Archive index

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Hi, Isaacl - red: [1] as per the edit notice on WP:ARC: "It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it " (underline own). When I had to fix an error in one of my own posts, I very clearly marked the change and included a timestamp.[2]... but I'm not sure your comment can be described as simple error fix. Similarly, while it wasn't to shorten, I feel the general idea behind avoiding unneeded refactoring still applies - it's confusing to look at the page and see an old comment responding to one made in the future.

I'll leave you to decide what to do.

And, just so we're on the same page - the AN-sanctioned quasi-G10/BLPDELETE deletion of Death of Linnea Mills would normally be, as far as these discussions go, ample validation that something needed to be addressed. It's certainly much much much more than cases like [3] or [4]. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can restore the original comment; I was only trying to be concise.

The point is that it's usual practice for the person enacting a block to point to X, Y, and Z and say these illustrate the concerns that need to be addressed in order to be unblocked. isaacl (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the comment! Yes, concision is important, but not at the expense of clarity.

I would say that what Southwood needs to address is fairly obvious, as have been spelt out for him by a sitting arb in the arb comments section:[5] he will need to discuss the BLP violations he has already introduced and the fact that he used Wikipedia to create article which "essentially accuses [a person he doesn't like] of manslaughter",[6]. I have noticed your use of the word "validated", however, which clearly implies you disagree that there has been wrongdoing. Did you look at the article before it was deleted, and disagree that it was seriously problematic? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 04:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at any of the diffs related to the biography in question and so have not formed an opinion about them. I'm just uneasy about blocking someone from editing mainspace without providing some form of rationale as part of enacting the sanction. It feels like jumping directly from raised concern to sanction, thus failing to benefit from one of the advantages of the arbitration process: taking some time to carefully evaluate the situation. I appreciate, though, why operationally there are practical limits to how long a case can remain suspended, and thus why the committee would prefer to have a definitive resolution after a fixed period of time. isaacl (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 10:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]