User talk:JzG/Archive 213
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 210 | Archive 211 | Archive 212 | Archive 213 | Archive 214 | Archive 215 | → | Archive 217 |
Final review at RSN
Hello. I noticed that you have taken part in other discussions regarding sources connected with religion at WP:RSN. As an uninvolved party, could you give a look at my closure of this RfC and either confirm it or add your own final review? Given that I opened the RfC myself, my endnote could be considered biased. Æo (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hello JzG, in the rfc in question, AEO was accused of canvassing multiple editors by an editor he accused of canvassing first. Since this is the case, and since AEO reached out to you it is best for the closer to be an editor whom no one has reached out to. The closure does look really odd and POV pushing as it clearly minimized the majority views and emphasized the minority along with extrapolations of points that were not really touched on much let alone agreed upon as if to be authoritative. This is not the first time either since in the section above the same rfc the same attempt was made [1] for which I had to step in issue a correction to the summary attempt.
- The fact that AEO went and closed the rfc despite him agreeing that an uninvolved editor should close these discussions [2] does raise some concerns. I will issue such a request for closure the right way at Wikipedia:Closure requests for a COMPLETELY uninvolved editor to close the RFC. It is the only fair thing to do. Thank you.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Dear JzG, please feel free to close the RfC as an uninvolved editor. I did not canvass anyone to the discussion, I just solicited Nillurcheier who already took part in the discussion thereabove and who expressed his will to vote in the past. I don't think that my closure endnote is odd and POV-pushing; it perfectly summarises the most salient points expressed in the discussion therebove, and in the RfC itself by the yesses, the no/buts, and the nos. On the other hand, I find Ramos1990's considerations hereabove POV and unnecessarily polemical.
- For the record, my endnote is the following one:
Yes: 4; no/but: 2; no: 8. There is no consensus at this time for the step of deprecation, which has been deemed extreme in this case. The sources in question, two statistical datasets (ARDA/WRD/WCD and Pew-Templeton's Global Religious Futures), are explicitly linked to some American Christian organisations (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), missionary projects (10/40 window), and philanthropic companies with roots in American Christianity (John Templeton Foundation; Lilly Endowment), and have been criticised for containing some systematic bias (overestimation of Christianity, underestimation of other religious and irreligious populations), and Erp «also noted [that] very few peer reviewed articles ...use the data outside of Christian mission related articles». Both of them are also old mathematical projections, "purely glassball", often misleadingly passed off as hard data from surveys (cf. Æo, NebY, Nillurcheier). It is clear from the discussion that the sources in question should never be used in place of data from censuses and statistical organisations, should be treated with a grain of salt and never accepted at face value. Even some of those who voted no and no/but agreed that «we can all agree that census data should be used where it can» (Pyrrho the Skipper) and that «in-text attribution should be required [to] ...alert the reader that there might be bias» (Blueboar). Those who voted with a clear no (cf. Foorgood, Jayron32, Ramos1990, Wareon, Dee, عبد المسيح) pointed out that some of the sources in question are published by respectable publishing houses, are listed on some academic institutions' websites, and some critical reviews underline the positive sides of them; however, Drmies «contacted one of the librarians on whose page the database was linked, pointed them to the discussion, and they told [him] they would rephrase the "recommendation" on their website – and noted of course how linking something is hardly the same as giving a wholehearted endorsement». Erp also highlighted that the datasets in question fail the CRAAP test: they (a) fail to list their sources or describe how they got their numbers in at least a few cases; (b) they are precise to single digits in cases where that is extremely unlikely to be accurate; (c) they don't give error bars.
- --Æo (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that there is a recent accusation of canvassing [3] showing an actual request for a vote should be enough to make sure an completely uninvolved editor - not a requested or chosen editor by the RFC creator contacting and making a specific request - should do it. The closing request has been made an initiated already in the closure requests page [4] by the way. This is fair and ensures no editor chosen by the RFC creator closes it - guaranteeing neutrality. Not sure why he selected you and wants you to specifically close it, but certainly seems odd to come to a specific editor requesting to "confirm or add" on the closure one has written instead of staying back and not trying to influence a closure. There is an appropriate place to request closures by uninvolved editors and allow them to come to their conclusions. Also, AEO agreed that a completely uninvolved editor should do it [5].Ramos1990 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ramos1990, please refrain from accusing me of canvassing. I already explained that I solicited Nillurcheier because he already took part in the discussion above and wanted to express a vote. If that is canvassing, then it has the same value of what you wrote here:
"Hi Foorgood: there is an RFC on it now. Since you were part of the discussion and provided great insights on it, I thought you should be notified of it"
. And regarding JzG, I just read previous RSN discussions having to do with religion topics and chose a user who seemed to have taken part in most of them, thus demonstrating an interest in and therefore an understanding of the topic, which could be a plus; I am not an expert on RfCs and other similar Wikipedia procedures, it is my first time opening one and I've taken part in few of them in ten years. WP:AGF and respect my efforts to contribute to what should be an encyclopedia, and I will do the same with you. Æo (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) - And P.S. regarding my comment here: it did not refer to the RfC, as we were commenting on the discussion which preceded it (the RfC had not been started yet).--Æo (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Our interaction was not canvassing since we both arrived at the discussion independently (no one pinged me to join) and we both made extensive relevant contributions (which means were looking at the discussion regularly either way). That's the opposite of canvassing. But calling up multiple editors at a time like you did early on [6] who tended to side with you (their RFC votes were predictable now that I see this [7]). Is a different story. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CAN:
"it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way"
. The "multiple editors" I WP:MENTIONed are users who already took part in the previous discussions on the topic and made significant contributions to them, who I was sure would have improved the quality of the discussion, and note that I quoted them or linked to previous discussions with them, and I think pinging is a correct practice when one quotes another user. I also never asked, either in my message to Nillurcheier or in my mentioning the others, to vote a certain way. Therefore my message/mentions were appropriate notifications (WP:APPNOTE:on the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion
;editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
;editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
;editors known for expertise in the field
/notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief
). Æo (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CAN:
- Our interaction was not canvassing since we both arrived at the discussion independently (no one pinged me to join) and we both made extensive relevant contributions (which means were looking at the discussion regularly either way). That's the opposite of canvassing. But calling up multiple editors at a time like you did early on [6] who tended to side with you (their RFC votes were predictable now that I see this [7]). Is a different story. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ramos1990, please refrain from accusing me of canvassing. I already explained that I solicited Nillurcheier because he already took part in the discussion above and wanted to express a vote. If that is canvassing, then it has the same value of what you wrote here:
- The fact that there is a recent accusation of canvassing [3] showing an actual request for a vote should be enough to make sure an completely uninvolved editor - not a requested or chosen editor by the RFC creator contacting and making a specific request - should do it. The closing request has been made an initiated already in the closure requests page [4] by the way. This is fair and ensures no editor chosen by the RFC creator closes it - guaranteeing neutrality. Not sure why he selected you and wants you to specifically close it, but certainly seems odd to come to a specific editor requesting to "confirm or add" on the closure one has written instead of staying back and not trying to influence a closure. There is an appropriate place to request closures by uninvolved editors and allow them to come to their conclusions. Also, AEO agreed that a completely uninvolved editor should do it [5].Ramos1990 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Contentious topics procedure now in effect
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.
In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.
- For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
- A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
- Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
- Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the classification of the "Journal of Otology & Rhinology"
Hello there! Would you care to explain the rationale behind why you've alleged that the "Journal of Otology & Rhinology" is supposedly a "predatory journal"? I'd be interested to hear exactly which part, or parts, of WP:RS that this Double-Blind Peer-Reviewed Journal is purported to have "failed". I'm all Ears [& Nose]. Cheers— 203.142.136.254 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank-you for taking the time to respond.203.142.136.254 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
- Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.
Technical news
- The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
- In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
- Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Hello, I have decided to remove the block of this user you blocked almost five years ago as they seem to understand the issue. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well done. I hope the user will not repeat the issue. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Recent study on some stuff that took place on en.Wiki
Hey Guy,
I tried to reach out to you a year and a half ago; happy to see that you're doing well, and away from en.Wiki for the right reasons.
Back in 2019 you commented in a discussion that took place on Jimbo's TP,[8] explaining some of the problems we were seeing from an admin's perspective - problems I myself tried to explain, from my own perspective (and less convincingly, as it turns out), just a few days earlier.[9] Now there's a new study that addresses all of it,[10] which I hope will clarify what I and other editors were talking about then, and since. It's fairly long, so only if you have the time, patience, and interest.
Best regards,
François Robere (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Talk page lurker here. The wording
intentional distortion
falls short of Hanlon's Razor. Most of the time, people who distort facts do it because they are fooling themselves. - Also,
Wikipedia's intentional distortion
uses sleight of hand to swap those Polish nationalists for the whole of Wikipedia. Those two basic mistakes in the header turn me off from reading more of that article because I have no reason to assume that it gets any better and any less sensationalist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)- Sure. The "intentional" in the header doesn't refer to motive, but rather is a stand-in for "deliberate". It's meant to convey the fact that what follows is not the result of chance or error, but was done on purpose - whatever that may be.
- I agree with your other objection, but only to an extent. Say the distortionists were not Wikipedians but employees of a commercial company, and that company would have repeatedly failed to address the distortion; would a title like "Acme Corp. distorts history" raise any eyebrows? I doubt it; and that's exactly the situation here, with the only difference being in the structure of governance. As a community we are presenting a distorted view of the facts to our readers, and as a community we have failed to address it. François Robere (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- There is no reason to believe a partisan article is correct. See, for example, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Zero0000 (non-party). Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hey John,
- (I hope it won't appear too formal, but I like numbering:)
- The fact that it seems "one-sided" doesn't mean it isn't correct. Reality could be that bad, as has been the impression of many involved editors who cannot be suspected of partisanship.
- Zero0000 is making a false equivalence between Grabowski and other scholars, while in reality Grabowski is a representative of mainstream scholarship. Those "against" Grabowski are mainly a narrow circle of Polish nationalists, who have their own publications and government support, and who are not widely accepted in broader circles.
- So, "intentional" means that it was not done by some cat walking on a keyboard but by people who wanted to write what they wrote. And using "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikipedia editors" is allowable because Wikipedia is like a commercial company with a hierarchy, which employs and monitors its editors and can fire them if they do a bad job. Well, it's not.
- Neither of those bits of lawyerish reasoning justifies the polemic "Wikipedia's intentional distortion" wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your anger. You and others are taking this personally - and perhaps you should - but the fact remains that the community and its institutions have failed in this matter (and not only to my or the authors' opinion, but to that of many others who were involved in that topic area). Despite years of efforts and numerous appeals to ANI, AE, ArbCom and even T&S, the subject remains rife with mistruths, and the number of editors willing to engage, and dispel them is at an all-time low. I would probably have named the essay differently, but whatever distaste you may feel towards its title should pale in front of the utter breakage of WP:5P2 and WP:5P4 that it describes. I sincerely hope that you, and as many other Wikipedians would read it, if only to understand where the system failed and what can be done to fix it. François Robere (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am not angry, but at most very slightly disgruntled. And I am not talking this personally; it does not concern me personally since that is not an area I edit in. I just do not like misrepresentations. Of course, there is irony here, since this is supposed to counter other misrepresentations. When institutions fail, saying what's what may help. Claiming to say what's what without actually doing it will probably backfire. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your anger. You and others are taking this personally - and perhaps you should - but the fact remains that the community and its institutions have failed in this matter (and not only to my or the authors' opinion, but to that of many others who were involved in that topic area). Despite years of efforts and numerous appeals to ANI, AE, ArbCom and even T&S, the subject remains rife with mistruths, and the number of editors willing to engage, and dispel them is at an all-time low. I would probably have named the essay differently, but whatever distaste you may feel towards its title should pale in front of the utter breakage of WP:5P2 and WP:5P4 that it describes. I sincerely hope that you, and as many other Wikipedians would read it, if only to understand where the system failed and what can be done to fix it. François Robere (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- There is no reason to believe a partisan article is correct. See, for example, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Zero0000 (non-party). Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- My view on this is probably not a surprise to anyone. We allow foreign language sources. Most en-wp editors cannot read those foreign language sources. This is a recipe for nationalist POV-pushing. We have years of documentation of this problem, from Holodomor denialism and many other related areas. Wikipedia works when people can check and evaluate the sources. In the absence of well-informed, near-native speakers of multiple languages, our deference to non-English speakers (which largely comes from well-intentioned efforts to support notability of topics barely covered in English), we are always going to be vulnerable to nationalist manipulation. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
Technical news
- The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
Arbitration
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
On Scientism
Thought I'd share this with you: 128.187.116.31 (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Vale, James Bowman. A giant passes.
I met James Bowman (countertenor) at the St. Albans International Organ Festival, where I used to do seating and staging (I was the "Festival Chair Man" according to my T-shirt). He was huge, an imposing man, 6'4" tall and built like a rugger player, but his voice was that of an angel. It was sweet, but it had remarkable power, easily carrying the length of the longest cathedral nave in England. Power, yes, but nothing of force or artifice. I have shared a stage with Iestyn Davies, at the memorial for John Shirley-Quirk, and I hope he would not be offended by a comparison. Bowman's voice was more robust, where Iestyn's is (in my view) more ethereal. Both wonderful performers and a delight to hear either sing Purcell, especially. Bowman was a worthy successor to Alfred Deller, who reignited interest in counter-tenor performance, and I think it's not fanciful to say that he was highly influential - and very popular, due to the musical generosity so common among early music specialists.
It was a privilege to have heard him, and a regret that Wikipedia is unlikely ever to include someone like him in Recent Deaths. His singing influenced my tastes in music, and encouraged a generation or maybe two generations of fabulous performers. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Nomination for merger of Template:Poll top
Template:Poll top has been nominated for merging with Template:Closed rfc top. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Izno (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Support: Sayyid
Hi, I have seen that you have been contributing to deleting the User SyedNaqvi90. There is a user called User:Dragon819010 and it seems like this is a sock of SyedNaqvi90. I would be grateful for your assistance in rolling this case, because User:Dragon819010 is radically vandalizing many articles. Cheers! --MadRoyalist (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- I can only suggest WP:ANI. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)