Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:44, 15 March 2024

This is Fastily's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 5 days

FASTily, huh

That was quick. LilianaUwU 07:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi LilianaUwU. I do try my best to live up to my name :) -Fastily 01:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Fastily, I totally understand not receiving rollback permissions. Even though I have done thousands of edits, reverts on good faith edits and vandals tend to lack the warnings necessary for the permissions and I accept that. I am not trying to be the police and I tend to avoid confrontation, only giving warnings if they appear to be WP:NOTHERE. Regardless, I was wondering if there might be another avenue I could go to if the incidents I mentioned in my rationale were to happen again. Conyo14 (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Conyo14. If you're reverting good faith edits, you should leave a message explaining why to the editor whose edits you reverted. Nothing discourages newbies more than having their edits silently removed without explanation and/or suggestions on how to improve. If you dislike "confrontation", then my advice would be to refrain from reverting these edits in the first place. -Fastily 06:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a place I can go to where someone else can deal with them? Conyo14 (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No? As I said, either handle it yourself or refrain from reverting. -Fastily 08:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Rollback for User:Elvisisalive95

Hello Fastily, I recently pinged you from the Teahouse in a matter I wanted to keep you apprised of. However, it's become clear that it requires your active involvement. Elvis does not yet know what constitutes vandalism. Moreover, having found that they had been using warning templates indiscriminately and refusing to talk to an editors they'd warned, I have been trying to get them caught up. And it has been an uphill battle. This makes it clear that they are not listening to me and don't intend to. And they are putting forward the presumption that you must have checked everything they were doing and okayed it when granting rollback. So, it falls to you to look into matters discussed at Misplaced Pages:Teahouse#Person not listening to me and the previous incident at Talk:Metal-Head, and advise the editor accordingly. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Usedtobecool. Just wanted to acknowledge that I've seen this and that I'm happy the ANI thread has been resolved amicably. If there are any other concerns in the future with this individual's use of rollback, please don't hesitate to reach out. Thanks, Fastily 01:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Enable my rollback

i request to you enable my rollback Wikilovery (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)