| Revision as of 08:32, 4 June 2010 editNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits →About ArbCom case: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:43, 4 June 2010 edit undo422f2931915f677 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users814 edits →About ArbCom caseNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| A couple of arbs have indicated that the involved parties list can be trimmed further, and I agree - though I think you can help with this issue. Have a look at what I said on my talk about the issue and consider whether Arthur Rubin and Beyond My Ken are involved parties - if not, perhaps you'd be ready to remove them? This might mean you need to quickly skim through previous ANIs, WQAs, BLPNs and of course relevant article talk/history. At the same time, you could remove the notification diff with respect to me (and these editors, should you find that they ought to be removed too)? Cheers, ] (]) 08:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC) | A couple of arbs have indicated that the involved parties list can be trimmed further, and I agree - though I think you can help with this issue. Have a look at what I said on my talk about the issue and consider whether Arthur Rubin and Beyond My Ken are involved parties - if not, perhaps you'd be ready to remove them? This might mean you need to quickly skim through previous ANIs, WQAs, BLPNs and of course relevant article talk/history. At the same time, you could remove the notification diff with respect to me (and these editors, should you find that they ought to be removed too)? Cheers, ] (]) 08:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| : I've noticed the comments. I'm still not at all clear what the semantics of naming someone an "involved party" are; I had just considered it to be the list of people who should be notified in case they wanted to comment. I'm not even really sure what the rules are for adding and removing people: am I allowed to change the list at whim? is anyone else? am I '''obliged''' to change it? To be honest, I think it makes sense for the arbitrators to decide on the scope they intend to address before deciding just who the involved parties are. ] (]) 11:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:43, 4 June 2010
Outing and edit waring.
If you think this constitutes outing, the appropriate thing to do is to go to WP:OS, not perpetuate an edit war. A.Prock (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong. WP:OS is for expunging history and is available as a longer-term solution; WP:OUTING is very clear that reverting the offending comment is the right short-term solution. Rvcx (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- From WP:OUTING; Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Misplaced Pages permanently.A.Prock (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I'm referring to—requests to oversight don't get answered immediately, so in the meantime you just rely on plain old reverts. What's the confusion here? Rvcx (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oversighting also apparently isn't possible in AN/I threads. I'm not sure why that's the case, but it's what I was told when I requested oversight for Mathsci's original comment accusing me of being a holocaust denier, and it's the reason why the diff of his comment about this has never been removed. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
About ArbCom case
A couple of arbs have indicated that the involved parties list can be trimmed further, and I agree - though I think you can help with this issue. Have a look at what I said on my talk about the issue and consider whether Arthur Rubin and Beyond My Ken are involved parties - if not, perhaps you'd be ready to remove them? This might mean you need to quickly skim through previous ANIs, WQAs, BLPNs and of course relevant article talk/history. At the same time, you could remove the notification diff with respect to me (and these editors, should you find that they ought to be removed too)? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've noticed the comments. I'm still not at all clear what the semantics of naming someone an "involved party" are; I had just considered it to be the list of people who should be notified in case they wanted to comment. I'm not even really sure what the rules are for adding and removing people: am I allowed to change the list at whim? is anyone else? am I obliged to change it? To be honest, I think it makes sense for the arbitrators to decide on the scope they intend to address before deciding just who the involved parties are. Rvcx (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)