User talk:Arcticocean

This is a Wikipedia 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to change the target page for the redirect on User:Arcticocean. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia editor? :) arcticocean ■ 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! It's nice to be contributing again. I have been part of the Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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)[reply]

Alt account

Hey. Is this actually your alt, or is someone messing around? Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nevermind, I see you created it. Should have checked the logs first. Spicy (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Better safe than sorry! arcticocean ■ 08:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.--DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DaniloDaysOfOurLives! arcticocean ■ 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Help resolve disputes!} 19:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome back to Wikipedia :). 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)[reply]

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 ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]