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 34 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	40	43
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	0	0

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)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 8221 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Jordan Chiles 2024-08-12 02:34 2024-08-19 02:34 move Arbitration enforcement: Biographies of living persons. Requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1239661096#Jordan Chiles Red-tailed hawk Ana Bărbosu 2024-08-12 02:33 2024-08-19 02:33 move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1239661186#Ana Bărbosu Red-tailed hawk Draft:Umar jaum 2024-08-12 01:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Isabelle Belato Jason Itzler 2024-08-12 01:43 2024-11-12 01:43 edit Persistent vandalism Star Mississippi Michael Lisovetsky 2024-08-11 20:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Yaroslav Kysil 2024-08-11 20:51 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Mongol invasions of the Levant 2024-08-11 18:50 2025-02-11 18:50 edit Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Infobox Pan American Games event 2024-08-11 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2844 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:Shubham Rameshwar Kakde 2024-08-11 06:15 2025-08-11 06:15 create Repeatedly recreated Johnuniq Narayana Guru 2024-08-11 04:27 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement Johnuniq User talk:Yamla/talk/talk 2024-08-11 01:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem User talk:RickinBaltimore 2024-08-11 00:17 indefinite move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft talk:Farlight 84 2024-08-10 21:28 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Al-Tabin school attack 2024-08-10 13:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: Per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Wikipedia talk:…/talk 2024-08-09 23:34 indefinite create LTA target Ad Orientem Wikipedia talk:… 2024-08-09 23:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: LTA Ad Orientem 1999 East Timorese crisis 2024-08-09 23:18 2025-05-14 00:00 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Category link if exists 2024-08-09 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3481 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Taxila Business School 2024-08-09 17:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Draft:Sabit Yeasin 2024-08-09 16:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Hahaha 2024-08-09 16:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Israel Olympic football team 2024-08-09 15:16 2024-11-09 15:16 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Israeli incursions in Tulkarm 2024-08-09 14:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato MrBeast 2024-08-09 14:01 2024-11-09 14:01 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft:Battle of Height 383 2024-08-09 04:51 indefinite edit,move persistent readdition of page to categories no matter how many times it's removed on WP:DRAFTNOCAT grounds, by an editor who's already been told to stop it Bearcat Lipetsk air base 2024-08-09 04:35 2024-09-09 04:34 edit move protection was not needed here Red-tailed hawk Hawkesbury, Ontario 2024-08-09 00:37 2024-08-16 00:37 edit,move Persistent vandalism Anachronist Baalveer 2024-08-09 00:14 2024-11-09 00:14 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Disruption resumed as soon as the prior protection lifted. Anachronist Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Piermark 2024-08-08 20:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie Special military operation 2024-08-08 18:19 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Muboshgu Template:Proper name 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2518 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Election box gain with party link no swing 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Disestablishment category in country by decade/core 2024-08-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2586 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Palestine at the 2024 Summer Olympics 2024-08-08 12:46 2024-09-08 12:46 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Kursk 2024-08-08 12:39 2025-02-08 12:39 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:194.28.84.109 2024-08-08 08:08 2024-11-08 08:08 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot

RFC Closure review Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey

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

---

Non-admin Eggishorn closed the RFC with the comment that while the numbers were similar, the KEEP votes had more policy on their side. I ask for a reconsideration. The only policy the keep votes had were BLUDGEON. Quite simply, the RFC is whether or not Jews are of Middle Eastern descent.As one of the "Remove" votes pointed out, a category is all or none and can't have exceptions. Most of the Jews in the world are not of ME descent. The keep votes kept using tendentious arguments that 1,000 years ago the Jews were of ME descent, therefore all Jews today are as well, and quite laughingly, they assert the same with converts, they marry into the ME descent so they also get ME descent. I ask that the RFC be overturned. The clear policy AND consensus by non-SPA users is to Remove. Ask yourself the following question, should we put all people in the CAT of African Descent? That is basically the argument that the RFC now uses.

Thanks 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, some of the keep votes (and the closer) confuse the Jewish homeland (in terms of religion) and descent. While it's true that the Jewish homeland is in the Middle East and yes, Jews pray to return to their homeland, that doesn't mean their descent is from the ME. A convert prays the same thing. The homeland of the religion is in the ME but you can't say the same thing for the millions of Jews who don't have ME descent. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concerns. I recognize that closing such an evenly-!voted on RfC could be contentious. That said, I believe that it was stale and it was necessary to bring a conclusion to the table, particularly given the RfC age. To expand on the closing comment, my first concern in such a RfC is, in keeping with NOR, always to view the sources. While it is easy to cherry-pick sources for either contention, the breadth and depth of the sources provided by those arguing for "Keep" was more impressive and convincing. Also, in order to remove content editors proposing removal as a positive change need to create consensus for that change. This is in keeping with WP:TALK#USE and BRD. The end result of considering the sources and the applicable policies lead me to highlight: ...the strength of reference sources and policy-based arguments... and I believe that is the best way to provide a policy-based close.

As a side note: I don't see evidence of SPA's as I understand the term is generally used. Nearly every one of the "Keep" !voters have significant histories prior to the RfC and I do not see "edits primarily on Hebrew- and Judaism- related articles" as and SPA. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict I do not believe I state anywhere what I think the Jewish Homeland is or should be. Indeed, had I done so, I would not be able to claim I was non-involved. I simply evaluated the arguments and evidence presented. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I also wanted to appeal this closure. In a case where the votes are so divided, 7 - 7, per WP:BURDEN the result should be "no consensus for inclusion of this category". I argued this as point #8 of the "remove" votes, and I urge you to review my other points as well. Especially I feel that point #1 was ignored, arguing that the sources (which were mentioned by the closing editor as well) do not relate to any individuals, which is what categories tag in the end, so is not appropriate. By the way, please note that for most of its existence, this category was not part of the contested categories, and is still not so at the present. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above, I did not simply count either the !votes (If I had, there would be no reason to not call them simply votes) or the sources provided. I am confused by your point about ignoring sources and yet mentioning them. If you rephrase, I may be able to provide a better answer. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that the keep votes (and possibly you) are confusing Jews as a people and individual Jews. I am not from the Middle East. A category has to be true all across the board. This was a bad close and should be reverted. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will not make judgments here about the confusion or understanding of another editor, but for my own part, I can accept the potential proposition that individual people are not the same as "the people." I have no personal opinion as to whether the proposition is correct in this case, as expressing one would become a supervote. The Keep votes had, I felt and continue to feel, better sources and therefore align to policy (especially NOR) better. If an admin believes I am wrong, they can certainly overturn, of course. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet you would have my Wikipedia article listed as from the Middle East, which is clearly not true. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I would not have you do or not do anything. Your argument for overturning the close seems to be moving towards: "I don't like how the result of the discussion would treat me." I, unfortunately, can't really reply towards that. I am not trying to make a judgment about you or anyone else. I am only trying to evaluate the RfC discussion in the light of referenced sources and policy. The counterfactual argument you are proposing would seem to require another discussion on the talk page. WP:NAC says: Non-admins are similarly expected to promptly justify their decisions when required. I cannot justify the decision of others, only my interpretations of policy and consensus. WP:Consensus states that consensus is neither a simple count nor required to be unanimous. After a long period of inactivity, I thought, and continue to think, that rough consensus is the best that discussion was likely to generate.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Then you haven't read the RFC or know what the category is. As it stands now, based on your closing of the RFC, EVERY article on Wikipedia that has the category of Jewish Descent, will also be placed under Middle East descent which is not factual. As mentioned earlier, a category has to be true 100% of the time. Your close makes a false category the norm on Wikipedia. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 22:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Yes, I did read not only the entire RfC and verified as much of it as I could but I also read the extensive discussion prior to it. 2)You are consistently confusing closing the discussion for my expressing an opinion on the category or its contents - I do not have such an opinion and if I did, I would not have in good faith closed it. If you disagree with the outcome of the discussion due to your understanding of substance, I'm afraid I can't give you what you are looking for. I closed it on reasons of policy. Your counterfactual argument is something I can't really address. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Then can you do me a favor and show me one source that says all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I cannot. I am not involved in the discussion and I will not address the substance of the discussion. If you want to make an argument that I misread the extensive list of sources in the discussion, I am all ears. I would point you towards the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE page @Only in death: has already linked to, particularly this point: You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument". ... Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues such as WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP.. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

1)We're here already. 2) You said the KEEP votes had the policy and sources on their side, so please tell me which source says all Jews are of ME descent. That is the ultimate question. If you can't answer that, then you should not have closed the RFC. You did a piss poor close and now are trying to defend it by not answering my question. You said you read the sources and policies, so please answer my question. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 22:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not answering your question because you keep asking me to defend a position I did not take. Closing a question is not the same as not agreeing with one side or the other. I keep saying the references favored Keep because that is true. You are free to go and look at them yourself. @The Human Trumpet Solo: alone posted 38 references @Bubbecraft: another 19 and an IP editor added more. No editor arguing for Remove posted a single verifiable reference. That is what I considered. Not whether I thought Jews were Middle Eastern or not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 23:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that follows. Your entire argument in favor of Remove was: ...the Jewish religion originates in the Middle East, Jewish people, including converts, originates wherever they originate from, which may or may not be the Middle East.. No reference to policies and certainly no actual references. If you feel that your identity is offended by the categorization, that is not closure review. I'm sorry to keep making a point you feel doesn't address your concern, but I am not making the assertion that Jewish=Middle Eastern. I am not going to defend a position I am not taking. I realize that seems hollow to you, but I can't take responsibility for something I never said, as you seem to wish me to do. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eggishorn—you say that one editor posted 38 references, another editor posted 19 references, and another editor posted more references. Did you check any those references? "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Bus stop (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Bus stop:. Yes, as I said above, I verified as many as I could. Many of them were irrelevant or only minimally on-point but at least there were references in support. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn—can you point to even one source that supports the notion that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That is the same question I asked earlier. That is, as I pointed out, the ultimate question. Eggishorn claimed to read the sources and refs, so it should not be too difficult to mention one source. After all, he closed the RFC. If he can't even find one source, then obviously the close was in error. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 01:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

One thing for reviewers to keep in mind, one very major reason why many Remove votes didn't list sources is because of WP:BLUE. The keepers are saying that Jews are of ME descent. All that is needed for Remove is to say, that it's factually not true. There are millions of Jews who aren't of ME descent. Therefore you can't have the category and the close was a poor close. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 00:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I cant see where Sir Joseph has attempted to discuss the decision with the closer per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE before bringing this to AN. Given his above posts this also seems to be veering sharply towards re-litigating the RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• The proposition that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is just plain silly. No source says this. Common sense can tell you that this cannot possibly be true. Anyone can convert to Judaism. By what stretch of the imagination is a convert to Judaism of Middle Eastern descent? Unless of course they are of Middle Eastern descent, and then a source would have to support that. The Category should be meaningful—not just a joke. Sources should support that all people in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent are of Middle Eastern descent. The Category becomes a meaningless artifact of how silly Wikipedia can be if all Jews are placed in "Category:People of Middle Eastern descent". Sources are the key and there certainly are no sources saying that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. We shouldn't even be having this conversation. That is how silly it is. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This is making the same arguments made at the RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely: the argument that an evenly balanced Rfc should error on the side of caution and be closed as an outcome against the inclusion of the contentious material, is an argument that I made in the discussion, and was directly addressed to any future closing editor.

1. I think that it was incorrect to decide for addition of contentious material in a so closely balanced Rfc, and would like admins to review the decision to the contrary in view of WP:BURDEN.
2. Likewise, I think that the closing editor erred in balancing the other policy and guidelines based arguments as well, and would like admins to review his decision to rely on sources that refer to the whole of the people in general when deciding about a category that will be applied to individuals of that people, who were not the subject of those sources.

Since the closing editor did not base himself on any clear consensus, which was absent and the closing editor stated so himself, but instead used his own judgment, which again he stated clearly himself, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says that his closure is subject to review. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is subject to review, that is not in dispute and I quoted that from the applicable policy. I did not state that there was no consensus. What I actually said was that it was close only in terms of vote-counting, which an RfC closer is specifically warned against doing. I used my judgment to the extent that I tried to best evaluate the arguments against policy and sourcing. I did not attempt to substitute my judgment about the substance of the dispute for the rough consensus that I found. Again, consensus is not unanimity. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet you can't point out one source in favor of the close. If there is one source that says all Jews are from the Middle East, then it shouldn't be to difficult to find, since you closed the RFC in favor of that after reading the sources, as you claim. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 01:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Does this concern this edit which adds Category:People of Middle Eastern descent to Category:People of Jewish descent? Does the close at category talk mean that edit will be restored? And that tells the world that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent? If so, Eggishorn should stop digging in to defend the close, and the normal bureaucratic responses should be halted. The proposition is blatantly absurd and will be fixed, although not without the normal drama apparently. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You might want to check a bit further back as well as the archives. This has been going on for a few years with it being in there, then removed, then returned etc. Previous discussions have generally had the same result on the talkpage - better (well more policy and guideline referencing) arguments made for inclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, please be a bit kinder to the closing editor. He is not a party to the discussion, he just interpreted its results. I would like to see other admins address the two questions I asked above, whether the close does right to WP:BURDEN and whether it correctly applies categories to articles about individuals as opposed to a group. I would also like to ask Eggishorn, whether he thinks he took these two arguments into account and in the appropriate measure. Debresser (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser: Thanks you for your questions. I realize that this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues of identity. Such issues are a difficult subject with which the project has always had to wrestle and, given human nature, probably always will treat problematically. To echo your statement, I would also appreciate one or more administrators' attention at this time.

To answer your questions, however, yes, I think I took them into account appropriately. I tried to follow the standards of WP:NACD and WP:NADC. Those guidelines ask the closer to not use their own judgment about the question posed in the RfC as a substitute for the points raised in the discussion. This RfC discussion certainly included editors making arguments about the individual/group question you raise. In evaluating those points, I considered that many editors simply made brief statements about the self-evident correctness of their position while providing neither references nor policy-based justifications. I weighted those arguments less-heavily than those that did provide such support. If those making such self-justified arguments had instead also provided policy or reference support, I would not have discounted them. I would then have closed the RfC differently or left it alone entirely.

Much of the discussion above has been either to assert that I should have made an independent judgment about the RfC question or that I did in fact make such a judgment, only agreeing with the "wrong" side. I hope the above paragraph gives some insight into the process by which I attempted to avoid that. It should go without saying that I recognize editors can disagree in good faith with me on whether I achieved that goal. I would hope any poor soul reading through this blizzard of pixels could agree that I tried to make a policy-based close of a languishing request. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

But again, you stated you read the sources. So please tell us which source states all Jews are from the Middle East? If you can't answer that, you should not have closed the RFC. You can't close an RFC without reading the sources, so this shouldn't be too difficult for you. I'm not sure why you are having trouble answering the question. I reiterate that this was a terrible close, and the fact you're digging in, shows that you perhaps shouldn't be closing contentious RFC's. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You and I are not going to agree on this. Any further attempts on my part to explain why I think your oft-repeated demand is misplaced are likely only to give rise to further acrimony. I have stated my reasons in reasonably clear English and in many different ways. Anything else I say at this point would be simply repeating myself. Your position is equally clear, both to me and to others reading. I can only hope that such others will eventually come along and break this discussion out of wallowing back and forth over the same ground. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you think my demand is misplaced. You stated you went through the sources before you closed the RFC. I, and Bus Stop, have asked you to name one source. It shouldn't be too difficult. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Not required. Have you an argument based on WP:CLOSECHALLENGE? Because so far you have yet to make one. Other than 'I dont agree with it' or 'its wrong'. See the section titled Challenging other closures. The only part you appear to be challenging the closure under is 'if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion'. However you have not provided evidence it was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, only that you disagree with the arguments of the other side and the result. And your above badgering is clear that you want to relitigate the argument. Which is explicitly not what a closure review is for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have asked repeatedly for just one source. That is why the close was not valid. As Bus Stop pointed out as well, the sources the Keep gave were not necessarily good sources. As a closer, you are supposed to look at the sources, and the context. If you did so and still closed it as a Keep, then you should have one source handy that agrees with the Keep. Not having one means you didn't do the close properly. Are all Jews from the Middle East? That is the question of the RFC, Eggishorn closed it and should be able to answer the question. It was a bad close, against policy and against common sense. Closing a contentious RFC and then not answering one simple question makes it seem that someone just wanted to close an RFC. I am not re-litigating the RFC, I am asking the closer to name one source. Why is he failing to do so? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Right so we have clarified your position is 'I dont agree with the other sides argument'. That is not evidence the closer has failed to summarise the discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Because I already pointed to over 47 references (versus 0) in the discussion at hand. It is not either appropriate nor required for me as a closer to go find on demand the sources that would satisfy you. I can't state it more plainly than that.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you looked at 47 references, so I again, don't know why you can't point to one that says all Jews are from the Middle East. As Bus Stop pointed out, those sources are cherry picked and out of context. You should know that by you reading them. You say you looked at the 47 references, so please tell us which one says what the Keepers say it says. Your continuing to dig in without answering one question is telling. All you have to do is bring a source that says all Jews are from the Middle East. (And that is why the Removes didn't need to bring any sources, all they had to do was state that not all Jews are from the ME.) 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

All you have to do is present some evidence the closer has failed to summarise the discussion. Please do so instead of re-litigating the same argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe I and Bus Stop already did. The closer has stated he read the 47 references and I say he didn't. The close shows he didn't, and by him refusing to answer my question just reinforces that. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah so your reason for disputing is 'I dont agree with the close and the closer is a liar'. Glad we are on the same page. Any further reasons for challenging it that have no credibility? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of the situation over the listing of Bernie Sanders' faith about a half-year back, and central is understanding if we are talking Jewish by bloodline or Jewish by faith (the dichotomy of the name). The Category title ("Jewish descent") and the description of the category all imply the by-bloodline (regardless how far separated) to the ethnicity of the original Jewish people that came from the ME, which thus supports the close by Eggishorn. I would assume that if we took the case of two Caucasian parents that converted to Judaism, that their children would not be considered to be Jewish descendants by the terminology used, so those children (if notable) would not be included in this category. In other words, one cannot chose to become or not become Jewish-by-bloodline, you either are or aren't. If you are and you don't follow Judaism , you would fall into this category. That's how I read this, and again, comes back to understanding that "Jewish" has two very distinct meanings that we have to be careful to separate. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Masem, if you read the Keep votes, you will see that they say a convert "magically" becomes ME descent and it's as if they were there in spirit. Again, that is why the remove votes didn't feel the need to bring sources or references. Being of Jewish descent doesn't mean being of Middle Eastern descent. If we go back to the beginning, then shouldn't every person on Wikipedia have an "African descent" cat? I happen to be Jewish, but I am not of ME descent, and probably more than half of the Jews today are not of ME descent. That is why this is a ludicrous close. In the case of your two Caucasian parents who converted, their children would be of Jewish descent, so how does it make sense to mark them as being of ME descent? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What? There is never going to be a source that says what a Wikipedia category is and what belongs there because they are made up by Wikipedians, to group things together - the very category you are discussing assumes that there are "people", assumes they have a "descent", and assumes such a decent can be "Jewish" (the common meaning of that appears to be Jewish can be something people can descend from and be born with), all assumptions made by Wikipedia that constructed this category (compare, the category does not use the term, "Judaism", which would presumably give it a different meaning). So, your certitude in condemning Eggshorn seems a little much. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

So according to Wikipedia, I am from the Middle East? You make no sense. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless you are a first generation convert, genetic studies indicate yes, you are of middle-eastern descent through Jewish ethnicity - a genetic grouping that is indiginous to the middle-east and found elsewhere due to disapora. Mazel tov! Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

1)Aren't we then all African Descent using your logic? 2) What if I were a first generation (or child of a first generation) convert? I would be of Jewish descent without being from the ME. Is Sammy Davis Jr's kids of ME descent? Again, I'm not sure how many times I can say it but that is why the remove didn't need sources, they had WP:BLUE. Not all Jews are from the Middle East descent. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that Sammy Davis Jr. was a convert to Judaism (rather than being of Jewish bloodline descent), he, nor his kids, would be in this category in question, and thus that's a non-issue. Again, this comes down to understanding that there are two meanings to the word Jewish and being clear which meaning is the one that we want to focus on in this category, which seems hands down to be the genetic relationship, and not the faith-based one. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. The category is explicitly for people of Jewish descent, not religious. As the keep votes even mentioned, a convert should still be listed because it's "as if they become part of the descent." This is not about bloodline, but about the "ethnic" part of it, again, as evident by the category and the survey. The category needs to be factual and "Cat of Jewish descent" is used all throughout Wikipedia for people who have Jewish descent. Putting those people in the ME just falsifies the category. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As soon as you can justify categorising Sammy Davis Jr of 'Jewish descent' that might become an issue. Converts typically marry other Jews in the first or second generation. Genes spread both ways. Had Sammy Davis Jr's children been notable enough for articles their religion/ethnicity may have been mentioned. There is no evidence their mother was Jewish, so it is unlikely any of them would have a Jewish Descent category. But again this is re-litigating the argument. Which is not the point of a closure review. We get you dont agree with it. We get you think the reasoning is wrong. Given your (and to a lesser extent, Bus Stop's) rather idiosyncratic POV on Jews has consistantly been rejected at the BLP noticeboard and elsewhere, it is not surprising you want to keep focusing on the religious aspect to the exclusion of everything else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a very selective way of interpreting "descent" compared to its common English usage and how the category is presented as well as other categories around it. I'm more convinced that the RFC was closed properly because of this. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

So why not put everyone under African descent, using your logic? And why wouldn't Sammy Davis Jr's kids be listed under this category? I think you are editing without having a clue as to what this category is all about. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well mostly because he had one child with a non-Jew and the other 3 were adopted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Middle East is a geographic location yet Eggishorn says "I realize that this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues of identity."[1] A person had to have set foot on the land of the Middle East to be of Middle Eastern descent. Alternatively their forebears would have had to set foot on the land of the Middle East. This RfC does not veer into issues of identity. The "issue" in this RfC concerns the landmass known as the Middle East. This is why it is important that we get this right. We can't tell the reader that a subject of a biography is of Middle Eastern descent unless sources actually support the setting of feet upon the landmass of the Middle East. To do so would be to convey incorrect information. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And this statement amply demonstrates why I described your views as idiosyncratic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If @Bus stop: can distinguish for me how issues of descent and identity are not tied to geographic locations, I may be able to respond. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn—the question is: are all Jews of Middle Eastern descent? The RfC concerns itself with whether all Jewish people should be Categorized as being of Middle Eastern descent. You say "I realize that this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues of identity." But in fact this RfC does not veer into issues of identity. It veers into issues of geography. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had thought the question here was: "Did the closer summarize the discussion in the RfC?" The question of the Jewish identity is a very complex one that has been debated for thousands of years and is unlikely to be settled here. I will note, however, that although geography is one of the prime contributors to a number of ethnic group identities (e.g., Irish Americans, German Brazilians, Turko-Persians, etc) I have no problem rephrasing it to: "...this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues..." connected to deeply-held personal beliefs. Is that better? Thanks for clarifying your question. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn—the intersection here, for the purpose of Categorization, is between those subjects of biographies identified by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as Jews, and that part of the world known as the Middle East. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the Category page in question "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish. Please use the Category:Jews for those." So this intersection is not about people that are Jews, but people that are of Jewish descent and are not Jews. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a Jew is of Jewish descent, Masem, if they are not a convert to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Read the quoted text from the category page again. The category of concern will not include people that are Jews (that is, of the Jewish faith). --MASEM (t) 19:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

But the reliance here, Masem, is on the identification of people as Jewish according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is from that that we arrive at those who are of Jewish descent. The topic of "Jewish identity" and "deeply-held personal beliefs" as mentioned by Eggishorn is a misplaced focus. Our primary focus in the RfC is a geographic focus. Once a person has been identified as being Jewish or of Jewish descent (according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) we are then asking the question (in the corresponding RfC) if they are of Middle Eastern descent. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No. That is simply not what I said. When I wrote, "I realize that this discussion ...issues of identity," I was expressing to Debresser my understanding for why this issue is contentious. I was not making any statement about the substance of the RfC. The debate over geographical origins of Jewish people is not for here, and I am not going to take part. I honestly have no opinion about how the categories "should" be decided or included. I thought my offer to reformulate would have cleared that up, but it keeps being twisted into an endorsement of the proposition that Jewish people are Middle Eastern. I don't know how many times I can say I never said that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn—neither I nor Debresser nor Sir Joseph are talking about "deeply-held personal beliefs" yet you are saying "I realize that this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues of identity" and "the question of the Jewish identity is a very complex one". You alone are invoking the notion of "deeply-held personal beliefs." These are all quotes from your posts. Wikipedia already has policy in place concerning identifying people by religion. The RfC that you wp:closed has nothing to do with identifying people by religion. It has to do with whether or not all Jewish people should be Categorized as being of Middle Eastern descent, that is, deriving from the Middle East. I think you are getting a bit off-topic with the above quoted comments because Wikipedia policy already resolves issues on religious identity. We are concerned in the corresponding RfC with the geographic area of origin of people that Wikipedia identifies as Jews or people of Jewish descent. Bus stop (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I would say that the Ethiopian Jews stand as a pretty solid example of Jews who are not of ME descent unless people are claiming that Ethiopia is a Middle Eastern country or that the Falasha are not real Jews. Anyone really want to make either of those claims?? Jbh^Talk 16:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Black Jews, Cochin Jews, etc. Anecdotally, I know a black women whose parents converted to Judaism. She is obviously then of Jewish descent, but there is no Middle East in her. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You do realise by their own traditions Ethiopian Jews migrated there from... da da daaaa the middle east (via Egypt) right? Cochin Jews were exiles from... the middle east. Do you actually know what the word 'diaspora' means? Or how genetic spread works? Also no, someone whose parents both converted to Judaism is not obviously 'of Jewish descent'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup... by tradition, not necessarily or even likely by reality. Essentially what is being argued here it that because the Jews of the Biblical Exodus were from the ME then all Jews are descended from the me. However all Jews are not descended from the Jews of the Exodus. As has been pointed out there have been converts throughout history and their descendants are no less Jewish. Even if the Falasha founding population was from the ME it has been so diluted via intermarriage/converts that the claim of ME descent is ideological and political and even if true for some it is not universiallt true which is what is required for categorization. Jbh^Talk 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are of Jewish descent, but they would be of other descents as well. We are all of many descents. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

So I'll ask again, using your logic, why isn't everyone on Wikipedia placed in the category of African Descent? Additionally why would someone who is of Jewish descent not be obviously of Jewish descent? That is what the category is all about. Even those who voted keep, agree that converts are of Jewish descent, they just use some magic to justify that they are also of ME descent. If someone is Jewish and has a child, that child is obviously of Jewish descent. Not sure why that is even a question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

In the common language, "descent" means that one is able to trace/document ones genetic ancestry to a given location (in this case, Jewish-by-bloodline to the ME). We can't readily do the step of going from ME-descended people to Africa for all cases because the genetic line is not fully clear because of a lack of recorded history there.

And further, "descent" is a word applying to the ethnicity/genetic part of a person, not their faith. We don't call people of Christian descent, because faith doesn't carry by genetics, but we can talk of Greek descent or Roman descent. To stress again, there is a desire to mingle the two very-separate definitions of "Jewish" here. When we talk about "descent", the only obvious meaning is that of the Jewish-by-bloodline, not Jewish-by-faith. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Except that the discussion here, Masem, is not about "Jewish descent", it is about "Middle Eastern descent". Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Masem - see my comments above about the Ethiopian Jews. They are Jewish by faith and Jewish-by-bloodline however they are a very different population from what we consider ethnic Jews. This was a major issue durring their evacuation through the Sudan in the 80's. Jbh^Talk 17:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I will also point out a quote from one of our articles;

The only exception to this among Jewish communities is in the Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews); a 1999 genetic study came to the conclusion that "the distinctiveness of the Y-chromosome haplotype distribution of Beta Israel Jews from conventional Jewish populations and their relatively greater similarity in haplotype profile to non-Jewish Ethiopians are consistent with the view that the Beta Israel people descended from ancient inhabitants of Ethiopia who converted to Judaism.^[[2]]

Jbh^Talk 17:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

"a category is all or none and can't have exceptions" - I don't see that anywhere in Wikipedia: Categorization, and I'm not so sure it's true. For example, our pages Martinique and Category:Martinique is an eventual part of Category:France, which is an eventual part of Category:Europe - though the island Martinique is not part of the continent of Europe by the definition we have in that article. I suspect there are plenty of other examples that categories do, in fact, have exceptions. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to follow that and got stuck in a loop once I got to Europe - Afro-Eurasia - Geography of Europe - Europe.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old joke about the computer programmer who died following the directions on the shampoo bottle: "Wash, Rinse, Repeat"... Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible futile attempt to refocus discussion

This discussion has gotten wildly removed from the OP question, which essentially is: did Eggishorn summarize the discussion in the RfC? Just as a reminder, what I said was:

• While the divide in opinion is split almost evenly between Keep and Remove !votes... Apparently undisputed
• ...the strength of reference sources and policy-based arguments leans towards Keep Bus Stop, Debresser and most especially Sir Joseph dispute this conclusion. My evaluation at the time was that the Remove !votes did not present policy or reference-based arguments, as our three core content policies (WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) would urge. Sir Joseph further makes the argument above that WP:BLUE means the Remove voices should not have been expected to make such policy and reference-based arguments (but see also WP:NOTBLUE and WP:POPE).

Could an administrator kindly comment on the closure review piece of this discussion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs)

Reading only on the RFC arguments, the close in favor of keep seems absolutely correct given that those keep !votes provided sourced evidence that supported their reasonings to keep, while none were given by the remove !votes. Since we follow sources, this is seems like a reasonable close on that argument alone. (There's a whole separate issue about how people take the word "Jewish" that gets conflated in all this, but again, sourcing is everything). --MASEM (t) 19:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Masem—"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Yes, there are sources provided, but there are no sources provided (that I could check) that even remotely support the contention that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. Just providing a bunch of links tangentially-related to the question under consideration hardly supports the contention that all Jews or all people of Jewish descent are of Middle Eastern descent. One source does not necessarily substitute for another source. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(Non-admin) Unsurprisingly given the above, I concur entirely with Masem here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

To quote Eggishorn, "Yes, as I said above, I verified as many as I could. Many of them were irrelevant or only minimally on-point but at least there were references in support." It appears I am in the middle of the Twilight Zone where logic and reason are not to be found. We're about to rule that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent and nobody seems to think that the decision is just pure bunk? (You also forgot to ping johnuniq and jbhunley as editors who disagree with your close. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we are about to "rule" (in so much as what means on WP) on "People of Jewish descent are of Middle Eastern descent". Nowhere is the argument that this applies to the different class of people that would be called "Jews" (eg Category:Jews). And Eggishorn's closure does seem to this all into account. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's the same thing which you're not getting. I'm of Jewish descent but I'm not of ME descent. Are you of African descent since the theory is that life originated in Africa? I'm not sure why it's difficult to comprehend that not all Jews are of ME descent, which is what the RFC was questioning, not what you are interpreting it as. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually the RFC was explicitly questioning the removal of all geographical categories (ME, Asia etc). Both in Debresser's original phrasing and in the survey subsection. While you are concentrating on specifically the Middle-Eastern one. Likewise its clear from Debresser's own summary that the previous status quo was they were included and there was no consensus to remove them. Even should you want a different result in *this* RFC, the best you are going to get would be a no-consensus result which would defer to the status quo, which was that the geographical categories have been there in one form or another since 2012. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And being of Jewish descent has no relation to being of a geographical descent, unless that person is of that specific geographical descent. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I said that the category was not there for most of the time, and is not there at present. There were a few attempts to add it though. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

In the spirit of refocusing on the real questions here, and since Eggishorn has expressed his consent that admins review his closure, I repeat my two questions:

1. I think that it was incorrect to decide for addition of contentious material in a so closely balanced Rfc, and would like admins to review the decision to the contrary in view of WP:BURDEN.
2. Likewise, I think that the closing editor erred in balancing the other policy and guidelines based arguments as well, and would like admins to review his decision to rely on sources that refer to the whole of the people in general when deciding about a category that will be applied to individuals of that people, who were not the subject of those sources. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn close The relative weight of the arguements were very close with most of the Keep being of no better quality than the Remove. Some were simply wrong based on simple fact c.f. the Falasha (That particular issue was not brought up in any !votes but it shows that the discussion missed some fundamental issues.) The wall of sources dose not seem to have anything quoted which speaks to the point of universial ME descent and often seem to conflate religion with heritage. On both sides I see more ideological arguements than anything else. This should have been closed as No consensus - since the logic used by the closer to throw out Remove !votes is equally applicable to most Keep !votes and the sources are not particularly convincinb for the Keep !vote that simply listed them without saying how they were applicable to the question. I would also recommend that a better formulated and widely published RfC be done to bring in outside editors. The regular commenters run the issues into the ground and create walls of text arguing with each other making it unlikely anyone would willingly jump into the snake pit. I also strongly suggest that the "regulars" step back and let some uninvolved editors address this appeal - after all we already know your opinions. Jbh^Talk 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Eh, maybe should have been a "NC" close (I looked at closing it but concluded I didn't understand enough about how Wikipedia generally treats the word Jew (the confusion between the racial group and the religious group) to really feel comfortable). But NC, default to keep, is where I was leaning. So endorse outcome and no strong opinion on keep vs. NC. Hobit (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hobit—the question in this RfC does not concern whether a Jew is observant, nonobservant, or semi-observant. That is irrelevant to this RfC. We are not concerned in this RfC with a Jewish person's level of religious observance. The question in this RfC is whether all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. If all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, then we should keep the categorization. If all Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent, then we should not keep the categorization. Certainly some Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, but are all Jews of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hobit The category is presently absent. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • • OK, so explain this to be slowly (again, there is a reason I didn't try to close this). A) We have categories for all types of "Jews of X decent", why is this category different? And didn't this cat exist when the RfC started? The original RfC assumes a lot of background knowledge and context that I couldn't figure out in 20 minutes of reading. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hobit—there are some who argue that Category:People of Jewish descent should be added to Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. The argument is that Jews have their origin in biblical times in the Middle East. But we are an encyclopedia and we should require sources before we place all "People of Jewish descent" into a Category for "People of Middle Eastern descent". From the point of view of an encyclopedia the origin of the Jews can be considered shrouded in history. Lineages are not traced back over thousands of years. And numerous people have converted to Judaism over those millennia. Many or most of those converts are not "of Middle Eastern descent". Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't this come down to if we are talking about race or religion? If we are talking about the race (which I would argue "of X decent" implies we are), then Middle Eastern makes perfect sense to me. If we are talking about the religion, then it it clearly doesn't make sense. Do you agree with that? Hobit (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know—please explain your reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hobit, the category is on the person. So to use me as an example, am I of Middle Eastern descent? No. The same way I'm not from African descent, even though billions of years ago, I might have been. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Less than 2 million. Not billions. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hobit That was a good question, about the difference between the race and the religion. The correct answer is that "Jew" is defined as both (see Jew). That means that we have to take into account also converts, e.g., who are definitely not of Middle eastern descent. Especially since there have been converts during the whole of the existence of the Jewish people. This argument was made in the discussion, along with many other arguments, both factual as Wikipedia-policy-based. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

While the word Jew is defined as both by-bloodline and by-faith, what is keep to the RFC in question is the category Category:People of Jewish descent which has the text "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish. Please use the Category:Jews for those." (also just noticed that this cat includes the cat Category:People of Jewish descent by religion‎). So clearly the category of concern is by-bloodline, and the Judiasm faith should not be at all part of the discussion, and so the question thus reduces down do if all those of Jewish decent can be effectively traced back some 3000-4000 years to have originated from that group that lived in what we know as Israel today, without asking if the faith followed the bloodline. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You are missing the point that after some number of generations of conversion (say 10 just for the hell of it) people are likely to claim 'Jewish descent' to be ethnically Jewish. Hell, many, many people have no clue of their geniology beyond four or five generations. Also, yet again, what about the Falasha? They are demonstratively genetically African yet they have a population which has been Jewish since the time of the First Temple. Are they not Jewish? Are non-observant Falasha not ethnically Jewish? Or do you claim that they, unlike ME Jews, lose their ethnic identity if they do not practice their religion?

Yes, I am hammering on this edge case but if something as clear as the Falasha issue can not be addressed how can you address say, Eastern European Jewish families who converted in say 1500. These people would still see themselves as ethnically Jewish but not of ME descent in any meaningful way. As far as I know only select groups such as the Cohenim have even the rough genealogical knowledge to claim to trace their ancestry back 3000-4000 yrs.

The reason I think the RfC in question should be NC is because neither sources nor arguements really addressed these problems. Closing it as Keep would, in effect, endorse an outcome which is both contentious and not properly explored in the RfC. This would make it difficult - at least wiki-politicaly in this topic area - to have a new, clearly written and widely advertised, RfC. Jbh^Talk 16:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Last edited:16:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

To those people that state that after a few generations after conversion to Judiasm that they are suddenly of Jewish descent, that's simply just misusing the term as understood from its standard English and scientific viewpoints and generally how most of the rest of the world uses it, and those cases should not be considered. Nor would one lose "Jewish descent" by non-practice by the same means. The only real issue along these lines is how accurate the lineage can be tracked back.

I do agree though that for things like the other geographic areas that others of the Jewish originated completely separately from those founded by the Jewish diaspora, compound the issue regarding Middle Eastern (eg the Ethiopian Jews). It does seem to me that when looking, those other groups seem to put value in making sure they call themselves separately than just "Jewish": that is, when we say of "Jewish descent" that implicitly means those descendants of the Jewish nation that was founded in the area we know as Israel, and these other groups do try to identify differently when talking about their bloodlines. But that's not universal, just more predominate view, and I agree that's a complication that might not have been adequately discussed at the RFC. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me be the stickler to point out that "Jewish" originally meant "of the Tribe of Judah" and was implicitly a genealogical claim -- that is, descent from the eponymous Judah. Now, I am fully aware that this meaning has changed over the intervening millennia, and I don't think originalism is called for here. Just that we should acknowledge that etymology. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Masem; I think we are coming to the same point re 'descent' from different directions. Yes it is possible to define Jewish origin/ethnicity in such a way as to require/imply ME descent. No it is not practically possible to know whether any individual Jew or person who claims to be ethnically Jewish meets that definition c.f. conversion in the 'deep past' where no one "knows" that their family became Jewish by conversion or not.

  With respect to the Falasha, and here I can only give anticdotal evidence, back when MOSES was going on there was a question of whether all Falasha were 'Tribe of Israel' and therefore had a right of return or not. Their faith is more First Temple Judaism and there was some issue of whether they were actually Jews etc (Along with other stupid stuff like they had to go to The Sudan where they would be "refugees" and the US could help them there but not on their own country where, by definition they could not be "refugees". Labels are important.) As far as I know Falasha both consider themselves Jews (not adjective-Jews - Jews and many now practice more mainstream 'modern' Judaism) and have right of return whether they are observant/practicing or not just like any other diaspora population. In order to make the categorization under discussion work requires a claim that Falasha are indeed not Jews-like-other-Jews which would need some serious sourcing to back up and gets into the realm of special pleading, which I do not think anyone is claiming. Jbh^Talk 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Categorization should not be based on assumptions. Those assumptions are probably wrong for any number of reasons, in many instances, and we have no way of guessing how many such incorrect instances exist. I haven't seen any source directly supporting the premise of the Categorization that is being considered. The sources that have been adduced are violations of wp:synthesis. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are replying to. If I were arguing the RfC I would say that the Cat:Jewish people or whatever should not be included in Cat:People of ME descent. Since we are discussing the quality of the close my position is that the close was bad because, by the criteria stated in the close, both sets of arguements were poor and giving deciding weight to a wall of non-specific and off point sources was incorrect. There was not enough there to judge a clear consensus either way and a Keep close effectivly locks in a universial categorization which seems to be, as I have argued, incorrect on its face. Jbh^Talk 18:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Masem As others also said above, the category is a "descent" category, but who they are descendant from is determined by religious rules more than by bloodline, and that is what the disputed category is about. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If it is unclear to seasoned editors what criteria determine the inclusion of the one Category in the other Category then how are readers going to be able to make any sense of such a Categorization? Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Restored unclosed discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Daily Mail RfC

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC

When the time comes, this one really needs an experienced closer (and perhaps more than one, given the controversial nature of the RfC). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. The current hotly contested topic of fakeness of news makes this a political hot potato. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And you know who's taking those tasty hot potatoes out of our children's mouths? Immigrants! I'm outraged too, etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Careful there. Outrage causes cancer. I know that this is true because I reads it in The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But what is this going to do to my house price? ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The EU, gays and travellers have already done the damage to that. Come on, don't you believe the Mail at all? I'm outraged too. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've pointed out at the RFC, the Daily Mail have helpfully made the case for me by putting "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens" on their website's front page today. (Presumably the aliens are planning to land in YOUR TOWN to steal the jobs of HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I bet they killed Princess Diana as well. Bastards. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

wow, that's...that's special. I can't say I understand the British print media all that well, but in the U.S. this is the sort of headline we expect from trash tabloids only sold at supermarkets that ere not taken all that seriously by the general public. I sincerely hope that is also the case in the UK. (We save the real garbage for our broadcast and internet media (is that better or worse, I really don't know)) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a trash tabloid sold at supermarkets... Its also got a successful history of printing duff stories that get picked up by mainstream media (including those in the US). In its own way its very successful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The trash tabloids sold at US supermarkets called. They demand an apology for being compared to The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would close it but this box on my userpage probably prevents me from doing so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I might be willing to close it (or act as one of several closers), depending on how things look once it's done. Sunrise (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

All joking aside, the 30 days runs out on Monday, 06 February 2017, and at by time we really need an uninvolved closer or closers to evaluate the sometimes subtle arguments and who can deal with the inevitable challenge that will be filed no matter which way the decision goes. Sunrise, who volunteered above, may run into extra opposition because he isn't an administrator. Any other volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Go on, put my name down against it. I believe I will be unavailable on the 6th but can tackle it on the 7th if no-one else gets there first. I need to get back into the swing of things here, what better way than by tackling a controversial and high-profile RFC? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also willing to close either alone, or (preferably) with a couple of others. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping me if you need a third (fourth? fifth?) opinion/voice on the close. As much as I hate to say it this might actually involve some 'crat-style discussion about which steps to take. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, if folks don't mind and want it I can bring my own assessment in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that many of the examples cited are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here. The actual article clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS. In short, the DM is accurate on the topic. When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Did someone mention hooves?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No source that I know of is actually good for celebrity gossip as I have iterated. The article you link to, in the actual article, states simply: "In a recent post on her app, the reality star revealed her secret for keeping her ever-changing nails strong and healthy: Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, a product that was originally formulated to repair the hooves of million-dollar thoroughbred racehorses." Which, as far as "celebrity gossip" goes, is extraordinarily non-contentious. The general claim about that cream has even been in The New York Times [3] and thus I fail to see why the DM is different in the case at hand from that esteemed journal. "Well‐Touled Cream They say that the late Elizabeth Arden used to work ‐her eyelash cream into her racehorses’ manes and tails to make them more luxuriant. Now we have a horse and cream story in reverse. It seems that stable grooms used to massage a cream into thoroughbreds’ hooves to keep them from splitting. After a while, women grooms began noticing an ,improvement in their own fingernails, which they attributed to the frequent use of the ungent. So, naturally, someone came along and decided to refine the preparation and package it for humans. Now we have Barielle Nail Strengthener Cream, a pleasant‐feeling concoction which seems to be improving our ragged cuticles. Saks carries it, at $6 and $10." Note that the typos are courtesy of that esteemed journal as well. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the hot tip, Collect. Now tempted to create Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream. You're right, it's actually quite uncontentious. But I susepect that's the sort of headline that sets some ediotrs' nerves a-jangling, especially those with longer nails. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Iterated and reiterated. I think it's the fact that they buy into the idea that everybody noteworthy is a "celebrity" and is fair game for them to make up "gossip" about that offends many of us, Collect. There are better sources out there and we should always be using them. --John (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose votes

As in RFAs where oppose votes gets heavily discussed, here in this RFC, the oppose voters are subjected to replies, objection and comments. The support votes are not getting too much questioned, why they support ban of Daily Mail. The oppose votes, where editors oppose ban of Daily Mail are getting badgered. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this is due to a couple of reasons. First, many of those in support of a ban are among the most vocal of editors/admins on WP and seem unable to behave in a way that does not lead to the treatment you describe above. Second, very, very few opposers have been able to indicate that the DM is a reliable source, however, opposers believe for their own various reasons that a "ban" is objectionable. This means the "supporters" have nowhere to go in terms of discussion, other than attacking the opposers. There may also be an element of frustration here. If the closure is in favour of a ban, how will this happen? There is currently no blacklist of newspapers and I think forming one would require a change in WP-policy. I'm wondering if the supporters have seen this eventuality and have decided to attack the opposers hoping they will not return to any future debate. For the record, I have not voted either way on this matter. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative explanation: the supporters, being mainly very experienced Wikipedians, have come to the good-faith conclusion that The Daily Mail is unreliable as a source for anything and that Wikipedia would be greatly improved if a software filter prevented any new attempts to use it as a source. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The oppose includes SlimVirgin, Anne Delong, Boing! said Zebedee, The Four Deuces, Richard Keatinge, Thincat, Softlavender, Lugnuts, Andy Dingley, Jheald, Finnusertop, Ianmacm, Davey2010. All of them are also very experienced Wikipedians. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The results so far.

We are now 7 days away from the normal 30-day RfC closing.

So far it looks like we have 46 support !votes and 24 oppose !votes. (My rough count; a more careful count should be made checking for dupes)

There were 7 !votes in the last 5 days (all suppport) and zero !votes in the last 2 days.

(Crossposted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The results so far). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Closer should also keep in mind that many of the views offered here were more nuanced than reflected by straight-up oppose or support. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have contacted those who volunteered, above, by email, as I think some discussion of this is necessary. However, doing so on-wiki runs the risk of such discussion getting derailed by well-meaning passers-by; I'm therefore proposing to hold a quick email discussion with Primefac, Sunrise, Tazerdadog and Jo-Jo Eumerus and will close the RFC as soon as we come to an agreement. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Email works, so as long as there is not too much traffic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

<gasp> Private discussions on WP? It's the secret cabal that runs- wait. I'm part of the cabal. Carry on, then. I'll just monitor the email conversation through my NSA contacts and we can bring it up at the next meeting of the other secret cabal the WP cabal secretly works for. In secret, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Just tweet the result, why dontcha? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and an announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's funny because I have such pleasant memories of the Cabal. Dumuzid (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• If there is any remote possibility that this publication is going to the blacklisted, I strongly feel this RfC should be listed at Centralized Discussion, and that it should, like the RfC mentioned in a thread below, be closed by a team of three neutral admins. This is a middle-market newspaper, not a tabloid, and notwithstanding its negative politically incorrect frontpage headlines and at times scandal-mongering, it also contains good, standard, valuable journalism, reportage, interviews, and reviews that are exclusives and completely unavailable elsewhere. It is a mixed bag, and should not be painted with a broad brush, even though it is hated in the UK for its misleading front pages. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender Even if a blacklisting was likely (which I don't think is the case) why would an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard not be sufficient to gauge the consensus of the community? Any consensus at centralized discussion is only likely to gather users who aren't as familiar with the policies on notability as those that visit the reliable sources noticeboard, which is only likely to result in a less useful discourse. What would be the point of searching for more users that are not as familiar or as interested in the issue of the reliability of sources?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Because WP:RSN is watched by very few editors, whereas the editors of affected articles which cite the Daily Mail for legitimate reasons (reviews, exclusives, interviews, and reliable reportage [non-political, non-science, non-libel] unavailable elsewhere) are unlikely to be watching that board. By and large the board has a core cadre of participants and commentators, and even editors who might at some point happen to query the board only watch it for the time that their discussion is open (as with many dispute-resolution noticeboards). In short, the vast majority of the experienced editors likely to be affected by a blacklist of this publication are more than likely not watching that board. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually just claim that a RfC with 93 responses didn't have sufficient participation? If you wish to challenge the result, the first step would be to go to the talk pages of the closing admins and try to convince them that they got it wrong for the reasons you list above. I have done this IIRC twice in the ten years I have been editing Wikipedia; one time the admin reconsidered and asked for another admin to close it, the other time the admin quickly convinced me that I was the one who got it wrong. If that doesn't work, I don't think that there is any rule that prevents you from posting a good-faith RfC at Centralized Discussion asking whether to overturn the results of the Daily Mail RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed

It's done. Let the tarring and feathering of myself and the other admins involved in the close begin... Yunshui ^雲_水 13:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oy. Seems like the email discussion happened while I was off-email - stupid email service. The closure statement matches almost exactly what I would have proposed, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for you to certify the result in the closing statement? We already have at least one person who is talking about challenging the close. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on the signing. Alas I have mislaid my pitchfork today. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yunshui and Primefac, I'm not sure I agree with the strong wording of your close, particularly the words in bold (bold added): "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."

The RfC question allowed for exceptions, as did several of the support responses.

I've summarized the responses at User:SlimVirgin/draft. There is more support for a combination of the qualified-support (11) and oppose positions (27), than there is for unqualified support (47). Some of the supports read like opposes to me. For example, I opposed, but I agree with the qualified supports. So I would say that consensus is more nuanced than your close reflects. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Not to speak for the others, of course, but based on our discussion I would suggest interpreting that statement as a general principle which may have reasonable exceptions to it, i.e. the focus should be more on the first sentence than the second. For myself, I don't think we had enough justification to say that specific exceptions definitively exist other than IAR, but I think it's fairly likely that they do and I don't see the close as cutting off those possibilities. Sunrise (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I am misunderstanding, SV, but your math seems off? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alan, yes, thank you! SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) We used the terms "generally prohibited" and "nor should it be used" specifically because it gave a small amount of wiggle room for IAR/historically reliable usage of the DM to be used. It's not a 100% ban (which we did discuss as a possibility), because that would go against the overall consensus.

As a minor note, I really shouldn't be surprised when five uninvolved editors come together, actually agree on something, and still get roasted for the result. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Sunrise, the problem is that it will be interpreted as written. Another problem is that the close didn't distinguish between the Mail as a primary and secondary source, although a few comments alluded to that distinction, even if not using those terms. Also, I see that the RfC wasn't added to WP:CENT, so I wonder whether enough people saw it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SV: I think the other responses below address these issues well. Of course, please feel free to cite my comments here in discussions if it would help. With regards to the primary/secondary distinction, I would say the same idea applies as in my previous comment - that the amount it was addressed in the RfC was low enough that I think the community should certify any proposed exceptions in a separate discussion (and with no prejudice towards starting such a discussion immediately). Sunrise (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, "generally prohibited" reflects consensus, but it's contradicted by "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." That last part says: "Do not use this as a source", and that will be interpreted strictly by editors who will remove it no matter how justified the use. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV My take away from the close is 'prohibited except where commonsense IAR applies; also here are some examples of when that might be'. When editors attempt to remove it no matter how justified, those wishing inclusion will have to argue from it being a necessity as a source, and to ignore this RfC result. In my opinion, and from what I've seen in the comments from the closers, this is a feature, not a bug.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Prohibited except where commonsense IAR applies; also here are some examples of when that might be" is a very good summation of the intent of the close. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "generally" usually means "always", so from a strict semantics viewpoint the close appears to reflect that the consensus did not call for a no-exceptions ban. I don't see much discussion on primary vs. secondary source in the RfC. I'd also like to register a complaint that procedural issues such as which noticeboard to put the discussion on and whether to list it in CENT should be assessed and processed before and during an RfC not after. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The question of weather to bring it up at CENT wasn't asked until the RfC was closed pending a ruling. See previous section for my opinion on the matter.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's standard practice to add RfCs to CENT if they have the potential to affect every article. I'm not reading the close as acknowledging exceptions. It says don't use it as a source, and "Volunteers are encouraged to ... remove/replace them as appropriate." Not "remove/replace/leave it in place as appropriate". SarahSV ^(talk) 20:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that this RfC has received media attention so we are all likely under the microscope of journalists at the moment. Careful what ya say eh? ;D  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Three cheers for HBH, or as he's better know these days... Paul Dacre's private dealer. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why the Wikimedia Foundation quickly prepared and sent out a statement to The Guardian. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't like the idea of WMF using our discussions for political advocacy, which is what it feels like they've done here... WJBscribe (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the statement from the WMF was more or less factual, how was it 'political advocacy'?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing better to do, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jbarbara (WMF), WMF communications director. Juliet, can you let us know what happened here? We held an RfC on whether to stop using the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, as a source. The RfC was closed today, and we were discussing whether the close reflected consensus. Within hours of the close, we find that the Wikimedia Foundation has issued a statement about it to The Guardian, so now this feels political. Can you tell us who issued that statement and why? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a discussion on Iridescent's talk page that may shed light on it. An editor may have contacted the newspaper before the close. Also pinging Hillbillyholiday. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The story is a direct result of (and abstracts some of) my correspondence with Mr Jackson of the Guardian which took place immediately after the close. The story was news to Mr Jackson, so I suspect the WMF release was in response and not pre-prepared. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hillbillyholiday. So you contacted The Guardian before they knew anything about it? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing that, I can only say that Mr Jacskon didn't express any prior knowledge of the situation. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The Daily Mail is one of the five major venues for theatre reviews in London (the others being the Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, and The Independent). Their theatre reviewers are excellent (as are their film and television reviewers). We can't just remove all of the reviews from these excellent critics simply because they are in the Daily Mail and we don't like the Daily Mail's politics, any more than we can completely ban Fox News because we don't like their politics. I understand the UK campaign of "Don't Fund Hate" (don't buy products advertised in the Daily Mail or The Sun), but top-notch theatre critics can't generally help which of the five publications they work for, as there are only a few spots to go around. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to be a bit more careful. I, for one, know nothing about DMs politics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Iridescent, one thing that puzzles me is that you used the Daily Mail as a source in Hope (painting), one of your FAs (and I objected), yet in the RfC you supported and I opposed, even though I think we both agree. I used it as a primary source in Death of Ian Tomlinson, also an FA, because it was one of the first to publish images of Tomlinson with the police before his death. The situation is nowhere near as simple as the RfC close implies. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• OTH - Is that a five editor close? This falls into the trivia question box, but have five editors ever been used before? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

SvG cleanup and deletions

A discussion started at User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Flagging problematic articles for deletion about how we mark SvG articles (now drafts) for deletion. Since a proposal will need admin understanding and acceptance, it was suggested to be discussed here.

If an article of SvG is not salvageable I.e. None of the information in it is sourced and no sources can easily be found, what should be the correct procedure for deletion? I suggested maybe speedy deletion tag with custom rationale "SvG article not supported by sources". Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As someone involved with this, I would support such a temporary CSD criterion similar to the one for Neelix's redirects.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As the person who started that discussion, I would also support a temporary CSD criterion. Keeping completely unverifiable articles around is not only wasting the time of everyone who tries to fix them, it's creating the risk that someone will move the article back to mainspace even after it's been found to be unverifiable. (Hopefully nobody involved in the cleanup would actually do that unless they found new sources, but it's not a risk I really want to take.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, echo all of the above. Can we be bold and start a WP:X3 below this? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:, you never notified the user of this discussion, so I did it for you. Sro23 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Any help with this so we can get rid of BLP violations a bit quicker? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm trying to delete BLP violations and a couple of non-notable people, but my CSDs are getting challenged. Unless something gets done, people will start using MfD, which is slow and will cause that to get bogged up. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The rules absolutely require us to gain community consensus before creating a new speedy deletion criterion. If this is a situation that doesn't admit of delay, and we need to ignore the rules, let's just delete the pages in question instead of creating a new speedy deletion criterion; it will make for less confusion than adding a new criterion in such circumstances, and multiplying speedy-deletion criteria in general has the potential to cause confusion. Moreover, both X1 and X2 were written for absolutely huge groups of pages, and this sounds like a tiny group compared to those; enacting an X3 for them, with or without the normal process, would be a waste of a criterion. I won't advocate speedy-deleting or not-speedy-deleting these pages, but if it's as significantly problematic as it sounds like from your words, IAR speedy deleting these may be an appropriate route. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I do love the Kafkaesque nature of this place. We have a ton of BLP violations, but we have to get "community consensus" to get rid of them. By the time we have that consensus, it'll probably be way too late, or it will be a raft of editors who've not had any dealings with the initial case all going down the oppose route. WP:NOTBUREAU anyone? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you read anything beyond my first sentence? Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In principle, we can speedy delete pages with unverified info as hoaxes, I just do not feel this is an appropriate application of that criterion. However, if community thinks so, I can just start speedy deletion, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We can always use MfD instead, which would be a massive pain for everyone. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The main problem with IAR speedy deletions under G6 or something, which was my original thought on how to address these, is the last time that was tried (for the Neelix redirects) there was a big fuss about abusing G6 for things that don't really fit under it. This is how we got the X criteria, except by the time we actually get consensus for one of those we'll be a good bit of the way through the 90-day cleanup period... TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say there's consensus here to handle these via speedy deletion. Call it whatever you want. There was clear broad community support for a review and delete unverified drafts process at the initial ANI. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem is admins and other experienced users are calling the CSDs invalid. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

SvG cleanup going wrong

I looked at a few SvG articles which have been moved back from draft to mainspace. As explained at User talk:Tbennert, I already moved four of his moves back to draft space, as they continued to have the original problems (like a Sports-reference link which didn't work, and a list of competitions or medals not sourced to anything). he mad a lot more SvG moves which I haven't checked yet.

One article, Draft:Aleksandra Cotti, was moved back because not only were the original problems not tackled, but Tbennert succeeded in adding an incorrectly unsourced fact (winning an olympic medal). Two hours after being moved back to draft space, it was again moved to the mainspace, without any changes, by user Inwind. I explained the actual problem at User talk:Inwind#Draft:Aleksandra Cotti, basically the official olympic source only lists her for 2012 and without a medal, the source indicating that Italy won silver in 2016 doesn't mention her, but the article still draws the conclusion that she won a 2016 silver medal. This may be true, but as it stands the actual sources contradict the article. Inwind as well made a lot of these SvG moves to mainspace, and judging from this one article they all need checking or simple reversal.

Giving the SvG articles a final chance instead of deleting them was meant to bring improvements, not to get the same or worse back into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

First, thank you for checking these articles on the clean up effort, even a handful can be time consuming. I apologize for my part in making a mess and I am working back through those I have moved. As for adding information, that was almost always because there was a category claiming it. I thought we needed to either include the information in the body of the article or delete the category? If I can't find a source I am deleting them. Also I have found a few instances with incorrect categories. Last, the Olympic information for 2016 has not all been added to olympic.org. I've been breaking this up with a sentence and ref about earlier games, and a separate sentence and ref for 2016. Once the 2016 information is added that will be an additional ref, but for now can't we use a separate ref for 2016 and not have it be considered a contradiction?

I am upset that you find my articles to be worse than before being edited. Obviously I did not make enough corrections, but that does not equal worse. I have added references to validate birthdate and almost every sentence - excepting national team, or represent internationally, as those are already shown in the article. I deleted unsourced information - except for some in the infobox which was missed on several. You have the right to think my edits are damaging the encyclopedia by making it worse. Still it is hurtful and makes me question if any of my edits to the encyclopedia are worthwhile.

Thanks to your notes I found a couple of problems with my process, which I can correct if I edit any more of these articles. I will continue to work through those I have moved to be sure they are more carefully checked. Thank you --Tbennert (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I noted that you went again through your moved articles and improved these, thanks for that. I don't think most of your edits made the articles worse, I said "the same or worse" because too many were the same, and at least one (as explained above) was IMO worse (by adding another sourced-but-not-verified-by-that-source fact). I have no opinion on your edits outside of this cleanup (since I haven't looked at any edits), but the fact that you went back here to check and correct them gives me the impression that you are a good editor who was in this case somewhat too hasty or careless. Fram (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with another user. They were apparently unaware of the effort and just moved the article back without checking it because they believed that "it belonged" to the main space.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have moved two other articles (moved to mainspace by Inwind) back to draft space, from the 5 I checked. Draft:Alessya Safronova is one line, one source, and the source doesn't match the fact it is supposed to source (the club). Inwind moved pages at a rate of more than 1 a minute, with only one correction (removing "former") in one case and not making any changes otherwise.

This is not cleanup, this is an end-run against the ANI consensus to delete these pages. Fram (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that apparently not all BLPs have been moved to Draft space anyway, for some reason e.g. Mamdum Seldum was never moved. Fram (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we perhaps create a list of editors no longer allowed to move SvG articles from draft to mainspace? User:Inwind moved Alena Özel back to mainspace without improvements and with the comment "article ok", despite the only source in the article being this "domain for sale" one. People who don't make any effort in checking these articles but just blindly move them back should not come anywhere near this clanup effort. Fram (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The next one I looked at, Alena Iourieva: one source, which should source that she played in a 2009 championship, but is about a 2013 championship[4], where she isn't listed with the team.[5]. I'll now move all Inwind moves back to draft space as they clearly have not done the necessary work. Fram (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

So far, the only one of those I have encountered who is doing a good job seems to be user:Lugnuts (thanks). Sadly, one of the most prolific of the people moving pages from draft back to mainspace, User:Raymarcbadz, seems not to care about the cleanup effort though and is only interested in getting articles about athletes back to the main space. Raymarcbadz has moved more than 500 pages back to mainspace so far... A few checks reveal

• Anna Illés, Hungarian water polo player, has been moved back to the mainspace with one source, [6], which is a roster of Greek players and logically doesn't even mention her.
• Krisztina Garda, same problems

Do we really need all 500+ moves back here as well and stop them from further participating in this cleanup? Otherwise, what is the point of a community consensus for "delete all" which then gets changed into a "delete all after 1 week" changed into a "move all to draft space" changed into a "move all back to mainspace without bothering to do any cleanup"? Fram (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking from personal encounters, User:Raymarcbadz, appears to have problems reading/listening to advice. I'd propose a temporary stop of him moving articles back to the main space to stop the bleeding. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, why do you always keep on blaming me. Sportsfan 1234, am I a stubborn Wikipedia user? You act again like an administrator and always agree on others against my edits and contributions. You sounded very unfair and unjust, and you've done working on the articles, especially on the Canadians. Come on, don't anticipate me to get pissed. Second, I didn't even understand why the articles of the Olympic medalists, especially the champions, moved from the mainspace to draft, when I observe them? Aren't they relevant to the Games? Sportsfan 1234 and Fram, you would have even contributed and expanded the articles with sufficient information and personal background instead of interrogating and blaming me for the issue on the clean up; thus, these will be saved from the brink of mass deletion. I know that Sander.v.Ginkel did not put enough effort to keep his articles more sustainable, due to several issues on BLP. Let's be honest. I've created more than 4,000 articles about Olympians in a span of two to four years, depending on my time and effort. They have sources and load of information, and I have researched more often. I've only received few BLP warnings, but most of my articles that I created are neatly done without any warnings, unless somebody tries to move them using a different name with a valid reason. Why can't you both contribute instead of cleaning up? Think wiser, okay. Referring back to your case, Fram, I already corrected the references of the aforementioned people on your discussion. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I do not understand what you are trying to say. I think there might be some WP:Competence issues here. Too add more problems to this cleanup I just had to remove a copyrighted line (lifted right off one of the sources) [7] for an article Raymarcbadz moved to the main space. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Also removed copyright from here [8], [9] and here [10]. All of these again were moved by Raymarcbadz Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, having seen the above, read his reply at User talk:Raymarcbadz#Mentioned at AN, and checked that e.g. Carla Frangilli also has only one source, which doesn't mention her, it is clear that Raymarcbadz "cleanups" can't be trusted either, so I will move them all back to draft space. Fram (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234 and Fram, I have a question for you both. Why do you move all of the articles made by Sander.v.Ginkel to draft space? When will you bring them back again to become articles? Do you want to delete all of them, and start brand new? I know that these would be cleaned up for about two to three months based on guidelines. But I certainly do not understand why do you leave them with redlinks? Aren't they Olympians. TheCatalyst31, I think you need to reproduce the articles that Fram moved towards the draft space with valid references. I'm not even ready to expand my thoughts about the Olympians with no articles thus far.

Sportsfan 1234, please learn how to shut yourself up when I'm having certain issues with a different user against my edits. You're just expecting me to be kick out of the Olympics project and of Wikipedia, and you're pretending me to be fake and robotic. Excuse me for my personal encounters with Sportsfan 1234, but he tries to let me down instantly. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Why do you move all of the articles made by Sander.v.Ginkel to draft space? " Do you mean that you are not aware of the long discussion which led to this (already much more lenient) solution? Or do you mean why I move them back to draft space after you have moved them to mainspace? If the former, then please familiarize yourself with the backstory first? If the latter, then because you have too often not done any cleanup and are just moving the problems back to mainspace, against the decision reached after a lengthy WP:ANI discussion. "Do you want to delete all of them, and start brand new? " If they don't get thoroughly cleaned up, then yes, it is better to start with brand new articles. "why do you leave them with redlinks?" Why do we leave who with redlinks? According to current consensus, all Olympians are notable enough to have articles (although there is some grumbling about the early Olympics and whether people there are truly all notable). But like many, many other notable people, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have an article now, nor that these are of such high priority that other policies should be ignored simply to have such articles. They can be recreated in due time. Fram (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Since I got pinged: as much as it pains me to admit it, since I've been supportive of the cleanup efforts, there have been far too many articles which were simply moved back out of draft space without any improvements (in a lot of cases, the categories weren't even re-enabled). I understand perfectly well that deleting a bunch of articles on notable people sucks, and I'm a little concerned about ones that were significantly improved by other people after their creation, but there are enough that haven't been improved and have clear issues that this process has already proven itself necessary. I've been working through a handful of them (mostly just the 2016 US Olympians so far), and nearly all of them have required some improvement or additional verification before I could move them back. (Some of them were about medal-winning Olympians but didn't even mention their medals in the article, so it's not like these were our flagship articles on Olympians in the first place.) Also, while I'm planning to help with cleanup and recreation, I don't "need" to do anything; you are just as capable of finding and citing valid references as I am, and having a few redlinks for a while isn't the end of the world. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm already aware of the long discussion which may provoke a mass clean-up of the articles. Indeed, I'm shocked and distraught about the issue, realizing that many of them have been moved to draftspace for a major clean-up. If I can contribute to the clean-up, much better if I start creating them with a clean slate and enough information (infobox, personal background if necessary, competition results, and supported references), but I can only reproduce them in due time, because I'm still busy working on the descriptions for the NOC articles. Anyway, thank you for your worthy notice, Fram. Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"Sportsfan 1234, please learn how to shut yourself up" I am sorry but this isn't right, nor should it be allowed. Thoughts @Fram? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz, moved this article [11] after the above allegations. This article includes a reference to sister Wikipedia site (which to the best of my knowledge is not allowed). I propose a block so this user can read the policy and get it through their head that this is not okay. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, I'm sure it's not allowed. But that's my only way for you not to interfere with the other users against my edits or contributions. And I don't understand why do you want me to block. I've already read the guidelines and undergone the procedures, and you're trying to prevent me from editing. What's the point? If I already moved the article and edited something accurate and relevant to satisfy the guidelines, then so be it. If I would like to expand the article, then that would be much better. You should be aware that the process of creating articles consumes time and effort, ensuring that the sources cited to the content are valid and the details related to the Olympian are accurate and factual. End of the story. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I will comment that it is insane to be moving so many legitimate articles to draftspace. An Olympic gold medalist Christoph Harting, seriously you can't fix the problem rather than making a move? Granted it has been done, and my example was fixed by Raymarcbadz, now there should be a list of those moved articles so an effort to fix them can be made. Instead it looks like we have to go searching through Fram's thousands of contributions. As if the rest of the community will know to do that. If there is a serious problem (and I am not convinced THIS is that egregious of a problem), then there should be a list of affected articles created with it. I once found such a list related to Sander.v.Ginkel once, but finding the list again, working on the list IS NOT EASY TO DO. All this work done in the background, mostly as a gross overreaction to a minor problem by Fram, is screwing up a lot of public content, without an equally public system to fix the damage. Trackinfo (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There is an equally public system to "fix the damage", it is called Wikipedia. Articles get created by editors, and can be recreated as well. No idea what the "minor problem by Fram" is supposed to be, it was a community discussion and the current solution is a lot more lenient than what was actually concluded. If you want to find the articles by SvG that have been moved to the draftspace, I would advise you not to look through my contribs (which will show only a few hundred: I didn't propose the move to draft space, and I didn't do the original move to draft space either), but through, I don't know, perhaps SvG's contributions? Look for everything he did that is in Draftspace, and you will now which articles need checking and in most cases fixing. Don't imitate a few of your peers though, and don't just move these back to mainspace with the problems unfixed; in such a case, all you moves simply get moved back to draft space. Fram (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Trackinfo:, lists are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thanks, Fram. For the people concerned about all these articles being moved, surely you realise the issue with tens of thousands of BLP violations that are contained within them? Sure, there may be some good articles, but it can't be taken as read that all those articles can simply be moved back into the mainspace. I urge anyone who wants to save an article to double-check everything, remove anything that can't be sourced then move it back (not the other way around). Lists by subject areas have been created and notes posted on all the relevant project talkpages. Trackinfo - did you not see this? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Example of SvG article

Alessandro Velotto: at the time it was moved to draftspace, it had one source[12], which didn't mention him. Despite this, it was moved to mainspace by Raymarcbadz on 27 January[13]. I moved it back to draft space on 3 February, only to have it moved back to mainspace, with still the same invalid source, a few hours later by user:MFriedman[14] as having "no SvG issues". I again moved it back to draft space, and the second time MFriedman moved it to mainspace they corrected the source. All's well that ends well? Well, not really, we now have an article on an Olympic bronze medal winner (unsourced, but in the infobox and seemingly correct) where the text of the article doesn't even mention this Olympic bronze medal, but only a participation at the 2015 World Championships.

People correctly claim that subjects like Velotto are notable and should have an article. But do they then not deserve an article which at least mentions his most notable achievement, with a source, in the actual text? Now this has been moved three times to draft space before anyone finally corrected the lone source, and it is still rather disgraceful that this is the article we have on him. Why do people care so much about rushing this back to mainspace if they can't be bothered about the actual contents anyway? Fram (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Pretty poor just to move that back without sourcing his main claim to fame (sic). Esp. as it wasn't hard to source it in the first place! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and agreed. Fram (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel copyvios

With regards to Sander v Ginkel, if the issue of copyright violations like [15] had come up in the lengthy discussion about his work, I guess he would have been indef blocked for sure, and his articles all deleted. What to do now is less clear. It's one more thing to check for in his articles for those willing to do actual cleanup of his work. Fram (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

See also Draft:John Conway (water polo) where I just removed a copyvio from [16]. It seems as if nearly every SvG articles which has some additional text (beyond the "he was born there, competed in that sport, was at these championships") is in fact a copyvio. Luckily there aren't too many where he actually produced any text. Fram (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of an improper RfC closure

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#RfC: Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. was initially closed by an involved editor without discussing the arguments made in the discussion. I left a comment on the closer's talk page explaining that WP policies require that only an uninvolved editor can close the discussion and that, when closing, a summary of the consensus needs to be given. I then boldly undid the close given the clear violation of policy, but that was later undone by another editor who didn't vote in the RfC, but had left comments expressing a view on the subject and was also the editor who had nominated an image for deletion (see notifications on my talk page for speedy delete nomination, then file for discussion) that led to the RfC. That discussion between me and the second closer was at File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg, which has since been deleted, but can't admins view the old content of the page? I tried to address the problems with the closure on the talk pages of both editors, but neither was willing to address them (see [17], [18], [19]).

In addition to the issues with the closure by the involved editors, the closure was not made correctly for several reasons. The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." When closing, a summary of the arguments should be given (see Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus) and "arguments that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" should be discarded (Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus).

First, most of the oppose votes raised the issue of the images possibly being subject to copyright in the future if the country of origin joins the Berne Convention, but did not respond to comments that templates could be made for those individual countries therefore allowing easy deletion of such images when a country joins the Berne Convention. Second, many raised the issue of the reusability of the content outside the US; however, as mentioned in the general discussion section, this is logically fallacious because 1) the images are free of copyright in most Berne Convention member states (currently 174 of the roughly 200 sovereign states) since copyright is based on reciprocity and countries like Iran and Somalia aren't party to significant other copyright treaties, 2) copyright exceptions (fair use & fair dealing) vary considerably from country to country and so Wikipedia articles containing fair use images already can't be freely reused in the many countries that don't have liberal copyright exceptions like the U.S. fair use, and 3) such a policy is inconsistent with other policies on WP, like allowing images of architecture that is not copyrighted in the US because of a freedom of panorama exception (which many countries' copyright laws don't have) or allowing works that are copyrighted in the country of origin but not the US (eg. some countries' copyright length is life+100 years).

Finally, while the result of the closure is given as "no consensus" to host the images subject to the RfC, the policy for many years has been to consider such images on a case-by-case basis and so the way the closing summary is stated it nonetheless changes existing policy. If there is no consensus on the outcome of an RfC changing a policy, shouldn't the result be to keep the status quo? AHeneen (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

AHeneen, I have undeleted File talk:Isfahan Metro.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bumping thread. AHeneen (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that you're likely keeping a close eye on things...

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

---

...but politically speaking, "shit be gettin' crazy". If you aren't already, you should consider automatically semi-protecting basically any politician that get mentioned from here on. HalfShadow 02:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

For those of you not in the U.S.: we appear to be heading into a serious political/constitutional crisis. Heads are rolling. Not literally...yet...Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

All I'm saying is you guys're gonna have your work cut out for you. HalfShadow 03:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Presumably you're talking just the current politicians; I don't foresee significant disruption to the article about U.S. Representative Abiel Foster, for example. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

No, I don't think you've understood what HalfShadow is saying at all. One does not have to be an ultra-liberal Democrat to have noticed that the advent of the Trump administration has emboldened some far-right wing editors to attempt to skew articles to their POV. I am not a Trump supporter, but I'm not saying that the new administration necessarily supports these people, simply that those editors see an opportunity to get their political viewpoint into articles during an administration which, it can hardly be denied, is fundamentally antithetical to liberal politics. I believe that HalfShadow is pointing out that during an administration which has been so outfront about its views, we need to remain vigilant about making sure that our articles are balanced and do not present one POV in favor of another. The same would be true if we were ever to elect an ultra-liberal administration, although (despite the propaganda from Fox News and others) we never have. Politics in modern America spans the range from moderately liberal to very conservative, with a bit of lunatic fringe on both ends, but more so on the conservative side. Add to that a President with the tendency to say whatever's on his mind at the moment, with no real filtering, and to shoot from the hip, and we;ve got what the old Chinese proverb called "interesting times". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? Paul August ☎ 21:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems like this person was trying to help, but went dived into a political statement halfway through and never got out.—JJBers 06:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

confirm my account

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

---

hello sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjesh Basnet (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users? Please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed, especially the box which starts with "Before making a request here". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Hands needed at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

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

---

There are couple of bots that have been on a spree resizing images so in the last two day 600+ image files have appeared in the category and need the old revisions deleting. It can be a bit mind-numbing so any help appreciated before the backlog gets into the 000s as has happened before. Nthep (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• On it. It'd be nice if that JS tool reloaded the page for confirmation. Mackensen (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• A bot may be incoming in the somewhat-near future to handle that maintenance category. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• I knocked down about a hundred earlier, and might do some more later. Not so bad with the second JS extension, two keyboard shortcuts and on to the next one. Prop Netflix open in a separate always-on-top window and it's easy street :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I do a significant proportion of these but was traveling for a few days. There is also serious consideration of turning this over to a bot (mind-numbing is an apt description) (Sorry, missed that Rob already mentioned the bot)--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Rescinding EC for GAMING

This is a procedural note that I have revoked Yschilov's EC status for clear GAMING (500 sandbox edits made in order to edit ECP/1RR pages). Primefac (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sandiego91's rights have similarly been revoked. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Primefac I think we should standardize a message when this type of activity is done. I put a note on Yschilov's page that perhaps we could model it on? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea. I've created {{ECgaming}} for this purpose. I'm open to suggestions on its improvement. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably amendment from Arbitration committee is needed to deal with that.In my opinion the best course of action that is status will not be granted automatically but via relevant admin board--Shrike (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Shrike for revoked EC users it will never automatically return. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion that it will be not granted automatically at all.--Shrike (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be a fairly significant change to the process and would require a community RfC, while you are free to start one I do not think it will get wide support. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Under what authority can you revoke EC access? Did you open an AE action? Did ARBCOM voice their opinion on what type of 500 edits are required? I'm pinging Sandstein since he keeps saying similar things when cases like this are brought to AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sysops can change user groups. In both of these circumstances it was painfully obvious that the users in question were artificially inflating their edit count via spurious sandbox edits in order to reach EC status and edit controversial pages. This is GAMING. I started this post to increase transparency and explain my actions, though I'm not surprised it has turned into a discussion. Maybe it will spur changes to occur. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, did you follow the guidelines set forth at GAMING? "A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is more likely that they are gaming the system in bad faith." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

How is it gaming? ARBCOM says 500 edits, it doesn't specify what type of edits. That is the problem with the text of ARBCOM, but to call something gaming becasue a new editor is following the policy is not necessarily true. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I'm going by Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Abuse of process. I know you can't see the edits since they have been deleted, but both users added 500 characters to their sandbox and then sequentially removed one after the other until they hit the EC limit. If they had made 500 legitimate edits to various sandboxes where they were improving drafts or testing things out, I wouldn't have an issue. This is clearly not that case. Simply put, they were not following the policy, they were abusing the policy.

As a minor note, how would I have "warned" them about not gaming the system to get EC? They were already granted the right. If anything, they have now been warned (and told how to "properly" gain EC status). Primefac (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, ARBCOM rulings have to be followed to the letter, and if they are unclear it's ARBCOM's problem. Those editors made 500 edits. Firstly, if they're new editors, how would they know that sandbox edits don't count? ARBCOM doesn't say "500 mainspace edits." All it says is "500 edits." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a new area to have to deal with, and these are facets that may need stronger clarifications, for reference here is one related discussion at PERM: Special:PermaLink/759416764#User:Marlo_Jonesa. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, I hope you don't mind I've reverted your closure because this needs more discussion. Primefac, are you aware of this arbitration motion? It explicitly bars administrators from removing extendedconfirmed either as a discretionary sanction or as an alternative to standard arbitration enforcement procedures. My interpretation of this is that extendedconfirmed can be removed for gaming the system, but it must be done via WP:AE, not as a unilateral administrative action related to the ArbCom case. It might be a good idea to ask ArbCom to relax this to allow removal as a discretionary sanction when clear gaming has taken place, but until that happens, admins should probably go to AE to be safe. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think Primefac did anything wrong, given the context of those Arbcom statements. He didn't remove the user right as a discretionary sanction nor did he remove it as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures, he removed it because the user clearly shouldn't have had it and gamed the system to get it, something that the motion makes no mention of. More simply, I dont believe those statements are broad enough to disallow any removal of the user right, only the removal as it pertains to avoiding current processes related to discretionary sanctions and arbitration enforcement. Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not asserting wrongdoing, just trying to clarify how things should be done in the future. I've been told by an arbitrator that removing the right at all is questionable under that motion, so I don't think this is as settled as some people think. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
      • BU Rob13, I did not know about that motion. We should probably let the arbs know about this discussion so they can weigh in. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• @BU Rob13:, that motion was intended to prevent removal of extended confirmed from someone who gained it legitimately, but who was misbehaving at an article; removal can't be used as a sanction without consensus at AE, and other sanctions (e.g. topic bans) are preferred. What @Primefac: did here, reverting a clear GAMING violation, is fine. Admins have been doing that for quite a while, I've done it myself, and I'll continue to do it myself. This isn't really arbitration enforcement, t's normal adminning. Depending on how Primefac worded the note in the log and the message on their talk page, the worst that needs to happen is making it clear this is not an AE action (if it isn't clear already, I haven't looked, just responding to ping). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

In passing, a proposal to issue a clarification re obvious gaming of EC criteria is under discussion on the arbcom mailing list. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Mass nomination for AfD

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

---

I have nominated the articles 9987, 3183, 9622, 9966, 9847, 9106, 9168, 9682 and 9361 for deletion all separately. It has been mentioned to me that it would have been better to nominate all of these articles together in one single AfD. However I think it wouldn't make sense to delete all of these nominations and then create a whole new one. Could an administrator help me out with this? CatcherStorm ^talk 22:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If the nominations had been untouched, they all could have been combined, but combining the voted-on nominations would be quite confusing. Since four of them haven't yet gotten any votes, I'm going to merge those ones. For future reference, the process is really easy — just create the AFD at one title and add a comment saying "This nomination also covers article 2, article 3, etc". I won't need to use any admin tools to merge these ones, since I'll just be redirecting three of them to the fourth one and then removing the three from the daily log. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

possible Block evasion by jaredgk2008

This could be an unrelated user Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Roger4156. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I put up a new report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008 and marked the page for G5. ansh666 07:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether they're connected or not, Roger4156 is now blocked indefinitely for disruption. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiple new users being created with similar user names (COMM)

I have to go offline here in a few minutes so I don't have time to investigate, but I was browsing the user creation log and I've noticed numerous new users being created that start with "COMM" seemingly all at once. Now maybe it's nothing, but it just doesn't seem right. Can someone take a look and keep any eye on their activity (if any)? Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing possibly a class (COMM 112) did this perhaps? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, but I just spot checked some contribs:

• COMM112RachelM (talk · contribs)
• Comm112 Paul (talk · contribs)

I don't have high hopes for the group. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely a class. Is there one of the editors that works with Wiki Ed that could chime in here and figure out what's going on? Wondering if a teacher is doing this as an example for a lesson or something? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone, greetings from Fargo, North Dakota. We are a Communications 112 class at NDSU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by COMM112RachelM (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info COMM112RachelM. Could you ask you and all your colleagues to shift to your best encyclopaedic behaviour? Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi COM112RachelM it looks like your class is using editing Wikipedia as an assignment? That's great, we really encourage educators to use Wikipedia in the classroom. In the beginning, it is best to get some guidance from professionals in order to avoid editing faux pas. Since it looks like you are a university course based in the US, may I suggest that the professor in charge of this course get in touch with Wiki Edu who can assist? We also have resources at the Wikipedia Education Program portal. --NSaad (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

An additional minor complication: At least one person who's obviously in the class is editing without being logged in: Special:Contributions/134.129.60.176. ¶ Most of the edits that I've looked at (not only by this IP but by UIDs that imply class membership) seem well intentioned, but balefully uninformed about what's needed for good edits. This would be understandable if these were people editing for the first time without any guidance, but instead they're in a course. I wonder what their instructions were. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT changes dispute

There is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#TVPLOT reverted which could use administrator review and comment. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Unwanted "large print" display

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Unwanted .22large print.22 display

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Big delete, please

Not bigdelete, just a big group of deletions that I don't want to do manually when people have auto-deletion scripts.

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 04:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 04:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

All of these are G6 candidates, because someone created a batch of useful pages in projectspace by error instead of creating them in mainspace as should have been done. They've been redirects since they were moved to mainspace in 2010; normally we don't delete old redirects, but when a page is in projectspace, nobody's going to be linking to it merely because nobody's going to see a page that's in projectspace. With help from JJMC89 at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks, I have a list of project-to-mainspace redirects; I'd appreciate help from other admins in examining each one and either deleting it or removing it from the list, because a ton of these are artifacts of pagemove vandalism or unintentional page creation in projectspace. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A waste of time for humans to examine each page. I think someone could easily write a bot to delete all pages with a single line of edit history. Either way, what's the harm in letting the redirects stay there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.77 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't done manually, it was sone using a semi-automated tool. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking generally about the Project → article space redirects, if a page is obviously created in the wrong namespace and then moved to the correct place the resulting redirect may be deleted under criterion WP:CSD#G6 ("pages obviously created in error"). If the page was moved within an hour of creation then the redirect can be deleted by bot with an error rate that is going to be almost (if not exactly) zero. Everything else should be looked at by a human - many will also be G6 candidates but not all will be. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting three uninvolved admins to close RfC

The RfC on secondary school notability is nearing the 30-day mark. Last week I suggested that we request a team of three uninvolved editors/admins to work together on the close, as is done from time to time on highly contentious matters. The three users responding to that suggestion were supportive of it. The subject of the RfC is something that's come up so many times, and so often, and with so much history that it may be useful. There are furthermore nuances, qualifications, interpretations, etc. that make for a potentially complicated close. So how about it? Are there three uninvolved admins willing? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in the close, but I'll happily defer to almost any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Coordinator election

New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.

• Nomination period: Sunday 5 February to 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 February
• Voting period: Monday 20 February to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March

See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate behaviour.

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtar (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Denniss (talk · contribs)

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtar (talk • contribs) 10:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over removed material

A few days ago I've started editing Tourism in Georgia (country) article, I study tourism in university and thanks to that background tried to find every useful material what is in connection with Georgian Tourism. You can see how the article enlarged after my updates and new materials before and after. Working on the article I decided that it will also useful to include UNWTO classification for Georgia, in a tourism industry and reports this classification is wide used since UNWTO is the main tourism international organization. In that classification, you can see tourist arrivals, receipts, annual change and many other thigs. In general, the classification shows how strong or weak is a country in comparison to its neighbors or world countries. Here you can see about what material is the dispute ►[20]. After some time appeared User:Chipmunkdavis and made some improvements but he also removed that material about UNWTO classification. As I understood from his summaries he underestimates that international organization's role (maybe mostly because of incompetence in tourism). I restored his remove and opened discussion on his talk page. You can see that discussion's result. Instead of cooperating with me and having good faith he 3 times reverted (1, 2, 3) that material violating WP:3RR, he could ask me for more explanations but his only goal was revert and remove. Also, he thinks that this material is there only for Georgia's promotion as the European country, and he also said that is why I removed Asian category, but I wrote why I did so because according to the WTO classification Georgian tourism industry is a part of European tourism. You can see that in the end, I tried luck to solve the dispute without a third party but his answer convinced me that further discussions will not have a result and will be only edit-wars. One thing that really irritates is his position that he is master of wiki content and his the only truth and others have no rights or importance, you can place tons of arguments but none will be heard. He claimed that UNWTO classification is not used and it is not important (why?). In favor of me, I have my tourism study background and this excel file of Georgian National Tourism Administration's report where countries are classified under the UNWTO classification what once more proves that this classification is important and Chipmunkdavis is wrong. All in all what does wrong the material? it gives more information about particular country's positions in its tourism region, I think a problem is when we have a lack of information than information in details.--g. balaxaZe★ 12:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Misinformation of main page

Dear admins, please do something about this. It really bothers me that this factual error on the main page hasn't been corrected yet. --Mihai (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone will probably take a look at this, but for future reference the page you want to report this sort of problem at is here which usually gets a fast response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ed Poor 2

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In remedy 1.1 of the 2006 Ed Poor 2 case, Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was placed on probation. Under the terms of the probation, he was banned from two topics in 2008 and 2009. The probation and topic bans under its terms are now rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Ed Poor 2

Suspicious AfD

Not sure this is the correct place but could a look be taken at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vardan Sholinian. It was not deleted so not in the domain of deletion review but the whole debate has been rife with SPA's (I am loath to yell for SPI) and it was followed by a non-admin closure (also by a SPA). Is there a more correct place to bring this up.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well...I will look at it later, but you could bring it up at deletion review. Deletion review also covers...."appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." Lectonar (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Will do and I appreciate the additional look see.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I reopened the AFD as the close was totally inappropriate. It should probably be relisted, though honestly, the consensus of editors who are not sockpuppets or SPAs is pretty clear. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The vote is so strong for deletion that I see no reason to relist it a second time. On the other hand, if it's attracting sockpuppets, that woulkd tenf to be a good reason to close it quickly, once it's ben open long enouugh and has clear consensus. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for closing it, I did comment to the article's deletion. Additionally there were a number of accounts that were struck and blocked as socks per a CU. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding GamerGate

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The topic-ban placed on NorthBySouthBaranof in the GamerGate case is terminated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized to address any user misconduct in the relevant topic-area.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding GamerGate

Satt 2

Satt 2 was unblocked not long ago per a request on this page on the strict condition that he would be topic banned from anything related to Georgia, and would not make any controversial edits for a lengthy period. Yet, ever since, he's playing the game which we could evidently describe as sneakily in order to avoid scrutiny, by still editing matters directly related to Georgia, but not as directly as let's say, editing a "History of Georgia (country) article". Violating examples; [21]-[22] (<---changed Europe map to add Georgia to it, which is completely in line with typical Satt 2 behavior for the last 6 yrs)-[23] Also, I'd say this one is an outright violation of the terms of unblock, in the strictest sense of the words. As you can see, he completely overhauled this page to once again add Georgia almost completely geographically in Europe, a status quo completely different from what is actually presented on the main map on the Europe page, see here. (he just uploaded a new map with Georgia in Europe today, and added that on these linked pages).

This users editorial obsession with this whole "Georgia-Europe" thing was one of the foremost reasons (apart from a dozen other) why he got blocked and continued to get caught and blocked when he created new sockpuppets over the past six years. Feel free to check his SPI where an abundant amount of similar examples are visible. This should be really considered unacceptable, taking into account the user's repertoire and the way he got unblocked. In my opinion, this only shows once again that the user in question should not be editing Wikipedia. He's basically ridiculing the guys who supported an unblock, just saying. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It is a remarkable display of BADFAITH to suggest that I am not editing Georgia-specific articles because I am being "sneaky" - I am not editing them because I am banned from them, a restriction that I have always intended to abide by. That being said, I have to be reasonable in my edits. Should I not edit Black Sea because Georgia lies on its coast? Should I not touch Caucasus Mountains because it runs through Georgia? Am I expected to edit articles like Thermal-neutron reactor or Thorium fuel cycle out of fear that anything less esoteric would be construed as being related to Georgia?...

If one was to follow LouisAragon's flawed logic, I should not touch any Europe or Asia articles because Georgia is part of both. With that same logic, I should not edit United Nations articles because Georgia is a member and features there in one form or another. What LouisAragon presents here is a very broad interpretation of a country-specific ban. Also, I have never been topic banned from creating files on Wikimedia Commons, or any other wiki project, so what exactly is the relevance of that here? LouisAragon appears to be going out on a limb to get me re-blocked on technicalities, and I think that has less to do with the terms of my topic ban, which are pretty clear, and more to do with LouisAragon's personal animosity towards me. --Satt 2 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support re-blocking indefinitely with the standard offer, as these edits are clearly gaming the topic ban which was a condition of having been unblocked in the first place (and recently). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Classic WP:Gaming the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is a place of freedom and there should not be such personal confrontations that you have with Satt2 (or with other users you would like to see blocked), also you always misrepresent whole subject, map in the article Europe says Clickable map of Europe, showing one of the most commonly used continental boundaries one of the means that what Satt2 upload is another boundary of Europe and not his own imagination (to put Georgia in Europe). Here you can see how many variants there are File:Possible definitions of the boundary between Europe and Asia.png. In the end, agree with Satt2's contra argument I suppose country topic-ban doesn't mean that an editor have to edit only articles about Mars or Moon.--g. balaxaZe★ 23:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support and further. Satt 2 was WP:NOTHERE then, and remains WP:NOTHERE now. Not only are they gaming the system here, but their global contributions clearly show that despite their protestations to the contrary they're still dedicated to their POV-mission. Block, and then next time they request to unblock, don't do it unless they make a full and honest unblock request address covering their copious and repeated behavioural problems, rather than the terribly incomplete one they were unblocked for which discussed only the socking and copyright violations. CMD (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Just recently, you were locked in a dispute with another editor regarding your obsessive removal of any content referencing Georgia's continental placement, and that was before any of my edits became an issue. It sounds to me that you and LouisAragon are the ones preoccupied with pushing POV related to this specific topic., which makes me think that the goal of this AN is merely to thin out your competition based on technicalities. I also find it interesting that Louis only pinged admins who voted against my unblock, I wonder how he chose them...--Satt 2 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Copy of article deleted at AfD

Could an Admin please delete User:Jmpetroske/Reporting illegal aliens in the United States, after the AfD was closed as delete. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Point of order: The AfD was for an article in the mainspace, and you are requesting a deletion of an editor's user space. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah there's no problem with this. Sam Walton (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So it's OK to have copies of articles that were deleted at AfD in your User space indefinitely? JMHamo (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think an article that was deleted yesterday is quite the same as what 'indefinitely' suggests here. That said, as the editor stated in the AFD to go ahead and delete the article, I don't know if they'll mind. Either way, I've left them a notification of this thread [24]. PGWG (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@PGWG: My point being that it will remain in the User space and eventually become a Stale Draft, which will most probably stick around for years but yet it will never get moved to the Main space because it was deleted at AFD, so I am struggling to see why it shouldn't be deleted too. What value does keeping a copy serve the project? JMHamo (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Or the editor might use that content to create a different article (or attempt to add to that draft in order to bring it to a point where it could exist in the mainspace). Why the rush to get rid of it so quickly? PGWG (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Because I don't want to see it in 2022 stale and untouched, serving no useful purpose when it can be deleted now. Wikipedia is not a repository for junk. JMHamo (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)