Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-22/Arbitration report

Discuss this story

FYI, Waalkes (talk · contribs) is not an entirely new editor. He previously edited using a variety of IPs dating back to October 2010, [1] most recently as 81.210.206.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Will Beback talk 01:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! :)

Not being a regular Signpost reader, I was surprised to learn that my username appeared in recent editions. It might be a nice idea if editors are notified when they are mentioned. It is unfortunate that you chose to mention ChrisO/Prioryman's "pointed question" to me, but not the fact that I have twice ([2] & [3]) asked him to clarify what he is asking. Oh well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to contact all editors prior to publication; but it might be possible. I can imagine a pre-publication editing fury, edit wars, etc, though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even notification after publication would be better than no notification at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the wording may be the contentious part. "Hello. This is an automated notice to tell you that your name was mentioned in this week's Signpost arbitration report (link). This week's issue was published a few minutes ago; please do not edit it except to correct factual errors. You are more than welcome to leave comments, however, directly below the article. All comments are generally read by at least one Signpost editor, who will endeavour to respond to any civil requests to correct errors in the article." How does that sound? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but that would work for me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC, do you think it's important to inform editors when they are being written about? Will Beback talk 21:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors would like to know that they are being written about in the Signpost, which is very widely read by Wikipedia editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drifting off-topic

Why should editors be bothered by people talking about them behind their backs? What problem do you see with that? Will Beback talk 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that the editors of Signpost are "talking about people behind their backs"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you characterize it? What problem is there with people writing about you without telling you?

I find your passive-aggressive behaviour to be extremely unpleasant. If you have something to say, please say it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way - do you ever discuss editors in public forums without informing them? Will Beback talk 22:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. I have no desire to play your games. If you have something to say, do so and stop wasting my time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be nice if you'd extend to other editors the same courtesy you're requesting here. Will Beback talk 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be nice if I never encountered you on Wikipedia ever again, but you seem to be showing up wherever I am lately. I hope that when the ArbCom cases are over (assuming I am not banned as ChrisO/Prioryman has suggested), you will do your best to avoid me. I'm not going to take your bait here - you are drawing a false equivalence. Please go away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's following whom? (See above) I think it'd be nice if you never wrote about me again. Maybe we can both get our wishes. Will Beback talk 23:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least 12 hours advance notice would be useful if possible. I found a pretty serious factual error in the blurb about my evidence in the Abortion case, which I could have instantly fixed had I seen it before publication. NW (Talk) 11:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happier having advance notice if it was comments only, no direct edits. We don't want edit wars spilling over here. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That wouldn't be an issue for me, and for most people I imagine, as long as it was clear who we could bring the matter up with to get it resolved in a timely fashion. NW (Talk) 13:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All comments left at the bottom of articles will be read before publication (at least in theory, and, at least during my e-i-c'ship, in practice). So, would you like me to instigate this system? I can file a BRFA later today if it appeals (24 hours warning, 12 hours if not already warned, publication if still not already warned? But with strong recommednation of comment-only). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sounds good to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/LivingBot_20 - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]