User talk:Arcticocean

Reporting Harassment

I would have sent you an email, but apparently gmail is down ;)

The IP 72.189.4.182 [1] has continually harassed me, as well as others (including administrators who have blocked him). In addition, he has concocted false claims (look at links; e.g. that I work for Disney when I am clearly not old enough to) and is legally threatening myself, Wikipedia, and others. There are several forms of proof, e.g. here [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]. This user is none other than Royce Mathew (the previously blocked User:Disneysuit, who is continually breaking several Wikipolicies.

If you need any other forms of proof, do ask and I will give it to you. I love working at Wikipedia, and users such as these really make it hard to do this. I really appreciate your taking the time to read this and helping me out. Thank you so much! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my IP was recorded instead of my account! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think you'd be better taking this matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. The matter will receive quick attention and input there, and the incident, more eyes. Regards, Anthøny ✉ 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! BlackPearl14^talkies! 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much! I wonder what made you click on the link to the "D.M.N. userpage"! Again thanks, I must admit, it looks better like that. :) D.M.N. (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. :-) I went through to your userpage from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, to which I had posted a comment after your thread. Simply curiosity! Once again, I'm glad you liked the chance. ;) Regards, Anthøny ✉ 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Precedent

Anthony, you are correct that Arbcom is not bound by precedent and can act however it feels the circumstances of a case require, in the best interests of the project. However, over time trends develop that imply that certain behaviors are more likely than not to result in certain sanctions. For instance, of all the times I've seen or been aware of an admin using socks or IPs to deceptively edit, all but one time Arbcom has desysopped the admin. Now granted, some things are less clear. If RFAR/Everyking was held today, I would be uncertain as to its result. RFAR/Tango and RFAR/R. fiend are diametrically opposite to RFAR/WMC-Geogre and the closing RFAR/Cla68-FM-SV, so of course admin abuse in involved situation is a gray area. But all of these are things Arbcom has generally found worthy of review in some form or another, so saying "User X did Y, User A also did Y and was desysopped for it, Arbcom probably ought to review user X" seems like a valid position, especially given all the other facts of the situation. Does that make some sense? MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes some sense, although I still like to stay clear of the idea that the arbitration committee operates on all the principles of a common law court: it really doesn't take a matter and say "well, we found in case X that behaviour Y is wrong, so we should accept this request because it also features behaviour Y."

Although in practice the committee tends to make sane and rational decisions, and so what its findings tend to be somewhat consistent, it still takes everything on a "case-by-case" basis, in theory at least. I suppose I just have a mortal fear of presenting precedent in an arbitration case, because it undermines the committee's long-standing ethos: that each case is to be accepted, considered, and ruled on, along the thinking of "how to best improve Wikipedia."

You make sense, though, yes, in many respects. Anthøny ✉ 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

User:Soyuz113 User talk:208.101.118.33 CorticoSpinal has returned. QuackGuru 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Noted. Thank you, QuackGuru. This information will be useful. Anthøny ✉ 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you supporting a sockpuppet?[9] QuackGuru 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not supporting him; I am choosing to extend a second chance here. We'll see how it goes for him.
Anthøny ✉ 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)