| Revision as of 20:57, 9 October 2011 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Rather than make the Arbitration/Amendment requests page any longer: P.S. not only this place needs Arbcom, but also editorial boards← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:40, 20 May 2018 edit undoTheRealWeatherMan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers728 edits Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Glutamate permease. (TW) | ||
| (63 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| --- | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Hodja Nasreddin/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{archives}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{semi-retired}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692040667 --> | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of Template:Pfam domains == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| == Holodomor == | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the Holodomor mediation. I saw your on Vecrumba's talk page - if you feel strongly about the issues, might you consider adding yourself to the mediation? I think it would be better to air all the issues out on the mediation page, rather than "mediation by proxy", as it were. Thanks — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 02:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I do not feel strongly about the issues, and I did not edit this article for a long time. Whatever you decide in mediation would be fine for me. I commented to Vecrumba only because I know the subject. Do you think my involvement in mediation would be helpful? If so, I can leave a few comments there. ] (]) 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the reply. It's completely up to you if you participate or not. I think we have good representation of both "sides" in the mediation, and there are plenty of knowledgeable editors involved, so I don't see any problems in proceeding with the current list of editors. I think, in the interests of transparency, that if you want to comment on the content it should probably be done on the mediation page; I do realise, though, that if you don't want to get involved with the mediation itself then there is an obvious logical problem there. Speaking for myself, I would say that as long as the mediation process can continue smoothly, then a few talk page comments on the content are no problem whatsoever, but that if you want to comment in more detail then joining the mediation is probably a good idea. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 04:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would rather not comment there. I know all the users involved and do not think they can agree about anything. This mediation may serve only one purpose: as a step for a future arbitration. I am sure that at least one side has this goal in mind. They hope to "win" because another side was sanctioned before. Of course there is nothing wrong with going to arbitration, this is a legitimate procedure, but I would strongly advise all participants against doing this. P.S. If I talk with someone, it does not mean he is my "proxy".] (]) 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, sorry, that was probably a bad choice of words. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything there. Even if some parties do see this as a stepping-stone to arbitration, myself and the other two mediators are clear that we do actually intend to resolve the problems on the page. Let's wait for all the participants to submit their statements and see how things go. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 13:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Good luck! I remember as ] wasted a lot of her time on a "forced mediation" between only ''two'' users and was unable to accomplish anything.] (]) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So, not only these guys did not agree about anything, but they reported each other to AE during the mediation. How are you going to proceed if one of them was banned from the area for 6 months? Wait 6 months? ] (]) 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's a good question, but I probably shouldn't speculate on what will happen just yet. I'm sure something will be decided before too long, so keep an eye on the mediation page if you're curious. Thanks — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 05:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I see. The dispute made its way to Arbcom even faster than I thought. Somehow I am not surprised. This is all so predictable. Let's see how this happened. Move 1. Paul suggests informal mediation . Move 2. Igny brings an AE complaint about one of mediation participants, which inevitably results in at least one topic ban. The mediation is now in a state of limbo. The problem becomes bigger and bigger. Move 3... Sorry, but I do not want to be sanctioned for "battleground mentality". ] (]) 16:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Rather than make the Arbitration/Amendment requests page any longer == | |||
| Hi, Biophys, | |||
| I was about to give this response on the page where our dialog began, but I think it's drifting off topic there, so I'll answer you here: | |||
| :I don't think squeezing people under sanction for a statement that they were wrong and acted badly and then trying to gauge the sincerity of that statement does much good. For one thing, it can easily come across as bullying (which it sometimes is). Second, it can cause further anger. Third, it's hard to separate judging of sincerity with your general like or dislike of a person. | |||
| :Plus, my experience has led me not to trust ArbCom. | |||
| I appreciate your responses, and I'd agree with you more if I trusted ArbCom more. | |||
| -- ] (]) 18:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I made a "contrition" statement in a similar situation (something that WMC did not really do), ''but it did not help'' . I was finally allowed to return to the problematic (EE) area, but several people still watched my edits to revert them at every convenient occasion. I was not topic banned again (yet) only because I am not really active in this area. If WMC returns to editing in CC area, I would expect a lot of wikidrama created by his opponents, which would result in reinstating his topic ban. Of course I may be wrong about this because I am a pessimist, after having so much trouble here. ] (]) 20:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::As about Arbcom, I think this place needs not only Arbcom, but also ]. ] (]) 20:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:40, 20 May 2018
---
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Pfam domains
Template:Pfam domains has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Glutamate permease for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glutamate permease is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Glutamate permease until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)