Hi Starship.paint. Thanks for joining the discussion at Bella Hadid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You may want to add WP:CT/A-I to the list of contentious topics of which you are aware.
Since you're already BLP-aware, and the dispute has been very long running, it would be extremely helpful to strongly focus on policy and BLP-quality sources so we can come to a lasting consensus.
Thank you. - Hipal (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hipal: - done, and certainly that is what I hope I will contribute too. starship.paint (talk / cont) 09:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you for your closes of the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024. I thought your closing statements were very well done and that you judged consensus fairly and accurately. Thanks! Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eluchil404: - thank you very much for the kind words, the discussions were among the easier ones to judge, but I wanted to do a good job for them nevertheless. Wishing you a good day! starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.
As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
- October 15–21: SecurePoll setup phase
- October 22–24: Discussion phase
- October 25–31: SecurePoll voting phase
- November 1–?: Scrutineering phase
We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.
The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.
You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2024 administrator elections.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. As we're preparing to move from one stage to the next, this is just a quick note from one member of the test group to another, wishing you well in the process of this new alternative to RfA. It seems that there are more of us in this group than some in the community anticipated, so i hope that doesn't make the experience any the worse for all of us. Whatever our individual results, i thank you, along with the rest, for stepping up and testing this process; happy days, ~ LindsayHello 07:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you LindsayH for the kind words - wishing you good luck and a pleasant week ahead! starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re Diff/1252900274, didn't want to just keep responding there, but FWIW I'm not sure I'd call them norms, exactly. Some admins, as you mentioned in your original post at Q3, don't necessarily see this logic. I think the idea that an indef is 'harsher' than a timed block is not uncommon even among admins, especially if they don't unblock often. When I place an indef that I intend as 'blocked until the user gets it' -- which for well-intentioned editors is almost always -- I usually leave a message clarifying "No objection to anyone else lifting this block once this editor has convinced them they understand the issue and will avoid the behavior in future" or something like that, just to make it clear to any admin who happens along that I did not intend this block to be infinite and don't expect it to be. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Valereee: - thank you for continuing the discussion. Perhaps there is a difference in perspectives here. You, the blocker, can of course treat it as
blocked until the user gets it
. The user being blocked might not see it that way. The most charitable actual scenario is ‘blocked until an admin is satisfied that the user gets it’. There is of course no such guarantee. It is possible that the blocked user believes, for whatever reason, that an admin may not decide to unblock. starship.paint (talk / cont) 04:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, I do get that, and I've seen multiple times a user continue to see it that way, even after it's been explained. For a well-intentioned user, a block is extremely upsetting, and an indef feels like it could be forever. I am going to add my own emphasis to one additional word:
- 'blocked until an admin is satisfied that the user gets it’. An admin. First unblock requests by well-intentioned users are often addressed pretty quickly, and a good first unblock request is often successful. But that's another thing that many non-admins who've never been blocked aren't aware of; I don't mean to imply that this lessens the trauma.
- Again, realize this is just one admin's take on this. I try to always find the least restrictive necessary block. That is, if someone I believe to be well-intentioned is causing an issue at a single page, an indef p-block from only that page might be the solution. The project still gets the vast majority of what any block is intended to do, and the trauma to the user is minimized as much as possible.
- Realize also there's a reason I'm having this convo with you. :) Valereee (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wise and helpful, Valereee. Indeed, the invention of partial blocks (in 2020, I believe) was definitely a step forward for the project. If you are saying what I believe you mean, I thank you for your confidence, and I hope your judgment is correct. That said, like everyone else, I am no perfect candidate, certainly some editors in good faith will oppose, and I do not begrudge them. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to real life circumstances, I anticipate a possible two week absence from Wikipedia soon. This has nothing to do with the admin elections. Cheers. starship.paint (talk / cont) 04:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope it's a good kind of busy rather than otherwise. Valereee (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s a neutral kind of busy. It’s not a bad kind of busy, I am well! Thank you Valereee! Will respond above soon. :) starship.paint (talk / cont) 12:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did some great work with trimming down the Light Bringer plot while still keeping all the important details. I'm not a very expert editor but i've love to see you tackle the rest of the Red Rising books. I know you're planning a 2 week vacation for the upper section, but just thought I'd make the offer. Cheers! Noahop3000 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Noahop3000: - thanks for the praise, and yes, I could do it - perhaps after my absence, or if I can somehow edit during the period where I anticipated an absence. Though, I must say, well, the plot summary only needed a trim because I expanded it beyond 700, but I had to expand it to get the details right first, because there somehow several errors existed in the previous plot summary, not sure if it was A.I. generated. If I were to tackle the other books, I think I would have to do the same - expand, then trim back to 700. Hopefully expanding would not offend some other editors. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, you don't have to worry about expanding them. Golden Son (book 2) alone has like 1900 words. Good luck! Noahop3000 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Noahop3000: - I would probably still expand if there was a detail I thought important, then I would add even if it's 1900 words already. After including all important details then I would trim. This would be a challenge but I believe in myself. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, I am not accusing you of anything. The AN/I notice is that a media article has accused you of violating Wikipedia guidelines, and this media article was mentioned at AN/I. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @WeatherWriter: - having read the article, I don’t see myself being mentioned in it, I do not appear in the text and
I do not appear in the image listing editors. So I am puzzled what you said that the article has accused me of violating guidelines. Please correct me if I am wrong. I edit in ARBPIA, yes, but I am not in any coordination campaign or part of Tech for Palestine. Please remove this entire thread if I am not mentioned; the admin election voting is ongoing and I believe that your post may have already damaged my chances. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that isn't the case Starship.paint because I think you would be a great admin. See the image link in this question on my talk page. Your name is there as part of the author's absurd and potentially defamatory "analysis" based on raw article intersection data. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Sean.hoyland for the kind words. If this is all of the evidence of a conspiracy, then what can I say? It’s just numbers with no context. It certainly does not prove any conspiracy. Perhaps this analysis can be replicated on the pro wrestling WikiProject, or a whole other hosts of Wikiprojects. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the article again. Seems like I must issue a mea culpa to WeatherWriter. So that purple-white image above is indeed in the story. I think I was too distracted by the green-red image. The article charges that I am part of a “group” that “works in pairs or trios” and “appear to rotate their groupings”. But correlation is not causation. This could simply very well be, and probably is, multiple editors interested in the topic, sometimes editing together with certain editors, and sometimes editing together with other editors. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for not seeing this earlier. Yeah, you were mentioned in the image linked by Sean.hoyland above. My note was not to say you broke policy and my AN/I notice here was simply required by the AN/I guidelines. My notice at AN/I was specifically that there was a news article published which accused editors of breaking policy and I did not know if administrators were aware of the article. Turns out, there was an ongoing discussion at ArbCom which involved the article, so the AN/I notice I gave was quickly closed. Other editors chimed in after that aspect (my initial notice that the article exists) was closed. Per AN/I guidelines, I am required to notify "involved" editors, and since it was regarding the article being published which accused editors, I was required to notify all editors mentioned in the article. That was about it. I wasn't saying you broke guidelines or anything like that. I just was alerting people (1) this article exists and (2) subsequently per AN/I guidelines, notifying editors that they were mentioned in the article. Hopefully that explains a little on why you received this notice. I'm not saying you broke policy, just giving the alert that a news article has accused you. You can probably discuss it at the post-closure AN/I discussion or the ArbCom case linked at the AN/I section. My part in the debate/discussion is done and I am not following the AN/I discussion nor ArbCom case. I was just the initial "Hey this exists" guy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @WeatherWriter: - acknowledged and understood. I don’t think I conveyed this earlier: you have my thanks! starship.paint (talk / cont) 00:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)