Jump to content

User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Paine Ellsworth

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Paine Ellsworth (talk | contribs) at 13:27, 31 March 2024 (xfer'd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:The House of the Dead character redirects to lists has been nominated for deletion

Category:The House of the Dead character redirects to lists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor QuicoleJR, for the heads up! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your work helping out at WP:ANRFC! — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Happy to help! Paine  17:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Doppelgänger

Hello Ellsworth!

I just wanted to inform you that I created the Doppelgänger account P.I. Ellsworth for you so that malicious impersonators can't.

Cheers, QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, editor QuickQuokka! That was very thoughtful of you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Reopening RMs put on hold

When you put a second RM on hold while the first is ongoing, do you normally reopen it? I would think it could be treated as procedurally closed. Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Requested move 19 July 2023_2 has gotten quite confusing since (though not necessarily because) you reopened it on August 21. I tried making it clearer while relisting it yesterday, but seem to have only made it worse. Then I tried washing my hands of it by removing most of my changes -- and just ended up having them restored by a roving admin (which I suppose is fine with me). SilverLocust 💬 03:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't quite sure what to do with that one after the previous RM closed. Reopened it as a courtesy to the editors who are involved in the article's improvement and have been monitoring the progress. Just wasn't one of those everyday things, and I may have peed on my shoe on that one. Guess we'll see if editors can salvage the good parts. Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor SilverLocust! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RM v RFC

Hi, Paine; thanks again for all the help. If you don't mind, I'll pick your brain off the article talk page. I don't know my way around RM as well as you do, as I've spent most of my "wiki career" around the FA pages. The idea that we can't resolve the issues in one (RFC-style) discussion, where editors can "pick an option" seems very bureaucratic; I understand why that's the case, considering the parts of the process that are automated, but is there not a more sensible way to do this without having to conduct multiple RM discussions? There's one set of editors determined that "coup" is the way to go (and based on my preliminary look at sources, there's not a case there, so I fear that will mean a second RM), and another set willing to look at the sources and come up with an alternate name, so must that really mean two different RMs, when there have already been seven? Or is it possible, within one RM, regardless of how it is initially framed, to suggest alternatives? It would be so much more expedient to put the whole lot up for one RFC. Are you sure that if we positioned the whole thing as an RFC, well-structured, that it would be defacto closed? Is it worth inquiring at WP:AN? This is so frustrating ... thanks for any help you can offer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @SandyGeorgia: The {{subst:requested move}} template is very flexible, and is designed to handle all of the common rename situations. It may be used when several renames are to be discussed together, see WP:RMPM. It may also be used where one or more pages are to be moved, but there is more than one possibility for the new name - in these cases you would leave the |new1=, |new2= (etc.) parameters blank. Other than category moves (handled by WP:CFR), I can't think of any situations where the WP:RM process can't handle a move request through {{subst:requested move}}. In short: WP:RFC is never appropriate for a page move. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Redrose64; awesome, thanks for the help. But I've looked at WP:RMPM and am still unsure if the scenario I've laid out here and the problems that Paine mentioned at this section, at 1:08 9 September are surmounted ... RMPM seems to apply for multiple pages moving to multiple different pages, but what we are looking at is multiple possible targets for moving one page (so we can hold one discussion rather than several). Will that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Brought here from the article's talk page. Would this really work though? The proposal is not about making multiple moves, which is what I see at WP:RMPM. The question arising is about a ranked voting requested move, which is why multiple options in the RM template are being sought. If this ranked voting is possible, could you provide a template as an example? Though I don't support the ranked voting initiative, I want to see its feasibility before we chase after that carrot. And sorry Paine Ellsworth for taking over your talk page!--WMrapids (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The usual way to do this would be to not make a specific target for the page move, and instead put a ? as the target in the RM parameter. Then, you can list the different options in the nomination statement itself, and instruct voters how you'd like them to contribute. (With the proviso that they're not obliged to follow your instructions of course, they may suggest something completely different!). See [1] for an example a little bit like this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
It is not about ranked voting at all (although that suggestion was raised on talk); it's about simultaneously considering more than one target to avoid holding multiple RMs. (Rank voting may happen as it often tends to in any discussion.) Thanks, Amakuru that sounds doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Just use Amakuru's suggestion, and if proposed titles are red links or redirects, those are readily available titles. When a proposed title is an article with content, then a brief, neutral notification on that article's talk page will let the watchers of that page know that there is a move request that involves that article's title. That should be all that is needed to facilitate what you want to do. To succeed, it will have to be a good balance of precision and concision, because move requests in the form of "[[<current title>]] → ?" can get off track more easily than the more common form. Where there's a will there's a way. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
As I stated above, It may also be used where one or more pages are to be moved, but there is more than one possibility for the new name - in these cases you would leave the |new1=, |new2= (etc.) parameters blank. Template:Requested move offers several examples for different scenarios. If you simply want an open discussion for a single page where you start out with no suggestions but intend that people propose one, use e.g. {{subst:Requested move|reason=The current name is inappropriate because ...}} or similar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Thx, Redrose64 (sorry the detail escaped me the first time through); I think I understand how it has to work now, but once we get a sandbox going, pre-launch, we can ask the group here to look in to double-check the technicalities, if you don't mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In case you don't get the ping (I don't trust those thingies :) Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Request for independent feedback on Requested move draft. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page.

Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself!

June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here.

July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here.

August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.

September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Substituted template

Good day to you. The first template in this diff seems to be substituted. Can you remember which template it is, and could it be unsubsted? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Other redirects (e.g. [[Talk:MOS:GTL]]) seem to have the same issue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
To editor Martin: Those are from when I was trying to figure a way to make the {{Talk page of redirect}} sense shortcut pages. Unable to do that, I substituted the template so that "shortcut" could be added in place of "article". There are issues, though, for example the categories were added later and so do not sort these correctly. I've unsubstituted the templates on those two redirect talk pages, and feel free to do the same on any others you find. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ: The first one, specifically, is this revision of Template:Talk page of redirect - the "ToaR" in the edit summary was my clue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

move

Hello Paine Ellsworth. Is there a reason/policy that doesn't allow two proposed moves at the same time? This should be accessible, no? It was something I discussed on @Amakuru talk page [2] since they moved back to the current article title, so I decided to propose the Move based on arguments I've already presented on earlier talk discussion.

Also looks like bot issue should be fixed since someone archived the discussion [3] as it's already the current title. - Kevo327 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello editor Kevo327, and thank you for coming to my talk page! You will find the instructions on the WP:RM page. No more than one open move request at a time has ever been allowed. Please consider contributing to the open RM with any alternative suggestions. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
What is permitted is a single discussion with more than one suggestion for the new page name. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, editor Redrose64! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Paine Ellsworth,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For your efforts at diplomacy on Packet boat. Gjs238 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much, editor Gjs238! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame/doc

Template:Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Akron Zips football navbox/doc

Template:Akron Zips football navbox/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Closing a redirect for discussion?

The redirect for "7 October 2023" was put up for discussion but seems to meet criteria for closure and keeping the redirect per WP:SILENCE. This was a major event and redirects for "October 7, 2023" already exist so there is no reason for "7 October 2023" not to be a redirect as well. How do I close out this template? Undescribed (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for coming to my talk page, editor Undescribed! That discussion does not show consensus to keep (as is) since there are two editors who argue for retargeting. My advice would be to leave its closure to an admin or experienced RfD closer. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Its been a week since the last response. Does this not constitute consensus through silence? See WP:SILENCE. How do I even get an adim to chime in on this matter? Will it just stay open forever even if nobody comments on the matter? Undescribed (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
First, as I said before that discussion so far has not come to consensus. Arguments for retargeting are just about as strong as arguments for keeping. A no consensus decision might go either way. RfD talks sometimes seem to last forever, I know. But a closer always comes by to finalize. Another option that might make it close more quickly would be to list it at WP:CR. You could give that a try if you want. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Re: News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone? § Discuss this story

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Paine Ellsworth:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Template:R from native name" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:R from native name has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 4 § Template:R from native name until a consensus is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, always good to hear from you! Paine , ed. put'er there 09:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't do this

"Delete to make way for page move" – The issue was never intended to be solved this way. Haven't you seen the problem at Deleted to make way for page move, which is up for deletion? I'm working on a bot upgrade which will more clearly specify how these cases should be handled. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As you wish. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I've installed a new version of the bot which reports possible MALPLACED requests under the "Possibly incomplete requests" heading. There's a reason why I used the word possibly in that section header. Sometimes administrative action should be taken, and sometimes (probably most times) not. If we made the system fancier the bot might be able to distinguish these, but as of now it can't. Remember, not everything needs to be removed from that section. Just some of them. Right now the bot is flagging two RMs as having possible issues. One of them can stay as is, and the other could be closed as a malformed request, which may be reopened if the nominator specifies their requested primary topic. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter

Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June.

Drive: Of the 69 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.

Blitz: Of the 22 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz, 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.

Drive: During the November Backlog Elimination Drive, 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.

Blitz: Our December Copy Editing Blitz will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles.

Other news: Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Paine Ellsworth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Maybe you need to check your spam folder, this time :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, found it in my spam folder; sent you a new email, LOL. Thank you again, Martin! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Date on signature

Your signature in this edit shows a date that's several days off from when it was posted. Thought I should tell you so you could sort out whatever the problem is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, editor Barkeep49, good catch! I had been working on a separate page for a few days and just copy/pasted from that. You're right, though, that the timestamp should reflect the moment I cp'd, not the previous time when I began to gather my wits together. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
To editor Barkeep49: curious as to how you caught that. Are you subscribed to WP:RFA and does that notify you when subpages are created? or was it something else? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of people who watch for new RFA pages on IRC and I heard about the RFA from one of them. The signature piece I noticed myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Okay and thank you! Noticed a "Subscribe" link in the "More" field on the WP:RFA page, but I think that just notifies subscribers when that particular page gets edited. Don't know about recently created subpages, though. Maybe the folks at VPT know; I'll check with them at some point. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Your run

Best wishes and I hope you weather the storm. Lots of us believe in your basic soundness. Unfortunately not a single one of us is without fault. Accept that all your scabs will be pulled/picked at this week. Remember that accepting responsibility for your actions is a pre-requisite for trust so don't feel as if you must look in the right all the time. BusterD (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Great advice, thank you so much editor BusterD. Fully intend to see this one through to honor not only my present sponsor, but also my nominators and those who supported me in my first RfA. Will remember your words, because I think that trust in me by the community is so very important! Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Just as the turning woman on top of this page, people who can see something from both sides of the perception field have a value that is missed by many. Your collection of essays and commentaries is, inmypinion, among the best (if not the best) on Wikipedia, and your intellect and heart would bring that value to the ranks of administrators. If not, ftitctanon-joke, and continue on the path as one of the best non-admins and voices for knowingness and light that this site has. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Randy, very much! And thank you for reading my "think" pages. You're very kind to think and write those words above. I've been a non-admin for a lot of years, so I will not lose any sleep over not getting the tools if that's how it ends. So far, the RfA is making me think harder about the issues brought out by opposers. Trying to take everything into consideration. Guess we'll see. Maybe it will take an upturn like 0xDeadbeef's RfA did? Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
At a minimum some editors will be exposed to your writings and "get'em some educating". Randy Kryn (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I'm all in. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
To editor BD2412: you have supported me for a long time, and I've learned so much from you. Thank you very much for your support now, even under these eye-opening circumstances! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I am quite certain that if I were to run for adminship today, I would not get, by the sheer volume of editors who have been on the losing side of closely contested discussions that I have closed. Unfortunately, the process often punishes those who dare to do the work. BD2412 T 17:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps a long editing experience is actually a bullet in the gut, which alone should make us rethink the present promotion experience. Maybe Jimbo will step in and wave his magic wand? !>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry it's turned out like this, and I do hope you won't let it demoralise you in any way. What you are doing on Wikipedia is just fine, and never believe otherwise. That said, I don't see much point in letting this continue further (except masochism?) so feel free to withdraw at ant time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Another option, put the giraffe on it! (ant time would be a good subject for Albert Einstein to mull over) Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hah! Martin, just so sorry that this wonderful nomination is taking a downturn. And I would say to you the same thing. You are an awesome admin and editor, so don't let this get you down. As for me, I promised myself that I would not withdraw like I did in the first run. So I'll stick it out as long as the community allows. Thank you beyond words for your support and nomination! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
That "Hah!" above was for you, Randy. As I'm sure you know, the giraffe symbolizes my tendency to stick my neck out when I think it's needed. Sometimes my neck gets chopped off, and sometimes it leads to building and improving WP. Never really know which, but that doesn't stop me. Shouldn't stop any of us. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I will add to the above that I'm appreciative of all the good and valuable work that you've done here, and I hope you continue for many years to come. That I voted against demoting you to mop duty should not be taken negatively...I wouldn't vote to promote myself either. Carry on. Banks Irk (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much, editor Banks Irk, for your kind words! I really think I would do a good job as an admin, so let me ask a favor. Would you please take another look at some of the support rationales? My supporters can see the entire picture of me, while the opposers, who give me much to think about, only seem to see a small part of me, the negative side. So I would ask that you also try to see the whole picture that is me. Those user pages are just "think" pages. I never thought that they would be read by others. They were intended just to help me think. So there was no blog intended, and certainly no intent to build myself up into something I'm not. So please do me the favor of looking at all of me, just like all my supporters have done. Thank you very much for your further consideration in this matter! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
      I'm sorry, but I don't believe that you should get the mop. Banks Irk (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
      I'm certain Paine Ellsworth appreciates the nice words. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For stepping up at RfA. Sorry this is not going in the right direction. FWIW I am deeply disappointed and think this is a community "own goal." Your record of contributions here are off the hook. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
How I do thank you for this, editor Ad Orientem! A bright light on a dark day, for sure! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
You thank US by staying a standup guy. I think the opposes overblow more than a bit, but that's my view. For the record I celebrate my growing 365.25 days older each turn of the sun, and I find I'm learning things I never would have even noticed just a few years ago (because now I've acquired the values of patience and openmindedness). For what it is worth, at this moment the community is still trying to decide. This is still a thing. BusterD (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, thank you BusterD. Even at 74 I still believe in miracles; seen too many not to. One never knows when any discussion might turn around, and this one has been filled with food for thought. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
We had this discussion from quite another angle when the ever youthful theleekycauldron was running the first time. Whether we like it or not, all of us age. That makes our lives different. I have my issues. I was aware DDG was going through some things a few years before he passed. We're all good at something different. And that changes over time as well. Well I'm sure glad your outlaw motorcycle gang involvement isn't going to be a problem at this point. Because that might have been a sticking point for some. BusterD (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hah! yes my closest association from watching Billy Jack in The Born Losers many eons ago. I am not who I was yesterday, I am not who I will become tomorrow. I am only who I am today, and that must be sufficient for me. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

My vote

I wanted to take the invitation to come to your talk page. I feel I couldn't elaborate on the RfA and even if I did it would seem like a pile-on and I didn't want that. You are an amazing editor and I appreciate anyone that has experienced life as you have. I can respect you voicing your philosophies and I took no issue with that. I just couldn't get past the move discussion that has been referenced partly because I have not seen an acknowledgement of what mistakes you think you made, only that you made them. As an American Indian and a descendant of those who faced genocide I couldn't fathom how an experienced editor would compare their position in a discussion with what my ancestors experienced or in trying to justify their own position would tell other editors, some Native, that Native American's committed genocide too. As if that justified anything even if it were true. I tried to reason it as comments made in the heat of the moment but there was no follow up. That pained me, not offended, pained. I'm not offended even now. But my heart did hurt. It hurt even more because with all your experience and everything I know you must have went through in life you could be such a light bringer. You have done so much good in the encyclopedia and you can have such a positive impact on this community. I, like you, try to bring a little light into the world, though I'm not as experienced as you, and I so appreciate this Wikipedia project and all the LifeSong's I meet during my journey here. I don't want to take up more of your time or make this more than what it is. I just felt like you deserved more of an answer than I felt I could share on the RfA. --ARoseWolf 21:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We have all agonized about something, please put your mind at ease, editor ARoseWolf. And thank you for saying such nice things about me! Yes, that discussion escalated out of control, and my shortcomings at the time did not help. I do feel the things that happened to our peoples, and I also feel how important it is for the living to move on. If we don't move on, then all our future deeds will be tainted by the past. Suffice to live in the present moment, where we all can take good, long looks at our actions. The present is the only time in which we can make positive change in our life and the lives of others. It takes a brave soul to speak their mind, and you are the bravest I've seen. Thank you so much for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
To editor ARoseWolf: would like to ask a favor of you. Would you be so kind as to take another brief look at some of the support rationales in my RfA? My supporters see "the whole me", the entire picture that is Paine Ellsworth. While the opposers give me much food for thought, they seem to focus on the negative side, and we all have that, don't we? I would much appreciate it if you would just take another look at those editors' words, the ones who support my bid for adminship. Would you please? Thank you for any further consideration you can give me! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Because you asked, I will take another look but I was very thorough in reading most rationales. I looked at the questions and your answers. I know none of us are perfect. Our perfect imperfection is one thing I celebrate. I carefully formed my conclusions over a few days time and yet I still mull over my decision. You said, "your shortcomings at the time." Has your positions changed in regards to things said in that discussion? how has it changed? How do you feel about the things that you, yourself, said? Do you realize the impact those words can and have had not only on others impression of you but also potentially limiting your impact on the editors engaged there that would otherwise be open to dialogue? I would get more out of those answers than going back over something I have already read. I know you have supporters and rightfully so. As I have acknowledged, you are an amazing editor. I don't think content creation and overall value to the community is in any doubt here. But that conversation led into something that I think is important. Given I am American Indian how am I to trust you to be an administrator in my community and use your tools fairly and equally if I believe you to be one to, at the very least, disregard or dismiss Native voices on Native topics? --ARoseWolf 18:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
To editor ARoseWolf: fair enough. And thank you very much for your kind words and for granting my favor. As my friends and supporters have seen, I learned a lot about the impact of one's words on others, both by way of the 2015 title discussion and later in my first RfA. I really said some stupid things in both talks, and I very much regret those hurtful words. Some people have said, "They're only words; they have no power," about so many things. I've found that's not true. Words can have a good effect or bad, and sometimes one doesn't even know how bad their words are. At the time my words were insensitive and harsh. If I had been the one who had to deal with that person, whom I was back then, I would not be happy with those insensitive words, either. Yes, over the last eight years I have done a lot of soul-searching, and I hope you can see that in my words of today. I would never disregard your voice or the voice and opinions of any editor on Wikipedia. Sometimes there can be several editors in a discussion, each with their own opinion about what should be done. Every voice counts toward building consensus and resolving disputes. I've become especially sensitive to the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which include the Civility Policy. I do my best now to adhere to and uphold those and other policies and guidelines. Sincerely hope that these, my present words to you, have the positive effect that makes me worthy of your trust and confidence in me as a fellow volunteer editor. That is really all I could ask of anybody. I am especially thankful to you for reconsidering whether or not you would trust me if I'm an admin. And we should note, too, that everytime a person converts an oppose vote to support, it's as if two new editors came to the RfA and voted to support. So if you do convert, there would be twice as much impact on the outcome. Whatever you decide, I want to thank you again for all your nice words. They have had a good, positive effect on me! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for running

Hey, Paine! I'm sorry it didn't work out. I hope you know you and your work are very much valued here; the fact the RfA didn't succeed doesn't mean anything but that the community thought admin tools weren't a good fit. It really means literally nothing more than that. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor Valereee! Kind of bizarre how so many editors seemed to think that I went there to fail and that my own words proved it. Just wanted to help more than I can be of service as a non-admin. It was literally nothing more (nor less) than that. Thanks again and Happy Holidays! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll +1 to that, and add that I've personally found you to be tremendously helpful and responsive. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your kind words and positive (+) thoughts, editor Whpq! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Post-RfA statement

Arghh!!! Can't eat, can't sleep (just kidding:>). Really do want to stress that there was no underlying nor hidden agenda on my part. For many years editors have asked me to rerun and I turned them down. Even turned Martin down at first when he asked me back in June. But I gave it a lot of thought, because Martin was one of the first admins to help me with edits when I first registered, and I've revered him ever since. So I finally thought I'd give it another go. All I had in mind was that I wanted to be like him and help people so much more as an admin than as a non-admin. That truly was my only agenda. The community's loud, resounding "no" with various eye-opening arguments will not go unheeded. I will be studying the opposers' rationales for a long time to come. Thank all those who found the time to participate, especially the questioners and supporters. We still have a lot for which to be thankful, and lots of time coming up to be with our loved ones this holiday season. Many thanks! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A beer on me!
Sometimes, an RfA attracts the pile-on opposers, many of whom have never interacted with the candidate (oppose-because-I-can; oppose-because-all-admins-are-evil; oppose-just-because-somebody-else-opposed). It's not the end of the world, just continue to do what you do best. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for running at RfA... sorry it didn't turn out too well. As Valeree said, it just means that some people don't think admin tools are a good fit, and nothing more. (For the record, I !voted "oppose", but I still think you're a great editor. Keep up the good work!) Cremastra (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the suds and flowers! As the Native American, Lone Watie, said in The Outlaw Josey Wales, I will "endeavor to persevere". Thanks again and hope you get everything you want during the holidays! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No templates, but thank you for offering to be an admin, and kudos for your gumption in sticking it out so long and your good grace in your withdrawal statement and in your statement above. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts, editor Yngvadottir! It was a pleasure to at least try again at RfA. Another eight years, and who knows? !>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth: You have always been a reasonable, helpful editor in the template space, even when I have made mistakes (in editing or reading) and you have had to tidy up for me or set me straight. As someone who would also not be viewed as fit for the mop by the community (my primary self-perceived flaws are that I am too hasty sometimes, impatient with bureaucracy, and completely unable to cope calmly with idiots), I look forward to interacting with you on template talk pages for many years to come. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Ditto that last sentence friend and editor Jonesey95. And there's so much more that I've learned and still learn from you. You're one of my mentors, and this project is far better off to have you. Thank you beyond words for your kind thoughts! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping up. I'm glad you'll remain around as an editor; I know RfA can be quite hard on people. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Elli, especially for your strong support, and your words at RfA were especially good and kind. Bright side is, there were also 57 other awesome people who didn't leave my side. Could never thank you or them enough. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Just a quick few words here, after looking over how it all went. People made an issue of your communication - but I think a bigger issue is the difficulty of communication in this text-only medium. It can be very hard to interpret motives/ideas/feelings from talk, when the written words are all we have to guide us. And when one or two people opine based on their interpretation, that can lead others to follow. As a specific, I think a few people saw your communication style as a bit aloof - but I think I'm seeing it more as humility. And I admire your calmness throughout. Anyway, you say you "will be studying the opposers' rationales for a long time to come". I wouldn't spend too much time on it myself, and I definitely wouldn't let it change who I am in any way. Thanks for your years of contributions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Wise words, and thank you for them editor Boing! said Zebedee! You seemed to have "pierced the veil". The failure was mine, though, and no one else's, so I will still take a good look at the words that were meant for my self-improvement. Guess it's just a thing with me. I don't think any of the opposers were being mean, they were just being honest. Thanks again for your comforting thoughts! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    you say you "will be studying the opposers' rationales for a long time to come". I wouldn't spend too much time on it myself, and I definitely wouldn't let it change who I am in any way. Calibration and self-reflection can be very useful sometimes. As long as one's ego can handle it. And I think Paine has demonstrated without a doubt that they are made of tough stuff :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad you are apparently taking this in stride. I was fence sitting and worrying about supporting or opposing. I also though my brand of self-depreciating humor would have been out of place in a RfA that was facing difficulties. Now that it is all over (for now) I want to say that I appreciate your attempt even though the community answer was "No.". We need brave souls to put themselves in the line of fire to take up mopping up around here because the real answer to not enough admins is not enough people being brave enough to put themselves forward. I'm not smart enough to fix that problem and I know that I am currently not suited to being an admin, but I can welcome you back to the ranks of ordinary editors. And since it is all over now I will be slightly silly.
"Edit more plant articles! They're the most important ones! I am not a plant obsessed robot. Beeb-boop. GoTo:edit plant list." 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, editor MtBotany! Hard to believe that you like plants judging from your username !>). Few people seem to give them a second thought, eh editor Plantdrew? They take for granted that it's the plants, mostly seafaring algae, that supply us with the oxygen we breathe. I thank the Universe for plants! Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Well. Didn't think we'd be switching places, but here we are. Glad to see you're keeping your chin up. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Right back atcha, editor Vami IV! I think your making it to ten years next year definitely honors both the project and yourself. Thank you for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I have been an administrator for almost 18 years and I feel that so many of the RfAs become petty, including yours. I saw nothing in your history that would disqualify you from being an administrator. The main qualifier is will the user do anything to harm the project, and IMO you wouldn't. Please stay around and don't let them get to you. --rogerd (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for that, editor rogerd. I like WP too much not to stay around, so no worries. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we've interacted much, but just wanted to swing by and say that I think you handled a very difficult situation very graciously. I think with your exemplary way of dealing with criticism, and a tiny bit of calibration based on the feedback in the RFA, that another run at RFA might be successful in the future. Although I'd understand if that's not at all on your mind right now. Take care, happy editing, happy holidays! –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate your thoughts, editor Novem Linguae, very much! No, I don't think #3 RfA is in my future. There are many things to learn, and I think I shall probably spend a lot of time on that. Just so thankful to have had this opportunity. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Paine Ellsworth, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for the Holidays and New Year's 2024.
Happy editing,
QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 18:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hope you've had a good year!

Hello Paine Ellsworth: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Qwerfjkltalk 22:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

— Qwerfjkltalk 22:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor Qwerfjkl! Hope you get all you want this holiday season! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Some words of encouragement...

Hi Paine Ellsworth! I hope you had a great Christmas and I wish you a safe, healthy, and fun News Years holiday as well. I was trekking through RFA and saw your recent application, which closed early do to your withdrawal. I know disheartening it can be after walking away from such an open and stressful event, especially when it closed with so much opposition. I highly encourage you to not to let it get to you personally; RFA is not an easy horse to tame. Trust me, I know...... lol

Obviously, your recent RFA discussion contains plenty of opposition that I'm sure feels quite disheartening to look at... but, I'm sure you know that it also contains a plethora of useful, fair, honest, and direct feedback for you to read and reflect upon (and I of course urge you to take plenty of time to do that). Back when I was in college, someone told me a great saying that I still use often to this day. When you're in a place where a mix of good and not-so-good things exist together, the best thing to do is take the meat... and leave the bones... Give yourself the opportunity and the time to go through the opposition so that you can use them to help make you a better contributor moving forward, but don't let yourself "get stuck in the mud" where all you see is discouragement. Take the meat, and leave the bones....

It sounds like you decided to run for RFA again after reading words of encouragement from someone you trust and look up to. One thing to remember is this: Compared to a typical account on Wikipedia, having the admin toolset only grants you with... maybe, and I mean maybe 5% more permissions and abilities that you didn't have before. All of the things that you said you wanted to do in regards to helping users and improving the project doesn't require the admin toolset at all in order to accomplish. The admin toolset is a small drop in the bucket compared to the permissions and abilities you already have. ;-) Just because one is an administrator on this project absolutely does not mean that they inherently have a high amount of community respect or trust. There are many editors here who I genuinely believe would make great administrators, and (on the other side) there are a convincing small handful of administrators that often leave me sitting there wondering how in the living hell they were able to obtain the toolset, let alone keep them for as long as they have.

Community respect doesn't come from being able to hold hats and user rights, nor does it come from being able to perform tasks that most other users can't because of their permissions (or lack thereof). In fact, it could be seen by others as flaunting your user rights and the things that you can do that they can't... That definitely doesn't help with gaining community respect if you're viewed as someone who does that. ;-) If you want to truly earn and maintain a high level of community respect, it's accomplished over time as a result of your actions. Exmaples? How do you respond when a new user asks you for help? If users come at you with an angry attitude and demeanor, how do you respond and act as a result? If you make a mistake, how much time and care do you give to try and make it right? You don't have to be a perfect editor to gain that respect either... It's how you make things right and how you fix mistakes that show good character.

Story time: I was once working with a relatively proficient but relatively new editor some time ago. One day, after receiving a lot of criticism and nit-picky feedback about their edits, this user let their patience drain to the absolute bottom... And they went and absolutely lost it with those editors giving them feedback. This user just went off at them like a complete hot-head. Respect, at first, would be easy for someone to lose in this situation, but what happened next is where my respect for the user went from pretty much 0 to as high of a number that I could give. 15-20 minutes later, the user went to each editor that they were uncivil to and apologized to them on their user talk pages. They responded to the feedback directly, and turned the entire dynamic from being a situation where the user was behaving inappropriately to having positive conversations with these editors about how to take advantage of opportunities to apply the feedback into their future edits. My jaw dropped, and I was 100% proud of them for ultimately doing the right thing.

I hope this message brought you some encouragement, and helped you to remember that you already have the ability to do great things, and earn the respect of your peers on this project. And heck, maybe after you've accomplished this and after a few years go by, you might find yourself being asked to try running again... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, editor Oshwah! I was also encouraged and inspired by your words at Advice for RfA candidates. Thank you so much for taking the time to give me these encouraging words. I wasn't expecting to do well because I've been at it for so long now, but I did expect to do better than I did. There was a time not long ago when none of the tools had been unbundled, so yes, I have the tools I need to continue the work. And who knows? Maybe soon the promotion process will be improved and I may run again. Guess I did place a lot of weight on wanting to know if I'd earned the community's trust. It seemed that almost every word I wrote was twisted into meanings other than those I'd intended. Anyway, thanks again for your wise words! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
It happens, and it'll improve over time as you grow your experience interacting with more and more editors here. Adding text discussions and messages on-wiki is our only "official" medium for discussions and communication, which means that anyone's comments and replies will potentially be open for misinterpretation and being taken the wrong way - something that happens all the time around here! :-D This misinterpretation is usually because of ambiguity that was left in the particular message or comment in question, but that's unfortunately a natural downside and a challenge that comes with text-based communication; it doesn't provide the recipient with the sending user's mood, facial expressions, emphasis on words, and other non-verbal signals that we as humans use to gauge conversations and overall mood and demeanor.
If one wants to become a respected and effective communicator with others on a text-based project (like ours), they must become proficient and gain a level of expertise with expressing those non-verbal feelings, ques, mood, and behavior using their words. Some people are much better with that communication skillset than others, and some people are able to learn and develop that skillset much faster than others as well. When a project has, uhh... what, umm... *checks notes*... 4,670,0000 total user accounts created, with 118,000 of those accounts meeting the official wiki definition as being "recently active" (an account is "recently active" if it has made at least one edit within the last 30 days)... You're absolutely going to meet people with high experience and faster learning capabilities, as well as people with little-to-no experience and with slow learning capabilities. Those facts alone are just a given when taking our statistics into account.
Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you ever need my assistance, input, thoughts, recommendations, or advice. I'll be happy to help and provide you with anything that you need. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Positive strokes

Thanks for braving the gauntlet. I've always found your comments and actions thoughtful and helpful and motivated solely towards improving the encyclopedia, irrespective whether I agreed with you or not (and mostly, I did). I always thought I'd never survive an Rfa, and am in awe of those who put themselves out there; so kudos for that—it must be withering. In any case, you, we, have tons to contribute to the encyclopedia, so back in the saddle: let's get back to work! (And, feel free to disagree with me anytime you like, or even every time; won't change my opinion one bit.) Keep on keepin' on! Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Right there with you, editor Mathglot, and thank you very much for coming! I've followed you and looked up to you for many years, so your words have more meaning for me than you know. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Miss Universe 2004 delegates/doc

Template:Miss Universe 2004 delegates/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, editor Gonnym, for the heads up! and Happy New Year to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Country data Serbia

FYI your edit broke:  Serbia. NM 05:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, editor NM, and  fixed! Happy New Year to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Paine Ellsworth!

Happy New Year!

Paine Ellsworth,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, editor Amakuru! and Happiest of New Years to you and yours, too! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Template testcases

Special:Diff/1194108616 does literally nothing other than replacing one redirect with another. Why do it? Primefac (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point it's more habit than not; in the beginning I think I thought the simple "Testcases" was less confusing than the "Template test cases notice" or the others such as "Template test cases notice <!--|Toc=yes-->" and so on. Just more concise without losing the meaning, I guess. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! You too. Primefac (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Module:R avoided double redirect

Hi Paine, can you please point me to the discussion which resulted in your recent change to this template. FWIW, I have being having a discussion Village Pump and, before that, at Aaron Lui's talk page.

Thanks for your help. Richhoncho (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, editor Richhoncho, the edit request made by editor Aaron Liu is on the template's talk page (the module's talk page leads there remotely), specifically at Template talk:R avoided double redirect#Edit request 6 January 2024. There appeared to be adequate consensus at the VP discussion to make the change, although the part where "title" was to become "article" would have been misleading for reasons I gave in my response to the edit request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for this - I hadn't realised that I'd broken the bot! All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 02:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Pleasure! The RMCD bot is still a little sensitive to some things placed between the header and the RM template. So your RM appeared in the Malformed requests list. It's all good, and thank you for the sweets! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So sorry I missed your RfA2 friend

For what it's worth, I would've voted strong support. I've long observed your quality work in the redirect-space and want you to know you are an appreciated member of this community. -- Ϫ 00:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you, œ! Thank you for your well-wishes and your kind moral support! Want you to know that neither of my bids for the bit has squelched my spirit. Hope your holidays were great, and wish you many Happy New Years to come! Paine , ed. put'er there 03:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Move request

@Paine Ellsworth: Can you please move Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League user templates to Category:Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League user templates. This league changed its name this year. I also was the one who created this category. Catfurball (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

To editor Catfurball: this has been completed. Wonder why you didn't do this yourself since there is no page protection? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request on Template:Designation

Hi Paine,

I recently requested an addition to the designations template, another admin said it was done, but it is not on the list and I still cannot use it in infoboxes. It is the most recent request on the talk page. Can you review it? Thanks. Daftation 🗩 🖉 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll be glad to review it (link), editor Daftation, as soon as I return from an appointment. Thank you for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I have fixed it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
To editors Daftation and Jonesey95: thank you very much, Jonesey95! How does that look to you now, editor Daftation? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it should be capitalized, Jonesey95 didn't change it though, its the only designation without capitalisation. I think the title is wrong as well. Can you check it? Daftation 🗩 🖉 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This editor has forked this discussion all over the place. Let's stay at the template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again, editor Jonesey95, this time for the heads up. Wilco. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"T:R from" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect T:R from has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § T:R from until a consensus is reached. QueenofHearts 04:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

737 groundings title

@Paine Ellsworth, I appreciate you closing the discussion on moving the 737 groundings title. There was clearly not consensus to move it. There also doesn't appear to be consensus for a split, although there is more support. Are there any next steps you might suggest to get some additional ideas? I can't reconcile how we're supposed to keep the 2019 groundings as the primary topic without changing the title. Keeping the page title as related to all groundings diverges from Wikipedia's well established format of covering airline defects under the accident aircraft's page. I'm just at a loss of how to move forward and would appreciate any input you can offer. Thanks!! Dw31415 (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to help editors with their efforts to find and place good article titles for our readers. I'll be glad to take another look to see how the split is going and to help with suggestions on going forward. It is without a doubt not an easy situation in this case to find answers for your concerns. Thank you for coming to my talk page, editor Dw31415! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
To editor Dw31415: I'm with you. After taking a closer look, it's difficult to see a way forward. More discussion on an informal level on the talk page about where the title and content are now and where you think they should be headed, that's what I would suggest. That might help with a light at the end of the tunnel. Best to you, and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Gender-critical feminism RM close

Hey Paine, would you be open to expanding upon your close of the RM on Talk:Gender-critical feminism? Not only was this a particularly contentious and lengthy move request, there was also several issues surrounding off-wiki canvassing to it. In these circumstances, I believe it would be helpful if you could more descriptive than a single sentence that there was no consensus. Per WP:RMCIDC and WP:DETCON it would be extremely helpful if you could elaborate on how you evaluated the relative strengths of the arguments for and against the move, assigned weight to them, all viewed through the lens of the relevant polices and guidelines. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, editor Sideswipe9th, for coming to my talk page! And apologies for my usual terse closing statement. That was an interesting read with strong arguments on both sides of the article-title issue. Frankly I thought that overall the arguments in favor of the proposed page move were somewhat stronger, and yet there was interesting rebuttal to the nom's COMMONNAME and NPOV rationale, which strengthened the opposition a bit. At the end of my read I found that neither supporters nor opposers had been able to build a consensus either for the current title or for proposed titles. At first I very nearly relisted the request; however, I then considered the lengthy arguments by several concerned editors and decided to close the request instead. I suggest for editors to wait two or three months and then open a fresh move request with strongest possible arguments. History has shown that the longer the wait and the stronger the rationales, the more likely a follow-up move request will succeed. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. Could you amend your close to give more information on the strengths and weaknesses of each argument? And how the COMMONNAME and NPOV arguments were rebutted? Closes for contentious issues like this one are generally best when they're as descriptive of the discussion as possible, as they help all participants understand why a discussion went the way that it did. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Added an explanation into the RM. Hope this helps, and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Pakeha settlers close

Hi Paine, can you elaborate on why you consider this 15 support-8 oppose move request to be "no consensus"? The sole P&G-based argument cited by those opposing was that MOS:TIES overrides COMMONALITY, however, supporters pointed out that a) there is no indication that TIES "overrides" any other section of guidance, especially given that other sections specifically inform on how to use TIES; b) TIES says to use the formal national variety of English, and by literally every measure assessed the predominant national variety overwhelmingly prefers "European" to "pakeha"; c) COMMONALITY has the general guidance to use vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable, and explicitly addresses determining whether or not a national variety of English should be used with the instructions Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles and When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred.

Given (b) and the fact that opposers didn't even offer any evidence that "pākehā" was the common term for Europeans, it is completely false to claim The consensus of this discussion is that "Pākehā" is the commonly used term in New Zealand English. It is also plainly false to state WP:COMMONNAME explicitly allows and recommends, in cases where the local English name differs from the globally used one, that the local English common name should prevail when the exact opposite is true, as stated multiple times in the guidance and quoted in (c).

Additionally, it is completely inappropriate for the closer to lecture editors with arguments that were never raised in the discussion and especially for those arguments to imply editors on one side are contributing to some specific, allegedly racist trend that appears to be entirely your personal opinion. This is unacceptable: As an aside, I would like to express my concern with a certain style of argument that was also raised at the RM at Talk:Ganges, and has come up at NZ-related (and some AU-related) RMs before; namely, I am concerned that we run the risk of creating tiers of national variants of English when it comes to the application of the "use English" policy. Such a practice would be a violation of WP:NPOV and would hamper our efforts at countering systemic bias. JoelleJay (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the move nominator @BilledMammal as well. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi editor JoelleJay, and welcome to my talk page! As you may know, move requests are not closed by virtue of the vote count. I'm an uninvolved editor whose only job as closer is to assess the merits of the rationales given by all of the concerned editors who participated in the survey. It won't do either of us any good to reargue the requested move here on my talk page. My closing statement was certainly not meant to inappropriately lecture any of the involved editors. My only concern was not to raise new arguments but to assess those arguments that were already articulated in the survey. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
How do you reconcile this close with what COMMONALITY says about preferring universally-understood words for titles and about preferring the more commonly-used variety when two native varieties exist? And this doesn't even touch the very valid argument put forth that TIES clearly applies to the home countries of the majority-British European settlers just as much as it does to NZ. JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Closure of this RM is reconciled with the entire survey and discussion, not with just one or two cited policies and guidelines, but with all that were cited and argued. Please understand: I cannot supervote – it would be unethical for me to be drawn in to any further debate on the merits of this move request. I'm just a closer, not an involved participant. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I completely misattributed your closure statement to Sceptre's earlier closure. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with your read of consensus and ask you to please outline in more detail how you came to your conclusion. JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I wondered where all that came from. No worries, and I'm sorry that you disagree with my assessment of consensus, which can be expected under the circumstances. I of course read the entire survey and discussion and would be happy to expand on my closing statement. I found strong, policy-based arguments on both sides of the issue. It began strongly with a nomination that included three policies and two guidelines. And then it was opposed very strongly right off the bat. That was followed by a fairly weak support on the grounds of "common sense". Then there was more policy-based opposition followed by another "common sense" oppose. A week support followed that based on what was "meaningful". The next one was a bit tricky; it was a "support" that was really an "oppose" that suggested a different title. That was followed by a yawn of a support based on this being the English Wikipedia. Then came support and oppose votes that contained add-on rationales but nothing new. After I relisted there was a weak support that cited an interesting essay followed by a weak oppose that essentially cited editor Sceptre's previous closure. Then there were more add-on opposes and supports until we come to the strong and policy-based final argument in support of the rename. To me, this all adds up to an interesting discussion of a very contentious issue, a survey that lacked agreement, lacked consensus in regard to both the current title and the proposed name. Hope this helps, and thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I would say the "support but really oppose" was at least a strong argument against the current title and hopefully you counted it as such... And I'm not sure how the !vote that mentioned what term was more meaningful to readers outside NZ is "weak" as it implicitly cites COMMONALITY. But regardless of all that, there was the major, unrebutted issue that the term most common in NZ in recent sources, by a wide margin, is "European settlers". The fact that no oppose !voters adequately addressed this crucial component of TIES and COMMONALITY is a serious flaw and your close (and expansion here) makes no mention of why this wasn't given any weight. Surely if the argument for keeping the name rests on it being "the common term in the national variety of English", that term should actually be the most common term? TIES does not say to prefer the English term used uniquely by the subject nation, it just says to prefer "the common term", which would include universally-recognized English. And coupled with COMMONALITY's instruction to prefer the more recognizable term, as well as the completely valid point that "European settlers" would definitionally have "strong ties" to a different English-speaking nation, I don't see how the oppose arguments could be given much weight at all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we agree that TIES was a major point of contention from the beginning, with supporters arguing that TIES was overridden by COMMONALITY, and then come the opposers with their strong rebuttals. Maybe you're too close to it to see the major contentious aspect of this? As an objective observer I can honestly say that this part of the overall argument especially remained unresolved. Focus on that in ensuing discussion to build consensus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean by "strong rebuttals"? There was no coherent rebuttal to the empirical evidence that the most common NZ-English term by far is "European settlers", which means it is actually the correct term per COMMONALITY and per TIES.
It also shouldn't matter whether this is contentious or not, we're not supposed to be a platform for righting great wrongs or for initiating social change. "It's contentious in the real world" is not a P&G-based argument and so should have been completely discounted. Coming into this I found the arguments of some of the other supporters to be loathsome but I intentionally pushed that aside to look at what the P&Gs and sources said, and ended up changing my mind in the process of searching academia for the "formal" term most used in NZ. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I saw some strong arguments for TIES in opposers' rationales. In your opinion "There was no coherent..." and so on. Again you're bringing the RM to my talk page, and it would be wrong of me to reargue it here. Hopefully, my closure was coherent enough to be understood. That's all that a closer can ask. The fact that the issues in the RM were contentious does matter quite a lot, especially when we consider that it was just that matter-of-fact contentiousness that shouted out for a no-consensus outcome. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
But I'm asking what that argument was that you considered "strong", because the argument that it is "the common name" was completely rebutted. What evidence was needed, or what would P&Gs have to say, for you to have closed as "move", since clearly super-majority support wasn't enough? JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, in the first place, I didn't see anything near a "super-majority". In the second place, the answer to your questions about what argument or evidence was needed is that I don't know. I have not studied the issue enough to rub my crystal ball and bring about the highest and best situation. That's up to involved editors like yourself to put heads together and build a consensus. It has been done before, so precedent is on your side. Convince the dissenters and opposers, or failing that, let them convince you and other supporters. I think it's important to remember that as volunteer editors, we are not here to bump heads too much; we are here to bring about improvement to Wikipedia in a spirit of harmony. It is just such a spirit that builds both consensus and encyclopedias. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
15-8 is a supermajority... And anyway, you said the numbers didn't matter (clearly), so there must have been something in the oppose side's argument that you believed was WAY more strongly supported by P&Gs than the supporters' arguments. So what was it? Please can you tell me why you discounted the fact that, empirically, "European" is used far more than "pakeha" in NZ when deciding opposers' TIES invocation overruled both COMMONALITY and the language in TIES itself.
Again, "being contentious IRL" is not a valid argument and should not have factored in at all (except as an IAR situation). The fact that certain people seemed to be motivated by shitty reasons should not have played any role either. The closer is only supposed to evaluate the arguments through the lens of P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that 15-8 is correct, but even if it were correct, it is by no means a "super majority". 15-1 or 15-2 is a super majority. But who is counting? right? I've already explained my reasoning more than once in this discussion. Your final sentence seems almost an accusation that this RM was not evaluated through the lens of policy. Not easy to AGF on that basis, so thank you for coming to my talk page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
? Sure, 15-9. Supermajority is considered to be 60-66%. But ok, I guess we'll go to MRV... JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for that if that's what you decide to do. I'll of course abide by whatever consensus should form at the review board. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I have to agree with JoelleJay that your closure is odd; in this circumstance where a significant majority is in favor of a move unless you find that the arguments in opposition are significantly stronger there should be a consensus to move - and correct me if I have misunderstood, but my understanding of your close is that you considered the arguments on both sides equally strong?
Further, you previously participated in this debate through the move review process, with comments such as it seems to me to be a lost cause to argue that this article should be named something other than "Pākehā settlers"; I think it would be more appropriate for you to leave closing this discussion to someone else? BilledMammal (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Interesting take, and if you were to be more objective rather than the subjective nominator of this request, you might see through to the fact that my MRV statement does not involve me in any RM. I also relisted the request, and nobody objected at that time. That doesn't mean much, but usually, if one can relist, then one is uninvolved enough to close the discussion, not always, but usually. There is nothing odd about my closing statement to an objective observer. The arguments on both sides of the issue were strong and compelling. To any outside observer, the renaming of that article is inarguably a contentious issue. I recommend that editors continue to discuss the titling issue informally to try to build consensus. Only then might a formal move request succeed. Thank you, editor BilledMammal for coming to my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Your comments in that move review suggest that you have strong feelings about this topic, and looking at the broader definition of WP:INVOLVED I think you meet it.
If you aren't willing to reverse your closure on that basis, can you please, as JoelleJay requested, expand on the reasoning for your close, as your current rationale is very slim and fails to explain how you assessed the strength of the arguments or how you came to reject the position of the significant majority. BilledMammal (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not only do I not have strong feelings about the article title, I have no feelings at all about it, which results in the objectivity required to close the RM. And I have not yet expressed any opinion at all about whether or not I'd be willing to reverse my closure, because I have not yet been asked to do so. To grant clarification, I did explain in my closing statement to wit: with fair rebuttals and almost equally strong rationales that are opposed to this page move. And I think that any editor who reads that long and interesting survey and discussion objectively would be hard pressed to find any consensus at all among those strong supportive and almost equally strong unsupportive arguments. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And I will be glad to expand on my closing statement and will do so in answer to editor JoelleJay above, if I can get a few words in edgewise. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Then let me ask you; would you be willing to reverse your closure and let a different editor close?
If you aren't, I was hoping you would be willing to expand on that rationale; provide a little more information on why you didn't see a consensus here, as that rationale is very brief and not very informative. BilledMammal (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I can always be persuaded to reverse a closure by a good, sound argument. When I see such an argument, then i would be happy to consider it. Thus far all I've seen are attempts to reargue the RM on my talk page and accusations that I should dismiss myself because I am "involved". A more substantial reason is needed at this point. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sideshow

Heya PE. I don't have an opinion on the RM or the close, except that I'm generally grateful to you for your closure work. I wanted to address the "I also relisted the request, and nobody objected at that time. If one can relist, then one can close." I've participated in many relisted discussions, and relisted a few. I don't think I've every really talked about it with anyone, but my personal experience is that I'd never think to scrutinize the involvedness of a relister. It's a much less attention-grabbing action than closing. Unless your experience differs from mine, I would not recommend leaning, now or in the future, on the suggestion that an unchallenged relist is evidence of uninvolvedness. Would you disagree? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually I do agree with you, editor Firefangledfeathers if only because I've seen involved editors relist discussions. It's rare but it does happen, and when it does, the relister has to be ready to justify the relist if challenged (which I've never seen happen). And of course since they're involved, the relister is not expected to close unless it's a near-SNOW merge discussion. When I reread what I had written it occurred to me that I probably should clarify it, because it ain't always necessarily so. Thank you for catching that! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/Archive_25&oldid=1216518492"