User talk:Goldsztajn/Archives/2022/May

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alisha Kramer
Hi Goldsztajn, I am writing to follow up about the policy basis for your close, and I am hoping you can explain which guideline or policy supports your closing rationale No convincing refutation that the preponderance of reliable sources only cover the subject in the context of the their relationship to a notable politician. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, would you consider relisting the discussion instead? This discussion only ran from 17:57, 4 May 2022 to your close at 00:15, 14 May 2022, and while the definition of close calls and controversial decisions seems open for debate, there appears to be a lot of dispute in the AfD over how to interpret the applicable WP:BLP guideline, so it seems better for an admin to close this discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Beccaynr. In terms of process, I emphasise, I have only looked at the discussion itself and drew a conclusion from that.  WP:INVALIDBIO was a strong argument. But added to that, I think the counter-factual argument (would this person have an article not for their marriage?) gave the redirect argument substantially more weight. Neither the INVALIDBIO nor the counter-factual arguments were directly refuted by detailed source analysis (as against vague waves) which is what would have been required to counter-refute them (if possible). Further, the specific examples of other spouse-redirects were convincingly applied as similar in this case. I hope this gives you further indication of my reasoning and I'm happy to discuss further if you need.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr I was typing my reply and now see you've made a second reply asking for a relist. Would you have a look at my note and confirm your request, please?  Kind regards Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, Goldsztajn, and I continue to think a relist and allowing an admin to close the contentious discussion would be appropriate under the circumstances - my concern is about a basis in our guidelines to ask would this person have an article not for their marriage? because WP:INVALIDBIO specifically rules that counter-factual argument out if significant coverage exists. Also, WP:OSE arguments are part of WP:AADD, and I am concerned about how those examples, that appear to be used to argue an exception to WP:GNG, could be considered per WP:INVALIDBIO, which only asks whether significant coverage exists. The guideline appears concerned with bare assertions of notability based on a relationship to a more-notable person, when there is no significant coverage of the individual, not with creating a subjective exception to WP:GNG. There are several current AfDs that discuss this issue, with e.g. (in the Marty Kemp AfD) and  (in the Anne Geddes AfD) commenting on it, and I have pinged them because maybe they could offer us some additional perspective. I also disagree that there was a detailed source analysis in this discussion, and I would have added one if a relist message suggested it would be helpful. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Beccaynr ✅. While I disagree with your analysis, however, I certainly acknowledge this is not without ambiguity, and as a NAC it is perfectly fair to request a relist and an admin close on the basis of, disagreement or not, what I accept as a reasonable argument. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the relist, Goldsztajn. I appreciate your consideration of my comments, especially because I have been concerned about how well I have managed to communicate on these issues (I recently injured my arm and hand in a hi-larious umbrella accident so I have been typing through a fair amount of pain lately). Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GAR
Hi! A bit over a couple weeks back you mentioned your willingness to review Sumitro Djojohadikusumo's GAN - are you still planning to continue it? Juxlos (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Juxlos - I'll be able to get to it this weekend. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)