User talk:Onceinawhile

Nomination of Masada myth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Masada myth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

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) 00:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA 500:30

What does the WP:ARBPIA 500:30 rule entail? If I can't publish the page myself, may another individual who fulfills the 500:30 demand publish it in my name? Zentarov (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zentarov: I see Selfstudier has since added the relevant templates to your talk page which explain the 500 / 30 rule.

To get another editor to review, I suggest following WP:AFC.

Note that there were a number of areas that your draft article will need to have worked on, mostly relating to balance. It read as an advocacy case for one side of an argument, rather than as a balanced encyclopedia article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Editing archives

Please do not add new comments to talk page archives, as you did to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 203. As it says at the top: Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Barquq Castle

On 8 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barquq Castle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 14th-century Barquq Castle (pictured) was damaged during the Israel–Hamas war? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barquq Castle. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Barquq Castle), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

1=Launchballer 00:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Jury-rigged justice

I've seen your enquiries on why more of the reasoning of ARBCOM sessions is not on display. I have to say that I too am surprised by how little of the reasoning is presented out in the open. Not only are there closed arbwiki sessions, but video calls and emails beyond that. A lot of this seems to go against the basic remit of transparency that infuses the rest of the project. I don't entirely understand why any private interaction is required at all, unless it is about material that specifically would involve doxxing. My broader sense of the problems at the heart of ARBCOM is that the process is inherently schizophrenic. It presents itself as open and transparent, but much of the insightful discussion occurs in private. It is often described as being jury-like, but it is empowered like a supreme court. In practice, it functions like both, but without any of the checks and balances in a more complex system. It is said that it is not like a legal court, but it takes all the aspects of such a court that pertain to power, but with none of the restrictions. One arbitrator recently noted how they had mused that it was like they were "jury, judge and executioner", which of course is a phrase they alludes to the abuse of power.[1] A few things that stick out like a sore thumb are the arbitrariness of referrals (despite acting like an upper court, it doesn't require direct referrals from the lower court, but can add parties at a whim); the absence of questions to the defendants; and the lack of any predefined restrictions on punitive sentencing (which is all the more important in a "jury and judge"-style situation). Juries should not be both approving charges and sentences and ruling on them (not least with absolute judicial discretion without limits). A broader question is whether a supreme court-like body should even be involved in individual cases or if it would be better restraining itself to big-picture questions about the powers handed to administrators. An ARBCOM case looking at half a dozen editors is not in fact more efficient than half a dozen AE cases – far from it – so the rationale that it somehow the only forum apt for/ capable of handing such things is bizarre. If Wikipedia is to retain its role as an open, transparent and broadly democratic knowledge platform, it needs to have oversight functions that match these values. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. We are left to speculate on ArbCom’s thinking. There is no precedent that can be applied elsewhere. There is no route for other editors to learn. And what will the appeals in 12 months look like?

Is everyone supposed to accept the workshop-disputed evidence referred to in the PDs as a foundation for all this? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)