| Revision as of 06:10, 4 November 2010 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,127 editsm Signing comment by 81.64.38.94 - "→Wes Anderson page: new section"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:08, 12 January 2025 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,354 edits →Unblock-decline: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div style="padding-bottom: 0.5em;">{{Usertalk bar}}</div> | |||
| {{Message}} | |||
| Old messages are at ].<br/>] is quickest for having pages undeleted.<br/>E-mail me at ].<br/>{{plainlinks|1={{fullurl:User talk:AGK|action=edit}}§ion=new|2=Click here}} to talk. ] are fine with me.{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:AGK/Archive_ | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |format=Y | |||
| |algo = old(6d) | |||
| |minkeepthreads=0 | |||
| |archive = User talk:AGK/Archive/65 | |||
| |age=8760 | |||
| }} | |||
| }}<div style="float: right" class="infobox"> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * () | |||
| * ]</div>__TOC__ | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Hello, stranger!== | |||
| This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted: | |||
| Hi, Arcticocean, | |||
| No, nope, nah, nyet, it's not going to work. Go back to your former name! You know us long-time editors don't adapt well to changes, especially small ones. | |||
| * A ] of ] is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to ], which is to replace ]. | |||
| * Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area. | |||
| * Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or ] of them. | |||
| * The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every six months thereafter); | |||
| <div style="margin-left: 4em;">{{div col|cols=3}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| {{div col end}}</div> | |||
| * The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans; | |||
| **] | |||
| **] | |||
| * The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an ]; | |||
| **] | |||
| **] | |||
| Any way, in case you have indeed transitioned to a new identity, I hope I'll run into you on this project in the future (in a positive way, I mean). Just spend some time working on some subject that brings a smile to your face. And stay away from noticeboards. Take care, <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,<br/><signature> | |||
| :You might want to change the target page for the redirect on ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : ''']''' | |||
| ::<small>Sorry, the archive bot had buried your message away. I've just restored it.<br/></small>{{xt|And stay away from noticeboards}} – was better advice ever given to a Misplaced Pages editor? :) ] 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Editor experience invitation == | |||
| Hi Articocean. Have I asked you yet about whether or not you'd be interested in ]? I see you blank your talk page regularly and I'm worried I'm missing my name in the history even though I checked. 😅 I really hope this isn't a duplicate request. ] ] 16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Attention needed at arbitration enforcement == | |||
| ==Welcome back== | |||
| Hey there! I just wanted to give you a shoutout for nominating this ] for deletion. I’m surprised it’s been hanging around for about five years now and you definitely did the right thing by calling it out! Also, welcome back! I’m glad to see you’re active again and I hope you’ll stick around this time! Thanks for all your good work!<span id="Saqib:1730576685561:User_talkFTTCLNArcticocean" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (] I ]) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| Hi AGK, I hope you don’t mind me contacting you about this. NuclearWarfare has ] as someone I should bring this up with due to how fair you are, now that NW is no longer an admin. | |||
| :Thanks for the welcome! It's nice to be contributing again. I have been part of the Misplaced Pages community for nearly 20 years, and after so long I was losing my enthusiasm. However, the break has done me some good. ] 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Earlier this month, NW topic banned me from articles related to race and intelligence via the discretionary sanctions that were authorized on these articles in the recent ] about them. My topic ban was not based on any misconduct on my part, but because I ] with an editor who was topic banned in the arbitration case. When I discussed my topic ban with NW in his user talk, I told him I was concerned about certain other editor behavior on these articles which wasn’t being addressed, and in response NW said that despite my topic ban I still had permission to bring up this behavior at Arbitration Enforcement. One of the arbitrators has also given me permission to do this: | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| I’ve now posted an arbitration enforcement thread about the user conduct issues that NW said I could post about there. This is the first AE thread I’ve ever posted, the admin who topic banned me has given me permission to post it, and it’s about the exact same issues that I was discussing with NW when he gave me this permission, so I don’t think this thread can be considered a violation of my topic ban. Neither does NW. But almost all of the admins who’ve commented in this thread seem to be unaware that I was given permission to post this thread, and are ignoring my explanation about it. They’ve also said that as a result, the request should not be processed and that I should face additional sanctions or warnings for posting it. I’ve tried to explain to some of these admins in their user talk that I had permission to post this thread, without success. NW has also commented in the thread, saying that his topic ban was not intended to prevent me from posting there, but his comment is being ignored as well. | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for noticing this. We created this template as part of a drive to refresh the WikiProject, but the planned use of the template did not materialise. I have now tagged it for speedy deletion: the deletion is clear-cut and does not necessarily require a TfD. Thanks again, ] 12:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| NW has suggested that I contact you about this and see if you would be willing to post there. I’d really appreciate it if you were. If you are, there are also a few other issues in this thread that I think need attention: | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| *One of the admins who’s suggesting that I’m violating my topic ban in the “result” section, RegentsPark, I don’t think can be considered uninvolved here. In NW’s user talk I’ve linked to a few examples of RegentsPark having been directly involved in the content disputes over these articles. I also linked to an example of him claiming during the arbitration case that he considers one of the perspectives about race and intelligence to be “fringe”, and that editors who think otherwise need to be “dealt with”, in order to preserve what he considers the integrity of the articles’ content. I think RegentsPark knows that I disagree with him about this, so it looks like a conflict of interest for him to argue that it’s a violation of my topic ban for me to engage in any action that could indirectly influence the content of these articles. | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| *One of the editors participating in the AE thread, Mathsci, was topic banned from race and intelligence articles in the arbitration case because of his incivility and battleground attitude. His behavior in this thread seems like more of the same behavior that his topic ban was intended to prevent. In the thread in NW’s user talk, NW has agreed that Mathsci’s involvement in this thread is a problem. | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at this thread and/or comment there, preferably as soon as possible. Time is of the essence here because the thread is likely to be closed within the next day, most likely with additional sanctions for me under the assumption that I violated my topic ban by posting it. I think the thread might be ready to be closed at this point, but it matters to me a lot that the admin who closes it be someone who understands all the specifics of this situation, as well as who’s willing to examine whether RegentsPark and Mathsci have acted appropriately there. Could you please take a look at this thread, and offer your opinion there? | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Thank you in advance. -] (]) 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| : Hi there. I've posted a comment at the enforcement request, in the uninvolved administrators discussion section. Regards, ] 18:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ::Thank you very much for your quick action. If it's not too much to ask, would you mind keeping an eye on this thread? After seeing so many admins ignore NW’s explanation, I'm concerned about this continuing to happen with yours. -] (]) 20:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
| ::It looks like the AE thread is probably going to close without sanctions for me, but I still find it disappointing that the subject of the thread was never addressed. Is there any way to get admins to pay attention to any of the user conduct on Weiji's part that I think is problematic? I get the feeling that most of the uninvolved admins who’ve commented didn't even click on most of the diffs to see if there was a problem. -] (]) 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Alt account == | |||
| The AE thread just got closed. It resulted in no sanctions to me, probably in part due to your intervention, so thank you for that. But it still bothers me that after determining I wasn't violating my topic ban by posting it, admins closed the thread without any discussion about the content of my report. | |||
| Hey. Is actually your alt, or is someone messing around? Thanks, ] (]) 21:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If possible, I would still like an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the diffs that were in my report and decide whether the behavior they demonstrate is problematic. Do you have any suggestions about how to accomplish that? If it's determined that nothing in the diffs warrants a warning (or anything else), then I'll accept that and move on. Thus far, though, the content of my report has been largely ignored. | |||
| :Ah nevermind, I see you created it. Should have checked the logs first. ] (]) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem. Better safe than sorry! ] 08:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy Birthday!== | |||
| I'd appreciate it if you could get back to me about this. Since I first got involved in r&i articles in September, I've been trying to figure out how to get admins to pay attention to editor behavior on these articles. Discretionary sanctions don't mean anything if uninvolved admins never pay attention to behavior on them that might be problematic. Whenever I've tried bringing this up in admins' user talks the issue generally gets ignored, and NW's suggestion about starting an AE thread about it obviously failed too. I'm not sure if I'm just missing something here - it can't be the case that having discretionary sanctions authorized means nothing at all. -] (]) 18:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| {{ombox | |||
| Can you please respond here? He's still reinserting the same POV-pushing material in the ] article that was brought up as an examples in the AE thread, which includes putting scare quotes around the word “race”, and blanking a large amount of sourced content without explaining why. | |||
| |type = notice | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| I’m going to try and resolve this with him on the article talk page, but I don’t really expect this to be productive because of how it’s gone when I tried to discuss something like this with him before. I've seen him do the same thing with other editors. He’s always polite, but he also displays an attitude of not accepting the possibility that anyone else is capable of improving on his edits, or that he needs to justify them to anyone. | |||
| |style = background:Darkgreen;border: 1px solid #CC9999; | |||
| |text = <span style="font-family:Book Antiqua;color:#FFFF00;">Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the ].</span>--] (]) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| On the whole I’m becoming mildly irritated by the idea that there’s no way to get the attention of the admins in regards to these articles. If another editor is engaged in POV-pushing on an article I’m involved in, is there nothing I can do about it? I feel that what is going on is unfair.-] (]) 03:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| == Help, please == | |||
| Hi, I have come here because I'm not sure where else I should go with this as I've never been in this situation before. An article of mine, ] has been listed as a possible copyvio - fair enough, although I dispute the claim I will await the decision. However, an editor, Hans Adler has been rude and incivil, calling me a "liar" and a "dishonest editor". This was because I mistakenly thought a bot had tagged the article as a copyvio and I responded in error on another editors Talk Page: "While I accept that I did paste material from a website (which was wrong) and got a Copyvio message from a bot, I removed the tag not because "I was disguising my copyvios" because I entirely rewrote the content." I wrote this as I was rather confused as to which article the bot had tagged. | |||
| Hans Adler wrote "CorenSearchBot did not detect your copyvio on the Brown Lady article. Unless you have a much longer and more recent history of reverting CorenSearchBot than is apparent from the contribution history of the account Jack1956, it simply makes no sense for you to claim that you were referring to the Brown Lady article (which has no bot edits in its history ) when you wrote the following: "While I accept that I did and got a Copyvio message from a bot, I removed the tag not because 'I was disguising my edits' but because ." Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said it for the first time: It is not in your best interest to lie about easily verifiable facts. | |||
| Additionally, if you want to lie without being called to account for it in plain language, you are indeed on the wrong talk page. I do not believe in making it easy for dishonest editors to deceive themselves about their character. You are very welcome to draw additional attention on yourself by reporting me for my "lack of civility". We will need all the eyes we can get to clean up your copyvios, some of which are probably from offline sources and thus very hard to detect. Hans Adler" | |||
| It is my belief that Hans Adler has not assumed good faith and has acted incivily in calling me a 'liar' and 'dishonest'. ] (]) 12:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I've commented on Hans' talk page, and will, beginning with my questions there, look into this matter for you. I would advise you in the strongest possible terms to reveal ''now'' if you have based your edits on any texts, freely licensed or otherwise, and available online or only offline—even if you think you have duly credited them or have not explicitly relied on them for your edits. Editors who violate copyright whilst adding to Misplaced Pages's articles and who do so inadvertently will find themselves being gently educated on the requirements of our site; those who do so deliberately, or who conceal their violations even when challenged, are gravely violating the project's standing as a reliable compendium of knowledge and will probably find themselves prohibited from contributing. If you fall into either of these categories, please make it the former. Regards, ] 20:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, {{u|DaniloDaysOfOurLives}}! ] 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Not that I can think of. I have always tried to follow the rules but may have inadvertently slipped up, as it is claimed I did here. ] (]) 20:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| :On checking I accept that ] and ] contain some material which is a copyvio. I thought I had rewritten the material to an acceptable standard - I see now I did not. I cited the source of each copyvio in the articles themselves. There may be others I am not aware of. ] (]) 21:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 20:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I don't have any memory now of why such a template would have been needed. It was around 15 years ago. Regards, ] 21:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 1 November 2010 == | |||
| == Hello and welcome back == | |||
| <div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-11-01}} | |||
| </div><!--Volume 6, Issue 44--> | |||
| <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 03:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)</div> | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0085 --> | |||
| Hi there, I hope you’re doing well. I won’t refer by your old username just in case, but it’s good to see you again. I’ve returned to Misplaced Pages in just the last 24 hours after a post on my talk page around a DRN template, which prompted me to look at the state of DRN and I have a few concerns which I believe are shared by others in the community. You’re probably one of the few old guard DR folk around still, and I was reading the RFC from 5 or so years back where MedCom was closed, had a few ideas on improving DR again. Was wondering if you might be willing for a chat some time? <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Restoring Honor rally: I suggest locking the article during mediation == | |||
| :Hi again ], appreciate you are likely quite busy, just sending a ping as I’d really value your input. Of course if you aren’t interested please let me know and I’ll be on my way :-) <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 19:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello and welcome back to Misplaced Pages :). My old username just felt overdue to be changed, but you're welcome to call me what's easiest. I'm excited by your excitement to discuss the dispute resolution processes, but I don't have much current experience with them, and I have almost none of DRN. I'm probably not the best person to be discussing reform, but I will follow any discussions with interest and contribute where I can… ] 20:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, OK good to know re: your name! But alas, DRN is just a small part of the puzzle. It’s re-establishing mediation that I have interest in. I returned because of the state I saw DRN in, and while it really only has one consistent volunteer, I wonder about whether the structure of the noticeboard now (lots of rules and comments only in sections) is off putting for other volunteers to get involved in. Way back when (jeez, DRN is something I created nearly 14 years ago!), I designed it to be sort of a 3o+ but not for massive disputes with many editors - I was actually chatting to ] about my thoughts about what we could look at DR wise and I boiled it down to this: | |||
| ::*Talk page dispute between two that that need an outside opinion - 3O | |||
| ::*Simple disputes with a few editors - DRN | |||
| ::*Complex disputes, or disputes with many involved parties that which need assistance to get to a consensus point / resolve an issue or create a proposal: mediation | |||
| ::*Disputes where a clear proposal exists and a decision point is needed from outside editors to finalise consensus - RFC | |||
| ::Some of the concerns around MedCab When it was closed was that it was redundant to DRN and MedCom, I remember discussing at the time the concept that DRN was traffic control/triage, and that the DRN coordinator (a role at the time, which rotated but was often me) could recommend referral of disputes to MedCom when it was judged that was valuable. Mediation could then help resolve the issues (] that I did worked quite well) or boil down issues to a few that could get wider community consensus in an RFC (I did that to some success on an abortion mediation ages ago). I think the concerns around MedCom were when DRN was more successful, but that people felt it was bureaucratic and didn’t accept much cases, and didn’t have teeth. I’d argue the first point can be handled by keeping it sort of like MedCab, but perhaps with the privilege of mediation, and perhaps even community selected mediators (all theoretical), the second point could be addressed by coordination and handover of disputes between volunteers at DRN and whoever coordinates “mediation”, and the teeth component would only be needed in intractable disputes where we could leverage an RFC to create consensus. I think the most common objection I’ve see are that “RFCs work” but they often require a known, agreed on proposal and starting point and this isn’t always there for a content dispute. I’ve also factored in that often, there’s a reluctance for uninvolved editors to wade into controversial content disputes that might be at an RFC. But yeah, those are my rather long winded thoughts. Be keen to get your perspective! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 01:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock-decline == | |||
| Hi AGK. The mediation ] is processing a little bit slow, because the moderator ] is very overloaded at work - which of course is absolutely ok and nobody is complaining about it (who does not know this). However, in the meanwhile an edit war seems to emerge again at the ] itself. So I suggest locking the article. Thank you. ] (]) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{noping|Renamed user b57b1e6b25176be485b548cf4103dc90}} is a very-L LTA, {{noping|Najaf ali bhayo}} if I recall. One of their patterns is creating an account, making a few of their favorite edits, then playing account-rename games and eventually VANISHing to cover their tracks. ] (]) 22:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Wes Anderson page == | |||
| :Thanks for dropping a block on that account, and I'll think of this if I see similar behaviour again. ] 00:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Wes Anderson page is constantly vandalized by user with IP addresses in Illinois (75.57.191.220)(75.57.175.50)(71.201.120.78) changing middle name to "Mortimer" this needs to be stopped as is not factual information. What more can be done than just constantly "reverting" the info back? Mr. Anderson is concerned as this information is ending up in the press and in other publications. Can this information be locked down? As it is a question of his Legal Name can nothing be done? The more this information ends up in the press the more it legitimizes the vandal's actions, he/she has already tried to use an article misquoting Mr. Anderson's middle name as Mortimer to back up their modifications to the page! This is a source of great distress for the living person in question and needs to be stopped. Admin Doniago and I are constantly reverting the name back to the real, factual, name "Wesley Wales (Wes) Anderson" but more needs to be done! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Latest revision as of 00:08, 12 January 2025
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. |
| Please leave a new message. |
Hello, stranger!
Hi, Arcticocean,
No, nope, nah, nyet, it's not going to work. Go back to your former name! You know us long-time editors don't adapt well to changes, especially small ones.
Any way, in case you have indeed transitioned to a new identity, I hope I'll run into you on this project in the future (in a positive way, I mean). Just spend some time working on some subject that brings a smile to your face. And stay away from noticeboards. Take care, Liz 06:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- You might want to change the target page for the redirect on User:Arcticocean. Liz 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, the archive bot had buried your message away. I've just restored it.
And stay away from noticeboards – was better advice ever given to a Misplaced Pages editor? :) arcticocean ■ 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, the archive bot had buried your message away. I've just restored it.
Good article reassessment for 2010 Shanghai fire
2010 Shanghai fire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation
Hi Articocean. Have I asked you yet about whether or not you'd be interested in participating here? I see you blank your talk page regularly and I'm worried I'm missing my name in the history even though I checked. 😅 I really hope this isn't a duplicate request. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Welcome back
Hey there! I just wanted to give you a shoutout for nominating this PROMO AUTOBIO for deletion. I’m surprised it’s been hanging around for about five years now and you definitely did the right thing by calling it out! Also, welcome back! I’m glad to see you’re active again and I hope you’ll stick around this time! Thanks for all your good work! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome! It's nice to be contributing again. I have been part of the Misplaced Pages community for nearly 20 years, and after so long I was losing my enthusiasm. However, the break has done me some good. arcticocean 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:WPCGR/Backlog
Template:WPCGR/Backlog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing this. We created this template as part of a drive to refresh the WikiProject, but the planned use of the template did not materialise. I have now tagged it for speedy deletion: the deletion is clear-cut and does not necessarily require a TfD. Thanks again, arcticocean ■ 12:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Alt account
Hey. Is this actually your alt, or is someone messing around? Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah nevermind, I see you created it. Should have checked the logs first. Spicy (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. Better safe than sorry! arcticocean ■ 08:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
 | Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee.--DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
Thanks, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! arcticocean ■ 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Arbitration clerks chart
Template:Arbitration clerks chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't have any memory now of why such a template would have been needed. It was around 15 years ago. Regards, arcticocean ■ 21:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello and welcome back
Hi there, I hope you’re doing well. I won’t refer by your old username just in case, but it’s good to see you again. I’ve returned to Misplaced Pages in just the last 24 hours after a post on my talk page around a DRN template, which prompted me to look at the state of DRN and I have a few concerns which I believe are shared by others in the community. You’re probably one of the few old guard DR folk around still, and I was reading the RFC from 5 or so years back where MedCom was closed, had a few ideas on improving DR again. Was wondering if you might be willing for a chat some time? Steven Crossin 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi again User:Arcticocean, appreciate you are likely quite busy, just sending a ping as I’d really value your input. Of course if you aren’t interested please let me know and I’ll be on my way :-) Steven Crossin 19:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome back to Misplaced Pages :). My old username just felt overdue to be changed, but you're welcome to call me what's easiest. I'm excited by your excitement to discuss the dispute resolution processes, but I don't have much current experience with them, and I have almost none of DRN. I'm probably not the best person to be discussing reform, but I will follow any discussions with interest and contribute where I can… arcticocean ■ 20:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, OK good to know re: your name! But alas, DRN is just a small part of the puzzle. It’s re-establishing mediation that I have interest in. I returned because of the state I saw DRN in, and while it really only has one consistent volunteer, I wonder about whether the structure of the noticeboard now (lots of rules and comments only in sections) is off putting for other volunteers to get involved in. Way back when (jeez, DRN is something I created nearly 14 years ago!), I designed it to be sort of a 3o+ but not for massive disputes with many editors - I was actually chatting to User:Xavexgoem about my thoughts about what we could look at DR wise and I boiled it down to this:
- Talk page dispute between two that that need an outside opinion - 3O
- Simple disputes with a few editors - DRN
- Complex disputes, or disputes with many involved parties that which need assistance to get to a consensus point / resolve an issue or create a proposal: mediation
- Disputes where a clear proposal exists and a decision point is needed from outside editors to finalise consensus - RFC
- Some of the concerns around MedCab When it was closed was that it was redundant to DRN and MedCom, I remember discussing at the time the concept that DRN was traffic control/triage, and that the DRN coordinator (a role at the time, which rotated but was often me) could recommend referral of disputes to MedCom when it was judged that was valuable. Mediation could then help resolve the issues (Talk:William Lane Craig/Mediation that I did worked quite well) or boil down issues to a few that could get wider community consensus in an RFC (I did that to some success on an abortion mediation ages ago). I think the concerns around MedCom were when DRN was more successful, but that people felt it was bureaucratic and didn’t accept much cases, and didn’t have teeth. I’d argue the first point can be handled by keeping it sort of like MedCab, but perhaps with the privilege of mediation, and perhaps even community selected mediators (all theoretical), the second point could be addressed by coordination and handover of disputes between volunteers at DRN and whoever coordinates “mediation”, and the teeth component would only be needed in intractable disputes where we could leverage an RFC to create consensus. I think the most common objection I’ve see are that “RFCs work” but they often require a known, agreed on proposal and starting point and this isn’t always there for a content dispute. I’ve also factored in that often, there’s a reluctance for uninvolved editors to wade into controversial content disputes that might be at an RFC. But yeah, those are my rather long winded thoughts. Be keen to get your perspective! Steven Crossin 01:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, OK good to know re: your name! But alas, DRN is just a small part of the puzzle. It’s re-establishing mediation that I have interest in. I returned because of the state I saw DRN in, and while it really only has one consistent volunteer, I wonder about whether the structure of the noticeboard now (lots of rules and comments only in sections) is off putting for other volunteers to get involved in. Way back when (jeez, DRN is something I created nearly 14 years ago!), I designed it to be sort of a 3o+ but not for massive disputes with many editors - I was actually chatting to User:Xavexgoem about my thoughts about what we could look at DR wise and I boiled it down to this:
Unblock-decline
Renamed user b57b1e6b25176be485b548cf4103dc90 is a very-L LTA, Najaf ali bhayo if I recall. One of their patterns is creating an account, making a few of their favorite edits, then playing account-rename games and eventually VANISHing to cover their tracks. DMacks (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for dropping a block on that account, and I'll think of this if I see similar behaviour again. arcticocean ■ 00:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)