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

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for closing the RfC on People's Mujahedin of Iran. I suspect it wasn't easy to go through all the material, so I just wanted to show my appreciation for your thorough evaluation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gracias, Yoninah! I'll make a note to more consistently clip newspapers.com references. Chetsford (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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#Place names, “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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Those sound like compelling arguments to make in an RfC. Chetsford (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Mhhossein,[1]Pahlevun,[2] Ali Ahwazi[3], Jushyosaha604,[4] Sa.vakilian,[5] and myself[6][7].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [8] 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 appeal 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 should be examined by a neutral party to ensure my close was not incorrect or in error. Chetsford (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]