User talk:Carcharoth

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. For the fictional wolf of the same name, see Carcharoth.

Archives

---

• July 2005
• September 2005
• February - March 2006
• April - May 2006
• June - July 2006
• August - September 2006
• October - November 2006
• December 2006 - January 2007
• February - March 2007
• April - May 2007
• June - July 2007
• August - September 2007
• October - November 2007
• December 2007 - January 2008
• February - March 2008
• April - May 2008
• June - July 2008
• August - September 2008
• October - November 2008
• December 2008 - January 2009
• February - March 2009
• April - May 2009
• June - July 2009
• August - September 2009
• October - November 2009

WP:RFC

Hi Carcharoth, I'm looking to write a piece on the RFC process, and as you are a serving arbitrator, I was wondering if you;d be prepared to answer a few questions and offer your perspective on the idea? Hiding T 12:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I do have views on RfCs, mostly critical of various aspects of user conduct RfCs, but not taking the stance that that process is broken (I think it can be fixed fairly easily), and taking the view that user conduct RfCs should be used more often, but designed better to get useful results. I don't, however, have massive experience with them, other than reading the ones that sometimes precede arbitration cases. You might want to ask Wizardman as he has more experience with them. As far as content-related RfCs go (the one that take place on talk pages), I don't have particularly strong views, and that isn't related to arbitration anyway. The other type of RfC, the policy and centralised discussion type of RfCs, I could talk for ages about... :-) What sort of deadline are you working towards? I will be around this weekend if that will help. Feel free to e-mail me or reply here or point me somewhere else. Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The deadline is likely movable, but sometime before the end of the month would be good. I'll chat to Wizardman too. I'll keep you posted, this was just an initial feeder. Weekends are actually terrible for me, though. Hiding T 10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

socionics article

A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help at this stage. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you want advice on which bit of dispute resolution applies here, please post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (if you have a specific complaint, please post at WP:ANI). I often recommend third opinion as a good starting point. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

arbcom-en-l & wikimedia privacy policy

Is the arbcom mailing list subject to the Wikimedia privacy policy? Confusion here. –xeno^talk 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That discussion looks a bit old now. Are there questions you still want answered? I'd suggest going to WT:ARBCOM. Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Private email

Hi Carcharoth; I've sent you a private email to your listed email address. I'm just letting you know here on your talk page to ensure that you are aware of it. Thank you. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 05:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I also sent one. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, both of these e-mails have been dealt with now. Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Middle-earth character infoboxes

There's a discussion on character infoboxes going on here. It's heading towards a fairly inconclusive 'no change' at present. If you're interested please express your views (for or against the proposal, or an alternative) at the WP:M-E talkpage. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Will have a quick look. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

adhd

Nope, sorry. I've revised and shortened my remedy proposal and written this at the bottom of my section:

• Hurrah! I feel like we all should go out and celebrate.

Thanks Xavexgoem and scuro. My amendment request still stands (see revised version above), as help with effective communication on talk pages should solve most of our problems. And as Unionhawk put it below: "The effective communication and observation portion should be assumed just from mentorship alone."

One could hope that this would happen of itself, but we really don't want to be back here next month. Scuro has written several places that the mentorship involves only the bits about sources and citations. That won't do. It's the merry-go-round on the talk pages, with whining about how just one of us is right and lecturing policy that will have to stop if we're to get to content/npov/undue and whatever is really needed. I believe that my requested amendment is necessary, and that it is important that ArbCom stand behind it. - Hordaland (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll go and look, but will probably not comment until tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicate matter

It is my understanding that the Law/undertow matter came to a head after Law unblocked ChildofMidnight following Sandstein's enforcement of Obama article-related sanctions. A recent motion (in which you played a significant role) clarified the extent ("broadly construed") of CoM's topic ban on Obama-related articles, after which it was found he had been editing Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Because of this, it occurs to me that any additional enforcement of these sanctions might need to be handled with special care. I was impressed with your careful handling of the DreamHost-related ArbCom proceedings, so I thought I would bring this matter to your attention rather than filing a full enforcement request with all the drama that would doubtless ensue. With these edits - diff1, diff2 - I believe CoM is testing the edges of his topic ban once again, since the Michele Bachmann article extensively covers her criticisms of Barack Obama and CoM's second edit specifically refers to Obama. Forgive me for leaving this with you, but I would prefer to avoid getting caught up in all the CoM-related drama, particularly because ArbCom has restricted both of us from interacting (thank goodness). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite what has been said in The Signpost and elsewhere, the Law/undertow matter is not related to the Law/Sandstein/CoM matter at all (apart from Law being involved in both). The timing was coincidental there. I will ask others to review the edits you have pointed out. One thing that does need clarifying is who can report such matters. The presumption is that others will report them so that those restricted from interactions don't feel obliged to do so, but if no reporting is being done, then that may have to be reconsidered. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I stumbled upon these edits while patrolling RecentChanges, and then waited to see if anyone else would do anything about it. When nobody did, I thought it best to bring them to you instead of actually "reporting" them. I'm glad I did the right thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Would you be able to help me with the question I posted on the Wikipedia:Apology talk page?

NittyG (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied over there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup 14 November

Another Cambridge meetup is planned for the afternoon of Saturday 14 November. Please contribute to the page and come along if you can. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:MSGJ Has Done It Again -- Depopulated Category:Biography articles with listas parameter

I am truly sorry to bother you again but once again, without discussion, the category has been depopulated and is marked for speedy deletion. I have put a note on the category that gives the history of its depopulation but I am certain that it will be deleted. I have written User:MSGJ but he has not replied. I would report his highhandedness but I know it would be futile.

Again, I apologize for bothering you again, but I thought you should know what has happened.

JimCubb (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on MSGJ's talk page, asking for more details. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review of Frederick Buechner

Are you interested in reviewing an article on novelist/theologian Frederick Buechner. I am a fan and it seems that some professionals have helped write the article, but I wanted to help get it to FA level... what do you think the article needs next?

Thanks,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Buechner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.22.54 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead looks good. "The Buechner Institute at King College" section is stubby. The external links section needs formatting. Quotes section looks the wrong approach for that sort of thing. I've reassessed as C-class, and I think if you ask for a proper review, you can get this assessed as B-class, or GA-class. FA-class needs a bit more work. I would try a formal request for peer review and keeping asking around. Copying this to the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment subpages

Thanks for the pointer; I've commented there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning signs

Hello, sorry to trouble you. In your vote in support of a topic ban you said there were the warning signs on arbcom. I don't think that yourself and other arbcom staff realise that how I deal with scuro outside of arbcom differs from on arbcom. In arbcom I present evidence which is critical of course because it is like an online court. I feel that you should base your views on recent evidence from outside of arbcom. Have you read my efforts on my talk page?User_talk:Literaturegeek#compromise If you took your time I think that you might give me a barnstar rather than a topic ban! I haven't even edited ADHD articles or their talk pages since the ammendment request specifically to avoid drama and made a major effort to find some diplomatic solution with scuro but here I am about to be topic banned! Can you explain why the arbcom if making such a judgemental decision on an editor can't take the time to read my interactions with scuro? Could you read my talk page before you make a final decision on this topic ban? Thanks. :-(--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A punishment for befitting of the crime

I will try and keep this short as I have already messaged you and I am sure you are very busy. This topic ban makes no sense. This dispute is not about article content but is beyond that but is personal and is occuring on user talk pages, character assassinating people, playing games and in my case I admit getting distressed, losing my cool and personalising. Surely a more logical approach would be to pass a motion stating, any personalising of disputes, disruption of the editing environment or abuse of editors time will result in a block of up to one week, extended to a topic ban or a block of 3 months or something after several violations. I have from the outset practically begged the arbcom to pass motions to resolve disruptive behaviour, I still feel this is the right approach. To propose a topic ban when for the first time myself and scuro are making progress and when the recent dispute is not even about article content is throwing the baby out with the bath water and may not even be effective judging by some ongoing drama that I am not involved in. I could fully accept a motion which was to me likely to be effective and is aimed at addressing the actual violations. A topic ban seems like taking an anthill out with a shotgun. No disrespect intended, I hope you have a good day.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggested proposal should have included the addition of a voluntary topic ban turned into an enforced one if I violate it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear ill-informed

You clearly wish to insult without reading fact [1]. As an insult you have succeeded. I have never attempted to publish private addresses of anyone, let alone an Arb, as accused by Mattisse and her firends. So get that straight and understand it properly. Secondly, collecting diffs for what is clearly going to be a long and protracted case is clearly also quite in order. That no matter how hard anyone tries to avoid Mattisse she folows is one of the cheif complaints about her. So get that straight too. Thirdly, those diffs were colected with fortuitous foresight, months and months ago, not as a result of this latest (forseeable to to all except the Arbs) debacle. I doubt anyone even knew of it's existance until publiced by those friends of Mattisse, clearly long term stalking my edits. So get that straight too. My page stays, as it is my legitimate right to have it. You want to fight over this, I am more than happy to do so - and will; that page without a hige battle is staying - so get that straight too. Giano (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

On a somewhat different note, perhaps I could take a stab at explaining what you describe as "oversensitivity" to Mattisse's behavior. She has engaged in a wide range of problematic behaviors; I won't list them here, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse identified a sampling of them. At the time, mentorship was put forth as the best solution. In the meantime, Mattisse has repeated or amplified pretty much every behavior that was of concern in the first place: she created sockpuppets to harass other editors and prosecute old grudges, she has continued to manifest frankly paranoid ideation (e.g. the creation of WP:ACPD was intended to destroy her), she has continued to make martyred declarations that she's "leaving" without ever actually doing so, she's continued to pick at old scabs, and so on. The mentorship has proven ineffective, to put it kindly.

At the last Arbitration case, the concern was raised that mentorship was an inappropriate solution. This concern was fobbed off with the assurance that if problems continued, the issue could be brought back to ArbCom, who would pick up where things had left off (or at least not develop an apparent case of institutional amnesia). If people seem "oversensitive" to Mattisse's continued misbehavior, then perhaps it's because things should really have been dealt with before they got to this point. At the very least, the promise implicit in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Continuing jurisdiction has been broken, and broken promises tend to make people oversensitive. If WP:CIVIL means anything (an unresolved question in my mind), then it means that behavior like Mattisse's is unacceptable, and other editors should not be subjected to it. It's time we took the consideration and deference given to Mattisse's feelings and applied even 1/100,000th of it to the unfortunate editors who have to actually deal with her. I promised myself not to comment any further on this situation, since I think it brings out the worst in me, but what the heck. MastCell ^Talk 03:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a primarily uninvolved party, and happened to be here to comment on a wholly uninvolved issue. However, after a brief review of this matter, I must concur that the ongoing dissention over this issue is of concern. A quick review of the previous arbitration on this matter reveals that this has been a long-runnning dispute. Disputes of this nature are not beneficial, and firm action may be required. Please observe the ninth change to this diff. The arbitrator's comment indicates prompt action in the event that the previous solutions did not work. Such prompt action is now needed to reduce inappropriate and counterproductive drama. Best wishes, —Finn Casey * * * 19:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hopefully I answered parts of the above in my responses at the clarification request. Discussion is better there than here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for a decision - Socionics arbitration between rmcnew and tcaudillig

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Am heading over to the case pages now. Please don't spill over onto user talk pages any further. Carcharoth (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Can you guys please hurry up and make a decision? This is just getting more and more rediculous the more it drags on and tcaullidig keeps talking loads of crap about me concerning things that happened outside of wikipedia and is now even claiming to have in his posession some supposed database of a website I owned and never gave him permission to have. I think he is just bullshitting about it or in the event he does have it may have obtained it illegally through some slight of hand methods and is now trying to blackmail me with it.

And also, I would be perfectly alright with receiveing a 3 month ban from wikipedia per my own request, as editing here gets sort of addictive and I think I should have a break from this place. Feel free to give tcaullldig a ban too for other reasons. He seems to have given wikipedia a couple already. Ad hominem attacks, insulting other editors, being uncooperative with other editors, and claiming to have illegially stolen an internet database, personal, and other information from specific editors with blackmail threats being legitimate reaons for that ban. This information against tcaulldig is all recorded and accessable from a talk page in the arbitration area. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to legal threats made by User:Rmcnew. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The database in question, which I would offer in the event User:Rmcnew did, unwisely, attempt to file legal proceedings against Wikipedia, Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Objection - Complete Bullshit and a total lie. I have never filed anything against wikipedia and I was purely speaking about tcaulldig. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

shows that his accusations of libel for, among other things, engaging in behavior befitting of a cult leader, are without merit. Additionally, I have witnesses who will vouch for the content of the database. The database was not obtained illegally;

Objection - Tcaulldig never had any access to the main database and any claim and his accusation that I am a 'cult leader' is completely libelous. He does not have my permission to have in his posession the main database excepting the one I allowed him. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was an administrator of metasocion.com with access to the forum's database function. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Objection - He was allowed administrative capabilities in seperate board on the same website that was on a a seperate database from the main website. He was never given access to the main database and does not have my permission to posess the main database. He may have backed-up the game and wiki database from where he was allowed access. That was the only one he had access to. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I always suspected he would do something erratic, and I and other users had put a lot of efforts into our posts, so I made a backup. It seemed especially important to make such, too, given that User:rmcnew successfully blackmailed another site, the16types.info, into eliminating all or most of his comments on that site, made over several years, by leveling similar threats. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Objection - I sold the16types.info website and one of the conditions of the agreement was that they would ensure that certain personal information was not made available on that website. A couple of users were posting copyrighted pictures of me on the website, so a few polite letters were written for those to be removed. The administrators on the website followed suit and took the pictures down. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am quite persuaded that he closed his site, in fact, in retaliation for my opposition to his editing of the socionics article. As it was, he didn't give a warning and did, in fact, eliminate a lot of the hard work that I had put into a project based on socionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Objection - the website was suspended because godaddy.com tried chargeing an account I had closed on my bank account. I intend to redesign the websight and therefore have keeped it closed for that reason. My relationship with tcaudillig has nothing to do with that closeing of the website. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's right, McNew. That's what you should've done: leave your friends hanging. We were dependent on you to get the word out and what did you do? You abandoned us. But in any case you probably did us more harm than good with those pseudo-prophetic amateur videos you made. "Those who do not obey the new order will be destroyed?" Yeah really mainstream there. Oh yeah, those videos are on Youtube still. Look for "metasocion". Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that not pursuing the ejection of this controlling and intimidating individual would be unhealthy for me. Still I realize this is a waste of time and will be all to happy to see this case end, hopefully with rmcnew gone for good. No rush though. Take your time. :) Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But I will say this: banning me, for standing up to rmcnew, would set a horrible example. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the above that tcaulldig is not just being investigated for ad hominem and personal attacks against me, but that he has a history of attacking other editors on wikipedia (not noted from anywhere else-wikipedia)and in that event I am calling to your attention that he should be banned for being generally uncooperative for that and other various reasons. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had some disagreements and some testy words. Hey, it's Wikipedia. Troll haven. McNew you know as well as I do that even according to socionics, some people contain themselves better than others. As it is Wikipedia is suffering for lack of that knowledge, for it just so happens that the people most likely to become casualties of earnest conflict are the truest judges of character. By the way, I don't just "yell out", nor do I react. I observe character and share my observations for the purpose of helping other people affirm their own assessments of a person. It is an important duty and nothing will ever stop me from it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But that's it. I've got college courses to take of. I don't have time to argue. Goodbye. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arb Election Update

Here and here you indicate that you are open to ideas on what agenda items to put priority on. I realize that all Arbcom members are exceedingly busy, but I wanted to comment that information regarding the next Arbcom election should be a priority, as that is approaching quickly. Thanks and best wishes! —Finn Casey * * * 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That section got archived before I could get to it, but hopefully as you can see, arbs are now commenting on various parts of the election pages, though I should emphasise here, as elsewhere, that the community decide ultimately what happens in these elections, and the various parameters involved. Sitting arbitrators can advise, given their experience of the role, but shouldn't unduly influence the election or its processes. I've said something at the election talk pages, which I will now copy to the current request for comments. Carcharoth (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian

I can't say I was too happy with the recent clarification I was asking for, but recent events have given me further cause for concern. It appears User:DrBat has been blocked indefinitely for sock puppeting. Can you look over that, see User talk:DrBat, but also bear in mind that User:Asgardian lodged the complaint and Asgardian was found to be sock-puppeting with User:Obsidianblackboard at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Asgardian and strangely was not indefinitely blocked but only had a block reset. I really can't understand what arbitrators feel an RFC will achieve with regards User:Asgardian, since the issues are so subtle, and I don't understand what you would have me do. I trust my judgement implicitly, and yet I can't see where on Wikipedia I am allowed to act based on that judgement. This is why I turned to the committee. Thank you for your time, and I would appreciate any and all advice you can give. Hiding T 12:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We are aware of the DrBat block and have already been looking at that (we were contacted by others regarding that block). I will try and draw more attention to it. As regards User:Asgardian, I think a carefully laid out RFC may help make things clearer. Once sanctions have expired, you do really have to start again from scratch, though you can point to previous instances of conduct. If you do an RFC, and you think problems are still there even after that, and arbitrators agree with you, a case is more likely to be accepted. Carcharoth (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding DrBat, the user has contacted me by email and indicated willingness to accept some form of probation and a one month block. Feel free to pass my name on to other arbitrators as a point of contact on this. Hiding T 15:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC is in the works, thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Block reduction

I don't want to step on any toes, so I want to check. Would it be acceptable to arb-com to reduce the ban to a month and place DrBat on probation? What sort of probation would be appropriate? Hiding T 14:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not dealing directly with this, but I will ask those who are to contact you, probably at his talk page or yours. Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Hiding T 13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just by the by, it is possible everyone missed this: [2]. If it isn't DrBat, fine. The timing, however, was convenient. Over to you. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not dealing with this. I could (as above) offer to pass on what you have said, but I'm not going to convey messages back and forth every time a message is left on my talk page about this. I suggest either e-mailing the arbitration committee mailing list, or commenting on the checkuser request, or commenting on the account's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Easter eggs

Hello, Carcharoth. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Restrictions

[3] Ncmvocalist is making it rather clear that a talk page is no longer for talking about a matter. However, [4] is you discussing the procedures for the page which have not been followed in the original post. Could you please clarify? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have quoted your statements here and further up in that thread. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I will try and get to that request later tonight, but my initial thought is why are you quoting something I said in August 2008? That's an eon ago in Wikipedia terms. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Would you care to comment upon my detailed proposals at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Talk page Comments subpage? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Will reply there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a short comment. I don't really understand your concern about losing the edit history and attribution of these pages. As they are talk pages, all comments should be signed anyway so you can see who made which comments ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When you look at someone's contributions history, I feel good-faith contributions (which some of these will be, though some is vandalism - hence the aversion to bot-copying across) should be preserved. Also, when you see a talk page post, you should, in theory, be able to go from the date of the post to a diff in the page history or in the contributions log. Not being able to do that feels like losing part of the functionality of Wikipedia. Consider - if all talk pages were deleted right now, how would you link to diffs of what you had said somewhere? Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is ideal if the history is retained, but in this case I think that improved usability might outweigh these concerns. It would be easier for editors to see the comments if they are on the talk page rather than having to go and check the history. Also, I have discovered a problem which will occur if these pages are redirected to the talk page. Any banners which transclude them will then be trying to transclude the target of the redirect (i.e. the entire talk page) and this causes horrible template loops! Of course, we are aiming to turn off this functionality from all banners in the future, but it could cause trouble for the transition period, and it might be better just blanking (or deleting) them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realised redirecting might cause problems. In that case, blanking is best, but deletion is still not needed (though replacing with a template explaining what has happened, rather than blanking, might be best). I have no problem with copying valid comments across, as the history would still be there in the blanked page, but what is problematic is copying across vandalism. The only way to avoid having a bot copy across vandalism is for all the pages to be checked by a human. That is the real reason for leaving a talk page note (pointing to the comments page), as the bot can't judge what is on these comments pages. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cope

Thanks for the kind words and links. I'll take a looksee and check for good info. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for copying what I said to the peer review. I will try and comment further there at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've started Cope's FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Drinker Cope/archive1. I believe I addressed much of your comments at the PR, but now's your chance to speak or forever hold your peace :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for checkuser

Hi, I came here via "Wikipedia:CheckUser". I am involved in a discussion at a controversial article Medical uses of silver (formerly Colloidal silver) and I have good reason to suspect that one editor participating in the discussion is a sockpuppet. User:Beaupoint made his (or her) first contribution to Wikipedia to Talk:Medical uses of silver on November 1, and of his 15 contributions since then, 5 more were to Talk:Medical uses of silver. He also advised another editor involved in the discussion, quote:

"Trust me. You will never get the Immunogenics reference or anything remotely like it included in the article. This is a medical article so any references will undergo extreme scrutiny from many editors who haven't even commented yet." Here

How could he possibly know that, if he just joined Wikipedia four days before? The editor I am suspecting of sock-puppetry is User:DHawker, who was an active participant in the preceding, lively discussion at the noticeboard, but has not commented on the article since then. Actually I've just checked his contributions, and it turns out that the only page he as edited since then was User talk:MastCell, where he was discussing a topic ban against him from the article. He made a cryptic remark: It'll never 'be over', (sic) although he modified it 70 minutes later. The ANI thread on his topic ban is here. It might also be important to know whether the IP 123.50.142.4, who reverted my work at the article twice (1, 2) might have been used by him.

I would greatly appreciate a quick reply to my request. This is the first time I am actually having to deal with sock-puppetry. I've asked Nishkid64 the same request, but then I noticed that he is away since 4 days. Zara1709 (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to look at this right now, and in any case, I'm not an active user of the Checkuser tools, only having them in order to review use of tools and to examine checkuser-related evidence pertaining to arbitration cases. I suggest you read the instructions at WP:SPI, or ask another checkuser instead. Sorry about that, and hope you find someone to help you. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I will have to file a new case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Then I'll try to get some sleep and in 9 hours I'll be giving a 25-minute-presentation on Wikipedia at my University. It would have been nice if we could have solve the issue before then, but I accept your decline of my request. Zara1709 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at RFAR

Why does it take so long to deal with these things? Why was an obvious POV pusher allowed to run around creating havoc for so long despite multiple ANI reports?

I could rant on here about the uselessness of RFA culture, but there's nothing you can do about that, so it would hardly be constructive. But I will mentipn the problems of ArbCom culture, because the admin corps certainly takes it cues from arbcom. For one thing, arbcom takes far too many cases. Kelly Martin thought this back in 2005, and things have only got worse since then. Stuff like Skip sievert can be perfectly well handled by the admin corps, yet arbcom has routinely taken similar cases. This has led to an expectation among admins that arbcom will tackle all the tricky stuff, so they can just ignore it, when really arbcom should be there for only wheel warring and extremely complex problems like the recent EE mailing list case.

Secondly, and more importantly, arbcom culture has for too long underplayed the importance of maintaining encyclopedicity. It has not been properly understood than someone can be fairly civil and not be a constant edit-warrior and, through POV-pushing against consensus (both editorial and academic), cause enormous damage to the 'pedia. WP:TIGERS and WP:TE have not been taken into sufficient account. For this reason, accounts like Skip sievert are left to run riot, as admin brains automatically flag this up as "content dispute, can't touch". But all this needs to change at arbcom level before it can change at admin level. Moreschi (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is that standards vary widely between admins. Some admins are far more decisive in their actions (you, for example), so if admins deal with more things, you will get an inconsistency, and you will get some admins that go over the line (in terms of using their tools in such a way that article content is directly affected) where-ever that line is drawn. Essentially, if admins do more of these cases, the cases generally end up at ArbCom anyway (via appeal). Then ArbCom have to consider whether to summarily reject the appeal (that happens far more often than people realise), whether to modify the possibly blunt sanctions issued by an admin (sometimes in the light of new information), and in some cases we have to consider what to say to the admin without said admin getting all upset that they were over-ruled. And in some of the worst cases (relatively rare, as most admins are clueful enough already), consideration of the admin's sysop bit comes into play. It's a balance between encouraging clueful, diplomatic and skilful use of admin tools, mediation, and dispute resolution, and discouraging over-reactions, while still getting consistent results. It is possible that this can't be done, and in all cases the interpretation of the relevant policies is incessantly argued over. Carcharoth (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Naturally. The problem is not with arbcom review to appeals of admin actions. This appears to be a tad slow but fundamentally rational. The problem is with arbcom taking cases that admins, for reasons of sloth, ignorance or just plain not seeing the thread in the flurry of ANI drama, have not dealt with or even meaningfully commented on. But this does not mean that the admin corps is not the right body to deal with the problem: it means it needs a arbcom-directed boot up the arse, with the comment that "come on, guys , it's your problem. Deal with it".

Oh, and on the other RFAR thread? Come on, you can't possibly expect me to take that seriously. One look at the Persian Empire dispute shows that nobody pursued Ottava: Ottava pursued and harassed people he has an old grudge against - indeed, I've never known anyone hold grudges so well as Ottava, to the point where he has been consistently blackening my name and insulting me on #wikipedia-en (I rarely use IRC these days, so can't respond) over the last couple days. Moreschi (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing I've found that can help (kind of as a last resort, though it should really be a first resort) is when two or more people who are obviously capable of independently writing good content, fall out, for whatever reason, is to try and talk honestly about what led to the falling out and then (presuming the antagonism is not still there, and that is a big if), to work together on an article neither have edited before. i.e. reconciliation of sorts. If that was ever possible with some people around here, there would be a lot less drama. It works best with 2-4 people. More than that doesn't really work, though you can send groups to their own corners to get back to work. Trouble is, it is very difficult to suggest that volunteers do this. Most have too much pride and just walk away. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

A report has been prepared as requested and is here: User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report. SilkTork *^YES! 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The next stage would be to have public comment on it from those who were/are active at the request. I need to finalise some points relating to the Socionics arbitration case today, but will aim to get to this at some point this weekend, unless another arbitrator does so first. I should point out, by the way, that when other arbitrators turn up at that clarification request (if they do) there is no guarantee they will even agree with my view that a report was needed. One of the things that has frustrated me about this is the lack of input from other arbitrators. But hopefully something workable can be sorted out. Carcharoth (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know where, or if, this is still being sorted, but I'll leave a note here. It looks like a fine start, with one caveat. A number of people expressed the concern that at least one additional mentor should be added from outside the current group. Has there been any thought given to expanding the pool of mentors in such a manner? MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I reckon it goes on the Clarification thing, and I've posted a rather more comprehensive Report question than MastCell's there.[5] Not meaning to stress you, Carcharoth, but I hope somebody has time to reply. Either an arb or a mentor will do, and so I've stated in my post there. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

• Thanks for the additional comments. I see things are moving again at the clarification request. Will comment there, rather than here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Randy from Boise

Sorry, I honestly wasn't aware that you'd closed the thread when I sent the post, due to edit conflicts. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by starting a new section on that side topic, should I just delete my comment? I understand what you're trying to do, I think, and didn't mean to stir up more drama, but I was just so surprised that this was such an obscure term. But you're right, Wikipedia is a very big place, and we don't all share a common language. Woonpton (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My contributions to FAC

I want to point out that (using this tool) I have contributed to 172 different FACs:[6] This is more than Malleus Fatuorum [7] who contributed to 141, and who is considered to be an outstanding contributor. I submit that considering the number of FACs I have made positive contributions to (that is, contributions with no problems), the number that I have had problems with is very small. I admit that I must be more careful in the future in all my ontributions, but to single out FAC as a specific problem is false. Of 172 FACs, only a very small minority have been problematic. Out of 236 GAN reviews I have conducted,[8] none have been problematic. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Three points: firstly, this shouldn't be on my talk page - it should be on the clarifications page; secondly, stop comparing yourself with and naming other editors - it embarrasses both them and you; thirdly, stop counting the number of reviews you have done as if that means anything. What matters is the quality of your reviews, and whether or not you are able to focus on the content issues, rather than any perceived, real or imaginary issues you have with other contributors. Even the newest of new editors, who have never done a review before, should be able to contribute to FAC or other areas of the encyclopedia on an equal footing with you and others if they are making comments that help improve the articles. It is the articles that matter, not you or the people you work with. But to the extent that other people edit Wikipedia, you need to learn to work with them, and not compare yourself to them, or argue with them, or fall out with them. Can you do that? Stop comparing yourself with other editors? Just do the reviews and don't talk about other editors? Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Please don't reply here - I'm entering a diff of this at the clarifications page.

I have apologized to Malleus and explained that I mentioned him only as a byproduct of the links on the FAC contributions coming from his page.[9] He has accepted my apology.[10] Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamada_Gaku

Thanks for referring the above closure to Mr.Z-man. They oversighted the IP address, and I did a null edit (adding a HTML comment to explain the situation) to show it as my non-admin closure.

I must admit that I was surprised that it was referred to Mr.Z-man, as I saw that you are both a checkuser and an oversighter - one of the reasons I contacted you! I assume that I caught you as you were about to go offline!

Anyway, thanks for your help - in future I'll double check that I'm logged in before doing anything! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Quicker to e-mail the oversight mailing list in future. Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Sorry to approach you like this, but I have a problem. A user has publicly (both on a reference desk (1) and on my talk page (2)) accused me of sock puppetry. The reason? I said that he had been acting as the RD's unelected spokesperson, and it turns out that an IP user posted a message on his talk page saying that he had been possessive of the RD. I have two requests: first of all, could you check my IP address and the testify that I am not the IP user that made the comments on his talk page, and secondly, could you advise me on any action I should take. Surely it's not right to go around making very public accusations of sock puppetry without any grounds. I hope you can help. Thanks. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 12:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You will get a faster response if you approach an active checkuser (I don't actively use the tools). They may tell you this is not appropriate for checkuser (CU is generally not used to clear people of accusations), but please either ask for help at sockpuppet investigations, or e-mail the functionaries mailing list (which includes active checkusers) at functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. If it is inappropriate accusations of socking that you want to see addressed, I suggest posting to the appropriate administrators noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret voting

Hi Carch. I was reviewing the upcoming Arb election and I saw that you were signed on for secret ballots. I understand the arguments for it, but it is so fundamentally contrary to an open and transparent community I was disappointed to see you supporting that position. Accountability is very important. I hope you'll reconsider (and try to promote openness and honesty across Wikipedia). ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you canvassing people to change their positions? Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm discussing the voting method issue with editors I was surprised to find supporting secrecy, hoping that they would come to their senses. I find your allegation of canvassing unseemly and uncivil given that my approach has been open and straightforward. That's a model you would do well to imitate in your own work here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion

On the issues discussed here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

EEML Amnesty Proposal

Not sure whether arbcom members read the discussion page, but if not it would be great if my concern expressed here would be addressed in the proposed decision. In my opinion the proposed decision should go beyond those editors named so far. Those who committed no misconduct should be exonerated, as the association with the mailing list would otherwise harm these editors reputations. Those who committed misconduct should be sanctioned, proportionally to the misconduct and their willingess to abide by Wikipedia policies in the future. Pantherskin (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be looking at this tomorrow night. Carcharoth (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Principles of care and justice

You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:

Facts

• the clarification request clearly demonstrated that abuse had occurred.[11]
• administrators were to watch for further instances.
• harassment/ false accusations continued.
• harassment/ false accusations were part of two amendment topic ban requests against me, which the very same administrators were overseeing.[12][13]
• harassment/ false accusations were part of the administrative topic ban proposals.[14] The same administrators were overseeing this sanction process also.
• In a half year there are hundreds of examples of false accusations/harassment through at least half a dozen sanction processes. I have made numerous administrators aware of this and no direct warning has ever been given.

• even though numerous allegations were made against me during two arbitration amendment requests, no action was deemed necessary.
• an administrator agreed to hear my amendment request as part of the two amendment requests.
• this administrator was asked repeatedly to confirm that I would be allowed to file the request. No response was given and the amendment proposals were closed without my proposals being heard. It had been stated clearly that my proposals were to deal with harassment/ false accusations.
• administrators who were part of the amendment request then filed a topic ban proposal. They offered no specific evidence and answered no question, even though they were repeatedly asked to do so.
• they never formally communicated with the accused during the procedure.
• The only evidence offered was by an uninvolved administrator who offered one diff which was shown to be totally bogus.
• Reasoning was given for the topic ban but again the logic behind the conclusions never had to stand up to any scrutiny.
• a year long topic ban was given to myself. The other party received no sanction, no warning, no advisement.

Questions

1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?

2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?

3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?

Principles of care and justice

1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.

2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.

3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.

The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?--scuro (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You would file an appeal at the requests for amendment page. You should try to make your presentation clear and to the point, stating clearly why you are filing it, and what has changed, or what new evidence you are presenting. If you are objecting to what was raised previously, you will need to be very clear on why you think the previous decision was wrong. In many cases it is better to demonstrate an ability to edit productively for 3-6 months in another topic area (not related to the previous topic area), and then ask for the restrictions to be relaxed. If you still want to file an appeal, you may want to find someone willing to help you write up the appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth,

Thank you for your suggestions.

The topic ban breaks with several wildly held principles of communal justice.

• 1) that no one is above the law. If an administrator files a topic ban proposal, then they are accountable for any claims that they make within that proposal. The accused has a right to hear from those making accusations. They did not provide specific evidence, communicate directly in any fashion with the accused, or explain their reasoning when questioned.
• 2) that those in charge of this sanction process are accountable that no ongoing harassment/abuse take place during the procedure which they have implemented. This would hold especially true if serious past abuse has been previously demonstrated.
• 3) that those who initiate a procedure not also vote on that procedure.
• 4) that the greater the sanction, the higher the burden of proof required. As mentioned previously, only one totally bogus diff was offered by an uninvolved administrator as specific evidence.

Wikipedia has set up topic bans in a very transparent manner. Any wikipedian can access such a sanction process. This topic ban amendment procedure was accessible to all. Yet the really important bits like evidence and vetted justification, were not at all visible to the community. Your suggestion of appealing to the arbcom mailing list will not solve these major problems. That process would also be opaque. The only solution for wikipedia is get rid of the topic ban until such a time when the participants have been given the a bare minimum amount of respect during the process, the case has actually been made, and then it has been voted upon. Consensus does not excuse indifference or mistreatment of any contributor.--scuro (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New suggestion for Brews Ohare

Hi,

I wrote on the Arbcom/Clarification page a suggestion to move forward in a i.m.o. more realistic way. Count Iblis (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Socionics article judgment

What you are proposing is completely unfair. I will not abide by it. You affirm the criticisms leveled against Wikipedia and place yourself in the position of being a personal danger to all contributors' freedoms. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Please register any concerns you have about the proposed decision at the case talk pages or workshop page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Editors with whom she has had previous conflicts"

Thanks for noticing that there is an issue here. I made a post on the same topic a few days ago, which may have been lost in the edit history. Arbitrators may conclude that this is not a problem, but I want to be sure that the concern has been noticed by all active arbitrators. Geometry guy 23:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!  Roger Davies ^talk 10:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your votes. They are a nice surprise, at the time I am really very close to becoming part of this trend. Could I ask you - why have you voted as you voted? Your votes certainly don't fall in the "vote with the majority" group, but I see you don't provide comments with them. I am in particular curious w/ regards to your votes on FoF 9 (Use of administrative tools in disputes), 10 (Disruption - Piotrus), 16 (Disruption - Radeksz), and remedies 2 (Piotrus banned), 3 (Piotrus topic banned) and 10 (Radeksz topic banned). Mind you, my question is part personal (for obvious reason), part academic (I've seen enough of ArbCom that I think doesn't work that I am quite interested in the parts that I think I do :>). PS. Per your previous comments, I am asking this of you publicly. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did I vote the way I did? The main reason is that I have to devote more time to other matters, so was unable to complete voting. Effectively, I've deferred the matters where I have abstained without comment for my colleagues to decide, which you may not be entirely happy with, but that's better than retracting all my votes on the other matters, which I have reviewed enough to be able to vote on (where I have abstained with comments, that is slightly different). One thing I always say to anyone facing sanctions is that good behavior in other areas can lead to reduction of the sanctions after a few months. Carcharoth (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Obama case

Hi Carcharoth, I wanted to post this query to one Arb rather than something more formal and I'm afraid you've drawn the short stick, in part because I had to pick someone and in part because I know you have at least some familiarity with these matters.

Per the final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles two editors, User:ChildofMidnight and User:Scjessey, were topic banned from Obama articles for 6 months. They were also prohibited from interacting with one another, as were ChildofMidnight and User:Wikidemon. The topic bans were passed on June 21st so they will be expiring in a couple of weeks, whereas the interaction bans seem to have been indefinite/permanent (which I think is completely fine).

As I've been discussing with Scjessey and Wikidemon here and here, there is a question about how the interaction prohibition will function once Scjessey and ChildofMidnight return to editing at the Obama articles (Scjessey has already said he plans to do this, ChildofMidnight I'm not sure about). In terms of avoiding one another, it's obvious that Wikidemon should not follow ChildofMidnight to an article he created or vice versa, but all will be able to work on articles related to Obama, and it would not be surprising to find them all expressing a view on a given topic which could get a bit dicey.

The rub of the matter is: how has this sort of situation generally been dealt with in the past? Are there unoffical guidelines for how editors prohibited from direct interaction handle working on the same article, particularly when it comes to talk page comments? (that they should not be reverting each other rather goes without saying I think). I've helped out with article probation enforcement on the Obama articles in the past and am familiar with the underlying issues, and my goal here is to avoid any miscommunication or confusion if and when the topic banned editors return to editing (as you no doubt recall there has been some confusion about how to interpret the Obama remedies in the past which had led to disputed blocks and the like).

Any thoughts you could offer would be appreciated, and I'd be happy to pass that along to the three other editors in question so that you don't have to worry about it further. I think it's better to avoid taking this issue to the whole committee via a request for clarification or something similar unless there is an actual problem that crops up, but some information about past precedents could be helpful in preventing those problems from occurring in the first place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is tricky. What is really required is great restraint and self-discipline on the part of the editors involved. If any of the parties feel they are unlikely to be able to avoid getting dragged into, or joining, arguments that include the other parties, then I would advise avoiding the articles. Temperament and all that. It is possible to work on different articles at different times, and to focus purely on content without referring to another editor by name or indirectly, but difficult at times. Essentially, all the parties need to consider that if they share common interests, any mutual interaction ban will make it difficult for them to work together on the same articles. There are precedents in other cases, but this is something I think is best clarified with the committee as a whole, and before the topic bans expire. So despite you not wanting to bother the whole committee with this, I think you will have to do so, unless the parties themselves agree on something (without interacting of course - maybe through a mediator such as yourself). The only thing I can think of is that a willing mediator agree to field ongoing concerns and help keep things going smoothly - but again, check with the committee that this is desirable. Too much overhead (as in one current case) is sometimes not good. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I think what I'll start with is contacting ChildofMidnight to see if he even intends to return to editing of Obama articles (if not then there's not much of an issue). I should point out that that editor has been strongly critical of my work as an admin in the past (I don't at all agree with his thinking, but obviously he's entitled to that view, and it should also be said that I have also been strongly critical of ChildofMidnight's behavior on a number of occasions), so I may not be the best "mediator" in this situation given C of M's lack of faith in my objectivity. However I'll drop him a note to see what his thinking is, and if he is planning to return to Obama editing I can at least be the one to put this in ArbCom's lap so the three editors in question don't have to worry about it. If it comes to that, would you recommend making a formal request to the committee (I assume a request for clarification?) or starting with an e-mail to the ArbCom list, or something else? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

On-wiki clarification would be best. In this sort of situation, all parties need to see what is said by you and others. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversight Requested

Hi, my email is in a number of pages. Deleteding the text will still leave an edit history, and previous edits are logged in the edit history. How should I contact you, via email?174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please e-mail the address given on the WP:OVERSIGHT page. Carcharoth (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Opinion

Good day! I would like to ask you opinion if this user could be unblocked. I have been "roaming" around looking for new users which have been blocked. This user was indefinitely blocked for POV edits, which I believe was a result of ignorance to the rules of WP. He didn't even defend himself about the complains he received in the talk page. He has valid points in his edits (according to another user) but he doens't discuss them in the article talk page. I am here to ask your opinion if this user can be unblocked. I am not this user. 222.127.91.97 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please tell the user himself to use the {{unblock}} template, following the instructions there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain your vote?

I commented about this here. Could you please explain which previous cases do you mean? Some of the mail group members (like Ostap and Hillock) were not involved in previous cases. Others, like me, commented in previous EE cases but did not appear even in the Fofs. I am especially concerned of 11C which prevents people from participating in discussions. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Rf Clarification/Amendment

I've asked another question there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

socionics arb case request to include niffweed

On account of niffweed's confession to making bad faith accusation towards other editors, niffweed should be included in the judgment and his actions investigated for sake that he had intentionally caused contention with accusations of bad faith, misuse of wikipedia conduct reporting in place of positive cooperation, and in place of any potential or expected cooperation caused negative escalation of conflict between the editors by his actions. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppression follow up

Hi Carcharoth. I'm just following up in my capacity as a Signpost editor regarding the David Gerard suppression issue and your recusal. Since we don't have the suppressed text regarding your recusal, I just wanted to clarify what you had actually recused yourself from and why? Hiding T 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

When I re-entered my recusal (here, 23:45, 2 December 2009), I didn't quote in full what the edit did or the edit summary. The suppressed edit I linked to (this one, 15:08, 29 November 2009) was an edit where I remove my name from the list of arbitrators "Not voting" and created a new listing for "Recuse", listing myself there. The edit summary said (after the name of the section, which was "David Gerard"): "entering recuse for the record, after motion was published, was absent when voting took place". The original (now suppressed) recusal edit did not state the reason for my recusal, though I have stated to ArbCom why I recused. In short: I recused myself from the original motion that was voted on, and chose not give on-wiki my reasons for recusal. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Hiding T 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your switch to oppose

I have no earthly idea how you could consider a sanction prohibiting Mattisse from attacking FAs of those she dislikes "unworkable." Mattisse has proved in the last few days, through her actions targeting 3 FAs of those she doesn't like, that something such as what Sandy suggests is sorely needed. Until Arbitrators develop the will to sanction her for this type of behavior, nothing will change. UA 02:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just be patient, OK. I had to get some sleep, and I'm now making clear that I'm supporting a similar but different type of restriction. It needs to be one that does not personalise the issue. Naming people that have been in conflict with Mattisse is perpetuating the personalisation of these issues. Carcharoth (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed that Unitanode's assumption of bad faith and assertion of article ownership has gone unchallenged, in the face of the evidence contradicting Joopercoopers perceptions about Mattisse's editing. Geometry guy 10:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No such "evidence" has been presented. Some attempts at explanation have been made, but -- from my wadings through the muck that the clarification request has become -- I have seen no one adequately explain how Mattisse just happened upon those three articles. Good faith is not infinite, in the face of evidence to the contrary. (And please don't point to the Dr. Pda list. There were a bunch of other articles, so the probability that she just stumbled upon those three while using that list is still pretty small.) UA 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided information here on the correlation between Mattisse's edits and Dr. Pda's list, and invited factual corrections. So far, there haven't been any such corrections. If you have some, please let me know. If you prefer to stick to your preconceptions and are unwilling to sort through the lengthy request for clarification (as arbitrators have to do) then I would imagine Carcharoth has already taken on board your concerns and does not need to be troubled any further. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That in no way explains how Mattisse "happened" to stumble across three FAs from her enemies. I'm not certain what you're even trying to "prove" with that post. UA 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How nice. An argument on my talk page. The other arbitrators vote as well, so if either of you want to say something that they will read, you need to say it at the clarifications page. I've noted both your comments and will review the clarification thread and motions to see if anything needs changing. But please, no further replies here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Motion 2.2

Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:

• "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.

• "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.

• "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:

1. Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
2. Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
3. Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering. SilkTork *^YES! 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree, which is why I opposed that motion, and have raised objections with those who supported this motion or abstained. I see you have contacted the other arbs that voted there as well. I will see what they have to say. I think what you suggest has a good chance of being adopted, though some more time needs to be given to allow people to respond to your post of the above at the clarifications thread. I will copy what I've said here to there, and the discussion should continue there. Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Secret arbcom evidence

Tothwolf has said he sent secret email evidence to arbcom about his case. I emailed the arbcom list two days ago and haven't seen a response. How can I see the secret evidence? Miami33139 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned

I've raised concerns on the Requests talk page about your status as an uninvolved arbitrator. Although it might appear that there won't be many arbitrators left if all involved recuse, you do seem to be more conflicted (at least from a "prejudged the issue" perspective) than most and there's a whole new batch of arbitrators to join at any moment anyway. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll go and have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I have been spot editing away, but somehow, unknowingly got logger out ,not an uncommon occurrence, but when I tried to edit while logged out I received this message:
Editing from 98.23.192.0/19 has been disabled by Dominic for the following reason(s):
I'd like to know more about why I am blocked. Can you help? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed this out to Dominic. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a way that you can determine why this address was blocked? Carptrash (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I could, but I'm leaving it to Dominic to answer your questions. You could ask on his talk page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I got to him, he got back to me. Thanks, Carptrash (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

You posted your decision to decline the case one minute after I posted a suggestion, which was based in part upon your statement that you'd consider recusing. It's not rendered obsolete by your choice to decline a full case, though. Could head off future dilemmas. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Separation_of_powers. Durova³⁸⁶ 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Change which behavior

Which behavior? Where I made statements about linguistics and the ArbCom inappropriately said it wasn't within my expertise when I am even editing a dissertation on the very topic that discusses the link between Saussure and Derrida in linguistics and language theory?

Or where I called an academic not respectable and that was a "BLP violation" even though I could provide many reliable sources to it.

Or do you mean where I put up three polls and worked with two RfCs to get the Persian Empire page restored and after every consensus not to change it, it was edit warred back by the people who consistent came to those pages?

Or do you mean where I put up an RfC for protecting Geogre's sock puppetry for five months before Coren got enough information to indef the Utgard Loki account? And that I should avoid admins abusing their ops to delete it?

Or do you mean where I was "unable to work with others" or "deal with being wrong" when the only evidence is a guy who claims that I an unable to "write English" and I have proven that I have worked with dozens of people without a problem, and even the ones that were a "problem", like Malleus and Ceoil ended with us compromising and moving on to work on even more pages proving there was no real problem to begin with?

The only thing I do is right on articles. Lets see, what have I done in the past six months outside of article space - the Chillum and drug dispute, the RfC on Risker and Bishonen, and asking for Peter Damian to not be banned even though he was always a jerk to me.

But did you say anything about Risker approving of Unitanode as a restart account and Unitanode going after both me and Mattisse? Making accusations that I "hate" others, edit warring, and other things? On an account that clearly had a history with me but since he was a magical restart no one can know about there is no way to prove if he had a history that would allow for him to be banned for the nonsense?

Or how about that a CU was placed on Fowler when it was claimed that there was no basis for it? Or that a CU was placed on Moreschi when it was claimed I didn't even have enough suspicion to claim they were meat puppets?

If you want to ban me for being incivil, where are all the incivil fights? If you want to ban me for personal attacks, where are they? If you want to ban me for edit war, where is the list? How about sock puppetry? POV pushing?

None of that was provided. Two incidents of mocking academics for saying things which were provenly wrong by reliable sources and accusing a group of people who consistently appeared in the same areas who consistedly responded to conversations involving the others, who consistently appeared on each others talk pages mocking me, and who have been known to be in the same IRC room, as, gasp, working together. Yet they also accused me of canvassing without any statements against them. -I- don't run my own IRC room and organize with these people to fight "nationalism" like Moreschi et al do. It isn't a coincidence they all have the same essay about how nationalism is evil and consistently appear in all the same debates.

Ever think that 200+ AFDs with the same vote was curios? And that even the most prolific AFD editors, like DGG, were still not even close to that with many votes in the contrary? Yes, people just coincidentally agree like that without 45 minutes of each other and happen to vote in the exact same way.

Oh, that's right. That's my fault. I do apologize for the sarcasm, but you can add that on the ArbCom as an -actual- fault. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether you were right or not, but how you handle disputes. You can go one of two ways here (the arbitration case decision is not going to change). You can either dispute the result of the case, and see how far that gets you (you would need to spend time writing up a clear summary of what you contest about the case, not what you wrote above), or you can accept the result of the case and work on how to handle disputes better, and then see if there are ways for you to demonstrate that you can handle disputes better, and ask to return to editing at some point (between six months and a year). The other advice I give to people on the verge of a site ban, or wide-ranging topic ban, is to find work to do elsewhere. It may not help if you disagree with the result of the case, but it will help you carry on with at least some of the things you enjoy about Wikipedia (e.g. wikisource, wikibooks, and so on). But an actual break of a few weeks to calm down first is also a good idea, as getting involved in disputes elsewhere after a siteban here is not a good idea. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How I handle disputes? Lets see, I put up three straw polls and an RfC, all saying the same thing, and I had Wizardman consistently tell me I was right. I guess that was handling it wrong too? Or how about the fact that Folantin, Akhilleus, and Dbachmann edit warred and blanked the page against consensus? Its called a double standard. I haven't made even close to the amount of personal attacks that are on that Workshop page, yet it is -me- who has the problem handling disputes? When I put up the WQA and a user on probation edit warred against me inappropriate, that was -my- fault? And if my way of handling disputes was so bad, where were the blocks? Why did so many admin side with me? Why do so many users still side with me? Hell, Wizardman had to retract the claim about Oscar Wilde because there was no legitimate way to dare claim that the two sentences in a guy's article without any references and without any publications on Oscar Wilde could make a claim that he HAD SEX WITH YOUNG BOYS when it goes against over a thousand legitimate biographical articles and books. Sure, I may have been upset, but I was upset for the damn right reasons. I have already shown how your fellow Arbs abused their spots - two refused to recuse, one made deals with Moreschi and lied about his CU checking, and another made a deal with me, while another told me to just stay quiet and sit back even though I was being nastily personally attacked up and down the workshop because "they would be dealt with" and I wouldn't have to worry about them doing such thing anymore. Oh, I am sitting on far more than what I have revealed publicly. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell, Carcaroth, you know Unitanode is a restart account that had a long history with me and Mattisse. Why haven't you banned him for continuing his previous actions on a new name to hide from any reprocussions as such users are normally banned? You can't magically start harassing someone on a new name when you had a previous history with them. There Unitanode is up on your talk page. And I know the ArbCom talked about him being a restart account - I have that email. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML

I sincerely hope that you all keep in mind that the more lenient you are towards the EEML, the harsher you are to everyone having the misfortune of becoming their target. I have made that sad experience, it is not fun. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)