User talk:Chetsford

Archives

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.

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)[reply]

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. TarnishedPath^talk 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

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)[reply]

		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!

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An
  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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

		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!

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)

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

.

Schwede66 12:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perfect, thank you very much. :)

May I ask two more questions?

1. How much time do I have?
2. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been a big help, thank you very much! :) FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]