User talk:Paine Ellsworth

Best of everything to you and yours! and...
Spread the Good!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia – its articles, redirects, templates – all your improvements, and have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable life – both on and off Jimbo's amazing reference work!

      'BE a member of the Wikipedia family!'

'Wikipedia is a community effort of staggering proportions!'

The Closer: non-admin revealings

I am not an administrator on Wikipedia, although I wouldn't mind being one. Remember that WP is not a democracy, so discussions are not just a vote. The key factors in all good discussion closures are the arguments written by concerned editors – good, policy-based rationales – that really count toward an acceptable decision and conclusion to any discussion. Anyway, if you have come to ask about one of my RfC, RM, MRV or other discussion closures, you are very welcome here! I am usually inclined to reopen a discussion if the outcome was "no consensus" and when I am asked to do so! (not so much if I found a consensus – doesn't mean I cannot be persuaded with a good, sound argument) Please be very clear about your intentions and do not beat around the bush. That just means please don't expect me to read your mind; I have trouble enough reading my own mind. Thank you beyond words for your deeply respected concerns!

'they help us keep our minds sharp!'

'PHILOSOPHIE!'

Recently registered?

    Learn quickly how editors journey thru this awe-inspiring reference work! (and the project that builds it!)

---

---

Older collapsed discussions

Discussions and notifications... → click the section title in the Table of Contents (ToC) above, or click [show] to see all the discussions →

The following are closed discussions. Please do not modify them. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ⸎ 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 From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS! Special report: Public Domain Day 2024 Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court! In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate In the media: What is plagiarism? Oklahoma Disneyland? Reaching a human being at Wikipedia? WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine Obituary: Anthony Bradbury Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023 Crossword: everybody gangsta till the style sheets start cascading Comix: Conflict resolution * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC) A cookie (& thanks) for you! 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. -- œ™ 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 News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail Opinion: Until it happens to you Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry In the media: Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Wikipedia, race in the race In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2 Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]" Comix: We've all got to start somewhere Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down * 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). Administrator changes Red-tailed hawk Robertsky Ameliorate! Ancheta Wis Anthony Bradbury (deceased) Cobi Ev Moondyne Worm That Turned Bureaucrat changes Worm That Turned CheckUser changes Wugapodes Interface administrator changes Enterprisey Izno 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 Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote. A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here. Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate! Discuss this newsletter Subscribe Archive 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. ^Queenof_Hearts 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)

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. If one can relist, then one can close. 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)

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)