User talk:Chetsford/Archive 41

DYK for Jaroslav Záruba
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

David Lammy
Good close. I had the RfC opener approach me on my user talk requesting I close, but I wasn't going to touch that with a mile long barge pole. TarnishedPathtalk 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note ... I normally try to avoid contentious topics because there's never a way to come out on top, but that just seemed like it was going to fester. (Though I'm sure there'll be a close review by this time tomorrow!) Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Reconquista&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 1937 dispute between Czechoslovakia and Portugal
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kbdank71 · Kosack · NrDg · TLSuda

Guideline and policy news Technical news Arbitration Miscellaneous
 * An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
 * The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes.
 * An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
 * Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC close
Hello. I'm here in regard to your closure of this RFC. As far as I'm aware, RFC closure takes more into account strength of the arguments rather than quantity of votes (especially given the contentious topic area and possible canvassing) - I think this RFC was an evident case that the former principle should be upheld when closing, and I'll further explain why: In my vote, I have posted multiple reliable sources that state ethnic cleansing, but there are so much more sources that I could not include in the vote because it would've been a huge wall of text. I'll email you a full pdf list of sources if you don't mind, please examine them (download link expires in 3 days). As you can see, there is a clear consensus among WP:RS such as international experts (IAGS, Genocide Watch, Laurence Broers, Lemkin Institute, including multiple former UN or ICC officials: OCampo, Hasmik Egian, Juan Mendez, and many other sources), multiple statements saying that ethnic cleansing has occurred, and there isn't really anything disputing them which is important - we cannot discredit something so largely stated by experts in dozens of sources if it's not even disputed.

I think the RFC closure should be revised, please take a look and the list and let me know what you think, I implore you to consider your decision. Have a good weekend! Vanezi (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Vanezi - thank you very much for your message. Give me a bit to review your concerns and I'll respond shortly. Chetsford (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Vanezi - to summarize the close, the "remove" side cited WP:CONTENTIOUS, which is policy, while the "keep" side asserted that the term 'ethnic cleansing' is, indeed, widely used so inclusion is consistent with policy. Per WP:NHC "The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument." Taken to its logical conclusion, it is not the job of the closer to determine -- in the absence of an established metric -- if the label is actually universally accepted or not, rather this is the community's responsibility. While the "keep" side established that sources do, in fact, exist that refer to the event as an "ethnic cleansing" it did not argue if four, fourteen, forty, or four hundred sources constituted "wide use". Since the "remove" side admitted that some sources used the term "ethnic cleaning" but that these sources do not, collectively, constitute "wide use" the burden shifted to the "keep" side, not simply to pepper more sources into the argument, but to establish how X# of sources met the requirements of CONTENTIOUS. It did not do so.
 * You write "we cannot discredit something so largely stated by experts in dozens of sources if it's not even disputed". Again, the "keep" side only established that sources exist that stated it. When challenged by the "remove" side on whether those sources constituted "wide use" it failed to adequately respond. Further, as I explained in the close, Grandmaster essentially advanced an argument based in our WP:FRINGELEVEL guideline; the absence of sources specifically criticizing the use of "ethnic cleansing" is not proof of wide acceptance of the term "ethnic cleansing". Just because the New York Times didn't yesterday print an article establishing that the planet Mars exists, is not proof Mars has ceased to exist.
 * Finally, you emailed me a PDF of sources you've curated. First, as per above, the mere existence of sources is insufficient to prevail on a question of policy. The existence of sources coupled with a determination by the community that this quantity constitutes "wide use" is needed. As of now, the community appears unwilling to accept X# as constituting 'wide use". Second, a close can't be overturned on the basis of arguments or information presented after the close occurred through private communication (though, that information might form the basis of a new RfC). As the closer, I don't act as a judge of objective reality. I merely exist to evaluate the arguments presented in the RfC.
 * In the close, I wrote: "Per WP:DETCON 'Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.' ... [t]herefore, in my opinion, there is a consensus not to include "Ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" in the infobox" After reviewing your concerns, I don't feel comfortable reversing the close.
 * That said, I would encourage you to ask for a close review at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This was a close discussion and may benefit from wider input. Chetsford (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll ask for a review at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE soon, thank you. Vanezi (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Karl Loewenstein (banker)
Wag</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Gendarmerie (Czechoslovakia)
Gatoclass 12:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Close of Mondoweiss RfC
I think your close was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted. I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as you noted, neither provided any direct reasoning: The only indirect reference to policy is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and you discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really divine[] what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what past statements the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that Mondoweiss should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.
 * Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.
 * voorts - I think you raise some good points and, while I'm not convinced by them, this was a difficult close and I would encourage you to make a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as it may well benefit from wider input. I also agree that the discussion about BLP was not elegantly advanced, however, our closing standards don't require editors to have invoked magic words if it's otherwise apparent to what they're referring.By my count FortunateSons made two WP:BLPFRINGE arguments in separate comments, one in the survey and one in discussion. While their second comment prompted an elaborate response, the respondent did not address the BLPFRINGE issue. In addition, Chess also advanced a BLPFRINGE argument that was not only unrebutted, but unaddressed (his first !vote imperfectly cited WP:FRINGE by referencing "extremist" and he, subsequently, underscored what his intent was in initiating the entire RfC: "I'd rather get consensus before I start ripping citations to it out of BLPs..."). Again, while Chess' feedback was widely discussed, no interest was taken by other respondents to address the BLP side of the equation.In this case we have two arguments by two different editors that are not only unrebutted but, in fact, unaddressed. In both cases the arguments were not obscure or buried in the discussion. One was advanced by the RfC initiator and the other was part of a comment that prompted a response (but one that avoided the BLP issue). Because our policy on BLPs mandates "a high degree of sensitivity", for me to ignore two unchallenged arguments in this exhaustive discussion would be an apathetic close and, therefore, insensitive.While BLPFRINGE is a guideline, it is one that exists only to inform the consensus application of a policy (BLP) and is therefore part of the "spirit of Wikipedia policy" by which consensus is determined.As the divination of consensus requires the closer to determine "the sense of the group" and the group chose not to object to this argument on any of the three occasions it was presented, my understanding is that the group's sense is, at best, one of agreement and, at worst, one of ambivalence (which, as used here, is a derivation of agreement; an agreement not to argue the position). Chetsford (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I have opened a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Nancy Ross
 Schwede 66  12:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the protocol of MW RfC closure discussion
Hello :)

I am unfamiliar with the rules in such a case, would you be willing to help: as I am actively involved in the discussion (and not an admin), I am nevertheless permitted to explain my position there, right? Should it be policy-based only, or can/should I clarify my vote as well, should issues regarding interpretation arise? FortunateSons (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * FortunateSons - you can leave a note in the "Involved" section (since you participated in the RfC) of the close review thread indicating your position. Generally, participants will opine "Endorse close" (to sustain the close) or "Revert close" (to reopen the RfC). You are also free to leave a short explanation as to your !vote. It's usually expected any explanation will focus on deficiencies (or lack of deficiencies) in the close rationale, as opposed to rearguing the actual RfC. Chetsford (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you very much. :)
 * May I ask two more questions?
 * How much time do I have?
 * Assuming I would like them to consider the question of the content of the discussion being closer to gunrel than no consensus (with all due respect to you as the closer, of course), do I have to request that specifically, or is that done without suggestion?
 * FortunateSons (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hard to say precisely but I think if you registered an opinion in the next week or so you'd be safe. "Assuming I would like them to consider the question of the content of the discussion being closer to gunrel than no consensus (with all due respect to you as the closer, of course), do I have to request that specifically, or is that done without suggestion?" I'd suggest you !vote to Revert the Close in that case -- in doing so, you may (though it's not necessary) want to explain that you believe it should have been closed as Unreliable (this might rapidly get confusing to whomever has to close the close review, otherwise). Chetsford (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have been a big help, thank you very much! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Am I wrong (as in conduct, not content) with the way I made my argument there? If so, I’m happy to fix it. Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Shearer
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

An odd close
Hi, you closed Talk:COVID-19_pandemic. The RFC was not at all contentious and I seek clarification:

1. It appears to me you miscounted, I see 7 editors in favor of inclusion of the content or striking down consensus. One of them is a comment, but I think the position of the editor is clear. Were you implying the comment "I believe the article should be able to mention lab-related theories when necessary" (located in the polling section) was a vaguewave? Or were you referring to the various oppose comments as vaguewaves? (there were a few)

2. I see only one editor in the oppose camp that explains why they oppose stating: "Recent coverage, to my understanding, has if anything pushed the theory further towards the fringes." The other editors oppose saying 'there was a recent RFC'. Another oppose editor states: "There has been no argument presented her for overturning the previous RfC other than the content is in the article which it shouldn't be." However, note this position is refuted by my statement: "This is obvious as the theory is now mainstream and while controversial, the likely cause of the pandemic according to a large number of RS." I make this statement in polling section as to my understanding I cannot make such a non-neutral statement in the RFC itself, so I make it in the polling. Thus this editors position is also false and ignores the RS. So by my count we have 7 vs 1 after removing the vaguewaves. Correct?

3. In your close you highlight your flawed RS argument stating "That said, since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument" missing the wikilink that I put in "Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" Here you failed to see that there was a wikilink to an article that contains a couple hundred RS as well as a reference to an RS (#34) on the article being discussed. In this manner you ignored that there was either one RS, or potentially hundreds of RS, depending on how you want to look at it. Either way, your statement "no actual examples of RS" is patently false.

4. In your close you seemed to argue there was some contention pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC", while a number of editors on the strike down side pointed to "equally plausible with a natural origin", "theory is now mainstream and while controversial", "the article should be able to mention lab-related theories when necessary". Why do you think that the comments editors contained discursive failures?

Barring a policy explanation (which you didn't provide) Closing_discussions explains you are more or less obligated to follow WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and it appears you did not. It appears that the only point of contention here in this discussion is if you count it 6vs2 (as you count it) or 7vs1 as I count it. I dont really see how splitting hairs of 6vs2 or 7vs1 is meaningful, as consensus was clearly reached. You have not provided a policy reason why you ignored rough consensus, please provide that.

Comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I noticed this questionable close as well and you summarize my concerns here too. Just a procedural note here that WP:CLOSECHALLENGE informs how this can proceed Jt. SmolBrane (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to have a run at CLOSECHALLENGE. I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying, but it probably would be more efficient, for you guys to just rerun the RfC and do better at it. As per the close: "... despite the fact that #14 remains the default position, it appears to be on perilous ground. Taking notice of sources off-Wiki, it's clear the Support camp could move a sustainable argument to overturn #14. They didn't do so here, and it's not the closer's job to remedy the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC. It's possible another RfC in the near future -- perhaps, even, the very near future -- may not be out of order. And, if given even a modest effort, it seems likely to me such an RfC may pass." You'll have to determine your own priorities in ascertaining the best path forward. Chetsford (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "I see 7 editors in favor of inclusion of the content or striking down consensus" I do not. I also see no evidence of your "7vs1" claim separately made. It doesn't matter, because this isn't a vote -- numbers are only indicative not definitive -- but I just recounted and came to 6-4 (with one of the minority being a vague wave) or, generously, 6-3-1.
 * "you are more or less obligated to follow WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and it appears you did not. It appears that the only point of contention here in this discussion is if you count it 6vs2 (as you count it) or 7vs1 as I count it" Correct. However, you seem to be mistaken that invoking the word ROUGHCONSENSUS transforms a discussion into a referendum. It does not. Per ROGUHCONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument". 
 * "You have not provided a policy reason why you ignored rough consensus, please provide that." I cannot respond to a question based on a false premise. A simple majority is not the "sense of the community". As you know, per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is not a majority vote... An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus." Your RfC sought to overturn prior consensus and did not receive wide support. You seem to misunderstand the close and are under the belief that it determined there was a consensus to maintain #14. It did not find that. It found there was no consensus to strike, and no consensus to sustain. The close was no consensus.
 * "Barring a policy explanation (which you didn't provide)" The closer doesn't argue policy. The closer evaluates the policy-based arguments (or lack thereof) made by the participants in the discussion. If a participant chooses not to assert a possible policy-based argument that might change the outcome, and no one else brings it up, then it's not used in the closing evaluation. It is not the closer's responsibility to evaluate the disposition of the discussion using his or her innate knowledge of policy but to evaluate the policy arguments the discussants present; to do otherwise would make the closer a party to the discussion and would, therefore, become an exercise of WP:SUPERVOTE.
 * "However, note this position is refuted by my statement" I appreciate, when we've put a lot of effort into a discussion, we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized. By word count, the close was already almost as long as the actual discussion. Certain functional realities of closing mean that only the most salient comments may get mentioned in in the close. Nonetheless, everything was noted in formulating the close, even if some comments didn't really warrant a textual analysis. Chetsford (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue here is:
 * 1. You suggest re-running the RFC. Why? A few of the votes you appear to have given at least double weight to in your count, the only justification to vote against they provided was that this was a repeat RFC.
 * 2. You now change your count of votes materially from your close, were you not counting correctly the first time or this time? Or did you not feel the vote counts to even be important, as you state the arguments were in your view poor, so you didnt bother to count them?
 * 3. "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized"...This misses the point completely, I didnt come here to your talk page seeking to feel heard. I am asking for an explanation why you stated in the close there were no RS, and you answer it by acknowledging that my provided RS wasnt recognized. I dont think any editor in the RFC made an RS argument as a justification for keeping the consensus #14, so why did you introduce that concept into your close? And when I ask you to justify it here, why are you not responding to that question (rather suggesting that I "feel shorted".) Wikipedia we do our best to keep our personal feelings out of it, so this is not an appropriate answer to assume that I am feeling shorted.
 * In summary you have admitted that you failed to properly count and also didnt recognize the RS provided. I think you should review your close given these two admissions. Dont you? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "You suggest re-running the RFC. Why?" As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14. The fact it closed as no consensus is indicative of the extremely poor invocation of policy by the "pro" side.
 * "A few of the votes you appear to have given at least double weight" ... "your count of votes" ... "you failed to properly count" - Again, as I said above, discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. First, any "count" is inferential, and not decisive. Second, even if it was decisive (it isn't), I frankly don't understand where you're coming up with the "7vs1" number you're mentioning. I'd modestly suggest this very thread suffers from the same argumentative defects that caused your RfC to to close as no consensus. In any case, I regret you don't feel satisfied by the close. I've reviewed it and decline to reverse. You may file a CLOSECHALLENGE. Chetsford (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Limited availability
Chetsford (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

About Covid close. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)