| Revision as of 12:35, 30 November 2020 editStefka Bulgaria (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,025 edits →RfC closure← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:05, 30 November 2020 edit undoChetsford (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators40,387 edits →RfC closure: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| 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 that the original proposal's wording was contrary to ]. 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?''']''' <sub>]</sub> 11:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | 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 that the original proposal's wording was contrary to ]. 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?''']''' <sub>]</sub> 11:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :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). ] (]) 12:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | :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). ] (]) 12:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :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, ambiguous 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 ]. ] (]) 15:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:05, 30 November 2020
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | 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 Misplaced Pages 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 |
A barnstar for you!
|
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) |
Hideaway (U.S. Senate)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Closing at Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia#RFC about the spelling of a specific place name to use here
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
RfC closure
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,Pahlevun, Ali Ahwazi, Jushyosaha604, Sa.vakilian, and myself.
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)
- 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)
- 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, ambiguous 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)