Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators. Sections older than six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Issues appropriate for this page include general announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org directly with your concern. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion

Centralized discussion Four requests for adminship are open for discussion. Minimum time before tagging new articles for some types of speedy deletion Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via non-admin closure Hosting content from countries that do not have copyright relations with the U.S. Stand-alone lists – eligibility for nomination as Good Articles Closing deletion discussions with low participation

Noticeboard archives

Requests for closure

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#Mass_request_on_pages_related_to_Arab-Israeli_conflict.28s.29

Could an admin summarise this discussion and those referenced within it, and give it a nice hat? Full disclosure: I'm guilty of suggesting an outcome at the end of the discussion, as I only now thought it might be nice to have something a bit more official. Thanks. Samsara 02:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

RfCs

Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source (Initiated 129 days ago on 1 September 2016)? I recommend a formal close per this comment about how this dispute has been ongoing for years:

Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#Don_Matesz_mention, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#SBM_source. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger and just today at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

RFC has been archived from the article talkpage - at the point it was archived consensus was roughly twice in favour of the source *not* being a violation. Formal closure is not necessary at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've unarchived the discussion. I think a formal close would be helpful because as an RfC participant noted "Turns out this dispute goes back a few years". Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park (Initiated 79 days ago on 21 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

Someone uninvolved should review the page for accurate consensus. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for an update, I relisted the discussion because waiting time for a volunteer would be longer than I thought. I can still welcome the closure. George Ho (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#End

Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In looking it over, a closure at this point could only come out "no consensus". Of the options presented only two have enough support to consider; the first of these has about as much opposition as support (as of this writing), and the other has less support (despite lack of active opposition) than the option that has both noteworthy support and opposition. So, they kind of just cancel each other out, especially given that sometimes the same parties are supporting/opposing multiple options. The matter is one of editorial judgement, not policy or source analysis. An obvious option is also missing: that the matter should be left to editorial judgement on a per-article basis. It may be more practical to re-RfC this with combined and clarified options, and "advertise" the discussion neutrally at WP:VPP and if necessary WP:CENT. While the matter is "minor" in the sense of impact on an article, it potentially affects every bio article about a married person, except in cases where the marriage is still extant along with the parties to it and there was only one marriage. This means it would have major site-wide impact despite the narrowness of the quetsion, and thus that consensus should be quite clear before it is acted upon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I concur with SMcCandlish here: this RfC has potential high impact and it needs much wider participation before a consensus can emerge (I count less than a dozen editors chiming in). Suggest a relisting with wider advertising. — JFG ^talk 21:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus and formally close this proposal? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content (Initiated 70 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead (Initiated 77 days ago on 23 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions? (Initiated 71 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark (Initiated 66 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access locks: Visual Design RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC (Initiated 71 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC (Initiated 71 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Rozen Maiden characters#Straw Vote Redirect Dec 2016

After discussing with the closing admin for the AFD and DRV, could an editor close the straw vote and redirect the page? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: (Initiated 35 days ago on 4 December 2016). I think an admin ought to close this one, after one AfD and a DRV recently. The topic is (suprisingly) very contentious. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#What is "single"?

The discussion may need evaluation. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#‎RfC: Proposing the third moratorium

I'm requesting closure, though closure is a little too soon. Nevertheless, I'm doing this just in case. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Probably should wait a couple more weeks. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Afro engineering#RfC: Where should the content of afro engineering be merged to?

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:Afro engineering#RfC: Where should the content of afro engineering be merged to? (Initiated 46 days ago on 23 November 2016)? Thank you, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)#RfC for above proposal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)#RfC for above proposal (Initiated 55 days ago on 14 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

{{close}} as no consensus for a merge at this time. Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs

Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? (Initiated 42 days ago on 27 November 2016) Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#RfC: Suggested addition to the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#RfC: Suggested addition to the lead (Initiated 63 days ago on 6 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars expanded universe#RfC: Is it relevant to group all non-canon EU material in a Legends subcategory?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Star Wars expanded universe#RfC: Is it relevant to group all non-canon EU material in a Legends subcategory? (Initiated 48 days ago on 21 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Stooges (album)#RfC: Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Stooges (album)#RfC: Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox? (Initiated 39 days ago on 30 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked into closing this, but didn't feel comfortable based upon the information presented so I did a little research and added my own vote. I think I added enough material that this should be easier to close now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sciences Po#Sciences Po: a university?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sciences Po#Sciences Po: a university? (Initiated 49 days ago on 20 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism (Initiated 42 days ago on 27 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016#Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016#Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"? (Initiated 36 days ago on 3 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Royal free city#RFC about the naming convention

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Royal free city#RFC about the naming convention (Initiated 43 days ago on 26 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Add CentralAuth link to toolbox section in userspace

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Add CentralAuth link to toolbox section in userspace (Initiated 46 days ago on 23 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge/split/renaming discussion, part 2

Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions

There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure

No substantial backlog right now, but it's quite likely that the backlog will grow again at some point in time. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The backlog has grown to about one month (plus one extremely old one listed below). Pppery 03:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 11#Bushian

Probably not an easy close, but (Initiated 54 days ago on 15 November 2016). Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 22#Template:Infobox urban feature

(Initiated 38 days ago on 1 December 2016). Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (11 out of 437 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 1950–51 Baghdad bombings 2017-01-08 11:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Rolfing 2017-01-07 20:28 2017-01-21 20:28 edit,move Apparent solicitation, attempts to skew towards WP:FRINGE JzG Mariah Carey 2017-01-06 22:24 2017-01-16 22:24 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: death rumours by at least four autoconfirmed-but-not-yet-extended-confirmed users, resulting in two blocks so far Samsara Eyeden (singer) 2017-01-05 21:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Samtar Governance now 2017-01-05 19:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Samtar Lanka BBC 2017-01-05 09:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated MSGJ Secret Parker 2017-01-04 20:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Samtar Office Automation Systems (OAS) 2017-01-04 19:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Samtar User talk:Uanfala 2017-01-04 17:29 indefinite move Persistent sock puppetry RegentsPark USS Liberty incident 2017-01-04 15:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather R.Janindu Mahesh 2017-01-03 15:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Samtar

Mass PRODing

All of the nearly 355 articles prodded by user Sportsfan 1234 should be deprodded as mass deletion can never be uncontroversial. It always requires discussion. In the absence of easier/quicker alternatives at removing the PRODs, I would suggest a WP:MASSROLLBACK of the user's edits.

A bigger number of prods were originally added but many were reverted and some expired prods have already been deleted. A list of pages currently carrying the prod tag is at draft:mass sports afd. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

During what period of time did SF1234 prod these articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

About an hour, starting around 00:00 December 24, looking at their edit log. Dragons flight (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like these were added several per minute, which is not enough time to check that each was correct. Sportsfan 1234, was there some sort of discussion before you did this, because on the face of it, this seems disruptive. I note that most if not all have now been reverted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC).

That's not correct. It had been going on since 20 December. They haven't all been reverted, Lankiveil. See draft:mass sports afd which lists 355 pages still carrying the PROD tag. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've provided the AN notice that you should have but did not. We need a response here, as this is quite serious. This is borderline bot-like behavior and a complete bludgeoning of the deletion processes. As the IP stated, mass deletions are not uncontroversial. Looking through deleted contributions, there are a good dozen or so articles that I plan to WP:REFUND after this thread concludes which seem along the similar vein. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also a bit concerned about the edit notices to User:Lugnuts that were placed and then deleted within a minute. Hobit (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess he'd get sick of telling me 100+ times about the prods, as I created many of the xxxx at the 1996 Summer Paralympics articles. I removed the prod from Zimbabwe at the 1996 Summer Paralympics per WP:NOLY (full reason is in the edit summary). I think there's two issues here: 1) Mis-use of the Prod facility ("Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion") and 2) a wider consensus that's needed at WP:SPORT/WP:OLY, etc, to agree the notability of individual countries at multi-sporting events. I've breifly raised this before, but it needs wider input. I think everyone agrees that countries at the Olympics/Paralympics are notable, but then to extend this to the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, Pan-American Games, etc, etc. I could start a RfC in the New Year when most people will be able to add their views. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hobit: Per WP:BLANKING, removal of content from one's own usertalk page is permitted (with some exceptions) and is an indication that the user has read and understands what was originally posted. I have no concern with Lugnuts' actions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If you look a bit closely at the edit history of my talkpage for 23rd/24th Dec, you'll see that I DID NOT remove any of the notices, rather it was Sportsfan who removed them as quickly as they posted them. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

↑ What he said. :) Yeah, it was the original editor who removed it. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hobit and Lugnuts: My apologies; I misread the edit history. Removing PROD notices like that is certainly dirty pool. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see a consensus above on the abusive use of PROD. Can a an admin or rollbacker please bring down the mass rollback tool on Sportsfan, to remove the PRODs? Is it technically possible? 103.6.159.68 (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, all of the articles that I have proded were duplication of information that existed on another article. "It looks like these were added several per minute, which is not enough time to check that each was correct" - that's not true. If an article has literally one-two lines its very easy to read (especially since most are copy and paste with the country name changed). The reason I went through the prod process is it allows for the articles to be improved. For ex. the Indonesian articles at various games were improved to the point a deletion is not necessary anymore. If the articles are not improved it shows its probably necessary to delete. Furthermore, "I'm also a bit concerned about the edit notices to User:Lugnuts that were placed and then deleted within a minute." - I started an AFD before and Lugnuts had removed the notice(s) and asked for it not be placed on his talk page. I think the issue here is not notability as it has been established. However, the issue I have is the duplication of information, which I am in the opinion of should not exist across multiple articles. Also as mentioned on another talk page, I apologize if this is seen as disruptive, but my intentions were never to disrupt the project, merely to reduce the amount of pages that I felt were duplicating information (granted there are literally hundreds of them). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"I started an AFD before and Lugnuts had removed the notice(s) and asked for it not be placed on his talk page" - I had to do some digging about this, and it goes back to March! I dropped a note on Sportfan's page asking not to list them individually on my talkpage. My main gripe would have been getting a talkpage notification every other minute for the duration of you proding/AfDing them. One grouped notice would have been fine. And pretty much every article I've ever created is on my watchlist, so I would have seen them come in. But that's an aside to what others (including myself) see as a mis-use of the prod function. I would have started some discussion first at the relevant projects to get some sort of consensus on what to do. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've de-proded a ton of these now. You can see the edit summary I used on this example. Some were incredibly poor sub-stubs, such as this one, so I've redirected them. There's still a lot left with the prod tag. I might get time to look at them later, but feel free to chip in, unless the mass-rollback is rolling into town soon. Note that my de-prodding isn't an endorsment of each article's notability. Some of them look questionable. Lusophony Games, anyone?! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

All the prods on nation pages at a multi sporting event have been removed now. However the Colombia at the 2011 Summer Universiade page for some reason is still in the category. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks, although if you two had informed me before that you planned to deprod manually, I would have instead asked to replace them with AfD tags! Anyway, I think a big trout needs to slapped upon WikiProject Multi-sport events for failing to, as of yet, establishing the notability guidelines for the different types of articles. Basically, they all fall in 7 hierarchies, as I have identified at Draft:Wikipedia:Notability of multi-sport event articles (Which I'd be obliged if moved to main WP space). The tick presently denote the existence of that category of articles. Although in the longer run, they should be replaced to denote notability, which needs to be established through a series of AfDs and RfCs (Which I don't plan to start myself: I’m too busy). Help from Sportsfan 1234 and Lugnuts will be much appreciated in this regard. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And yeah, those annoying question marks indicate that the existence of those categories of articles haven't yet been checked. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I note that Sportsfan 1234 have turned many of this into AfD nominations (which is fine) but they have not tagged many of the nominated articles. Nabla (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not true (at least the first bit). Please get your facts straight before commenting @Nabla There is only one discussion [1] which had two articles that were proded (the others were added by another user). All other active AFD discussions started by me were not originally proded. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Given that you PRODed hundreds of articles and were asked here to use AfD instead of mass PRODing, I assumed they were mostly the same. I now proceed to assuming they are different. That is not the relevant issue, the main issue is that you do mass nomination of articles for deletion without taking the appropriate care to advertise the nominations. Nabla (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: Thank you for de-PRODing the mass-nominated articles. Note that if you do a multi-nom at AfD and fail to appropriately tag the affected articles, the articles cannot be deleted unless the AfD is relisted with the appropriate tags. Please tag all articles you nominate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move: Steamboat Bill

Please could an admin look at this RM. It has been open for a while now, but no-one has contributed to it for the best part of a week. Note that I have contributed to the discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Closed in favor of moving, since consensus was clearly in favor of moving; I also left a stern warning not to impose MOS:JR on non-biographies. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That "stern warning not to impose MOS:JR on non-biographies" was highly inappropriate, since all previous RM discussions of such things have closed with consensus to apply MOS:JR even to non-bios. Your closing statement sounded more like an anti-MOS rant than a neutral close. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely inappropriate to use admin status to push personal political crusades. The community expects admins to adhere to the high standards laid out in WP:ADMIN in this respect. Tony (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking back to refresh my memory of past anti-MOS moves by Nyttend, I found his rants at Talk:Harrison–Crawford State Forest#Requested move. I think there have been more, but I'm not sure how to find them. It seems to me that Nyttend should recuse himself from closing discussions involving the MOS, given this strong anti-MOS history of quite a few years. Perhaps a move review is in order (even if it doesn't change the decision, a more sensible closing statement might be arrived at). Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, here, very recently, you took a strong position on exactly the topic you just closed: User talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing. If that's not WP:INVOLVED, I don't know what is. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Threatening one entire group of editors with sanctions just for having an opinion on the matter that the admin does not agree with (or having a discussion the admin is personally tired of and should opt to ignore and go do something else) is a serious WP:INVOLVED failure. Nyttend does have strong views on the topic at issue, expressed in the RfC on it at WP:VPPOL in February [2], and is thus clearly WP:Supervoting. More importantly, it's beyond the pale for an admin to attempt to suppress future RM discussions about an issue that bothers them for whatever reason. The strong bias is self-evident in this "judicial activism" close, and reaffirmed by Nyttend's comment above. It is not Nyttend's right to administratively declare for (or, more to the point, against) everyone else what a guideline may pertain to; that's a community consensus matter.

  Cases like this particular RM are about "edge" or "grey-area" matters, and require consensus discussion to see how the community wants to apply which guidelines and when. It's a necessary consequence of MoS and the naming conventions guidelines being guidelines, to which exceptions are sometimes held to apply. An argument for an exception necessitates a discussion about the case-by-case merits of such an idea. These normal and expected discussions about article titles essentially only happen when moves are proposed and aired out. Yet the closing admin is unilaterally attempting to forbid any such discussion ever happening again about their pet nit-pick.

  Background: The consensus at WP:RM on the "Jr. comma" has been entirely in favor of removing it, with exceptions only (so far as I have seen) for titles of published works that include the comma and do so consistently (off-WP), which is not the case here. This source consistency requirement is part of all MoS provisions about style variance (MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, etc.), and of the WP:COMMONNAME policy. The on-WP consistency with regard to MOS:JR in particular has been applied to literally everything else in addition to bios, from buildings to ships to organizations to artworks, named for people with "Jr[.]" or "Sr[.]" in their names, as well as fictional characters. Nyttend's wishful thinking that MOS:JR somehow "only" applies to bios is demonstrably false, and was never intended that way to begin with, or this would have been stipulated in the VPPOL RfC – an RfC that Nyttend is essentially trying to undo by personal fiat. Note that Nyttend's comment in the RfC dismissed such consistency as "rule creep" and expressed a desire that such matters be determined on an article-by-article basis. This is essentially an anti-consensus argument against the very existence of MOS, WP:AT, and the naming convention guidelines, which evolved for the principal purpose of restraining the constant tendency of people to continually fight and rehash about such trivia on page after page, day after day, year after year, which would be (and historically was) a tremendous waste of editorial time and source of frustration and stress.

  The closer's advocacy on this trivial matter is a good example of the conflict over meaningless style trivia that ArbCom has warned against repeatedly. The comma in this construction is quite literally meaningless and serves no semantic purpose, being just redundant clutter that some hang onto out of some sense of nationalism and nostalgia (the comma used to be preferred in American publications, but this has not been true since ca. the 1980s, just as the hyphen in "to-day" disappeared by the 1930s, and the circumflex in "rôle" by the 1960s). Fighting to including it against guideline consensus (reaffirmed in a VPPOL RfC!) serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and is a classic example of what "tendentious editing" refers to. It is also counter to WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN policies; little camps of editors with a stylistic axe to grind do not get to make up their own fiefdom rules against site-wide guidelines. Otherwise MoS, AT, and the NC pages, lots of other guidelines and policies to boot, would have no reason to exist.

  PS: I think this close should go to WP:MR (if it's not simply retracted or voided, and closed by someone else properly, without having to invoke an additional layer of process). The closer does not appear to have evaluated the merits of the arguments presented at all, but simply done a voting head-count (in the one RM on the matter to date with numbers on the closer's side), and to have given more weight to a pile of WP:ILIKEIT votes than to policy- and RS-based reasoning presented by others.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the closer did not evaluate the merits of the arguments simply because they went against you is highly inappropriate. One could equally say that any argument in favor of deliberately falsifying the title of a well-known film that's spelled correctly in major references like the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, all to adhere slavishly to a style guideline from another WikiProject entirely, is an improper argument and that the closer behaved logically, reasonably and admirably.

And incidentally the MS:BIO guideline is only for names, anyway ... not movie titles.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe a bit overboard with the warning, but the RM's close was obvious and correct. The film's name contains the comma, it is not a real person but the name of a well-known and honored film, and bringing it back to its obviously real name can only help Wikipedia's accuracy. Randy Kryn 19:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Randy, this is not a place to re-argue for and against the move. Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish seems to be doing a good job of that, maybe you can add his name in front or back of mine on your note. Randy Kryn 19:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Absolutely not: if you look through the keep votes, you'll find numerous people rejecting this attempt to apply a subject-specific MOS page to a topic outside that subject; consensus could hold that WP:JR is a model that should be followed here, but this clearly wasn't the case. Other uninvolved parties would do well to observe that we have significant double standards in play here: a small minority demand that their weak arguments be given precedence over the stronger arguments of the majority, they make a big complaint when an uninvolved admin closes the discussion in line with consensus instead of in line with their weaker arguments, they fail to notify the admin in question, and when two people rehash the original arguments at the complaint instead of restricting their comments to the issue at hand, only the stronger majority argument is objected to. This is not good-faith collaborative editing: it's disruptive and tendentious, and it needs to be handled accordingly. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  "This is not good-faith collaborative editing: it's disruptive and tendentious, and it needs to be handled accordingly" sounds like it was written about the WP:TAGTEAM who have repetitively resisted virtually every single MOS:JR compliance move, about bio articles or otherwise, since the RfC, presenting the same already-rejected arguments every single time. I have never in my decade-plus on Wikipedia seen this level of repeat forum shopping to try to WP:WIN against an already established consensus. Its a problem, it needs to stop, and it's become even more obviously a problem now that someone with admin bits is involved in it, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Everything had stopped, the comma thing was over. But then someone had to try to extend it to films about fictional people, especially one with such renown and honor. Maybe a bridge too far. I don't know why you, who seem reasonable at many points, would want to 'start this up again' by not endorsing this move, and opening up the same can of worms. Don't blame me. Randy Kryn 22:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  Nobody tried to extend it to films. That film had been at the comma-free title since its creation many years ago. There was no need for someone to try to put a comma into it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  Disagree with Dicklyon and others arguing in favor of deliberately falsifying a movie title so that it adheres to a WP:BIO style guideline that does not apply to WP:FILM. I don't understand why that's so important to that editor and others arguing, in one case with inappropriate wall-of-text bludgeoning, to not accept the RfC close. Falsifying the title of a well-known film that's spelled correctly in every major source including the Library of Congress' National Film Registry seems extraordinarily non-encyclopedic. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  Why would Rotten Tomatoes and this original movie poster "deliberately falsify" the title? Or maybe that's not what they're doing. Maybe they just have different styles. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  Rotten Tomatoes is hardly a journalistic site, so there it's a matter of sloppiness and low standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be better than that. If you want proper standards, look to the Library of Congress. That's the standard to which we should strive.

  And aside from the fact that the poster is not the movie, most posters do show the comma: [3], [4], [5], [6]. You know why? Because that's the actual, onscreen title. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the Library of Congress and the American Film Institute. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Reminder: This is NOT a forum to debate about the comma or its lack. This is AN. The problem is that any disputes have to be closed by an UNINVOLVED admin. Any admin who is involved in the discussion should REFRAIN FROM CLOSING, even less threaten participants with sanctions. People may be wrong, but as long as there is no policy breach, nobody can be threatened just for presenting their point of view. — kashmiri ^TALK 04:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• I see three potential issues, mostly not appropriate for this board.
  1. Is the result proper?

     Normal move appeal is the appropriate venue.

  2. Is the close proper?

     His status as admin is irrelevant to this question, so the proper board might be to appeal as above or WP:ANI, not here. (I believe a non-admin close would be proper, as the MOS in question only applies to people, and has been extended (with little objection) to things named after people, which this film is not. There is no guideline-based argument against the move.)

  3. Is the closing comment appropriate?

     That seems to be threatening admin action, although a rational person person could read it as a prediction, rather than a threat. That is the only matter appropriate for this board.

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, mostly not appropriate to this board (I posted as a followup to the request that prompted Nyttend's action that I'm complaining about). So I took it to AN/I as someone suggested, and a non-admin closed the discussion there, saying it should be here. So far, no neutral admin has said he has looked at my linked evidence of Nyttend's involvement. It would be good if someone would do so and say so, and make a call on the involvement complain. The key evidence is at User talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing, where Nyttend had equated my removal of a comma per WP:JR with vandalism, saying "hoaxes are not tolerated". Having expressed such a strong opinion on exactly the question in the Steamboat Bill RM, he should have voted like others with strong opinions, rather than closing with the pretense of being a neutral party. Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• • For what it is worth, I would have closed it the same way with a similar injunction against using the Biography MOS for a film. Granted I wouldnt threaten 'sanctions' as I am not an admin. But it was certainly such a terrible use of guideline to attempt to enforce a preference that it needed to be addressed. My preferred wording for such things is 'Argument X for position Y has been rejected due to editors citing policy/guideline Z'. Citing a biographical MOS in order to get a preferred film name sans comma is just ridiculous so I can understand Nyttend's wording completely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Me too. I'll AGF and not speculate on the motives of those arguing against the move, but I think the result is the obvious one. GoldenRing (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for assuming the 6 opposing editors were acting in good faith. That's something the closer did not do. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Compromised account

Situation resolved. Blackmane (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I just blocked Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as apparently compromised. The account was making the same "OurMine" edits to the Barack Obama and Donald Trump articles as we had with the compromised admin accounts a few weeks ago. Just an FYI, I suppose: be on the look out (and enable 2FA if you can and haven't already!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen has unblocked after getting confirmation that Scjessey is now back in control of his account. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Saraiki dialect

I am requesting administrative attention to the title of this page, to its lede sentence, and to its content in general. There is a history of Requests for Comments and Requested Moves, concerning whether the subject is a dialect of Punjabi, a language variety of Punjabi, a language, or more than one of these at the same time. It appears to me that some of the participants in these conflicts have difficulty in stating their position and difficulty in understanding policies and procedures in the English Wikipedia because their command of English is limited. I became aware of the conflict on 13 December when one of the editors filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_145#Saraiki_dialect. Discussion was difficult, and eventually the DRN thread was closed on 21 December as resolved by a previous RFC. Since then I have received requests on my talk page for assistance, but I have difficulty understanding them. I see from the template at the top of Talk:Saraiki dialect that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available, presumably under India-Pakistan arbitration. I haven’t researched the status of Saraiki in detail, but I see that language scholars have discussed its status on the dialect continuum in depth without a final resolution. (Thanks to User:Paine Ellsworth for a thoughtful closure.) My own thought is only that the lede sentence should agree with the title rather than contradicting it, and that the controversy should then be dealt with (as it is) in the body of the article. The lede currently states that it is a language, although the title characterizes it as a dialect.

Administrative attention is requested, but administrators should be aware that some of the editors seem to have extreme difficulty in communicating in written English. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW the "some accounts" are all just one prolific sockmaster. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert. I've been handling that socking for a while now, as has Bbb23, the page is under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions and the talk page has been tagged as such. At this point, after semi protecting the talk page, the discussion is between good faith editors. I don't think any admin action is required at this point unless it's to block any fresh socks. —SpacemanSpiff 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

To Robert McClenon, SpacemanSpiff and other administrators on the board: I agree with Robert McClenon that something must be done. A lot of good work is being done with sockpuppets; however, in this case I've seen little that can be described as definitive. Words like "likely" and "possilikely" say to me that we cannot be certain that what we have isn't a public computer, such as that found in a library, used by several editors who don't have a good handle on the English language. More to the point is the disposition of the title of the Saraiki dialect article. I closed a requested move in October as Not moved, which went to Move review and was endorsed, and now here we are less than three months later with yet another requested move for pretty much the same thing. The present move request, which has just been closed as "No consensus", should have been closed procedurally because it was opened long before it should have been. A "No consensus" close will just say to involved editors that they can come back in two or three months and try again, while the "Not moved" close made in October should have meant that the next requested move to the same page title should wait much longer. Since I just noticed the "No consensus" close, I guess I should take that to Move review to have it changed to "Procedural close", but I'll wait a bit to see what ya'll say.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 16:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I consider this to have been a valid move request. There is no formal six month waiting period for moves and a glance at the changes to the article since the last request show a very different article with more and better referencing. The correct procedure going forward is for someone to reopen the move request with a more focused title suggestion (as the closer has suggested). --regentspark (comment) 17:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• And, frankly, I find your comments on the socks and the entire SPI process incomprehensible. While, in this case, the socks couldn't be more obvious had they arrived preceded by a band playing "Here Comes the Sock", more generally the SPI process relies on likely and possibility because, of course, it is never impossible that someone else has used a particular computer or IP. --regentspark (comment) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppets who can't write in English are a double waste of time. I think that we need a notice that overly quick move requests now will be dealt with by topic-bans under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a notice is the way to go, because frankly, the editors involved thus far have only the article's best interests in mind, even though some of their tactics are very questionable.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 17:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that if anybody has a conduct issue here it is Paine Ellsworth. After closing the previous move request reasonably, but prefixed by WP:OR comments unreasonably, they became heavily involved and essentially sabotaged the latest move request. This is not the behaviour expected of an experienced editor. If they have a position on the issue, they should take it and leave the other people alone to have their own say.

As for the issue raised by Robert McClenon, the lead paragraph seems to reflect the current consensus among the reliable sources. If that seems to contradict the page title, I think it has more to do our own damaged consensus process on Wikipedia. Nobody is stopping the pro-dialect camp from bringing their own sources and editing the text accordingly. I don't see why this should be an issue for admin attention.

(disclaimer) I am an uninvolved editor here. I have this page on my watch list merely because it is sock-infested and needs attention from time to time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The correct procedure going forward is for someone to reopen the move request with a more focused title suggestion. This means starting a new RM, right? What would be the ideal timeframe then? – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Six months to a year, I think. You saw how little participation there was in the last round. Nothing will be achieved by filing any request any time soon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the closer of the RM has self-reverted, so the discussion is open again. Should it stay so? If yes, then I think there's definitely a need for some refactoring. As an involved party, it's not appropriate for me to do that, so any volunteers? I'd be happy for any number of my comments there to be collapsed away from view, the more the better. – Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Well. I went ahead and collapsed the comments by the socks [7]. I think the same should be done with the entire exchange between me and Paine Ellsworth (though Amakuru and Kautilya3 were briefly involved too) that happened right after Kautilya3's !vote. There's some bickering on my part there, as well as clarifications of misunderstandings that I don't see as contributing much to the general discussion. If no-one of the involved editors objects, then I'll proceed to collapse that as well (which should be acceptable per what I understand of WP:REFACTOR). – Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ideally, someone - preferably an uninvolved admin - should close the 'procedural' part. (I've added my comment at the end.) Collapsing the discussion between you and Paine Ellsworth would require their agreement so, if you do collapse it, let them know on their talk page. --regentspark (comment) 13:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am good with how that part of the discussion within the RM was closed (but not collapsed). I've said all that needs to be said and nothing needs to be repeated. If editors in this case decide to ignore community consensus and WP:IAR, then there is no more I can do about it. And I hope all are happy with the precedent this sets. We can probably expect to see more of this at Hindko dialect. Happy New Year to all!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 17:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, hopefully, someone will look in on this discussion, because there appear to be several editors who are in agreement to omit the natural disambiguator, "dialect", in favor of the ambiguous Saraiki bare title, which may apply to several articles as seen on the dab page. It has not passed the test for primary topic, which might also be given to the Saraiki people article. It is my contention that the proposer, who has edit warred in that article and at Hindko dialect, yet another page the proposer wants to change to Hindko language, wants the changed title to "Saraiki" just so they can come back a little later and start another RM to complete the change to Saraiki language. The proposer is using baby steps to get what they want. Please put a stop to that out-of-process move request that goes sharply against the community consensus that has shaped the instructions at WP:NOTMOVED.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed – it will really be helpful if more editors participated, as there's definitely a need for a broad consensus to end the controversies. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Uanfala – your "agreed" tells me that I may have not made myself clear. I am asking here for administrative intervention to put a stop to your out-of-process move request. In other words, I am asking administrators for a "procedural close". Are you sure you agree?  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 04:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a sub-discussion about the validity of the RM and it was closed a week ago. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure the administrators know that. This AN request/discussion is still open, however. Perhaps this is a good time for you to end the puzzlement and say why you opened a new RM so soon after the previous one, fully knowing that a new RM should wait a considerable time before being opened? Or were you unaware of that? And now, thanks to that closed validity discussion, now that you are aware that your request is out of process and against community consensus, are you now willing to withdraw the request?  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 15:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Paine Ellsworth. This user is also destroying other relevant dialect continuum such as Hindi[8], example [9]. Every dialect is language for him. Cant we ban such non linguistic user from editing linguistic pages ? Is there any option ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showermixer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Block review: Enthusiast01 (Ewawer)/Bullaful

Going by Bullaful (talk · contribs)'s most recent post on his talk page, it may be that he would like a review of his block. I recognized Bullaful as Enthusiast01 (talk · contribs), who was formerly known as Ewawer, a longtime Wikipedian who was often productive. (If someone thinks it's a good idea for a CheckUser to make sure that I was correct in my identification, please do. I recognize that even though I am usually correct in identifying socks, I can be wrong. I very much doubt that I am wrong in this case, but technical data supporting the identification wouldn't hurt.) Diannaa blocked Enthusiast01 for copyright issues. When I recognized Bullaful, I suggested that he consider appealing his block instead of using a new account; I also asked Diannaa on her talk page if she would consider unblocking the Enthusiast01 account; it seems she said no. Full discussion seen here. After Bullaful admitted to being Enthusiast01, Diannaa blocked the new account as well. On his talk page, Bullaful argued the following after the block:

Bullaful's argument

What the hell is happening to Wikipedia? When I first starting editing way back when I as well as other editors were encouraged to WP:be bold, on the proviso that if the editor went too far, the edit would be reverted or fixed. I have spent many, many, many hours of my time making good faith edits to enhance the standing and quality of Wikipedia articles. But, now a new breed of administrators seem to have taken over, whose guiding principle is to show who is the boss. Instead of encouraging good faith editing and reverting or fixing edits which may have crossed the line, the main approach is increasingly to block accounts and make repeated threats of dire consequences. It feels like the encouragement of good faith editing and courtesy is becoming old fashioned. Now. Diannaa is going one step further, threatening to blanket delete and revert all edits made by me, whether made in good faith or without regard to any merit. I have spent many of my hours on Wikipedia edits, and it would be such a waste if all of that was now to be dumped because of the bloody-mindedness of one administrator. Let me also take this opportunity to say to Diannaa that I am conscious of the meaning and significance of copyright and the consequences of its violation (BTW - I was a lawyer in another life) and have respect for it. I also appreciate her (I assume Diannaa is a her) efforts in keeping edits on the right side of copyright. I do have regrets for having crossed over the copyright line, and attribute it to starting to do a major edit but having to rush off to do other things in the real world, and having to "Save" WIP as a temporary step, intending to come back to finish the tidy up very soon, but being caught short. Bullaful (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The appeal could perhaps spend less time accusing other people of bad practices and more explaining what their understanding of copyright is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If he wishes to get unblocked what he needs to do is explain to us how copyright law applies to Wikipedia editing and how he proposes to do better in the future. I'm not seeing that in this post. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• If this is an appeal, I'm an apple tart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• I left a rather long comment that may remind them of the ramifications of clicking save. If it mollifies them somewhat so we don't lose their future contributions then all the better. Blackmane (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Enthusiast101 is stale, but since this is an unblock appeal and there's already been evidence of socking, I ran CheckUser. Bullaful is also editing as Rogr101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log); actually, Rogr101 is the older account, so it's the master. If there's any doubt about the technical evidence (and there isn't any) this is awfully damning. Rogr101 has been indef blocked, and I don't see any sleeper accounts. Katie^talk 04:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie (Katie), as seen with this link, I identified Rogr101 as an Ewawer sock as well. I remember commenting about it on Dennis Brown's talk page, but it was dropped after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

My point, Flyer, is that he's already evading an indefinite block. The link you gave is four years old. If you had already identified Rogr101 as a sock, you should have listed it here. I'm not going to seriously consider an unblock request from someone who simply wants one of his sockpuppets unblocked so he can resume doing what he wants to do in violation of just about every policy we have against block evasion. He has three accounts that we know of and now wants to edit from two of them? Nope. Katie^talk 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Katie, going by what I stated on Ewawer's talk page and to Dennis Brown four years ago, I clearly was not sure if Ewawer knew about the WP:Socking policy and whether or not the Rogr101 account was a WP:Clean start account. After all, he was not as familiar with Wikipedia's rules as I was (he still isn't), and it did appear that he had dropped the Ewawer account to edit as Rogr101. He stopped using the Rogr101 account after I identified him. He did not start to use it again until December 4, 2016 at 03:45. His Ewawer account had been blocked by Diannaa months before December. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - the user should probably read WP:NOTTHEM and be sure to understand and respond to the reason of the block (copyright issues are one of the most serious types of problems here). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

See here. I think that Ewawer would like to be unblocked so that he comment in this thread. Ewawer is the oldest account, so maybe unblock that one to make his case in this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This post shows a good understanding of what our expectations are from a copyright point of view. I will ask him at User talk:Bullaful if he is also prepared to stop socking and if he will make that commitment I will unblock his original account (User:Enthusiast01) if nobody has any objections. As always, I will scrutinize the user's edits daily to watch for further copyright violations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: So far Bullaful/Enthusiast01 has not responded to my unblock conditions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

GoGoVan

Request completed --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

The page GoGoVan has been deleted three times, using CSD G11 and one of them also under A7. Now, however someone has created a suitable article located at GoGovan. Please could the article GoGovan be moved to GoGoVan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverrushton (talk • contribs) 09:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved to proper title. No opinion on whether the article is suitable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Standard offer unblock request

Satt2 is unbanned with a topic ban from all thing Georgia (Country) for 12 months. Satt2 is counselled that further controversial editing is most likely going to be final. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Editor's note: I'm bringing this back from the archive. There should be enough material in here for an admin to decide one way or another--letting this languish in the archive is not the proper way to go. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Years ago, when I was still an immature High School student, I made the mistake of block evasion and copyright infringement on Wikipedia. When I was first banned, I didn’t know anything about the possibility of a fresh start, so I simply kept coming back in disguise, which eventually turned into a pattern of sockpuppetry, spanning numerous accounts. Satt 2 is the earliest account that I still have access to, hence my submission through this account.

After my most recent block as Damianmx, I had an honest, off-the-record conversation with an experienced administrator @Drmies:. Drmies told me about the possibility of a clean start and encouraged me to admit to my wrongdoings in order to make things right, which is what I set out to do. Following up on that advice, for over six months now, I have not produced any sockpuppets and neither do I intend to engage in that kind of behavior in the future. Moreover, I have not engaged in any copyright-related violations for several years.

Drmies has graciously unblocked me on the condition that I make this official unblock plea to you directly. After a long period of socking, I understand that many will not be eager to support unblocking me. However, if I am given a way out of this long cycle of block evasion, I intend to make the best use of this opportunity. In the past, I have authored countless well-sourced articles and edits, many that I have been thanked for. If I am given the possibility of a new start, I promise to channel my productivity on Wikipedia but, this time, as a legitimate editor. I ask that you consider.--Satt 2 (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: @KrakatoaKatie: @Boing! said Zebedee: @78.26: @Drmies: @Od Mishehu: and others: I tried to keep my appeal as short and to the point as possible, so I apologize if I mistakenly gave the impression that I was not willing to be held accountable for instances of combative attitude and editing on my part. I take full responsibility for that behavior and cessation of that type of combative editing was implied in my promise to be a productive and rule-abiding member of this community. I don't know what caused me to be as pushy as I was in some of my past edits. Perhaps it is the fact that many editors I was up against employed similar tactics. For instance, my most recent "conflict" was with Tiptoethrutheminefield, who has already been subject to various forms of blocks 8 times, yet he has no longstanding bans. Surrounded by freewheeling editors like that, I was mistakenly led to believe that I could employ similar tactics and get away with it. I was wrong and immature in that belief and there is no excuse for instances of battleground tactics on my part. If I am given a one year topic ban, perhaps I could prove during that time that I am capable of being a rule-abiding and responsible editor.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

---

• Support, of course! - We all grow up. 6 years ago I was much more immature! I initially made an account to write a shitty page about myself, thinking of Wikipedia as on the same level ar UrbanDictionary. And now see where I'm at. Time for a second chance, and thanks for deciding to stick with us and continue volunteering your time and efforts to Wikipedia despite the initial mishaps. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Addendum for the closer: The fact that I would support without a topic ban implicitly means I'd also support with a topic ban, even if I don't personally think it is strictly necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• User:Salvidrim!, I'll write a shitty page about you for free, any time. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Actually don't. I'm not notable (yet?), so UrbanDictionary will suffice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless combined with a rigid topic ban from all things Georgia (country). This user was initially blocked not merely for being an immature high school student, but for making problematic content edits, and his socks (up until this year) kept getting recognized and blocked not merely because of block evasion, but because they were still making those exact same problematic content edits. This user has apparently always been a national POV warrior, and I see nothing at all in his unblock request addressing this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Satt 2: Before I would be willing to consider supporting this, could you supply a full list of accounts you've used in the past? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: since the socking happened over a considerable stretch of time, and rather casually as well, I can't really give you a full list of accounts because I honestly don't remember. However, I can confirm that all of the accounts discovered through this string of SP investigations are indeed mine.--Satt 2 (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The above needs clarification. In a previous statement [10] Satt2 wrote "some poor soul Olivia Winfield was indefinitely blocked on "behavioral grounds" as my sock but she really, really had nothing to do with me". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that, off the top of my head, I don't remember all the accounts that I've ever created. However, when I specifically reviewed the content and timing of Olivia Winfield's activity, I confirmed that she is simply not me! She appears to edit the same niche Georgian articles and has shown combative attitude, that much we do share, but I can't be the only person with such attributes. Also, note that Olivia Winfield was not part of the string of official SP investigations that I had pointed to; she must have been blocked separately.--Satt 2 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming this. I was concerned that your post here could be used say that, based on that post, Olivia Winfield WAS you. But it seems they have found other ways to avoid remedying the error in that block. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support with 1 year topic ban per FuturePerfect. Saying that this behaviour was "years ago" is dishonest when the same behaviour was recurring just six months ago, though the request acknowledges this further down. I share FuturePerfect's concerns but see no reason this user shouldn't be given a second chance. They should stay out of the topic area that caused problems for them until they can establish a pattern of productive editing. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban per FPAS. I find it interesting that this OFFER appeal comes exactly six months to the day after his last edit as Damianmx. I'll extend my good faith about the socking, but I won't extend it to the POV-pushing that took place and isn't addressed in this appeal at all. Katie^talk 15:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban. If we'd had an appeal that convincingly covered the POV-pushing, I'd probably support a unconditional unblock. But as it stands, I share the concerns of others here and I would only support an unblock coupled with the topic ban suggested by Fut.Perf. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  Having considered Satt 2's additional comments above, and Drmies' below, I'm now happy to change my preference to an unconditional support. My confidence that Satt 2 really does understand the old problems is strengthened. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I kind of want to stay out of this, since I am not very familiar with the editor's work. The conversations I've had with the editor have been positive, and I'm a big fan of good faith. On the other hand, I can't find fault with Fut.Perf.'s comments, and I would support the proposed topic ban. On the other hand (third hand already?), one of the edits pointed out in the SPI for Damian (behavioral proof of socking) was this one--and while it is true that it established proof both of socking and of a preoccupation with Georgia, it is also true that those tags were valid: the sentence was weaselish, not touched upon in the rest of the article. Moreover, the linked article (Greater Iran) is littered with tags that seem valid to me, and a matter of contention since 2006. (Boing, sure--POV pushing, but this time it pushed toward a proper balance, IMO.) In other words, the socking was bad, but some edits at least were valid. It is unfortunate that we're then hamstringing someone because of their bad behavior (socking, edit warring, etc.) in an area where they may well have something positive to bring. Satt/Damian, you brought that on yourself, unfortunately, and if you get unblocked with a topic ban, you'll just have to suck it up. But this is a good start. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban per reasons given above as I have nothing useful to add to the conversation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban, ans perhaps a ban on uploading images (per his last block log entry). I think we can give the user a second chance, gien that he understands that a third chance would be MUCH harder and with appropriate safeguards to kep him from the causes of the disruptive behavoir. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Question Satt2's past actions, when combined with administrator incompetence and arrogance, hurt at least one entirely innocent third party. Will Satt2 confirm here that they had no connection whatsoever to Olivia Winfield [11], an editor who was blocked for being a sock of Satt2. And will an administrator now reverse Olivia Winfield's patently unjust block. Or are they happy to create a situation where the sock is unbanned but the person incorrectly banned for being the same sock remains banned? Oh, I see no evidence that Satt2 has changed - he accuses other editors of being "freewheeling editors" who led HIM astray! This shows his lack of acceptance of or understanding about why he was blocked, and hints that little may change if he does return. I agree a ban should not last forever, so let him return, but a topic ban from ANYTHING to do with Georgia, very widely construed (i.e., including Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran) and for the suggested year, seems a minimum restriction to have in place to safeguard such a return. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Unconditional support. Any further problems can be addressed as needed. Miniapolis 00:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment before I will cast my vote, I'd like to mention two things; first of all, I sincerely doubt myself as well that Olivia Winfield is related to Satt2. I in fact asked the blocking admin some time ago about this (@Daniel Case:), and I believe, if I deducted the conclusion correctly from his words (please correct me Daniel, if needed), that it could indeed be true that Olivia Winfield was blocked with an erraneous "label", but the block was simply not lifted/changed due to his/her uncomprimising behavior even while being blocked. Hence, the tag remained.

You are correct. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, on Wikipedia an editor is not allowed to express anger if they are unjustly blocked, even if their third appeal against that unjust block fails, even after the sockmaster admits they were not that editor and an administrator confirms it and the blocking administrator also admits it. And it is acceptable, as Daniel Case will confirm, for administrators to call unjustly blocked editors who express anger at their unjust block ""pissy, petulant and pubescent" who are "temperamentally unsuited to being a member of the Wikipedia community". Being "unsuited to the Wikipedia community" I interpret as engaging in the "uncompromising behavior" of questioning the decisions of administrators in ways that imply failings in those administrators. That is an unforgivable offense. However, creating multiple socks in order to engage in years of nationalistic pov edit warring is forgivable. Happy days indeed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing innocent regarding the Olivia Winfield account. The account was created contrary to policy to evade the block of this IP where it was used to continue the same disruptive edits and personal attacks as the IP. The sock tags only note a suspected master which is purposefully distinct from confirmed. The socking itself is glaringly obvious. The account should not be unblocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is absurd. Olivia Winfield was blocked for being Satt2, not for being Jaqeli. Jaqueli has never been permanently blocked, so why would Olivia Winfield bother appealing a permanent block if they were already back and editing? I have had editing contacts with Satt2 (under his later socks) and with Jaqeli, both have similar strident editing aims, but I do not see any similarity between their editing aims and the admittedly limited number of edits made by Olivia Winfield. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

None of which addresses my point that the Olivia Winfield account was created as a block evading account, specifically to evade the block of IP 68.109.175.166. You are free to make the argument that the suspected masters are incorrect, but the block is sound as the account was created and edited contrary to policy. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You can provide no evidence of that. The IP address belongs to one of the world's biggest internet providers. What I do know, based on actually having edited in the same area, is that there are no behavioral connections between Olivia Winfield and either Satt2 (who they were blocked for being) or Jaqeli (the editor using that address was blocked for being Jaqeli). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The behavioural evidence is overwhelming. Have you even looked? The account was created two days after the IP was blocked and was subsequently used to make the same arguments at the same articles using verbatim edit summaries. It's as obvious as can be. There is no point even having this discussion here, as it's using this standard offer appeal to continue your soapboxing against what you perceive to be an incorrect block.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

What same arguments as who exactly? Jaqueli? The IP was blocked for being Jaqueli, yes? The error is worse than I thought. As well as the unjust block for being incorrectly accused of being Satt2, Olivia Winfield while editing as an IP address was unjustly blocked for being incorrectly accused of being Jaqeli. No wonder they were so angry and utterly contemptuous of administrators! None of the edits or the editing pov of Satt2 or Jaqueli bare comparison with any edits or editing pov displayed by Olivia Winfield. The pointlessness is me expecting any administrator to remedy this - so there is nothing more I can or will add here. I will make a link to here on Olivia Winfield's page. Maybe Jaqueli could make a disclaimer, like Satt2 did. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

My second point; the last CU blocked sock of Satt2 is known to have tried to move the "Transcaucasia" page to "South Caucasus" in the past, on 29 May 2016. When a RfM was made on 25 November 2016 on the talk page of the same article, in order to discuss the option to have the page moved, an IP geolocating to earlier CU confirmed IP's of Satt2 while using, as what I would describe, the same profiency in English, and signing the same way, provided support for the move. This just several hours after the request was placed. Could obviously be sheer coincidence, which (WP:GF assumed) it probably is, but I'm just wondering. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• LouisAragon, I am not sure which IP you're talking about. There's one there that links to [[12]], and I don't see your geolocation point either. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies:, yeah, I just noticed that I forgot to provide a link, sorry. I meant this one. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is also this newly created single issue account with an inexplicable pre-understanding of everything to do with Wikipedia: [13]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Assumption of good faith Support, while leaving open the possibility of quick reblocking if POV mentality resurfaces, despite assurances. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Unconditional support - Everyone deserves a second chance and my gut says they are being sincere, so no restrictions are needed at this time. If there are problems with POV, they can be dealt with at that time. That said, they probably need to listen to Future* and avoid that area for while, as a matter of good judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Unconditional support – What not to give them a second chance? I hope, from the lessons learned, they will find a proper way to resolve NPOV disputes. --Kober^Talk 08:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose or 1 year topic ban - It is very interesting that Satt chooses to begin his appeal as though he has been inactive for the past 6 years, when he has continued the same line of behavior a mere 6 months ago as Damianmx. Instead he just revisions it as that he hasn't socked in 6 months. If hasn't learned his lesson in 5.5 years, how can he in just .5? We have seen nothing to indicate that he has changed in anyway, so an unconditional unblock should be out of the question. In fact, WP:CLEANSTART is supposed to be for only editing in entirely unrelated fields. Typically before topic bans are removed, the editor must prove they can edit other topics without controversy. Satt should not be an exception to this. If he can go 1 year with substantial contributions on articles with no relation to Georgia or its neighbors, then perhaps the ban can be removed. But if he goes back to POV pushing, the block should be put back with no multiple second chances. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with one year topic ban I believe in second chances, and the apology seems genuine, but they need to show they can stay away from Georgia-related topics for a year and be constructive elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I was the one who handled the sockpuppetry issue in Commons. I think one last chance may produce benefit. As far as I remember most of the user's contribution was related to Georgia so topic ban to Georgian related articles doesn't make sense. --geagea^Talk 14:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support and agree with user geagea with topic ban unblock will not have sense, if we forgive him let's give one more chance.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose or 1 year topic ban - For me its unfortunately very unconvincing as well. Sockmasters who are active on this place for the amount of years equal to Satt2, are relatively rare. Six years is not some kind of joke. As already stipulated, if all previous socks couldn't resort to proper editing, as well as the most recently blocked sock Damianmx (blocked a mere 6 months ago), why should we be willing to just outrightly believe that everything would be now "solved" all of a sudden? No, I believe that there's a very deep editorial problem with applying user in question. His three unblock requests on his last CU blocked sock "Damianmx" (first two requests were to blatantly deny sockpuppetry/any editorial issues, last one, before a standard talk page access removal would be imposed, was virtually the same text placed here on this page) are a further attestment to that, in my opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
• 6-month topic ban I am unconvinced that the user would not resort to the same behavior that kept getting him caught. There are plenty of other articles to edit and show change. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Undeletion request

Request completed --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Per the result of this RFC can the following pages be undeleted rather than having to log individual requests.

• 1. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 27
  2. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 17
  3. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 18
  4. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 12
  5. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 26
  6. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 12
  7. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 7
  8. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 12
  9. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 4
  10. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 8
  11. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 7
  12. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 19
  13. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 3
  14. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 30
  15. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 30
  16. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 26
  17. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 14
  18. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 15
  19. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 14
  20. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 9
  21. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 31
  22. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 29
  23. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 13
  24. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 21
  25. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 24
  26. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 20
  27. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 25
  28. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 2
  29. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 21
  30. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 13
  31. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 16
  32. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 13
  33. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 9
  34. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 7
  35. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 17
  36. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 17
  37. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 25
  38. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 11
  39. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 21
  40. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 1

Many thanks. Amortias (T)(C) 19:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 20:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 20:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

RFC Closure review Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Survey

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."[14] 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.^[[15]]

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)

Images not suitable for commons

This query is returning a lot of results:- https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/14481

but on examining, it seems to be a lot of them are expiry-dated, Do not Move to Commons that have expired.

Can an admin assist in 1) Amending the query so it doesn't show the clearly expired ones? 2) Amending the templates so the expired ones don't show up. 3) Transfering files over to Commons. 4) Any combination of the above.

Thanks,

This needs Admin assistance as a number of the templates are likely to be protected.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide an example in a sandbox of the edits you'd like made to specific templates? It's not clear to me what you're asking an administrator to do, but I'm an administrator who's both well-versed in copyright law and an editor of templates, so I may be able to help. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible to provide a sandbox example. Basicly I'm asking someone to move the files that can be to Commons, and fix the template so there's a way to remove the conflict between {{Do not move to Commons}} and {{Move to Commons}} which gets added automatically. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

For the template changes, could you perhaps give a file which is affected by the current conflict? For the files, that's not possible. The state of our file space is so bad that we need human review on files before moving to Commons. I chug away at that backlog every once in awhile, but each file takes a while to fully review, especially claims of no notice or no renewal. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Sukarno_visiting_family_in_Blitar,_Bung_Karno_Penjambung_Lidah_Rakjat_227.jpg]Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Closer needed

Resolved by Katie. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I think we need an univolved admin to close this on AN/I, where an editor refuses to drop the stick. After a complaint was NAC closed, he carried on, moving the goal posts as he went. Someone needs to decide if sanctions are appropriate, and for whom. Any closer should make sure that they haven't been within a million miles of the issue, lest the editor decide that a comment you made 10 years ago makes you WP:INVOLVED. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Closed by Krakatoa Katie, and the thread in now archived. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Probable hijacked dab page

Last June, User:Mansied moved the (what I presume was a dab) page Inguraidhoo to Ingrown Hair Serum and then pointed the leftover redirect to Inguraidhoo (Raa Atoll). Ingrown Hair Serum was deleted in October by User:Seraphimblade as WP:G11, but the original contents can be found at User:Mansied/sandbox. The former dab page needs to be restored, along with its history. (This is similar to the case I outlined last week at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286#More dab hijacking.)

An ancillary question: should I continue reporting these hijackings here, or should I report them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00? My primary purpose in each of these instances is to restore the disambiguation page. — Gorthian (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think reporting them here (or on ANI) is probably the most useful, since it requires different admin actions than just sock checking. Thanks again, good job finding all of these cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf. - even if this was done by someone else, it should be fixed, so it should be requested separately from the sock check. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

An abuse filter might be helpful to track these. I'll look into that later this week. Please don't archive this until then. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all. BU Rob13, I can maybe help with figuring out the filter; I'm pretty well versed by now in dab-page mechanics. Though always learning! Ping me or post on my talk page. I've been working slowly through this list, which is how I've run across most of these, in case that's any use to you. — Gorthian (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to modify the administrator inactivity policy

I have posted a proposal to modify the administrator inactivity policy; see Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposal. Maxim_(talk) 12:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Welsh reading admins eyes requested

Resolved: Diolch i "Boing!" - mae o wedi sortio popeth, dwi'n meddwl. Da iawn pawb. Bencherlite^Talk 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There are frequent (multiple throughout the day) updates in the List of Pobol y Cwm characters article. Some of the updating in being written in Welsh. This includes descriptions of the characters, and since I can't read Welsh, I'm unsure if what's being written is appropriate for the encyclopedia itself. | like this example . So, additional eyes are being requested for this article . KoshVorlon}01/8/2017,17:45

Other than pronouns, none of that article should actually be in Welsh as this is ENWP. But a lot of that is abusive/vandalism anyway (I live in Wales and have basic conversation knowledge of the language - dont ask me to translate complicated stuff). I have taken it back to 17th December as that is the last good English-language version. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am fairly confident Wjbeynonl's contributions are all duff. I have taken both articles back to prior to their involvement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And since they are certainly vandalising articles now after a warning on their talkpage, can someone block them please. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've indef blocked as a vandalism-only account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a moderately-poor Welsh-speaking admin but Arwel Parry would appear to be the best qualified Welsh-speaking admin... mind you, as OID says, this is ENWP anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention That was definitely a vandalism-only account, so you certainly did the right actions. I've lived on the wrong side of the border for the last 40 years to really keep up with slang, but "pedin" is certainly part of the male anatomy, and "hoyw" is the standard word for gay, so you can probably guess the tenor of the edits! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

review of a non-admin closure

User Diannaa pointed me here, so let's go. Recently a template at discussion got a non-admin close for a merge after a very long discussion. The problem is that in my opinion the discussion was far from reach any merge consensus, I counted 11 support votes for merge and 19 against it. I know that this isn't about counting votes, or democracy or whatever the name they gave it, but it seems a bit to risky to do that with a template used at 3084 pages and with some serious technical issues raised by some users. Maybe an admin should take a look. Best regards, Bertdrunk (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No admin really required as the practical merger would take multiple people to enact. The only real objections were 'its too complicated' and 'it affects a lot of pages' which are not particularly strong arguments. Its technically feasible, the templates are extremely similar. By argument alone, the 'merge' votes had stronger arguments going for them. Countering good strong arguments for merging with 'its too complicated' is not really a rebuttal. Likewise 'it affects many articles' is not an issue if the merge was done correctly and tested extensively before being rolled out. Both things which are within the skillset of the infobox gnomes to achieve. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have notified Primefac of this discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Only in death after having looked at the TfD. Most of the Opposes are actually opposes to a perceived redirect, which never was the object of the TfD. Good call by Primefac - I guess some admins might have not taken the time to look at the details of the discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that was a fair close. There were a lot of poor quality arguments raised in opposition to the merge - in particular the desire to retain distinctive elements for former countries is entirely compatible with merging, and things like the article count aren't relevant if the merge is done correctly. Three people opposing the merge didn't offer a rationale at all. There were a few comments outlining more substantial objections to the merge, such as Frietjes and Rob984, but those were distinctly in a minority. Hut 8.5 20:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I do a lot of work with templates, including infoboxes. I read the whole discussion and concur with the consensus and the notes above. As stated in the discussion, if it turns out that merging the templates is not technically feasible after some experimentation, the merge will be nullified as unfeasible, and the status quo will prevail. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Template discussions are affected by the weight of the arguments, and as mentioned above there was more weight on merging the two than keeping the status quo simply for the fear that it might not work. I intentionally left the merger open-ended, whereby it could be nullified should the concerns of the opposition not be met (as they are valid concerns), but I've seen (and worked on) plenty of complicated/controversial mergers that turned out perfectly fine in the end; it just required input from multiple editors who were interested in a good final product. I intend on keeping tabs on this merger, and if all goes well those opposed (who aren't involved in the merger) won't even notice if/when the final product is made live. Primefac (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As a procedural note only, WP:NAC specifically says that controversial decisions and close calls should be left to an administrator. Whether or not it was closed with the correct result, the invocation of {{nac}} here seems like a procedural faux pas. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

NACs at TfD are very common, and Primefac is one of the most experienced people there. It's much better to have discussions closed by experienced people familiar with the venue and with template issues than to have J. Random Admin do it. (I know this because I was the random admin dragged in once to deal with a backlog, and it was immediately obvious that the non-admin regulars were better and faster than me, which is what led to the adoption of the modified approach to NACs at TfD in the first place.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm certainly not suggesting that NACs at TfD are incorrect or even discouraged. I'm pointing out the fact that WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC both clearly state Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. Closing an 11-19 discussion in favor of support is both controversial and a close call by any definition—doubly so now that it has actually been challenged. If you disagree or feel that TfD should have an exception, then that should be written into the guideline. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

While I respect any support vote that was casted in that discussion, I must admit to find disturbing the arguments advanced here, what you people are suggestion is to take away the "discussion" piece of the "Templates for discussion" and made it a simple yes or no technical feasibility decision. What's the point of discussing it if all the discussion doesn't matter at all? What's even the point of having a place for discussion then? Anyway, I'll update my .txt. Bertdrunk (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Because not all templates and discussions are the same. In this case if the templates were substantially different, arguments they should stay separate would have had more weight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter

Whilst discussing on IRC the need for administrators to keep up to date with guideline, policy, and technology changes, Nick suggested an administrators' newsletter, sent monthly, that would update administrators on relevant changes to the encyclopedia. Tonight I threw together the basics for such a newsletter at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter, with an example for this month. The current plan would be to run this for a few months with users opting in to subscribe, after which we can have a discussion about whether administrators should always receive this, should be able to opt-out, or if it should remain opt-in. Please go and subscribe, and leave any feedback you have on the talk page; I've put a few suggested topics for discussion there. Feel free to go ahead and make changes to any part of the setup, it's quite bare bones right now. Alternatively, if you hate the whole idea, that's fine too. Sam Walton (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is some content that we want to be opt-out instead of opt-in, the list WP:ADMINMMS is fairly current. We rarely use that list, but if there are policy or security issues it is available. (e.g. a new protection level or policy, two-factor authentication changes...). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That's useful. We'd probably only want to use it as a starting list though, since I'm open to non-admins signing up for the admin newsletter if they find it useful/interesting. Sam Walton (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

An admin newsletter seems like a good thing. And letting everybody interested sign in even better. Making sure that it doesn't overlap with The Signpost or start sharing the latter's problems is a must, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Format looks very good - concise bullet-pointed facts, and no waffle. I'm in. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• I strongly support this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

L'honorable - Standard offer request

ACCEPTED:

Unblock with a warning not to engage in any of the behavior that led to all the previous blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

L'honorable is requesting the Standard Offer.

• L'honorable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I've transcluded a section from their talkpage below to use for discussion so that they may participate in the conversation. SQL^{Query me!} 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock discussion

• SPI clerk comment - this account is blocked as a sockpuppet of Mabelina based on behaviour and not on technical data. In my opinion the case is strong, however I see no reason to decline the request on this sole basis if the user intends to use only this account from now on. Pinging Vanjagenije and Drmies for input. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: many thanks for your consideration and I can confirm without any doubt that I shall use « L'honorable » as my user name from now on. There probably is little point in rehearsing the same old arguments but the simple reason for the confusion is that « Mabelina » was the user name of my wife (before we divorced) which we did use jointly from time to time. Anyway as you realise this is in the past and also as said if agreeable I should be delighted to contribute further (where helpful and with caution!). Thanks again and looking forward to hearing. Best, L'honorable (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Considering that L'honorable has owned up to joint use of the Mabelina account, agrees to stick to only L'honorable now, and has gone the six months with (presumably) no socking, I'm happy to support a Standard Offer unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: thank you for your support & hereby just confirming that I have not socked for over six months nor shall ever again. In fact I can't even remember how to access the « Mabelina » account now, but more importantly I shall not be socking under any guise in the future. I am more than embarrassed that I allowed myself to get into this situation, and trust that we can draw a line under that episode and move forward. Many thanks for your understanding. Best, L'honorable (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

PS. because there has been no further comment [since before Christmas], I thought it worthwhile to investigate as to why that may be. Although painfully aware that I have frustrated certain powers-that-be, to me this seems not a good enough reason for my continued block. Nonetheless, the silence is deafening, so could you please advise as the case may be? L'honorable (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

With only supports and no opposes there's clearly a consensus to unblock at this stage, but I think it's probably best to leave it for at least a full week from the transclusion to ANI, and leave enough time for RHaworth to respond to the ping below - so perhaps give it a few more days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: just in case you're editing from the transclusion at AN, it might be best to come over to the user's talk page and read the full thread from above the unblock request. There aren't any opposes per se but it's not quite unanimous. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm editing directly from here (the user talk page). But what I did mean was indeed that there have been no opposes since the request was transcluded to ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and the key difference I see that resolves the issues from before the latest unblock request is that L'honorable has owned up to sharing the Mabelina account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Curious. Pinging RHaworth who it seems may know this person (or these persons) in real life. For my own part I will support this unblock request. It seems to me that L'honorable was trying to learn the ropes earlier this year when they stumbled into a sockpuppetry block, and has not socked subsequently in more than six months. Since Mabelina is also blocked and not likely to be unblocked, I don't see any good reason not to grant this request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@L'honorable: the delay since Christmas is likely due to it being around Christmas and not as many users active at this time, nothing more. I recommend reading the "assume good faith" guideline, and understand that while some editors were previously bothered by your edit warring, there is no hostility towards you as an editor. Wikipedia culture comes with a steep learning curve, but most editors will be pleased to offer guidance if you ask polite questions. I say this because if you treat your fellow editors as though everyone is out to get you, then very soon they will be. Please ask questions if you need help, and try not to take it personally if your contributions are edited or reverted. Best of luck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Boing! said Zebedee: you are both most kind to attend to this matter and I can assure you as well as RHaworth with whom I am indeed acquainted that your faith in me will be more than reciprocated. Many thanks again for the update and looking forward to hearing further in due course. Meantime all best wishes for the New Year. L'honorable (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, but my name showed up earlier in the discussion. I am neither an admin nor an usual contributor on en.wiki, and my english is not very good. Most of my activity consists in chasing copyvios and helping with deletion requests on commons. If I may, I would nonetheless strongly oppose this request. Indeed, this user has shown on the other projects the same problematic behaviour which caused his block here :

• on commons, he has been repeatedly uploading copyvios files. When his files were nominated and deleted, he contested the deletion, the community consensus and the official policy (see [16] and his contestations here [17] ). He took these actions as personnal attacks [18]. In addition, he repetedly behaved in a very incorrect way, removing deletion tags (see [19]) and removing all categories of files [20] just because they displeased him..
• on the German wiki, he was blocked for forcing editions in spite of his clear lack in linguistic ability ([21]).
• on the French wiki (sorry for the non French-speaking), his activity indludes the same abuses :
  • his numerous edits show a very approximative knowledge of the French language, with many linguistic errors he reverts even when other users try to correct him. For instance his incorrect form "D'ascendance de la haute noblesse" was corrected, but he reinserted the same fault in the next paragraph on a further revision "aussi d'ascendance noblesse bohémienne"). Basically he tried to import an english form which does not exist in French and refused to accept the correction. Frequently he does not even make the effort to try to speak French.
  • he claims to "improve articles" but inserts historical or factual errors. In this revision, for instance, he adds a coat of arms image which is different from the sourced blazon added by a previous contributor, introducing an inconsistency and a factual error. In the page [22] (which he seems to consider as his masterpiece), he has introduced many linguistic errors, historical/factual/heraldic inaccuracies and confusions (the worst being the confusion of a 12th century duke of Brittany with his 15th century homonym), he has invented arms for non armigerous persons of the 12th century, he has refused to follow the recommendations of the wiki heraldic project...
  • these errors have led to harsh disputes where he refuses to accept and ignores other contributors arguments [23]
  • in these disputes he has repeatedly erased comments of other users because they despleased him [24].
  • he frequently accuses the local heraldic expert to behave as a censor, calling him ironically a pseudo "roi d'armes" (king of arms) because they desagreed [25]
  • in spite of being repeatedly asked not to use the "notify/ping" tag by this user, he continued for weeks to harass him with it
  • he called the local heraldic workshop a politburo [26] because they did not obey his demands
  • after each argument, he presents himself as a victim and complains that everyone is hostile [27] [28]. He suggests that this hostility is personnal and due to the fact he is British [29].

I therefore fear that lifting the block would result in the return of the same abuses this user was blocked for. Kathisma (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Halo Kathisma : I do not view this at all as interfering, and in fact I welcome your viewpoint (let's indeed all strive for transparency) ; I can for the most part (I say this because should you wish to go through your complaints line by line, I shall of course be willing to engage) resist all your observations/criticisms (not least because the "roi d'armes" to whom you refer and I are working very well together - qv. the very many recent liaisons). So please reconsider your assertions, which may have more to do with other reasons than to do with me. Let's leave it at that, because as I have been advised above it is no good engaging in a contre-temps, especially one so needless. Your central point is utterly unfounded, but nonetheless please write to me in French on my discussion page should you still have questions which you'd like to iron out.

Merci à toi et cordialement, L'honorable (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
PS. voir Projet:Blasons ;
PPS. voir aussi sir Anthony Berry : tu connais l'éditeur anonyme peut-être ? (I also note that in the English language version about Sir Anthony Berry you have introduced into the Infobox your own COA image, for far from clear reasons - & I suppose it could be pointed out that if you had such great knowledge of the subject why hadn't you previously created a good heraldic image for the Berry family?). But hey, at once, you are drawing me into having to justify myself, where I believe it is not required. So let others adjudicate svp - à bientôt et cdlt, L'honorable (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
PS. could I also ask you for your prompt reply as to why you deemed it necessary to state "nouveau nom, d'après les blocages qui ont été faits sur les wikis anglais, allemand et néerlandais" in your representations at Wikipédia:Le Pub? This to me seems to go against all the advice I have received above... Anyway let me know... Thank you. L'honorable (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Highly sceptical unblock proposal. He does appear to have kept to the terms of the standard offer so we should assume good faith and unblock. However I confidently predict that we will soon see a return to the disruptive activities which got Mabelina blocked so many times. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The statement "my intention with regards to contributing further to Wikipedia is by making only factual contributions" does not appear to address the issues. I'm sure everyone thinks their knowlege and copyvios are "fact", but that's hardly what got this editor in trouble. Very few of my own edits have to do with "fact", as I think about it, and if all I did was add facts that I know or can find, I'd be blocked, too (OK, I know, I have been blocked; but not for facts vs not facts). Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Meta Discussion

@SQL: the transclusion doesn't seem to have worked. Err, just noticed that it was empty. Sorry! ansh666 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging SQL to note that this transclusion will need to be substituted after the discussion is closed to prevent losing the archive of it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Restored from archive. Discussion isn't closed. SQL^{Query me!} 03:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Restored again - still not closed. SQL^{Query me!} 05:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Heads up

Yes, I know, but I think this is of interest. Involves our article Sarwo Edhie Wibowo. Moriori (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's hope that it's not what it looks like. It's one thing to write articles that confirm to a set of policies, it's another thing to potentially trigger a dispute between Chile and Argentina... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If the article was factual, the problem is with the dislike of the facts by the Indonesian trainer, and Wikipedia has nothing to answer for. Relations between countries rise and fall on all sorts of oddities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You surprise me BMK. If the article is not factual, what then? Had Wibowo still been alive, much of the article would have been zapped as unreferenced, and sources would have been demanded for other stuff in the article. I'm not surprised someone would object to the article. Moriori (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If the article is not factual, then we make it factual, but taking the lack of factuality of an article on an Internet encyclopedia out on the Australians is a bush league move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

(If that's indeed what happened. In any case, the factuality of our article is our only concern, not how people react to the facts.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

More Eyes at Talk:Scarlett Johansson

WITHDRAWN/CLOSED:

User who opened the new RFC has withdrawn it, and it has been closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I closed a contentious RFC regarding the lead image in Johansson's bio today. Since the close, there has been edit warring over the implementation, and an essentially identical RfC has been opened on the talk page, claiming that the original one was unfair. Can I get some extra eyes to resolve the situation? Thanks, Tazerdadog (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It was unfair. Editors placed votes for multiple options. How can a fair consensus be determined when people put their hand up for more than one choice? Rusted AutoParts 01:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly disruptive. This is an exact duplicate of the previous month-long RFC. Their sole argument (aside from behing unhappy) is that some people voted for more than one image. Totally illogical point as it makes complete sense for people to think two out of five images are appropriate but not prefer one over the other - quite easy to take into account or tally when checking for consensus. They can't dictate the form of opinions people offer on the images in question. I think what is "unfair" is that these two didn't get their way. Also, they have not pinged the editors from the previous RFC, talk about unfair! —DIY Editor (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My sole reasoning for starting an RFC wasn't because "I didn't have my preferred image" - It was started because IMHO there no consensus on one just yet and IMHO the discussion should've been relisted however instead of letting the edit warring continue I figured I'd start an RFC up again to achieve a better consensus and hopefully more of one instead of a massive divides, I wasn't trying to "overtake that consensus with a new one" it was just more of "I wanted to get a full consensus full stop"

Quite frankly I couldn't careless what image is used - There's been many a times where i've disagreed with something however I'd gone with what the consensus has been however in this case I (and others) don't see the consensus for it - Yes the RFC wording was wrongly worded which I apologise for but as said I see no consensus to use one image over another at the moment,

DIY Editor - You may want to read WP:AGF. –Davey2010^Talk 01:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@DIY Editor: You can't dictate what my motive was for another vote. I strongly disagree voting for more than one choice is fair, in my mind one voter having two votes tallied doesn't make it fair. But I'm deleting the second vote and will wait a few months before reintroducing it. Rusted AutoParts 01:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Sad news of the death of User:JohnCD

This sad news has been considered confirmed per this diff. Any further discussion of how the incident was dealt with should ideally be a new thread -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

I have received a message on my talk page about the sudden death of User:JohnCD, an administrator of the English Wikipedia. The message from his son is on my talk page. He was a great contributor to the project and I am sure he will be missed. Donner60 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• My sincerest condolences to his family, friends and fellow editors. He will truly be missed. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Sad if true, but I'm sorry to ask, is this report trustworthy? We've unfortunately had too many fake death news made by some vandal recently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sincerely questioning whether it's true. The name the IP gave as JohnCD's true name does not appear to be a person who exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• In light of the above, I think it is most inappropriate for people to be posting messages of condolences on JohnCD's talk page when the news hasn't been verified. As noted here, there is an IP going about and claiming all sorts of things. If this is the case and he has died, then it's very, very sad. John was one of the good guys. Cassianto^Talk 11:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with Cassianto. Donner60, how would you feel if you returned from your Christmas holiday to find someone had baldly stated on your userpage that you were deceased, and apparently hadn't bothered to carry out the most cursory of checks prior to posting it? If this is true it's tragic news, but AGF doesn't extend to assuming that every comment posted by an IP is true—virtually all high-profile editors, particularly admins involved in blocking or deletion who tend to attract a lot of enemies, have had claims of one kind or another made about them at some point. ‑ Iridescent 11:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Cassianto as well. The IP, who posted the message to Donner60's talk page, also created Draft:John Cameron Deas. Should we delete it until confirmation materializes? Favonian (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Have deleted the draft article, as a) article space is not the right place for memorials, and b) the key information is at present unconfirmed and poses privacy issues. There will be plenty of opportunity to recreate this as a post on their user page if/when confirmation is received. Have also left the IP a message letting them know. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I am embarrassed by my apparent gullibility (rather than appropriate good faith) on this. I hope that everyone will understand that I thought I was doing the right thing to provide notice. I did not know about the fake death news vandal, which of course would have made me wary. I did not think about the possibility that someone would make up a fake name so the fact that a name was presented led me to give the report some credit. I saw no history on the IP talk page, which I checked to see if it might be someone who was trying to gain some sort of revenge on me or on JohnCD. Of course, I now realize someone who was up to no good and was the least bit clever would have not made the mistake of using the same IP address. I now realize I should have waited for a short time or a few days and thought about this. I also should have asked a few people for advice and only informed a few people while asking for that help. Someguy1221 seems to have been able to check this and provides a basis for rejecting the report. That seems to be good or hopeful news.

I am glad that I referred to the message on my talk page rather than just posting a notice. This has given those who have seen the possible problem a chance to be advised of the basis for the report and to inject a note of skepticism; indeed to do an investigation.

I have been a user for several years and have tried my best to avoid drama and controversy though I suppose a few small glitches might be found in my history. This seems to have been an epic fail after all that time. My skepticism will be increased quite by this incident a bit though I may just shrink away in embarrassment over this. Your chastisements of me are well deserved but I hope you will understand I am most upset by likely being taken in and my mortification by the strong rebukes simply adds to the distress. Frankly, though, I will be most happy if the reports prove false and we find out that JohnCD is fine.

I hope the community can accept my sincere apology for apparently being taken in by this. I can only say that I will not be repeating the mistake if that it is. I will ping those who I notified through my talk page, correspond with Nyttend about this and post this on the Village Pump miscellaneous page if no one has adequately cover this. Since I keep odd hours, and ironically have some real life commitments over the next few days, I will be checking in only briefly and infrequently for a few days and not for quite a few hours just now. Donner60 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Donner60, I think you are being far too hard yourself here. Everyone can see it was a simple mistake made inYou have acted in perfectly good faith and with totally sincere motives. Many of us might well have done exactly the same. Your actions have been fully vindicated. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. just a procedural question - in cases like these is it appropriate to email the User concerned to try and disprove this eventuality? He had posted a "away until about 7th January" wikibreak notice and his email link still seems to be enabled.

Agreed, Donner60, don't be too hard on yourself. Sadly, your gut instincts have proven accurate. I've removed JohnCD's administrative privileges per a request to BN. My condolences to family and friends. –xeno^talk 14:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand more than one person has emailed already. I also think it's too early to suggest that the news is false. There's nothing obviously fake, and the IP's geolocation checks out (as do some other things). Sadly, only time will tell. Ironically, John's userpage talks about his favourite wiki activity - demolishing hoaxes. He would be glad if some research is done before anything hasty. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Someguy1221 seems to be mistaken about the non-existence of a person of that name. This confirms the birth of such a person in the year supplied by the IP. So does Findmypast, which I can't link to. Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to point out that JohnCD's userpage says he lives in North West England, and the IP geolocates to there as well. That's a fairly unlikely coincidence. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Until this is bottomed out, might I suggest some protection of JohnCD's talk page? The IP, whoever it is, is still posting there and has now taken to posting to mine. When confirmation is received then the pp can be lifted and my collapse can be reverted. Cassianto^Talk 13:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Cassianto, can I suggest not calling the IP a troll until this has been worked out? If this is genuine, then that's the last thing a grieving person needs. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You can suggest it, yes, but if someone accuses me of "acting in ill-faith" for collapsing the "obituary" on John's talk and then comes to my talk page to teach me the error of my ways, then I shall treat them with a certain amount of disdain. There are ways of doing things and picking fights with me is not the way to do it. Cassianto^Talk 13:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP wrote that you were "making accusations of ill faith", which is different to suggesting that you were acting in ill-faith yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"Acting in ill-faith" is the same as "making accusations of ill faith". You are exhibiting "ill-faith" whether it be written or physical. It's worrying how you appear to think the two are so different; but never let that get in the way of beating me up about something. Anyway carrying this on now, in light of Keri's confirmation, is highly inappropriate, so I suggest we stop. Cassianto^Talk 16:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I was just correcting a misperception - that the IP had accused you of acting in bad faith; they hadn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You have added to your comment since I replied. I won't edit my reply, but suffice to say that I don't think that the editor was accusing you of acting in bad faith. The IP reported his father's death, it was suggested that that report could be a hoax, and the IP responded by writing that their report was treated as if it was made in bad faith. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If a son informs about his Father's death and you use edit summary "Says who?", then it's normal for him to feel offended. I understand that you were right in your own way, as we need some proof about serious information, but the IP who was Robert was also right. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I must've forgotten to channel into my sixth sense this morning. How careless of me. In the circumstances, I don't see what is wrong with me asking "who says" with regards to such controversial news. I think some just like being offended for the sake of it. Cassianto^Talk 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hailing from the same neck of the woods as John, I have today spoken directly to his family and can confirm this very sad news is not a hoax. Keri (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Keri. Cassianto^Talk 14:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Bulk delete request, round 1

Surely someone's got a tool to bulk-delete pages; would you let it loose on these ones? Following a CFD, these categories and a lot more are in the middle of being bot-moved to new titles (WP:CFD/W), e.g. "Category:Populated coastal places in Greece" has become "Category:Coastal populated places in Greece". If I remember rightly, we normally delete category names after name-related moves, and unlike the rest of the categories in the list, I've manually checked all of the ones I'm giving you here, so I can assure you that they were all empty a moment ago. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There are >50000 soft redirect categories....looks like there is not a general "delete them" rule. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

But don't we normally delete a category after it's been moved like this? The template says Administrators: If this category name is unlikely to be entered on new pages, and all incoming links have been cleaned up, click here to delete. I mean, I have no objection to keeping these or the other ones involved in the CFD; I just don't see the point of keeping them. It seems to be the same thing with the Commons analogue, which says This tag should be used on existing categories that are likely to be used by others, even though the "real" category is elsewhere; I don't see these categories as likely to be used, as they're rather precise, and nobody's going to find them except through normal navigation; this isn't a Category:Colour situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend I nuked them all for you using Twinkle batch mode. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, but please understand that I'm not complaining. Feel free to look at others listed at WP:CFD/W, or you can wait and I'll look through them happily and then report them as round 2. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend mostly done, there is a small batch at the bottom of that list that contains other links that may need to be worked on. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I've removed all but the small batch, given the "Please help keep this page clean!" comment at the top. Maybe Cyde's set it up not to process requests if the page has a lot of already-processed requests on it, as an encouragement to us to keep it clean? Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)