If you'd like to speak with me privately, my Discord is xavexgoem. Sorry if you don't like Discord, but I hate all other options and I'm fine being unreasonable about this.

archive 1 (sep 07 – jun 08)	archive 2 (jun 08 – aug 08)	archive 3 (aug 08 – nov 08)	archive 4 (nov 08 – feb 09)
archive 5 (feb 09 – jun 09)	archive 6 (jun 09 – mar 10)	archive 7 (mar 10 – feb 12)	archive 8 (feb 12 – feb 14)

PrefixIndex - ArticleSandbox

I've been adding information to a page "David Amram" only to find that another editor just removes the information. Nothing is inaccurate or misleading. I am doing my best to cite sources correctly. How can I contact the other editor to ask them why they are removing my edits? Georgenow (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)onehand[reply]

Thank you for the comment btw.Easeswily (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing :) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I would have done the same thing, closing the case as a conduct dispute. The allegations by the filing party are serious and disruptive. I don't know if they are true, because I haven't researched the talk page. However, if they are true,the conduct issues by the other party are not consistent with mediation. If they are false, then claiming that they are true is a serious conduct issue also. Someone is misbehaving. Either way, I think you were right in closing the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, since when are you back on Wikipedia? I thought I’d never see you back! Steven Crossin 19:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was bored. I could literally be gone by next Tuesday. We'll see! Xavexgoem (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I only popped back in because I saw someone working on an article and I got a talk page notice about it...but now that you're back, well, that changes things! See you over at DRN. Steven Crossin 01:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your handling of the dispute with a Socratic examination of the filing party was unorthodox, but it worked. Were you trying to get the filing party to acknowledge that they were just being stubborn? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partly, but that's like blood from a stone. I mostly wanted to know whether they cared about what other editors were telling them which would imply some measure of AGF. There might have been a case if they did, but I wasn't counting on it. (edit) But yeah, that first question I asked? Totally. I've been toying with the idea of getting some editors out of a COI/SPA/POV/Whatever mindset. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I am being stalked by User: Guy Macon wherever I go in Wikipedia. This began when, after several years away from WP, I attempted to communicate with Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales concerning a draft proposal for a New Doomsday Book on Global Climate change. I did not edit any article, but merely attempted to bring the proposal to their attention on their talk pages, and ask for comments. However, before I could even complete this post and ask for comments, it was deleted by Guy Macon, who accused me of violating WP:Promotion, which was not my intent. I had no clue what he was writing about, but he was quite aggressive about it. Consequently, neither Sanger nor Wales was able to see the proposal. The proposal was merely a proposal in a personal communication, and was not published elsewhere.

Subsequently, the discussion with Guy Macon got a bit heated on both sides, as you can see from my talk page, where most of it is posted. After considerable provocation and baiting from Guy Macon, at one point I said some things I should not have said, and not long afterwards redacted them with apologies. He also said some things he should not have said, which were decidedly uncivil, but did not redact them. Some remain on my talk page. Instead, he followed me and posted snarky and threatening statements on other editor's talk pages (Elonka, Coppertwig) where I left messages, despite the fact I have not attempted to edit or created any articles. He made uncivil statements on my talk page and has even proposed deleting material I put in my sandbox so I could work on it further and hopefully refine it. Shortly thereafter my sandbox was deleted, including material that had nothing to do with the proposal. He seems determined to prevent me from discussing my ideas with anyone in Wikipedia, which seems a bit over the top.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For context, years ago I was outed, twice, by other editors, which threatened my academic employment among colleagues who take a dim view of Wikipedia. I left for nearly ten years. Guy Macon's conduct in this matter is remarkably similar to the conduct of other editors at that time, especially his determined lack of civility.

So now I don't know what else I can do but turn to you to see if you will review the material Guy has placed on my talk page, and on the talk pages of Elonka and Coppertwig, and get him to stop stalking and threatening me. Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC) I apologize I am unable to provide diffs for this request, but I come to Wikipedia to edit, not to become proficient in all the myriad technical features of the site. Most of what you will need to see is on my talk page anyway. As you can see from the post below, User:Guy Macon is using my Contributions list to stalk me around Wikipedia and leave disparaging comments everywhere I leave a message. He is succeeding in making my editing on WP very unpleasant. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why Mervyn Emrys contacted you with this, but what he is trying to post in various places is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX. See his edit history. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, look who followed me here, as he appears to do everywhere I go now.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, What a shock. You go to multiple talk pages making false accusations naming me, and I read your latest attempt to attack me in your edit history and post a link to the page you are ranting about, politely refraining from referring you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requested Administrative Action
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request block

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but just imagine how numb I feel about all this. I found your name on the WP:Dispute Resolution page listed as dealing with conduct issues. If you do not wish to deal with this, I will try and find somebody else. I apologize for not sending you links to diffs, but I am still trying to learn how to do that. I come to Wikipedia to edit, not to spend all my time learning the neat technical operations one may perform here, so many editors are more proficient than I in that area. When I figure out how to do it, I will send them to you. But really, most of what this is about in on my talk page, now that my sandbox has been deleted by the mob.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The part of WP:Dispute Resolution I work with is content issues, not conduct issues :) Granted, most content issues are conduct issues in disguise, but that's a philosophical point.

I will say this: your current approach is not working. You may think the reason it's not working is because Guy is keeping an eye on you, but it's the reverse case: He's keeping an eye on you because your approach isn't working. Take heed. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have you listed under "Behavioral and content issues" at WP:Dispute Resolution, so I thought "behavioral" meant conduct. Sorry to have bothered you.Mervyn Emrys (talk)!

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Xavexgoem:

I need help with my Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_Cummings

I myself did not create the article. In 2010 or so, a librarian in a West Virginia public school did. She is deceased. Since, editors of journals having published my short stories and a former literary agent added to the page.

Recently, I made changes to the page, specifically uploading two photos of my book covers. But I did not follow protocol. Tags at the top of the page appeared, one after another, each worse.

I myself have not touched the actual article since this incident started six weeks ago, but have instead remained markedly earnest and cooperative and forthcoming on the User Talk page.

On my USER TALK, page you will see extensive dialogue between me and who seems to be only Wiki editor involved "Bonadea." She's well-informed and reasonable.

A few weeks back, she redrafted the page to sound encyclopedic, but she removed too much, I think. I had thought at the time, she was ready to remove the tags. Not so. She still feels the page is "autobiographical," even though I have dug up many links to reliable sources for her. Today, she's less and less available to help, as she is a teacher with a heavy class load.

I so much want the page to exist at its best. It would make me very proud, and I honestly feel who I am as a writer and what accomplishments I have made are of note.

But the paragraphs about my article become scant as the descend, and the entire page is lacking my most important accomplishments.

Again, I have available all links to the entirety of my USER TALK page.

My first novel won The Paterson Prize for Books for Young People 2009 (Grade 7-12), with a link to a reliable source. This a great award. But it is not listed.

I want acknowledgement of my receiving an Honorable Mention in The Best American Short Stories 2007, again a great accomplishment, with a link available.

I want acknowledgement being nominated for The Pushcart Prize - a fabulous achievement not listed.

I want all my 75 plus published short stories listed, not just a handful as shown on my page. All stories are reputably published is good university journals and commercial magazines. I want them presented in columns and set off my the lines of a box around them, as I seen on many sites.

I'v spent thirty years of my life - every day devoted - to becoming a writer of accomplishment. I sacrificed income and the great life experience of having a family I could support.

A few questions:

How quickly can you get to work on the Wiki page?

Do other editors get involved with you?

Will you willingly communicate with me here on your email page, rather on the USER TALK for all the world to see. I think "Bonadea" would prefer not seeing my comments, as I am the subject of the article, and would prefer working only with a professional Wiki editor.

I look forward to a prompt reply.

Thank you very much.

LankyKeller (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LankyKeller: I'm mostly retired from Wikipedia, and this is outside my area of expertise. I'm really, really sorry that you are experiencing this. Do take care, please :) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Wikipedia_dispute_resolution_for_complex_disputes. As you've previously been involved in dispute resolution on Wikipedia, I'd appreciate your thoughts there, if you have time. As I am sending this to quite a few people, the text is somewhat impersonal :) Steven Crossin 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

An editor Epinoia has consistently emphasized vitriolic polemics against Mandaeans in this article Abrahamic religions. After undoing the polemics twice, Jerm wants to start a SPI case against me. Mandaeans are a vulnerable minority religious group in the middle east. Epinoia is using strong language such as considering Mohammed and Islam demonic along with other Abrahamic religions and using words like "hating Abraham" when one of her sources clearly states they consider him a founder of their faith. Epinoia also uses words like "false prophets" to describe Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses. Considering they live in the middle east, this can only cause them considerable harm. There are other religions listed in the article, but polemics are not emphasized apart from Epinoia view on Mandaeans. I believe it is against Wikipedia policy to have an agenda against a religion or certain group of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SPI peeps: I know this is a sock, but could you not delete this twice from my talk page? Thanks! Xavexgoem (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise it had already been deleted. I'm also used to talk page watchers deleting stuff from my talk page, so I'm afraid it never occurred to me anyone would mind, it's still in your history. Sorry, I'll try to remember if it happens again, which I hope it won't. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably won't be interested, but LankyKeller was also a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suess56/Archive. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. However, the editor who filed that case request twice has been blocked for sock-puppetry and edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Sorry. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I return from the void. Was it lovely madness? Vassyana (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fucking love you man. Been checking for a reply all these years.

But no, it wasn't that song :-p It reminded me a lot of Poison Lips. Maybe I dreamed it? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remember anything else about it? My brain library for music and weird videos is too diverse. :P --Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things I think were in the video or the song, but I'm not sure:

• Japanese women? But that might be Poison Lips again.
• A ton of egg puns, more-or-less spoken word. I think the song was entirely egg puns.
• The video had a bunch of eggs cropping up in it, in unexpected places. Like: coming out of the mouth?
• Like: Freudian implications? Especially if I dreamt it. I'm 90% sure I didn't.
• Pretty dark ambiance, both in the song and the video. But that might be Poison Lips again.
• That there's a 10% chance I dreamt it says a lot about me.
• Probably qualifies as EDM. I'm not an expert.

There's an outside chance that someone else on Skype recommended it (Adrian?) But I really doubt it. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Poison Lips has had me thinking. I can hear the electroclash sound in my head. Something between Crystal Castles and Goldfrapp, kinda.
2. "The video had a bunch of eggs cropping up in it, in unexpected places. Like: coming out of the mouth?" You're onto something here. When I got that sound in my head after your Poison Lips reference, one of the things that popped to mind was eggs coming out of a mouth.

I'll keep mulling it out with the new clues in the stew. If any other visuals, lyrics, etc pop into mind, let me know! --Vassyana (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vassyana! The only other thing I can think of is a bus stop through the gloom. I hope you stick around on WP for a bit! Xavexgoem (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sticking around for a little bit, popping in and out. :) I swear this is on the tip of my brain. (I've been having some neuro/memory issues, so that doesn't help!) I'm 99.9% this is a thing. I'll let it percolate. It will come to me sooner or later. --Vassyana (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the status to open, because it appears that you are acting as the volunteer to try to resolve the matter. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry for putting you in a position to do admin I should be doing. I like to ask preliminary questions to see if mediation is viable, but I suppose that does count as "open". Xavexgoem (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, User:Xavexgoem. It isn't that important what the status is or who updates it. However, in the event that someone comes along and does analytics on case status, and a volunteer asked a question, I would like to have it shown as opened to show that we did something. Anyway, you did something, maybe what needed to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree. I saw the Request for Arbitration, but it had, as you say, already been closed when the case was filed at DRN. I thought and think that DRN is a better venue than arbitration for this content dispute. I don't want to close a case in advance due to incivility, when one of the functions of the moderator is to remind the parties to be civil. At the same time, a case with this much incivility beforehand is usually a difficult one to mediate. So I am just leaving it alone for a day or three. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreed. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no roll call since November 2017 so with that said, it is time to clean up the volunteer list. Please go to the Roll Call list and follow the instructions. If no response is received by May 30, 2020, it will be assumed that you no longer wish to participate and you will be removed as a DRN volunteer. Thank you for your attention to this and for helping Wikipedians in their dispute processes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} at 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that one of the editors has reported another of them to WP:ANI for incivility. I am closing the DRN case because we don't handle a dispute in two places at once. Thank you for offering to mediate. Please mediate another case in the near future. (I think that the filing party misread the BLP policy, but that in itself did not affect whether there was a content dispute.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC) It was a different editor who was rude. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who was telling you when to open or close a case? If you were referring to the editors, I agree. I don't think that any of the other volunteers were telling you what to do, and I assume that you are willing to take advice from the other volunteers. I haven't looked at that case. I do know that I personally don't want to moderate a case that involves refighting the American Civil War, just as I have learned that any dispute about the Balkan region is likely to refight World War One. The American politics rules are in effect because American politics cases often involve a lot of conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank God. Someone willing to talk to me about this. Confession: I screwed that case up.

User:Jorm is the one who said that the case should never have been opened and should be closed. Which is fair, because he was the other named party and he declined to participate (which is why I didn't mark it as open). I was hoping to reason with the other editor, and might've gotten away with it too if not for the fact that I can't control what anyone says or when they say it, and ended up e/c'ing with the other party as I filled out my |reason= on the archive template.

Lesson learned: if a party doesn't want to participate, don't get cute. Although who knows, maybe some good will come of it (jinxing myself for inevitable failure). Xavexgoem (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was called here with a ping, I'll tell you what was frustrating: Any one who took even 30 seconds looking into the talk page of the article would see that there wasn't a dispute and no one was being uncivil. So it was a bunch of wasted air. The filer did not attempt any serious engagement on the talk page; they only called me "uncivil" and threatened to "report me". Since then, well. That conversation has gone the way I expected.--Jorm (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't mean to ping. I screwed that case up. I'm sorry. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opening a dispute and you close it for no reason. I have used the talk feature, now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mypc1 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mypc1: We require extensive discussion. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xavexgoem Ok, please complete the review. Thank you Mypc1 (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC) @Xavexgoem How is that you closed the dispute again !? Mypc1 (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it requires extensive dispute on the talk page. Please, I've already told you this. DRN is not the venue you want right now. You need to discuss this on the article's talk page. There's no two ways about this. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Xavexgoem. You said that I should feel free to come to your talk page. I would like to ask quickly about your postscript. I'll reproduce below.

One last thing, and pardon my own frustration: Please, please do not tell me when to open or close cases. There's a reason this case was never opened in the first place (despite appearances): The conclusion here is pretty cut-and-dry, but I need the room to make that clear where others have failed. Please allow me to work with what I'm given. (I realize it's preeeetty unfair of me to assume that you could know that... I have no arguments against that). Just, I dunno... have more faith in DRN? We're not gonna try for a compromise against policy.

I don't understand. Was this about something that I did or that someone else said that you're referring? What do you mean when you say that it was "never opened"?

I find the system for requesting moderators' attention on Wikipedia very complicated. I've only done this twice before. Once I posted on the noticeboard for reliable source and no one ever replied. On another time, I came across a paid editor (they actually admitted it) who continued to edit an article, even after being warned; I reported that to the board for arbitration requests and, although the editor was banned promptly, I was also given a stern rebuke for going to the wrong message board to report it. I don't mean to get these things wrong, but there are so many rules involved and discussions on Wikipedia move very quickly sometimes. Epa101 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My "One last thing" was a jab; I shouldn't have written it. It wasn't directed at you, at any rate. The case was not technically opened, but that's a procedural thing that's neither here nor there.

Stern rebukes: I assume you mean this edit and this edit. Neither edit was stern; they're standard and impersonal notifications. WP:AE is for the enforcement of certain arbitration rulings (topic bans, interaction bans, discretionary sanctions, yada yada yada), so it wasn't the correct board for it. You were correct to go to the COI noticeboard initially, though. Failing that, WP:ANI would've been an appropriate next stop. Do please try and avoid ANI if you can at all help it.

Reliable source noticeboard and COI noticeboard: These can be fickle. They're not as trafficked as ANI or AE, and some editors may look at a query and go: "I'm not touching that." Or they may go: "This is too confusing." Or they may go: "This will probably resolve itself eventually, if this editor doesn't drop the stick." This happens more-or-less at every noticeboard. <shrug> We're a volunteer effort.

Fast-moving discussions: Yup! That happens. Don't know what to tell you. Try to stick to whatever is more recent in the discussion, without dragging older posts into it.

In general, I recommend learning WP culture. Read things like Don't climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, No angry mastadons, Don't stick beans up your nose for light-hearted examples.

Other things that come to mind:

1. Assume good faith. We have a lot of different people here, and everyone's threshold for breaches to WP:CIVILITY is different. Some people are stern or rude. Sometimes they're passive-aggressive. Whatever. Older editors and (moreso) administrators tend to have a higher threshold for these things, so actionable conduct issues are usually pretty severe or long-running. See Staying cool when the editing gets hot and Arguments to avoid in edit wars. This all kind of depends on topic area, too.
2. Avoid noticeboards if you can help it, especially ANI (see WP:BOOMERANG - happens all the time). Good processes to break heated discussion are Third opinion and Request for comment, since they're content-based and they give you a better idea of what the general consensus is going to be. WP:DRN I would generally recommend as a last resort for content dispute resolution. (DRN is our weirdest noticeboard, imo; it's "staffed" by, like, 5 people).
3. Avoid problematic topic areas until you're well-versed in handling discussions. Discussions need to focus on content. It's very easy to feel resentful or slighted, and acting on that quickly escalates a dispute. Tu quoque arguments are almost universally frowned upon.
4. You can't win all battles. Sometimes consensus is not in your favor, and there's nothing you can do about it. WP:NPOV is a very abstract ideal, and we're all only human. What one person sees as neutral another person won't. And sometimes you spend an hour editing a post only for, say, a DRN moderator to close the case before you can post it (I hate when things like that happen, and I'm also the type to go "fuck it, I'm posting this anyway"). Probably I should resist this urge.

--Xavexgoem (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also: I understand you've been editing forever, but not usually topics that are in dispute. So maybe a lot of this is redundant, but I tend to find that editors who stick to article writing and rarely have need to go to talk pages tend to run into issues when WP:BRD gets involved. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing such a long piece to explain these things to me. On the "stern rebuke", I actually meant the comment from creffett here. Looking back now, it might look a bit strange that I wrote three comments, one after another. There was someone else who was taking action against Ddbarnes15 between the messages, and I presumed (probably wrongly) that this user was acting in response to my posts on the COI noticeboard. Epa101 (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a dispute in talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_anime_characters#Chloe_isn't_a_protagonist And I need someone to resolve this. May you please come over to put an end to this?

My Sources: https://www.hobbyconsolas.com/noticias/anime-pokemon-habria-confirmado-nueva-evolucion-eevee-1028815 https://www.famitsu.com/news/202001/24191024.html

The Other Editor's Source: https://www.mycast.io/talent/chloe-pokemon Master106 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Master106: I provided 4 sources but why did you only mentioned one? Here are three other reliable sources that lists Ash and Goh as double protagonist/main character. Also the famitsu source is in my favour because it also lists Ash and Goh as double main characters. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned the one because it is the only one that says she is a supporting character. I'm not even sure if it even reliable though. The Famitsu article says she is a main character. Just let this editor do their thing. Master106 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly ignoring the fact that all reliable sources lists Ash and Goh as "double" main characters. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you're working on a list that's divided in a fundamentally arbitrary way. Then you go out looking for sources that support this arbitrary division, as though that division existed prior to the article's creation, and as though those sources would follow that division. It didn't and they don't. Stop rearranging deck chairs; this doesn't matter. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC) There's one way this ends: One of you stops caring. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯[reply]

Since there is no consensus so far, should Chloe be moved back up into the protagonists section? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Because Ajeeb Praani was the one to move her out of that section in the first place. Master106 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No cause you started moving her in June and per WP:NOCONSENSUS When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit., Chloe was in Supporting character section before you started moving her and we started this discussion. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 04:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about Evoboost488's edits? Master106 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before Evoboost488 moved Chloe in protagonist section, she was in supporting character section, you can check the history of article. I pinged them on article's talk page but they didn't respond and stopped moving Chloe. Ajeeb Prani 🦜 ✍🏻 04:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is bizarre to go "well, nobody agrees with me, so by default we'll do it my way". Like... no?

Pop quiz: what does WP:TIMESINK redirect to? Xavexgoem (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like what Ajeeb Prani is doing. Master106 (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors including me tried to move Chloe back to the protagonists section. But Ajeeb Prani wouldn't let them. Master106 (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I tried to come up with a compromise with Ajeeb Prani, they didn't cooperate. Like what am I supposed to do? The page is not right. Master106 (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TIMESINK redirects to WP:TENDENTIOUS. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what's going to happen, for I possess a crystal ball and am learned in the ways of the wiki:

• You two will continue arguing. And arguing. And arguing.
• One of you is going to find assistance elsewhere. Having exhausted 3O, EA, and the random attention of admins, you'll try some other process.
• The new processes won't work, but they'll waste a lot of time, and more of the community will become aware of the dispute. They'll start to read over everything, and then...!
• Then! The WP:BOOMERANG will finally spin itself back 'round. It'll hit one of you, and oh boy will it hurt! Who will it hit? Who cares! It doesn't matter. So long as one or the other of you stop talking to each other, the problem is solved. The problem is not solved by placing Chloe in one category or another. That's not the problem here. It's not even a problem in the first place.

I wonder what solution the community will cook up. Indef block? Topic ban? One thing's for sure: It won't involve which arbitrary category you put a character in. kbye~~~! Xavexgoem (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted you through DR to resolve a dispute. Why isn't it resolved? Master106 (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a resolution? As in, do you want me to provide a solution that you'll abide by?

Understand that this is very unorthodox - this is not how dispute resolution works, on the wiki or in real life. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a resolution that the both of us would be comfortable with? Master106 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]