User talk:Avraham/Archive 57

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Avraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1

10

20

←

Orphaned non-free image File:Rabbi-Aharon-Lichtenstein.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rabbi-Aharon-Lichtenstein.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not being used, so fine. -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about 1-Revert per day

User:Avraham, Shalom. I wanted to ask you about the rule of one-revert per day in Wikipedia articles. If I made an initial edit on the West Bank article, and someone came along and moved the edit into a different section, am I permitted within 24-hours to make my first revert to the other editor's change, and restore my edit to its original place?Davidbena (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Aleichem Shalom, @Davidbena: Technically, yes, since a "revert" by definition is changing to a previous edit, and this would be your first restoration. Of course, that person could exercise their single revert as well. If you think you're about to enter an edit war, it's always safer to post links/diffs on the talk page and handle it there. -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll revert the edit and see what happens. If all comes to worse, I'll discuss it in the Talk Page.Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

For Your Information: A discussion has already begun on this edit in the West Bank Talk-Page. You're courteously invited to inject your opinion.Davidbena (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Murmelstein

Hi Avi. Could you chuck a shufti at this article,Benjamin Murmelstein. I woke to see a notification on my page that I had engaged in a copyright violation, by using sources I always use for these articles. Felt as if I'd been behaving with criminal license. I know how to write stuff up - but I know nothing of these details. It does seem extremely odd to wipe out all sources I used. Sorry for the bother. I.e. I introduced 7 sources, one of whom is Lilla, cited in paraphrase 6 times, and with a short quote once. Lilla seems to be the objection, but the template has 'disappeared' all the other work. Nishidani (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Avraham, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Avraham. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Your work here is greatly admired by me. Yo have done a lot for the community and the world. You strictly deserve something more than this which I am currently unable to find! Thank you so much! Varun FEB2003 11:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Slouching into semi-retirement?

You're certainly entitled, if you really are. But I just wanted to say גמר חתימה טובה to you. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

וכן למר! I'm not sure how far back I'll pull but it isn't the same as, let's say, 10–12 years ago. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I remember seeing you regularly on WT:JUDAISM. Participation there isn't what it used to be 8 years ago. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly isn't. Not jumping into full retirement just yet, but recognizing my priorities are somewhat different now than 10 years or so ago. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Mishnah what?

Regarding this edit. True that most people say "Bruro" or "Brura", but "Vruro/Vrura" is grammatically the correct form. Debresser (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Debresser:. I made the change based on two points. Firstly, we use the most common name, I believe. No one I know uses "Verurah," no one. Secondly, if you really want to be picky and use dikduk you have to consider it a two-word pasuk and then tiferes ha'kriah would almost certainly force the tipchah under Mishnah so the Beged Cefes rule dropping the dagesh kal would drop due to psik. -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the latter point, but since I agree with the first, and the same is true of other combinations like "Lekutei Torah", not "Lekutei Sora", I have no problem with it. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If we're going to be fussy about it, it should be Berurah (and even with a vet, Verurah), because the vowel under it is unquestionably sheva na. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

For those of us who try to differentiate chirik maleh, chirik chaser, and shva na when we layn or daven, it should be Mishnah B'rurah or Mishnah Bərurah. But now we're getting a bit too nitpicky

. -- Avi (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Chirik maleh and chirik chaser are the same in my vowel palette. Kol hakavod to you! StevenJ81 (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:HD#‎Runway Length at Cherokee County Airport in Ball Ground GA

Curious, why the oversight? If I remember rightly, it was only the person's title, office phone number, etc. — yes, it's the kind of stuff we routinely replace with {{redacted}}, but if my memory's correct, it was basically just what you can find at https://www.ssaviation.us/about-us. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Now that we have suppression, which is reversible, I err on the side of caution and protection. This person used his/her proper title and phone number which is eligible for suppression. Should they wish it reversed, or should another OS/ArbCom disagree with my decision, it can be easily remedied. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Avraham.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Avraham. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Infringement on WP:Due in article: Bayt Nattif

User:Avraham, can I please ask you to revert the recent edit in the article Bayt Nattif? The recent edit should be reverted for the reason of infringement of "undue weight" (WP:Due), which in a nut-shell states that since this article in its larger context deals with a village, anything that moves away from the general view by directing our readers' attention to a subsidiary issue of Palestinian-Israeli relations and how others on the outside might view this issue, is, by nature, bringing a distantly related side-issue into the picture; the suggested edit would, in fact, steer us away from the main agenda, namely: describing a village and its history. Any reference to a person's personal feelings resulting over the current political situation in Israel, or else over Arab-Israeli relations, or over events that transpired in the country 68 years ago, with a view to discredit one side, especially as they are seen by outsiders, would be giving undue weight to this article and to its primary theme, viz. a general description of a village that was once settled by Jews, and later by Arabs. (BTW: The suggested edit, can, in fact, be added to a different article that treats specifically on the Palestian-Israeli issue and how it plays out in relations with the outside-world).Davidbena (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I dont really have a problem with Avi looking at this, but this sort of message really is not appropriate. See WP:CANVASS. But Avi, since you are well respected by all involved, feel free to weigh in without regard for the canvassing. nableezy - 17:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Look again at canvassing policy. This has nothing to do with voicing an opinion, but rather with upholding Wikipedia policies.Davidbena (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ill leave it to Avi to say anything else about this, but you specifically asked one editor to revert an edit at a page you are disallowed from performing another revert at when you made that request. That is without question a violation of WP:CANVASS. You cannot ask a specific audience to make specific edits. nableezy - 19:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reporting a violation of policy is not limited to any time-frame or restriction.Davidbena (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I think, as I mentioned on the talk page, a mention of it on the page is appropriate. I did pare it down a bit (I removed the part about Beit Shemesh since from the article it said that RBS-Gimmel is built on lands north of BN, so not sure why it's in there). I also put ethnic cleansing in quotes since that is a quote. Other than that, I think it is fine as it is now. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

A man who was honored by Israel, but whose son dislikes Israel, should not be a subject of discussion on a site that speaks about a Jewish and Arab village. It is a flagrant violation of ethical behavior, not to mention a violation of WP:Pov.Davidbena (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as a matter of curiosity where is it stated that the son 'dislikes Israel'? Most of what we know of these tragic events comes from Israelis, who haven't renounced their citizenship or rejected their homeland. You might do well to refresh your learning with a rereading of the Apologia of Socrates or for that matter the Antigone of Sophocles, where, in the Hegelian reading, there is a conflict between the claims of kinship feelings, and the rights of the state. You are saying Creon (Israel) has a higher right over the disposal of Antigone's brother's remains than she does.Can a (foreign) state arrogate a superior right over the memory of an alien than that alien's own family? Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion should be continued on the relevant Talk Page; not here. Hopefully, an administrator will voice his opinion on whether or not the edit is in keeping with Wikipedia's stated objectives, policies and goals. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite so. You put Avi in a difficult situation: by raising the question on his page (the same thing has happened to me when I was canvassed by pro-Palestinian editors: if canvassed, I cannot respond) you automatically denied him the opportunity to intervene autonomously, which was not to be excluded Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I would humbly think that one is permitted to solicit the immediate help of an administrator when one feels that there has been a violation of Wikipedia's policies.Davidbena (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

When one believes there was a violation of Wikipedia policies on an article, and the talk page isn't generating a response, the best step probably is to create a section at WP:ANI and ask for help there. Do that first, so everyone has a chance to see it. You can then raise the issue on various project talk pages and to people open to friendly notices. It isn't unreasonable to raise a point with people whom you know are interested, but we should do everything we can to ensure that the attention provided is fair. I'll look at the article and provide an opinion on the talk page. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat chat

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat

I would be grateful for your input in the above discussion. Many thanks, WJBscribe via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Avi, do you have a link to the 2015 discussion where the RFA consensus bar was lowered? I would like to (re)read it. Thanks. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

(stalker) @Useight's Public Sock: I think you are looking for Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#C1:_Expand_discretionary_range_to_65.25. FYI: On that matter my interpretation is mostly literal to the RFC close: This changed the low bar for what constitutes the 'crat discretionary range - but does not change the definition of a 'consensus' (which doesn't have a numerical value anyway). — xaosflux ^Talk 19:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. And, yes, that is better wording. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the stalk, Xaos 8-) -- Avi (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for your well-reasoned, thoughtful closing of the recent ANI discussion based on consensus and policy. What a polarized discussion (and one so lengthly that it seemed unapproachable), but you exemplified the levelheadedness of bureaucrats on Wikipedia. Appable (talk \| contributions) 05:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! -- Avi (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI close

Hello,

I saw your recent close on ANI. While I agree with the vast majority of it, I would like to suggest one small change. Instead of deleting all of the bad BLP articles that have not been checked after 1 week, could we perhaps move them to the draft namespace (without leaving a redirect)? Speaking from experience from the Neelix cleanup, the vast majority of all articles are going to be deleted under your close without being looked at. Moving to draft space allows anyone to simply move the good ones back.

Thanks for your consideration, Tazerdadog (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Tazer. That's a good idea but I still have a concern. If we move all the articles to draft, we still have potentially thousands of BLP violations in some area of wikispace, the vast majority of which will likely not be reviewed for months if not years. As Wikipedia:Drafts#Speedy deletion says, BLP violations should not exist in draft space and should be speedied, so we really don't fix the problem. -- Avi (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at WP:BLPDELETE, it appears that deletion is the last resort for dealing with problematic statements in BLP's. The two preferable options are re mediating the content, or removing the problematic statement. I am asking you to let me and other interested editors try to do that before deleting the material.. The draft namespace is seen by multiple orders of magnitudes less people than the article namespace because search engines do not index the draft namespace. Aggressively removing BLP violations would be the first order of business at such a list, and would be done before checking notability and moving good pages back to mainspace. It is also worth noting that we can potentially save thousands of (stubby) articles which would otherwise be caught up in the process.

If keeping some BLP violations in draft space is still too big of a problem, a potential compromise solution is to undelete a couple thousand, have them checked for BLP violations, and then repeat this process until the full list is in draft space. I don't like this because it is annoying to the admins who will have to manage multiple mass undeletions and moves, as well as because it puts an unnecessary deletion and undeletion into the history of thousands of pages. Meow ever, it beats permanently deleting all of them. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest you start a new section on ANI with that suggestion? If enough people are willing to review the articles, I personally wouldn't have a problem with batch undeletion into draft space for checking. I'm afraid that moving them all into draft space without deleting will end up with thousands of unchecked pages. In your second suggestion, albeit more onerous and cumbersome, I conceive that the the volume of each batch will be smaller so that they can be checked in a reasonable amount of time. -- Avi (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I have started that section on ANI. Please feel free to add to it. Moving everything to draft space at once would leave unchecked articles in draftspace for quite a while. How bad this is depends on who you ask. If we did it in chunks, we can certainly manage the size so that each article can be addressed in a timely manner (say, a week). Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding on, (and obviously per the above barnstar I agreed with your ANI close and excellent analysis) one other clarification: in the close, you wrote: "these articles must be created in user space, and must be approved by either an administrator or a New Page Reviewer before being moved into main article space." The proposals I see are about a requirement to use draft space, so I wasn't sure if that was just a mistake or intentional. Appable (talk | contributions) 07:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether in draft or user space doesn't matter as long as it isn't main space. You'll have to excuse me, as an old-timer, this new-fangled draft space wasn't around, and we userfied everything. If draft space is more appropriate for article incubation, that's fine too. -- Avi (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that the draft namespace is generally preferred over an individual users userspace for article drafts in the hope that collaboration can occur there, and to dis incentivize "ownership" of drafts. Userspace userfications are still 100% permissible however.Tazerdadog (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So SvG can create his new (properly vetted and sourced) 2 articles a day in user or draft, whichever he prefers, but I'm still concerned enough to be leery of moving all of the thousands of existing and potentially grossly flawed articles to draft. -- Avi (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to sticking all of their BLP creations in Draft. As has been stated by multiple times by AFC reviewers, our backlog is already near the 1000-draft mark, and adding another thousand+ will only make the project unmanageable. I like the idea of "here's a list, pick what you want to save". As far as going forward - I have no issue with 2 drafts per day being created. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion by Tazerdadog is after deletion, to undelete them batchwise into draft, instead of one by one, and work on a group at a time. Tazer and those he/she work with also take responsibility for each batch, of course. I share your concern about moving all the thousands en masse into draft; there are way too many. -- Avi (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I would take responsibility for reviewing each batch I asked to be put into draft in a timely manner, and ensuring that there are no BLP violations in each group before I ask for another. I would not expect to send any drafts through the AFC process, so I should have no effect on that backlog.Tazerdadog (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur that this was a good close. Unfortunately SvG has decided to continue to retaliate against Fram today by going on a tagging spree on articles: [1]. This does not bode well. SmartSE (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, SmartSE. I've left a note on his talk, but technically, the close is being challenged at WP:AN, so I don't think the restrictions are in place, although I've counseled him to act as if they were both here and on his talk. -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI close

Hi, thank you for closing my ANI dispute. I have a few questions regarding the three parts.

Regarding to point 1

Does the first part mean I can't add info to no more than 2 (new and/or existing) BLP articles per day?

AND. You may materially edit or create 2 BLP articles per day. You may create them anew or edit existing ones. When creating anew, you must do so in user or draft space and it must be approved by an admin or new page reviewer before being moved into article space. No more than 2 articles per day may be either moved into main space or edited in main space. You may make as many edits as you need to your two selected articles, though. Especially for new articles, the more robust and the better sourced you make the article, the more likely you are to have it moved quickly into main space and the more you will rebuild the community's trust in you. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Does material edits also include adding (medal) templates?

I would think so, as templates make a difference. Non-material edits are things like grammar, punctuation, spelling. Nothing that changes tha article. Adding a template changes the article. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Does this also mean I can't edit more than 2 articles I already created?

If they are BLP articles, yes. This restriction also serves to prevent overloading the volunteers who have to check each article. Remember, after six months, if there are no violations, the two-per-day restriction drops but the potential blocking sanction remains. For that you need to get community consensus to have it removed. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Where can I submit, after having made two edits (on two BLP pages), other edit proposals?

I strongly suggest you do not. Part of the reason for this is to help you edit in line with policies and guidelines, and one of the major concerns shared by everybody was your tendency to not take the requisite time to review each article. Take the time. If you really have so much free time, try working in non-BLP space where you do not have any restrictions right now. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

When I created a page in my user space, where should I send it to/list it, to be reviewed?

Possibly AfC, possibly a friendly admin or NPR. Maybe once everything settles down ask on the pump or AN for advice on how to submit the articles. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding to point 2

As Fram is bullying me in everything I do, I think he will never be an uninvolved administrator.

Then Fram should not be the one to levy any sanctions on you directly, but must go through an uninvolved third party. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

But it is certainly not a good idea that SvG starts following Fram around and comes up with revenge edits/templating. The Banner talk 22:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, User:The Banner, and I've left a note to that effect on his talk page (below Giants2008 and above your section). However, as the close is being challenged I don't think the restrictions can be enforced, although I've counseled him to act as if they were for his own sake. -- Avi (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

He is quickly burning himself... The Banner talk 23:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding to point 3

When will this week start?

Once the current discussion at ANI ends. We're going to need to find someone to oversee this; perhaps contact some of the people discussing it on my talk page. As for the restrictions, I'd recommend starting them now to indicate good faith. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Is help from me appreciated in this matter?

In general, I'm sure it would be, but what did you mean specifically? -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Answers interspersed above. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

One thing that might be worth clarification is whether SvG can remove articles from the list to be checked over/deleted. It may not make sense to leave open the door for him to "claim" his own potentially-problematic articles. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No. He has lost control over those articles. He may make suggestions to others, but he cannot personally "save" any of them. -- Avi (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

SvG follow-up

Thank you for your thoughtful and sensible close to this massive discussion. Is anyone creating the list of articles to be deleted, and advertising it on project pages? Is anyone preparing to undertake the mass deletion? My instinct would be to bend the rules you defined a bit to say that all articles will be deleted from mainspace, but any that were first moved to draft space can be recreated. This is to forestall simple mass removal of huge blocks of articles from the to-be-deleted list. Keeping an article should take a couple of deliberate actions for that article, recorded in the article's history. I would also prefer, if possible, to rate articles in the list and remove lower rated articles faster, higher-rated articles slower. This would allow a bit more focus by reviewers. E.g.

Short articles (less than 300 DYK readable text characters) with just one source. Almost certainly little real value, so scrap them quickly to get them out of the way
Short articles not in an "inherently notable" category, based on Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Ditto
Other short articles: 2 weeks
Longer articles: 3 weeks

Something like that. I would like to help, but do not think I have access to the tools that would be needed. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the creation of a check-list can help. The Banner talk 13:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the kind words. I would think that within he volunteers who debated the issue so vigorously, we would find some people willing to take on this role. In my opinion, for whatever that is worth, the people willing to undertake this job can decide among themselves how to best perform it, so long as it gets done. I'd suggest that whomever agrees to take primary responsibility should set up a user subpage for co-ordination, including checklists and order-of-deletion as necessary. I don't have the scripting skills, but someone can probably write something which lists the articles Sander created. If not, there is always manual transcription from https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/?user=Sander.v.Ginkel&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=&limit=1000 or https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/?user=Sander.v.Ginkel&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=&limit=1000 although that may take a while. It's been about a week, so the mass deletion should take place soon, but if the team wants to spread it over a bit more time, that's understandable as long as it gets done. These are BLPs we are discussing, remember. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I made a start at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up. It needs a manager to make it happen though, and I do not pretend to have any managerial skills. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Avraham, you said that the mass deletions would "take place soon", but your closing statement said that the articles would be nuked a week after a list is created and prominently posted. This seems contradictory - am I missing something? Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Soon, as opposed to months from now. However, as these are all potential BLP violations, I'd like to see this process started and completed soon, if possible. Has the list been created? Is someone volunteering? -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm volunteering as soon as a list gets created. Given that nobody jumped to create the list, a post at WP:VPT might be in order. I have had sucess getting a list of Neelix redirects created there. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User:MusikAnimal has said he might be able to help, but has not made a firm commitment. I am torn between wanting a list that can be sorted by article size/category so salvagers can focus on articles that may have potential, and accepting a simple list of all BLPs, which will all be deleted. Articles on the more important subjects will be recreated in the natural course of things. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Sorry, I definitely can't commit to writing a script right now, but I did write a query to get the BLPs: quarry:query/15207. I will make no firm guarantee these results are 100% accurate, but at cursory glance it appears to be right. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: You have solved the main problem, which is really useful. I have uploaded the query result to User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/BLP 0. The query looks reasonable to me, a spot check on about 20 of the results showed they were all SvG BLPs, and the count of 16104 rows is about what was expected, so I for one am willing to use this as the basis for the mass deletion. @Tazerdadog:, @Avraham: Should I post a request for a script to add more data to the list at the Village Pump / Technical, or just go with this? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Great. How much extra time would you think it would take and what would the benefit be? If it isn't major, go with what you have. -- Avi (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I just don't know how much effort would be involved. Adding article lengths to the list seems like a simple script, using MusikAnimal's API. That would let us sort by size and check the longest ones. Adding selected categories to the list is probably a bit harder, but would let members of projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics check or at least userfy articles they think worth saving. From the spot checks, a surprising number of articles have had information added since SvG started them. Often the content is by an IP or single-purpose account, often unsourced, and quite often gives the impression that SvG's source supports the new content, although in fact it does not. Presumably much of this added content is by the subjects of the articles. Once in a while an article has been expanded with sourced content – that would be lost. Maybe it is just not worth worrying about. The great majority of the subjects are only marginally notable for a single event, if they are notable at all. The truly notable athletes almost all had articles before SvG got started. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not think we should bifurcate the articles into those with additions. The consensus was that these articles, as a group, are inappropriate, and it would take months to go through each and every one. Adding a size and maybe even category—if it can be automated and soon (this week?) is reasonable to allow project members to properly recreate articles in which they are interested at their leisure. More than that and we end up where we started. I'd say if you can get the length done this week but categories will take more than that, forget the categories. We're already a couple of weeks past the close. Thanks!! -- Avi (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you think that a single sourc]].e/single event athlete like Slim Zehani is non-notable? The Banner talk 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No. I'm saying the consensus was there were too many to identify prior to deletion and too much of a risk, so they should all be deleted and recreated properly. My personal opinion is irrelevant. -- Avi (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have processed 50 articles from that list, finding the majority to be presumed notable under WP:NSPORTS, and all but 2 to be free of BLP issues. I would appreciate if the community would quickly sanity check what I am doing, to make sure my reviews are within shouting distance of community norms. I'd also like clarification on one point. Many of the articles describe their subjects as former cyclists (or another sport). This was explicitly called out in the discussion as a BLP issue, but I'm not sure why. Should that phrasing be changed, and if so, to what? Also, @Lugnuts:, do you want me to start separating out olympic cyclists for your attention, and does anyone else want any special categories made? Tazerdadog (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: - Yes please, if that's OK. Thanks for your help with this. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog:, @The Banner:, @Lugnuts: This conversation really belongs at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up#Comments on approach, where others involved in the clean-up will see it. See also User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up#Saving an article from deletion. Basically, if you want to save them, move them to user space. Then review/fix at your leisure, and after the mass deletion move back to main space. You take responsibility for fixing BLP problems. But any fixes in main space before the mass deletion will be lost. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)