User talk:Chetsford/Archive 30

Hideaway (U.S. Senate)
Hi, if you are able to view a Newspapers.com clipping, you should clip it and post it as open access. Considering that you are quoting those bombshell allegations against President Johnson and Congressmen keeping mistresses in their hideaways, you can assume that most readers would want to see the source. I clipped and formatted the Newspapers.com reference for you. Please do this in future. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling the clipping, Yoninah, but I'm not sure what's "bombshell" about a 30 year old story that repeats the historical consensus of Johnson's personal life. Chetsford (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it was news to me. BTW this is a really fun subject. There are a lot of books written on it, though most are only available in snippet view. I added a bunch of references. Thanks for coming up with these U.S. government themes. Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gracias, Yoninah! I'll make a note to more consistently clip newspapers.com references. Chetsford (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing at Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia
Hi. Thanks for closing the RFC.

Why is “longstanding usage” privileged, and which guideline does this follow? The guidelines and normal practice afford primacy to the main article title, Kyiv, as is stated, for example, in MOS:CAPS, “In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then. . .” (my emphasis). Historical usage is an exception.

And your comment about this being “consistent with the close of a related RfC” seems backwards. That other RFC is recommending an exception to the normal usage of the main-article title. Since the RFC showed no consensus favouring the exception, then the normal rule applies. Any privilege of “longstanding usage” was overturned by the consensus move to Kyiv, which led directly to that RFC and this one.

(Additionally, the article in question arguably does not meet the criteria of the other RFC, as it is in its terms neither an “unambiguously historical” nor “an edge case” since its scope explicitly includes the period after both 1991 and 1995, as stated in the introduction. It is a survey article that includes previous history to the present, like, e.g., History of Kyiv) —Michael Z. 03:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that should have read "we should privilege" (I accidentally dropped "should") and, as noted in the close, is not "part of the closing decision". The closing decision was no consensus and the rest a suggestion that editors can action or ignore at their discretion. I apologize if I imperfectly expressed that and will edit it to more clearly communicate the point.Insofar as WP:NCGN is concerned, it also sets out that "when a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it" which was the argument of the "Kiev" !voters. Your objections to that position should be made to them in the RfC. The closer's only role is to determine the strength of the arguments presented during the RfC, he is not an interlocutor in the discussion.
 * "It is a survey article that includes previous history to the present" That is, to me, inconsistent with the idea of something that is "unambiguously current" and is the very definition of an edge case. Chetsford (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks again.


 * FYI, in the Kyiv article move, both move and keep arguments cited common name, and the decision explicitly stated there are two common names, but Kyiv better met our guidelines and is favoured by a 2-to-1 majority of participants.


 * The “historical article” RFC gives one specific example of “unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro),” an article that begins with the largest section, a “History” survey going back to Russian-empire times. The RFC question is vague in some ways, but in this we have the very definition of current. —Michael Z. 16:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Those sound like compelling arguments to make in an RfC. Chetsford (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC closure
Thanks for taking the time to go through the RfC and closing it here. You said that only "three are opposed" to the proposal, but I count 6: ,, , ,, and myself.

Secondly, I feel the RfC was closed in the middle of a discussion (even though I know it was well past the 30 days). For example, on 27 November I argued that the original proposal's wording was contrary to MOS:WEASEL. I was hoping to get some responses to that, yet you closed the RfC on November 29. Would you please re-open the RfC and let that discussion conclude?VR talk 11:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This sort of pressure cast on the closing admin to either revert the decision or re-open the RfC happens each time a decision doesn't go their way. This RfC was reviewed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough closing remark on their decision, so it was closed properly and there is no need to re-open it. I'll spare the pinging of other voters from that RfC (which would turn this talk page into a horrid mess) and just point out to what Chestford suggested in the closing remarks: VR, if you want to propose a modification to the current consensus, then start a new talk page discussion (like the rest of us have been doing). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Without going through these one by one, the additional !votes you cited are ambiguously opposed to the proposal. For instance, Jushyosaha604 only clearly registered a !vote in favor of your alternate version without actually objecting to adoption of Stefka Bulgaria's proposal (in that case, they did critique Stefka Bulgaria's version by saying it "removed too much information" but many !votes, both in favor and against, contain extended narratives qualifying their !votes; the onus is ultimately the editor's to present their opinion in an unambiguous way, not the closer's to interpret !votes when their construction is so inscrutable as to conceal their gist). Because consensus is not a vote, but a means of incorporating all legitimate concerns, an editor who expresses nothing more than a glancing style note to the proposal may be unsatisfied with the outcome of the RfC if their actual intent was absolute objection. The RfC ran 30 days and, while that is not a hard stop, it's sufficient time if discussion has come to a natural conclusion. At the time of close, there had not been an original !vote for five days. You can appeal the close per WP:CLOSE. Chetsford (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that consensus is not a vote, which is why I think that the lack of votes in the past five days should not be the factor for determining whether the RfC had concluded. I'm sure you'll agree that there was still active discussion (between four users) at the time of close - why not wait for that discussion to conclude before closing? Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE, right? Secondly, you mentioned but a means of incorporating all legitimate concerns. I did raise concerns about accuracy of the text proposed and there seems to have been no response.
 * I'm not asking you to change the result but kindly requesting re-opening the RfC so that concerns raised can be adequately discussed.VR talk 17:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There was active discussion, however, my reading of this discussion, combined with the absence of new participation in five days, was that it met the standards for closure per WP:CLOSE: "the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing". You are free, however, to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages under a new heading. However, while your point about WP:DEADLINE is well taken, the RfC is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog. I also should note that, in response to the OPs 21 November 2020 request for closure, one of the editors involved in the ongoing discussion you described in your last post made a comment that didn't raise any objection to that request and, in fact, added a preference for who, specifically, the closer should be. This seems to indicate to me that the participants in the discussion you'd like to continue within the RfC are not even, themselves, keen for its continuance.
 * That said, you can challenge the close as stated above. Not only would I not be offended if you did so, I would — in fact — encourage you to do that. You've raised points regarding the close that, while I disagree with, do have merit and may benefit from examination by a third party to ensure my close was not incorrect or in error. Chetsford (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so open, I really appreciate it. I noticed that in your closing statement you talk a bit about WP:DUE-based arguments, but you didn't seem to mention accuracy concerns or WEASEL concerns that I raised. Was it that you missed those comments or a different reason? I'm only asking this because I miss others' comments all the time! VR talk 03:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not realistic to provide an exhaustive closing rationale to every single point raised in a multi page RfC. The close would take longer for the closer to compose than it took a dozen editors to argue out the RfC. I can definitively say, however, that I won't reopen the RfC absent a consensus to do so at ANI. Since you've raised what seem to be GF concerns I strongly encourage you to lodge a close challenge there. But there's nothing more I can do here, I'm afraid. Chetsford (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Chetsford for putting time on that long discussion. You said you won't re-open/revert the closure but I need to raise some points because I still think the are some important points to raise. Specifically, I believe the fact that the coverage should be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" is not taken into account. The amount of sources endorsing A and those endorsing B should be considered not only for determining the ratio of A/B but also for the weight paid to A and B separately (both 1/10 and 10/100 have same values in mathematics but the story is different here. So the claim that the cult claims are still in the page is not helping with this discussion). The other important point is that VR's proposal is effectively undermined here. This was an inseparable part of the discussion that had to be considered. Btw, I am seeing at least two users who were explicitly saying the RFC was at odd "with the spirit of Wikipedia policy". Also, for a page which is baffled with an unusual presence of pro-MEK users and according to an admin socks were always there to defend the subject, head counting is never a suitable option. That said, it's hardly the case "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it" because substantial weight is expected to be given to those who were backing their DUE claims by providing specific citations accompanied by showing the the prominence of each source. That's why I believe the concluding remark, i.e. "Arguments advanced by both "yes" and "no" editors were equally compelling and virtually every comment cited a relevant policy and made a logical argument as to why policy supported their position" is not accurate. -- M h hossein   talk 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, if you want to raise some points about aspects of the RfC, you should do it in the article's talk page where other involved editors have a chance to respond. You recently removed a lot of information from the article about a disinformation campaign against the MEK, and admin said "this article is already overburdened by details about allegations and counter-allegations by both sides, making it an unreadable mess. All of you really ought to be looking to trim this using summary style, not bloating it further (and I mean all; there is bloat in material of all POVs here)." In that RfC I proposed a summary of the overwhelming details all repeating the same redundant thing, and per WP:DUE, we have kept the major points and reduced redundant details. On your other point, VR's proposal was not undermined; it was taken into consideration and it did not received consensus. That it was "at odd with the spirit of Wikipedia policy" is nonsense. Also, your continued baseless accusations of "pro-MEK" users and "socks" is WP:BATTLEGROUND. You yourself asked for this RfC to be closed by an experienced admin; and that's just what happened here. Move on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done at Trump
Hi. This was an improper response. Even if they had provided RS, it would have been an improper use of the edit request facility, which is only for uncontroversial changes or changes that already have consensus. It's not a substitute for the "New section" link at the top of the article's talk page. In my view it's important to be clear on this point. I've added my own "not done" there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mandruss - I'm not going to get hung-up on style when responding to patently ridiculous edit requests. While WP:ERREQ provides specific guidance for accepting edit requests, the rejection of requested edits to semi-protected pages is left to editors to "use their judgement to respond appropriately". Per WP:COMMONSENSE, responding to a drive-by IP editor who is obviously just here to let off steam does not demand a particular form or template. This was an appropriate response; there is obviously (I hope you are aware) no RS to verify the edit the IP editor sought to make. But you are welcome to nonsensically add your own "not done" after my "not done" if you have time to kill. Chetsford (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your dismissive and imperious response, per the best Wikipedia tradition. And thanks for your permission. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome. Let me know if you need anything else. Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Add sarcastic. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news
 * Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Hideaway (U.S. Senate)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open
G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports
Could you weigh in there if you have a chance? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Marquardtika - FYI here Chetsford (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism
Hi. Can you maybe tell me what the persistent vandalism is that you refer to here? I have not seen it. Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D - you're right. I had multiple tabs open on my computer at the time and was looking at the edit history of the wrong page. This page protection request should have been declined as a content dispute. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'll remove the protection now. Chetsford (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. And that editor seriously tried to game the system by asking for page protection? After I noted my difference by bringing it to the talk page? I would appreciate your weighing in on the content dispute. And watching the page. (He, for example, thinks it is non-notable how the candidate views himself .. not a point to die over, but suggestive of some non-wp thinking). I don't see an edit war at this point, but given the request .. I'm concerned. --2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * From the (very) limited amount I've read of the discussion, I think all sides seem to bring valid points to the table and I'm probably not the best person to referee them. You may want to open an WP:RFC to resolve a content dispute if the two of you are the only ones active on the article and find that you're at an impasse. Chetsford (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sounds life-destroying, actually. But if need be .. Thanks for taking a look. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. It still appears to be protected. 2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, technical error. Should be fixed now. Chetsford (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)