Jump to content

User talk:Arcticocean

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Testcfc)
This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article.

Related pages


Hello, stranger!

[edit]

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]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPCGR/Backlog

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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!

[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Arbitration clerks chart

[edit]

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)[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

[edit]

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]
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 Help resolve disputes! 12:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I've made a proposal to re-establish mediation as a dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. The discussion is here, I'd love your thoughts on it, if you're willing. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 10:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback at VPP. It wasn’t my intention to canvass your opinion one way or another - just to inform in case you wanted to weigh in. You’ve made some points that I think are worth considering. Thank you, and as always hope you’re doing well. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 10:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited my comment to note that I was invited to comment. I didn't mean to suggest that you had canvassed me in the sense of WP:CANVASS, which of course you did not. Wikipedia really attaches special meanings to perfectly ordinary words! arcticocean ■ 11:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok no worries at all. I did reply there for what it's worth and said why I asked for your feedback (but as we do know on Wikipedia, we see the word canvass and equate it to "omg vote stacking" where that's obviously not the intention! I think the key callout I have had is that DRN needs simplification and improvement, and traditional mediation can work - MedCab was just the straightest pathway in my old school head to do that. If we can find another way (which tbh, I still need thoughts on) then it doesn't really matter whether it's WP:MEDCAB or WP:DRN/Mediation (though some of us really did love being part of "not a cabal" ;-) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock-decline

[edit]

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]

Additional sock

[edit]

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)[reply]

It's almost certainly the same person or someone connected, but they are not posting images of the same footballer and violating the copyright policy in the same manner. There is no need to block them for the time being. Please ask an administrator to block them if they become disruptive. By the way, the two accounts were blocked, not banned: see WP:BANBLOCKDIFF for an explanation. Thanks, arcticocean ■ 09:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anwegmann: Since our exchange above, the account engaged in more unwanted article image-replacement activity. I have now indef-blocked it. arcticocean ■ 09:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
I am flattered of your presence on my unblock request. I really am grateful. Means a lot to me. Lots of love. Tulsi 24x7 13:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Good luck as you return to editing. arcticocean ■ 17:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Alireza Jadidi's draft article

[edit]

Hello, I have revised the draft of AlirezaJadidi article, and added some independent and unbiased references to it, please check it again and publish it if approved. I think it's time to publish this draft.


Thank you good editor. Jamal190009 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please refer to the guidance that has since given to you by the AfC reviewer. In brief, as this article subject is non-notable, the draft has been rejected. Unless or until that position changes through the discovery of new reliable sources, please do not continue re-proposing creation of this article. Arcticocean ■ 18:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]
Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee

Wishing Arcticocean a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Worgisbor (congregate) 00:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Unprotection request

[edit]

Could you please unprotect {{KaraTG-geo-stub}}? There are significantly less transclusions now - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 23:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Arcticocean ■ 18:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll let you know if I spot anything else! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:28, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FA review of Nihilism

[edit]

Hello Arcticocean and thanks for your FA review of Mind a while back. I was wondering whether you might also be interested in reviewing the article Nihilism since the nomination hasn't attracted much attention so far, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nihilism/archive1. Thank you for taking a look and please feel under no obligation if now is not a good time. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will try my best to look in at this FAC, but may be unable to do so as my availability just now is limited. If I don't get to it, don't hesitate to ask me again in connection with any future FACs. I know that you often have one or more candidates in development! Arcticocean ■ 08:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind if I try one more time for a different article: political philosophy. If you are interested, your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Political philosophy/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll try to review the article within the next few days. Arcticocean ■ 20:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hogo-2020 unblock request

[edit]

Hey, I was looking through and considering the latest unblock request from Hogo-2020. After spending a decent amount of time combing through their contributions to People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, I'm not sure I see obvious signs of sockpuppetry beyond their overwhelming focus on PMOI topics. Do you recall what you identified that made you confident that sockpuppetry was afoot? signed, Rosguill talk 14:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry for the delay responding. There is a short discussion at the user's talk page about this. Perhaps we could continue this discussion there? I have also sent you a copy of an email setting out my (brief) views. Best, Arcticocean ■ 08:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

[edit]

Hello, Arcticocean. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account
  • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
  • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
  • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
  • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
    • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
    • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

Impact for administrators

  • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
  • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
  • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

  • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
  • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
  • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

  • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
    • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
  • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
  • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
  • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

  • How to use Special:IPContributions
  • How automatic IP reveal works
  • How to use IP Info
  • How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcticocean&oldid=1320213662"