As far as Tilton goes, I fully reviewed the sourcing in that article and watched the entire Bloomberg interview (not just the timestamped area) before I made that decision to remove it from her article. While I get that one can presume that coming from a line of Kabbalah scholars may indicate that the person is Jewish (the Kabbalah is centric to a form of Jewish belief, and the Zohar is a reference to it... and might I note randomly it's a mysticism that peaked my interest a lot even before I ever handled this issue), it is a technical use of WP:SYNTH to come to that conclusion. I get that you might want to say there she is Jewish, but I would emphatically state it isn't enough to make the claim that she came from a Jewish family or to say she is Jewish. She could for instance (I know this is a bit annoying of a way to look at it, but it is still possible) just have had a familial connection with people who studied the Kabbalah but never considered themselves actually to be a follower of Judaism, and she just might like to have named her fund after things her line of scholars once studied. And as far as I'm aware she has personally steered clear of directly describing herself or her family as "Jewish". As such I just want us to find more sourcing stating that she is in fact Jewish or that her family was if we want to include such a claim. So far though, I have not seen that in the article (if it exists elsewhere, we should be able to simple add the claim back in with proper sourcing). If we just want to say "Tilton came from a long line of Kabbalah scholars", or something similar, I do not at all see an issue with that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, that analysis of yours is pedantry on steroids. Do you actually consider the existence of a long line of non-Jewish Kabbalah scholars to be plausible? If so, please stop editing Jewish topics for a long time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  If you want to ask that question without the snark, I'm willing to answer. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Cutty Snark

• Accusing Cullen of snark is a nonstarter. EEng 07:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Okay that made me chuckle. So, I'll answer regardless. Basically Cullen, the issue isn't that I think it's plausible, but that it's technically possible. To even get more to the point: if Tilton hasn't openly and directly stated she is Jewish (it even seems she has attempted to not directly state this), why should we? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, because she has openly and directly stated she is Jewish–she just didn't use the words "I am Jewish". She said she is descendant from the founder of Hasidism (one of the most ultra-orthodox Jewish sects), comes from a long line of Kabbalah scholars, and named her fund after the Kabbalah books. These aren't one-off remarks that she made off-hand somewhere, this is what she says about herself in multiple interviewed like NYMag and Bloomberg. She knows full well people will understand her to be Jewish. She's not stupid. She's not going to say, "Oh! You think I'm Jewish?! I didn't mean to give off that impression!" It's like if I told you that my family came over on the Mayflower, I'm a descendant of Abraham Lincoln, and I live in New York. I don't have to say "I'm an American"–I just said it. By telling you these things about myself (none of which are actually true), I am telling you that I am an American, even though I'm not using the words, "I'm an American". In fact, I think you will find very few instances of people publicly uttering the words, "I am Jewish" or "I am a Jew". In my experience, people just don't say that. They don't talk that way. They say, "I was raised Jewish", or "I belong to Temple Beth Shalom", or "Well, I don't keep kosher or go to synagogue anymore", all of which are statements self-identifying as Jewish, though none of them use those words, and one sounds like a denial. Check out that Chomsky book, page 9, that I linked to yesterday in this thread, and you'll see the Chomsky quote where he identifies as Jewish but says he is "neither a believer nor an observer" of Judaism... it sounds like a denial of Jewish identity, but in fact, it's him explaining "what it means to be Jewish". Also, when people are interviewed, nobody ever asks, "Are you Jewish? Are you a Jew?" It would be, you know, inappropriate, almost always. So, you'll find few examples of someone saying "I am Jewish" in their own words in an RS, I think. A biographer is more likely to just say, "He grew up Jewish" than to quote the guy saying, "I identify as Jewish." I think looking for such a crystal-clear statement of self-identification is imposing an unrealistically-strict standard. (But the content discussion should happen elsewhere anway.) – Levivich 23:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  First, I get that some people might not state it directly, but I at least would expect sources to state they identify that way directly (i.e. Person X is Jewish, or Person X practices Judaism, or Person X is a Jew) if we're to state it in an article without crossing the line of WP:OR. But, literally zero of the 32 references provided in her article (I looked through all of them while originally reviewing the article) state the word "Jew" or "Jewish" as a description of her (I noted this quite clearly in my edit summary).

  Second, she also stated in regards to her claim of her father's decent from Baal Shem Tov: "but my father died before he ever passed a lot of this stuff on to me. I wonder always whether he didn’t grasp it—or if he didn’t get around to telling me what I needed to know. Or maybe I wasn’t ready?", which doesn't indicate at all she was raised Jewish... if anything that seems to indicate she did searching for some of the teachings and acestral background on her own, later in life. So, the claim her family was Jewish seems entirely unwarrented, and an example of original research/synthises.

  Third, she also didn't just discuss the Kabbalah in describing her beliefs, she also stated she "studied with the Mayan Indians for a decade" in the Bloomberg interview, and NY Magazine states "[Tilton] bought a home in Boca Raton, where she became acquainted with a group of 'Mexican gardeners' who introduced her to Carlos Castaneda’s The Teachings of Don Juan. Tilton devoured the book, in which a Yaqui shaman teaches the author the Toltec art of sorcery, and the gardeners became her spiritual teachers. 'They changed my existence,' she says."

  So, in essence while you may see her descriptions of herself as a claim she belongs to that religion, I don't think that's clear to everyone nor do I think the sources provided support that claim. If, however, you can find sources that do state it directly (even if not in her own words, as that was never what the policy required on self-identification... even if some people do in their own words describe themselves/their family as "Jewish") I'm absolutely fine with someone re-adding it with that sourcing inline. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm thrown by the "claims she belongs to that religion" part. One doesn't have to belong to the Jewish religion to identify as Jewish. Most Jews do not practice the Jewish religion (even in Israel). "I come from a long line of Kabbalah scholars" == "I come from a Jewish family", regardless of what your religious beliefs are. – Levivich 21:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  These two paragraphs of WP:STICKTOSOURCE capture, in their entirety, what is at issue with that conclusion. So as it has not been mentioned here yet, I'm going to quote it (with emphasis added to things that especially apply) for the clarity of anyone reading (or participating in) this discussion:

  Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see [WP:SYNTH].

  ...[Long section about what a reliable source generally is considered to be.]...

  Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

  The similarity there in the first sentence of STICKTOSOURCE to other statements I've made here (and other policies quoted) isn't me simply being redundant. It's the result of our community finding that fact so important to mention, it was placed in several different policies. Given that Tilton is a living person I think it especially applies here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Coffee's actions are WAY too WP:POINTy and edit summaries too threatening. Let's discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Once again an entire mischaracterization. The section titled Important note at WP:POINT states the following: A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". In no way do I disagree with the moves I made, I think they are backed by policy. Nor was I trying to provoke opposition, in fact quite the opposite. I also was not specifically attempting to draw attention to this matter, that was a byproduct of editing a highly watched topic area. Also, none of my edit summaries were threatening; two out of the 350+ I made in handling this whole issue merely repeated a warning from an administrator and what is directly stated at WP:BLPREMOVE. That isn't a "threat" anymore than everyone who warns vandals, page blankers, or even BLP policy violators with those well known warning templates on editors' talk pages (i.e. this is your "final warning", "you may be blocked from editing"). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I do not genuinely believe you want to remove all WP content without an inline citation (contentious or not...which seems to be your contention). As such, it is pointy and disruptive. Buffs (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Like it says at WP:V:

  Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

That's what should have happened here, at most. EEng 20:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not exactly leaping to Coffee's defence here, because, as Cullen328 has said (among others) immediate removal is often not the solution to content that fails verification. That said, I am seriously concerned by many of the arguments in favor of these categories here, which fall foul of WP:NOR. Describing a person's identity based on parts of their heritage, in particular, is extremely dodgy. Between 3 and 10% of the US is multiracial in some form; self-identification is a complicated thing; and if you look very closely, "Is this a Jewish person" (or any other descriptor)" can start to have more answers than "Yes/No". Coffee probably ought to slow down, but many others here need to take his concern seriously. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is, or would complain about removal of bad data that is not sourced properly from articles, especially if it's a BLP. The issue is that this is mostly lists, coming from sourced articles, as Cullen pointed out. "Is this a Jewish person" is dealt with on the article page, and if there is an issue, it's removed. The point is that mass removal of hundreds without even checking the articles is wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I recognize that this is a moot point, as User:Coffee has stopped mass removals, but these lists are, and have always been, filled with masses of unverified (and often incorrect) information. People adding the names are typically unaware of WP:V, or feel lists are exempt from them, and will often add ridiculous entries based on their own beliefs on the subject, or (in the worst cases), attempts at yellow badging or triple parenthesising individuals. Even in this discussion, I see people who apparently believe WP:LISTVERIFY does not really apply if some other Wikipedia article happens to state the individual is Jewish. I've spent over a decade trying to get these lists to adhere to WP:LISTVERIFY, yet many of them are still mostly or completely unsourced. My recent absence from Wikipedia was prompted by these two all-too-typical reverts[13][14], followed by this warning on my talk page. Given the events of the not-too-distant past, Wikipedia should be particularly insistent that editors at least adhere to WP:V when it comes to Lists of Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Coffee's mass removals reverted

Proposal: Coffee self-reverts all his recent Jewish-related mainspace edits.

• Support as proposer. I was going to go through all of Coffee's recent mainspace edits to check for errors, as I had done with the sampling above, but there are almost 350 edits in the last two weeks. I would fix the ones above, but Coffee's edit summaries each include a threat not to revert, so I don't want to edit those articles without knowing where consensus lies. I think Coffee should self-revert all of these removals, and if they want to, proceed again, but this time much more carefully, ensuring that the content removed is not already sourced or very easily verifiable. I believe "recent Jewish-related mainspace edits" goes back to 10:34, December 18, 2019 at Jeff Shell (who Coffee removed from Category:Jewish American sportspeople along with the sourced content that he's been inducted into the Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame [15], and sources not in the article show he signed a public letter supporting a presidential candidate that began "We are writing as American Jews ..." [16], and was listed by Reuters among "Jewish A-Listers" who made donations to another presidential candidate [17]). – Levivich 22:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe that this is going a bit too far too quickly - putting the cart before the horse/"jumping the gun", as it were. Let's wait to see how consensus turns before moving to anything like this. In addition, it isn't in the normal business of AN to request anyone stop enforcing actual policies and guidelines. WP:CAT/R expressly requires more than one source as one source cannot be considered a consensus of sourcing, and WP:LISTVERIFY requires that each entry on a stand alone list must have inline citations. I also note that your portrayal of Coffee's removal from the Jeff Shell article was erroneous. You refer to JTA and Reuters whilst neglecting to mention that neither were in the article at the time of Coffee's edit. The Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame is not a reliable source.

With regards to comments above about Sergey Brin and Coffee's removal there: if such abundant sourcing existed for the claim, it should have been added back before adding back potential violations of WP:BLPCAT. The WP:BURDEN of providing sources is on the user who adds the content. It is also troubling that Debresser, who has a lengthy history of edit warring and blocks stemming from that, initiated an edit war over this rather than seeking consensus elsewhere first, even after I had given an explicit warning --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, is being Jewish contentious? Is that what BLP is referring to? A contentious issue is why Bill Cosby is no longer a spokesperson for Jello pudding pops, not this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it because pudding pops aren't kosher? EEng 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The hell they aren't! – Levivich 22:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, I respect your view that this is going too far too soon, and figured some editors might support Proposal 1 but not 2. Personally, I think the status quo ante should be restored while the time-intensive process of going through these more carefully carries on, but reasonable people can disagree. I don't want to get too far into the content-dispute aspect of this issue, but brief response to your specific points: On Jeff Shell, those sources don't need to be in the article at the time of Coffee's edits; there is no rule on Wikipedia that every statement without an inline citation must be removed on sight, and this is not a contentious statement. In the examples I posted above, I found those sources in less than a minute of searching, on the first page or two of search results. I dispute that the SoCal Jewish Sports HOF is not a reliable source, or at least not reliable for whether it's significant/DUE that someone in sports is Jewish. Being inducted into the "Foo Hall of Fame" is a pretty good indicator that someone belongs in Category:Foo. Same as to Sergey Brin; there were sources attesting to his Jewish identity, and more sources are very, very, easily available. As to Debresser, you are flat wrong that they initiated an edit war. Reverting an edit is not "initiating an edit war" (and it's a little scary honestly that an admin said this; I hope you're not blocking editors for this). Reverting is a normal part of the WP:BRD process. Debresser didn't edit war in either of the two articles in which they reverted Coffee. I did notice you made the same accusation on Debresser's talk page earlier, and I think you are very far off base in this characterization. One revert does not an edit war make. – Levivich 05:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support He can raise issues on talkpages of articles where he sees issues and, if necessary, user talkpages of editors, whom he sees as being less than careful about certain things. Also, he can ask for help in addressing issues at WikiProjects like WP:JUDAISM e.g. That is what he should have done, and I agree with the proposal to have his recent edits reverted and go about things this way, and in the light of things that have been explained to him on my talkpage and in this discussion. I saw only two edits to articles myself, but one was a mistake he admitted to himself, and the other I absolutely disagree with as being a misguided edit. Debresser (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC) I was just now shocked to see some of his edits above, especially the one that borders on incompetent editing. Removing Chomsky from a Jewish linguists list?! Debresser (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support especially considering that it's enforcing a guideline, NOT a policy and it's causing much too much concern and removing way too many false entries. As Debresser mentioned and I mentioned above, he can seek out help to remove those that need to be removed and get citations for those that need it. But Woody Allen being removed from a Jewish list? Come on, this isn't the way to do it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose although I am deeply concerned with Coffee's recent edits. I have spent significant time today trying to rebuild List of Jewish American authors, and I found many cases where excellent references verifying the listing were readily available in the biography, just waiting to be copied over. In other cases, the individual just came from a "Jewish family" but had no known involvement with Judaism during their careeer. So those writers should stay off the list. I am also troubled by the failure to differentiate between BLPs and biographies of people dead for decades, since our sourcing standards are more stringent for BLPs. I am troubled by any assertion that saying "Person A is Jewish" is contentious. That claim may be unsupported by references but there is nothing wrong with being Jewish. Calling someone a "dirty Jew" is actually contentious. Disclosure: I am Jewish and was married at a synagogue mentioned in this thread. I know that lists are articles but their content consists mostly of links to other articles where formatted references to support inclusion on a list are often readily available. There are two approaches to unreferenced content: delete indiscriminately in rapid-fire fashion, or make a good faith effort to provide references before considering deletion. The second approach is the one that truly improves the encyclopedia. Instead of reverting everything, Coffee should use individualized editorial judgment to fix the mess, and should stop editing like a human rubber stamp. I have spent a lot of time today trying to fix part of the mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not Jewish, and I think much of the difficulty here lies in that it can be easy to percieve some sort of Triple parentheses going on in these lists and categories. I see no easy solution, case-by-case is at least doable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, but that is complete baloney in the vast majority of these cases. Have you actually looked at a representative sample of the affected articles? If so, name a few where your implication applies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I was trying anything, but I do think there are readers (perhaps also editors) who will see pretty much any cat/list of Jews as some sort of Triple parentheses attempt. Of course, WP can't "do it" from that position. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

So life in 2020 means that people's Jewish identities need to be suppressed and concealed for our own good? Quite frankly, I find that insulting, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading what I think I am writing. I'll try it this way: People will at times find stuff they don't like on WP. Often them not liking it is no reason for WP to change it, but it can cause trouble and yelling anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The solution to that cannot possibly be to wreak havoc on Jewish categories and lists, can it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Case-by-case seems a better if slower way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I think Coffee has been engaged in some much needed application of our policies and guidelines. In these times in which people are being targeted because of their religion or ethnicity, I think we must be very strict about the verifiability of religious and ethnic identity, even if that means erring on the side of temporarily removing people from lists and categories until the community is satisfied that reliable sources are available and that identifying an individual by religion, ethnicity or similar categories improves the encyclopedia without endangering the individual. - Donald Albury 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Donald Albury, you’re saying we should remove Allen Ginsberg from a list of Jewish poets for his safety??? Or remove Sergey Brin’s Jewish identity from his article ... to protect his safety??? Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t identify Jews as Jews in order to protect Jews? Where does this insane paternalistic RIGHTGREATWRONGS come from??? I mean what the hell did you guys read at OTRS that made you come to this conclusion? – Levivich 13:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Personally I think we should do all we can to ensure that knife-wielding lunatics can build their target lists with confidence. EEng 22:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. We wouldn't want anyone accidentally stabbing a gentile. – Levivich 00:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  That is not a fair characterization of this at all. If anything, we're trying to be sure that even people who are Jewish but don't want that to be part of their public identity aren't placed on a list or otherwise described (in a way that you seemingly understand could be used for targeting). I think we've always tried to only state someone's religious affiliations if they have self-identified or if a consensus of sources covers them that way, and to me that wasn't at all being applied in many of these cases (or at the very least, enough sources making that clear weren't there). If people wish to be described as Jewish (in the case of Brin in particular it seems from the sourcing you found that he does) then I'm all for including that on their article (and Brin already has a pretty good personal security team, due to his role at Google). Otherwise, I do indeed think a question of personal safety comes into play here. I find it entirely facetious to claim we want to create lists to help people be targeted, when the opposite is what is intended with these removals. Attacks on Jewish people have been on the rise, but even if we were discussing another religion being overly applied to article descriptions I would still think we need to apply the correct policies as written. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  So, as a threshold issue, the whole "personal safety" rationale for your edits would not apply to any of your edits that weren't to BLPs. This is why I agree with Cullen about wikilawyering. Among your "last 3" discussed above was someone who died two years ago; his personal safety is no longer a concern. Your edit summary on another of the 3 basically made the point that well, he was married by a rabbi, but that doesn't necessarily mean he identifies as Jewish... and I guess I can see that argument, although, you know, you might be a Jew if you're married by a rabbi. But aside from that, by the logic that we should, in some way, tighten the sourcing criteria for identifying someone as Jewish in order to reduce the number of people who are identified as Jewish on Wikipedia, in order to protect those people from being targeted by violent antisemites... the end result of doing this will be that, for any violent antisemite who is using Wikipedia as a way to identify potential victims, you have simply made the pool of victims smaller and more accurate. I suggest that while your aims are noble, your methods have not been fully thought through, and you know, Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs. – Levivich 02:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I fully understand how identifying someone who has died 2 years ago will not risk their safety, I will contend though that it could risk the safety of those around them... of course that's mostly a concern to me if their family is named in their article (or even if not, if their family is well known in any form). As to Mayer's article in particular, since his children weren't named the issue there was just that I literally couldn't see in the sourcing provided that he did identify that way... that's after even reading through the giant amount of text he personally wrote about composers for the NYT. If you are aware of sourcing backing up the claim, do feel free to re-add it. To your other point, yes, you might be Jewish if you have a rabbi marry you, but we don't actually know that as rabbis can and have presided over mixed ceremonies. In my eyes, it is best to wait for a source that actually states such a description, so we can be sure it's accurate. For your final point, I mostly think to some degree the lists overall present such issues but we don't have a policy that seems to allow them to be deleted outright... so what I had to go with was removing anything not sourced so that at least we might be getting closer to listing people who personally are fine with self-identification as Jewish (or at least who are aware they might be getting identified that way). Obviously as I said in my edit summaries while editing such lists, I didn't look through the other ones provided yet so I don't know if those sources indicate the person wanted to identify that way. As far as making it easier for targeting, I get what you're saying but still disagree. I think if we only cover people who want to be publicly identified as Jews we then at least don't run the risk of stating people are who don't want to be known that way. In my eyes if someone wants to publicly self-identify as such, then they accept the risks with such a self-identification (that's not at all to say those risks should be there, it's just a current fact of how violent lunatics have acted throughout history)... if they don't publicly self-identify that way we are putting them into a level of risk they might not have considered. I know we're not here to right great wrongs, but I think we all come here to do what we do the best we can. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per baby/bathwater, and per proposer. ——SN54129 14:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Cullen's comments, it is a good chance to fix them first and then replace them. I don't think a user that has removed content on BLP concerns and policy concerns would or should themselves be instructed to revert those edits.Govindaharihari (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. Guy (help!) 00:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There are only two options here: or revert or not revert. "Not revert and hope that Coffee will review his many edits and improve articles" is not one of the options here. So all those who say with Cullen that that is what should be done, should revisit this question. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I was originally in 2 minds about whether mass removals was the best option here. I've changed my mind though. As I expressed earlier, it's been a clear requirement that lists of living persons need to have inline citations for a long time now. I find it extremely unfortunate that experienced editors don't seem to be familiar with this requirement.

  I find it even more unfortunate that now it's been pointed out to them, rather than accepting that and working on fixing the problems, editors are arguing over whether it matters etc.

  I don't give a damn if a list says someone is Jewish, Chinese, Malay, Catholic, Muslim, a Scientologist, American, British, Kiwi, a businessperson, a poet, in media, in real estate, an All Black, a pornographic actor, a murderer or whatever else, it's a problem that needs to be fixed. We can debate the best way to fix it, we should not be debating the need to fix it. Yes, a list calling someone a pornographic actor let alone one calling someone a murderer is a much more urgent problem, but this doesn't meant the other cases don't need fixing.

  If editors here had clearly accepted there was a problem and agreed to work on it over the next few weeks or months, I may have supported mas reversion. But that isn't what happened so mass removals seem to be the only solution so that editors work on fixing the problem rather than ignoring it.

  Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @Nil Einne: Can you quote where it says that all BLP list entries must have inline citations? I do not see that at WP:MINREF. WP:LISTPEOPLE, or WP:BLP. What page have I missed? Thanks. – Levivich 05:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Levivich: A worthy question. As far as I'm aware that requirement is at WP:LISTVERIFY, and it doesn't just apply to material about living people. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      Coffee, LISTVERIFY does not say that all BLP list entries must have inline citations. That's why I asked for a quote. There is no such policy as far as I can see. LISTVERIFY gives the same four situations that MINREF provides–the same four you quoted in a table above. "All BLP list entries" is not one of the four criteria. The four, as far as I know, are the only four kinds of statements that require an inline citation. That Noam Chomsky (to take one example) is a Jewish American linguist does not require an inline citation, because it is not a statement that is (1) a direct quote, (2) challenged, (3) likely to be challenged, or (4) contentious. Unless, of course, you are actually challenging whether or not Chomsky is Jewish, American, or a linguist. So, I'm going to put him back on the list, without an inline citation, unless you're genuinely going to challenge that he belongs on that list. And I assume you'd be OK with that, because that is policy compliant. Yes? – Levivich 06:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      @Levivich: Yes. But might I say, adding it back without an inline citation is not really that great of an example for us to set. Would you mind me going to look for an inline citation and adding it back with one? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      And  Done [18]. Since he is a living person I made sure to find two fully reliable sources that state this before re-adding it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      Coffee, sure, but might I suggest Barsky, Robert F. (2007). The Chomsky Effect: A Radical Works Beyond the Ivory Tower. MIT Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0262026246. – Levivich 06:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

      GMTA :-) Thank you – Levivich 06:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: You'd note I specifically avoided the term policy or guideline when I discussed the requirement. It's been clear, since if you make a complaint at BLPN about a list lacking in-line citations, the solution is to find cites and remove any that lack them. It hasn't been to ignore the problem, and pretend it doesn't exist.

But if you want to get technical, by definition if someone removes or complains about something, it has been challenged. But also, you can pretty much assume when you make a claim about a living person being something and you completely lack any inline citations to demonstrate it, it is likely to be challenged by someone at some stage if you leave it around for long enough.

I'd also note that BLP is clear that contentious doesn't mean the information is negative, which a bunch of people seem to be assuming. Something positive or neutral can be contentious. I mean, I'm sure a bunch of people would consider Donald Trump being a business person or real estate developer as contentious, not because they consider these are bad things, but because they claim he was so bad at it it's not an accurate label. A recent example not involving a list is Bruce Pascoe. His claims of having indigenous Australian heritage seem contentious to some. It's not because anyone involved in the dispute claims there's anything negative about such a heritage, in fact if anything the opposite.

The final issue of course is that we should never rely on reader's personal knowledge. Perhaps it is true that for most people, Noam Chomsky being a Jewish American linguist is not something they would challenge or they would consider contentious. But there are always going to be readers who have never heard of whatever person in the list, and so would have no idea whether the claim is true, and so would reasonably challenge it and consider it contentious.

We should never tell readers to check out a non RS to verify something, especially not about a living person. And if the only citation in an article, for a claim about a living person is wikilink, then that's what we are telling them to do. It does not matter if the non reliable source itself has reliable sources to support the claims.

I've mentioned before in relation to other things that despite our ideals, mass removals of content is often disruptive. But this doesn't change the requirement that material that is contentious or likely to be challenged should have inline citations. For pretty much any case, but especially for BLPs, the ultimate solution to any dispute about uncited content is not to try and claim you do not need inline citations but find a fucking source and cite it.

Again, we can debate the best way to handle historic problems occurring either when we were a lot more lax, or by new editors. But it's seriously disturbing that experienced editors seem to think it's acceptable to have zero inline citations when making a claim about a living person. Find a fucking source and add it. Don't claim you don't need them. I can entertain WP:SKYISBLUE debates about ordinary stuff, but not about claims about living people.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

First, I acknowledge I've used the wrong term. The key criterion is not so much that the are inline citations, but there are citations in the article/list. There should normally be inline citations. But if this was a dispute over a list where there was citations for the people in the list, but they just weren't inline, I could perhaps see some disagreement over whether these citations need to be moved inline. That said, I find such arguments fairly silly, since again, the easiest solution is simply yes, do move them inline. Maybe more importantly, the problem with no inline citations in lists, is it tends to get very difficult to verify whether there is actually a citation for someone. There may be rare exceptions e.g. if a list is a duplicate of some other RS list, or if a list is organised by RS e.g. List of people who lick cats has an "According to the NYT October 2019 list, According to the BBC January 2020 list". But those cases are few and far between. In cases where a list has multiple sources, if they aren't inline it's difficult to tie each person to one of the sources.

In any case, while I apologise for confusion over my using the wrong term, all this seems moot since AFAIK this is not the case here. None of the lists has a bunch of sources for each person which simply aren't inline. The sources may exist, but in another article or need to be found, i.e. potentially citable but not cited where it matters i.e. in the list where we are making the claim. That is a clear problem. We need a source in the list. It does not matter if the sources exist somewhere, or somewhere else. I would add that while I concentrated on lists, in reality what I said applies to any article. If you add a claim about some living person to some other article without a source, there's a fair good chance it will be reverted no matter if it's not particularly contentious. If you try to fight this by claiming that there's a source in the wikilinked article on the subject, you'll rightfully be frowned upon. Most editors will find the source from the wikilinked article and add it for you, but if you keep doing it to multiple articles, expect to receive some unwelcome attention. Again, I find it disturbing if this is news to any experienced editor.

Anyway, I had a quick look and some previous discussions I found are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive85#List of Jewish American entertainers/List of Jewish actors (funnily enough this was the first result the first time I search although it seems to vary between this and the next), Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive103#List of Hispanic and Latino Americans, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive187#Cosplay, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive85#List of Unification Church members, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive103#British ethnicity lists, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive89#People sometimes described as Scientologists who deny they are Scientologists and especially the later discussion, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive293#List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive187#List of people who escaped from prison and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 28#List articles according to religion or sexuality. I've tried to be fair and include any discussion I found that seemed relevant i.e. where the issue got some discussion even if there wasn't a clear consensus so have included some cases where the identification may be more controversial. (I didn't include cases where there was only discussion over how to handle highly controversial lists like people convicted of a crime without reference to general norms that I saw.) I would note that I also excluded most cases where IMO the discussion started off from the assumption that every entry needs a citation, and no one challenged that. As I said, there isn't always clear consensus but the general tone is IMO clearly that the lists need sources within the list. These normally should be inline.

I think most editors would apply this to lists of non living persons as well, but I'm purposely excluded them from the discussion. Such problems are understandably generally seen as less urgent and I did not want to distract from my main point namely poor BLP practice of thinking it's okay to make a claim about someone in an article (which includes a list) simply because there is a source in some other article or you're sure it exists. And again, I acknowledge we do unfortunately have many lists with poor practice. I'm not suggesting we start mass removing people from every one of them. However we do need to fix them at some stage. And more importantly, we should not be continuing the problem by claiming it is okay. I don't encourage WP:POINTY edits e.g. removing someone where you don't think it's contentious and don't wish to challenge it, nor for that matter adding someone back without sources this to prove there are cases where it won't be challenged or contentious, nor removing such re-additions etc etc.

P.S. Mostly OT but I did find Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive89#Is it appropriate to add unsourced information to articles on BLPs ? which included Jimbo Wales arguing IMDb was an okay source, funny.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo Wales, and disagree with Cirt, in that 2010 conversation, particularly Jimbo's Rain Man example:

You are claiming that when we mention that a certain actor was in Rain Man (with a source which proves that fact) we can't say, for reader context, that Rain Man was a hit film, without finding a source for that particular claim? That this obviously true statement, positive about the subject of the article, should be removed? That linking to our article on Rain Man is not sufficient? ... Policy backs me up 100% here: [quotes from WP:V] ... That Rain Man was a hit film is not challenged nor likley to be challenged. Neither is it in any way "contentious". Insisting that every fact in a BLP be sourced is absolutely without precedent in policy.

But fundamentally, while–sure–it's better to have a source than not to have a source (at least on the page, not necessarily inline), it is not better remove (to take one example) Noam Chomsky from a list of Jewish American linguists, than to leave the entry there even if it's unsourced. That leaves the list article in much worse shape than before. Better to have Chomsky on there unsourced than to not have him there at all (because not having him there makes the other list entries WP:UNDUE, and presents our readers with wildly inaccurate information). Removing an unsourced entry because it doesn't have an inline citation–if it's not a WP:MINREF statement–is neither a good idea nor supported by policy, especially when done on a mass basis. – Levivich 17:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose 350 edits might sound like a lot, but there are more than enough active editors around to watch those edits, and, if necessary, change something. I already fixed one of Coffee's edits (to Johnny Marks, uncontroversially I believe), and I agree with Cullen that from here forward the emphasis should be on adding impeccable sources, rather than wholesale deletion. StonyBrook (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think references are in order, but the manner chosen by Coffee is absurdly harsh and completely unnecessary. Noam Chomsky is perhaps the most egregious example. No one is challenging it (or should expect it to be challenged). It isn't contentious. And it's most certainly true. It's also CLEARLY references on the linked page that he's Jewish...NO ONE is contesting it. So, we're left with the justification we should remove content from lists because there isn't an inline citation reference or that it isn't 100% clear. If we're going to endorse such behavior, we're going to start deleting a large chunk of Wikipedia. The requirement is that there is a source. If it's mentioned in the linked page, that's sufficient for a list, IMHO. If there's someone on the list who ISN'T Jewish, that would be contentious. If there's some question, then I could understand asking for a reference. But coming in and making such sweeping changes without discussion or an attempt to ask for sources (and give time for cleanup) on such a benign topic is absurdly pedantic. Adding tags would have been more appropriate. Buffs (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support The relevant policy is WP:POINT. I think its clear from the discussion above that the overwhelming numbe of instances wouldjustify inclusion on the lists, so the more rational course is to restore them, and go from there. Individual instances can be challenged individually. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Wow, an Arb that supports the replacement of unverified claims, some of which are about living people, and supports Proposal: Coffee self-reverts all his recent Jewish-related mainspace edits. forcing a user with good faith policy concerns to replace them and publish them to the www. @DGG: Perhaps you should be the one, why don't you be the one to do it then? Govindaharihari (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  If you think this involves unverified claims, you haven’t read the thread. – Levivich 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have read plenty of the thread to know there are unverified claims. If the new position is that anyone can be added to any list without a supporting link and it is to simply be assumed there is a link somewhere on this wiki that supports the claim and anyone that challenges the claim should be the one to do the investigations to find them then that seems like something we should clarify with a community discussion.Govindaharihari (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Repeating my reasoning for Proposal 1 above: WP:V says:

  Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

So maybe as material is restored {cn} tags might be added, but given that we're all here that should be decided here first. EEng 20:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Forcing anyone to self-revert their removal of challenged material is a fundamentally invalid proposal. Editors are, even legally, responsible for their additions to articles. Forcing anyone to add something to an article is incompatible with the responsibility requirement of Wikimedia's Terms of Use. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that, but anyways, somebody else can do the honors. The question is if the edits should be reverted or not. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• ToBeFree, I agree, but in this case, the material is not being challenged at all. Nobody is challenging that Florence Meyer Blumenthal, Isaias W. Hellman, Norman Cahners, Sergey Brin, Noam Chomsky, Allen Ginsberg, or Woody Allen are Jewish. It's not even unsourced. The entire point of this proposal is that, because of the high rate of false positives resulting from these mass removals, they should all be reverted, and then Coffee (or anyone else who wants to) should remove only those entries which are actually being challenged. – Levivich 19:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing that was unsourced on any of the lists was removed. The content has been challenged, that was why it was removed. If you or anyone else disputes the removals please cite the claim and replace them. This is not just about the lists Coffee felt to act on this is about all our lists in general, they all need the same treatment. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Govindaharihari, this isn't just about lists. I'm serious when I say, you have not been reading this thread closely enough. Of the articles I just linked to, the first four (Blumenthal, Hellman, Cahners, Brin) were articles where Coffee removed "Jewish" even though the information was sourced in the article, either inline or elsewhere. The remaining three (Chomsky, Ginsberg, Allen) were removed from lists, but their Jewish identity is not (and is not likely to be) challenged, so per WP:MINREF, there is no basis to remove them from lists just because they don't have an inline citation. If, in fact, someone where to challenge whether Chomsky, Ginsberg, and Allen, were Jewish, I would say that challenge would be made in bad faith, and would be disruptive, because those three are very famous for being Jewish. There may be other list entries that could be or even should be challenged, but along with those, many entries were removed (such as Chomsky, Ginbserg, and Allen) that are basically un-challengable. This is the reason why the edits should be reverted, and editors should start again, only removing those entries that they actually mean to challenge. – Levivich 19:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  If anyone believes that we should remove all unsourced entires from all lists across Wikipedia, they should start an RfC to see if there's consensus for doing so. They should not just unilaterally begin mass removals of list entries. Furthermore, if they do start unilaterally beginning mass removals of list entries, perhaps they could start with, say, lists of Pokemon, rather than lists of accomplished Jews. Is this really a lot to ask? – Levivich 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing is unchallengable if it is unverified at its location. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  No, that's not true. I cannot "challenge" that the earth is round, even if "the Earth is round" appears somewhere without an inline citation. For me to do so would be disruptive and in bad faith. And–again–the first four examples I just posted a couple comments above were verified in their location. – Levivich 19:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have not been through all Coffee's removals, I am sure they were all done in good faith though. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have been through some of them, and I've posted some examples to save you some time. Just a thought: maybe you could go through at least those examples before you oppose the proposal. – Levivich 20:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  I will never support the replacement of unverified names at source to any list once they are removed in good faith. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, there are plenty of lists that still have concerns and I support that we improve them as well but the fact is that these lists have been improved and that is great imo, we as editors should now work to expand them and keep then at a high quality. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  List of Jewish American linguists was not improved by removing Noam Chomsky. List of Jewish American poets was not improved by removing Allen Ginsberg. Etc. In each case, the lists were rendered incomplete and undue as a result of removing some of the most notable examples of the category. That's why they should be put back, and instead of mass-removing everything unsourced, editors should go one-by-one and either add {{cn}} tags or add a source, or removing only the ones they intend to actually challenge. – Levivich 20:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  List of Jewish American linguists was improved, Noam Chomsky is back there now loud and proud with two supporting links, that is an improvement and other names are being replaced with supporting links which is great. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Please don't be pedantic. That improvement isn't a result of the removal of Noam Chomsky. That's a result of his replacement after discussion between me and Coffee in this thread. Similarly, List of Jewish American poets has been improved by Cullen (thank you, Cullen), which in no way makes Coffee's removals proper. Again, if you think we should remove all unsourced entries and put it upon other editors to replace them with sources, start an RfC and see if that has consensus, because our current PAGs do not document any consensus for removing all unsourced entires (note Jimbo's comments about this very thing from ten years ago quoted above; note the language of WP:MINREF). I, for one, lament that Cullen has been spending his time sourcing the obvious, like that Allen Ginsberg is Jewish, when could have been doing something else somewhere else that would have been more productive. But of course it's every editor's choice how they spend their time. I don't think editors should be able to choose to spend their time removing all unsourced entries from Jewish lists. – Levivich 20:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, many thanks indeed to Cullen for any time he has spent working to improve these lists. When I have time I will look at a few and contribute also. 20:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Govindaharihari (talk)

  That's great, because there are almost 350 to go through, so we'll need Cullen, and you, and me, and a whole bunch of other people to spend a whole bunch of time going through all of them. Or, alternatively, these mass removals could be restored, and editors could just add a {{cn}} tag, or just remove the ones they actually intend to challenge, which would leave far fewer than 350 for other editors to go through. – Levivich 20:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  A high quality cited list with less names is an improvement in all ways imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Replace the material with a cite or start a discussion at the WP:V talkpage to amend the policy. Otherwise your continued advocating for replacing uncited material is a deliberate attempt to flout policy. If you continue to advocate for uncited material to be restored to article space I will look to have you sanctioned under the multiple discretionary sanctions that apply (BLP and I/P will apply to at many of the articles you want uncited information reverted to). Consider yourself warned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  no need for any warnings here, there has been no editwarring and only comments and discussion, all good. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: All information in lists should contain citations, this should especially apply in the case of BLPs policy supports the removal whole sale. Adding {{cn}} doesn't mitigate the BLP issues. The policy says that any information challenged may be removed, the information was challenged and removed. Great now go back and add sources and include the information. Additionally claiming someone is any religion with out a citation could be contentious in my opinion. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm commenting in my capacity as an individual OTRS agent, though not on behalf of the OTRS team. I've reviewed the relevant tickets concerning this matter, and while I obviously can't disclose their contents, I feel that the actions that were taken here are justified, and were an appropriate response to the OTRS tickets in question, and in line with relevant policies. Even if there is some disagreement here on whether Coffee's interpretation of policy is correct (I believe it is), I, like others, disagree that an editor should be made to reinsert material that has perceived BLP issues, and re-insertion of relevant material should be made carefully. As a sidenote, it worries me that several separate OTRS complaints from article subjects had to be made for this issue to be addressed, and as a community I feel we should reflect on the standards we hold and apply to our articles, not least of all BLPs, where we should be especially careful on enforcing the use of reliable sources. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Steven Crossin, do you believe that the relevant ORTS tickets justified the removal of deceased individuals from the lists discussed here? in particular, individuals who have been deceased for 20+ years?Dialectric (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - It doesn't look to me like most of these removals were made with much thought. Only a few seem to have been removing material that was controversial in any way. In most cases, the article text itself supported the identification, so I can't believe that mass removals were warranted. Krow750 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  I went to one of these lists to try to replace names with references and the first name random name Peter Achinstein I tried to replace I couldn't find a support for it, perhaps others can help, there was no support for the claim in the article either, that was the first place I looked and not finding support there I searched the www and couldn't find one there either. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Gov, for bringing this up because I think it's a great case study. Peter Achinstein was married by a rabbi in a Jewish temple and was faculty at Yeshiva University and Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but I haven't seen a source that explicitly says he is Jewish, or an explicit self-identification from him. While I can understand why someone might conclude he's Jewish, removing him from List of Jewish American philosophers seems like the right thing to do, absent clearer sourcing. And I'd have no objection if Coffee had removed him from the list.

  But along with Achinstein, Coffee removed 69 other entries from List of Jewish American philosophers, bringing it from 74 entries to 4 entries. The first eight entries removed (each of which had a photograph for the sidebar) were... (drumroll...)

  1. Judith Butler, whose Jewish identity is cited in her article to an interview in which she says "I am a nice Jewish girl ..." [19]
  2. Stanley Cavell's (d. 2018) Jewish identity is cited in his article to a book he wrote, where on p. 7 he writes, "As a Jew ..." [20]
  3. Noam Chomsky has been discussed to death already above
  4. Arthur Danto's obituary (d. 2013) in The Times of Israel [21] notes he was raised in a Reform Jewish home. Danto has been quoted as saying "I am completely Jewish." [22]
  5. Hubert Dreyfus (d. 2017) was a well-known philosopher. Here he's mentioned in a book published academic publisher Brill Publishers, entitled Jewish Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century: Personal Reflections. Here he is listed among Jewish philosophers in an "Introduction to the Study of Religion" published by EdTech Press.
  6. Paul Gottfried had a source in article titled "Paul Gottfried: Don't call me the 'godfather' of those alt-right neo-Nazis. I'm Jewish" [23]
  7. Joseph Margolis... reading his essay about his identity [24], I'm not sure whether or not he should be on the list or identified as Jewish in the article, since he says he identifies as "a Martian Jew".
  8. Michael Walzer's article is sourced to... a journal article, in the Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, entitled "Michael Walzer's Secular Jewish Thought" [25]

  So that's the first eight. Only after that do we get to Achinstein. Now, I could go through all 70 removals and see who's Jewish and who's not, but why should I have to? Why can't Coffee go through these, instead, and just remove the ones that aren't supported? In the meantime, our list of Jewish American philosophers makes it seem as if there are only four rather than seventy, and the four that are listed are the most notable, but it omits giants like Dreyfus and Chomsky. We are seriously misleading our readers. This is why I think all 70 should be put back, and then anyone who wants to can go through and challenge (remove) whichever entries they want to challenge. But not all 70 at once. – Levivich 18:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  and thank you Levivich for the links, I have returned these to the list with the links. I do feel your concerns but we can also look at this as an opportunity to create a quality well cited, unchallengeable list that will be immeasurably better than what was removed, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support reverting. I think removing the unsourced content (as Coffee did) is fine, but only if you know that the removed content was wrong. That was clearly not the case here. Almost all of the removed content was correct, at least in the list I checked. I think such removals would be defensible if the removed unsourced content was contentious or defamatory. But it was not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Cameron11598 above; plus, the milk is already spilled, let's clean it up properly. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I said above these lists are, and have always been, filled with masses of unverified (and often incorrect) information. The people who add names to these lists are typically unaware of WP:V, or feel lists are exempt from them, and will often add ridiculous entries based on their own beliefs on the subject, or (in the worst cases), attempts at yellow badging or triple parenthesising individuals. Even in this discussion, I see people who apparently believe WP:LISTVERIFY does not really apply if some other Wikipedia article happens to state the individual is Jewish. I've spent over a decade trying to get these lists to adhere to WP:LISTVERIFY, yet many of them are still mostly or completely unsourced. My recent absence from Wikipedia was prompted by these two all-too-typical reverts[26][27], followed by this warning on my talk page. Given the events of the not-too-distant past, Wikipedia should be particularly insistent that editors at least adhere to WP:V when it comes to Lists of Jews. Anyone wishing to revert User:Coffee should provide a reliable source for every name they re-add. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If these entries were tagged and then a reasonable amount of time went by, I agree they should be removed. This course of action guts Wikipedia from content. The good thing about unsourced statements is that they can be sourced by subsequent editors. I could take almost any article that is not a good article, and remove at least half of it. Is that what we want? Is that what we should do? I don't think so. Nor does the community think so. Likewise in this case. They should be added back into the content of Wikipedia, maximum with tags. That way we can improve this project, rather than maim it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

This kind of content is often incorrect, and typically remains unsourced for years. When I've tagged large numbers of these items in the past, I almost inevitably find that, several months later, none have been sourced. Removing (often WP:BLP violating) material from an article that has been unsourced for years does not "maim" an article, any more than tagging it, and coming back in several months to remove it (as you suggest in your comment). Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree with your statement that "this kind of content is often incorrect", based on the few articles Coffee had edited I reviewed before coming to this discussion, I had no problem sourcing them. A few editors have stated they are willing to help improve articles from the list. It will take a while, but I think that it is better to improve than to remove. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These lists had years (some even over a decade) to be fixed (and most had been tagged with references needed/unreferenced tags for at least several months), so I'm slowly getting tired of the hyperbole getting repeated here (ensuring we properly source our lists and articles isn't "maiming" our website). I also find it worrisome that no one has shown a reason to reintroduce the hundreds of removals I had to make of original research/synthesis/etc that were being used to make contentious claims on BLPs, (that had nothing to do with the lists at all...) yet are proposing or arguing for those to be re-added in a way that would absolutely contravene WP:BLPREMOVE (and no, finding sources in a few limited cases that weren't present in the articles during removal, does not make a logical argument for reintroducing hundreds of BLP violations... it merely is how the process on restoring challenged material is supposed to work: if there can be found multiple sources to verify the information, then it can be re-added).

The repetitive claim, that {{cn}} tagging is a permitted way around years old WP:V/WP:LISTVERIFY/WP:MINREF/WP:BLPRS/WP:CAT/R/WP:OR violations on contentious information, is also clearly erroneous. Literally zero of our polices say it is an approved practice to just tag contentious/challenged information regarding persons (especially living persons, which this proposal majoritively covers); whataboutism is not a substitute for actual policy.

Furthermore, there is not a single policy which permits challenged (via removal) information to be re-added to articles without proper sourcing (especially when that includes BLP violations), nor is there a policy that says 'a limited consensus at AN can change how our established policies on verification of challenged content are followed'... regardless of the fact that you and others here have been wholly unable to build any actual consensus.

If you or anyone else wants to change what our policies state (including but not limited to: WP:BURDEN's requirement that anyone restoring challenged material to our main space must provide a direct inline citation, or WP:STICKTOSOURCE which requires not just an inline citation but also a reliable source that directly and explicitly verifies the challenged claims), I suggest RFCs be opened at the relevant Wikipedia talk pages. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Since, as you claim, policies and guidelines don't support what editors here seem to want, then it must be a matter of common sense.

I repeat, you are welcome to bring egregious cases to my/our attention on my talkpage or at WT:JUDAISM, without flooding please, and we'll be happy to help out. Seeking help is what you should have done in the first place, rather than decide you know better what needs to be done than all the other editors who added information and/or left it in. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What the community of editors on this encyclopedia want has already been dictated by policy. If you don't like it, or think that the limited amount of editors here who have supported this proposal (who by no means can be considered to have made a consensus against the many that have opposed this proposal) have logical reasons to change the policies, go build an actual consensus to change them. Seeking confirmation that the policies were not being adhered to was exactly what was done before I took any of these steps, regardless of whether that was done via a venue you would prefer. Nowhere in our policies does it state enforcement of them has to be run through a WikiProject first (and especially when dealing with BLP violations); that isn't just common sense, it's common knowledge. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, I just went through above the first 8 on list of philosophers, not some random cherry pick, and the sources were in the articles when you removed them, and they weren't all BLPs, either. – Levivich 22:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

and also, please stop using the word contentious here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll use the word contentious anytime it applies; regardless of the fact that absolutely no one has bestowed to you the ability to tell others what to say on our site. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

sure, and being Jewish isn't contentious, it may be unverified it some instances. Further, I didn't tell you what to do, I asked you to stop using that term. No need to get snippy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first 8 on the list were not sourced directly with an inline citation, so that is not a convincing argument. Further, your proposal is not just to readd verification/undue/OR issues to articles and lists about dead people, the majority are most certainly alive. So, the cherry picked arguments about the lists (when you want to revert all edits including the hundreds to articles about living people) certainly do not convince me to add back hundreds of BLP violations (which as I'll state again, are the definite majority of the issue at hand). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, why can't you just add back the non-BLPs then? – Levivich 00:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The full question is: why can't you just add back policy violations to non-BLPs then? The answer to that is so obvious I'm not going to bother stating it. Our policies dictate what happens after unsourced or poorly sourced content is challenged: if proper sourcing can be found and presented clearly with inline citations, then contentious claims can be re-added. I see no reason to change that standard here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Jewish American authors - a case study

I appreciate the kind words in the section above about my contributions to rebuilding List of Jewish American poets but that was an accidental side effect, as it were, of my efforts to rebuild List of Jewish American authors after Coffee wreaked havoc on that list at 23:45 30 December 2019 (UTC).

Coffee was editing at a rapid clip at that time, spending only a few minutes each to devastate many Jewish American lists. In this case, he removed 145 authors from this list in a single edit. Let me make it perfectly clear that this list had unreferenced entries, as did the others, and clearly these lists need work. The question is what kind of work should editors be doing in such cases? Thousands of lists have similar problems and also need work. I am not opposed to doing that work myself as can be seen by my recent edit history which shows that I have spent most of my 2020 editing so far trying to rebuild this particular list. I have added 71 authors back to that list, all with references and many with two references. I have devoted a lot of research time and mental energy to save this list the right way, as I have done with at least one other major list in the past.

Coffee is quite fond of quoting cherrypicked sections of policies and guidelines over and over again, presumably under the theory that if an argument is not persuasive the first time, he can convince other editors by repeating the argument verbatim seven times. I don't know about the rest of you, but that tactic does not work for me. Let me quote a portion of our core content policy Verifiability, which offers some very wise advice that should inform any further discussion of this fiasco.

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Coffee's edits to Jewish American lists were as if that first sentence contained the word "must" instead of "may", and as if none of those other sentences had been written, debated and accepted as policy. It was almost as if he was a bot operating under the simpleminded algorithm "no reference for list entry = deletion mandatory". Consider the horrifying damage that such indiscriminate deletionism causes. With a single mouseclick, Coffee eliminated Nobel prizewinner Isaac Bashevis Singer, Pulitzer prizewinner Bernard Malamud, Pulitzer prizewinner Herman Wouk, and Chaim Potok, an Orthodox rabbi who wrote a smash bestselling novel The Chosen, which became a Hollywood movie. He also removed very well known American Jewish women authors Gertrude Stein and Susan Sontag. All these writers are dead so there are no BLP concerns. There is no need to provide a reference that the clear daytime sky is blue or that Paris is the capital of France or that the apple is a fruit, because those facts are self-evident to intelligent people. Similarly, it ought to be self-evident to anyone with even a passing familiarity with 20th century American literature that those six highly notable Jewish American writers should not have been removed with a single mouseclick. The best solution would have been for Coffee to provide those references himself. That is precisely what I have done. The second best solution would have been to add "citation needed" tags. The third best solution would have been to do nothing and move on, since these claims are self-evidently true to intelligent editors at all familiar with the topic, and there were better things for Coffee to do at the time. Instead, Coffee chose the worst possible "solution", mass deletion of those writers by a single click of a button.

When criticized, Coffee responded with elaborate wikilawyering replete with his usual repetitiveness. Questions were met with evasiveness, dogmatic pedantry, and an insistence that his radically deletionist edits were somehow mandated by policy, and intended to protect "the Jews". In my opinion, Coffee has shown himself not competent to edit Jewish topics, or any type of list. I will leave it to uninvolved editors to craft a specific solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"Devastate". "Quite fond of". "Worst possible". A large wall of redundant text complaining about "elaborate wikilawyering". Not helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your criticism of my style of writing, ToBeFree, but would even more appreciate you engaging with the substance of the issue in a positive way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my comment didn't help either. I just find this hard to watch, as one point of complaint appears to be the length of some responses. If I understand correctly, your position is already clear and many editors are in support. No need for a long essay to be added, it seems, at least if it is full of biased terms. Those who disagree have already voiced disagreement, those who agree have already voiced agreement. This should not end with a long accusative essay by one main participant of the dispute. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

My initial comments were made in the very early stages of evaluating the magnitude of the problem, and before working several days to fix it. I thought that more informed commentary would be useful at this point, as well as a progress report. Please let us know what work you are also doing to improve list articles, ToBeFree, and thank you for your contributions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen328, this is a good case study. Coffee removed ~ 145 unsourced names from the list. Over a four day period you sourced and added back ~ 76, slightly more than half. In the nine days since, you've added 0 names to this list, and 0 names to any other of the lists Coffee removed names from. You know why? Because it's boring, tedious work to actually source stuff, so you moved on to things you liked doing better. It's easy to say "these people are obviously Jews, and it's easy to source them", but it's very time-consuming and dull to actually do it. Persi Diaconis and Michael Freedman, both living people, were on List of Jewish American mathematicians from the second it was created in 2005 until Coffee removed it 2019, over 14 years unsourced. Are they Jewish? I don't know, and there aren't any sources in the List or their individual articles that state they are. Had Coffee not removed them, I suspect they would have stayed on the lists unsourced for another 14 years. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Discussion at WP:THQ#Two articles for the same individual

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ#Two articles for the same individual. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Would an admin mind taking a look at this Teahouse question and check that I didn't give an incorrect answer or otherwise make things out to be more complicated than they need to be. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I have roughly merged the two articles. Although one article was newer than the other it contained significantly more content so I merged into that article. The answer you gave at THQ was very good, but I think you could have left out the parts about history merges because it complicated the answer and it is rarely possible anyway. Best — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do that Martin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That particular issue has been dealt with. However, there was also another issue at the Teahouse at about the same time that looks similar but is different, and that is two articles that appear to be about the same individual, but are about different individuals with the same name who can be confused. In the case in point, it had to do with two individuals named John Shields in the same line of work, as chefs. What I will repeat is that it is very important to be sure that two people with the same name or similar names either are the same person or are different persons. This situation comes up frequently at Articles for Creation, and usually it involves two articles on the same person, either by the same editor or by different editors. However, occasionally there can be confusion because two different people in the same line of work have the same name. My only conclusion is use care. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS

A month ago I closed an ANI thread which was a mixture of behavioral concerns and content concerns. That thread reached no consensus of sanctions against any editor but did arrive at a strong consensus for how to handle the content dispute - by conducting a formal Request for Comment (RFC). Basically by default I have found myself as an uninvolved sysop attempting to see through the ANI consensus and mediate a way towards an RfC. We are at a moment where additional editor attention would be helpful and in some cases essential to this process. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS RfC

• The discussion has been voluminous despite only a half dozen or so editors, including myself, participating. (Fun fact, with a hat tip to EdJohnston, but the discussion is longer than AN and ANI combined). I should have worked harder to limit this output from all participants (including myself).
• Most editors who have been participating in the process have gravitated towards this RfC question (option 1) and format with the belief that only minor changes are necessary before launching. Tryptofish feels that the other RfC format will not be successful and has offered an alternative (option 2) which so far has not garnered any support from participating editors. If you wish to comment about either RfC and/or the potential launch of Option 1 here is probably the best place to go.
• Note there is an ongoing RfC

According to the ANI close this should be done by an uninvolved sysop. While I remain uninvolved someone with fresh eyes agreeing that the RfC is neutral would be for the best, in my opinion and so I am looking for that uninvolved sysop. Additionally, I would love to line-up an experienced and capable editor (or panel of 3) and who would be willing to act as closer(s) at the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I can act as a closer (or be a member of the panel). I am totally uninvolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Sorry, got unexpected real-life emergency issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there no chance the differences between Tryptofish and others can be resolved without a lot more participation? Might an approach where Tryptofish highlights one part of the proposal and explains how they would change it and why, and the participants discuss this and try to come to an understanding work? Or has this been tried and didn't work or is not possible since Tryptofish feels the nature of their concerns mean they can only be understood by changing the whole RfC? In any case, Doc James seems to be one of the biggest proponents of one "side" and Colin and to some extent SandyGeorgia the other. Are they at least all on board with the current proposed RfC? This doesn't guarantee the RfC will work or product a clear outcome and I'm no means suggesting other's views aren't also very important, but it would I think reduce concerns that the RfC may have ended up one-sided. P.S. Other participants highlighting a part of Tryptofish's RfC proposal and how they will change it an why is another possibility but since it sounds like there is significantly more support for option 1, it makes more sense in the other direction IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the differing proposals, I understand why what I suggested probably isn't going to work as it is indeed a difference in how the RfC should be approached that affects the whole RfC so I've struck that suggestion. IMO "option 1" doesn't preclude something like Tryptofish's proposal in the future. I already sort of said this yesterday but IMO if most editors feel a more open ended approach is preferred, it may be better to let them try provided they understand that sometimes it just means limited participation and also no clear outcome, and there is probably no way to word an RfC to prevent that. And so it's possible this RfC will provide little help in drafting the 2nd RfC and in addition, the 2nd RfC may also have depressed participation. And in the mean time, the issues will be unresolved and likewise any concern they have over articles, as the moratorium/embargo may remain if there's no clear direction of the community. Of course it is also possible there will be a clear result from the first RfC maybe not even requiring a second 2nd RfC or at least convincing everyone of the right course of action for articles before it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The first RFC is laughably POV. I find very little chance that it will be NPOV before it is launched. Trypto was only being fair when they explained that it will probably end in failure due to this POV, for which they were threatened with interventions. When Barkeep talks of most editors they are mostly talking about the ones who have not been bludgeoned out of the discussion, which are two on one of side of the argument and another paid to be on Wikipedia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't share your view that the first RfC is biased towards a specific point of view. In fact, I think it may be trying too hard to just present examples without going through the pros and cons of how the data is presented. I suspect most people who aren't highly familiar with the competing concerns will just take a cursory look at the text and give a gut-feel reaction, which won't help move the discussion forward.

On a more general note regarding multi-phase discussions: the sticking point for many Wikipedia decision-making discussions is maintaining engagement from a broad set of editors in order to establish a true broad consensus view. There are a few issues that have addressed through multiple phases of discussion, such as pending changes (for example, Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012) and the request for administrative privileges process (for example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC and Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform). Even with these highly popular topics, the degree of involvement by the community diminished as the phases went by. For topics with fewer interested parties, it can be a challenge to ensure there is enough input at the end to determine an unassailable result. The benefits of expediency need to be weighed against the advantages of gaining more information to better shape discussion.

That being said, sometimes it is necessary to have a workshop phase to collect data and work through ideas, refining them further. Establishing a consensus view requires patience. isaacl (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaacl, you're correct that I'm going a bit out of my way to make the question feel neutral, even though the two sides aren't really equal in the type or strength of their arguments. Also, on some points, there just aren't two sides. For example, the price given in the first example is mathematically incorrect. Despite the recent request from User:AlmostFrancis to hear the other side, ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal the price in the first example. There is no other side here: everyone already agrees that it's impossible to multiply three numbers together and end up with a prime number. That said, I don't really want people to go into the RFC looking at trivial points like the occasional typo in a price, or with nothing but vague enthusiasm for Doing Something, without helping us figure out what can and should be done. I want editors to think about the important points: What claims do we think this database can support? We need to re-check all of this anyway (see: typos), and we might as well make any other recommended changes at the same time. I'm thinking that we need to invite the data geeks and stats folks to this phase, so we can talk about what is realistically possible with this database.

But to do that, we need to actually get the RFC open, and ANI said that we need an uninvolved admin to opine that it's neutral enough before we can start an RFC. If any admin would please look at it and express an opinion (either way!), that would be really helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Note I didn't use "neutral", as that is tangential to my view. I think it would be helpful to actually go through a list of the advantages and concerns for each example, so potential commenters can be made aware of them up front. I strongly suspect that all key issues have already been identified and so as I see it, the goal is to gather viewpoints on how to best manage these considerations. I believe there will be more engagement with an explicit list of items to consider. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, and you aren't an admin, which ANI required for this bureaucratic step. We've been talking about it. The identified problems in those lists (not all of which apply to any given statement, of course) is lengthy, policy-focused, overwhelming, and damaging. And, yes, the group has identified valid problems, and everyone's already agreed that some of these truly are problems, but I think that the overall effect of listing all the problems at the top would be running down one side unfairly, because the "pro" side is pretty much left with little to say beyond apologizing for not magically having done a perfect job on the first try at an unexpectedly complex task. I don't think that will *feel* neutral, even if it technically is.

The problem with your suggestion in terms of what I want to learn is that if I post a list of identified problems, I won't find out what's right, or what could be done right, or which categories of problems seem most salient to editors. I'll just get a bunch of editors dumping drive-by vote on the page that say little more than "Me, too, because All True Editors are always opposed to all problems". What I need is editors saying, "Okay, maybe that first effort wasn't perfect, but this is complicated, and let's see how we can build on it. Do we need WP:INTEXT attribution for that database? I think you should try..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that the pro side is just apologizing for flaws; there are reasons why people support certain ways of presenting the data, such as conciseness and use of (I know, hotly disputed behind the scenes) standard dosages. Just because they're not perfect doesn't mean they don't have advantages. I just think it's asking too much for commenters to replicate the analyses that have already been done to isolate key issues, rather than just getting them to grapple with the issues and work on ideas to deal with them. I agree that this is better discussed elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

There are good arguments for including information about money. (I've made them for years and years now.) There are no good arguments for reading a source that gives you the average unit price for a single country and writing on Wikipedia that the one country's price is the price throughout the entire developing world. Although that has happened in some articles, it did not happen because someone sat down one day and said, "You know what? The best thing for Wikipedia would be for me to take this single data point about 1% of the world's population, and claim that it's how things are for 80% of the world's population, because concision matters more than accuracy". These were not intentional choices. Nobody was trying to do that. Editors were just trying to do their best, with the limited resources they had at that particular moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding one sides original research to the background section isn't neutral. Using one example as a basis for judging the entire group isn't neutral. The tone of the background is that something "serious must be done" which is not neutral. Of course you can multiply three numbers and get a prime number in fact every prime number has an infinite number of inverse pairs they can be multiplied by to make a prime number AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Noticing that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 is not "one sides original research". Everyone else has already agreed that is just plain incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And do the links you added only say ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845}$ does not equal 27.77 or do they have more text and research at them? Are you claiming the research wasn't done by one side of the debate? Are you claiming you are not using this research to implie the prices are broadly incorrect in the background text? Are you ever going to explain what prime numbers have to do with anything?AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

2,777 is the 404th prime number. If you multiply three numbers and end up with a prime, you should check your work. I cannot imagine why you would even bother trying to defend this error. Anyone with a calculator can discover that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=27.675}$. That's what should have been in the article, not $27.77, assuming you're going to use that database record with that method.

I don't know which links you're talking about, but I can tell you that multiple people, on at least three different pages, over the space of two months, have been begging for examples of high-quality, well-sourced drug prices in our articles, and nobody has been able to find a single example in any article about a small-molecule generic drug that held up under even a moderate amount of scrutiny. I wrote originally that many (N.B.: "many", not "all" or "most") of the examples in a specific list were "outdated or otherwise incorrect". Doc James changed the statement later, but I'm still comfortable with what I wrote. Feel free to prove me wrong by showing that all (or almost all) of the examples in that specific list are both up to date and also entirely accurate. Even providing a single really solid example of the ideal way to source and describe this type of content would be helpful. Nobody else has been able to do it yet, but you seem to be really confident that it can be done.

BTW, when you're talking about "sides", you really ought to count me on the pro-inclusion side. I've been encouraging the inclusion of a wide variety of financial content in medical articles for many years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually anyone with a calculator would know that ${\textstyle 5\times 30\times 0.01845=2.7675}$ not 27.675. Also if you could tell me how ${\textstyle 5\times 10\times .1=5}$ is wrong I would appreciate it. Or are you saying that 5 is not a prime number? AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: If you're still looking to line up some help closing, I'd be willing to be part of a panel if you need me. I haven't participated in the previous RfC and don't have plans to participate in the upcoming one. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, so far no one has raised their hand and I appreciate you doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

A problem of logic: the ANI concluded that a) we needed an RFC on pricing, and b) we needed an admin to concur it was neutral before launch. In the course of looking for an example of an article with policy-compliant drug pricing (excluding NOTPRICE) that could be used in that RFC, separate problems were uncovered, such that no example was found, leading to this different RFC, to be followed by that RFC on pricing in general. We posted to the No Original Research noticeboard, and got not a single response about the concerns raised, hence we need to go to the community for feedback. We have a problem that has to be sorted by the community regardless of what we eventually do with that RFC on pricing. This RFC is not that RFC, and interpreting the ANI to read that we can not now or ever independently address a separate issue without meeting the "neutral admin" requirement is overly strict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Conduct concerns around MOS:MED and WP:MED

In the last month I have witnessed sincere efforts by all involved to put the past aside and work together. Despite these efforts, what had been a fragile peace immediately following the ANI discussion has not held. Over the last 10 days or so there have been a steady number of behavioral concerns brought forward by a number of editors about any number of other editors. We're at a point where some sanctions are probably required and I have directed the two most recent people towards WP:Arbitration Enforcement. However, not all the misconduct is of the type that fits with the strengths of AE which is why an Arbitration Case has been mooted by multiple people. I write here in the hopes that can be avoided either through additional uninvolved sysops taking interest in the topic or through community discussion and consensus to resolve the conduct concerns. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wish for Wikipedia discussions to be friendly and objective. All sorts of editors, including newcomers, should feel welcome and invited at Wikipedia. There is a negative and antagonistic environment at WikiProject Medicine right now which I wish to reduce to eliminate. I want people to express themselves in a positive way and avoid expressing themselves in a negative way. There is no particular Wikipedia protocol for determining what is a good versus bad environment, but I wish we had one, and I wish that we could apply it. As a human I can identify words which are negative and hostile, and I can see when certain user accounts use those words more frequently, and it might be the case that some user accounts use hostile negative word choices very frequently in many conversations. I wish that such accounts could get guidance to be more objective and less emotional, because Wikipedia discussions ought to be on the basis of merit of the arguments and not on emotional rhetoric. I appreciate Barkeep49's mediation here, but the situation is growing. If we were all together in a physical workplace then the human resource department would bring in a social worker to provide emotional mediation at this point. We have no such equivalent in place in Wikipedia and I wish that we did. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh, I have almost the opposite view. There's been a certain amount of bickering. That should have been expected, since this is a family fight. But I've found good information and good views, and I'd say that on average, the more "emotional" the editor, the more useful feedback they gave me.
    Also, my advice for improving Wikipedia's culture wouldn't involve telling people that the best way to communicate with humans is to be objective and unemotional (wow, what a culture-specific notion) or to think about individual words. If you are afraid that that there may be some significant math-and-statistics-type errors in a few hundred high-traffic articles, then "being positive" doesn't sound appropriate. Sure, there's no need for profanity (and there has been basically none of that), but good Wikipedia editors should ring the alarm bells when they think that hundreds of articles might have serious errors. "Word choice" isn't where the tension comes from here. Recognizing that a respected, experienced Wikipedian really does fundamentally disagree with you about what Wikipedia ought to be is where the tension comes from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with WAID that the tension is probably healthy all things considered. Has the conflict that's resulted from that tension always been healthy? I think the answer to that is no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, WAID right again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed she is. As is so often the case, she is a breath of fresh air and sunshine around this place. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Help us, uninvolved admin, you're our only hope!

Wanted: uninvolved administrators to assist with the MOS RfC discussed above in this thread. The lucky administrators who volunteer for this task will be rewarded in the following ways:

• Fame, fortune, and glory, beyond all human comprehension
• Your name whispered reverently for generations to come
• Temples built in your honor

Actually, you'll get none of these things. But, this is a content dispute that has the potential to affect many, many articles, and they're medical articles, which for obvious reasons are particularly important to get right for our readers, and it's a situation where the pressure resulting from the content dispute gridlock is generating conduct disputes between highly experienced veteran editors. One has already resigned (which everyone is hoping will be just a wikibreak). The foolish brave admin who closed the ANI thread that preceded this has been doing a stand-up job, but it's really unfair to put all this on one person's shoulders. Barkeep49's talk page is quite active, and in my opinion, they could use help from additional administrators, both for Barkeep's sake (so that they're not held singularly responsible for the outcome of this RfC, nor for "policing" it), and also for the sake of ensuring that the outcome is credible, broadly accepted, and not subject to future claims of an unfair process. This could really use a panel of admin if possible, but at least one more to help take some of the load off of Barkeep's shoulders. So if any admin could swing by Barkeep's talk page and ask how they can help, you'd be doing a huge service not just for your colleagues but also for our readers. Thanks in advance. – Levivich 05:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

articles moved to drafts, possibly unneccesarily

I just created some articles for specific countries in 2020. an editor moved them to draft space, even though some articles already had some specific information in them. the editor claimed that the articles needed to be moved to draft space, due to lack of content.

however, we already allow current year in country articles to be created in mainspace, even if they have little or no content!!! here are some examples: 2019 in Libya, 2019 in Sudan.

I'm perfectly fine to wait a bit before moving these articles to the mainspace, but ultimately, I feel there should be no obstacle or constraint on all of them being moved to mainspace, regardless of whether they have content or not. you can view the message that I received here: User_talk:Sm8900#2020_in_Syria_moved_to_draftspace

is that okay? here's my contribs history Sm8900 (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The fact that other articles exist doesn't mean that they should exist or that similar articles should be created as explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Articles are added to the mainspace all the time, but the fact that they were added doesn't mean they should've been added or were "allowed" to be added. It could just as easily mean that simply weren't noticed to have been added or weren't properly assessed as to whether they should've been added. So, I wouldn't try to argue that you should be allowed to create articles similar to those two you've mentioned above, but rather argue that whatever article you're trying to create should be upgraded to article status based on its own merits. Being moved back to the draft namespace doesn't mean you cannot continue to work on the page and improve it so that its ultimately moved back to the article namespace. Draft:2020 in Syria contains no real encyclopedic content whatsoever at the moment; if, however, you can expand the article into at least a viable WP:STUB, then it will have a better chance of staying in the article namespace the next time around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

okay, thanks for reply. have now managed to get 2020 in Israel article actually started. what a relief!!! on to the others soon. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: I have now created a number of 2020 articles for a number of countries. Anyone who wishes to alert authorities, delete these entries, blank the page, move them to draft space, etc, should consider doing so!!!! we certainly don't want Wikipedia to be derailed by people who think this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, or that we should be bold and assume good faith, now!!! do we?

there, I used a tag. so everything is kosher here. sorry. anyone here got a cookie? :-) :-) --Sm8900 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The only real criterion for getting out of draftspace is that the page isn't WP:LIKELY to get deleted if it were in the mainspace. All these things about needing to have a certain size or that the sources need to be in English or that all the refs have to be formatted a certain way (yes, AFC folks have said things like that in the past) are just made-up rules that you won't find in any written policy.

Articles in draftspace get significantly fewer edits, less improvement, and less scrutiny than articles in the mainspace. If you want to build Wikipedia, you need to keep articles in the mainspace as much as possible. I think we should be discouraging editors from moving articles to draftspace when, like these, they aren't at risk of deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks, WhatamIdoing. agreed. --Sm8900 (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

History merging

Who except me does any history-merging? (see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Completed requests) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Based on WP:RFHM and the last 1000 entries on Special:Log/merge, you, Wbm1058, and I do most of the history merges. I don't log anything on WP:RFHM unless it was requested there. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• I will if asked, most of mine are via WP:RFPI though. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Most of my merges come through WP:AFC and/or by request. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• I do, when the topic fancies. I'm currently on another kick. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• I do history merges sometimes as well. Graham87 06:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial Blocks

Administrators are trying out new tools over at the test wiki. – Levivich 17:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Following the RfC - partial blocks will be coming soon. If you are an admin and want to practice with this interface feel free to drop me a note at testwiki:User_talk:Xaosflux and I'll flag you for temporary admin on testwiki to try it out. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the follow-up RfC to develop policy? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the closing didn't require it to move forward, but said it should occur. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest if there's a policy to develop, you head over to Wikipedia:Partial blocks? Can I also recommend the several comments about writing just enough to get it merged into current policy instead of re-inventing the wheel? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just noting here that the feature has been enabled; sysops may want to test it out on User:ThisIsaTest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A heads up for anyone who is testing this – if used on admins it will prevent them from accessing the block interface altogether. They will not be able to block/unblock other people. The only exception is if it's a self-block. (I know this because I can't issue a retaliatory parblock on SQL on testwiki right now.) – bradv🍁 16:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And everyone else might want to dewatchlist User:Thisisatest while admins play with their new toys  :) ——SN54129 17:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Related: T242633. SQL^{Query me!} 16:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this has been a known issue for a while, correct ticket is T208965. SQL^{Query me!} 16:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggested changes to fully protected example pages

I would like to suggest the following changes to the following two fully protected pages:

---

Page: User talk:Example

Changes / reasoning:

• Added link to talk page guidelines for those new users who want to learn more.
• "I'll archive any WARNINGS on a subpage" is no longer needed. The page is fully protected and won't get any warnings.
• "Postings made here are unlikely to be seen or receive a response" is unneeded; protected = no posts.
• "Search archives" is unneeded; no posts = no archived posts.
• "User:Example/Talk message" links to a deleted page.
• Why put the TOC on the right? This page should resemble what a new user sees on their own user talk page.
• Replaced "*" with ":". We don't want to encourage over-use of "*"

Result (ready to cut and paste as a replacement for the current content):

<noinclude>{{Pp-protected|small=yes}}</noinclude>
{{nobots}}
This is an example of a user talk page. See '''[[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]''' for help on using user talk pages.

==Example discussion title==
Example message
:Example reply
::Example reply to reply
:::Example reply to a reply to a reply
:Example second reply
::Example reply to second reply

---

Page: User:Example/Lipsum

Changes / reasoning:

• Added link to user pages guideline for those new users who want to learn more.
• "Note: This page is not for writing your articles. Go to your personal sandbox, please" is no longer needed. The page is fully protected and won't get any attempts to put an article here.
• "User:Example/tabs" links to a deleted page.

Result (ready to cut and paste as a replacement for the current content):

<noinclude>{{Pp-protected|small=yes}}</noinclude>
{{nobots}}
This is an example of a subpage to a user page. See '''[[Wikipedia:User pages]]''' for help on using user pages.

{{Lorem ipsum}}

---

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

These changes seem reasonable, so I've done them. Requesting that this not be archived immediately in case there are any objections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-gaining Extended Confirmed status

Hi, just around 6 weeks ago I gained an extended confirmed status, however, it got removed by Laser brain because I "gamed the system". I was on over about 440 edits and regrettably made nonsense edits to get to 500 edits quicker. Since then I have made over 500 more edits with none being nonsense. At the time that I made those nonsense edits I didn't believe or expect it to be wrong, however, in hindsight I realised that it was a way of "cheating" and, therefore, was not ideal. Except for those nonsense edits (which was around 60), I have been regularly making as many up to date edits, reverted vandalism, made corrections and removed puffery or unsupported claims. Thus, I believe that I deserve to have my Extended Confirmed status regained as I have learnt from that lesson and have carried out the positive activities that are stated above. As I was told that I should wait a month before attempting to request back my Extended Confirmed Status, I also believe that now is very appropriate for this discussion. Thank you. Isaacsorry (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Isaacsorry: as you have met the normal threshold. Be sure to edit with care, and I also recommend you review Help:Archiving a talk page and change the way you archive your user talk page (the "archive to history" you are using is generally the least friendly way to manage your page). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RfPP

is a little backed up. If anyone would care to join me, I'll start at the bottom.-- Deepfriedokra 04:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y'all.-- Deepfriedokra 12:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject history needs people

Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.

• If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.
• and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!
• For anyone who wants to get involved, please come by and add your name at our talk page, at our talk page section: WikiProject History needs you!!!!
• Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sm8900, have you found the WP:REVIVE advice yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD might possibly be closed?

Please consider whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corinna Löckenhoff might be decided and closed. The AfD arises from a deletion request from the subject, who asserts the article has the capacity to cause her harm at this particular time - diff, OTRS confirmation. This being the case, and given the current state of !votes on the AfD, it seems to me to warrant speedy consideration. (Full disclosure: I'm the nominator in the AfD.) thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see Requests for closure. El_C 01:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Relatedly, in light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishae/Archive, should we consider the subset of Biografer (talk · contribs)'s contributions that have not been significantly edited by others for WP:CSD#G5 speedy deletion? There are a lot of them, but the SPI notes issues with both accuracy and close paraphrasing, and I've definitely seen some of the accuracy issues in my own spot-checking. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've seen similar problems. A good many of them are in my field, and I'm checking. I don't want to make too quick or automatic a judgment about G5. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You may not want to make quick and automatic judgements, but it appears that JJMC89 has already been doing so, deleting many articles, in many cases in violation of the requirement for G5 that articles have no substantial edits by others. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It would appear the subject no longer wants the article deleted, FWIW. (per Talk:Corinna Löckenhoff) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

And with that, some article edits, some AfD discussion, and a blocked sock, the !vote has swung back the other way - now should just be left to run. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating MLBPitchingCoaches Template

I realize for whatever reason I cant create this because the word "MLBP" is blocked from creating articles yet simply I would like to be able to create this and cannot.--Jack Cox (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Cox: Is this about Template:MLBPitchingCoaches? – Ammarpad (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is--Jack Cox (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to squish the name of the template: how about Template:MLB pitching coaches? this avoids the blacklisted sequence— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Seconded on the template name; there has been an active push in the last year or two to make templates read more like text (and less like old-school file names that wouldn't allow spaces). Primefac (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It was blacklisted eight years ago because of hoaxes - looks like no additions to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wetsoap since then. Peter James (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sab Kichu Bhene Pare (2nd nomination)

No administrator is noticing the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sab Kichu Bhene Pare (2nd nomination), What will happen to the article Sab Kichu Bhene Pare? The article which is of a book does not contain any strong reference in English-language. শাহরিয়ার কবীর শিশির (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, as all participation that favoured delete was by blocked sockpuppets and IP addresses misrepresenting the notability guideline, I have closed it as keep based on consensus of the other editors involved. ~ mazca ^talk 10:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mazca. The OP above, who wanted to delete this article (and therefore may be linked with the LTA activity from the last two AfDs - both of which had significant socking), has started deleting material amounts of referenced content in the article. Not my area of expertise, but something very odd going on here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, there definitely may be some more socking involved—this seems like an unexpectedly controversial area—but the appropriateness of the poorly-phrased content removed does seem quite debatable, there's certainly nothing completely wrong here. ~ mazca ^talk 23:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969 has retired

FYI Onel5969 has packed it in. Not an admin, though always thought they should have been. At over 40,000 of the +100,000 new WP articles patrolled last year, will be a big blow to WP:NPP, and I suspect their retirement will directly, or indirectly, require a lot more work from the rest of the community. Britishfinance (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nocturnal306

User:Nocturnal306 globally locked due to Long-term abuse, sockpuppet of Abdullah Zubayer, Paid editing, COI and violating other numerous policies. Please remove all user rights. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done, local rights removed. ~ mazca ^talk 19:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Partial Blocks PSA

Hello all. Being that the Partial Blocks feature is now deployed, be careful that you don't accidentally use it to create a block that does nothing. On the block interface, "Editing" and "Sitewide" must be checked, unless you intend to do a partial block. If you uncheck "Editing", or check "Partial" without entering any pages to be blocked, then you will have created a block that does not stop the user/IP from editing. You can see a list of all partial blocks, if you want to make sure that there are no "null blocks" or otherwise unintentional partial blocks. If "editing" is not listed in the "block parameters" column, then the block does not prevent editing. ST47 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no policy-based reason to issue a partial block right now. Is that correct? –xeno^talk 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That, I'm not clear on. The RfC was closed with a result that broadly allows partial blocks. That should be written into policy, but in the mean time, I wouldn't have a problem with someone issuing a partial block in a way that is consistent with that RfC. ST47 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What a great question! There was an RfC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks) and I'm still not clear on if the result is that administrators must not, or may, use a partial block. @JJMC89: closed the RfC. I know I was on the side of not enabling this technical feature without a policy - but the majority were not. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see they wrote "Community consensus is not required to apply partial blocks. Administrators may apply partial blocks using their discretion, in line with the Wikipedia:Blocking policy". –xeno^talk 19:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I added two of the explicit RfC uses to the blocking policy. Further changes are needed though. Partial blocks may be used with admin discretion within the parameters of the blocking policy. I expect that a second RfC (if one is held) plus common and failed uses will inform future changes to policy. For those concerned about the lack of governing policy, I urge you to start a second RfC to discuss any changes that you want to see. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately the default is a "sitewide" block, so you'd have to change something on the block form to impose a partial block. It's annoying because now the block form is longer, but whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot believe that we have yet encountered the universe in which Bbb23 does partial blocks :D ——SN54129 20:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocks via Twinkle appear to proceed as before. Partial blocks don't appear to be an option when blocking via Twinkle. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Whitelist Request

Resolved

 – Duplicate request

Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/01/30/obama-to-speak-at-baltimore-mosque-where-imam-condoned-suicide-bombings/ Link requested to be whitelisted: https://dailycaller.com/2016/01/30/the-us-mosque-obama-has-chosen-for-his-first-presidential-visit-has-deep-extremist-ties/

I want to use the links in the Islamic Society of Baltimore article, specifically in the Controversies section. I need them because I'm trying to show the viewpoints of different news media for a topic, although they seem to be blocked. I will quote the news outlets, and will not use them for factual information. I made a request elsewhere about a week ago, to no response, so I decided to ask here. Thank you! —  Melofors  TC 

You already have a request open at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Please be patient. Raising the same request in multiple places can be construed as forum shopping. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion to unblock Ricky81682

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) is a former administrator who was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee for misuse of multiple accounts in 2016, and subsequently checkuser-blocked. Following an appeal to ArbCom by email, we have posted a motion to unblock Ricky81682 for discussion on-wiki. Comments and discussion are welcome on the motion page. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Ricky81682 unblocked.

Category whitelist request

Hello! I would like "Category:Minecraft servers" to be whitelisted. I want to put this category under "Category:Minecraft", and add the articles 2b2t, Hypixel, and Mineplex to the category. I am also planning on creating an article called "Minecraft servers," which I've been working on in my sandbox for a few months, which will also be added to that category. (I will have to get that article name whitelisted as well) —  Melofors  TC  00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Help wanted from everyone who has the time

A massive (the largest ever) Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld, was recently opened. The usual 3 people at CCI won't be able to complete it themselves, so I am asking everyone who has the time to help clean it up. No copyright knowledge is required, and instructions + further information can be found at User:Money emoji/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup. I will also be listing this at WP:CENT, as the last time a large scale CCI cleanup effort was conducted (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo), it was listed there. A big thanks to all who sign up, 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 02:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to go through all the pages now, but at some point Dr. Blofeld created a couple of thousand pages about districts of Russia. This was done in collaboration with the Wikiproject, and I was involved. There is no copyvio there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Dr. Blofeld whose assistance—in terms of background knowledge—in this area could be...forensic, to say the least. ——SN54129 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, his assistance would definitely be appreciated. He is not needed now, as the current focus of the project is to get rid of the vast amounts of non-copyrightable material strewn about the CCI, but once that is all taken care of, his help in possibly identifying when the copying occurred would be extremely appreciated.💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why you think I'm a serial violator in the first place @Money emoji:. This is basically like mowing down a whole cornfield just to find a couple of needles... I guess you'll have to find out the hard way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I'm not going into this with the mindset we'll find much. In fact, this cleanup effort was created with the intention of removing the thousands of stubs that contain non-copyrightable prose from the listing, so the people who are in the know regarding copyright can figure out what to do with the remaining articles (likely to be under 300). As someone who primarily edits in the copyright field of wikipedia, I am aware that most of these stubs contain nothing actionable, and therefore they will not be deleted. Furthermore, I am not going to have your other articles presumptively deleted, because I would like to collaborate with you in figuring out the status of articles which contain sources not readily accessible to me, which there are not many of (1% of listed articles). I don't think you're a serial violator (If you were, wikipedia would have died), and I also don't care whether or not you or Fram are vindicated as a result of the project. I simply care about decreasing the monstrous backlog at CCI. I do not want our working relationship to be that of enemies, but rather friends, for the benefit of the entire project. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 12:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My restrictions

I was wondering of someone could tell me what editing restrictions I am still subject to. There apparently is a Tea Party movement restriction of some sort, which was extended to a topic ban on American Politics, with that restriction being reduced to 1RR/week (with removing spam, as well as vandalism, excluded), and there's a Gun control topic ban, which I'm planning to appeal for reduction of. Are there any other restrictions I should be aware of?

For that matter, is there a centralized board for editing restrictions, or should there be? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There is one at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which mentions the Tea Party movement topic ban. The Gun control topic ban isn't logged there but at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. Both of them appear to be still in force. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think those 2 cover it for the OP. There only seems to be those 2 restrictions. AFAICT, the 1RR per week is only for the tea party movement not the entire post 1932 American politics space. But especially for the benefit of others, my read is there are several main places you probably should check out. If you start at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, it has arbcom and community imposed restrictions.

However it notes that:

Inactive accounts have been moved to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive.

That page confirms that it's for restrictions which are nominally still in force, but the editor has either been blocked or inactive for a long time. Editors should be move back to the main list when active but I would imagine this doesn't always happen especially for editors who simply went inactive.

Then if you go down, it notes that:

From January 2015, sanctions imposed by an administrator in accordance with an arbitration remedy (including discretionary sanctions) are recorded at the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. This includes the discretionary sanctions authorized for biographies of living persons.

However if you check out that page, it notes:

An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force.

Fortunately there is a search bar there to help you find any restrictions more than 5 years old.

Finally if you scroll down even more on the editing restrictions page, there is a section for final warnings and unblock conditions. This notes:

These warnings/sanctions are generally imposed by a single administrator in accordance with the policy on conditional unblocking. Restrictions may be logged here but must be logged as a permalink or diff in the unblock log.

This is a bit confusing since I don't think final warnings require an editor to be blocked first. But then again final warnings are a bit of an odd duck since they're not really a restriction or something that can be appealed. If they aren't logged there I guess they may be forgotten about over time. But you should check your block log for any unblock condition.

If you check these 4 places, I think you're fairly safe. But noting of course that if you're aware of a restriction, the community is not likely to take kindly to an editor ignoring it simply because it wasn't properly logged. By comparison, an editor who notes the mistake will probably get at least some minor brownie points.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

TL;DR version, I think any restriction should be on one of the several pages Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log or in the individual year if more than 5 years old (use the search bar there to help you find them, for the OP [28]) and your block log ([29] for the OP but I can't provide a general link AFAIK). Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikihow

Please can the admin add wikihow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.142.75 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Add it to what? WikiHow isn't a Wikimedia project and therefore isn't affiliated with us in any way, so we have no business referring people to it from this site. Deor (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for User:Magherbin

Magherbin was blocked in April 2019 as a checkuser block as a result of this SPI report. They have made several unblock requests at their talk page, which has been largely ignored. At their request via the IRC unblock channel, I am copying their request here. They have admitted on their talk page to operating the following accounts:

• Magherbin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Betamhara (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kikolio (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lokiszm7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Do not let the size of that SPI archive fool you. This user was only checkuser-confirmed to the list of accounts above, and was found to be  Unlikely to the rest of that SPI archive. In fact, there appear to be at least six separate sockmasters who had SPI cases filed under that name. Again, there is no technical reason to believe that this user is Middayexpress. I have done a CheckUser just now, and there is no evidence of recent sockpuppetry either. I asked them to explain why they created sockpupped before, and why we can now trust them not to do so again, here is their response:

My intention was to improve the encyclopedia by garnering opinions from the wider community ex; using RFC's, third opinion etc; see [30], [31]. Many of the articles related to the Horn of Africa either have misleading information or sometimes just made up facts hence I felt that I needed to correct them without harassment from editors by opening another account. After a dispute was resolved with an editor, [32] he/she immediately requested checkuser against me and I believe i'm probably the only user that is actively attempting to improve articles in this field hence why the user suspected I was abusing multiple accounts. I have realized that my block was due to abusing multiple accounts therefore I will keep all Wikipedia edits under this account moving forward to avoid any sock incidents, since the incident I caused would have been avoided altogether if I had kept one account. The reviewers must understand that I have no reason to use multiple accounts ever again. I am not here to vandalize any pages on the encyclopedia except to sincerely improve the articles, the contributions I have made so far is proof of that. I will give permission to have my account reviewed by admins regulalry to show my commitment.
— User:Magherbin

There are some earlier unblock requests on their talk page as well, which may have some more information. Since it has been more than six months since their block, should they be unblocked under the Standard Offer? For what it's worth, I would support an unblock, as they do not seem to have been continuing to sock, they seem to have reasonable intentions to improve the wiki if they are unblocked, and as per WP:ROPE. Pinging @Bbb23:, as the original blocking CU. ST47 (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock under WP:SO. It's good that they have plans for areas where they want to contribute. Schazjmd (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Add sister cities to Las Vegas article.

Las Vegas has sister cities and it's not mentioned in the Las Vegas article. I can't add it because it's locked. http://en.sistercity.info/sister-cities/Las%20Vegas.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.107.180 (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Make your case on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

And use WP:EDITREQUEST after posting the relevant content along with references, on the talk page.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Drafts duplicating existing articles

Would an admin mind taking a look at Draft:Jewel of the Nile (album) and Draft:The Jewel of the Nile (1985 film)? Articles about these two subjects already exist as Jewel of the Nile and The Jewel of the Nile and the drafts just seem to have been created by an IP account to try and move the existing articles to new titles for the purpose of turning "Jewel of the Nile" into a DAB page; see Talk:Jewel of the Nile#I copied the pages exactly and added a disambiguation page and the page history for Jewel of the Nile for more details on that. I don't think a DAB page is really needed here per WP:ONEOTHER, but new drafts shouldn't be created to try and MOVE articles even if such a page is needed. These are drafts so I don't think WP:A10 applies, but I'm not sure if they need to go to WP:MFD or can be tagged per WP:G6 or WP:G14. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nasty expletives need redaction

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

---

• 49.15.77.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  

vandal IP has already been blocked. Please also redact their entire contribution history per WP:CRD #2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. As they are posting nasty expletives in Hindi language.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus for hiding the above, there is one more IP (same user) below,

• 106.67.106.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --DBigXray 11:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

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