User talk:Isaacl

A cup of tea for you!

thank you for your contributions!! :D xRozuRozu (t • c) 17:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

ACE2024

Hi. Not a criticism, but just pointing out that your question (#12) here appears to be a near duplicate to Q5 which seems to have been adequately answered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned in the question that there is overlap with your question 5. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

COI/paid language tweaks

Take a look at User:Lawlerfa. I successfully AfD and deleted the page on which he was the overwhelming majority contributor but this is something that should be worded into COI/Paid somehow. He was the board president at the organization I AfD'd at the time he did a lot of contents adding, however I think most non-profit board members are "unpaid". There's nothing that addresses board members in our current language. Graywalls (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In theory it's covered by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § What is conflict of interest?. But like all guidelines in English Wikipedia, compliance depends on editors acting in good faith and having a common alignment in goals. I can think of a few reasons why a board member might edit an article about their organization. They might think it's OK if they can edit neutrally (and there is a significant number of editors in the community who think the content of the edit is more important than who makes the edit), or they might not be concerned about Wikipedia having text written from a neutral point of view. If you have any ideas about how to effectively educate such editors, and efficiently channel them towards either making productive edits or ceasing to edit (if their goals remain incompatible with Wikipedia's), please do raise them in a common venue so others can discuss them. Personally, I don't think language tweaks will make much difference in either educating or redirecting their efforts – I think something has to change with the process of getting new users familiarized with Wikipedia expectations. But I don't have any good ideas on what might work well. isaacl (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)