User talk:Rvcx

If you think this constitutes outing, the appropriate thing to do is to go to

Wrong.

WP:OUTING is very clear that reverting the offending comment is the right short-term solution. Rvcx (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

From

WP:OUTING; Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.A.Prock (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

talk pages and Wikipedia 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)[reply

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If someone who is filing a request has named a party, it is because the named party is either involved in the topic/pages being arbitrated, or have imposed sanctions that might be disputed. Most users don't remember all of the edits they've made in relation to a topic or the sanctions they've imposed which is why they don't remove their names themselves - they will wait and see. However, if questioned, an user who names someone else as a party is responsible for justifying why they deemed a party involved; if they have no evidence (or intent of presenting evidence), then it is not sensible to deem that party involved. If the only evidence available is commentary at ANI telling parties to fix their approach or providing insight about the conduct in a dispute, and their own conduct is not in dispute, they are not involved. As my removal would indicate, you are not obliged to remove these names - in the same way no editor is obliged to avoid adding names. But if you've added a name and this is disputed (and you aren't going to explain why they are involved, even after being told just what an involved party is), then it would be better (courtesy and common sense) if you reverted rather than requiring that person or someone else (or a member of the arbitration office) to fix the mistake. (Note, in more serious cases where an user is already aware of the norms of arbitration, mistake would be substituted with the word abuse, but this is not applicable here). Should someone else deem that party involved, then they can justify why and provide evidence on that matter when asked to do so - but note that no one else seems to have disagreed with Arthur Rubin or Beyond My Ken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're suggesting that only parties whose conduct is under dispute should be listed. I don't see this interpretation of "involved" codified anywhere in policy—do you have a pointer? As the first arbitrator noted, it seems like a waste of time to argue too much about the list at this point. If a case is opened then the scope will determine who needs to be involved. Rvcx (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say, I saw your mention of possible media claims by Gottman and/or his institute. That'd be a great thing to add to the article; the criticisms in Slate were as much about the media image as the studies themselves. William Pietri (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nice demonstration of good faith . . .

Nevermind. I am now done. If you could expand your opposed vote to address my questions, I would appreciate it.

talk) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

As the "first woman to lead a FORTUNE 20 company", as CEO, per Fortune Magazine, I'd say that a little more than "fluff". While I'm no fan of the woman, removing a significant point about a notable female CEO (banned editor or not) is just not right - Alison ^❤ 19:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text removed was not "first woman to lead a FORTUNE 20 company"; it was meaningless junk about "[overcoming] the business stereotype of the glass ceiling". Such language may have place in a literary biography, but it's not how encyclopedia are written. It has no concrete meaning; it's just some wooly praise for the woman's symbolic value. Rvcx (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your question here, as well as I'm able to. I'm not sure how much of an answer this really is, though, since it looks like Coren (the drafting arbitrator) isn't posting a proposed decision by either of the two times when he’d predicted he would.

I'm kind of impatient about this also, but I've already asked him about it once recently, and I don't want to keep badgering him. If you want to try and get a better idea of how long he'll be with this, you should probably ask him yourself. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence
  " and all closely related articles.
• The following editors are topic-banned from race and intelligence articles, broadly construed:
  • Mathsci (by consent)
  • David.Kane
  • Captain Occam
  • Mikemikev
• Ban Appeals Subcommittee
  . After 12 months, he may choose to appeal the ban to either the Arbitration Committee or to the community.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 23:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The ArbCom case on Race and intelligence is mentioned in a letter to The Economist.[1] -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Rvcx. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated DR goes to Wikimania! 23:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, Rvcx. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]