User talk:Voorts/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

About closing Admin Recall Phase 2

Thank you very much, both you and User:Queen of Hearts for closing the Admin Recall Phase 2. At the rate everyone was skipping closing that one, I was genuinely concerned we might not get it closed at all, or at least for another few months. Thanks both of you for taking on this one.

I do have a further request/question. The further steps from this process are a bit unclear. In my personal opinion, all of these closes combined may be enough to establish consensus for Recall to be implemented as is, but there are editors who would prefer a final up-down vote after Phase 2 closed. There was further discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review#Administrator_recall,_phase_II, which was effectively derailed by the strong opinions and the fact that everyone there was pretty much involved.

I believe the best way to resolve this is by the closer(s) of Phase 2. Would either/both of you be willing to weigh in on this? It'd help us not be deadlocked on future steps for this. Soni (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's the place of the closing editors to determine next steps. My two cents are that the close in Phase I stated, Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted. Since consensus has been obtained, I think we're done. If editors want an up-or-down vote on the entire package of adopted procedures, they can start a new discussion at the appropriate forum (probably the talk page) as to whether that's needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify: it sounds like you're saying "I think this should be done, but I'm saying that with my closer hat off, and don't have a closer's opinion on the matter"? In any case, thank you so much – take this barnstar below :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Closer hat off, I don't think another vote or poll or whatever is needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Sep 21: Wikicurious for Latin Music: Editing to the Beat ♫

Sat Sep 21: Wikicurious - Editing to the Beat ♫ @ Lehman College

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for the "Editing to the Beat" event of the beginner-focused Wikicurious series at Lehman College. This is the second event of the series, following the inaugural event at Civic Hall in July. Led by a 9-person live band demonstrating Caribbean and Latin musical genres, we'll engage with efforts such as WikiProject Latin Music, and will encourage editing on both English and Spanish Wikipedia. All are welcome, and newcomers and aspiring editors are especially encouraged to attend. Registration via Eventbrite is required for building entry, and is also encouraged on the event page on Meta. The Wikicurious series is supported by Craig Newmark Philanthropies. Wikimedia NYC is an official affiliate and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. Also supporting this event are Equis, The Celia Cruz Foundation, and the International Museum of Salsa. In association with WikiCari and AfroCrowd. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. Meeting info: Date: Saturday, September 21, 2024 Time: 1:00–7:00 p.m. Location: Lehman College (CUNY) 250 Bedford Park Blvd W, Bronx, NY Equipment: Please bring your own computer. We are not yet able to provide loaner laptops. Eventbrite RSVP: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/wikicurious-editing-to-the-beat-tickets-1009115641047 RSVP is necessary for building entry.

P.S. Upcoming WikiNYC meetups:

• Wed Sep 25: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election/Members Meeting 2024!
• Sat Oct 26: Wikidata Day 2024!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For breaking a logjam that sat for months at admin recall phase II. Here's to maybe finally unbreaking RfA :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Was going to come here to give a similar barnstar. Your closes are seen and appreciated. As someone who has closed discussions in the RFA2024 circle, they can be a doozy. Many thanks! —Sirdog (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

+1, thanks for volunteering the time to take this on. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @leeky, @Sirdog, and @Levivich. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Neary's

On 16 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neary's, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the New York City Police Department shut down highway and bridge traffic for the funeral of the owner of Neary's, an Irish pub? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neary's. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Neary's), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Rank-and-file strategy

Hello, Voorts,

This draft is due to be deleted soon. If you are still working on it and want to avoid a trip to WP:REFUND, you can make an edit to the page. Just thought I'd give you a head's up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like I noticed this a bit too late, so I've requested a refund. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Close on Benevolent Dictatorship

Hi, I'm posting here to ask you to revise your recent close. The issue here, as @Banedon points out in response, is that this RFC was conducted to resolve an ongoing dispute with no real status quo, and closing it as no consensus means that there is no resolution to the dispute. Could you please try harder to find any sort of consensus you can? Loki (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Loki. I approach every close trying to find some sort of consensus. I've re-reviewed the discussion and my close and I don't think I can come to a different conclusion. In this case, to find a consensus I would have to make up arguments for one of the sides, which I obviously cannot do as a neutral closer. As I suggested in my close, one of the next steps might be to focus on historical examples. Another option might include holding an RfC on a particular example or set of examples; it's easier to apply P&Gs to a particular set of facts and debate that rather than debate the question in the abstract. Finally, you might try WP:DRN and see if some sort of compromise can be worked out there. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Part of the reason I'm asking is that your close reads to me like it could easily have started with a rough consensus for excluding examples. You say in the close that the exclude side had both far more supporters, and that some of their arguments were not answered by the opposing side.

The other reason I'm asking is that your close also doesn't address the idea of excluding modern examples only, which would have an even stronger consensus because one of the yes votes was for only pre-modern examples. Loki (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What we *really* need is a binding decision one way or another that resolves the dispute for the next 2-3 years. As it is we simply go nowhere. Banedon (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Addie Viola Smith, about "the first woman to serve as a Foreign Service officer under the United States Department of Commerce who eventually worked her way up to trade commissioner in Shanghai and consul at the Consulate General of the United States, Shanghai. Smith was also involved with international feminist activism (with a colonialist and imperialist perspective), often working with her life partner, Eleanor Mary Hinder."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts Thank you for this beautiful article! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Recall Phase 2 A/E

Hi voorts, thanks for closing the recall Phase 2 proposals. After the post-close discussion and re-reading it, I think your close of one of the sections was wrong: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall#Desysop after Recall petition. You said there was significant numerical support for E, but I see less than 10 people supporting E out of 30 total, which doesn't seem like "significant numerical support" to me. (It also contradicts common sense: we can't have a crat opening up an RFA for someone who doesn't want to run again.) This "E thing" is causing some significant consternation, as can be seen at the various post-close discussions. Would you mind taking another look at that part of your close and modifying it? Levivich (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I noted that "This close is without prejudice to further refining option E." I think that's been done via the drafting of the final procedure, which I think is consistent with the close. I don't see a need to amend at this point, particularly since this is now getting an up-or-down vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks for the quick response. It looks to me that the current language of WP:RRFA fixes this. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Unioninkatu

I have now added more references to Draft:Unioninkatu and submitted the draft for review. JIP | Talk 20:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JIP. I don't read Finnish and I can't access the book you've cited. I also noticed that you're missing a page number for cite 4. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So what should be done now? The article needed more citations and now it has more citations. I don't have access to the source for cite 4 right now but I could try to read it at a library. Does the draft still need to be reviewed first or can it be moved to the article space once the cite is fixed? JIP | Talk 22:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

If you believe it is notable, you can move it to the mainspace if you'd like. Or, you can wait for a reviewer at AfC to take a look at the submitted draft. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)