Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 33 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

{{Done}}. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The close has since been rescinded by the closer, so is very much due for closing again. CNC (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 101 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 98 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 98 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 50 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 42 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 40 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 39 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 35 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 33 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 32 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	3	60	63
TfD	0	0	3	0	3
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	64	19	83
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 256 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 79 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 76 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

(Initiated 74 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 64 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 35 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC close review please

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

---

Hi, all. On Friday I closed a RfC concerning Isaac Barrow and implemented the consensus as I saw it. This morning, an IP user has reverted that edit, posted a colossal screed on my talk page, and added two extra votes to the RfC.

I would tend to understand these edits as a challenge to my close, and I would therefore be grateful if some experienced, uninvolved users could please review it. Did I make a mistake in my assessment of the consensus? If I did, please do overturn me and implement the correct result. However, on the off-chance that I got it right, then I would be grateful if a sysop could take this user in hand and offer some support and direction.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Those walls of text.... I agree with your close, barring that I would find there is only a rough consensus (rather than the absolute 'no' used) not to include the person in the "influences" section of the infobox (seeing as there were only 4 or so commenting on that piece of it). That yields the same result as your close of it regarding the article at this time. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

dear @Izno and S Marshall:, while you feel there was a consensus, as i had stated on the talk page: there was hardly any consensus. One opposed (biased editor), One approved, and two (three?) abstained out of clear distaste towards my style of discourse (which is their right); however to interpret the latter's abstinence as contributing to the opposition of the edit is disingenuous, User:Izno.

further, the opposition did not provide any evidence to counter my claims. i did not care to close the RfC after User:Hgilbert had gotten back to me, which is where i suspect the problem began, because those who peruse RfC don't seem to like my approach (again, that's cool).

when S Marshall decided to close the RfC, i had not "voted" (my fault). even so, i have found sufficient evidence in Gregorie's own words that would justify inclusion of Barrow as an influence on *him*. determining the sufficiency of evidence for the inclusion requires analysis of the six (!!!) sources i've used. i thought User:S Marshall was going to do that, but i guess not.

this is not about the RfC outcome, which was at best indeterminate and absent of evidence (except from me), but rather the contents of the argument and their respective merit. i have persistently stated that Gregorie was an influence on Barrow, and there seems to be a disingenuous reluctance to accept this fact because it's not as verbose as some would like.

however, if you guys want to play that game, Gregorie *is* verbose about the influence of Barrow on his work and such sources should be sufficient to include Barrow as an influence on him in the infobox.

so it's up to you guys if you want to take the scholarship of the fundamental theorem of calculus seriously. if you do not want to objectively analyse the evidence presented, which i had spent many hours gathering (where the opposition literally spent no time), you are going to lose good contributors (ahem).

hate to do this to you dr @David Eppstein:, but i figured if someone wants to involve administrators, i may as well try to recruit someone whose (rare, not enough of "us" out there imo) decision-making, experience, and expertise i can feel confident in deferring to 174.3.155.181 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content. The close looks ok to me — I might have taken the view that the consensus was less clear than what S Marshall wrote but what they wrote was reasonable. And whether they are an admin (I think not?) S Marshall is a highly experienced editor who was until closing this completely uninvolved. So at this point we have an established consensus on how to edit the article going forward: put sourced connections between the two in the article text but not in the infobox. That doesn't seem like a particularly difficult constraint to follow. The only issue for an ANI should be that we have an editor being unwilling to follow the result of an RfC and improperly reverting the close — for which you, 174.3.155.181, get a trout and an admonishment not to do that again. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

i don't understand dr @David Eppstein:, why is the connection not strong enough for an infobox insertion? no one has really answered that. where does the provided evidence fall short of establishing the relationship that is infobox-worthy?

also, i never said User:S Marshall wasn't impartial. rather, what i said was that *he* said it was a consensus to remove from infobox, to which i (again) said only one person made that recommendation. he was impartially assessing the comments on the page where two others abstained, and Gilbert/Mawr yay/nay'd, respectively. may i ask how that is a consensus?

lastly, i do not understand why no one is acknowledging that the *entire* basis for the RfC was that mawr reverted on the basis of insufficient/inadequate sources. i provided ample sources to override that argument, and i feel enough information has been provided WARRANT the insertion. there was no constructive discussion on this matter in the RfC by Mawr; instead they gave vacuous one-liners. the RfC then went to a "vote" (because i didn't close it, and thought the issue was handled after User:Hgilbert chimed in) well-after my response and that was that. can we clear this up? thanks. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

like i am quite upset dr @David Eppstein:. people invest time on this site hoping they are contributing to the truth, but look at what has happened in this entire situation. seriously.

it's cool if you don't want to read wall of text; but to say that the original reversion was justified in light of the ALL the evidence provided, to which the REVERTER NEVER provided ANY proper counterclaim suggesting otherwise, is outrageous.

the whole reason i opened it to RfC was to get opinions from *experts*, and even though the vote was taken in my absence, the result was *inconclusive* (1 yay User:Hgilbert, 1 nay, 2 abstain, 1 stating a non-infobox insertion). it is hard to see how there is any semblance of a consensus on that RfC page when accounting for the fact that the initiator of the RfC (me) was absent and would have voted to "keep".

essentially what is being stated is "higher body count wins, regardless of how much EVIDENCE one person provides." is knowledge now void of facts? or just on wikipedia? i am glad this happened sooner rather than later. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: come on dude: TAKE CHANCES, MAKE MISTAKES - MS FRIZZLE

The grammar used by 174.3.155.181 is also concerning. MPS1992 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

hahahahahahahaha okay @MPS1992: "upgradation" lol.

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support close and direct the IP to consider the fact that your inability to make your point without a giant wall of text is a failure on your part, not ours. The "everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant" routine is not going anywhere. And six weeks is more than enough time to consider a fairly benign issue in which the major point (was there an influence) was resolved favorably. The infobox is probably the most superficial thing to care about. Close, protect the article is need be and WP:RBI any more antics by now a {WP:SPA]]. If the editor can move on, then it's worth inviting to help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support close, the RfC clearly did not reach a consensus to make the disputed change, and absent consensus in favor, the status quo ante remains in place. The close is certainly a reasonable one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Content translator tool creating nonsense pages

Machine translation gadget

There is currently a gadget called GoogleTrans which allows the straight dropping of google translate into the content translation tool. (See here). I just did a test, and I was able to produce a machine translated article into english without leaving wikipedia using this gadget. Pinging the creator of the gadget: @Endo999:. I do not think this gadget should be present on the English wikipedia, and certainly not when it seems to explicitly endorse machine translations. Fortunately, it doesn't get around the edit filter, but it still sends a terrible message. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't remember about that gadget; I surely can make good use of it. That's the kind of tools that may be invaluable time savers in the hands of us who know how to use them, making the difference between translating a stub right now when you first stumble upon it (thanks to the kick-start of having part of the work already done), or leaving it for another day (and never coming back to it).

Given that the CTX tool has been restricted to experienced editors, and that the GoogleTrans gadget needs to be explicitly activated, the combination of the two won't be at the hands unexperienced newbies in the way that created the current backlog. The GoogleTrans doesn't insert translated content into text fields, it merely shows the translation in a pop-up; so I don't agree that it "explicitly endorses machine translations". Any editor with your experience should know better than copy-paste machine translated text unedited into an article. Diego (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am the creator of the GoogleTrans gadget and it does do Machine Translation Under The HTML Markup when used in the Content Translation system. I have used this to translate 226 articles from the frwiki to the enwiki and got all of them reviewed okay. The Machine Translation is a starting point. You still have to manually change each and every sentence to get the grammar and meaning right. It's not very sensible to ban it because, without human followup, it produces a bad article. The point is that it is a tool to quicken the translation of easy to medium difficulty articles, especially for good language pairs like English-French. Wikipedia, itself, uses both Apertium and Yandex translation engines to do machine translation and these have been used to good effect in the Catalan and Spanish wikipedias. GoogleTrans does the same thing as Apertium in the Content Translation system, except it uses Google Translate, which most people feel is a better translation engine. As Diego says this needs to be explicitly turned on, so it tends to restrict usage to competent editors. To stress the point, Machine Translation, as done by GoogleTrans gadget, is a starting point, it is not the end product. Human intervention is required to massage the MT into decent destination language text and grammar, but Machine Translation can help start the translation quite a bit. Wikipedia feels that Machine Translation is worth doing, because it has it as a feature (using both Yandex and Apertium machine translation engines) Endo999 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that we have a policy against machine translation on en.wikipedia, because the requirements for correcting its output are far higher than users tend to realise; in fact it is easier and faster to translate from scratch than to spend the necessary time and effort comparing the original with the translation to find the errors. Hence the whole long discussion above and the agreement that machine translations can be deleted as such. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no policy against Machine Translation on the enwiki. That would have to be posted on the Content Translation blog, and it isn't. I've done 226 of these articles successfully and I can tell you there is more editing for non text issues, like links around dates coming from the frwiki, editing getting references right, manual changing of TAGS because their parameter headings are in the origin language. The actual translation work postprocessing, when polished up by a person competent in the destination language is far less than you say. But style differences between the wikis take more of the editors time. Endo999 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, and has been in force for a decade. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The policy is against unedited machine translation. It doesn't apply to using machine translation as a starting point to be cleaned up by hand. Diego (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

MACHINETRANSLATION isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never claimed that Machine Translation first drafts are good enough for articles on the enwiki. They aren't, but responsible use of Machine Translation, as a first draft, that is then worked on to become readable and accurate in the destination language is quite okay and even helpful. Endo999 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is pretty clear that unless you are translating at a professional level, machine translation is a trap. It looks good at first glance, but often introduces bad and difficult to detect errors, such as missed negations or cultural differences. Even if a human caught 9 out of 10 of these errors, the translation would be grossly unacceptable and inaccurate. I'd request that this gadget be disabled, or at minimum, de-integrated from the content translation tool. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well. I'm pretty far from being a fan of machine translations, but it's always been possible to copy/paste from Google Translate. Anyone autoconfirmed can do that without going to all the trouble of finding and enabling this gadget. The problem is fundamentally behavioural rather than technological. The specific problem behaviour is putting incomprehensible or misleading information in the mainspace. Over-reliance on machine translation is a cause of this, but we can't prevent or disable machine translation entirely, and there's not much point trying. I think the position we should adopt is that it is okay to use machine-aided translations provided you don't put them in the mainspace until they've been thoroughly checked by someone who reads the source language and writes the target language fluently. I suggest the approach we take to Endo999's tool is to add some warnings and instructions rather than try to disable it.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget that the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time, and I'm am pretty much the only regular user of my GoogleTrans gadget for translation purposes. Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian. The Catalan and Spanish wikipedias are at the forefront of machine translation for article creation and they are not being flamed like this. I reiterate that the majority of edits per my frwiki-to-enwiki articles are over differences in the frwiki for an article than for articles in the enwiki. The treatment of dates and athletic times is one such difference. You need to do postediting after the document has been published in order to please the editors of the destination wiki. This usually has nothing to do with the translated text but is actually the treatment of links, the treatment of dates, the removal of underlines in links, the adding of categories, the transfer of infoboxes, the addition of references (the fiwiki is particularly good for references of track and field athletes), and other wiki standards (that are different from the origin wiki). There's always going to be some postediting of translated articles because of these nontranslation specific items. It's just inherent in wiki to wiki article movement. Endo999 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We don't care about what happens on other wikipedia language versions, basically. Some are happy to have 99% bot-created articles, some hate bot-created articles. Some are happy with machine-translated articles, some don't. It may be true that "the use of Machine Translation in the Content Translation system is expanding all the time", but at enwiki, such a recent "expansion" started all this as the results were mostly dreadful. "Why is the gadget being singled out? Yandex machine translation is being turned on by the Content Translation people all the time for various languages, like Ukranian and Russian." Your gadget is in use on enwiki, what gadgets they use on ruwiki or the like is of no concern to us. We "single out" tools in use on enwiki, since this is an enwiki-only discussion. And this discussion is not about the long list of more cosmetic things you give at the end (or else I would start a rant about your many faux-bluelinks to frwiki articles in enwiki articles, a practice I truly dislike), it is (mostly) about quality of translation, comprehensability and accuracy. Yours are a lot better than most articles created with ContentTranslation, luckily. Fram (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Endo999: I just happened to check Odette Ducas, one of your translations from French. You had Lille piped to read "Little". This is a good illustration of how easy it is to miss errors, and it's not fair, in fact counterproductive, to encourage machine-based translation and depend on other editors to do the necessary painstaking checking. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that error (Lille translated at Little). I had seen and corrected that problem in a later article on a french female track athlete from Lille, but didn't correct the earlier translated article. Don't forget that Wikipedia is about ordinary people creating Wikipedia articles and through the ARGUS (many eyes) phenonmenon having many people correct articles so they become good articles. This is one example of that. Wikipedia is not about translation being restricted to language experts or simply experts for article creation. Your argument does tend towards that line of thought. Endo999 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it does (for one thing, all you can know of my level of expertise is what I demonstrate). The wiki method is about trusting the wisdom of the crowd: this tool hoodwinks people. It's led you to make a silly error you wouldn't have otherwise made, and it's led to at least one eager new editor being indeffed on en.wikipedia. It rests on condescending assumptions that the editing community can't be left to decide what to work on, in what order. (Not to mention the assumptions about how other Wikipedias must be delighted to get imported content just because.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'ld like to retract my compliment about Endo999's use of his translation tool. I have just speedy deleted his machine translation of Fatima Yvelain, which was poorly written (machine translation) and a serious BLP violation. Fram (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost everyone of the articles I have translated, using the GoogleTrans gadget, has already been reviewed by other editors and passed. I can only translate the existing French, which is sometimes not well written. In Fatima Yvelain's case I transferred over all the sources from the frwiki article. Can you tell me which reference didn't work out. You've deleted the article, without the ordinary seven day deletion period, so you deleted the article without any challenges. Are you and a few other reviewers systematically going through every article I have translated looking for things to criticize? Endo999 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia rolls; it's the easiest way to demonstrate supposed incompetence, and since incompetence on the part of the creator reflects on the tool, it is therefore the easiest way in which to get the tool removed (along with phrases such as "I'd like to retract my compliment", which I hate as much as Fram hates faux-bluelinks). Simples. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Having just checked the article for myself, if it was really "reviewed by other editors and passed" it reflects just as badly on those other editors as it does on you, given that it contained an entire paragraph of grossly libellous comments sourced entirely to an alleged reference which is on a completely unrelated topic and doesn't mention the subject once. (The fr-wikipedia article still contains the same paragraph, complete with fake reference.) Checking the review log for the page in question, I see no evidence that the claim that anyone else reviewed it is actually true. ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I realise this isn't a vote, but I agree with Tazerdadog that having such a tool easily available is sending the wrong message. It needs to be restricted to experienced users, with plenty of warnings around it. Deb (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You are all panicking. There's nothing wrong with using the GoogleTrans gadget with the Content Translation system if the appropriate editing happens alongside it. The ordinary review process can uncover articles that are not translated well enought. I'm being punished for showing ingenuity here. Punishing innovation is a modern trait I find. Endo999 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, our reveiw processes are not adequate for this. Both the problems with translated articles, and the unrelated but similar problems with tool created articles (now discussed at WP:ANI show the problems we have in detecting articles which superficially look allright (certainly when made by editors with already some edits) but which are severely deficient nevertheless, and in both cases the problems were worse because tools made the mass creation of low quality articles much easier. While this is the responsability of the editors, not the tools, it makes sense to dismiss tools which encourage such creations. Fram (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Fram per "We don't care about what happens on other wikipedia language versions" please speak only for yourself. Some of us care deeply what happens in other language version of Wikipedia. User:Endo999 tool is not a real big issue. It does appear that the Fatima Yvelain needs to have its references checked / improved before translation. And of course the big thing with translation is to end up with good content you need to start with good content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

We, on enwiki, don't care about what happens at other language versions: such discussions belong either at that specific language or at a general site (Wikimedia). These may involve the same people of course. 19:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Do people feel that a RFC on this topic would be appropriate/helpful? The discussion seems to have fixated on minute analyses of Endo999's editing, which is not the point. The discussion should be on whether the presence of the gadget is an implicit endorsement of machine translated materials, and whether its continued presence sends the wrong message. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I believe an RfC would be helpful assuming it is well prepared.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The GoogleTrans gadget has been running on the enwiki for the last 7 years and has 29,000 people who load the gadget when they sign into Wikipedia. It's quite a successful gadget and certainly, wiki to wiki translators have concentrated on the gadget because while they may know English (when they are translating articles between the enwiki and their home wikis) they like to get the translation of a word every once in a while. Endo999 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on this matter seems to have mostly died down, but I was unaware of this discussion until now and I feel the need to speak up on behalf of translation tools. I don't believe the tool being discussed here is the one I am using, since *it* does not provide a machine translation into english. However. I do put english into French based on the machine translation. I repeat, *based on*. Many of my edits to date have been translation and cleanup after translation, so I am probably close to an ideal use case. The tool, Yandex.Translate, appeared on my French wikipedia account and I do find it useful, although it produces text that needs to be gone over 4-5 times, as, yes, it sometimes creates inappropriate wikilinks, often in the case where a word can mean a couple of different things and the tool picks the wrong one. And it consistently translates word by word. I have submitted a feature request for implementation of some basic rules -- for example in German the verb is always the last word in the sentence and in French the word order is almost always "dress blue" not "blue dress". But there are many many MANY articles with word order problems on Wikipedia; it's just usually more subtle that that when the originating editor was human but not a native English speaker. So it's a little like fixing up the stilted unreferenced prose of someone who can't write but yea verily does know MUCH more about the topic than I do. And has produced a set of ideas, possibly inelegantly expressed, I would not have conceived of. The inelegant writing is why we have all this text in a *wiki*

For the record, I agree that machine-translated text is an anathema and have spent way too many hours rescuing articles from its weirdnesses, such as "altar" coming through as "furnace branch" in Notre-Dame de la Garde. BUT. Used properly, machine translation is useful. For one thing it is often correct about the translation for specific obscure words. I deeply appreciated this when, for example, I was doing English into French on a bio of a marauding Ottoman corsair who, at one point or another, invaded most of the Mediterranean. I am an English speaker who was educated in French and has spent years operating in French, but the equivalent terms for galleon, caravel, Papal States, apse and nave, for example, not to mention Crusader castles and Aegean islands, weren't at the tip of my tongue. Its suggestions needed to be verified, but so do Google Search results. I could look these words up, sure, and do anyway, but Yandex gives my carpal tendons a break, in that I can do one thing at a time, ie translate a bit of text like "he said" then check to make sure that wikilink is correct, move down to the next paragraph and do some other simple task like correcting word order while I mull why it is that the suggested translation sounds awkward, walk away and come back... All of this is possible without the tool, but more difficult, and takes much longer. I have translated more articles in the past month, at least to a 0.95 version, that I had in the entire previous several years I've been editing wikipedia. Since the tool suggests articles that exist on one wikipedia but not the other, I am also embarking on translations I otherwise would not, because of length or sheer number of lookups needed to refresh my memory on French names for 16th-century Turkish or Albanian settlements or for product differentiation or demand curve or whatever. Or simply because while the topic may be important it's fundamentally tedious and needs to be taken in small doses, like some of the stuff I've been doing with French jurisprudence and which is carefully labeled, btw, as a translation in progress on those published articles that are still approaching completion.

I agree that such tools should not be available to people who don't have the vocabulary to use them. I don't really have suggestions as to what the criteria should be, but there is a good use for them. They -- or at least this tool -- do however make it possible to publish a fully-formed article, which reduces the odds of cranky people doing a speedy delete while you are pondering French template syntax for {{cn}} or whatever. This has happened to me. The tool is all still kinda beta and the algorithm does ignore special characters, which I hope they remedy soon. (In other words ê becomes e and ç becomes c etc.) Also, template syntax differs from one wiki to another so infoboxes and references often error out when the article is first published. Rule of thumb, possibly: don't publish until you can spend the hour or so chasing this sort of thing down down. And the second draft is usually still a bit stilted and in need of an edit for idiom. But the flip side of that is that until you do publish, the tool keeps your work safe from cranky people and in one place, as opposed to having to reinvent the version management wheel or wonder whether the draft is in Documents or on the desktop. Some people complain within 3 minutes of publication that the article has no references without taking the time to realize that the article is a translation of text that has no references. As the other editor said above, translation tools aren't magic and won't provide a reference that isn't there or fix a slightly editorial or GUIDEBOOK tang to language -- this needs to come next as a separate step. When references are present the results are uneven, but I understand that this issue *is* on the other hand on the to-do list. Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject; as you can see I have thunk quite a few of them and incidentally have reported more than one bug. But we are all better off if people like me do have these tools, assuming that there is value in French wikipedia finding out about trade theory and ottoman naval campaigns, and English wikipedia learning about the French court system. Elinruby (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles created by block-evading sock using the WMF translation tool

My attention was drawn at a site I should not link to and therefore will not name (however, the thread title is "The WMF gives volunteers another 100K articles to check") to the fact that Duckduckstop created several articles using the WMF translation tool. They were blocked on 5 April as a sock of a blocked user, and their edits are thus revertable. I checked one translated article as a test, John of Neumarkt, and I've seen worse, but it is clearly based on a machine translation and contains at least one inaccurate and potentially misleading passage: "Auch in Olmütz hielt sich Johannes nur selten auf" does not mean "Also in Olomouc, John held only rarely"; it means he rarely spent any time there, but a reader might either not understand that or think it meant he rarely claimed the title. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Pages to review contains thousands of pages, the vast majority still to be checked. Only a few of us are working there. I feel guilty having taken a few days off to write 2 new articles. I haven't looked through Duckduckstop's page creations to see what proportion were created with the translation tool, but that one has not been substantially edited by anyone else. I suggest that in this emergency situation, it and others that fall into both categories—translation tool, and no substantial improvements by other editors—be deleted under the provision for creations by a blocked/banned user. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I have had a look today at that list, but haven't really been posting comments since as far as I could see nobody else has been there in several days. I do not know what happened with duckduckstop but as to the articles on the list

- I do not understand why an article about a French general who invaded several countries under Napoleon is nominated for deletion as far as I can tell solely on based on authorship? Do we not trust the content because of the person who wrote it? Can someone explain this to me? I glanced at the article quickly and the English seems fine. This is a serious question; I don't get it. Also, why did we delete Genocide in Guatemala? It was already redlinked when I noticed it, but unless the article was truly astonishing bad, I would have made an effort to clean that one up. Personally. Considering that some of the stuff that's been on the "cleanup after translation" list the past few years --- we have had articles on individual addresses in Paris. We have lists of say, songs on a 1990s album in Indonesian, sheriffs of individual municipalities in Wales (one list per century), and government hierarchies in well, pretty much everywhere.

- I have a suggestion: The person who decides that we need a set of articles for each madrasa in Tunis, water tower in Holland or mountain in Corsica is responsible for finishing the work on the articles in the set to a certain standard. Which can be quite low, incidentally. I have no objection to some of the association football and track and field articles that are being nominated for deletion. They may not be sparking entralling prose but they are there and tell you, should you want to know, who that person is. Similarly the articles about figures in the literature of Quebec, while only placeholders, do contain information and are preferable to nothing. Although I don't see machine translation as the huge problem some people apparently do, the translation tool also does need work. It might be nice if it sent articles to user space by default, and the articles could then be published from there there after polishing. Elinruby (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Guatemalan genocide was redirected, not deleted, for being a very poor translation, resulting in sentences like this (one sentence!): "The perpetración of systematic massacres in Guatemala arose of the prolonged civil war of this country centroamericano, where the violence against the citizenship, native mayas of the rural communities of the country in his majority, has defined in level extensivo like genocide -of agreement to the Commission for the Esclarecimiento Historical- according to the crimes continued against the minoritary group maya ixil settled between 1981 and 1983 in the northern demarcation of the department of The Quiché, in the oil region of the north Transversal Band, with the implication of extermination in front of the low demographic density of the etnia -since it #finish to begin to populate the region hardly from the decade of 1960- and the migration forced of complete communities to the border region in search of asylum in Chiapas, Mexico , desarraigadas by the persecution; in addition to becoming like procedure of tactical State of earth arrasada, tortures, disappearances, «poles of development» -euphemism for fields of concentration- and recurrent outrages against the women and girls ixiles, many of them dying by this cause, crimes of lesa humanity against of all the international orders of Human rights." Fram (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Heh. That's not unusual. But see there *is* an article, which was my primary concern. I should have checked before using it as an example. Here is the point I was trying to make. Since apparently I didn't, let me spell it out. -- I have put in a considerable amount of time on the "cleanup after translation" list so yes, I absolutely agree that horrible machine translations exist. I have cleaned many of them up. But. Many of the articles we keep are extremely trivial. Many get deleted that seem somewhat important, actually, just not to the particular person who AfD's them. I have seen articles on US topics get kept because of a link to Zazzle. (!) Perhaps my POV is warped by the current mess I am trying to straighten out in the articles on the French court system, but it seems to me that the english wiki is rather dismissive of other cultures. (Cour d'assises != Assizes, just saying; this is what we call a cognate.) That is all; just something that has been bothering me. Elinruby (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The interim period ends today

But most articles have not been reviewed--it will apparently take many months. Of the ones still on the list that I have reviewed, I am able to find at least one-third which are worth rescuing and which I am able to rescue. We need a long continuation.If this is not agreed here, we will need to discuss it on WP:ANB. I would call the discussion "Emergency postponement of CSD X2" DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding was that we were still working out how to begin the vaccination process. I'm happy if we simply moved to draft space instead of deleting at the end of the two weeks, but I'm not sure if that would address your concern. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@S Marshall, Elinruby, Cryptic, No such user, Atlantic306, DGG, Acer, Graeme Bartlett, Mortee, Xaosflux, HyperGaruda, Ymblanter, BrightR, and Tazerdadog:

I call "reltime" on the section title! ;-) But seriously, it does end in a few days, and although I've been active in pushing to stick with the current date (June 6) to finalize this, so I almost hate to say this, but I'd like to ask for a short postponement, for good cause. This is due to two different things that have happened in the last few days, that materially change the picture, imho:

• CXT Overwrites - this issue about CXT clobbering good articles of long-standing, was raised some time ago, and languished, but has been revived recently, and we now (finally!) have the list of overwrites we were looking for in order to attack this problem: around 200 of them. All that remains to completely solve this for good, is to go through the list, and if the entry also appears in WP:CXT/PTR, strike it. See WP:CXT/PTR/Clobbers for details.
• Asian language review - this was stalled for lack of skilled translator/proofreaders in these and other languages. In response to a suggestion by Elinruby, I made an overture a few days ago about starting a recruitment effort. Since time is so short, rather than wait for a response, I went ahead and started one at WP:CXT/PTR/By language. In just three days this has started to bear fruit, with editors working on articles in Gujarati, Hindi, Hungarian, Farsi, Romanian and Arabic; with over 50 or 60 analyzed. I'm ready to ramp up the recruitment effort on Turkish, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, and more European languages (hopefully with the help of others here) but this does need some time as it's only got started literally in the last few days.

A postponement would give us the time to save all the clobbers, and make a significant dent in the articles from Asian and other languages for which we don't have a lot of expertise. Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes

My understanding is that the clobbers have all been taken care of. This leaves the Asian language articles. I'm sure that if someone with the needed language skills comes along in the future, admins would be more than happy to mass-undelete the drafts so that they could be reviewed. However, I don't see a reason to postpone in the hope that this will occur. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Clobbers *are* taken care of, because we (two of us) have been taking care of them. Asian (and other) languages have plenty of translators td.hat could take care of them, it's not a matter of "hoping" for anything in the future, they exist now, so all we have to do is continue the effort begun only a few (5) days ago here. Going forward, this should be even more efficient, now we have the results of Cryptic's queries 19218 and 19243 created only today, and wikified here: WT:CXT/PTR/By language. We have editors working on Gujarati, Hindi, Bengali, Arabic, Romanian, and Hungarian, with more in the pipeline. This is a ton of progress in five days, and I wish it had been thought of a month ago, but it wasn't, and we are where we are. A postponement will simply allow ongoing evaluations by editors recruited less than a week ago and are delivering fast results, to continue instead of being cut off, and additional languages to be handled. Go look at WP:CXT/PTR/By language to see what has been accomplished so far, and at what speed. @Cryptic and Elinruby:. Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Still need to recruit de, bg and ru. Also still very distracted by real life -- I have had one parent die and another go into hospice in the course of this project, and we have still gotten all this done, so it's not like we are dragging this out into never-never land. A majority of these articles are rescuable, esp as we bring in new editors who are not burned out by re-arranging the word order of the sentences for the 10,000 time. I think the really stellar articles have all been flagged now, but we have still found some very recently and I have said this before. Beyond the really stellar though are the many many not-bad articles and the more mediocre ones that are nonetheless easier to fix than to do over.I am in favor of an extension, personally, though as we all know I would not have started this at all if it were up to me. Many of the really bad articles were already at PNT.

I will be flying almost all day today but will check into wikipedia tonight. Elinruby (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm involved in many other things, and get here as I can, and each time I do, I find more than can and should be rescued. There are whole classes of articles, like those of small towns or sports stadiums, which have merely been assumed to be of secondary importance and not actually looked at. If we delete now, we will be judging article by the title. It is very tempting to easily remove all the junk by removing everything, but that;'s the opposite of sensibler ,and the opposite of WP:PRESERVE/ DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a couple today that kind of amazed me, they were so good. But let's play out the chinese fire drill. I'm afraid we're going to find out that we've all done a huge amount of work to delete 30 articles that need to be deleted and 350 whose authors will will not contribute again. Anyway. I have not touched stadiums, personally, because I suspect they will be deleted for notability so why? Ditto all these people with Olympic gold medals because I already have plenty to do without getting involved with articles that are certain to be deleted, not to mention all the argentinian actresses and whatnot.... grumble. Gonna go recruit some chinese and norwegians, because the articles are just going into some other namespace we can still send links to right? Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The plan is to draftify the articles prior to deletion, but I think deletion can be postponed basically indefinitely once they are draftified Tazerdadog (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: I'd like to be sure of that. This is why you lose editors, wikipedia... anyway. Am cranky at the moment. Let me get done what I can with this and then I'll have some things to say. Hopefully some intelligent and civil things. Are we really getting articles from PootisHeavy still? Elinruby (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Fixing pings like you just did doesn't work. Pings only work if you sign your post in the same edit and do nothing but add content. Pppery 02:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: The second part statement I made above is a departure from the established consensus as I understand it. The plan which achieved consensus was to draftify, hold in draft for just long enough to check for massive clerical errors, and then delete. I floated the above statement to try to gain consensus to hold the articles in draft space for longer (or indefinitely). While it is important to get potential BLP violations and gross inaccuracies out of mainspace in a timely manner, i don't think it is nearly so important to delete the drafts, especially if salvageable to good articles are regularly being pulled out of them. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Thanks for the suggestion. I think that would help limit the potential for damage and it would alleviate some of my concerns. My assessment differs widely from what I keep reading on this board, but, hey. If anyone cares I would say that 10% of these articles are stellar and very advanced and sophisticated translations. Don't need a thing. Another 10% are full or partial translations, quite correct, of articles that do not meet en.wiki standards for references or tone but do faithfully reflect the translated article. Many of these are extremely boring unless you are doing nitty-gritty research into something like energy policy in Equatorial Guinea, but they then become important... About another 5% I cannot read at all and let's say another 10% are heavy going and require referencing one or more equivalent articles in other languages. Say 5% if anyone ever gets around to dealing with PootisHeavy. The rest are... sloppy english but accurate, unclear but wikilinked, or some other intermediate or mixed level. This has not, in my opinion, been a good use of my time and I have stopped doing any translations, personally, until we get some sanity here. The whole process, it seems to me, simultaneously assumes that translation is easy and also that it is of no value. If wikipedia does not value translation then -- argh. It just makes me to see a good organization eat its own foot this way, is all. Off to see if I can catch us a nepali speaker ;) Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: No Nepali speakers needed, there are no Nepali articles in the batch, afaict. Also, Pootis stopped translating following a March 23 addition to his talk page, currently at #53 on the page.

@Tazerdadog: Whatever kind of draft/quarantine/hyperspace button you press, I plan to carry on with some of the Asian and other languages recruitment which we only recently got started on (which is going great, btw, and we could use some more help over at there if anyone wants to volunteer). I'll want to modify the editor recruitment template so that it can blue-link articles in whatever new location they reside in, so hopefully it will be a nice, systematic mapping of some sort so a dumb template can easily be coded to figure out the new location, given the old one. Just wanted to mention that, so that you can keep it in mind when you come up with the move schema. Naturally, if it's just a move to Draft namespace, then it will be an easy fix to the template.

There is one article in Nepali. I have not invited anyone for it yet, though I did do some of the less populated languages like latvian, indonesian and polish. I have several answers (da, es, pt as I recall) and most articles passed. I will put translated templates and strike those articles shortly. And yes, I just now struck one today. Anything about 3-d modeling is notable imho and I will work on it as long as I can read it at all. Also some of the bad translations about historical documents may be fixable given the response we are getting. If either of you gets enough help/time there are quite a few es/pt/de articles that I did that I believe to be correct but cannot myself certify in terms of the translated template Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: I withdraw my aspersions on the section title name. This offer valid for twenty-four hours. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not understandd what you mean by this. I assume you mean you are withdrawing the attempt to start mass deletions immediately. If not, please let me know--for I will then proceed to do what I can to prevent them--and , if possible to try to change policy so that no X- speedy criteria can ever again be suggested. The more of these translations I look at, them ore I find that should be rescued. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In need of admin attention

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions is backlogged. It'd be great if a few admins could clear out some of the older discussions. -FASTILY 01:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The heck happened to your bit, anyway? —Cryptic 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic, Fastily was desysopped four years ago because of a self-request. Nyttend (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I may work on some of the non-oldest discussions - I don't approve of FFD nominations that don't notify the uploader, which is what some of the oldest are.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That's purely your opinion. No policy compels users to leave courtesy notifications. Either way, this may be of interest to you. -FASTILY 01:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fastily:I looked for the closing process and see a suggestion to use this script. Is that the best option, or is there another way to do the archive?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There is also another script in the works, User:Evad37/FFDcloser.js.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I handled the April ones (which the nominator was notified of in early July; she responded confirming they weren't her works). I might look through more of these later. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick - AnomieBOT automatically adds {{Ffd top}} & {{Ffd bottom}} after you delete a file listed at FfD. No manual close is necessary, unless you're keeping/relisting the file. -FASTILY 01:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 10:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• It would helpful if everyone (even non-admins) went through and commented on these discussions. Most discussions are the nominator and maybe one other editor. It'd be easier to find admins who are willing to take this on if they also didn't have to do their own complete copyright analysis here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

New FFD and TFD closer scripts

Scripts provide one-click (or few-click) closing options on WP:FFD / WP:TFD and their daily subpages, as well as the ability to hide/show already-closed discussions. See documentation at User:Evad37/FFDcloser & User:Evad37/TFDcloser, and use User talk:Evad37/FFDcloser.js / User talk:Evad37/TFDcloser.js to report any unexpected occurrences or provide other feedback. - Evad37 [talk] 00:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Also CFD now: User:Evad37/CFDcloser - Evad37 [talk] 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Request to regain AWB access

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

---

I've been recommended to move my discussion of regaining AWB rights here for more input and help. I had my AWB access revoked in April for making ten superficial edits to Hong Kong talk pages by accident, after a warning telling me not to leave edits to Hong Kong talk pages a week or two prior. I indeed kept my word and stopped making those edits, but I didn't clear my default settings (as evidenced by this screenshot) and as a result, I accidentally made ten edits in the midst of doing another AWB task. The next day, I had my access taken away. At the WP:PERM request I said everything that was wanted; I would be more careful in the future, I will edit at a slower rate, and furthermore I pointed out that I've been learning Python over the months and I feel like I'm ready to edit with my own scripts.

I decided not to go to WP:BRFA or continue the discussion at WP:PERM because I know that I will get no resolution there, and making a bot account would be more complicated than just simply regaining AWB for my account. As I said before, I'm willing to agree to some potential terms/sanctions in order to get my rights back, which is mostly why I've come here. I'm acting in good faith and I am open to agreeing to some "community enforced limitations" blah as a result. JAGUAR  10:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Given the couple of months gap you've given, and the understanding you have of the problem I don't personally see any issues in you starting to use AWB again. I'm not one for "community enforced limitations" but I would say that spending time to review every edit the tool is about to make is a must for AWB. As for Python (a good choice!), I would spend a little while testing them with your own account in your sandbox in a very controlled manner before considering WP:BRFA -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm with Samtar on this one. You've mentioned in a number of places that the only reason you lost your AWB access is because you accidentally let 10 insignificant edits slip. The fact that you don't seem to understand is that forgetting to clear your default settings isn't the problem here, what is a problem is the fact that if you had been checking every edit before you saved it, you wouldn't have made any of those talk page edits, so clearly you aren't checking the actually changes you're making before clicking the save button. That being said, you seem to have learnt from the experience, so I'd be willing to support regranting you AWB rights on the conditions that you check every edit before you save it, and that any administrator may revoke your access immediately if you make inconsequential edits with the tool. Omni Flames (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You say "I am open to agreeing to some "community enforced limitations" blah", which is generous, thanks. Do you agree to check every AWB edit before saving? It doesn't seem that was your prior practice, otherwise the unfortunate talk page edits could not have happened. Begoon ^talk 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, most of all, I will check every edit before saving. JAGUAR  11:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If other editors disagree with any AWB edits you make in future, what procedure will you follow? --Begoon ^talk 11:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I will stop editing first and foremost, then I will further enquire what they disagreed with (if they weren't descriptive enough or if I didn't understand), and then lastly I would go back and undo all edits or make alterations, depending on the situation. JAGUAR  11:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That sounds about right. Sorry to "quiz" you. Begoon ^talk 11:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

*Support reinstatement of AWB rights. In the event of future problems, removal again, if warranted, would be cheap, and there seems no need to prevent productive work in the meantime. Begoon ^talk 11:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm confirming my support, acknowledging the comments below, and having read the linked discussions. If someone can show me damage caused that someone else had to clean up, I might reconsider. Begoon ^talk 12:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to withdraw my support, since Fenix down provided the evidence I asked for. Sorry. Begoon ^talk 14:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support, on the understanding that it can be revoked again should there be any more issues. It appears the userr understands his/her mistake, and the only way to know for sure is to give him/her a second chance. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't an accidental 10 edits. This isn't some absent-mindedness while reviewing repetitious edits, which admittedly even happens to me at times. This is a pattern of failing to review edits before the user saves them, ever. See here (warning: 2,000 contribs, long load time), where Jaguar makes just under 2,000 edits in an hour, sometimes hitting near 40 edits per minute. Given the loading time between edits, that is quite literally spamming the save button. This isn't a new problem, as I mentioned at the permissions request. Jaguar was repeatedly warned before his AWB access was removed, and his response at one point went so far as to say that it "isn't [his] fault" when miscategorization leads to faulty edits because of a failure to review each edit before saving it.

I'm not saying Jaguar should never have AWB access. I provided a clear way in which I would support that at WP:PERM, stating that he should identify a specific task he'd like to do, file a BRFA for semi-automated use using AWB, and set up an alternative bot account to allow easy oversight (even if the edits are being manually reviewed). This provides oversight for each of the many problems that Jaguar has had in the past. The requirement for clear consensus for a task at bot approvals will ensure that cosmetic edits aren't routinely made. The trial will uncover any unexpected cosmetic edits. The separation of AWB edits from regular edits through the use of an alternate bot account allows easy community oversight of the edits. The fact that Jaguar has decided to forum shop at AN without notifying any of the participants of the previous discussion instead of submit to some basic community oversight is telling, in my opinion. Pinging the other participants of the previous discussion at PERM, since I suspect they weren't notified either. @Kusma, Kudpung, and MusikAnimal: ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging the other participant in the discussion, Rich Farmbrough. Omni Flames (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not forum shopping, as I said before, I was recommended in the PERM discussion that I should come here for more input and opinions. I brought the discussion here because nothing was happening at the previous discussion, and gaining my AWB rights for my account is much more straightforward than programming a bot. I got my AWB access removed for a very minor reason. I can't stress enough that I will look over every edit when I regain AWB. I said that here, and at the PERM discussion, but my good faith was ignored there, so I came here. JAGUAR  10:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: Thanks for that, and sorry to exclude you from the ping Rich Farmbrough. I missed your name when glancing back at the discussion. @Jaguar: I'm not asking you to code a bot. I'm asking you to submit a BRFA for a specific semi-automated task. When I say "bot" account, I just mean an alternate account to make AWB edits in the normal semi-automated manner. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jaguar's attempt to paint his systematic lack of attention (to AWB edits and to other things, just read his talk page archives) as "10 accidental edits". I am not against second chances, but there have been already been plenty of second chances, and I have heard his promises to be better now too often already (and he has never done anything particularly urgent or convincingly useful with AWB anyway). Also, this discussion really belongs at WP:PERM/AWB, where everything has been said already. —Kusma (t·c) 09:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

*Conditional support. All I want is a clear understanding that he wil stay away from NPP with AWB and any other scripts and bots that are not specifically designed for that purpose. He avoidd answering that twice repeated request on the PERM page which gives me pause. The bottom line is if he gets his AWB bit back and goes anywhere near NPP with it, he'll loose more than his access to AWB. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Kudpung, but I still don't understand why you're so against people patrolling new pages with AWB. You do realize that by patrolling new pages we don't actually mean patrolling them, but rather doing general fixes and fixing typos with it? How is using a list of newly created pages any different from using a list of random pages? If anything, new pages are better because they generally have more problems with them. You've still failed to give any reason whatsoever why you want him to stay away with NPP using AutoWikiBrowser. Omni Flames (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per BU Rob13 and Kusma. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whatever the ultimate reasons for removal of AWB access, the problems created by this user in no way were limited to the issues noted above. At one point Jaguar very speedily removed WLs to over a thousand articles on Russian places, completely overriding established consensus, not bothering to inform WP:RUSSIA of his intentions to make mass changes, and completely misunderstanding WP:OVERLINK, which made a lot of work for me and fellow admin Ezhiki. I'm not convinced that we won't see a similar situation again and per Kusma, I'm not really sure what benefit to the project his use of AWB is having, the benefits to me historically don't seem to have outweighed the cost in terms of other peoples time reverting and discussing on his talk page, not sure access for general use is warranted here. I agree with Rob, if this is a request to regain access for specific tasks then the best way for this to be achieved is as he describes, not only to avoid cosmetic changes but also to avoid incorrect ones. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• You didn't mention that I went back and manually reverted all of my edits, as well as using AWB to re-add the links. JAGUAR  17:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the concerns raised by others above. 40 edits a minute is a ridiculous rate; I couldn't edit nearly that quickly, even in AWB bot mode with zero delay. I don't see any evidence that Jaguar has changed either. He's been asked many times in the past to comply with AWB rules, and he failed to do so. Omni Flames (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not only have they had numerous second chances but I'm also extremely concerned with the fact they nearly smack 40 edits in a minute and I assume without reviewing any of the edits, The tool could be fucking up thousands of articles and you could be completely unaware, Quite frankly the editor will be better off doing manual editing like the rest of us. –Davey2010^Talk

I've just made User:JaguarBot, I don't know how to proceed next as I've never made an alternative account before but I'll go to WP:BRFA tomorrow and request that it be allowed AWB. I don't know how to enable AWB bot mode, but I'll look it up soon. JAGUAR  22:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Once your bot is approved (or approved for trial) you can request for it to be added to the bots section of Wikipedia:AWB/CP. Once it's added there, you can login to your bot using AWB and click the "bot" tab, and from there there's an option to make the bot's editing automatic, so you won't have to check the edits at all if your bot is approved. Omni Flames (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll make a start on that tomorrow. I just want to apologise to everyone for making this thread, and I know that my posts here and at PERM have been excessive. It's just that I thought I would have been given a second chance by coming here, but I should have known better by coming to any noticeboard. Anyway, I'll start making arrangements soon! JAGUAR  23:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that bot mode isn't necessary if this is intended to be a semi-automated bot. Depends on the task, really. It can just be marked as a user if it's semi-auto. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist and talk page

MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist has unprocessed requests going back to January. I have to wonder if it may be a bit too obscure and too few administrators with understanding of regex seem to frequent it. Maybe people should be directed to WP:AN for addition requests, which is a somewhat broader venue? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Outside copyright violation

I'm not sure we can do anything about it, but if anyone knows better, this article is ripped almost entirely from this article.--v/r - TP 19:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The editors who wrote that article could make a complaint - a license violation letter whose content and location here I don't remember, or a formal DMCA takedown request - for violating the BY part of the CC-BY-SA license. I don't know if one can do much more other than telling them - via email maybe? - that they need to attribute the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The article on Hawaii Reporter is credited to Robert Kay, and indicates he has written other similiar articles for the site. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/about says that "Rob Kay, who serves as travel and shooting sports editor, has worked in Silicon Valley as a publicist and published award winning travel guides on Fiji and Tahiti for the Lonely Planet series". Perhaps there is some misunderstanding somewhere that might be cleared up by writing to the publication and asking them about it. MPS1992 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor who added much of the disputed content to Wikipedia (and thus retains certain rights) is Pbeekman, whose first edits were to the article about Allan Beekman, who in turn wrote Beekman, Allan (1998) [1982]. The Niihau Incident. Honolulu, HI: Heritage Press of Pacific. ISBN 0-9609132-0-3 which is currently cited as a source in the disputed Wikipedia article. The identity of Pbeekman seems reasonably easy to deduce. MPS1992 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Anyone can send one of the "nicer" notices at WP:Takedown. If you want to send an official DMCA notice that has to come from a major contributor to that article though. --Majora (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I sent them a note that they need to attribute the article to Wikipedia contributors.--v/r - TP 20:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

And I got an email back saying they will rectify. Haven't seen a change to the article yet, but I guess it's forthcoming.--v/r - TP 20:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ironically enough, the page credits the ostensible author with a doctoral thesis on ethics.—Odysseus1479 08:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Proper CSD tag for {{OTRS received}} but not confirmed.

There has been a disagreement between administrators on how to properly handle these types of tags. I have been going through the old images at Category:Wikipedia files with unconfirmed permission received by OTRS, double checking the permissions ticket, and if the ticket has not been resolved I have been marking them for deletion. In my mind, these images are copyright violations as the permissions have been denied. So I tagged them F9. Previous tags were accepted by RHaworth and the images were deleted. The next batch of tags were declined by Diannaa citing that the proper CSD tag was F11. Stating that the person gets another week beyond what they have already been given (which for the images I have tagged as been months). Since there is a discrepancy in the decisions by two different admins I am posting here to get more input from additional administrators and the community alike. Which tag should be applied to these old images that have been {{OTRS received}} but not {{OTRS permission}}? --Majora (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say F11, without hesitation. F9 states, unambiguously, "This does not include images with a credible claim that the owner has released them under a Wikipedia-compatible free license." If the claim weren't credible, the image should have remained deleted pending OTRS; that the claim eventually turned out not to be valid doesn't change things. No need to wait an extra week after tagging F11, however; the clock starts from when the uploader becomes provably aware that OTRS permission is necessary, not when the image is templated db-f11. The situation you describe seems squarely to fall into the 30-day OTRS-pending timeout to me, and I don't think it material that it spent much or all of that 30 days tagged OTRS-received rather than specifically OTRS-pending.

That said, the specific letter-number combination used to delete a page is of relatively little importance, and you're usually better off using {{db}} with an explanation instead of a bare {{db-f11}} or whatever when explanation is actually necessary. An image tagged "{{db|insufficient documentation received by OTRS for more than 30 days}}" by a user in the OTRS-members group would probably get speedied with little question or fanfare. —Cryptic 01:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it should be tagged for {{OTRS received}} for 7 days, as that would be a 7-day period to respond after being notified their permission is inadequate. But yes, F11, but no waiting a week for the old ones. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict with BU Rob] Cryptic has a solid response. This may not exactly fit any of the speedy-deletion tags, but when we have absolute certainty that permission does not exist for a free license (quite different from not knowing that permission exists), we shouldn't bother waiting for a delayed speedy tag, or bothering with an FFD for that matter. Perhaps the most comprehensive solution would be to go to WT:CSD and get consensus for expanding F9 with something like "This criterion may also be used to delete images for which an OTRS email has been received that actively does not grant permission", since of course this would resolve the "which criterion" issue, but since an image that definitely doesn't have permission has no chance of surviving FFD, we can go with the IAR route and use Cryptic's custom-written speedy tag. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Rob, why wait? We know that permission doesn't exist; if the owner says something like "oops, okay, I grant permission for this image to be used under CC-BY-4.0", we can always undelete it when that email is received. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The WP:F11 criterion does state that it applies for this process. Which I didn't realize at the time I started going through these. For that, I apologize. However, it does not explicitly state that the F11 is immediate for these. Perhaps that would be a better thing to get clarified at WT:CSD. Or we can switch the criterion over to F9. In any case, it seemed odd to me to give these images and extra week when permissions have not been confirmed for months. --Majora (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Majora, as I read it, F11 is for cases of {{OTRS not received}} (yes, I know that doesn't exist), i.e. if the OTRS folks haven't gotten any emails at all, the criterion can be used. That's what I mean by "not knowing that permission exists", in contrast to an OTRS email that distinctly does not grant permission, which is what I mean by knowing "that permission does not exist". Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nyttend: Because around 75% of the time I get a response within 48 hours with an appropriate license. Commons uses a one week wait time before they get thrown (automatically) in speedy deletion categories, and they've had a lot more experience working out the kinks than enwiki has, so I think we should follow their lead. Keep in mind that many OTRS agents are not admins, and it is significantly more difficult to process permissions after a file has been deleted for them. I've seen both sides of the coin (sysop on enwiki, not on Commons), and I'm much faster on enwiki because I don't have to run to an admin every other ticket for information. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Also edit conflict, also re Nyttend: For all the same reasons mentioned on {{OTRS received}} - if the copyright holder may have sent what he thought was sufficient documentation, it's little draconian to immediately delete the image anyway if there hasn't been time for him to rectify any technical shortcomings. Does it need to be specifically cautioned against? Meh, I don't think so. Common sense applies, and most of the timeouts in image speedy deletion criteria are historical accidents anyway, since deleted images couldn't be restored before... mid-2006, I think? —Cryptic 02:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend, Cryptic, and BU Rob13: I started a RfC. Just to clear everything up on these images for everyone involved. See WT:CSD#Proper CSD tag for images that are OTRS received but not confirmed. --Majora (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate articles about school

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but Resource academia and Resource Academia appear to be duplicate articles about the same school. The former was April 2010 (last edited September 2013), while the latter was created in May 2010 (last edited January 2016). It seems that this should be a candidate for some kind of merge, just not sure how that needs to be done. FWIW, I came accross these while checking some non-free images; the latter article is using a non-free logo in its infobox. Anyway, thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Issue has been resolved by Kudpung as explained at WT:WPSCH#Pakistani schools. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK overdue

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

---

The DYK update has been delayed by at least 6 hours now, I believe. If an admin can look in at T:DYK/Q and promote a set from the prep areas, it would be much appreciated. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Update performed by Graeme Bartlett. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Review of RfC on the classification of Jews on Template talk:Ethnic slurs

Hello all. Last week I closed this RfC on Template talk:Ethnic slurs. The debate concerned how ethnic slurs relating to Jews should be classified on {{Ethnic slurs}} - whether they should be a subset of Asians, Europeans, or a standalone category.

I have closed with the decision to classify them "standalone", in other words not as a subgroup of any continent-based ethnic groups on the template. I was an WP:ANRFC admin and was not involved in the debate before RfC closure. I closed the discussion based on my best-effort assessment of the arguments presented in the discussion.

Shortly after the RfC was closed, a long discussion Template talk:Ethnic slurs and emerged on my user talk page concerning the RfC outcome. I suggested that WP:DRN look at the issue but it was declined (my bad) as wrong forum. So I'm bringing the issue to AN for wider scrutiny. Deryck C. 14:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure of RFC Jews are a unique subset of people and in terms of slurs, should not be placed under a specific category, be it Asian or Black or African. They are Jews. When a slur is hurled at a Jew, it is not because of them being Asian or African, it is because of them being Jewish. That is quite different than when a slur is hurled at an Asian, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just to add, that there is a distinction between the slurs. I am an American, I can be called a Fat American and I can be called a Jewish slur, same as with a African-American. If the slur is based on the color or religion, then it's not an American slur, but if it's based on where they live then of course it is. In the case of Jews, it is because of their religion, not the history of where they might have come from 1,000 years ago. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse - Outcome was reasonable given the arguments (and relative strength of) presented. Personally I think anyone who seriously thinks Jewish ethnic slurs should be categorized as 'Asian' despite a significant amount of both Jews AND the people who started/currently using the ethnic slurs not being in fact, anywhere near Asia, needs a break. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Only in death With all due respect, this makes no sense. Since when does residing in diaspora (Jews outside of Israel are called diaspora Jews for a reason) negate an ethnic group's identity?ChronoFrog (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse numbers and strength of arguments make this a reasonable close. Both Arabs and Jews are standalone and for similar reasons. Other than grouping them together (middle easterners?) nothing other than standalone really makes sense and the discussion more-or-less reached that conclusion. A "no consensus" close would also have been possible, but not useful. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

They were, in fact, both grouped as Middle Easterners before Electoralist went on his crusade.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

And I'd be fine with that too (personally) but it's reasonable to read the discussion to have consensus on the side of "stand alone". Though "no consensus to change" would also have been a reasonable close. Sometimes it comes down to admin discreteness. I don't think "Asian" was a possible reading of that discussion though. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Hobit I agree with classifying them both as Middle Eastern. I would recommend changing your vote to reflect that if this is something you would truly back.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse It seems the most reasonable outcome. Slurs against Jews are based on their religion. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Doug WellerA great number of those slurs were ethnic in nature, so this is not true. Also, as the sheer volume of RS raised in previous discussions demonstrates, Jews are an ethnic/nation group, not a faith. One can be an atheist, an agnostic, or even a Buddhist and still be recognized as a Jew.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. I participated in the RfC after seeing the RfC notice, but I was not previously involved in the template page. I participated in the RfC over some time, responding to questions from other editors and also making some template edits that I hoped had been helpful and leaving a few unrelated suggestions on the talk page. I then took it off my watchlist, and was pinged to be aware of this discussion at AN. So that's my prior involvement. I observed that there was a real problem with the editing environment at the template page, and I ended up deciding that I should walk away because the editing environment was simply not worth my trouble (and I'm hardly an editor who shrinks from difficult editing topics!). The problem is that there is a very aggressive group of good-faith but inflexible editors who have extremely strong personal feelings about how the Jewish people should be classified, derived from their personal understandings of their own Jewish faith, and they are convinced that they are correct and that there must be no compromise over what is, in effect, divinely determined. When I came freshly to the RfC, my opinion was that the correct determination was what the close ended up being. And most of the other editors who came to the template page from the RfC notice as I did, also came to that conclusion. So that really was the consensus of editors who came to the RfC (as opposed to the editors who were already in the discussion before the RfC). But we were filibustered by editors who were convinced that they were right, based on things like their views that all Jews are really like citizens of Israel no matter where they reside, and should therefore all be classified as coming ultimately from West Asia. Just look at User talk:Deryck Chan to see what those arguments, and their verbosity, look like. The close was a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

One aspect you are ignoring is that one side (the side arguing in favor of Asian categorization) provided reliable sources. A ton of them, in fact. The other side posted a blog and not much else. I am hardly what you'd call inflexible, even on issues that directly impact me (like this one). My problem is that the arguments presented were weak and, in terms of the sources he did bring forth, WP:UNDUE. I also think you are ignoring the content of the arguments being made, which is part of the reason I brought this up with Deryck in the first place. So your characterization of those arguing in favor of Asian as intractable is highly unfair (especially in light of Electoralist's recalcitrance and immaturity throughout the whole ordeal). ChronoFrog (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, this is why I took it off my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish Well, you did seemingly disparage our arguments ("but we were filibustered by editors who were convinced that they were right, based on things like their views that all Jews are really like citizens of Israel no matter where they reside, and should therefore all be classified as coming ultimately from West Asia. Just look at User talk:Deryck Chan to see what those arguments, and their verbosity, look like.") without offering any substantive reasons as to why they are wrong, or unencyclopedic, or not consistent with Wikipedia policy (it also seems as though you thought only one side was overzealous, which I find curious). My view is that if one does not wish to actually participate in the discussion and help us arrive at an agreement, they should stay out of it and not post drive-by "votes".ChronoFrog (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse - While there are 1 or 2 very loud voices among the minority who have pursued this on Deryck's talk page and at DRN in what I view as an attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING the criteria at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures for challenging the closure have not been met. The closure and consensus determination were sound and all we've seen since the closure is a rehash of the same arguments over and over again. Electoralist (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that User:ChronoFrog (below) is again trying to reargue the RFC and is claiming the consesnsus has a lack of WP:RS in support. As has been discussed ad nauseum, Jews as a people have a complex ethnic and genetic history and it is incorrect to say they are a "West Asian" or for that matter European group due to the degree of admixutures. User:ChronoFrog refers to genetic evidence that Askhenazi Jews (who constitute over 75% of the world Jewish population) are matrilineally descended from four European ancestors as "only half the picture" yet his solution completely ignores that half of the picture. A layperson's explanation of Ashkenazi genetics can be found in this LiveScience article Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European and scholarly sources can be found in this article from the European Journal of Human Genetics "MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population", a peer reviewed article which Google Scholar states has been cited by 78 other scholarly articles, as well as "Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora" a peer reviewed article cited by 87 other scholarly articles. As has been exhaustively both in the orpginal Talk page discussion as well as the Deryck Chan's talk page, there are several Jewish ethnic groups - Ashkenazi (European) Jews, Sephardic (Spanish/North African) Jews, Mizrachi (Arab or Middle Eastern) Jews (often conflated with Sephardic Jews), as well as Ethiopian Jews (and other sub-Saharan Jews) Desi Jews, Chinese Jews and others whose skin colour are white, brown, black, "yellow", etc. To say Jews are simply "West Asian" looks, to revisit User:ChronoFrog's quote at "only half the picture" as much as saying Ashkenazi Jews are European looks at only half the picture, let alone South Asian, Chinese, and Black Jews. Therefore, listing Jews as a standalone category in the template makes more sense rather than trying to shoehorn them into a particular ethnic subcategory (West Asian, European, or African) particularly when one considers that as a religion, Jews have accepted converts for millenia and will continue to do so meaning that admixturing will continue. While there is no such thing as a 'pure' ethnicity and all ethnic groups experience admixture, the composition of the Jewish people as a religion as well as a culture and ethnicity amplified by the Jewish history of disperal (diaspora) throughout the world means that admixturing has occured to a much greater degree and makes it impossible to simplistically place Jews under a single ethnic category.

Culture, language and customs, indeed, are very important elements however there is no single Jewish culture or even language. Ashkenazi culture is distinct from Shephardic culture and the former is traditionally built around the Yiddish language (hence the term Yiddishkeit) which is a Germanic language with Hebrew influences and Slavic elements (depending on what part of Europe its speakers were in) has never been spoken by Shephardic, Mizrachi, South Asian or other Jewish populations. Similarly, Shephardic Jews have their own language traditionally, Ladino, which is derived from Spanish, and their own customs, cultural and even liturgical traditions and the other Jewish populations I mention all have their own distinct cultures and customs and speak different languages. There are overlaps and shared elements, of course, but the distinctions are enough to make it impossible to classify all the different varients of Jews as a singular, West Asian, ethnic group. Electoralist (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful that you (conveniently) ignored my responses to those same exact points. Here's a refresher: "The title of that article ("Surprise, Jews are Genetically European") is highly misleading since the study it cites deals only with mtDNA, which is about half of the equation (and allegedly harder to pin down than Y-DNA). Y-DNA of Ashkenazim is almost entirely Semitic/Levantine. Autosomal studies show them to be about half-half, with the European side being largely Greek/Roman. "The contemporary Ashkenazi Jewish population, as characterised by several recent genetic studies, is approximately 600 to 800 years old and is probably the result of the fusion of ancestral European and Middle-Eastern populations, according to research published this week in Nature Communications. These previous studies have described Ashkenazi Jewish individuals as a genetically distinct population, close to other Jewish populations, as well as to present-day Middle-Eastern and European people. As is common in distinct populations, they demonstrate distinctive genetic characteristics including a high prevalence of genetic diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, and breast and ovarian cancer. The authors also produced a model that indicates that the formation of the contemporary Ashkenazi Jewish population occurred 600 to 800 years ago (close to the time of the population bottleneck) with the fusion of two ancestral populations: ancestral European and ancestral Middle-Eastern. They also find that the ancestral European population went through a founding bottleneck when diverging from ancestral Middle Easterners 20.4 to 22.1 thousand years ago, around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum. The ancestors of both of these populations underwent another bottleneck, probably corresponding to an Out-of-Africa event." http://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/9440

Additionally, this study shows that Ashkenazim and other diaspora groups are closer to Samaritans on the Y-DNA line than Palestinian Arabs. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/humu.20077/abstract;jsessionid=10F76852AD872606B6B2DA06BF5C221E.f03t02

This one is even more direct. According to Behar, the most parsimonious explanation for this shared Middle Eastern ancestry is that it is "consistent with the historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant" and "the dispersion of the people of ancient Israel throughout the Old World". http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html

Lastly, nobody is claiming that Ashkenazim have no European mixture, or cultural influences. The point is that it's irrelevant. For one thing, this discussion is about Jews as a whole, not just Ashkenazim. Second, admixture or cultural influences obtained in diaspora (there's that word again) does not change or negate the ethnic identity of a people. Native Americans have European ancestry too; I don't see anyone arguing that they should no longer be classified as aboriginal North Americans (to use one example). Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, Bene Israel, and so on are diaspora subgroups, not ethnicities in and of themselves. But while we're on that subject, according to DNA studies Ethiopian, Chinese, and Indian Jews have Israelite descent as well (albeit to an obviously lesser degree).ChronoFrog (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, your skin color argument is equally silly, since there are many Ashkenazic Jews who have brown skin and Sephardim/Mizrahim who have white skin. The overlap is significant, as has been mentioned countless times. Indian, Ethiopian, and East Asian Jews more closely resemble their host populations because they assimilated to a much greater degree, but they have Israelite descent as well.ChronoFrog (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Admixturing is not irrelevent (nor is the fact that Jews accept converts and there have been a steady stream of converts from other ethnicities for centuries) it is the reason why there are numerous ethnocultural groups within the Jewish people and the reason it is difficult to classify Jews ethnically. Jews are a complex ethno-cultural-religious population. Ashkenazi Jews are predominantly matrilineally descended from Europeans and patrilineally from Middle Easterners, moreover they are or were located in Europe for close to 2,000 years and were influneced linguistically (hence the Yiddish language and culturually. As ethnography is also a matter of language, culture, and customs this is hardly irrelevent. Nor are the language, culture, and customs of Sephardic Jews that are distinct from those of Askhenazi, those of Ethiopian Jews (who are Black), South Asian Desi Jews (who appear South Asian) etc. To shoehorn all Jews under the category of "West Asian" is simplistic and negates half the picture. In any case, you are attempting to reargue the RFC once again and are veering into WP:FORUMSHOPPING and have identified no valid reasons for reopening the RFC. Electoralist (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, this has been addressed. Every population has absorbed foreign admixture to varying degrees, so to make genetic purity into a prerequisite for inclusion under a particular category is ludicrous. There is no such thing as a genetically pure population, especially when it comes to ethnoreligious/national groups (as defined by the RS that you keep ignoring) such as Jews. So yes, it is irrelevant. As to your other argument, I already addressed that. Ashkenazim, Ethiopian Jews, Desi Jews, etc are diaspora subpopulations of Jews, not separate ethnicities (again, I refer you back to the RS).ChronoFrog (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that in Template_talk:Ethnic slurs you made it quite clear after the RFC closed that you intend "to keep it going until the template [is] to your liking" and that you are "going to challenge this decision until an appropriate change is made" which supports my belief that you are WP:FORUMSHOPPING and intend to just keep rehashing the same arguments over and over again. I think you need to stop now. Electoralist (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, THIS is what I said. "I rejected it because I was exhausted and had no interest in perpetuating a discussion that had clearly run out of steam, and it was obvious (at least to me) that you intended to keep it going until the template was to your liking." Not that I'm surprised that you would take my quote out of context.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies in my haste just now I misread my comment (quoting you) on the talk page which was actually a response to what you've just reposted above and I forgot the context of the first quote (though not the second). My comment was: "The irony of your statement is that it is you who are attempting "to keep it going until the template [is] to your liking". You even said earlier today "I'm going to challenge this decision until an appropriate change is made" Electoralist (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC) and, indeed, this comment has proven to be correct. Electoralist (talk)

And I responded with this. I'm not interested in keeping the discussion going. As far as I'm concerned, it died down weeks ago as it should have. I'm petitioning for a change that more closely adheres to Wiki policy and takes our concerns into account.ChronoFrog (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC) ChronoFrog (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - After the RfC closed, I noticed a number of policy related errors (notably WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, etc) with the final decision. I went through the proper channels to see what could be done about it, and this led me to contacting Deryck who set up a DRN yesterday, although it was locked after only an hour due to it being in the wrong forum. We were instructed to bring this to AN, so here we are. The reason I am writing this is because I want to preempt any accusations of WP:FORUMSHOPPING so that we may focus our attention on the underlying dispute.

To recap, the dispute itself was about whether or not Jews should be categorized as West Asian/Middle Eastern, as they had been for several years. A number of editors rejected this categorization on the grounds that A) Jews accept converts/newcomers, B) most Jews have lived in diaspora for centuries (primarily the result of displacement via foreign colonialism) and C) genetic admixture with non-Jewish populations. Others argued that, based on WP:RS affirming that Jews are a West Asian national group with ethnic ties/collective descent (as determined by countless genetic studies) from Israel, in addition to the anthropological criteria (notably UN criteria/Martinez-Cobo) utilized in every other case like this (see also: List of indigenous peoples), Jews belong under West Asian. In addition, points A, B, and C were contested on the grounds that A) all nations accept and integrate outsiders to varying degrees, and Jews are no different, B) living somewhere else, no matter how long, does not make someone indigenous to a particular territory (as this would mean that all colonial groups would eventually become indigenous); per Martinez-Cobo, indigeneity is defined through ethnogenesis, not longstanding presence and C) every nation/ethnic group has mingled with other ethnicities to some degree, and Jews are no exception.

None of these concerns were addressed in any meaningful way, if at all. Instead, the discussion petered out after a few weeks, seemingly with a consensus that the template was fine as it is (with Jews and Arabs both having their own categories under the larger West Asian umbrella) with no counter-response or RS beyond A ) a non-RS blog (which had immediately been called out as such, with no response) and B ) repeated assertions of earlier arguments (which, again, had been promptly called out with the same counter-points/sources as before, and again, no response). It also seemed as though many of the responses came from editors without much in the way of prior exposure to this topic, since there were a few editors who appeared to have backtracked on their initial support for the proposal as discussion wore on. I took it off my watchlist until I found that a final decision had been made seemingly based on majority vote.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with the ancient origin of the Jews, which then may be classified as Asian, this has to do with categorization of slurs as it stands with Jews. Jews today are not Asian, they are Jews. Some are Asian, some are African, many are American. I am Jewish but I am not Asian. It does not make sense to categorize Jewish with regards to slurs as Asian. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying that being Asian requires actually living there? If that were the case, no Asian diaspora would fit in that category.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is that Jews are no longer a West Asian ethnic group because they left (or rather, were forcibly displaced) the Middle East. So at least from my vantage point, that seems to be precisely what you are saying.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If that's not what you're saying, then what *are* you saying?ChronoFrog (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if your argument was not ridiculous on the face of it, per commong naming, it would result in 'Arab' and 'Jew' being grouped under 'Middle East' rather than 'West Asian' (which is generally used only historically). I can see that going down well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Only in death You call my argument ridiculous (despite the heaps of RS provided to back it up, on the template and Deryck's page, but I can post them here too) without articulating how or why. It would be helpful if you could at least elaborate. Also, I am not opposed at all to placing Jews and Arabs under Middle Eastern (or Asian). They had been grouped together on that template for the past 4 years, with no issue.ChronoFrog (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose One of the main concepts that those who "Endorse" do not seem to realize remains that Judaism does not solely describe the Jewish "religion," but a Semitic Peoplehood, Tribe, Ethnoreligious group, and in some aspects a "Race;" but even being a "Race" would not mean that Jews did not originate as one people within the Southwest Levant; in fact, it would support Judaism's ethnogenesis within that region. Look at the culture, philosophies, phenotypical and genetic features that Jews have carried throughout the ages since their formation in the Land of Canaan. Look at Jews' relations to other Semitic peoples: Example 1, Example 2. Look at our languages and the various derivations as well as amalgamations to other languages (Yiddish, Ladino, etc.), we are a united people with core, root, Semitic/Afro-Asiatic, Ethnocultural beliefs (like Tzedakah, Tikkun Olam, and Torah) and yet different/intersecting branches that have branched out due to Diaspora, enslavement, intermarriage, etc. (One prominent example being in 70 CE when Titus besieged Jerusalem. Such variations occur within all Peoples, but every People has their own Peoplehood, even if they have mixed with other Peoples. Therefore, all ethnic groups within the ethnic slur chart should either be separated without umbrella ethnographic groups involved (e.g. not categorized by Asian (East, Central, South, etc.), African, European, etc.), OR Jews, Arabs, and other Afro-Asiatic Peoples should share an ethnographic umbrella of West Asians/North Africans, especially given the fact that Israel is a central part of what it means to be a Jew, whether by genetics, or sociopolitical affiliation (e.g. joining the Tribe, converting, etc.); on a related note, Israel is also located on the African Plate, so please also take that into consideration. Todah Rabah, and talk with you soon! Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, by not including West Asians/North Africans, the editors here exclude all Semitic/Afro-Asiatic peoples from having an ethnographic base for their ethnic slurs on the chart. Seriously, it would be omitting West Asian/North African/Middle Eastern as a possible region toward which people directed slurs (i.e. the term "Philistine," to connote Jews' longtime rival neighbor and for which their land was renamed by Romans after besieging Jerusalem; and the basis for the term "Anti-Semitism," coined by Wilhelm Marr, which should not mean to suggest Jews are not Semites, but rather, that Jews should not be negatively spurned for being Semitic. The Nazis'/Europeans' negative use for "Semite" and their negative attribution to Jews' Semitic origins, probably contributed a great deal to the miscommunication/miseducation that many of our people suffer today in terms of figuring out how to ethnically/racially describe our people). Again, Todah Rabah. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

And another point, in case anyone is confused, "ethnicity" and "race" are not solely defined by skin tone. Again, Diaspora. Please make a West Asian/North African (Afro-Asiatic/Middle Eastern) umbrella category within the template for peoples like Jews, Arabs, Samaritans, Yazidis, Kurds, Druze, Bahá'í, etc. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Jeffgr9 and ChronoFrog.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse without bringing any new arguments in, as many opposers here are doing, the closure was reasonable for what was typed there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Graeme Bartlett These are the same arguments that appeared in the RfC (same sources, too).ChronoFrog (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, you are simply rehashing the same arguments over and over again in the hopes that if you repeat yourself enough you will wear everyone else down. That's precisely why you have no valid reason to reopen the RFC. Electoralist (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone had responded to (let alone debunked) the RS and arguments the first time, I would have no need to bring them up again. But nobody did, and I'm increasingly beginning to understand why (obviously, because they *can't* respond to them).ChronoFrog (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Virtually no one has responded to most of my points. It is insulting, and does not make sense how people can move forward without addressing everyone's points. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse. There appears to be a generally even balance between giving the Jews a separate line and not giving them a separate line, but the latter is split between Europeans and Asians, with occasional other stuff, and giving the Jews a separate line appears to be the closest to getting consensus. As a Christian from a Levitical family, I'm familiar with a lot of these ideas, and as I read through the discussion, I found myself first agreeing with one side, then the other, then the first, then the other, etc.; everyone's arguments tend to make sense, so we have to find a way to accommodate all of them as well as we can. "No consensus" generally defaults to status quo ante bellum, but if there's reason not to close this in favor of a separate line, there's even better reason not to close it in favor of the pre-discussion form. WP:NOTAVOTE, but as I noted above, it's not as if any position is making significantly stronger arguments than the others; all of them make good points, but since we have to adopt exactly one of the positions (putting them in both places would be an absurd misapplication of WP:NPOV), the best way to do this is going first past the post and allowing the weight of numbers to count. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Nyttend While I don't agree with your position (the consensus prior to moving Jews and Arabs to standalone was that they should stay under a Middle Eastern category; also, the side with RS should, as a general rule, trump the side without it), I appreciate that you *at least* read and considered our arguments. That seems to be something nobody else in here is willing to do.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment It appears that most of the "Endorse" comments in here are drive-by votes. That is, they dismissed the ideas/RS brought forward by the "Oppose" side without giving any reasons, or participating in discussion here. This is the same problem that caused me to challenge Deryck's decision in the first place. The strength of arguments is determined through debate and dialogue, not simply repeating one's pre-deliberative opinions and intuitions. I have addressed, and refuted, every single argument against categorizing Jews and Arabs as West Asian/Middle Eastern, but there are no responses to be found (with few exceptions, and I refuted those too). That is deeply frustrating to me, and not conducive at all to genuine consensus building.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. For many of the reasons already stated by others, primarily the error in viewing Jews as strictly, or even primarily, a religious group. Jews are a nation, and an ethno-religious group. Jews who are Jewish by birth and perhaps by culture, but not by the practice of religion, are still subjected to the same slurs as religious Jews, which clearly blows apart the notion that the slurs are religious. PA Math Prof (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)