Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive283

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

ECP postings to AN[edit]

So, the ECP RfC closed with the guaranteed to be messy requirement of posting every protection to AN. Looking at User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report, the protection is being used, but I'm having a hard time reconciling them to AN postings. HJ Mitchell in closing the RfC you included the Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review... requirement, but it appears to lack a mechanism for use, the protection policy was updated likewise, but I can't see dragging in these admins for "policy violations". How were you expecting this to actually be implemented? — xaosflux Talk 04:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm all for throwing this requirement out the window. — xaosflux Talk 04:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, implementation is not within the closer's remit—the closer determines what the consensus is and pulls out key themes from the discussion. So speaking as the closer, I'd have to say there isn't a consensus for how the notifications should be implemented, though the idea of using MusikAnimal's bot seemed to have quite a bit of support. Speaking for myself, I imagine the use of ECP to be very rare. There have been a few times in the past that I would have killed for something like this and I've had to fully protect articles to prevent grotesque vandalism from autoconfirmed sleepers, but we're probably talking about a few dozen cases in six and a half years as an admin dealing mainly with vandalism and long-term abuse; having looked at MusikBot's report, it seems it's being used for create protections—which is a very good use case that I hadn't thought of. Anyway, being so rare, I hoped that the protecting admin would leave a note at AN with their rationale so that it could be reviewed; if it was obviously necessary, there needn't be any comments, or there can be a discussion if someone feels that ECP is overkill (the idea being to discourage and correct excessive use and to refine the criteria for use—and we might come across another use case that nobody had thought of). I hoped we might have bot-reporting as a fallback, because admins less familiar with the policy on use of ECP will likely be less familiar with the requirement to notify AN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
So this is leaving the mess - where a requirement for action has been established but following the policy is very cumbersome. I'll call the recent admins here to AN to explain post their recent actions - but if it is acceptable to ignore this policy by default then it really shouldn't be a "policy". — xaosflux Talk 10:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I see the bot report has been transcluded above; I would be happy to call that sufficient. BethNaught (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I see it is too, in which case the policy should be amended to remove the action requirement for administrators. Of course, bots may stall or fail - but anyone can always look at the log and call any admin to task to explain their action. — xaosflux Talk 10:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I ECP'ed some PRODded perennially-recreated spam magnets, in lieu of fully locking them. I fear I wasn't aware of this requirement, sorry - I shall endeavour to make good. Seems odd to require posting every ECP but not a higher level ... particularly as User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report exists and seems to do literally the thing demanded. Should I just fully lock these in future, or spam AN? - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Xaosflux, the RfC was merely closed by HJ Mitchell, who in my opinion, did an excellent job. It's not in the closer's remit to carry out any implementations that may be required as a result of the consensus. Strictly speaking, that would be he job of the people who called for it. FWIW, I don't agree either that admins should answer to AN every time they use the new feature, and I said so strongly in my vote on the RfC. That kind of thing is a subtle strawman use by the community of an RfC to undermine the responsibility and maturity we have vested in our admins when we elected them; therefore 'call any admin to task to explain their action' is an unwise comment.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There was consensus at the RFC that admins have to post here when applying EC protection. This isn't the place to change that; if you don't like policy, then you should take it to a new RFC. We can't just undermine the result of the RFC simply because a few admins can't be bothered to post here every time they apply this level of protection (which should be very rarely). Just my two cents. Omni Flames (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Read again what I wrote. No, I do not like the 'policy' but I did not say it ought to be changed - it's bad faith to take people;s comments out of context; wheter we like it or not, on Wkipedia we work by consensus, Omni Flames. What you may not recognise however (yet), is where the community often uses any kind of RfC to introduce an element of mistrust in our corps of admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung, I think you might be being a little harsh on Omni Flames there, my friend. From the indentation, it doesn't actually look like he's replying to you, and OF means well in my experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell is correct here, my comment wasn't aimed directly at you Kudpung, but rather it was intended as a general comment towards all of the conversation participants so far that if you want to change an RFC result, AN is not the place to do it. My apologies for the confusion, I can see how it might have seemed that way. Omni Flames (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking strictly as the closer, setting my own opinions on ECP to one side (except the bits in parentheses): There was a consensus that these protections should be rare, and that when they're done, there should be a note here so that the community were aware and could discuss it. In fact, a lot of supporters of the new policy were very wary of ECP being over-used or creeping in to be as normal as semi-protection is today; many even made their supports conditional on the principle of minimal use or on there being some sort of announcement. I didn't, for what it's worth, read this as mistrust of the admin corps but rather a desire to track use, define criteria, and explore use cases (for example, David's use of ECP for salt is a use case that wasn't thought of in the RfC, but one that looks like an extremely good use of ECP to me): ECP is new, so we don't have an established 'best practice' for it like we do with most things. Regardless, the requirement for logging was one of the outcomes of the RfC. Implementation wasn't a significant subject of discussion, and so is outwith the remit of the closer.

    Speaking personally, I think tracking these protections is a good idea so we can get an idea of where it's being used and for what, and that it would be a shame to abandon something that was supported by a lot of RfC participants before it's even been tried. And a quick note to AN along the lines of "I extended-confirmed protected Foo for a week because some nutter was using autoconfirmed socks to repeatedly insert gross BLP violations" is hardly "cumbersome" in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • The extended confirmed bullet point at MediaWiki:Protect-text should probably be updated with the requirement to notify AN - Evad37 [talk] 12:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Done. Please revise or revert if I misunderstood something. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Cheers, thank you! I had no idea the new protection level contained a bureaucratic boobytrap ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has a point here which I ignored: that of tracking the performance of the new feature. However, the new feature's use will be lost on me because due to the added layer of bureaucracy, I will probably continue to use the harsher, but less contentious Full Protection, especially when I salt pages. That said, due to the increasing criticisms and lack of confidence in the admin corps as a whole, it should not come as a surprise when we start to become sensitive to it. Off topic, sure, but these are partly also the reasons why we are getting so few new admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What are people's opinions on use of ECP for salting?[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:PP

While we're here - if this was a use case that wasn't considered, it might be worth talking about.

After filing a lot of PRODs, I thought I should do my duty and help clear the backlog I was adding to. So I started clearing expired PRODs, and oh my goodness we have a lot of spammers, many of whom return (usually under other names). So I looked up how to salt things.

My reasoning for using ECP was: multiply-recreated spammy articles about companies or people. Autoconfirmed is too light to deal with the problem, full protection seems drastic (in general we want as little locking of articles as possible). ECP seemed a way to make sure it would be generally-sensible users at least, without requiring admin intervention. The alternative would have been fully locking. What do others think? - David Gerard (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent use case, but I think the discussion regarding that should be at WT:PP... --Izno (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point; I'll go there and see if you've started a discussion there. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:MULTI--and as I didn't start the discussion, seems rude to steal the discussion away. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point - Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#What_are_people.27s_opinions_on_use_of_ECP_for_salting.3F - please continue there. - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Blatant incivility at User talk:Jimbo Wales[edit]

Would someone take a look at this diff? Am guessing no one should oppose this editor. The incident is apparently because of yesterday's AN/I thread. Thanks, We hope (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

In the context, I think he's equating "you were rude to me so I'm going to be rude back" with "she had it coming", and thus comparing his own sense of victimhood when people tell him to knock off the ad hominems, with the feelings of rape victims. It's a grossly inappropriate comment and if he keeps it up, rather than it just being a moment of frustration, I won't hesitate to block and I doubt any other admin will either, but I don't read it as him actually saying people shouldn't oppose him. To be frank, nobody in that thread (including Jimbo) comes out of it with much credit. ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I've templated him but it just looks like "don't dare oppose me-anyone!" We all differ and if we can't this place is in a lot of trouble.We hope (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
(including Jimbo) - I think Jimbo's comment was spot on, and a rare instance of sanity on this topic. ―Mandruss  17:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly had no idea what he was talking about. All I know is that he's milking it with looking for block on Cassianto now and it's wasting a lot of time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So, if you tell someone to fuck off, and then apologise, you're OK. Thanks Jimbo. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Somewhat of a straw man. He said "A single time", and I think it's implicit that the hypothetical apology is sincere. In such a case, I agree that it might be forgiven. Such cases are exceedingly rare, and they are not what is being discussed in that thread. ―Mandruss  19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
"A single time" - that's pretty poor form though. It's either OK all the time or none of the time. It's the latter if anyone is struggling. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
So you would block a 2-week editor who crosses the bright line out of ignorance—quite understandable ignorance, given the level of discourse in most other online talk venues—and then apologizes with apparent sincerity. Ok, just clarifying. ―Mandruss  20:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
No, as I'm not an admin. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
When you say "It's either OK all the time or none of the time", you are not allowing that there is any other than a literal interpretation of what has been said but "A single time, in a moment of passion, and quickly apologized for? No big deal. Establishing it as a somehow proper way to deal with a problem - no way" can also be understood figuratively. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
So if I told you to f-off and "quickly" apologised, that would be fine and you'd be OK with that? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The significance of language can be nuanced. We say that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Yes, language can harm. But oftentimes language calls for interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It's high time that we add the section "Wikipedia is not a Kindergarten" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Count Iblis (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Do kindergarteners say "F.U." to each other? Or is that more of an "adult" thing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely clear which side Count Iblis is arguing. It could be, Wikipedia is not a kindergarten, so grow up and grow a thicker skin and stop being such a sissy offended by little words like "fuck off you miserable excuse for a human being", or Wikipedia is not a kindergarten, so grow up and stop using such words. It might be clearer if he had used middle-school instead. ―Mandruss  21:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what he meant, but both are correct. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I went to a rougher school but we all knew how to use "motherfucking asshole", not necessarily to someone's face but still we all knew it. Being adult does not preclude the use of expletives (although apparently you're more intelligent if you freely express yourself with expletives, because reasons.) Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Being adult means treating others with Common Human Respect, the kind you don't have to earn and can't lose, no matter what the circumstances. It's much more than words, but I don't know how you can seriously tell someone to go fuck themselves while showing CHR. I wouldn't say that to the most evil child molester in the world, and not only because it wouldn't serve any purpose but to maybe make me feel better. It should go without saying that these are only my opinions, stemming from how and where I was raised. But my opinions are as legitimate as anyone's, and, while I don't constantly carp about this, I don't shut up completely about it just because I'm in the minority among vocal editors. I've been gradually seeing more and more who pretty much agree with me. ―Mandruss  02:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
But where I come from (Australia), "motherfucking asshole" is a perfectly polite and normal way of saying hello to someone...--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps they were referring to this thread. Could someone please close it, like the one at ANI? --Boson (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:AC/Case/Fuck off has a nice ring to it. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 16:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the plot got lost here somewhere, because someone says fuck. That's not inherently uncivil. After all, I just said it, but not in an uncivil way. If you tell someone "You're a fucking idiot", yes, that's rude and uncivil, but so is telling them "You're an idiot." Telling someone to fuck off when they raise a legitimate concern is uncivil. So is telling them to shut up and go away, or doing really anything other than addressing in good faith the concern they raised. That's the problem, not the particular language used in doing it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions against StuRat[edit]

The community has rejected sanctions for StuRat. The question of whether the reference desk has a larger or more systemic problem remains open below, where participation is welcomed. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

StuRat (talk · contribs) is a long-established, and extremely prolific, contributor to the Reference Desks. His contributions cannot really be classified as "vandalism", he does not (unlike some contributors) espouse any particular political agenda, he does not engage in debates on controversial issues, and he does not have a history of making personal attacks on other editors. However, the vast majority of his contributions are an expression of his own opinions and speculations, without any sourcing or references (to Wikipedia or elsewhere), and are very frequently inaccurate. This is not the purpose of the Reference Desks, which is to provide sourced information to people who ask questions. The matter has been raised repeatedly with StuRat over the years, but he shows no apparent intention to change his behaviour.

His most recent contributions, all examples of the pattern, are given below. Emphasis added.

[1] "I would think banning one particular retailer... This seems patently unfair to me..."
[2] "A proportion of those presumably were contracted..."
[3] "...maybe 10 minutes at normal temps... might have eventually died." (This is the worst recent example, IMO, as he's discussing a subject (electrocution) about which (a) he evidently knows very little, (b) has potential to cause death or serious injury).
[4] "Visually, I'd go with tardigrades."

There are many thousands of similar postings in the Reference Desk archives.

Recently, Adam Bishop proposed that we establish a template to disclaim the accuracy of any answers that StuRat gives on the desks ([5]) - this proposal may not have been entirely serious and was quickly closed, but it was supported, while it was open, by Viennese Waltz.

This proposal is entirely serious. In view of his persistent unhelpful behaviour, and his failure to take notice of many criticisms of this behaviour over the years, I would invite community discussion, in accordance with WP:CBAN, on the community banning of StuRat from the Reference Desks. If a less drastic sanction that prevents him from posting unsourced speculation in answer to serious questions is available, I would support that - but I believe the time has come to prevent him from doing it, and a WP:TBAN may be the only effective option. Tevildo (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support complete ban from the reference desks and all associated pages. I withdrew entirely from the reference desks out of frustration at constantly coming across StuRat posting his (generally ill-informed) opinions as fact and his total inability to comprehend the notion that the Reference Desks are a place for people to provide answers not conjecture, and being faced each time with having to decide whether to challenge or remove his opinions (and face the inevitable backlash from him, as even when he clearly knows nothing about the topic in question he dislikes anyone pointing it out), or letting it slide despite the near-certainty that whatever advice he's giving is wrong. Regardless of whether the proposal was a joke, if he's not banned from treating the Reference Desks as his private chatroom I'd endorse the creation of a {{don't trust anything StuRat says}} template and an explicit permission for anyone to append it to any of his Ref Desk posts without being accused of personal attacks. We're not talking the occasional blip, we're talking literally thousands of problematic comments. ‑ Iridescent 18:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Simply linking to my edit history in no way proves that I have thousands of BAD edits. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While StuRat may be one of the most prolific offenders, the Reference Desks have for many years been little more than forums, places to engage in stimulating discussions of various topics. Attempts to reform the desks, including one by me, have received responses ranging from "Meh" to "Best not to offend experienced editors". Until such time as there is a more serious approach to RD in general, it is unfair to single out any participant for criticism. The problem is with the community's laissez-faire attitude to RD, not with any individual, and StuRat should be viewed as a symptom, not the illness. ―Mandruss  19:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If anyone has a problem with any editor, take it to that editor's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose a ban, but support any intervention that could make StuRat admit that there is a problem here. Idle speculation on the RD's is not helpful, and bland dismissal of the complaint here is not helpful, either. It would be eversonice if StuRat could (a) say "Okay, I'm sorry, I'll try to tone it down a little with the speculation", and then (b) for questions where he'd like to think he knows he answer but in fact doesn't, just sit back and let someone who does actually know the topic, answer. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • If only as a thought experiment, I would suggest an alternative sanction, posed as a challenge: for a period of N months, StuRat is to construct his RD answers without using the words "I think", "It seems to me", "presumably", and "speculate". —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC), edited 21:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Isn't it better to explicitly say so, whenever one speculates ? StuRat (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. And I know you're honest enough that you wouldn't speculate without saying so. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are plenty of other "contributors" to the ref desks who actually state falsehoods as fact, they don't even try to cover the fact they are ignorant of the subject matter. Moreover, when they're picked up on it, they descend into walls of text and never accept their discretions nor improve from it. That's considerably worse than using the language that StuRat is being hung, drawn and quartered for employing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the problem (which does exist, it's not just StuRat here, most editors there include myself are contributing to the problem to some degree) is caused by the way the Ref Desk is set up, which invites forum like discussions. So, what is happening is to be expected. People who have the time to invest a lot of time in the Ref Desk will end up giving their opinions more. If we take a look at the StackExchange website, you see that the format chosen there works better to address this problem. Comments are separated from answers, answers are judged by a voting system and the OP can choose the best answer. Answerers gain reputation points based on the points they get for their answers. What makes the Ref Desk particularly vulnerable to this problem is the fact that there aren't a lot of questions asked compared to the number of contributors. This makes each new question a de-facto new forum topic for the regulars to start posting on. Perhaps we can do one simple thing to improve things, if all Ref Deskers also start to contribute to StackExchange like I've been doing, then that may change the way answers are given in general. At least that's my personal experience. Count Iblis (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - my original proposal on the RD talk page was indeed not meant to be taken seriously; I just meant to point out again that we've tried and failed to deal with this in the past. I don't expect anything to happen this time either, but I support this proposal anyway. It's possible that StuRat does actually give factual answers on the desks I don't visit (computers, math, science), but I would support a ban from Humanities and Language, at least. At the same time, to echo the comments above: no, it's not just StuRat, and yes, to some degree we all sometimes treat the RD as a forum for inside jokes (including me). But StuRat definitely sticks out as the contributor with the least useful input, and the least self-awareness about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, see my reasons in the subsection below. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose An insulting bit of overkill. While we don't need this at this time,but fewer "I suppose" based unreferenced answers in areas outside the contributor's area of experience and training would improve the Ref Desk. It is annoying when a naive answer conflates the low amperage high voltage shock from a fence charger with the electrocution from a 120v appliance dropped into a bathtub. A contributor should not assume he knows everything about everything. One RefDesk regular snarls at questioners that they could have Googled their question and gotten the answer in 10 seconds. A Ref Desk regular could similarly Google the question or search Wikipedia for an article with an answer rather than just pulling the answer out of his ass and saying "I suppose...". We already prohibit our volunteers from giving legal or medical advice. Some contributors are subject matter experts within some subject areas, and have dealt with some areas of discourse professionally on a daily basis. But I have often found that a family member or friend who is a lawyer, doctor,or chemist of great experience will hesitate to give a definitive answer to simple questions similar to those on the Ref Desk. They would want to hit the reference books or online resources before giving an answer someone relied on in guiding their actions. We already prohibit our volunteers from giving legal or medical advice. Edison (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree with Edison's viewpoint, but StuRat apparently does not. What, if anything, can we do about it? If a TBAN is overkill, what alternatives are there? Tevildo (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
      • If a user states something that's clearly incorrect, you could say "That's not correct" and cite a reason why. Or, go to the user's talk page and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Comment I saw this thread yesterday and I was very surprised to see it. I occasionally edit at the Science ref desk where I see StuRat. I have thought in the past that some of their edits were less than "well informed", but to be honest, I never perceived them as a major problem. However, it is clear that some members of the community do see a problem. One alternative to a TB is to restrict the number of edits per day to a specific ref page. For instance, they could be restricted to 3 edits per day on the science ref page. This potentially reduces the workload on those who feel they have to correct or comment on StuRat's edits. DrChrissy (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some questions can't be taken seriously. The questions do not need to be removed from the reference desks. They have to be handled differently. When an editor weighs in on a poorly positioned question, they are not necessarily "answering" it. Consider the question on "Three second rule", found on the Miscellaneous desk, and cited above. StuRat wrote "A proportion of those presumably were contracted..." Here is the discussion in Archives. Do we seriously care if, in the course of such a discussion, one of our contributors uses the imprecise language of presumably? This falls under the heading of conversational English. Here is the discussion on "Minions", on the Science desk. Yes, StuRat said "Visually, I'd go with tardigrades." But the question is not to be taken seriously. It poses What are these supposed to be? Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Anyone who doesn't want to read StuRat's guesses is free to ignore them, and anyone is free to provide better answers. No one has said that StuRat is giving legal or medical advice, which would be a real problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose StuRat is a long-established, and extremely prolific and generous contributor to the Reference Desks. The problems mentioned are minor compared to the damage that the administrative ban called for by Tevildo would do, and I am relieved to see no consensus here on such selective victimisation. However a different solution is available, which I invite StuRat to consider. Can we agree to a voluntary style guide that requires answers that we give at the Ref. Desks to be kept in small font, the same as off-topic or joking comments unless they contain at least one actual relevant reference link? Agreeing to that means no humiliation, no loss of StuRat's future contributions, and can set a good example voluntarily that others will see and follow. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point, concerning generosity. You mention selective victimisation but wouldn't all victimization be selective? I think your suggestion that StuRat use small font is ridiculous. He is not StuMouse. Bus stop (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
My current practice is to use a small font for non-answers. There are many categories of these, such as requests for clarification/more info, noting a change made to the title or format of the Q to make it more readable, references to a talk page discussion about the Q, occasional jokes, and, unfortunately, responses to personal attacks. I note that many other editors don't even do this much, though. If I miss one of these cases, let me know, and I will change my non-answer response to small font. As for making all non-referenced answers small font, that seems over-the-top, to me, as it's already visually obvious if links are included or not, except perhaps for the color-blind. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

StuRat's response[edit]

  • These are downright trivial complaints. For the most part, these Q's had already been answered and we were down to the friendly discussion that often happens at the end. Read the rest of each post, and you will see what I mean.
  • Tevildo apparently wants a Ref Desk totally devoid of anything other than references, which would make it so boring that few would stick around to answer a Q.
  • Even though Tevildo cherry-picked my responses to try to make me look as bad as possible, note that I had provided refs in a couple of those links, to tartigrades and fibrillation. Let me provide a few of my more helpful responses, for balance:[6].
  • As for what government actions can ban a particular retailer from a city, this was a rather off-topic side discussion after the Q had been addressed.
  • As for food-borne illnesses occasionally causing fatalities in dogs and cats, do we really need a source to prove that ? By what magic would this be true in humans but not in dogs and cats ?
  • As for the discussion on the electrocution of fish, I discussed the mechanisms of death from electrocution, and certainly didn't advise anyone to bathe with a toaster. To say that my comments were dangerous is absurd.
  • As for which microbes resemble the animated movie "Minions", I provided refs, including a pic. Not sure what else I could have done to try to answer in accordance to the guidelines.
  • If Tevildo or anyone else is unhappy with another editor's Ref Desk answers, then the constructive action is to add to them, such as with sources, where Tevildo thinks they are lacking. Complaining here is a waste of everyone's time, and not at all constructive. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • (A). The electrocution question is admittedly what prompted me to make it official, but we have more than ten years of this sort of thing ("Those onboard a yacht are probably willing to spend more per person for meals than typical airline passengers"). Please can you stop doing it? (B) Those were just the most recent postings you made, "cherry-picked" only by the order they appear on your contributions list. If it were the occasional lapse into speculation among a reasonable number of good, referenced, answers, nobody would mind. But it isn't. Tevildo (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (A) That yacht one is a good example of something so obvious it doesn't require a reference. You apparently think "1+1=2" needs a ref, at least when provided by anyone other than yourself. Your recent contributions to the Ref Desk at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Interesting_Bacterial_or_Viral_Infection certainly contained many links, but none of them established that any of those infections were "interesting" (some type of survey would be needed for that). So, you just supplied your personal opinion for which were interesting. Are sanctions in order ? (B) It's still cherry-picking to select any 4 contiguous edits which you think best illustrates your point. I do have many good/referenced answers, and I provided a link to a few of them above. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The underlying refdesk problem, of which this is just a symptom[edit]

If you read the refdesk, you will occasionally run across answers that you believe are wrong.

The right way to deal with this is to give what you believer to be correct answers, with references to back up your claims.

The wrong way is to try to control the behavior of other editors.

The exception is when someone is so disruptive that a report to ANI results in a block. This is true for all Wikipedia pages, and is not at all the same thing as the constant attempts to control the behavior of other editors that plague the refdesks.

comment by User:Guy Macon

  • Agreed. There are many editors whose behavior I disagree with, mainly due to a lack of civility/respect for others. But I don't often take those complaints to ANI (for one thing, many of the worst offender ARE Admins). StuRat (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No – it's more like a symptom of the wider problem that this place doesn't have really any effective method to deal with "good faith" but still moderately disruptive editors. Whether it's the Ref Desks (which, for the record, I think should either be spun out as a separate entity from Wikipedia, or shut down entirely...) or ANRFC or In the News, a lot of these problems could be solved with either a simple Page Ban or with tailored editing restrictions. But experience shows us again and again that no action will be taken against editors like this as long as their edits are perceived to be made in "good faith". So the problems are never solved... But, like I said – the way to solve the Ref Desk problems is simply to get rid of them: I don't consider them to be part of Wikipedia's "core mission" anywho... --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should get rid of the Reference desks. I find them to be a vital community composed of all stripes of people in a healthy, competitive environment. I learn a lot from the Reference desks in a rough-and-tumble environment that is in some ways more conducive to learning than the more staid encyclopedic component of our project. One thing I constantly learn is that a lot of people are a lot smarter than me. It is my privilege to add my two cents when I am able to. We've got a good thing going and we should pat ourselves on the back for it. No need to shut it down or spin it off. Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Then spin them off. But they're not part of this site's core mission, and issues like this one have flared up again and again (I seem to see Ref Desk problems cropping up here and ANI more than any other part of the project) making them a perennial distraction from what we should really be doing here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The most common problems brought to ANI are vandalism, edit warring, incivility and sockpuppetry. Ref desk issues don't turn up there very often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
We used to have the exact venue for seeking resolution to editors that were somewhat disruptive but not to the levels required admin involvement, that being Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, but that was closed down due to several issues. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The "core mission" under the umbrella of Wikipedia is education. The encyclopedia is of primary importance. But the reference desks are inarguably important too. They are different from the encyclopedia. One can get feedback from conversational individuals who are willing to field questions. There is an element of role playing. Some people both ask and answer questions. One is a supplicant when asking a question. One is beneficent when answering a question. There is undeniably real human interaction at the Reference desks. The same cannot be said for article space. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Bottom line: our En Wiki administrators should not have to continually deal with the drama coming from the Ref Desks. That's not why most of us are here. If the Ref Desks were spun out, like Wikitionary, or Wikiquote, or Commons, then Ref Desks could then get their own set of Admins to deal with the very specific issues that come up at the Ref Desks (and hopefully draft new policies to deal with them). But it doesn't need to be "here"... --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
There are 4 diffs, corresponding to 4 sections on 2 different Reference desks. For context, we need to look to those sections. At the Miscellaneous desk we find Fresh & Easy. Also at the Miscellaneous desk we find Three second rule. At the Science desk we find Electricity and fish. And finally, also at the Science desk, we find Minions. In my opinion, by looking at StuRat's participation in those threads, we find "offenses" ranging from insubstantial to nonexistent. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If not this, how to address the "bigger problem"?[edit]

  • Saying StuRat is "just a symptom" seriously underplays his role. It's not just the off-the-cuff respond-to-everything approach, despite years of discussions and people complaining. It's that plus the fact that he is the dominant voice of the refdesk. With 64,000 edits there, I don't think anyone else comes close to him in prominence -- and thus what newbies would model their behavior after. When the most prolific contributor treats the refdesk as Yahoo Answers, others will, too. I'm not saying StuRat was the first one to do this, of course, nor that he is the only, but that he is, in my experience (and my experience at the refdesk is indeed less than some of the other participants here), the most consistent offender in addition to being the most prolific. I would probably !vote support if that weren't already snowballed, so we might as well turn to this section and the "bigger issue". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I moved this from under the previous subsection, which I misinterpreted as seeking to fix something rather than a "just ignore him and do the best you can" sort of approach. Those familiar with him can ignore him (and I know you didn't say "just ignore him", Guy, but it's in line with that sentiment and several of the comments above), but those who are not familiar with him are susceptible to his answers that are sometimes false, almost offensively unhelpful, or even harmful. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Change refdesk rules so any editor can hat a comment that answers a question without containing a reference (either to a source or a wikipedia page that is sourced). StuRat's (and others) nonsense will soon disappear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Including hatting situations where an editor attacks an established editor rather than addressing the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    From browsing the ref desks occasionally, the situation you name tends to happen when said established editor replies with uncited bollocks. If an option was there to just hat said bollocks in the first place, I doubt any subsequent 'attack' would take place. But yes, I would favour hatting anything that wasnt a direct (supported) answer to a question or clarification thereof. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    And if the hatting were accompanied by a comment like you just made, the attackee would be justified in un-hatting it, or hatting the hat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    I am pretty sure most people can be more diplomatic and manage 'Hatting - unsupported'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Some will, some won't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well I am sure you can think of many hypothetical problems to enable the ref desks to continue to be used as a chat forum where people give entirely made up and unsupported answers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Or curious tirades like these.--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Given he was responding to StuRat's complaint about travel which contained such gems as 'hotels are unsanitary' and 'as a tourist you are more likely to get robbed', 'I dont like strangers' 'I dont like communicating with people who dont speak English'... Had someone hatted/removed his response (which by the way was to a non-question, entirely a conversation) it wouldnt have been around for someone to get annoyed with. And frankly, I am *glad* StuRat does not like to travel, with that attitude I would hate for him to visit my country, and if (god forbid) he is from my country, I would hate that sort of person to be an ambassador elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    The topic question was "Why are some people so closed minded about the rest of the world? Should I try to motivate them to travel or should I give up? Please share your experience if you have some related to this topic." It was actively soliciting opinions. Either we enact policy stopping these sorts of questions and blocking repeat offenders, or we let the ref-desk be the unregulated mess it has always been.--WaltCip (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well quite, I have not supported any sort of ban or restriction on StuRat above precisely because the current RefDesk management enables his sort of nonsense. I would also be perfectly happy with the ability to nuke 'topic questions' like the above as a preventative measure. If you cant ask stupid questions, you cant get stupid answers. This is of course, entirely open to more subjective 'what is a stupid question' however I think 'share your experiences of why people dont like travelling' falls squarely in the 'needs to go to a chatroom/discussion forum' area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    But to quote the ref desk page directly "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." And keep in mind the Ref Desk guidelines already state what the purpose of the ref desks are, and what answers are permitted. I am merely suggesting we actually enforce them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    I can do no more but enthusiastically second this. There is no point in having guidelines that are completely ignored by many of the most frequent contributors. The general theme seems to be "The Reference Desks need improvement, but we're not prepared to do anything to improve them." Removal of unsourced speculation would be an improvement: persuading StuRat, and other similarly-situated contributors, to make posts that comply with the guidelines would be even better. But "covenants without the sword are but words" (Hobbes) - if we have no means of enforcing the few rules we have, then there seems to be no point in maintaining them at all. Tevildo (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    In addition to Only in Death's comment (attacks only occur when the editor is making us all dumber with their answers), Baseball Bug's usual phrase "established editor" is pretty meaningless. Even if we assume that it does mean something, what difference does it make if you're an "established editor"? It makes absolutely no difference. If your answers are crap, your answers are crap, I don't care how long you've been here or what else you do. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    As opposed to IP-hopping trolls which turn up every day or two. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    What gets me are the ones who ask "So how many Jews really died in WW2?"--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    That's one of them, and that would be one of his least-offensive posts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well there are the IP-hopping trolls, which is a totally separate issue and has nothing to do with this; and there are the anonymous IPs who tend to call you out giving useless answers, who you either delete or dismiss as trolls, and then there are people with actual usernames who call you out too, and then you claim you're an established editor who is being unfairly attacked. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    The IP-hopping gnats are of no importance. But established editors attacking other established editors in front of the OP is extremely uncivil. If you've got an issue with an editor, take it to the editor's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    Taking it to the editor's talk page has never worked in the past and I don't see why it would now. No, public shaming is much more useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    And you can see how well it works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    It started this conversation...that's something. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    Which has led us to what exactly? "Ref-desk is broken! Harrumph! Harrumph! What should we do about it? Hmm, well, er..."--WaltCip (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well you could start by not posting inane crap like this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    Oh hang it in your ear, you. That's hardly the worst of the shit I've seen on that board.--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    Ah the 'other kids get to do it!' excuse. I didnt notice that was particularly convincing when I was at school. It is less so now. Adding to the already existing pile of rubbish is okay, because the rubbish already exists. Small wonder the pile keeps getting bigger... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    False equivalence. There was nothing wrong with that question, although it might have been better placed at the Science desk. If there was a trolling pattern it hasn't been shown here. None of us gets to unilaterally declare that "runny nose" questions are "inane crap" or "rubbish". Our options in such a case are to respond with an answer, or to ignore. ―Mandruss  04:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
If StuRat doesn't like to travel, then the problem may be as simply as that. He needs to get out more, leave his computer and do something else besides posting on the Ref Desk. :) Count Iblis (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Only in death's suggestion of a rule to allow hatting unsourced comments isn't a bad one. I'm skeptical it could be effectively applied, though. Too much [need for] gray area. I don't know how many people would actually argue that there should be no unsourced comments. What about instead treating it like Wikipedia content under WP:BURDEN. If you see a comment that seems dubious, you're free to remove it and the burden is on whoever would like to restore it to make sure it's properly sourced. That's so logical that I can't imagine it hasn't been proposed before, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Going to an editor's talkpage to ask them to redact a comment or to change their editing habits has never worked in the ten years plus that I've been editing Wikipedia. If someone posts shite, and it does not fall in one of the categories for which users get blocked for repeat offenses such as vandalism, and you call him to task, he just digs in his heels harrumpfs, and refuses to change a whit. I would encourage a stated official policy of allowing but not requiring the hatting of answers which state something without linking to a reliable online source, a Wikipedia article, or an offline print reference. If I give an answer in some topic of my own professional competence, just based on experience and common knowledge of anyone in my profession, and it gets hatted, I can certainly grab a reference book off the shelf and provide a citation, or I can look at the relevant Wikipedia article which may or may not be comprehensive or accurate.As Rhododendrites stated, this is just WP:BURDEN. There are many examples of questions so simple that the answer might be posted without a ref, although that also suggests the questioner be directed to a relevant article. So it might not be necessary or appropriate to run around hatting every unreferenced answer, but there should be a low burden for hatting. For an uncontroversial answer, the followup could be to mention the article rather than to hat the obvious uncontroversial answer. If the Wikipedia article is deficient, I might go ahead and fix it. But even if someone links to an online source or a Wikipedia article, they still might make boneheaded and cringeworthy errors, but at least the OP would be directed to source material he can view and other editors can jump in with more accurate interpretation. If the answer is in a Wikipedia article, then the OP's has been helped in finding it. If coverage of some encyclopedic matter is not found in an article, then a well researched answer can be the basis for a new or improved Wikipedia article, which I've seen happen occasionally. Real world reference librarians at colleges or large public libraries frequently provide such answers which are not really contained in their own college courses.So hat answers lacking sources, but the sources certainly could be Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If you doubt that a statement is true, then asking for a reference, politely, is the right thing to do. I do so myself. However, there are too many crazies out there who will challenge absolutely every statement, such as my absolutely obvious statement that "a portion of the deaths of cats and dogs are due to food-borne illnesses", apparently a reason for this complaint. So, if you give people the power to hat or delete any unreferenced answer, you will end up with wars with people hatting each other's unreferenced answers, where they clearly don't require a reference. Not constructive. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Either it's absolutely obvious enough as to be a waste of time rather than an answer, or it's not absolutely obvious enough. Either way, this is why we're here at AN. You think far too much is "absolutely obvious", but those statements are too often wrong, oversimplified, tangential, or otherwise a nonanswer, and when held up to scrutiny wind up revealing themselves as being made up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Stu, if an answer is obvious, it should be trivial for you to find the appropriate article to refer to. To adapt your earlier example:
Question: "Brane, wot is 2+2 eh?"
Answer: "Four. See addition."
Note the inclusion of the reference in the answer. Tevildo (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
There's no guarantee that the article on addition specifically includes the case of 2+2. If you look at something more complex, like the sum of a pair of 10 digit numbers, you may never find a ref that is specifically for that case. And searching for such a ref is a royal waste of time. I could write out the addition in long form, showing the carrying of the digits, but of course you would then object to that being original research. The Math, Science, and Computer Desks are full of such cases, where you won't find a ref for the specific numeric example being asked about. StuRat (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Tevildo's example has not been taken to heart as it should have been. It happens that the article about addition does quote the case of 2+2. A responder at the Ref. Desk should see the value of giving the questioner access to reference(s) that are helpful and will extend their knowledge, in effect adopting a teacher rôle. The peculiar argument that a Ref. Desk should not provide references "when it's obvious to me" is adopting a less-than-helpful ivory tower rôle. Unfortunately such "noble purity" of intellectual pursuit disconnects StuRat from the practical concerns of everyday life. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not "when it's obvious to me", it's "when it's obvious to all", as 2+2 should be. There must be some level of obviousness where refs are no longer required, and that would certainly qualify. And I'm usually willing to provide refs where there is a genuine question, and refs exist, as opposed to somebody being pedantic and asking for a ref for something like 2+2. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
"Going to an editor's talkpage to ask them to redact a comment or to change their editing habits has never worked in the ten years plus that I've been editing Wikipedia" has no citation other than personal opinion. No evidence that the user has ever even tried it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this a serious request for [more] evidence of whether people have tried to address StuRat's editing habits on his talk page, or a disingenuous attempt to make a point via false analogy? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The user made a broad, sweeping claim about all editors, with no evidence backing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Does it make sense to have an RfC asking, simply, if WP:BURDEN applies to the reference desk? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with imposing such rules is that they then need to be applied under all circumstances, which means that all Ref Desk answers should be written in the same format as a (mini) article for a peer reviewed journal. This would make contributing to the Ref Desk way too cumbersome for most people. Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Then kill the ref desks and refer them to this "stack exchange" thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
need to be applied under all circumstances - Why would you interpret a Wikipedia policy as applied to the refdesk to be different from the same policy applied to articles? WP:BURDEN applies to articles already. The question would be whether it applies to the refdesk, too. Just as Wikipedia articles are not peer reviewed journal articles, so the refdesk would not be. However, if someone doubts an unsourced claim (on the refdesk, as in the encyclopedia), they can remove it pending addition of sources. Same deal. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Does that rule apply rigorously to talk pages as well? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites is describing policies for Wikipedia articles, but if you prefer the talk page policies, we have a well-thought-out policy for talk pages which would work just fine on the reference desks: WP:TALK, which includes WP:TPOC, Alas, we don't follow that policy on the refdesks either. I think Rhododendrites has a good point; why not treat the refdesks like articles with all the normal rules about referencing and verifiability? Yes, this would be a lot different from what we do now, but what we do now sucks. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I read why not treat the refdesks like articles with all the normal rules about referencing and verifiability? This presupposes that questions posed on reference desks are comparable to topics for articles. More often, questions posed are faulty in and of themselves. We have WP:AfD for poorly formulated article topics. But we field all questions unless we feel the questioner is somehow spoofing us. We may try to help the questioner to clarify an area of inquiry. We are sometimes trying to help the questioner to formulate a reasonably meaningful question. The Reference desks are interactive in real time. They have to be somewhat informal. Contrary to what some are implying we are not always giving cut-and-dry answers. Sourcing and expertise are certainly the ideal. But I think we have to allow for what I will call conversational participation. Unless this is actually problematic I think we should allow for that. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you applied all the article rules to the Ref Desk everyone would feel free to remove any answer they didn't like, then the original authors would revert them, and an edit war would follow. We would then need a talk page for each Q, where we could discuss all the pros and cons of each answer and develop a consensus of which answers should stay or be removed. This would all take a great deal of time, so we would need to stop archiving Q's after a week or so. So, we would then end up with every Q being as involved as a Wikipedia article, with all the time it takes to write, review, edit, add formal refs, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
... Because that's how it works in article space? I'm assuming this is more hyperbole, but in general, if you apply article rules, it would do the opposite of what you're saying. People can't just remove whatever they like and edit war. Nobody is saying to turn each question into a separate page and require discussion for every response -- that's absurd. When someone answered with dubious original research, it could be removed until a citation is added. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be absurd, but that's exactly what would happen if you gave people the right to delete any response they don't like. We've already had a problem with people removing any Q about topics they don't like, such as sex. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles do evolve over time under this policy, they become similar to review articles. Someone starting to write up a new article will usually leave open some gaps in sourcing, over times these gaps will be fixed. If there is a persistent problem in some places the article or the offending statements will get tagged, some statements may get removed. But writing up an answer for the ref desk happens in a matter of minutes, it's not going to yield the same result as a well written Wikipedia article. Now, if each answer is given by someone who happens to be an expert in the subject, then you'll get good sourced answers, because the expert knows the literature. He or she doesn't need to spend a lot of time doing a lot of literature research to for that. What goes wrong on the Ref Desk is that there is a relatively small group of regulars, they obviously cannot be experts in each of the fields they contribute to. This leads to the habit of just giving answers that are then not well sourced, which can create tensions when one of the regulars is actually an expert and he or she would fault one of the given answers.
I think things can be improved by encouraging everyone to just slow down a bit, there is no need to jump into a question and give an answer asap. It's better to provide for fewer high quality answers than many low quality answers. If you then do a little research yourself to get to a proper sourcing, you may learn something yourself too. On StackExchange answers are rated, so this behavior in automatically encouraged there. Count Iblis (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Here we have Rates of autism among wikipedians. It is a "question" on a Reference desk. We are spoofed occasionally. Two editors responded. I think they responded very well. Those who have been around for awhile and even many who have not been around for awhile accept the challenge of fielding questions and generally do a good job of it. My feeling is that very little has to be changed about the Reference desks. When an answer calls for a source, it is generally provided. This is not something unknown to people. In the rough and tumble, competitive environment of the Reference desks, there is often another editor who will point out if an answer given is problematically lacking a source. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Moderator not acting in good faith[edit]

Our anonymous friend is encouraged to register an account and starte engaging on the talk pages of the articles in question. EjJohnstons actions appear routine and uncontroversial. Additionally, the IP is encouraged to read WP:NOTTHEM (and indeed m:WRONG). Guy (Help!) 22:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

I'm an inexperienced user, so I don't know if this section is fine to report an incorrect behavior of a moderator (also, i'm not native speaker).

There was a long discussion which involved the behavior of myself and other users (link: here). The matter was closed by (EdJohnston) by semi-protecting the two articles related and blaming me as an "IP-hopping edit warrior".

He blatantly ignored the fact that two users, PeterTheFourth and Eladynnus, infringed the 3RR rule (see [7][8][9][10][11][12])).

I went to his personal page, asking for explanations (link: here) about why he called me a "IP-hopping edit warrior" while the aforementioned users were ignored. He claims that i've used 4 different IPs so i'm violating a sock policy and he doesn't want to assume good faith to my edits. Point is, i'm under a dynamic IP ISP so of course my ip changes, i can't do anything about it. Does using a dynamic IP ISP violate sock rules? And he, using this as an excuse, is saying me that he doesn't want to assume good faith nor doing a better analysis of the matter (which he's blatantly ignoring).

I think this encourages a really bad behavior for some moderators who think they can act like they want just because they think they do not suffer any consequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.224.135 (talkcontribs)

The above post seems to be an appeal of my closure of a 3RR complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:151.30.108.20 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Two articles semied). The editor, who has been using a number of different IPs from the area of Milan, Italy, followed up after the AN3 with a complaint about the closure on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston#Double Standard on punishment?. The effect of the semiprotection is that he can no longer edit those two articles, and he complained that others had also been edit warring. (His latest IP broke 3RR, but a block of his IP was not practical because of the size of the range). Anyone who wants to review my action is encouraged to read over those two threads. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gawker shutdown is imminent[edit]

There's just been an announcement that Gawker is going to cease all operations Monday and shut down sometime next week. Since there are thousands of instances of websites in the Gawker network being used as sources (a sore spot for the community that is now becoming moot), we should replace the links with archive.is versions as a matter of some urgency. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

1980 links to archive, apparently. It's counting the non-article links~, tho'. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and that's just Gawker. Also part of the Gawker Media is Jezebel, Jalopnik, Deadspin, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, io9 and Kotaku. We don't know for certain what is happening to them. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The company was bought out by Univision, who say they are going to keep all the sites (except gawker.com itself) operating. - MrOllie (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents but this seems like the perfect sort of job for a bot? I see that someone beat me to requesting a bot was run to do just this. maybe worth keeping the requests in one place.Amortias (T)(C) 21:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Someone explain to me how this gossip blog is a reliable source for anything other than WP:SELFSOURCE purposes? Is this website family the kind of source upon which Britannica relies? From the description in its article, I'm getting the impression that content sourced from this website needs to be excised entirely. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Should have happened ages ago. Arkon (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of the coverage that Gawker-related media support on WP is contemporary topics, the type not covered by Brittanica. It is an example of new media. Now, I can't speak for all sites, but for Kotaku, which is primarily video games related, we at WP:VG have noted they meet the expectations of any other reliable source - there is editorial control (with an editor-in-chief), they are noted by other RSes as a common source, and for the most part their work aligns and collaborates with other RSes. My experience with io9 (a site aimed at popular science and science fiction) is similar. I believe all the other sites have a similar structure with lead editor-in-chiefs so their editorial control policies meet our RSes. So no, it's extreme to ask all Gawker sites to be excised, as they are in line with most web-only RSes out there today. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You make my argument for me. If a page is comparable to something publishing popular science, it is not reliable: unless there's some sort of dispute, in which we need to consider these perspectives to ensure a neutral point of view, we must depend on the academics and the other professional scientists writing in the best publications, not drivel written for Randy in Boise. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • On articles on an academic topic, absolutely we probably wouldn't use those sites as they'd fail the expected reliability for those topics. But I'm talking contemporary topics that aren't going to be in Brittanica in the first place but are part of WP. A rather sizable chunk of WP (I'd estimate at least 25%) is built up on sites like these. You're asking for a massive change (not just from Gawker Media sites but plenty of new media) here. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm asking for enforcement of our policies: if most of these articles on contemporary topics are built on unreliable sources, and reliable sources don't exist for these articles, it's time to be professional instead of catering to the kids who know nothing about evaluating sources of information. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • They are enforced, as per WP:RS - "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." At least for Kotaku and io9, there's been plenty of discussion and review of those sites' policies to prove both fact-checking and accuracy exists. And because there is editorial oversight, they don't fall into SELFPUB. They aren't peer reviewed, obviously, but RS policy doesn't always require peer-reviewed sources (though some topic areas like medical topics nearly always require them). --MASEM (t) 02:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The way I'm reading it, this only affects *.gawker.com, not any of the Gawker Media sites which will transition in the short term to Univision. eg "Staffers will soon be assigned to other editorial roles, either at one of the other six sites or elsewhere within Univision." All the stories on the purchase imply that Univision wants the sites, not the leadership, so they are presently in no danger of being shutdown that I can tell. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Support doing this asap. While they published a lot of aggregation and republishing, they also did a lot of good writing and essay stuff that I'm sure are cited in many places on here - including a very funny series on Wikipedia deletion policy which I occasionally commented on. They did some stupid things as well, but they employed and gave independence to some incredible writing talent and I'm sad to see them destroyed completely by Thiel. Blythwood (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I had chatted about this with Cyberpower678 a while back, and I think he said it would be possible to run InternetArchiveBot against all the affected pages. This is of course if archive.org and others have archived versions, but I think that's mostly a safe assumption. Even if we can't get the bot to run on all of those pages sequentially, Cyber's bot should by nature eventually fix all the links MusikAnimal talk 02:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice please[edit]

It's weird, people seem to unanimously agree that everyone should drop this, but apparently don't understand what everyone means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been trying to discuss with administrator @JzG: edits that they have made about me. I have raised this on their talk page twice, but they are refusing to engage in meaningful discussion - see here [13] and here [14]. Which is the appropriate noticeboard to take this to, or because Jzg is an admin, should this go straight to ArbCom? DrChrissy (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You made snide comments and then attempted to hound me when I decided to disengage. I seem to recall that you "banned" me and another user from your talk page, yet you want to engage both of us on ours. How about: no. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
My advice is that everyone should drop this dispute and move on. (And ArbCom = boomerang.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. I archived it more than once form my Talk page, but the OP seems to want to sea lion this. I'm not interested. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Tryptofish, the point about ArbCom is that it requires evidence, so rogue administrators and editors must provide diffs rather than simply casting aspersions, which is now very unfortunately absolutely the norm now at AN/I. DrChrissy (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
My advice is that both of you should stop interacting with and referring to each other. Failing that small gesture of self-restraint, the community should impose a mutual interaction ban with escalating consequences for the inevitable breaches that will occur.- MrX 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The irony here is that DrChrissy's complaint is that I don't want to interact with him, and have tried not to. You can't win with some people! Guy (Help!) 22:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Another irony is that I said "everyone" should drop this, not that DrChrissy should drop it, and I said that intentionally. ArbCom would not be a welcoming place for you either, Guy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Earlier this year, DrChrissy opened a spurious filing at WP:AE (involving Jytdog). At the time, JzG observed:
"This is not the first time DrChrissy has tried to abuse Wikipedia processes to remove opponents. I fully support a boomerang block for this obviously vexatious complaint. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)"
That AE filing resulted in a week-long block for DrChrissy's timewasting misuse of a noticeboard.
Sadly, the problem has persisted. Once again we have DrChrissy unable to drop the stick when faced with another editor against whom he holds a grudge, despite JzG's efforts to quietly disengage. Once again we have DrChrissy making an overblown, attention-demanding, and vexatious complaint. ("Rogue administrators"? Seriously?)
The sooner this is closed, the better. If left open, DrChrissy will just work himself up into another block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. (Although from his talkpage Guy does self identify as a Rouge Admin) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Removal of DYK Restrictions[edit]

Neither of these proposals are going to be implemented. There is far more heat than light in this thread, and keeping it open serves little constructive purpose. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earlier, restrictions were placed on me regarding DYK, to wit - (a) all of my DYK noms required two reviews to pass, and, (b) all of my noms required two QPQs by me. This was based on the fact that three of my 148 reviews (2 noms, and 1 review) had been pulled from the main page due to errors and, that in two cases, I did not promptly admit I had made errors when an admin revealed himself to me with a demand I demonstrate obeisances and contrition. Deryck Chan issued the original ruling.

By unanimous acclimation (though, over my modest objections) determined by Hobit, I am grateful that the second part of the restrictions has been rescinded against me. This means that all that remains is that all my DYK noms need two reviews. This is no big deal for me, but it does - due to the large volume of content I create - generate a heavy burden on the community, which I've calculated to be an 18% decrease in number of potential QPQs occurring since my nominations are now eating up a large volume of reviews.

In the month since these restrictions were imposed I have had one DYK review pulled from the main page due to errors (8% of my total) and no noms pulled from the main page; this is less than the 12% pull average for all DYK contributors with five or more reviews during the same time period indicating the protective functions of the restriction are no longer necessary.

For the benefit of the community I recommend the remaining part of my restriction be rescinded. Again, it doesn't matter too much to me as the restriction in its current form does not impact me at all as it doesn't place any burden on me to do anything, the burden is imposed on the community (this is why I objected to the second part of the restriction being rescinded in the first place). But I do think, as demonstrated, the restriction has outlived its usefulness. LavaBaron (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC) edit: I forgot to GF ping everyone who registered a !vote in the linked discussion - @EdChem, Gatoclass, The C of E, Cwmhiraeth, and EdChem: - sorry LavaBaron (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Withdrawn by Nom Indifferent (as noted, the newly modified form of the restriction removes all burden from me and socializes the workload of the restriction to the community) LavaBaron (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC) There seems to be a consensus against this so I'm happy to withdraw this proposal at this time. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanded discussion[edit]

  • Remove I completely disagree that the restriction has outlived its usefulness but I can't see any current benefit as the user continues to use it as some kind of branch to beat the process and individuals associated with it. I'd prefer to allow the user the latitude to continue and enable him to be hoisted by his own petard, which appears to be an inevitability given the background, history of interactions and history of grievances related to this user. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
For clarification:
  • The situation regarding this restriction is the only instance I have ever been mentioned at ANI, and I have a clean block log.
  • My extensive history of contributing quality content like Organized horse fighting and Attempted theft of George Washington's head has been repeatedly recognized and is generally held beyond reproach (21% of all articles I've created have been promoted to GA status).
  • My virtually single-handed work policing Frank Gaffney from sanitizing earned me an on-air rebuke on CSPAN from Gaffney himself and my efforts outing an attempt by the Trump transition team to edit their own Wikipedia page has resulted in a Reuters story that will run later this week.
  • Meanwhile, I recently contributed the most-viewed non-lead DYK hook in Wikipedia's history.
(All that said, I do realize my tendency for not genuflecting sufficiently to the illustrious majesty of some of the Celestial Immortals (admins) has sometimes been met with irritation but it's something I'm genuinely working on improving and is unrelated to the question of DYK noms/reviews.) Thank you, in any case, for taking the time to comment here. LavaBaron (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Honestly...I mean seriously really? This was just closed today with no consensus and you are already running here to repropose it? Drop it, seriously. It is starting to get annoying. The restrictions were put in place by the community and were only designed to last three months. Quite honestly, this is getting ridiculous. Let it go. Wait out the rest of the community based restrictions and move on. Bringing this up again when it was just closed 20 hours ago is just...incredible. --Majora (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Chill. First, it was closed with consensus to roll-back the second half of the restrictions which are now void. Second, like I said, I don't care one way or the other. I'm just noting that the modified restrictions removes all workload from me and transfers it to the community; a side-effect of legislation by committee. This proposal is simply a harmonization process to reconcile the consensus with an unintended consequence. As indicated above, my !vote is "indifferent" as I'm totally un-impacted whether the modified restrictions remain in place or go. (The only persons impacted are every reviewer except me.) LavaBaron (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of restrictions. As Majora notes, Hobit's closure yesterday specifically said The additional proposal to remove all restrictions did not have consensus, mostly on the basis of being too soon after the restrictions had been placed, but some concerns about current behavior were also brought up. That's still true today. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the proposal to maintain the restrictions didn't have consensus which is what we were evaluating. There was only 50% support to maintain the restrictions, which is not a consensus. We had 4 luminary editors ask the restrictions be repealed in full, versus the Gang of 4 who wanted them maintained; IOW 4-4, which is not a consensus for maintenance of the restrictions. But I didn't make a big deal about it because, like I said, this doesn't really impact me one way or the other. The only part of the restrictions that actually impacted me has been unanimously quashed; all that remains is the part that impacts everyone else. It seems weird to increase everyone else's workload 18% to punish me. I mean, I feel bad watching everyone do more work, but I don't really feel punished by it. You know? LavaBaron (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Which "proposal to maintain the restrictions" would that be? Your "Counter-proposal: full lifting of restrictions" or some other proposal no one has ever heard of? When you are trying to get restrictions lifted against yourself, it is probably best not to make up things to support your case. Fram (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose And also dispute the ability of a discussion at DYK to remove community imposed restrictions at AN. Otherwise everyone who gets restricted would just get their friends at a local project to have a 'discussion' and lift/alter them. The relevant part of WP:Editing restrictions would be "The community may also impose a number of different editing restrictions on users engaged in inappropriate behavior, usually at an administrators' noticeboard. Such restrictions may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary." Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and support complete removal of LavaBaron from the DYK process in all its facets. This is an editor who, after these restrictions were imposed, thought it a good idea to create Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor and nominate it for main page appearance at Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor. When an error in one of his reviews is pointed out, he replies with "It is with absolute terror I must admit that, after staring at the hook and article for the last 15 minutes, I am still unable to see anything wrong with it (vis a vis Elizabeth Lachlan). I know my admitting this is probably my final strike, but I owe it to the project to be honest and steel myself for the fate that awaits me. Thanks to everyone who has made my time here at DYK an enjoyable one. Best" This is also an editor who has "I am in the process of finishing up some outstanding projects and wrapping-up this account and may be only periodically active over the next few months pending retirement." on his talk page[15]. He still doesn't seem to understand why these restrictions were imposed, blaming it (not only here, but many times over the past month) on others instead. So we had consensus that restrictions were needed, and we see now that the restrictions are not successful: then the answer is not lifting the restrictions early, but imposing more serious ones, like a full topic-ban from DYK. Fram (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Also note the "Actually, the proposal to maintain the restrictions didn't have consensus" comment he made above. This refers to a "Counter-proposal: full lifting of restrictions" he made himself, which he now frames as the exact opposite. Please just remove him from DYK and also retsrict all appeals to once every six months or so. Fram (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of restrictions. There is no indication that this editor is reflective on why the restrictions were put in place. Quite the contrary, as by this proposal first being added to original closer Deryck C's discussion on altering one aspect of the restrictions. [16]. — Maile (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Propose full DYK ban for LavaBaron[edit]

Considering the two failed proposals he started (the second a day after the first one was closed) to lift his restrictions early, and the fact that during his restriction period he had at least one incorrect review, one highly inappropriate DYK nomination with Template:Did you know nominations/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, and now a seriously problematic one with Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory, where both the article and the DYK discussion highlight the problems, I propose a full, indefinite DYK topic ban for LavaBaron (no nominating pages, no reviews, no discussions at any DYK template pages or WT:DYK, and so on), with appeals only possible after six months (at the earliest) and with intervals of at least six months. Fram (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Within the last two weeks the following editors and promoters have all had the same number of noms [edit: or reviews and strike EdChem] pulled by Fram from the main page as he's cited for me: @Worm That Turned, Surtsicna, Casliber, The C of E, Kosack, Cwmhiraeth, EditorE, Earthh, Andrew Davidson, and Hawkeye7: Are we going to indef them all as well? I hope not.
    I have only had one DYK nomination in the last two weeks: Jeffrey Grey. It wasn't pulled. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    @LavaBaron: Evidence of my having any nom pulled from the main page, ever? That or strike your inaccurate claim. EdChem (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: my apologies, that should have read "noms or reviews" (I was referring to this). I corrected. I hope you understand, this was not meant as a criticism of you or anyone mentioned. EdChem - I misread your comment in the same thread and have struck your name. Sorry. LavaBaron (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems if Fram had his way everyone would be blocked from DYK; he's repeatedly made clear he disapproves of the entire section. As for the "highly inappropriate" nomination, in the AfD for said article, there was absolute consensus it was a GF article, expressed even by Delete !voters User:Notecardforfree and User:Neutrality. Fram has already misrepresented my past actions once, resulting in a bad block [17] that was immediately rescinded almost as soon as it was imposed after User:Sphilbrick, User:Oiyarbepsy, User:Gerda Arendt, and User:WilliamJE intervened on my behalf (it was subsequently ruled, by consensus, a bad block). This seems to have become a personal vendetta from Fram due to a tiff we had a few months ago over an unrelated matter. He was previously warned by Ritchie to WP:DROPTHESTICK with regard to it [18] and an IBAN has even been suggested to arrest this out-of-control approach.
And BTW, I have had a total of 148 DYK articles go to main page [either nom'ed or reviewed]. If only three had mistakes, I'm frankly pleased, not ashamed. LavaBaron (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I hate to leave it on a harsh note, so I should just add that I do appreciate the work Fram has devoted to DYK and the time he spends reviewing other editors contributions. I really do regret our interpersonal relationship is so rocky. LavaBaron (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Please indicate how I "misrepresented" your past actions. The blocking admin misinterpreted some events, yes, but that's hardly the same as what you claim here. Are there other problems (and in some cases problematic editors) at DYK? Yes, sure. None of these editors have DYK restrictions and continue to create problems during these though. You defend yourself with strawman arguments. I never claimed that your article contributions were not in good faith, I said that these two DYK nominations were "highly inappropriate" (first case) and "seriously problematic" (second case). Coupled with the poor review and the two appeals in rapid succession (and the continuing lack of understanding of what the problems really were and are), something more drastic is needed. Enough people have been restricted, topic banned, even blocked, despite making good faith contributions. Please provide a diff for "This seems to have become a personal vendetta from Fram due to a tiff we had a few months ago over an unrelated matter." I can't find it[19]. Fram (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Right, the "rapid succession" issue - this is the most unbelievable of all. It was actually Fram who said a decision at DYK would be invalid and the subject should be discussed at AN [20]. And now he wants to TBAN me for doing exactly that? IMHO, this seems to belie any possibility this can be a genuine proposal. (Again, however, I do appreciate Fram's hard work and am sorry for our unfortunate disagreements.) LavaBaron (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • After which it was transcluded here and I said "Ok, thanks. The other way round would have been better, but so be it. Fram (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)". Fram (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Fram, you're such a prolific commenter it can sometimes be difficult to follow and track as your opinion changes from moment to moment, expressed through a large quantity of very dialog-rich and passionately expressed posts. Thank you for clarifying that you subsequently changed your mind and decided a direct appeal to AN was not required. I have no problem with my proposal being closed in light of this explanation you've offered. I would also suggest we re-consider Ritchie's suggestion of a two-way IBAN to avoid these situations in the future. Thanks for all the energy you bring to DYK - LavaBaron (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A DYK topic ban would also "avoid these situations in the future". An answer about all the incorrect or unverifiable information you provided today on this very page would also be useful. E.g. your false claims that there was a "proposal to maintain the restrictions", that I "misrepresented" your past actions, or that this is due to "a tiff we had a few months ago over an unrelated matter." when no such tiff seems to exist. Please stop giving "compliments" and adding complaints about my editing style (anyone can see the number of edits made by you vs. the one made by me: in this discussion alone, this will be my fourth post, vs. 13 by you, causing many edit conflicts) and focus on the relevant elements instead. Either provide evidence for your statements or retract them. Fram (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
(ec x quite a bit) Fram is usually right on content. Where the problem arises is when things move away from criticising content to making things personal, which draws a reaction from the other party and leads to massive threads here instead of actually getting the problem fixed. I don't see an interaction ban preventing Fram talking about an article being unsourced, badly sourced, factually incorrect, lopsided POV or cherry picking sources. All that said, if there's one editor here who really needs to drop the stick, based on what I've read at Template:Did you know nominations/Trump plant theory and on my talk page today, it's not Fram. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem here seems to be articles related to the US presidential election which risk being too controversial, partisan or otherwise inappropriate. For example, we recently had Trump Vodka at DYK and before that there was Trump National Golf Club Westchester. LavaBaron had nothing to do with those, so far as I know. My impression is that WP:ITN has an embargo on the torrent of news coverage about the presidential primaries and main campaign and so I suggest that DYK has something similar. Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    And so it does: Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided (WP:DYK) Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support full DYK ban The quickest and simplest method of stopping disruption is to remove the person causing the disruption from the area. TRM notes above that he is in favour of removing restrictions, not because he thinks LavaBaron has no need of them and further issues are not going to appear, but that because removing them will hasten further disciplinary action due to the continuation of problems. Fram has clearly laid out the ongoing issues, and since LavaBaron has not shown any interest in actually modifying their behaviour, a full restriction from DYK would prevent others having to deal with the issues they cause. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose While LavaBaron appears to have a touching faith in Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, and is perhaps not yet fully enculturated, he is nonetheless clearly an enthusiastic contributor who appears to have made some pretty useful contributions among the 120-odd articles he has thus far added (a couple of quick examples, here and here). Though he has an unfortunate habit of overreacting to criticism, in my experience he seems to respond well to respectful treatment. With regard to his DYK contributions in particular, I've seen no evidence that they are any worse on average than those of many others, in fact I would say they are considerably better than some whose questionable contributions have sometimes managed to go under the radar for years. So while LB's unfortunate habit of resorting too readily to dispute resolution processes might be trying the patience of some, that isn't actually a problem specifically for DYK, and a DYK ban won't address it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the two cases stated by the nom are reasonable articles about fringe theories and certainly not a reason to ban someone from anything. It's fine for DYK to reject them, but I don't see nominating or writing them as problematic. I would consider a mutual interaction ban however--it might be best for everyone. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    • A mutual interaction ban would mean that I couldn't remove any DYKs he was involved with from preps, queue or main page if they turn out to be incorrect. How would this be a good idea? I'm one of the very few people involved with this aspect of DYK (checking things after all the regular checks have been done, and removing the all-too-frequent remaining problems), and I'm not going to let an incorrect hook stand only because LavaBaron has been involved with it. I don't make a habit of checking who has had anything to do with the hooks before removing them. I have no interaction with LavaBaron outside of DYK and DYK-related matters. A mutual interaction would be best for LavaBaron, but not for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessarily punitive. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Notecardforfree. A mountain has been made out of a molehill. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Silly me, I thought that making unfounded accusations about other editors were considered personal attacks. From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." In this discussion alone, LavaBaron has made false claims that there was a "proposal to maintain the restrictions", that I "misrepresented" his past actions leading to a block, or that this is due to "a tiff we had a few months ago over an unrelated matter." when no such tiff seems to exist. I asked him above to provide evidence or retract these statements, but while he has made other edits here, he has done neither, and no one seems to care about such things any longer. Perhaps some unnvolved admin can deal with this? Or can I also make some wild allegations to get the sympathy vote? Perhaps throw in some canvassing as well? Note that LavaBaron started this section with "GF ping everyone who registered a !vote in the linked discussion ", and then only pinged three people who supported the lifting of part of the restrictions and one who commented (seemingly in favour of lifting them all), but none of the more negative commenters; and followed this up with, in a proposal from me, pinging everyone he believed had recently had a DYK pulled by me. While, as is so often the case, this canvassing only had limited effect, it still is clearly prohibited (it would be similar to me pinging all editors who voted "delete" on his DYK articles). Fram (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Fram: WP:DROPTHESTICK Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as overbroad. The two cited DYKs are both about the 2016 U.S. presidential campaignathon, and so there seems good reason to confine any remedies to that subject only, assuming remedies are required. On another note, I am not a fan of euphemisms for "lying", and urge people to either say "lying" or stop accusing others of dishonesty. In other words, ban the word "misrepresentation" at Wikipedia. Anyway, my !vote on this proposed ban is as stated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Testers wanted for new feature that searches for deleted pages[edit]

A volunteer developer (thanks Smalyshev!) has created a beta version of a new feature that allows administrators to search for the titles of deleted pages in a very similar way one searches for live pages. This feature is now ready for testing at [21]. The instructions for testing are described here.

Please leave comments either here (I'll copy them over) or at the Phabricator ticket. Your feedback is very much appreciated -- this is something that's clearly missing from the admin toolset. MER-C 13:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd save you a step and comment at the Phabricator ticket, except that site frightens and confuses me. I can see how this could occasionally be pretty useful. I just tried it out for a couple of minutes, just one article in article space. Seemed to handle a reasonable number of typos; 1 (occasionally 2) typos per word, even when each word had a typo in a four word title. Seemed to handle only being given a very small portion of the article title well. I note that it handles typos like "herw" instead of "here" easily, but can't handle homonyms like "hear" instead of "here". Not complaining, as I have no idea how you'd go about doing that, but you wanted feedback so here's some feedback. But overall, yay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

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

CLOSURE ENDORSED
After hatting the extraneous commentary attempting to go over all the arguments again, it's clear that the remaining participants endorse Deryck's closure of the RFC. Consensus certainly can change, but I'll remind those who were on the opposing side that repeated RFCs over the same issue can be considered tendentious. Katietalk 20:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

Participant summaries from WP:DRN#Template talk:Ethnic slurs[edit]

Extended content

Summary of dispute by ChronoFrog[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I guess I'll begin by explaining why I am concerned about the outcome of the RfC. It is mostly a copy/paste of what I wrote on Deryck's page, but I am on my way out the door so I don't have enough time to craft anything original.

To recap, the dispute was about whether or not Jews should remain in the West Asian/Middle Eastern category, where they had been for the past 3-4 years at least. A number of editors rejected this categorization on the grounds that A) Jews accept converts/newcomers, B) most Jews have lived in diaspora for centuries and C) genetic admixture with non-Jewish populations. Others argued that, based on WP:RS affirming that Jews are an ethnic/national group with collective descent (as determined by countless genetic studies) from Israel, in addition to the anthropological criteria (notably UN criteria/Martinez-Cobo) utilized in every other case like this (see also: List of indigenous peoples), Jews should remain under West Asian. In addition, points A, B, and C were contested on the grounds that A) all nations accept and integrate outsiders to varying degrees, and Jews are no different, B) living somewhere else, no matter how long, does not make someone indigenous to a particular territory (since this would mean that all colonial groups would eventually become indigenous); per Martinez-Cobo, indigeneity is defined through ethnogenesis, not longstanding presence and C) every nation/ethnic group has mingled with other ethnicities to some degree, including Jews.

During the RfC, none of these concerns were addressed in any meaningful way, if at all. Instead, the discussion petered out after a few weeks, seemingly with a consensus that the template was fine as it was (with Jews and Arabs both having their own categories under the larger West Asian umbrella) with no counter-response or RS beyond A ) a non-RS blog (which had immediately been called out as such, with no response) and B ) repeated assertions of earlier arguments (which, again, had been promptly called out with the same counter-points/sources as before, and again, no response). I took it off my watchlist until I found that a final decision had been made seemingly based on majority vote. I went to Deryck's page to see what his reasoning was, but another heated argument with Electoralist ensued soon afterwards. I pulled up a list of RS that Human Trumpet Solo posted (with a few additions of my own) which had seemingly gone ignored in the initial RfC (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deryck_Chan#Challenging_RfC_closure_on_Template:_Ethnic_slurs). He asked me to verify the sources, so I linked him to the article they originally came from. None of the sources provided by Electoralist in justifying his proposal for change were sufficient enough for WP:DUE. One was a genetic study which examined the mtDNA line of Ashkenazi Jews, which I responded to by pointing out that mtDNA is only half of the equation. Y-DNA, in contrast, is overwhelmingly Semitic. Further, I provided a few links to autosomal and Y-DNA studies, as well as Harry Ostrer's book on Jewish genetics.

His other source was a JVL article which only had one citation: JewFAQ (an independent, non-RS). I answered him by pointing this out. Overall, I believe the decision made to be a case of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:UNDUE, ignoring the abundance of WP:RS provided in the course of the RfC arguing against removing Jews from West Asian. ChronoFrog (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jeffgr9[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Electoralist[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This matter has been discussed at length and I believe at this point we are just seeing WP:FORUMSHOPPING and I don't see how, given that there has been an RFC that has been closed with a finding of consensus, it is necessary to bring it up again here nor is this the appropriate forum. As far as I can see, the criteria for reconsidering the closure set out at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures have not been met. User:Cunard has questioned the decision to reopen the DRN here. I'll also add that the small subgroup of editors who have been listed for this discussion lends itself to confirmation bias as it is simply the list User:ChronoFrog chose to notify of the original DRN discussion with Deryck Chan added on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum, Jews as a people have a complex ethnic and genetic history and it is incorrect to say they are a "West Asian" or for that matter European group due to the degree of admixutures. User:ChronoFrog refers to genetic evidence that Askhenazi Jews (who constitute over 75% of the world Jewish population) are matrilineally descended from four European ancestors as "only half the picture" yet his solution completely ignores that half of the picture. A layperson's explanation of Ashkenazi genetics can be found in this LiveScience article Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European and scholarly sources can be found in this article from the European Journal of Human Genetics "MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population", a peer reviewed article which Google Scholar states has been cited by 78 other scholarly articles, as well as "Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora" a peer reviewed article cited by 87 other scholarly articles. As has been exhaustively both in the orpginal Talk page discussion as well as the Deryck Chan's talk page, there are several Jewish ethnic groups - Ashkenazi (European) Jews, Shephardic (Spanish/North African) Jews, Mizrachi (Arab or Middle Eastern) Jews (often conflated with Shephardic Jews), as well as Ethiopian Jews (and other sub-Saharan Jews) Desi Jews, Chinese Jews and others whose skin colour are white, brown, black, "yellow", etc. To say Jews are simply "West Asian" looks, to revisit User:ChronoFrog's quote at "only half the picture" as much as saying Ashkenazi Jews are European looks at only half the picture, let alone South Asian, Chinese, and Black Jews. Therefore, listing Jews as a standalone category in the template makes more sense rather than trying to shoehorn them into a particular ethnic subcategory (West Asian, European, or African) particularly when one considers that as a religion, Jews have accepted converts for millenia and will continue to do so meaning that admixturing will continue. While there is no such thing as a 'pure' ethnicity and all ethnic groups experience admixture, the composition of the Jewish people as a religion as well as a culture and ethnicity amplified by the Jewish history of disperal (diaspora) throughout the world means that admixturing has occured to a much greater degree and makes it impossible to simplistically place Jews under a single ethnic category. Electoralist (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Responding to User:Musashiaharon who states that many of the slurs involved support his claim that Jews can singularly be declared Middle Eastern - most of the slurs are actually aimed specifically at Ashkenazi Jews, one is aimed at Ethiopian Jews, one is aimed at Shephardic Jews who have converted to Christianity etc. Musashiaharon also argues that genetics is only one aspect of ethnicity. Culture, language and customs, indeed, are very important elements however there is no single Jewish culture or even language. Ashkenazi culture is distinct from Shephardic culture and the former is traditionally built around the Yiddish language (hence the term Yiddishkeit) which is a Germanic language with Hebrew influences and Slavic elements (depending on what part of Europe its speakers were in) has never been spoken by Shephardic, Mizrachi, South Asian or other Jewish populations. Similarly, Shephardic Jews have their own language traditionally, Ladino, which is derived from Spanish, and their own customs, cultural and even liturgical traditions and the other Jewish populations I mention all have their own distinct cultures and customs and speak different languages. There are overlaps and shared elements, of course, but the distinctions are enough to make it impossible to classify all the different varients of Jews as a singular, West Asian, ethnic group. Electoralist (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Musashiaharon[edit]

This dispute has been continuing for over a month and is still quite active. The core question is how to categorize Jews among the other ethnic groups in the template. Before the dispute began on June 25, Jews were placed next to Arabs under [West] Asians, and had been categorized as such for several years. Currently the choices are to put Jews in a standalone category, or to group them as a Middle Eastern or West Asian ethnicity. (It was previously attempted to categorize them as White/European. This was quickly dismissed, because A) a large proportion of Jews are not Ashkenazic, and B) the beginnings of Jewish ethnicity, regardless the subgroup, are traceable to the Middle East, which still bears obvious influence on their internal and external associations and current way of life.)

Before I state my opinion, I'll describe my criteria. An ethnicity is "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like." It makes sense therefore, to categorize ethnicities by the origins of these defining elements. Because of this, I am in favor of categorizing Jews in general as a Middle Eastern or [West] Asian ethnicity, being that each of these defining elements is traceable to the Middle East. This is verified in linguistics (eg. Gersenius' Hebrew Grammar), historical writings (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews), Jewish philosophical writings (Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, and The Kuzari), and in Rabbinical writings on ritual law (Berachot 30a, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Agriculture: Terumot), as well as the Torah itself (Genesis 12, et al.).

Genetics is a topic of secondary importance to ethnographers, who are mostly concerned with culture. Yet there too, clear genetic markers link Jews from all over the world to the Middle East (NCBI: Abraham's Children in the Genome Era). Some admixture with the local populations is present, as with any other ethnic group. However, given the overwhelming influence of cultural factors, this can hardly be said to negate or weaken the existence of the Jewish ethnicity in any clear or specific way. Such converts were considered fully Jewish by other Jews around the world, and were more often than not persecuted and ostracized from their previous social circles (eg. Lord George Gordon).

Germane to this particular template of Ethnic slurs, the slurs themselves give further support to categorizing Jews as Middle Eastern. In particular, "Christ-killer" shows that Europeans positively identified their local Jews to be one and the same as the people who killed their god in the Land of Israel. Similarly, the term "Yid" developed from the High German "jüdisch," etc., which came from the Hebrew "Yehudi," or Judean, after Judah, the pre-eminent, royal tribe among the Jews in their own land (Online Etymology Dictionary: Yid). Parenthetically, Jews at large already had come to be called by that same term ("Yehudi", Judean) thousands of years earlier, regardless their tribal affiliation (eg. Mordecai the Benjaminite in Esther 2:5). Ultimately, "Judean" came to be shortened to "Jew," (Online Etymology Dictionary: Jew) and so even in the slurs themselves, Jews are acknowledged to be a Middle Eastern people. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Electoralist[edit]

The term "Christ killer" was not limited to the Jews in Europe, but also extended at the very least to the Jews in the Holy Land, Ashkenazic or not. During the Crusades, the crusaders massacred and enslaved Jews alongside Muslims in Jerusalem. They saw no difference between the Jews in the Holy Land and those Jews in Europe, and both communities suffered terrible bloodbaths throughout (E. Judaica: Christian-Jewish Relations: The Crusades).

The distinctions between Ashkenazic, Sephardic, Polish, Yemenite, Moroccan, Chinese and other Jews are actually quite minor. They all observe the Sabbath starting Friday at sunset until Saturday nightfall. They all avoid mixing dairy with meat. They all observe Passover, Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. They all wear Tefillin. They all wear the Tallit. They all put Mezuzot on their doorposts. They all pray the Amidah and say the Shema in the morning and the evening. The differences are only in details, like the direction they wrap the straps of the Tefillin, the pattern of stripes on the Tallit, small stylistic differences in the writing of the Mezuzot, and so on. In this template, splitting hairs like this is not useful and is WP: UNDUE.

More importantly, all these Jewish communities consider each other part of their own people. For example, the Italian Jews gave refuge to and redeemed Jewish captives the crusaders brought back from the Holy Land, see above from E. Judaica. The Rambam gave instruction to Yemenite Jews via correspondence from Egypt. Ashkenazic Jews today study the Italian Bartenura's commentary on the Mishna and Yalkut Meam Loez, a Midrashic work originally written in Ladino. The Sephardi Halachic authority Rabbi Joseph Caro wrote the Shulchan Aruch, on which the Ashkenazic sage Rabbi Moses Isserles of Poland wrote his notes and commentary, HaMapah. Similarly, in Avkat Rachel, Caro expresses his esteem for the Rambam the customs of the Yemenite community and urges his student to not interfere with their customs. The unity of the Jewish community despite their geographical distance is exceptional. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Endorse Closure of RFC Jews are a unique subset of people and in terms of slurs, should not be placed under a specific category, be it Asian or Black or African. They are Jews. When a slur is hurled at a Jew, it is not because of them being Asian or African, it is because of them being Jewish. That is quite different than when a slur is hurled at an Asian, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to add, that there is a distinction between the slurs. I am an American, I can be called a Fat American and I can be called a Jewish slur, same as with a African-American. If the slur is based on the color or religion, then it's not an American slur, but if it's based on where they live then of course it is. In the case of Jews, it is because of their religion, not the history of where they might have come from 1,000 years ago. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Outcome was reasonable given the arguments (and relative strength of) presented. Personally I think anyone who seriously thinks Jewish ethnic slurs should be categorized as 'Asian' despite a significant amount of both Jews AND the people who started/currently using the ethnic slurs not being in fact, anywhere near Asia, needs a break. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Only in death With all due respect, this makes no sense. Since when does residing in diaspora (Jews outside of Israel are called diaspora Jews for a reason) negate an ethnic group's identity?ChronoFrog (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse numbers and strength of arguments make this a reasonable close. Both Arabs and Jews are standalone and for similar reasons. Other than grouping them together (middle easterners?) nothing other than standalone really makes sense and the discussion more-or-less reached that conclusion. A "no consensus" close would also have been possible, but not useful. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
They were, in fact, both grouped as Middle Easterners before Electoralist went on his crusade.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
And I'd be fine with that too (personally) but it's reasonable to read the discussion to have consensus on the side of "stand alone". Though "no consensus to change" would also have been a reasonable close. Sometimes it comes down to admin discreteness. I don't think "Asian" was a possible reading of that discussion though. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
User: Hobit I agree with classifying them both as Middle Eastern. I would recommend changing your vote to reflect that if this is something you would truly back.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It's something I'd be happy with personally, but the question at hand is if the close reflected the consensus of the discussion. I think there were two possible closes that would be within discretion, "no consensus" and "standalone". The closer went with "standalone" which is, IMO, a reasonable reading of the discussion, so I must endorse. Hobit (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
There was no overwhelming consensus either way. There isn't one here either.ChronoFrog (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse It seems the most reasonable outcome. Slurs against Jews are based on their religion. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Doug WellerA great number of those slurs were ethnic in nature, so this is not true. Also, as the sheer volume of RS raised in previous discussions demonstrates, Jews are an ethnic/nation group, not a faith. One can be an atheist, an agnostic, or even a Buddhist and still be recognized as a Jew.ChronoFrog (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I participated in the RfC after seeing the RfC notice, but I was not previously involved in the template page. I participated in the RfC over some time, responding to questions from other editors and also making some template edits that I hoped had been helpful and leaving a few unrelated suggestions on the talk page. I then took it off my watchlist, and was pinged to be aware of this discussion at AN. So that's my prior involvement. I observed that there was a real problem with the editing environment at the template page, and I ended up deciding that I should walk away because the editing environment was simply not worth my trouble (and I'm hardly an editor who shrinks from difficult editing topics!). The problem is that there is a very aggressive group of good-faith but inflexible editors who have extremely strong personal feelings about how the Jewish people should be classified, derived from their personal understandings of their own Jewish faith, and they are convinced that they are correct and that there must be no compromise over what is, in effect, divinely determined. When I came freshly to the RfC, my opinion was that the correct determination was what the close ended up being. And most of the other editors who came to the template page from the RfC notice as I did, also came to that conclusion. So that really was the consensus of editors who came to the RfC (as opposed to the editors who were already in the discussion before the RfC). But we were filibustered by editors who were convinced that they were right, based on things like their views that all Jews are really like citizens of Israel no matter where they reside, and should therefore all be classified as coming ultimately from West Asia. Just look at User talk:Deryck Chan to see what those arguments, and their verbosity, look like. The close was a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
One aspect you are ignoring is that one side (the side arguing in favor of Asian categorization) provided reliable sources. A ton of them, in fact. The other side posted a blog and not much else. I am hardly what you'd call inflexible, even on issues that directly impact me (like this one). My problem is that the arguments presented were weak and, in terms of the sources he did bring forth, WP:UNDUE. I also think you are ignoring the content of the arguments being made, which is part of the reason I brought this up with Deryck in the first place. So your characterization of those arguing in favor of Asian as intractable is highly unfair (especially in light of Electoralist's recalcitrance and immaturity throughout the whole ordeal). ChronoFrog (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Electoralist (talk) 5:55 pm, Today (UTC−7)
You really should take your own advice before hurling that accusation in my direction.ChronoFrog (talk) 6:12 pm, Today (UTC−7)
Ultimately, this is why I took it off my watchlist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Tryptofish Well, you did seemingly disparage our arguments ("but we were filibustered by editors who were convinced that they were right, based on things like their views that all Jews are really like citizens of Israel no matter where they reside, and should therefore all be classified as coming ultimately from West Asia. Just look at User talk:Deryck Chan to see what those arguments, and their verbosity, look like.") without offering any substantive reasons as to why they are wrong, or unencyclopedic, or not consistent with Wikipedia policy (it also seems as though you thought only one side was overzealous, which I find curious). My view is that if one does not wish to actually participate in the discussion and help us arrive at an agreement, they should stay out of it and not post drive-by "votes".ChronoFrog (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse - While there are 1 or 2 very loud voices among the minority who have pursued this on Deryck's talk page and at DRN in what I view as an attempt at WP:FORUMSHOPPING the criteria at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures for challenging the closure have not been met. The closure and consensus determination were sound and all we've seen since the closure is a rehash of the same arguments over and over again. Electoralist (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
I see that User:ChronoFrog (below) is again trying to reargue the RFC and is claiming the consesnsus has a lack of WP:RS in support. As has been discussed ad nauseum, Jews as a people have a complex ethnic and genetic history and it is incorrect to say they are a "West Asian" or for that matter European group due to the degree of admixutures. User:ChronoFrog refers to genetic evidence that Askhenazi Jews</