Wikipedia talk:Wikistalking

Arbcom case[edit]

It might be better if users who are bringing charges of wikistalking do not edit this article while the arbitration is active. -Willmcw 20:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true if this article were an official policy of standing on Wikipedia, Will, however in this case it is nothing more than an essay and one that is also under consideration for deletion by VfD. As such it has no standing to affect an Arbcom decision, unlike WP:HA, which is a formal guideline on wikistalking. As such, I see no conflict of interest in simply bringing this article's language into consistency with the WP:HA guideline by direct quotation of that guideline's text. Interestingly enough, a review of this article's history [1] shows that the article was created by another editor who is in another arbitration, edited by another admin who was in that same arbitration, and then edited again by an Arbcom member who is hearing arbitration all before I edited it. Also, please keep WP:POINT in mind. Rangerdude 21:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect of WP:POINT am I supposed to kep in mind, and why? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well, Will. I edited this essay in good faith to make it reflect the official guideline and your response is an attempt to disrupt it by dragging in our Arbcom case to prevent me from doing so, even though every single other previous edit to this article was by somebody else in a different Arbcom case. Rangerdude 21:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one dragging the Arbcom case in? I'm the one warned against making a point? I'm the one who knows "perfectly well" what new violation you think I'm going to make? That's quite a stretch. Would you mind if I reverted your changes, which do not quote the WP:HA guideline? Cheers, -Willmcw 05:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the WP:HA guideline is the only official definition of wikistalking with any standing, it would be in the interest of this article's accuracy to abide by them. Since you yourself have contended that quoting them is the most neutral way of presenting them, it seems to be in the best interest of this article that they remain. Rangerdude 05:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just point people to the precedents and avoid paraphrasing them. -Willmcw 08:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Will. Both of those were direct texts from WP:HA, not paraphrases Rangerdude 08:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]