I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. I very much respect admins and have been helped by them many, many times over the years. I also respect the community vettings at RfA that often show the ultimate community respect and trust of an editor.
I shall likely remain a non-admin and continue to enjoy discussions with other WP editors. I sometimes participate, sometimes help with disagreements and sometimes close discussions when needed. I am no stranger to closing contentious discussions about controversial subjects. I sometimes close the easy talks, too, because if it's in the backlog, then it's fair game!
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, policy-based rationales, which count most toward an acceptable decision and closure.
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 amspecificallyandintentionallyasked to do so! (Not so much if I found a consensus – that 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 enough trouble reading my own mind sometimes. Thank you beyond words for your deeply respected concerns! – Paine
Editing WP helps me to continue learning, so one vital, very important role for Wikipedia and some other websites on the Internet is...
Older 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. ⸎
Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.
Technical news
Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.
Arbitration
The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
Thanks for fixing the RM here in regards to the malformed nomination of a redirect. I hope you don't mind that I shamelessly stole your note's wording at two other RMs here and here. I also noticed that you did a similar note back in 2023, so thanks for keeping an eye on this for so long! Fork99 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.
Technical news
Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240
An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Hi editor Bogazicili and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! There was indeed a growing consensus for "Anti-Palestinian racism" in the closed move request; however, 1) there was also strong pushback, and 2) that title had been only informally proposed. So I thought it best to test the amount of growth with the second RM. I figured that if "Anti-Palestinian racism" is the highest and best title for that article, then it would gain an even stronger agreement and acceptance when proposed on its own in a formal request. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the correct venue for reviewing the closes of requested moves is WP:MRV. While there was a growing consensus for "...racism", I did not see consensus for or against the current title of "Anti-Palestinianism", which was another good reason to grant editor Lumbering in thought's request at WP:CR to reopen the second request. I will clarify my closing statement as follows:
Not moved per consensus in the survey below. Closure requested at WP:CR(permalink). There is no agreement seen below as to whether or not to keep the current title, so the request to reopen the move proposal in the next talk-page section is granted in order to see if consensus can be garnered for the proposed title, "Anti-Palestinian racism".
In Template:Oceania topic, can you remove East Timor (also called Timor Leste)? Unlike neighboring Indonesia, which has territory in Oceania (Western New Guinea), East Timor is entirely located in Asia (in Southeast Asia to be precise).
Hi editor Oratas, and thank you for coming to my talk page! After reading Oceania and other articles, it appears that while Timor-Leste is a part of Southeast Asia, there are parts of Southeast Asia that are also in the huge area of Oceania. To remove Timor-Leste from the Oceania topic navbar would seem to be at least a bit controversial. I see that it has not been discussed at Template talk:Oceania topic, and that would be the better venue to garner consensus in regard to whether or not Timor-Leste should be a link in that navbar. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June.
Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed GoldRomean to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as lead coordinator, and Miniapolis and Mox Eden return as coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.
June 2025 blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 26,652 words comprising 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
July 2025 drive: 30 of the 54 editors who signed up for the July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited a total of 379,557 words comprising 151 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
August 2025 Blitz: 11 of the 17 editors who signed up for the August 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited a total of 65,601 words comprising 25 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
September 2025 Drive:Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.
Progress report: As of 06:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 222 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,010 articles.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Thank you very much, editor Mika1h, for coming to my talk page! And thank you, too, editor 162 etc. for the ping at WT:RM! Yes, that is the typical outcome when the ROUNDROBIN page move method is used to preserve the page histories. If the page history for the musician is now at the kickboxer title, then it will take an admin to fix it, so I'll see if editor Martin can fix it? I've already taken care of the talk page. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
@Paine Ellsworth Clearly more people support the move than who oppose it. You just closed it - saying " the oppose rationales are much stronger and policy-based" - you need to explain why. This closure is not appropriate. Please explain your reasoning - or revert the closure. If not, I will challenge it. Cinaroot (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested topic - and such vague closure is not appropriate. Also it can run for 30 days. You can only close it - if outcome is clear and unlikely to change.
Thank you very much, editor Cinaroot, for coming to my talk page! Given a choice between explaining and reverting, I would choose explaining. I did not go into detail in my closing statement, because almost every time I do so, I am accused of casting a "supervote". And the stark reality is that the stronger oppose arguments pretty much explain themselves. I read the survey three times, and each time I came to the same conclusion. A gentle reminder that when you close a discussion, it is not a numbers game, it is the weight of the rationales that determines consensus. The self-explanatory arguments in the survey, when one reads them through the lenses of uninvolved impartiality and policy, lead to the conclusion that there is no true agreement in that move request.
And the reason I closed it rather than just relist it is because I saw other suggested titles that were also proposed and thought that editors might want to pursue a move request for one or the other of those potential titles. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know it’s not a numbers game again. But you still haven’t explained your reasoning. Why opposing arguments are stronger? You are saying there is no true agreement. I don't understand. There is lot of people who agreed to it. You need a strong reasoning to close this as no consensus,
Saw the closure on CR, and its fairly strange to me. I understand you are a much more experienced editor than me, but it would be helpful if you did a summary describing why the opposes are more policy-minded. The opposes are outnumbered by at least 3 to 1. its hard not to see this as a supervote, and especially hard without explaining the reasoning. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)03:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the stark reality is that the stronger oppose arguments pretty much explain themselves. I think reading through the oppose args (specifically how the other genocide accusations are more contested than this latest Gaz one), I can start to see where you are coming from, and could see a no consensus being valid for the move argument. but as there were many folks who voted support, it would be helpful to spell it out. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)03:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, editor Bluethricecreamman! Since a move review has been opened, I probably should stay quiet to see what reviewers think, but since your review seems to hinge on further explanation, I will do my best: I thought that oppose args were much stronger because several cited NPOV, PRECISE and even a previous name change that made the title more CONCISE, as well. This was I believe an unusual case where both supports and opposes were strong; however, I thought the opposes were quite a bit stronger, strong enough to offset the supports and result in no agreement overall among participants. And frankly, I would have been glad to revert and relist had editor Cinaroot asked specifically for that. I suppose that is no longer an option, though. We'll see what reviewers at MR think of this contentious situation. I do think that editors who like "...question" and "...allegations" should be allowed to open a new RM to test one or both of those titles. That can only happen soon if my closure is endorsed at move review. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry - but your reasoning still doesn’t inspire confidence in your close. You may post in the move review that you are okay to revert and relist it. Cinaroot (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I would have been glad to revert and relist had editor Cinaroot asked specifically for that." The opening comment was "Please explain your reasoning - or revert the closure"? I'm struggling to understand how we ended up with a move review here if you were willing to revert? CNC (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Please explain your reasoning - or revert the closure." Editor Cinaroot gave me a choice. As I said above, "Given a choice between explaining and reverting, I would choose explaining." So there was no explicit "Revert the closure" on Cinaroot's part above. I was given a choice, and I made a choice. Please do not struggle. There is no need for you to struggle; editor Cinaroot made a choice to take it to Move Review, and what's done is done. If I was wrong, then the reviewers will have my closure overturned. We're all volunteer editors here, so there are no hard feelings, truly. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the issue was your lack of willingness to elaborate initially (as you did later, above), thus this move review being opened? "I did not go into detail in my closing statement, because almost every time I do so, I am accused of casting a "supervote". It shouldn't matter that editors accuse you of a supervote, that's part of the 'fun and games' of closing controversial RMs, especially when changing the weight of such !votes considerably, and that's OK when done accurately. If you're not comfortable with that, then it's best not to close them absent of such rationales. I don't understand why your first reply wasn't explaining properly as initially requested, this would of avoided a move review here. As would being more patient prior to opening one, granted. Anyway, are you still willing to revert so the review can be procedurally closed? CNC (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for your words above! When a closer is wrongly accused of casting a supervote at Move Review, it usually muddies the waters and distracts reviewers from the task at hand, which is to analyze the closure, not the closer. I'm not sure what the procedure is as far as making a procedural close for such as this at Move Review. I've done it many times at move requests, but it is an infrequent issue at review. I think it's best to see what reviewers say about the closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to revert the close, the move review would be null and void. There is nothing stopping the closer reverting during such a process, it's effectively a way to back out of it. No closer should have to go through the often gruelling process unless it's because they stand by their close, so the option remains a voluntary choice for now, so you do you as they say. Personally I otherwise don't see accusations of a supervote muddying the waters at all, unless it's a supervote; often it is thrown around as an empty accusation and as confirmation that there isn't a lot wrong with the close. Sometimes it's also just about use of language to try and avoid these accusations also, for example "I thought that oppose args were much stronger because " would be better written as "The oppose args were much stronger because", as it's already assumed that it is only your interpretation as the closer, and that's fine, so to reiterate opinion can be misleading, even if shouldn't be. I'm personally not in need of such authoritative use of langugage to understand a close, but for many others it can be helpful or provide better confidence and trust in the close. Anyway, no hard feelings either, to me this is just a bit of a mess. CNC (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic report: One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
Arbitration
The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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.
Thanks! It seems pretty common that RfC’s start and then it pretty quickly emerges that the options given were not good options. In Roberts Rules groups there are easy methods to amend the proposal to increase the chance of passage. In RfC’s here, it seems like the community is stuck for 30 days to wait out the RfC. Are there any tools here for moving things along more quickly? Dw31415 (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dw31415, I wasn't aware that you posted here. @Paine Ellsworth seems to have confirmed what I've been thinking since you first posted on the RfC regarding withdrawing the closure request. It would be unfair to the participants who spent time summarising their viewpoints to not have a formal close. It would also leave WP:DESTNOT in limbo. I will confirm here that I do not plan to withdraw my closure request or the RfC itself, despite the minority of editors who have expressed frustration with it. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting Paine’s thoughts here. (I was confused what page I was on). I look forward to seeing how the closer handles it. Dw31415 (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist.
Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors experienced in drives or blitzes and in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor (with their permission, of course) to be a Guild coordinator until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June 2026.
September Drive: 43 of the 63 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive edited 693,541 words in 265 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
October Blitz: 14 of the 15 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz edited 75,108 words in 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.
November Drive: 38 of the 65 editors who signed up for the November Backlog Elimination Drive edited 590,816 words in 240 articles. Barnstars awarded are posted here.
December Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 14 December (UTC) and will end on 20 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.
Progress report: As of 01:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 293 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 1,730 articles.
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, GoldRomean, Miniapolis and Mox Eden.
To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hi Paine Ellsworth! Hope you are doing well. I was wondering if you could give me some help with the rcats at 1700s in Scotland1700s in Scotland? It is a redirect to category space, and thus should be tagged with {{R unprintworthy}}. But it is also a plausible article title, and therefore I tagged it as {{R with possibilities}}, which automatically adds the printworthy tag, categorizing the redirect as both printworthy and unprintworthy. Is there a way to remove the printworthy designation other than using {{suppress categories}}? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)03:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi editor HouseBlaster, and thank you for coming to my talk page! One thing I noticed is that {{R with Wikidata item}} should be applied to inform editors that it's associated with an item on Wikidata. I'm confused by the retargeting to the category. I think the original merge target, 1700 in Scotland, is better because then the Printworthy redirects category, which is always used with Category:Redirects with possibilities, can be applied. The "1700 in Scotland" article has links to other years in the decade, so I think it would help readers more to be redirected to that article instead of being sent to a category. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why a redirect with possibilities would not be considered helpful in a printed or CD/DVD version of Wikipedia. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958
An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Hi, editor 162 etc., and thank you for bringing this to my attention! This was one of those "conflicting move requests on a different talk page" type of malformed request. I monitor those at WP:RM, and when one like this appears, I procedurally close the latest one and combine it into the earlier request. I continue to monitor this one, but I don't see where the nom has mentioned anything about withdrawing the request. Instead I see pretty much the same argument in the closed request as in the open one, which is to dab the present Judgement article with "(virtue)" and then to move Judgement (disambiguation) to the base name. I don't see the difference; what am I missing? Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've chosen to collapse the original thread instead. I do believe that the alternative I've proposed offers more of a "clean sheet" with less possibility for confusion, but won't object further to the current status of both talk pages. 162 etc. (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.
The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Template:Ba'ath Party. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 14:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, editor Zackmann08, and good catch! I hunted for a |state= parameter, and as you can see, that parameter was in a very uncommon place there in group 2, so unfortunately I missed it. Glad that you were able to find it. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.
Hi editor Redaking, and thank you for coming to my talk page! I will look into that for you and do what I can, which might not be much because I'm not very familiar with the arzwiki format. I'll let you know if I find something. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 10:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Redaking: I've found the same linter error in other taxonomy templates, such as arz:قالب:Taxonomy/Nephrozoa, as shown on the special page. That leads me to believe that the problem would be found in a template or module that is common to all the arzwiki taxonomy templates. I'm not sure how good this guess is, but if I were to guess, I'd say that the problem is in the autotaxobox module, where the tables are defined. I'm only a novice when it comes to Lua modules; however, I'd say that there is a table tag that should be deleted and a missing end tag generated somewhere in that autotaxobox module. I'd say that this is above my pay grade, so I would like to ask editor Peter coxhead, who did the initial work on the module, and editor Anomie, who initialized the arz:قالب:Don't edit this line template, for their help on this. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention! And thanks in advance to editors Anomie and Peter coxhead for whatever help you can give!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing to do with arz:قالب:Don't edit this line; it appears they imported only the latest revision (at the time) of Template:Don't edit this line which happened to be a protection change I did. But looking into the problem, it looks like the problem is in arz:Template:Taxonomy key. It looks like Redaking tried to import a corrected version from our Template:Taxonomy key as arz:Special:PermaLink/12288141, but that was inserted earlier in the history because the imported edit was dated 2024-03-24 while arzwiki had revisions after that date. Likely the thing to do would be to "revert" to that imported revision, and then (re-)do any needed fixes for namespace names and such from there. Anomie⚔13:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Redaking: I agree that the problem is in arz:Template:Taxonomy key, since this is where the two tables are generated that are shown when a taxonomy template is viewed. If you look at our version of Template:Taxonomy key, the right-hand table showing the taxonomic hierarchy is generated entirely by Module:Autotaxobox|taxonomyList. In arz:Template:Taxonomy key, before you get to invoking the module, there's the code {| class="infobox biota". However, arz:وحد:Autotaxobox|taxonomyList, like our version, starts the table by generating {| class="infobox biota". I think this is the problem: the right-hand table is begun twice in the arz system. arz:Template:Taxonomy key should be like the English version. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am surprised by this close — to me, it seemed like it was heading toward a clear case of "no consensus" or even rough consensus against a move. As you noted, both sides had strong and policy-based arguments, yet you assert that the deciding factor was that supporters successfully "rebutted" the policy-based arguments presented by the opposition. How so? Supporters, several of which had a "conflict of interest" with the article subject (this is relevant, because someone involved in an organization feels as though they are "representatives" of that organization and would thus certainly want their organization to be presented in the best light possible), largely relied on anectodal evidence, argued for the new name because it is "official" or more "correct" when there is no requirement for us to do so, and kept clinging onto NAMECHANGES. However, not only did multiple opposers demonstrate that the status quo ante does satisfy NAMECHANGES, but NAMECHANGES is merely a supplement to COMMONNAME; as I noted, its wording could probably use some clarification, but it is not a binding rule that requires articles to always use the name most commonly used by reliable sources even if doing so would fail other criteria described on WP:AT, such as the first point of WP:CRITERIA ("recognizability"). When PAGs appear to conflict with each other, common sense should prevail, and the PAG that contradicts every other PAG should be WP:IGNOREd. If you did not find strong enough consensus that it should be ignored outright, then that is grounds for a "no consensus" close, not a consensus close in either direction. Finally, while consensus is not determined by the number of raw votes, we see that the final tally is 5–4, including one "weak support" !vote that cited personal preference rather than policy (WP:IJUSTLIKEIT). This was too close to call. In accordance with step one of WP:IMR, I am formally asking that you amend your close; otherwise, I will initiate an MR. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, editor InfiniteNexus, for coming to my talk page! I usually give much weight to your opinions in these discussions, and this is no exception. I was a scout in my younger days and rose to the rank of 1st Class. I was Apache patrol leader and had many good times, campouts with the troop, a 50-mile hike in our state's national forest, even a nice, long hike through the Appalachians, many good times. It appears to be time to wave goodbye to the old name and to embrace the new name the organization now wishes to be known by. Of course my own opinion doesn't matter, and I am certain that my determination of consensus in that RM is correct. I do not take your words here lightly; however, as much as I would like to avoid a move review, I am hopeful that other uninvolved editors would uphold my decision. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you very much for the notie, editor InfiniteNexus! Not sure I understand your assertion of "conflict of interest", though. Truth is, while I was a little torn at first by this name change, I finally decided that I could not care less. My scouting experience was more than 60 years ago. And neither of us can deny that a lot – a whole lot – has changed since then. Best to you, and thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 08:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This article was previously the subject of an undiscussed move. As you closed with a 'no consensus' surely the outcome should be that it is put back to where it was, otherwise the result is effectively to move from the original title to the current one, which would never normally happen under a 'no consensus'? Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi editor YorkshireExpat, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! As I noted in my closing statement the current title is the original title of the article. In addition, the most recent rename to "Glenfiddich" and the earlier rename to "Glenfiddich distillery" were both undiscussed. This move request unfortunately didn't settle the issue of whether or not "distillery" should be in the title. Editors who think that the title needs "distillery" are best-advised to strengthen their rationales and try again later to propose this change. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. The original renaming was discussed, and actually discussed at a more abstract level (the spirits project) than our recent move discussion. I think the prior discussion was actually characterised a little unfairly in the recent move discussion, but the point remains that now we have a 'non-consensus' the previous move, properly discussed, should stand. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Move logs: Glenfiddich & Glenfiddich distillery
Thank you, editor YorkshireExpat, for pointing me to that discussion! I noticed that the move logs are a little unusual. That article was titled "Glenfiddich" from its inception in 2004 until it was first moved to "Glenfiddich distillery" in 2012. The oddity is that the rename was logged twice at that time. Then in 2014 it was moved back. "Distillery" once again became part of the title in 2023 and the original title was once again restored in 2025. As you can see, the original title has been in place for 8 + 9 = 17 years while "distillery" was part of the title for 2 + 2 = 4 years. The most stable title of that article by far is it's current title. And in move requests, the most stable title is used after a no-consensus outcome. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but only one of these moves was discussed, the move in 2012 (the 2014 move even says in the comment that it was bold; further to that, the mover in that case was a sock), meaning this decision undermines that previous discussion. Not only that, the discussion was held at project level, and the decision was therefore made over the family of articles to which it pertained. Surely, per WP:CONSISTENT, titles in that family should retain the same naming convention? YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
...(the 2014 move ... was bold; further to that, the mover ... was a sock), ...
And yet, that 2014 return to the original title remained in place for another 9 years until 2023.
Can't really argue about the consistency issue, which I would personally favor if I weren't neutral in regard to this article's title. The article should maybe be called Glenfiddich distillery, I don't know, but I do know that my closure experience tells me that after a no-consensus outcome, the most stable name trumps all until the arguments are strengthened and another attempt is made to change the title down the road. Generally, the longer the wait, the more likely would be the chance of success. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 08:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, that 2014 return to the original title remained in place for another 9 years until 2023.
Indeed, undermining the result of a project level titling discussion. I'm considering a review at this point, which will settle the matter I guess. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paine. Sorry to bother you again. I had created an article of a prominent mountain peak which was later moved as a draft article with little explanation. I opened a discussion topic as to why this was done but so far no response. Would you be able to help me republish it? Article is found here Draft:Maja e Boshit. You can review it yourself. This is a prominent mountain peak that is 2,416 m high, overlooking three seperate valleys. I have seen thousands of articles here remain which have one sentence and are less relevant. Kj1595 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi editor Kj1595, and thank you very much for coming to my talk page! No bother really. It looks like the mover of the page to Draftspace, editor JeBonSer, has an experienced handle on the subject of AfC, so have you discussed this directly with him? I haven't worked much in the AfC area, and maybe editor JeBonSer will give you some tips about what the Maja e Boshit article needs to be able to survive in mainspace. If you follow his advice, then I'm sure the article will be moved back to live articlespace in no time. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.
Hi editor Myceteae, and thank you for your question! I was there once. In the beginning I liked to work on redirects and their sorting to maintenance categories. And I made a lot of mistakes back then. In this particular case I wobbled between miscap and other cap. When that happens I land on R from modification until a clear choice comes to me. When that happens I will go back and sort to a more specific category. Please feel free to go ahead with that if you think one category best describes the redirects over another. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. 'R from modification' is something of a catch-all when the particular stylistic variance doesn't fit neatly into a more specific category or is unclear to the editor. I may change these. Thank you for providing insight into these categories. You are always so generous with your explanations. Cheers! —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Πούμα: thank you very much for coming to my talk page! We see presently in that formal move request that the closure of "no consensus" has been vacated by an administrator. So I regret that no further action to change the page title can be taken at this time. The request has been relisted and should continue for seven days after that. Thanks again!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 08:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your kindness. Be well. Unfortunately, I will be leaving Wikipedia. I believe that a dirty game was played and I have no place in it. Thank you very much. Πούμα (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry you think you have to leave WP, editor Πούμα. I felt the same way soon after I registered, and it was also because of a move request. But I stuck around, and I think I've made a few really good contributions since then. Well, leave or stay, it's entirely up to you. Here's hoping you stay and help us build this encyclopedia. Best of everything to you and yours!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 10:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I've worked too hard on this article to give up so easily. I'll only die if I lose. Thank you for answering me. Πούμα (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I didn't mean it that way. I simply wanted the truth to be reflected. Many mistakes have been made (see the Italian Super Cup, where with the logic of those who disagree with me, the 2023-24 season was left empty). It is a matter of principle and respect for institutions. Anyway. I would personally like to thank you very much, because even though you often argued with me, you tried to resolve the issue.
non-admin reveal
,_brightened.jpg)
Administrator changes
Vacant0
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Miscellaneous