User talk:Chetsford

Thank you

For protecting the Randy Fine change. Can you please consider whether the edit prior to your protection was proper? A deletion asserting POV and disruption (I think a glance will show it was not a proper deletion). This - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Fine&diff=prev&oldid=1283299796

As you can see, a significant percentage of this editor's edits, across a number of articles, have been reverted by various editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.29.203.143

Thank you. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:398F:2FAB:E604:F63D (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this had nothing to do with any specific edits, it was more the case that we were experiencing a disruptive back-and-forth of edits and reverts from IP editors over the last several days that were broadly symptomatic of edit warring. Pending changes protection is the lowest level of protection and will slow the cadence of superfluous changes to the article a bit by requiring those originating from IP addresses be reviewed by the patrol before they become visible.
I don't have the authority to decide if any specific edit is "proper" or not; whether a specific edit is consistent with our policies and guidelines is a determination that must be made by the community on the article's Talk page. That said, if a specific editor has engaged in blatant WP:VANDALISM or unambiguous violation of our WP:BLP policy, they should be reported to the appropriate noticeboard (e.g. WP:AIV) with diffs to the specific edits in question.
In any case, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Please also consider WP:REGISTERing an account and completing the WP:ADVENTURE. Chetsford (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for our advice. The editor appears (to me at least) to be happy to delete properly supported material, and claim untruthfully POV or disruption. And then warn me that I cannot revert them in turn (and of course I do not want to edit war), but (as you point out) must go to the talk page. And as nobody seems to be looking at the talk page - and weighing in - their groundless mass deletion stays. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:398F:2FAB:E604:F63D (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following. The last significant deletion at the article in question was done by you [1]. Maybe I'm missing something. Chetsford (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am referring to this revert, which includes deletions (but is a net add). It restored among other things an opinion piece that had been deleted as it is not an RS. And sentence that had been deleted, as reflected in the deletion edit summaries, because it was not supported by the indicated ref, or had no ref at all. And deleted explanatory RS-supported language. Nothing deleted was POV. Nor were the additions supported by the edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Fine&diff=prev&oldid=1283299796

Okay, well, I'm not really sure what I can do. While some of the content removal is, in my opinion, questionable, there's no blatant vandalism as such. For instance, one of the deletions was content cited to Raw Story, which we've already determined is generally unreliable (see WP:RAWSTORY) and shouldn't be used in biographies.
I suggest you raise any specific issues on the Talk page and invite the other editor to discuss it there. If they don't or you find you're not able to come to some agreement, you can request additional input by posting a message to WP:BLPN. However, beyond that, my hands are tied when it comes to two editors who are simply editing and reverting each other with no attempt to actually communicate outside of edit summaries. I do understand that the process I'm describing is slow and not immediately satisfying, but that's just how this all works. In the meantime, any cases of WP:3RR can be reported to WP:AN/3. Chetsford (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually have tried to communicate outside of edit summaries. Both on the editor's talk page. And on the article's talk page. The editor's view is that my hands are tied if nobody comments on the article talk page. And what you and I view as questionable reverts stands. (thanks for the head's up about Raw Story - agreed; though not the basis it would seem for the deletion by the editor, it should go). 184.153.21.19 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's very difficult for me to track who is controlling whichever IP address I'm talking to at any one point in time. In any case, by "communicating" I meant more of an open discussion beyond simply slapping template warnings on their Talk page [2]. But, regardless, there's not much I can do about a content dispute between two editors. If 3RR has occurred, it should be reported to WP:AN/3. If there are unambiguous cases of vandalism, it should be reported to WP:AIV. If you would like input from additional editors to help achieve a lasting consensus for certain content on the page, you can post a notice to WP:BLPN. If all of the previous fail, you can also find other tips at WP:DISPUTE. But I'm powerless to "enforce" the continuity of certain content, except in cases where there's a clear consensus from the community for the continuity of said content that is being maliciously overridden. That doesn't seem to be the case here (at this time).
That said, if it's any consolation, I would assume based on their edit history (but have no way to prove) the other editor may largely be motivated by their support for the Fine election campaign and will lose interest in the article tomorrow. Chetsford (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

DYK for America is Back

On 1 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article America is Back, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that America keeps coming back? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/America is Back. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, America is Back), 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.

SL93 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should US Government Maps be used in the Geography and similar articles

Thank you for your close of this RfC. I started a draft that became this RfC to help mitigate a dispute between some editors. My hope was that a consensus would emerge that could guide the map selection for the subject page. Because the responses were so varied, I think your close was appropriate. I think my optimism resulted in quite a heavy lift for your close analysis so I just want to say an extra word of thanks for handling the close so diligently. Dw31415 (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all! I think it was an important RfC to have, even if it didn't produce a clear resolution of the underlying matter. Chetsford (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I also want to thank you. A thoughtful and balanced close. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Moratorium Response

Pardon the delay in response. The original talk page discussion was archived here, so responding to your most recent questions:

Allthemilescombined1 - first, thank you for this very detailed and well-described request for reconsideration. For the record, as an expression of personal opinion, I strongly agree with your sentiment that a 12-months moratorium on any piece of content is excessive and your suggestion of a 30-60 day "cool down" period is probably preferable in this (or really, in any) article. Indeed, had I been !voting in this RfC instead of closing it, I suspect I would have joined you in !voting against the moratorium in the first place.

In any case, I want to be able to address your concerns holistically so, on some points, may require additional information I'm hoping you can provide. In other cases, I may need to clarify a few things with respect to the moratorium which -- in my efforts to describe the consensus concisely -- were not presented with the level of detail that we would like in an ideal situation.

First, two questions.

Can you clarify which editors in this discussion were topic banned at the time of their !vote? Any editor topic banned should not have been considered in the evaluation of consensus and, while I attempted to cross-reference each editor against any topic bans, my cross-referencing may have been imperfect. I will gladly reevaluate the consensus here with any adjustments that need to be made.

For clarity, I was not implying that topic banned editors participated in the moratorium vote itself (most especially after their topic bans). One of the now topic banned editors was the individual who introduced (and continued to defend) the contentious content in question. The remainder of the topic banned editors (as well as the additional editor who was sanctioned for un-admin like conduct) contributed heavily to the debate around the lede, as well as the RFC, all the way up through their topic bans in January 2025. The moratorium vote was merely the final phase of an extensive and contentious general debate around the lede (dominated heavily and consistently by the editors cited for battleground conduct) that lasted for more than 5 months - including the entirety of the RFC process - until they were barred from further contributions only on January 23, 2025.

The topic banned and sanctioned editors (via PIA5) in question who contributed heavily to the page and talk page were Selfstudier, nishidani, levivich, Iskandar323, nableezy, makeandtoss, and zero0000.

To further clarify the contribution statistics cited in my previous post (per xtools: Zionism and Talk: Zionism):

•⁠ ⁠Total page authorship on zionism (ranking - percentage of total page content)

• • selfstudier (#3 - 5.5%)
  • levivich (#5 - 4.4%)
  • Iskandar323 (#8 - 1.3%)
  • nishidani (#10 - 1.1%).

•⁠ ⁠Talk: Zionism - total edits top 10 (ranking - number of edits - percentage of total edits):

• • selfstudier (#1 - 606 - 15.4%)
  • nishidani (#3 - 419 - 11%)
  • levivich (#5 - 406 - 10.6%)

•⁠ ⁠Talk: Zionism - added text top 10 (ranking - added text - percentage):

• • levivich (#3 - 273,501 - 12.6%)
  • selfstudier (#4 - 258,100 - 11.9%)
  • nishidani (#5 - 251,973 - 11.6%)

Can you clarify which sections of the Final Decision of the Arbcom case you referenced empower me to ignore or de-weight editors' comments on a Talk page or RfC in order to refactor the moratorium? Please just provide a list of any applicable titles so that I can easily reference them.

I did not imply that there was procedural directive from PIA5 that empowered you to take such action. But to request that such consideration be given considering the clear commentary from arbitrators is within reason to make those requests. Relevant examples include: “Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith” (Principle#1)…Conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions” (Principle #11 PIA5 | Principles)

During PIA5 proceedings, the votes cast as well as the contextual commentary from the arbitrators is clear. The space required a break from the disruptive editors in order for a healthy edit environment to resume, and that the impact on the space by the editors in question was significant and disruptive to the point that a healthy discussion (and consensus building) was not taking place:

PIA5 | Iskandar323 indefinite topic ban: “Editors have to focus on building an encyclopedia, and a pattern of editing that puts ideological interests above the project's interests harms both the encyclopedia and the collaborative environment. It's righting great wrongs behavior, and it's ultimately disruptive, even if it doesn't culminate in a dramatic moment of incivility and personal attacks. Topic-banning is a painful process, but our processes have taken too much abuse for me to see any other remedy as reasonable. I support.”

PIA5 | Levivich indefinite topic ban: “The incivility Levivich provides to the topic area, on top of the biased editing as indicated by Andre's evidence, leads me to believe that they should not be editing in this area. Yes, they are good at looking through sources, but they are too often doing it with the goal of supporting their preexisting viewpoint (again, per Andre's evidence). This is the sort of BATTLEGROUND behavior that we absolutely do not need in the topic area.”

“I went back and forth, but what landed me here was the gatekeeping comments by Levivich that editors must read a bunch of sources before commenting or editing articles. That is not how Wikipedia works, though it is sometimes frustrating for topic matter experts (myself included for other topic areas). This behaviour cannot be excused and shows that Levivich needs to be removed from the topic area for a while.”

“I can't figure out what else to do about an editor who is productive 90% of the time, but then turns around and participates in a tag-team edit war while selectively complaining about other people tag-team edit warring and trying to get them sanctioned for it.”

PIA5 | Nableezy indefinite topic ban: “personal attacks in edit summaries and talk pages make this warranted. Collaborative editing cannot happen when editors publish hostile comments about other editors.”

PIA5 | Selfstudier indefinite topic ban: “Persistent incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing necessitate action from us, even though it is not the only problem if the topic area. It's hard to imagine AE admins taking decisive action if we don't. The standard for behavior is higher here, not lower—that this is an emotionally-charged area only makes it more important for everyone to avoid acting in a disruptive manner.”

“As for concerns that banning some of the regulars will throw the area into chaos: I seriously doubt that, and it's no excuse for problematic behavior. If anything, banning regulars who are persistently uncivil is likely to encourage others, who currently don't want to deal with constant fighting and insults, to step into the topic area—and this is something we should hope for.”

Second, three points of clarification. The "count" of editors indicated at the start of the close in which I noted 19 editors supported a moratorium and four opposed, was not a headcount but merely an observation of the general sense of the community. You correctly note that RfCs are closed on the basis of policy and guidelines, however, per WP:NHC "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it" (emphasis added). As described in the essay WP:WCON "An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus." The "pulse check" was perfunctory and not determinative and each specific comment was read and evaluated for its reference to policy or guideline. That said, there is no direct basis for moratoriums in any of our policies or guidelines; it is rather implied by the community's ability to regulate itself described in WP:CON, a point to which none of the four oppose !votes objected. As the closer, I am not empowered to determine which position is "right" or "correct" in an RfC but merely to ascertain how the community has expressed itself insofar as those expressions are based in our policies or guidelines. (That's probably a good thing as I'm not an expert on this topic, nor even all that interested in it.)

I will point out that not only are moratoriums not regular practice, they are extraordinary, as you alluded to. And given the special amount of attention (and attempted disruption) on such an article, to consider and subsequently abide by a moratorium request at the end of an RFC (spearheaded by tbanned editors) should have reasonably prompted suspicion and scrutiny.

Head counts in these scenarios should also be strictly refrained from, as there is massive off-site canvassing and it can only, by default, be based upon the quality of the argument. In this case (with all due respect in response to your offered information re: awareness on this particular subject), any proposal such as this very likely requires some passing awareness of key factors within the particular topic space (most particularly established partisan tactics, such as source misrepresentation, manipulation tactic, propagandizing, and canvassing), otherwise, it is near to impossible to make a neutral decision in such matters.

In this case, a closer was summoned before clear counter points were discussed and vetted. The environment was pure battleground, and was not moderated properly. Voices were ignored, if not silenced. Just because opposition editors refused to consider the evidence does not mean that evidence wasn’t presented that clearly contradicted the assertions made by POV pushing editors (including stacking votes to their desired result without taking into consideration the evidence, or even acknowledging its existence).

It is reasonable to ask that admins keep RFCs open until clear consensus is achieved, and all evidence is reviewed, acknowledged and vetted appropriately.

You make some relevant and salient arguments with respect to content in the first paragraph of the article. However, the RfC in question was about a moratorium on the Talk page, not any content on the main page. Ergo, regardless of how well-referenced the changes you want to make are (or how poorly referenced the extant content is), these are not matters that I have the authority to consider. I can only consider the question of the moratorium itself.

I understand your point that you could only consider the question of the moratorium, not the content on the main page. Since the RfC in question was about suspending talk so an item in the main page lede may not be edited, or even be discussed without a “request” discussion, the talk page moratorium and the main page content are effectively one and the same.

You suggested WP needs a "new set of editors" and the article needs to be rolled back to "mid-2023". Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to recruit new editors to Wikipedia, nor has anyone granted me the authority to unilaterally roll an article back to a two year-old version. Understand that this is not a judgment on the merit of your suggestions, merely an observation of the practical limits of what is within my power to do. That said, the Wikimedia Foundation supports a variety of new training and recruitment activities [9] you may be interested in supporting [10].

I understand that rollback can not be done in a simple and straightforward manner, but I believe that arbcom should continue the work that was done through PIA5 and provide more extensive oversight of the area.

As per my above suggestion, ultimately the RFC should not have been closed until all evidence and solutions had been considered and discussed in detail. Likewise, editor behavior during any resumed or new discussions needs to be overseen thoroughly by an attentive admin (there was and is still a significant amount of battleground behavior and intimidation being exhibited by numerous editors in the discussion, beyond those banned).

The recommendation for a “new set of editors” is in line with arbitrator commentary and the proposed cool down period. A cool down period should be sufficient to ensure that editors that otherwise were intimidated out of participating in discussions because of battleground behavior should start to feel comfortable to resume participating in said discussions. After said cool down (I am proposing no more than 30 additional days given that we are five weeks into the current moratorium), the RFC should be re-opened so that the motion can be considered seriously with the attention, care, and good faith it should have been given the whole time. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Allthemilescombined1 - thank you very much for your very detailed response. I appreciate you and the time you've taken to present this request. Below, I've responded to what I think are the key points.

• "For clarity, I was not implying that topic banned editors participated in the moratorium vote itself ... One of the now topic banned editors was the individual who introduced (and continued to defend) the contentious content in question." When an editor is topic banned, that doesn't cause a corruption of blood in which anyone they've interacted with also becomes topic banned. Wikipedia would collapse in on itself if we applied such a maxim.
• "the RFC should not have been closed until all evidence and solutions had been considered and discussed in detail" Per WP:CR, in determining the appropriate time for a closure "Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result." In this case, at the time the RfC was closed, it had been open for 23 days and no one had made a new comment in 16 days. I agree RfCs should not be closed "until all evidence and solutions ... [have] been considered and discussed in detail". I also, however, believe the record demonstrates that this occurred in this instance. The RfC was kept open more than three weeks and, for the final two weeks it was open, not a single other person in the English-speaking world was interested in it enough to offer even one additional sentence of thought.
• "I will point out that not only are moratoriums not regular practice, they are extraordinary, as you alluded to. And given the special amount of attention (and attempted disruption) on such an article" However, this was not an RfC about an article. This was an RfC about how to organize Talk space. And there was not a "special amount of attention" on the Talk space as evidenced by my above note in which I observed the RfC was open for weeks upon weeks with no comments. Moreover, I'm not even certain there was a "special amount of attention" on this article. During the period of the RfC it averaged only 6,335 pageviews per day. By comparison, Charles III received more than 16,000 pageviews per day during the same period; Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud received an average of more than 70,000 pageviews per day; Cleopatra more than 71,000 pageviews; and DeepSeek more than 120,000 pageviews per day.
• "Head counts in these scenarios should also be strictly refrained from" I agree, however, as I previously noted the close was not based on a head count.
• "A cool down period should be sufficient to ensure that editors that otherwise were intimidated out of participating in discussions because of battleground behavior should start to feel comfortable to resume participating in said discussions. After said cool down (I am proposing no more than 30 additional days given that we are five weeks into the current moratorium)" I fully agree with you that this would be a preferable course of action. However, unfortunately, I have no authority to impose a cool down or, indeed, to impose anything at all. The extent of my authority as a closer is to identify what course of action the community decided to take. If you would like to propose a cool down you will need to do so on the Talk page and, if a consensus of the community agrees to it, then a cool down there will be.

In any case, thank you for your very well presented and detailed request. Having considered all your points, I decline to reverse the close. However, you are free to file a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE at WP:AN. This is the second route to overturn a close. Indeed, in this case, that might not be a bad idea. It can never hurt to get additional feedback and I would certainly not be offended in any way if you chose to do so. That said, I would encourage you to do it sooner than later as closes are more likely to be overturned when they are fresh; after a period of time has passed, decisions tend to ossify. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or I can be of further assistance. Best - Chetsford (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)