User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 27
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Paine Ellsworth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 |
A cookie for you!
Estar8806 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Nice close at Israel–Hamas war. That's a tough discussion nobody else would want to touch. :)
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Estar8806: thank you so very much for your nice words and cookie! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
RM closure
Thanks for closing the big RM here. I would request that you expand on what you believe were the strongest policy-based arguments on both sides that lead you to the no-consensus closure. For example, I did a source analysis on the issue, but it was late in the RM, few users commented on it, and one user potentially made it unreadable, so I'm curious if you took that into account or not. But there were other source analyses too, so I'm wondering how did you weight competing analyses. I'm asking these questions for the purpose of understanding " editors can strengthen their arguments, discover new ones" for a future RM. Also, when you mean "While support for such a title change appears to be growing" are you referring to a change to Israel-Gaza war or Gaza war? That clarification would help what should be the target of a future RM. VR (Please ping on reply) 15:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- As an example, you can see this RM resulted in no consensus, but the closer gave very specific directions for a future RM, which then resulted in a RM that actually yielded consensus. Such specific direction here would be helpful, thanks.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for coming to my talk page, editor VR! And please forgive me for being away as I've been very busy offline. Closing that interesting discussion was more of a pleasure than a chore. Part of the answer to your questions is within the discussion above, as other editors have also inquired about that closure. That editor's misplaced vote was a bit confusing but not so that your rationale was not coherent. And yes I did take it into account. In this case, "editors can strengthen their arguments, discover new ones" applies mostly to rebuttal arguments because both sides had their share of very strong rationales. As for the growing common-name support, as you know, "Gaza War" is a bit ambiguous, but both terms, "Gaza War" and "Israel-Gaza War" are growing, yet neither seems to have surpassed the term "Hamas" in this title and context. So I still recommend a customary waiting period of a few months before opening a fresh RM. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- No worries about the delay, we all get busy. The above is exactly why I'd like you to add more details to your closure statement. You said:
- "yes I did take it into account" in reference to this table that, on its face, would show Gaza war as more common than Israel-Hamas war
- " but both terms, "Gaza War" and "Israel-Gaza War" are growing, yet neither seems to have surpassed the term "Hamas" in this title and context"
- Now it is entirely possible that my analysis was flawed, so a detailed closing statement would show why that is, and how I can alleviate those flaws in a future RM.
- Further, it was also argued that WP:NDESC, not WP:COMMONNAME, was the more controlling policy in this case, which is why a lot of !votes focused less on common usage, and more accurate and neutral description. WP:NHC says "
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.
" So I would like the closing statement to indicate which policy was more controlling and why. - Having all these details in the closing statement would immensely help in making a future RM result in some sort of consensus, which is what we should all be aiming for. Thanks again.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- No worries about the delay, we all get busy. The above is exactly why I'd like you to add more details to your closure statement. You said:
- Thank you for coming to my talk page, editor VR! And please forgive me for being away as I've been very busy offline. Closing that interesting discussion was more of a pleasure than a chore. Part of the answer to your questions is within the discussion above, as other editors have also inquired about that closure. That editor's misplaced vote was a bit confusing but not so that your rationale was not coherent. And yes I did take it into account. In this case, "editors can strengthen their arguments, discover new ones" applies mostly to rebuttal arguments because both sides had their share of very strong rationales. As for the growing common-name support, as you know, "Gaza War" is a bit ambiguous, but both terms, "Gaza War" and "Israel-Gaza War" are growing, yet neither seems to have surpassed the term "Hamas" in this title and context. So I still recommend a customary waiting period of a few months before opening a fresh RM. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
- Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.
Technical news
- Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Arbitration
- RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
Miscellaneous
- An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 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!
Move review for Israel-Hamas war
An editor has asked for a Move review of Israel-Hamas war. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 November 2024
- From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime
- In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel
- Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship
- Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?