Archives

Old archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

		zOMG
		I, Hojimachong, hereby award UtherSRG A completely gratuitous zOMG barnstar, for being 110% awesome. Plus 1. --Hojimachongtalk

We have an article for Moustached guenon. Was that what you are referring to on your to do list as Mustached guenon? Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess and needs some work. So I put it on my todo list for when I can devote some energy to it. Looks like it was "fixed" by one of the Wiki Uni students. Now we need to fix their fix.... - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see.... I typo'd the name in my list and that caused your confusion. Now I understand. :) I've updated my list and have worked on the article some. Also, I've pointed User:An anonymous username, not my real name at the article and they said theymight work on it after they are done with their current project, little blue heron. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reopen the move discussion? A side has continuously stalled discussion in the hopes of a close to save them from having to justify their points, I went to one of their talk pages yesterday to get a response and am awaiting it. Could the discussion reopen until then? Both sides agree that the status quo is incorrect as the title does not fit the page's content. Some sort of change has to happen and it can't happen if closers continue to end discussion before anything gets resolved. Watercheetah99 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Watercheetah99: No. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is there a different recourse? Watercheetah99 (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Watercheetah99: Please read WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UtherSRG

Please can you explain how you assessed the consensus at Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani#Requested_move_25_September_2022? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides have good arguments for their case, but there is certainly no consensus for the move. Given that, my choices are then either "no move" or "no consensus". While effectively these produce the same results (the article(s) in question don't get moved, there is a different taste to the result. In this case, there is significantly more opposition to the move than there is support for the move, so I declared "no move". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

"significantly more opposition" sounds like a headcount. Did you evaluate the extent to which arguments were solidly founded in policy? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To some degree. However, I don't consider policy to be unmutable nor inflexible. If it were, we wouldn't need RM discussions; the closer would simply read the request, read policy, and make a decision without looking at any arguments. Further, these discussions, and results that don't fit 100% within policy (or rather results which align with arguments for/against moving) can be used as the basis of updating policy, either to clarify and refine policy as stated, or to reverse policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was kindof what I feared. A pile-on of votes which either ignore policy, or which make palpably absurd assertions, and the closer pays minimal attention to policy.

So the WP:LOCALCON of a largely irrational pile-on by inexperienced editors carries the day, contrary to WP:NOTAVOTE, and stable, long-standing policy is trampled on.

I couldn't be bothered with the drama of move review, but I am sad to see yet another example of Wikipedia's decision-making being dumbed down by a mob, and yet another admin who won't stand up to mob folly. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there were many who opposed who simply read and interpret the policy differently than you and some supporters do. That will always be the case for some policy. You felt "state funeral" was too precise, while others felt that "funeral" was not precise enough. From one perspective, a change would be against policy, from another perspective the status quo is against policy. From my outside view, both arguments have merit. At that point do I ignore all talk of precision, or do I let the majority have its way? There will always be such cases, as long as there isn't an explicit MOS policy to cover the specifics. Can you point to an MOS we have that covers this? The same argument goes for other policies that were cited in the discussion. As I said, policies are not unmutable, nor are the inflexible. I suggest that you work on a MOS that would cover this case explicitly, so that there isn't the wiggle room that policy allows. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is encapsulated in this part of your reply: You felt "state funeral" was too precise, while others felt that "funeral" was not precise enough (bolding added by BHG)

This is absolutely not about feeling. The scope of the titles can be assessed objectively, by examining what aspects of the topic would be in scope within one title but not the other. Almost none of the opposers were willing to do that.

So what we got was a refusal to apply reasoned assessment of evidence, and a closer who endorsed that refusal.

A change in the MOS won't fix this. The problem here is not the policy or the MOS; the problem is the deep cultural resistance among many Wikipedia editors and admins to applying intellectual rigour. In fact, "resistance" is probably an inadequate word, given the deep hostility and anger expressed by some editors whose unreasoned or perverse commentary was challenged.

We already have policy to cover this: 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". Arguments which ignore or reject policy should be ignored.

But instead of applying that policy, we have a culture in which rational debate is deprecated. Hordes of editors yell "Waaah!! Bludgeoned!" if their falsehoods are challenged. Discussions are closed by admins who don't even write one single word of explanation of how they weighed the consensus, and show absolutely zero sign of having systematically evaluated the votes.

This makes for cosy community cohesion, because users making unevidenced assertions which ignore policy and are demonstrably false face no reproach or sanction. That minimises drama, but this indulgence of irrationality and hostility to intellectual rigour is not a credible way to build an encyclopedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Good luck on the next move attempt. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the RM and notified appropriate WikiProjects. Good luck. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-opening it. But your comment[1] on the expected outcome was ill-judged. At best it's self-justification; at worst it's prejudicing the discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. That was wrong of me. Should I removed that portion of my comment? UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you made a mistake by deciding the RFC solely based on what the regular editors of the article want, which edit that article on a daily basis precisely because they have a specific POV, not because they "know what they talk about" any more than less involved editors. If you weren't sure on the decision because both sides had good arguments, the result should be 'no consensus' like the previous RFC. Maybe you should reconsider. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:505:ADD4:0:0:26FC:E831 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further, while I wouldn't do the same for all RMs (not an RFC, mind you, this was an RM...) this article explicitly prevents a certain group of editors from editing. Why would I allow folks who are excluded form editing have a say in how the article is titled? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how is your decision grounded in the policies of Wikipedia? The strength of arguments does not depend on whether editors do or do not edit a given article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please go read the header on the talk page. The article is under a strict Arbitration enforcement that prevents some people from editing the article. Given that, how could I put much weight on the opposition to the move, when none of the opposition have made edits to the article? I wouldn't do this for all articles, but in this specific instance, I feel justified in de-weighting the opinion of folks who have not made edits to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Maybe the users who opposed the change have not edited the article (I haven't checked it myself) but why do you think that they are ineligible for editing it? I think that the purpose of such discussions is to attract a wide range of views, not just from the editors who edit a particular article but also (and maybe especially) from others. Alaexis_¿question? 05:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because they've been around the block and seen all of the different varieties of puppetry, bad faith, off-wiki coordination and other funny business at work in conflict areas. In the context, that this thread was coincidentally started by an anonymous IP speaks volumes. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Alaexis_¿question? 12:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the courtesy of this notification. Of the 3 move reviews I'm involved in, this is the only one I was notified about. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UtherSRG, about the recent move discussion close – why did you move this page to Zayul County instead of Zayu County? As I pointed out in the discussion, "Zayu County" seems to be the most common spelling in modern English-language sources, and no one else contested this point. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for letting me know. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please revert the move then, or move the page to Zayu County instead? Or should I take it to WP:Move review? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was clearly not to move... Please change your close to match or I will be requesting a review. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, please Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, are you completely ignoring your obligation to either explain or correct your close? You are currently active and editing. You have until 7:30 at which point a review will be opened if you have failed to explain or reverse your close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. Let me process one thought at a time, ok? Have a little patience.

So, no, consensus is not the be all and end all of move requests. Move closers are expected to investigate. Folks who comment on the move request can state what they want, but they aren't necessarily correct. Further, I'd rather err on the side of matching other existing articles. As I stated in my closing comments, there are many more articles titled "X myth" than there are "Myth of [the] X". If we should move this article back to "Myth of [the] X" format, we should then move a large number of "X myth" formed articles to the "Myth of [the] X" format, and I can't justify that. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all? I am not satisfied at all by this explanation, it just makes me worried that you've made poor closes on other articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to your opinion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer: - I see you have a new friend. Do look at your talk page's edit history before you reply. They tried to soften their bite. didn't do a good job of it.... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yupp saw that one in the RC feed! Apparently didn’t do good job on that article as well! You must now read what they posted on Xplicit’s talk page if not already.. sigh.. I’m like.. 🤦‍♂️ — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 17:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cant... it's just word soup. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add some Indian masala to the soup 😋 Oh wait.. all of us involved with this one, except Xplicit(?) and you, are Indians - probably the joke and/or the soup might not turn out as good 😵‍💫 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it count that I had coconut chicken curry for dinner last night? XD - UtherSRG (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does if you liked the dish 😋 But if you don’t… talk to the hand 🧤 — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 08:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I have curry a few times a month at least, so.. yeah. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the party 🍾 — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 16:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yum! UtherSRG (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It seems that, until a couple of months ago, you had last been highly active in the community in 2012; when I saw a couple of your closures turn up at WP:MRV, I suspected something like that was the case. Let me start by saying: welcome back! We are glad to have you around and active again! We always have a need for more editors with lots of experience and passion for Wikipedia. That said, I regret to be the one to inform you that Wikipedia has changed a great deal over the past decade, especially when it comes to process; much about how we reach consensus is more formalized and bureaucratic than it used to be. In fact, expectations have changed so much that your experience from the 2000s is more likely to mislead you than help.

All of this is preface to saying: I want to encourage you to consider stepping back from administrative roles like closing discussions while you become acclimated to the community's new norms, as many actions and statements that may seem uncontroversial, even obvious to the point that you don't really even think about them, are likely to… rub people the wrong way. In 2018, Andrevan was essentially lynched for not understanding behavioral expectations after his own decade-long absence. Since then, the community has only become more and more prone to punishing administrators who it feels are too brusque or dismissive of other editors' concerns; among the recent victims, it's possible you recognize some names like RexxS, RHaworth, Geschichte, and Carlossuarez46. Nowadays, it is normative to escalate behavioral complaints directly from administrators' talk pages to the Arbitration Committee, and the current Committee will accept pretty much any case pertaining to the behavior of an administrator, so please don't be dismissive of the concerns people bring about what you have done. I would guess from the number of people who quit permanently afterward that having an ArbCom case about your behavior is a deeply unpleasant experience.

I want to be clear that I do not mean that as a threat. Everyone will be happy to give you time to adjust to today's expectations, and plenty of people are willing to give you further pointers, myself included. But editors will also be watching for signs that you are indeed acclimating, and are likely to react very poorly if it seems that you are unwilling to hear, consider, and accommodate others' concerns. Note that nowadays, administrators in particular are expected to respond to questions about their actions immediately and to be courteous while doing so (even if the person questioning you isn't courteous in turn); this, combined with the fact that your closure was, um… extremely odd from a modern editor's perspective, is why Horse Eye's Back was so agitated in the section above. I mention it because I imagine you didn't realize that either your closure, your delay in responding, or the tone of your response was inappropriate by today's standards, and there will probably be many more things like that. You will probably need to do a lot of watching and ordinary discussion participation to get used to how things have changed.

…anyway, I hope you can take all of that in the spirit I intended it. To be honest, I found writing all this quite awkward, but it would have felt wrong to see a potential problem and not say anything about it. Like I said, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them, although I wasn't around back when you were and can only help so much; I hope somebody who was, like Andrevan, can explain the differences better. And I want to conclude by reiterating that we are glad to see you return: while things today may look a lot different, everybody is here for the same reasons, and we are always delighted to cooperate with everyone who shares our passion for this encyclopedia. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't review UtherSRG's close though I recognize their name and believe they are a clueful user, but I mean, let's be very clear, I said and did some pretty stupid and wrong stuff in 2018, which I feel bad about, and I am confident I wouldn't make that same series of mistakes again in that same way at this point. However, it is good advice for any returning users who have been on a hiatus to tread lightly because there is definitely both a tighter standard for admin behavior as well as a more complex and formalized system of managing disputes and certain processes. Andre🚐 22:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have since reviewed 2 of UtherSRG's closes and I believe they should both be overturned. I suggest they review present-day community standards on consensus and how admins and other users can close discussions. Andre🚐 22:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had only reviewed the last 2,000 of UtherSRG's edits so I was unaware that they had recently returned, that does change the context immensely. I must note that within their last 2,000 edits I was able to put together a clear noticeboard case for a ban from closing discussions with a slightly less strong case for a lack of competence. Obviously I won't be moving forward with that. I would advise @UtherSRG: that most of your recent closes have major issues, you should consider perhaps taking time off from closing and reverting your closes. I wasn't around for the old wikipedia, it seems in many ways to have been a different beast where admins who behaved as Wild West sheriffs were needed. These days we expect admins to behave almost as elected officials/public servants in that they are completely accountable to the community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. It's sad that this is the state of the Wiki. But if this is the way things are, there's not much I can do about it. I'll step away from most of the admin-type work and stick to more ground-level efforts. No wonder every type of work requiring an admin has backlogs. Shame. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, its your behavior that is shameful not the state of the Wiki. The Wiki has never been better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. My actions were certainly not the best, I admit. However, it's also not good to have such backlogs of admin work that linger because of the need to tread so lightly. UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you look into it you'l find that the backlog is a result of us raising the standards for being an admin leading to fewer and fewer new admins each year. Some argue they've been raised too far but nearly everyone is in agreement that they were at one point way too low (not a personal attack but it is a fact that you were made an admin during that period) so there is resistance to lowering them again. If you look at a chart admin numbers increase until 2011 when they actually start a net decline which continues to the present Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised my inactivity didn't cause me to be demoted, frankly. I see that that was started in July 2011. Fascinating chart. Not just fewer new admins each year, but fewer admins overall each year, too. Anyway, I've agreed to step away from the eggshell activities for now. Would be nice if there were an admin mentor program of some sort, both for new admins, and for remedial lessons. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, true, and you are not the first person to raise that point. In general, however, the community has shifted from prioritizing doing lots of things quickly to doing somewhat fewer things well. Sometimes, this is attributed to how the large size of Wikipedia today means that expansion is less of a priority than maintaining and refining what it exists. This is no doubt simplistic, but I think there's a bit of truth there. I was going to point you to the essay "There is no deadline", but apparently the essay doesn't actually talk about the underlying philosophy (why there is no deadline), just applications, so I'm not sure how helpful it would be to you. (Maybe I should think about adding some of that.) Nevertheless, you will find that the sentiment is brought up fairly frequently, particularly when people are perceived to be too anxious to get something done.

One thing to note about backlogs is that things probably aren't as bad as they look. Although there are a lot of backlogs for relatively unimportant things (e.g., Category:Wikipedia non-free files for NFUR review) or things that are not easily dealt with (e.g., Category:All articles lacking sources), critical maintenance queues like AIV and RFPP stay relatively empty and even complex tasks that are important generally don't have to wait too long (e.g., Closure requests). Part of this is because lots of traditionally administrative roles have partially devolved onto highly experienced non-admins. There's lots of talk about how concerned or unconcerned we should be about the decreasing size of the administrator pool, but at the end of the day, it has not substantially impacted the work—at least not yet.

Regarding admin mentorship: while the potential benefits are obvious, the fact of the matter is that administrators don't return from long periods of inactivity very often and nowadays people aren't promoted without frankly excessive amounts of experience, so there isn't really enough need for a formal program. That said, if you want a bit of mentorship from another administrator, you can probably find someone willing to help by just asking around. (I don't know about their availabilities, but Ritchie333, Deepfriedokra and Bishonen jump to mind as very senior and especially approachable.) Heck, you might try dropping a note at WP:AN. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a helpful essay.

Pinging the suggested mentors to see if they have any desire... @Ritchie333:, @Deepfriedokra:, @Bishonen:.

So, I think I've learned this: Editors should be bold, admins should not. (Except for Drmies - j/k... you did that while I was writing this so...)

So, I probably closed about 50 RMs, and had 4 questioned. (Only three went to MRV.) I think my !Bold statement applies to at least 2 of those 4. The other two I have questions about. Two I closed as "move", the other two I did not. This is an open question to all, but particularly to @Compassionate727: for leading the "nudge Uther back on track" brigade, and @Horse Eye's Back: who seems to have delved deeper into my closures.

The first is BrownHairedGirl's RM to move a large handful of "Death and state funeral of X" articles to "Death and funeral of X". (See discussion above, which includes pointer to the RM.) Both sides of the discussion called out policies. Both sides argued that they were in keeping within policy, and that the other side was not. I saw that both sides had merit. In the follow on discussion I suggested working to come up with an MOS that would cover this specifically. Was there anything more I could have done? Anything I didn't do well here?

The other is the Nigerian election RM. I think this one was inevitable to go to MRV given the personalities involved. Yes? Could I have done anything differently here, other than providing some explanation?

Finally, I want to thank all of you who have chimed in with helpfulness. It was hard to read at first. Even the second or third readings took me some time and deep breaths. But I want to say thank you, and I hear you. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: I can tell you fairly simply what you did wrong in the "state funerals" RM: you simply made a vague statement that "both sides cited policy". There is no evidence at all that you actually took the time to make any assessment beyond that vague shrug.

What a skilled closer does in that situation is to actually tabulate the responses:

1. No foundation in policy -- so ignore
2. Claims to be founded in policy, so assess that claim, and decide whether the claim is:
   • plausibly founded
   • weak or spurious

That gives you some numbers with which to weigh consensus. But after several rounds of discussion here on your talk, you have given no indication whatsoever of having done that detailed scrutiny. I am pretty sure that if you had done it, you would have posted your workings here to explain your conclusion.

So it seems to me to be reasonable to conclude that you did not do the work. I don't know whether that is because you do not understand the job of a closer, or whether you lack the analytical skills, or whether you just didn't want to put that much work in to it. But either way, such a long and heated RM involving nearly 50 high-profile articles merited a much more detailed assessment than your glib two-word not moved ... and you did not do what is required.

So I agree with @Horse Eye's Back, Andrevan, Compassionate727, and Drmies: you are not up to the job. You should desist from closing RMs, and you should self-revert your closure of the state funerals RM, so that it can properly closed by some admin who is willing and able to make a proper asessment. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, I've stepped back. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake: I disagreed with that Wehrmacht close, but I do not wish to state that UtherSRG is not up to the job. I cannot possibly judge that, having only looked at the one close, and I'm not likely to make such a categorical statement so quickly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness for that, @UtherSRG.

Now will you please self-revert your closure of the state funerals RM? Or do we have to take it to WP:Move review for a week of high-profile focus on your lack of competence? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear someone else weigh in on my question before I do. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG: It is sad to see you dragging this out. I had hoped that the robustly critical feedback you have received already from multiple editors would have been more than sufficient for you to demonstrate good faith by self-reverting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other folks in this discussion are impartial wrt your move request. You are an involved party. I'd like to hear from them. Please have a little more patience on this. UtherSRG (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it would be a mistake for BrownHairedGirl to hold out hope that another closer would give an assessment any more favorable than no consensus, so I would regard a self-revert in this case as offering an olive branch. As to whether or not you should do that, I don't really have an opinion. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: my concern is not so much about the outcome, as about the fact that such a lengthy and unusual discussion of high-profile topics was closed with no sign of any proper analysis, by an admin who seems to have no comprehension whatsoever of how to analyse a discussion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be bold, admins should not. Huh, I wouldn't have thought to express it that way, but that's a pretty good gloss. You're catching on quicker than I would have expected.

Regarding the two RMs you are asking about: for the "Death and state funeral" titles, my quick headcount is 10 supporters (including nominator) and 23 opposers. That is a rather large margin against, and because no consensus results in retaining the status quo (save during exceptional circumstances where an onus is in play), it would IMO take some unusually strong arguments from the supporters and weak ones from the opposers to overcome that burden. I've not scrutinized the arguments particularly closely yet (I slept poorly last night and don't trust myself to do so well right now), but my first reaction is that it seems unlikely, although not impossible. BHG ably argued her position, but I'm not convinced it fully negates what many editors maintained: that a state funeral is a very different kind of thing from other funerals and retaining the specificity is helpful. I've not really looked at the Nigerian general election one, but it seems obvious enough there's an underlying behavioral problem (whose, I can't confidently say yet) mucking things up. So neither was anywhere near as bad as the clean Wehrmacht myth and Palestinian exodus ones were.

I should share some thoughts on explaining closes, but… when I'm not exhausted, I might be able to articulate some principles for when explanations are and are not necessary (though nothing can replace experience there). For now, I'll just observe that because assessing consensus involves weighing arguments, explaining how much weight you gave to various arguments and why helps anyone wanting to build further upon the consensus determine how to proceed and gives helpful clues to participants (especially newer ones unfamiliar with the process) concerning what kinds of arguments do and do not carry water around here. More cynically, if you show that you put careful thought into a closure, disgruntled participants are less likely to make trouble about it.

And I'm happy to help explain things, especially when you have been listening so open-mindedly. I want to say I'm very grateful for that; I recognize that when you boil it down, I may as well have said: "Hey, your comportment is all wrong! Stop thinking like yourself!" That's not an easy thing to hear, as many of us recognize (and know from personal experience). You've handled it all very admirably. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you had better sleep last night. :) And you're right, if you'd only briefly said "Hey, your comportment is all wrong! Stop thinking like yourself!" I probably would have either blown it off or, worse, blown up. But you did much better than that and set the stage for how to adjust my thinking. More cynically, if you show that you put careful thought into a closure, disgruntled participants are less likely to make trouble about it. Heh... Yeah, but not always even then if I'm too far off the mark. *cough*!bold*cough* But yes, I'm more than willing to learn. So... lesson 1 was !bold for admins. A corollary to that... if I want to be bold (clear Wehrmacht), do it as a regular participant and not at a higher level. (Might be a good exercise to start an essay on !bold_admins that can be linked from WP:BOLD... I'll think on that... but it's too soon. Maybe entitle it "Lessons from a Wild West Sheriff...") - UtherSRG (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea. I do want to say that there are still situations where you can be bold as an admin or IAR as an admin, but be prepared for a bit of a firestorm and you will need a very good reason why, or extraordinary circumstance. These move closures aren't so much bold as they are just lacking in an understanding of the tone. The job of closing discussions isn't to tally the votes, but if your close rationale is a WP:SUPERVOTE that isn't it either. Andre🚐 16:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG, you'll have seen by now that I closed that discussion and moved the article back: there's no point in leaving that open, and I think you've been told off enough, so I just want to put a stop to that. No hard feelings on my end--shit happens, the times are changing, and as admins we sometimes need to step back more than maybe ten years ago. What's funny is that I say that right after I perhaps prematurely closed a discussion and reverted a fellow admin--but I hope and trust you understand what I did and why. Feel free to drop me a line if you want to discuss this or other things. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! No hard feelings indeed. WP:SNOW, eh? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UtherSRG

I hope you're well. I just wanted to enquire about your close at Talk:Leka,_Crown_Prince_of_Albania#Requested_move_17_September_2022, as I objected to that move, citing that both "Leka, Crown Prince of Albania" and "Leka, Prince of Albania" are ambiguous terms which can apply to both of the two subjects mentioned in the RM. That's exactly why the "(born 1939)" and "(born 1982)" were there in the first place, and why that move was also rejected in a prior requested move. I also don't see an explanation in your close as to why you rejected my opposition. I gather from the above discussion that some other move discussions have been questioned too, so wondering if you could please reopen the discussion? It's not right to have the articles at titles which don't meet the WP:PRECISE policy. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another user pointed out that it is a misnomer to call one of the Lekas a "crown prince", making that not an ambiguous term. Making one article state "crown" and the other not actually adds precision. However, I'm not opposed to re-opening if you don't feel this is an adequate explanation. As a point of order, you asked why I didn't explain why I rejected your opposition. Should I address each individual opposition when I make closures? Should I do it when the number of arguments is small, like 1-3? Large, like dozens? Should it be only when the opposition wasn't already addressed by someone else in the discussion? (And I note here that your opposition was addressed in the discussion.) Really interested in what people think on this. UtherSRG (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]