User talk:Chetsford
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 |
|
Messages from bots may not be preserved in the archives. |
DYK for Jaroslav Záruba[edit]
On 28 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jaroslav Záruba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jaroslav Záruba tricked a Waffen-SS unit into surrendering to the Government Army of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia by falsely claiming that British troops were advancing against Prague? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jaroslav Záruba. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jaroslav Záruba), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
David Lammy[edit]
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[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reconquista 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
DYK for 1937 dispute between Czechoslovakia and Portugal[edit]
On 31 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1937 dispute between Czechoslovakia and Portugal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a dispute over 600 machine guns led Czechoslovakia and Portugal to break off diplomatic relations for nearly 37 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1937 dispute between Czechoslovakia and Portugal. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1937 dispute between Czechoslovakia and Portugal), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 8,044 views (670.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work! |
GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2024[edit]
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
Technical news
- The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
- 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.
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024[edit]
Hello Chetsford,
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 Schminnte, 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 JTtheOG, 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
Onel5969 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. Hey man im josh 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[edit]
Hello. I'm here in regard to your closure of this RFC [1]. 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.[a] 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)
- 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.
Notes[edit]
- ^ Reality is socially constructed, in any case, and objective reality is unknowable.
DYK for Karl Loewenstein (banker)[edit]
On 8 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karl Loewenstein (banker), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that shortly after being liberated from the Theresienstadt Ghetto in 1945, Holocaust survivor Karl Loewenstein was sent to Pankrác Prison? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Loewenstein (banker). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Karl Loewenstein (banker)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
WaggersTALK 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 8,336 views (694.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work! |
GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Gendarmerie (Czechoslovakia)[edit]
On 12 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gendarmerie (Czechoslovakia), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that four members of the interwar Czechoslovak Gendarmerie were killed in action against the Sudetendeutsches Freikorps during the Clash at Habersbirk? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gendarmerie (Czechoslovakia). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gendarmerie (Czechoslovakia)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass 12:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Close of Mondoweiss RfC[edit]
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 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
:
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.
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)
- 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[edit]
On 13 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nancy Ross, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that just seven years after being elected to a local school board, Nancy Ross was a candidate for Vice President of the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy Ross. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nancy Ross), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.