| Revision as of 22:25, 16 January 2013 editLecen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,620 edits →MarshalN20 response: That's not how things occurred← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:43, 14 January 2025 edit undoAnwegmann (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers29,261 editsNo edit summary | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div style="padding-bottom: 0.5em;"> | |||
| <noinclude>{{User talk:AGK/Header}}</noinclude>{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{Usertalk bar}} | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| </div> | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| {{Message}} | |||
| |algo = old(10d) | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |archive = User talk:AGK/Archive/75 | |||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:AGK/Archive_ | |||
| |format=Y | |||
| |minkeepthreads=0 | |||
| |age=8760 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| <div style="float: right" class="infobox"> | |||
| <div class="toctitle"> | |||
| <p style="text-align: center"> | |||
| '''Related pages''' | |||
| </p> | |||
| </div> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * () | |||
| * ] | |||
| </div>__TOC__ | |||
| == Dissapointment == | |||
| ==Hello, stranger!== | |||
| I'm rather perplexed in your dissapointment. When an editor reaches 3RR on an article and then a ip editor subs in what is a ''reasonable'' editor to expect? Do you expect that if I asked Insomesia about edting logged out that they would willingly admit to crossing 3RR? In fact anyone reasonably familiar with Insomesia would know that they game the system, and did so on the article in question. Your logging of your dissapointment in the SPI was most decidedly uncool. ]{{SubSup||]|]}} 02:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| : He did ''not'' breach the limit of ]. Moreover, he made no attempt to hide the edit summary of his "fourth" revert. My expression of disappointment was a proportional response to your failure to do the professional, sensible thing by simply asking Insomesia not to do this again in future. ] ]] 08:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :LGR you have a lot a nerve accusing anyone of gaming things, and I'll add my astonishment that you went to this trouble and didn't even bother to notify me. The edit in question, by the way was removed by consensus after you and Belchfire continued to argue that consensus was to keep it there and tag-teamed to install it. I insisted we actually get consensus before re-adding. The good news is that the entire article is being looked at by more editors. ] (]) 13:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::@AGK Going with your charitable premise that Insomesia accidentally logged out to perform the edit, I can see how you can draw that conclusion. Prior behavioral evidence suggests otherwise. If you think the "fourth" revert was not an attempt to dance around 3RR, then one of us miscounted. Regards. ]{{SubSup||]|]}} 15:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Rosetta, 3RR is "three reverts per article ''per day''". A day is 24 hours. Insomesia's reverts were dated as follows: | |||
| :::# | |||
| :::# | |||
| :::# | |||
| :::The anonymous revert was dated . There are 31 days in December, so no four reverts took place within the same twenty-four hours. Have I miscounted, or have you?<p>In any event, as an administrator (when I was found at ], as I no longer am) I entirely disregarded the three-revert rule, finding it a silly rule that caused more drama than anything else. However, that is immaterial: you wrongly suggested that Insomesia had, as a motive for socking, a need to subvert the three-revert rule. My point was that he did not, which has an effect on how we must consider the allegation that he deliberately edited while logged-out. Even now that he states the anonymous edit was not him, I am happy to believe him, and I counsel you to do likewise. We must assume the best of our colleagues, until they give us reason to do otherwise. If you cannot assume the best, then I kindly submit that you are too impassioned to edit the article, or with the contributors, in question—and that you ought to edit another one for a while. I do not expect you to answer me on that point; I merely hope you give serious thought to it. Regards, ] ]] 15:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My personal views in the article in question are probably exactly in line of that with Insomesia, so passion has nothing to do with ''my'' edits. AGF can only be taken so far. I wouldn't expect someone not familiar with the particulars to see it, nor would I want them too, but I would expect them to understand that others may have cause to have lost good faith. I'll try and keep your concern noted for the future. Thanks. ]{{SubSup||]|]}} 15:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == RFAR case == | |||
| :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) | |||
| I have made some comments about the naming of the case that I think you should consider. Seems that this will only really focus on conduct relating to one topic area and thus I have suggested a name that would better reflect that. An editor's reasonable desire to not have an ArbCom case named especially for them should be considered with this in mind. When you have a viable alternative name that can avoid systemic bias against a single editor then I think it is preferable to go with that alternative name.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 20:57, 9 January 2013 (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) | |||
| :* AGK - Sorry, this is just my heartfelt apology for my error and for being such a nosey so and so; my lesson is truly learned {{smiley|embarrassed}} I'll go away now..... ] - ] 21:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ::* For my part, the problem with your suggested alternative of ''NRHP'' is that it is inaccurate: the case isn't merely about that topic area, but about that ''among others''. If there was a single obvious, brief title then I'd happily use it as the case title; regretfully, there is not, so picking the editor who is the one common denominator in all the disputes is what we shall go with. Thanks for your comments.<p>Phil, I confess I've no idea why you've left that comment. Where were you nosey? Why are you apologising? (If I've forgotten some recent interaction between us, please enlighten me and forigve my density.) Regards to you both, ] ]] 21:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| ::::Busted, AGK. Now we know you don't read your talkpage history! ] | ] 23:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC). | |||
| == Editor experience invitation == | |||
| :::::Ahh. Don't worry about it, Phil. For all Apple's hype, iOS has to be one of the fiddliest interfaces ever. <small>Bishonen, who has time to read their talk page history? And thanks for catching me up :-).</small> ] ]] 23:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Time? Time? It's my favourite reading on Misplaced Pages! Beats the talkpage itself by some margin. ] | ] 12:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC). | |||
| 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) | |||
| == PSY article no longer functioning properly == | |||
| ==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 there. A few hours ago an admin redirected/moved the ] article to ]. Apparently the redirect wasn't done properly as all other links to ] now land in the disambiguation page. Also, the ] link leads to the dis page. I don't know much about redirects and how to correct them. Could you please take a look into this? Thank you. ] (]) 11:40, 14 January 2013 (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. ] 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : It sounds as though you have found some ]. I'm afraid I don't have time to look into this in more detail, but there is some useful advice within that link on resolving such a problem. However, the administrator that moved the page should have did this himself, particularly if he (or she) is moving a Misplaced Pages article and not a page in a less important namespace. Regards, ] ]] 11:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok. Thanks for that informative link. ] (]) 12:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| == LCahill SPI == | |||
| ]] 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) | |||
| Hi, in ] you wrote: ''LCahill is probably editing while logged-out, but he is doing nothing actually illicit. Therefore, we here at SPI can do nothing helpful with this complaint. I recommend that you take the matter to an administrators' noticeboard and request that LCahill's anonymous editing be investigated by a group of administrators and that the community consider sanctioning him.'' This confuses me - if he is doing nothing illicit, then what would the community sanctions be for? And I have shown that the vast majority of his contributions were copyvios; wouldn't that be illicit? Can the community sanction him for that? I was under the impression that the proper venue next would be ] but that is a bridge I wanted to cross when I came to it. ] (]) 13:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| : I think I misspoke. When I said that we at SPI can do nothing for this guy, I meant that we ''can'', but that the matter is better handled by the ANI folk. This matter transcends mere anonymous sock-puppetry and needs an in-depth review. ] ]] 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| == Doubt about formal mediation == | |||
| <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. | |||
| Hello, AGK. I made a request for formal mediation yesterday. It seems that the other parties will simply ignore the request. They are supposed to accept the "invitation" or else the request will be declined, right? What happens after that? What can I do the settle the dispute? Regards, --] (]) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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> | |||
| : I have reminded the two other disputants (on their talk pages) that the Misplaced Pages community requires its editors to engage in dispute resolution and discussion when their edits to an article are challenged. I have also invited the disputants to respond to the mediation request, though I cannot compel them to agree to mediation—and if they do not consent to mediation, you will have to find another way to resolve your disagreement. Thanks for getting in touch with your concerns, and I hope my two comments goes some way to helping make progress with your dispute. Regards, ] ]] 15:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :: I have tried every legitimate way to resolve the problem. They did nothing. The editor who volunteered as third opinion remarked that they "when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)." You're practically telling me that I'll have to start engaging in edit war to call the attention of the community. I want to resolve this in the correct way. I am begging you to accept the mediation, even if the other two editors ignore the request (they will). It will force them to talk, to work within the community. All I want is a chance to present my view and let someone neutral decide. Please, I need the help of the Mediation Committee. I understand that there can only be a mediation when everyone agrees but there is always a first time to change rules. Please, accept the mediation request. --] (]) 16:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- 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 --> | |||
| == Alt account == | |||
| ::: A mediation case involving one party would be like running a ] on your own. It would not work. If the disputants do not consent to mediation, then mediation will not occur. I am hopeful that they will consent, but if they do not and you ''do'' engage in revert warring then you will be blocked from editing by an administrator. ] ]] 16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hey. Is actually your alt, or is someone messing around? Thanks, ] (]) 21:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===MarshalN20 response=== | |||
| :Ah nevermind, I see you created it. Should have checked the logs first. ] (]) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Dear AGK, thank you very much for the note you left on my talk page. I am currently busy with work & studies to provide a thorough response, so I will provide a quick list: | |||
| ::No problem. Better safe than sorry! ] 08:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| #Lecen submitted the RfM yesterday (from my side of the world). About a day has passed, and yet the user has been frantically badgering people with demands of action (, , , and ). His distraught actions hold no more common sense than a squirrel looking for a nut. | |||
| #Lecen incorrectly claims that I am a user "involved" in the dispute. My only contributions to the article include a copy-edit of the lead () and a reversion of Lecen's vandalism (). | |||
| ==Happy Birthday!== | |||
| #The dispute itself is between Lecen and Cambalachero. I am a third party to the dispute. Lecen claims that I am not a third party because I am in favor of Cambalachero's point of view. | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| #The people in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard were mostly (if not all) against Lecen. He conveniently tries to ignore these things, but I think it would be good to make a list of them here: | |||
| {{ombox | |||
| ##'''Go Phightins''' (Mediator, ): "I advocated your position and refuted his , for the most part, in the DRN." | |||
| |type = notice | |||
| ##'''Amadscientist''' (commentator, ): "y intitial concern is balance by Lecen. The editor seems to have more than a less than disinterested POV on the subject and it does certainly show in the editors remarks, posts and requests. The first source I found is also the first source prsented in the Third Opinion and appears terribly cherry picked." | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| ##'''Binksternet''' (commentator, ): "Use ] to name those who say Rosas was a dictator, and to name those who say he was something else. I don't think it is fruitful to demand that historians be found who say directly 'Rosas was not a dictator'." | |||
| |style = background:Darkgreen;border: 1px solid #CC9999; | |||
| ##'''Wdford''' (commentator, ): "It seems to me just from this thread that a number of sources do not regard Rosas as a dictator. On that basis alone, I feel we should have a statement that "some see him as a dictator and others as something else". I would recommend that we therefore mention that both opinions exist re Rosas, and hopefully the article contains enough background as to let the reader understand both perspectives in his original historical context." | |||
| |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) | |||
| Based on all this points, I see no need for any further mediation. Plenty of third opinions have already been provided (including my own) to the dispute between between Lecen and Cambalachero. Lecen asked for third opinions, he got them, and yet continues to game the system looking for someone to agree with him. I kindly request you, AGK, to please stop Lecen from ] the system. Regards.--] | ] 21:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :It is never a good idea to provide diffs out of context or to attack an editor (me, in this case). I'm trying to focus on content here. All editors above made it clear that none of them had studied hard the problem and gave their opinions on the fly. That is: the article should provide information according to what historians say. Somehow MarshalN20 saw it as "Cambalachero and MarshalN20 are correct: Rosas is not a dictator". Go Phightins, the one who took a "careful" look in the matter made it clear that he belived that the article should present both views, with the proportion that each deserved. About MarshalN20 being a 'neutral' editor, well, I rather prefer not to discuss it. --] (]) 22:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks, {{u|DaniloDaysOfOurLives}}! ] 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] 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) | |||
| == 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? <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::I know the above is massively TL;DR and may not be an interest area of yours but would value your thoughts if you have time at some point! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 12:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock-decline == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Additional sock == | |||
| You just banned ] and ] for being socks, and I believe they instantly created a new account at ]. ] (]) 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:43, 14 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. |
Related pages
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)
- I know the above is massively TL;DR and may not be an interest area of yours but would value your thoughts if you have time at some point! Steven Crossin 12:13, 14 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)
Additional sock
You just banned User:Giovanni.idn and User:Giovanni.idndutch for being socks, and I believe they instantly created a new account at User:Giovanni.tysm. Anwegmann (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)