This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Hey,

Would you mind Peer Reviewing the article on Zoroastrianism. The archive can be found here. Thanks Mr.TrustWorthy---- Got Something to Tell Me? 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Afraid I don't have time right now. Sorry. It is also not a subject that grabs my attention either. You might be better off finding someone who would take more of an interest in the article. Again, sorry about that. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Last month you was kind enough to state that you would seek to speed up the process on some requests for amendment in the Date Delinking ruling; cf. your edit here. I was wondering if this was to no avail? For example, clerk Hersfold archived my request just two days after your edit. Any remark would be most welcome, as I am, of course, disappointed about the failure of my request. Kind regards, -- HJensen, talk 23:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, in regard to your comment on the requested arbitration case for 194x144x90x118, neither GTBacchus, FisherQueen, or Jehochman were involved in the Dreamhost dispute - they're role has been that of uninvolved admins. Also, my role was confined to that of MedCab mediator. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Still waiting to see what 194x144x90x118 (as one of the parties to the request) and my fellow arbs have to say. When I return to this, I'll probably address the point you've raised here. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw your request on the mailing list "Lists and redlinks and link maintenance" thread. I highly recommend adding

// Linkback: 
User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js
importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); 

to your /monobook.js. I've been using it for many months. I changed some of the default colors too. You can copy and tweak the last 5 lines from User:Quiddity/monobook.css to your /monobook.css. (My colors set links to: disambig pages get a yellow background, pages at AFD get a red background, redirects get a brown link color)

I also get a little use out of this js script, which adds a link to the toolbox when you arrive at a disambig page (from where you can highlight a title, click the toolbox link, and it will open the previous page and fix the disambig link with a "preview" and editsummary for you to save).

importScript('User:Magnus Manske/fixdisambig.js');

Hope that helps :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try the first one first. The second one sounds scary. When you put these scripts in, do you have to be careful about mixing them up? Carcharoth ( talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(The second script is explained in a different way at User talk:Magnus Manske/fixdisambig.js.)

I've never run into conflict issues between scripts. The only problem with the linkclassifier is on really large walloflinks pages (150kb+) where the script can occasionally timeout.

I also use 2 scripts to highlight the usernames of admins (in pink) and my own username (in green). Check my css/js for details. Those coloring scripts all make scanning through talkpages, and my watchlist, quite a bit easier. -- Quiddity ( talk) 20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it worked. There's a lot of different coloured links now. Is there a key to which colours mean what? Maybe List of colors?

• A - color:#002bb8
• A.stubcls - color:#5c2bb8
• A.new - color:#cc2200
• A.redirect - color:#00bb00
• A.self-redirect - background-color:#88ff88
• A.disambiguation - background-color:#ffff88
• A.deletion - color:#ff0088
• A:visited - color:#00155c
• A.stubcls:visited - color:#552c50
• A.new:visited - color:#aa4444
• A.redirect:visited - color:#227722
• A.deletion:visited - color:#cc2277
• A.broken-redirect - color:#cc2200; background-color:#88ff88
• A.broken-redirect:visited - color:#aa4444; background-color:#88ff88
• A.image.nonfree-media > IMG - outline:3px double #ff0000
• A.image.deletion > IMG - border:2px solid #ff0088
• A.image.deletion:visited > IMG - border-color:#cc2277

I'm also not 100% I know what each of the above mean. stubcls is stub class. Is self-redirect is a redirect pointing to the page it is on? What is "new? And from your css, what does "A.redirect, #bodyContent A.self-redirect" mean? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hexadecimal	Colour
#002bb8
#5c2bb8
#cc2200
#00bb00
#88ff88
#ffff88
#ff0088
#00155c
#552c50
#aa4444
#227722
#cc2277
#cc2200
#88ff88
#aa4444
#88ff88
#ff0000
#ff0088
#cc2277

There must be an easier way than that to display colour samples if all you have is the hexadecimal code? Carcharoth ( talk) 22:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

{{ colorsample}} or {{ swatch-inline}} for color samples. (found at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Color/Templates) Try the ext links at Web_Colors#External_links for more tables, or generators.

In my css, the line "#bodyContent A.redirect, #bodyContent A.self-redirect { color:#772233; }" is just two selectors separated by a comma. Twas either copied from somewhere, or hacked together from User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css.

-- Quiddity ( talk) 05:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your response here [1] but some of your comments raise more questions than they answer. For a start, you note that recently there has not been an active clerk on the case. Why was a highly contentious case left unsupervised? Note that I sent an email to clerks-l on 2 August asking for someone to step in and look over the case temporarily in Hersfold's absence. I never received a response. (I got an auto-ack, so I know the message was received.)

You also excused Rlevse's acting in an uninformed way by noting that arbs have a lot to do. Look, I know you guys are volunteers and you have a lot on your plate, but one of the first principles of any organization is that you don't volunteer for something unless you are able to put in the time to do the job right. There's no shame in someone stepping back if they're in too deep -- I've done that at work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 17:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• (1) I've now located that e-mail on the clerks mailing list. Was searching for "Boris", which didn't help. You are right, there was no reply. That does happen with mailing lists where no-one takes responsibility for incoming mail. We've sorted that problem out now on the arbitration mailing list, but I do see e-mail to both the clerks mailing list and the functionaries mailing list go unanswered. I suggest you raise this matter with the clerks (and maybe functionaries) and see what they say. As an arbitrator, I'm on both those lists, but I don't really want to tread on any toes over there, and ultimately, any rigorous attempt to ensure mail to other mailing lists gets answered needs to be addressed by the people those lists are for. If you don't get anywhere with that, come back here and I'll see what I can do.
• (2) As for the case being left unsupervised, that is something ArbCom should shoulder the blame for. Hersfold did warn us (and the clerks) as early as 30 July that he would be away. Unfortunately He is back on the 11th. The list of active clerks is here. I will post to the clerks noticeboard and then to their talk pages and try and get someone nominally volunteered and named as case clerk until Hersfold is back.
• (3) The workload can be discussed on the talk page of this report. Feedback has been minimal so far, so more feedback (please try and be constructive) would be good.

If I don't reply here in the next hour or so, it will be because I'm trying to rustle up a clerk. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I appreciate it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Notices left. I've bumped your mail up the mailing list by replying to it and pointing people in the right direction. Hope that sorts things out. Let me or the clerks know if that happens again. Normally, if you reply a second time asking if the first message was rececived, you will get a swift and apologetic reply. Sometimes the mails just get missed. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More stuff. Is Rl an active arb in this case (it isn't clear to me how I find out who is). If so, I find that odd, as he has taken to posting what I regard as highly partial evidence. Is it at all usual for arbs to post evidence? William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse is active on this case. The list of arbitrators active on a case is placed on the proposed decision talk page when the case opens, and is maintained in the template used for that purpose and updated by the clerks during the case. In this case, it is here. As for arbs posting evidence, I can find you a few examples if you hang on a moment. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it matters anyway. The decision clearly was made long ago, and the arbs aren't bothering to read the case pages before weighing in (as is obvious from Rlevse's and Bain's proposals). It's all a formality. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not actually how it works. The way it works is that one arbitrator (the drafting arbitrator) takes a case, and drafts a proposed decision, usually (but not always) publishing the proposals to the workshop for comments first. That is where the other arbs usually see it first, and they then comment there (if they choose to - Casliber is commenting there at the moment for example). When I comment at a workshop page, I try to comment on the proposals by others as well. At a minimum, arbs should read the entire evidence and workshop pages and their talk pages. The drafting arb then modifies things according to the comments taken under consideration, and moves it to the proposed decision page. Voting then begins. Other arbs may think further principles, findings or remedies are needed, and may add their own, based on the reading of the evidence. Voting carries on. Usually, a coherent final decision emerges from this process. The point here is that hardly any final decision satisfies everyone, and that arbitrators are rarely swayed by vociferous support on the case pages for one side or the other (only a small fraction of the community bother to turn up at arbitration cases). My view (and you may of course disagree with this) is that arbitrators look at the evidence and policy principles, and vote based on that, rather than public opinion (and, a key point this, arbitrators are more likely to be swayed by good arguments in the comments, rather than a forest of "support" and "oppose" votes). Though even on the proposed decision, not all arbitrators agree. It might seem that things are a formality at this stage, but I've seen cases change a lot in the closing stages, so it is not really useful to say it is a formality at this stage. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see any indication that Bain has "read the entire evidence and workshop pages and their talk pages." His findings are so out of touch with the evidence and diffs that he almost seems to be making up the facts as he goes along (e.g., as I note here). The clear impression is that he's pissed at WMC for the block so he's going to construct his own reality in terms of the case itself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

@C: examples: yes please William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

William, the examples of arbs presenting evidence that I found are here. 1, 2, placeholder for some more that I can't find right now. Arbitrators sometimes also present evidence in the proposed decision, as here (though Kirill may dispute that). Hope that is helpful. Will add more as I remember them. You could go through the evidence pages of all the cases this year, but I think most of the cases of arbitrators bringing out new evidence is on proposed decision talk pages. I believe some of the evidence in the Scientology case was presented that way, though I didn't follow it closely enough to be sure - I do know arbitrators in that case went beyond the evidence presented, in order to present a more complete picture. That is often needed in order to avoid those who present the evidence from biasing it. In this case, the fact that you carried out a block is clear, and that fact is not in dispute. What I would do here is ask various people to answer questions about what happened. That is more useful sometimes than trying to compile diffs to demonstrate what may have happened, or what people may have intended. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those diffs, which are unarguable. It seems curious behaviour to me, but then I should know Arbcomm isn't a court. I find Rl's evidence distinctly partial, and in stark contrast to the delicacy of the clerk in the next section. In this case, the fact that you carried out a block is clear, and that fact is not in dispute. - yes, I agree with that, but don't understand why you're mentionning it William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In case it helps to understand the situation: I didn't find a quotable source, but in the continental European legal tradition the judge is supposed to make sure he has all the evidence before him that is necessary for a just decision. In particular it's the judge who interrogates witnesses, and the judge may introduce evidence just like a party. (Similarly, a prosecutor must prosecute if there seems to be a crime, and must not continue the prosecution if he believes the defendant to be innocent.) So it's really just a matter of what you are used to. Hans Adler 13:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the UK (or US?) tradition. But whilst it might be good to have the judge interrogate witnesses, that isn't happening here at all. Actually I think it would be good for arbcomm to ask witnesses to explain their evidence, but I've never seen that happen William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to recuse from this case. Many, many, months ago I was wrongly accused of sockpuppeting by Abd. Seddσn ^talk| ^{Wikimedia UK} 18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion may also be of interest? [2]. Hiding T 14:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it. After reading, however, I think I still need bringing up to speed. hmwith t 16:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And here I sit, testing alterations to my CatScan-rewrite, wondering why The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún doesn't show up on the list of pages without {{ ME-project}}... -- Magnus Manske ( talk) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry!! :-) Please feel free to remove it for testing purposes... Carcharoth ( talk) 21:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Carcharoth. Long time no see (if you remember, we collaborated on fixing VFD archive pages way back when). I recently created a method for tracking substituted templates. It has bothered me for a long time that there was no good way to do this that I knew of and I think it will provide important data if targeted at particular templates that can reveal patterns about behavior and so on. At this point I would be surprised if you weren't scratching your head and asking why I'm telling you this. Well, after I finished designing the template scheme that allows such tracking, and after added tracking to a few templates, I did some searches to see what other normally substituted templates this would be useful in and came across this thread. After reading it (and seeing the method you came up with which I hadn't thought of; yes, clever:-) I wondered if anything had ever actually been added to the BLP enforcement templates to track them, and if not, whether you thought they would be good candidates for adding tracking now. I took at look at their codes and didn't notice any dedicated images or the type of commented-out-link tracking you came up with, leading me to the conclusion that nothing was ever implemented.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 21:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It will take me a while, but I will try and get back to this at some point. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I need someone to figure out for me if the page of Real Championship Wrestling is notable or not? I have provided sources from third parties both times I tried to make the page, but no one seems to believe pages made by the States Athletic Commission as well as other pages. I continually try to figure out what it is missing and do not get any responses from the people who put it up for deletion, which says to me that they are looking to be vigilantes also know here as "barnstomers." Any feedback I can get is great, thanks ( Bes2224 ( talk) 04:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)).

You might be better off asking someone else. I would suggest someone, but my mind is drawing a blank at the moment. Sorry. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon and Arbitration Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you have time to do a copy edit on Davenport, Iowa. I'm almost ready to renominate it for FA, and need some good copy editing. Thank you! CTJF83 Talk 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I probably won't have time, but I hope you can find someone to proofread it. Let me know if you can't find anyone else. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok CTJF83 Talk 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment here and have struck the comment that you say breaches the conduct probation. Hopefully, striking it settles it. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've just asked you a question at the talk page as well. Please respond to both statements. Thanks. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it appears that you requested enforcement, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mythdon 2. Enforcement is being requested. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, do you think that of perhaps all involved parties should be topic banned for the duration of the case? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. You would know who they are, wouldn't you? I'm going to post to the evidence talk page asking the editors presenting evidence to cut out the edit warring and reverting while the case is in progress. Not sure what good that will do, but I want to draw their attention to the proposed injunction. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps page protection would work better? The involved parties would be LP, GainLine, Falcon9x5, and possibly Cathar11. I'm fine with copping the topic ban too, if it levels the playing field. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you summarise your thoughts here please? Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain of the real difference between appealing to an oversight member, like yourself, before engaging in an oversight request and simply proceeding with the appeal, so i am choosing the former as a measure of lesser escalation. Or perhaps you should just tell me to proceed with the formal request. But i'll make this simple. I have requested that the page Talk:Minimed Paradigm be completely deleted including history (not an earth moving action). Why my request? To prevent further damage of what has already occurred as a consequence of this discussion page in my life outside Wikipedia. Here is one reference to the case: [3] Henry Delforn ( talk) 00:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make a request for oversight, please see WP:OVERSIGHT rather than ask me as an individual - the oversight team (the people on the oversight mailing list) will be able to explain better than me whether this requires oversight or not. I see that the ANI section here has been marked as resolved, and that Xeno has deleted the page revisions in question. I suggest you talk to User:Xeno about this if you want to follow it up further. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Henry, I've already deleted the page in question. Its revisions will not be viewable by anyone except administrators. – xeno ^talk 13:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth—thanks for your note on my page. I've contacted Tiptoety about it. Remedy 9.3 says:

9.3) Tony1 is indefinitely prohibited from editing any policy or guideline page related to to the linking or unlinking of dates, as well as any related template page.

The edits you linked to concerned the use of the possessive apostrophe. The link you provided to Remedy 9.3 is of the original wording, which I presume has been changed as a result of the motion. Tony (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I might have linked to the wrong edit there! Let me check. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth—thanks for your time in clearing this up. It was dizzying! Cheers. Tony (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. As for possessive apostrophes, I loathe them (well, the plural possessives anyway) and much prefer trying to work out what "Vienne" can be disambiguated to... Carcharoth ( talk) 00:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If only English hadn't settled on this badly engineered final S for plurals and possessives—then we'd all be sweet without those little stalactites. The Germans did better. Tony (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know that a subtemplate you created Template:Sci-journal-stub/transclusions snapshot has been listed for deletion. I'm not sure if you've been notified. Would you like to comment at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/August/11? — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 08:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Sci-journal-stub transclusions snapshot, link updated. Hope that's ok. – xeno ^talk 16:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at WP:GAN, Saruman is there...needs a reviewer... was musing on doing it myself but figured you might like to do it.... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. Not sure, but maybe I'll have a look! :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 00:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Keep the signal-to-noise ratio low" is a request for more noise and less signal. Which, for an arb case like this, is the natural state anyways. :-) ATren ( talk) 01:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops. You are right. Pity I can't change the edit summary. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re [4], (1) WMC has informed selected cabal members that he is out of the country on holiday until later this week (I think he told Hersfold about this too), and (2) I hope you meant "keep the signal to noise ratio high" (not low) ;-) cheers Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, that was me getting things the wrong way round. If I do that again, I'll leave the rest of the voting until tomorrow. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 1 (September 2009) Content News and announcements Want ads Feature: Article rescue as a team effort Featured editor: MichaelQSchmidt

You wrote, in the current RfAr, I would not object to Abd posting lots of thoughts in his userspace, but I would be opposed to him and others linking to lengthy posts in his userspace.

How about outside writings? Carcharoth, have you thought this one through? I was shocked to see you propose a limitation on others linking to my writing, of whatever length. It was utterly out of character.

The topic ban on Cold fusion is thoroughly chilling, I may not continue to edit at all if that ban passes. It's clearly based on a content position, because I was not tendentiously editing the article, I was following normal BRD process, and mediation was successful as far as it has gone. I have no problem with an article page ban, because if I'm seeking consensus, and I am, I don't need to be the one to actually edit; however, if I'm not allowed to make self-reverted edits, it can become too cumbersome. I have no problem with prolixity restrictions -- unless I can't link to deeper discussions, using hypertext techniques to control the actual problem with prolixity without dumping the baby.

Why not edit in other areas if the topic ban passes? Well, Wikipedia has been very important to me. But Cold fusion is a huge issue, of great importance overall, and I intend to continue to expand my knowledge of the field, and may become COI, which would limit me from the article page in any case. I have to decide where to put my energy, I have limited time left (I have cancer, Carcharoth, and while it is early-stage, it has reminded me of my mortality). If Wikipedia bans editors simply because they become knowledgeable in a field, recognize article imbalance, and begin to work to balance it, opposed by a cabal (and, yes, there is a cabal, just not some secret conspiracy, but something more obvious and probably more dangerous to our neutrality), and is therefore banned, then the fundamental neutrality policy has been corrupted, and the corruption confirmed at the ArbComm level, and Wikipedia becomes dangerous, in real-world terms, and I'd have to conclude that it should be exposed and opposed, until and unless this situation is corrected, and, of course, I'd do that off-wiki, should an appeal to the WMF fail (and I fully understand the difficulty of that; Pcarbonn tried.)

Very good things can become very harmful. Thanks. Your careful thinking on many topics has been quite encouraging to me, and if I had my choice of mentors, it would be you. Or you as the ArbComm regular contact, with another editor as actual mentor. -- Abd ( talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We had a case where an editor on the 9/11 conspiracy articles was writing stuff in his userspace and others were discussing things with him there, or proxying what he was saying. I don't want that situation to develop here. As far as what will happen following the case, I am prepared to discuss (on-wiki) some of the things you talk about (depending of course on the outcome of the case), but I am not prepared to be a mentor or ArbCom contact for you. If the mentorship or supervised editing remedies pass, you need to contact ArbCom direct about that. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: It may look like a cabal, but it is not, in my view. What it seems to be is editors with the same viewpoints being drawn to the same discussions, and editing in a way consistent with their independent views. While this is not a cabal, when the same disputes get rehashed time and time again with the same people, something does suffer in the process. What is needed is fresh new views, and people willing to discuss sources and articles, rather than engage in battleground mentality. Not everyone does that, but some on each side do stray that way, and Wikipedia and its articles suffer for that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It may look like a forest, but it is not, it is just a bunch of trees independently growing. It may look like a tribe, but it is not, it is just a bunch of people living their lives in similar ways.

It may look like a cabal, but it is not, it is just a bunch of editors acting independently.

That's not quite a cabal. That's a "faction." A cabal is a faction which moves beyond that independence and which holds a whole constellation of opinions that are interconnected. Tribal affinity is natural. But when tribal members begin to automatically support members and oppose non-members, to adopt a common view that is firmly adhered to across many situations, we call that "tribalism," or even "racism." To prefer members of one's own "race" may be natural (race is an illusion, but illusions are real, so to speak), but "racism" is pernicious.

For example, to hold an opinion that global warming is real and that attempts to discredit it are fringe is just an opinion, and may be independent. (The concept of human independence is pretty shaky, people do tend to think in "herds.") But if this is linked with opinions that, for example, administrative recusal policy is a danger to the necessary function of administrators, fringe ideas should be excluded, not merely balanced, and sources from "fringe authors" should be rejected as unreliable, regardless of who published them, "civil pov-pushers" should be banned, etc., etc., we have much more than a simple natural faction, defined by POV. We have a cabal, and when members have admin tools and use them in the service of the cabal position, we have a dangerous problem.

I saw the cabal activity first at RfC/GoRight, it was very, very clear, though I didn't think "cabal," I thought "tag team" and "admin abuse." In RfC/JzG 3, you can see cabal activity; the topic of that RfC was JzG's use of admin tools, while involved. JzG used admin tools while involved. Yet the preponderance of opinion expressed in that RfC was that JzG was fine and Abd should be banned. These were largely editors opposing my work because they supported JzG and his work supporting the cabal. And you can see these patterns across many discussions. The apparently independent opinions are not, they are tribal in nature.

They are not, in themselves, reprehensible, but large groups of people, through individual actions which are each legitimate expressions of opinion, can do great damage. To avoid disruption, Carcharoth, I believe in majority rule, in fact, but with a majority that understands the power and efficiency of consensus, and, increasingly, people do understand that, and my work is to enable the "silent majority" to function, coherently and intelligently and efficiently. It can be done, and this is, to me, much more important than Wikipedia, Wikipedia is merely a possible application. That is why, if there is sufficient opposition here, I move elsewhere.

Thanks. -- Abd ( talk) 15:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Faction is a good word. Better than cabal. My view is that opinions can be both independent and "tribal". But this is not the right time to get into a discussion about this. This would have been better as some hypothetical debate, not the central part of a case that you tried to make it. If you have more to say in this section or the one above, it would be better said at the case pages. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Carcharoth, this was for you. I've already written way too much in the case pages and, paradoxically, not enough, but I won't be able to do anything about that. Thanks. -- Abd ( talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your comment that I should comment. I'm on hols. H should have told you. Back tomorrow. Crapberry insuf due to volume William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Blackberrys cannot cope with bloated arbitration pages? That's hardly surprising. I think lots of systems squawk and die under that sort of load. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In reference to opposing the ban because of my petition, the mediation page is handled by Cryptic62, who takes care to keep topics very focused and removes walls of text if they are not useful and closes topics when they are done so they can't be dragged along all the time. The restrictions put on Abd are not enough to stop the disruption he would cause at Talk:Cold fusion. The mediation allows Abd to participate in spite of being banned from the article. If you aren't going to pass the ban because of my petition then I'll just withdraw it. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 04:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In this remedy, could you change your comment to reflect that I withdrew my proposal? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 08:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this. Will do that now. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My response is the following: [5], [6]. Please note my concerns about arbitration-mediation etiquette. You might want to also ask the mediator whether a "clear the air" session following the case is needed, as mediation involving participants in a contentious and (at that future point) closed arbitration case might cause problems. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure of what a "clear the air" session is :-( but I'll ask the mediator about it. Notice that the mediation page has stricter limitations than those placed on Abd (for example, only one topic open at the time, so there is not the problem of Abd opening new topics while people are still disagreeing with him in the old topics). -- Enric Naval ( talk) 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"clear the air" is agreeing to move on from any disagreements that arose during the case. See the wiktionary definition. But you are right, you need to ask the mediator, as it is up to them as to what to do once the case has concluded. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, please consider revisiting and commenting on the remaining issues. Tony (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to your previous points, I've expanded the lead in the blue box. What do you think? link. Tony (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Carcharoth. I have posted a question on your User:Carcharoth/Arbitration philosophy and pledges page. Bishonen | talk 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the note. I'll say something there soon, after I've dealt with some other talk page messages. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I forget to say I have now replied over there. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replied again. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

I've sent one to arbcom-l that is related to an ongoing case in its final stages, but it is in stasis, apparently. Just so you know it is there. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I passed it through so it's arrived now. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fritzpoll ( talk) 16:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the NLT request. I understand where you're coming from. I did think twice about whether the request was the right venue to present the diffs of Milomedes' behavior. He is obviously unable to directly respond, which is not ideal. Additionally, the block (and subsequent request for ArbCom attention) were framed as a narrow issue of WP:NLT rather than one of Milomedes' behavior in general. All of those things argue that I should not have posted, and should have sought another venue.

At the same time, I think that (what appears to me to be) a pattern of using intimidation against other editors is relevant when considering an unblock on WP:NLT grounds, as is the fact that similar threats have been made by this editor previously, although not reported. That was the sense that led me to post the diffs.

I take your point about an RfC, but I'm not sure that would be the right venue either. I considered filing an RfC during my interaction with Milomedes but decided against it at the time. I later became more concerned because the patterns I'd observed directed at me seemed to be repeated whenever this editor encountered disagreement. But how does that translate into an RfC? RfC's are supposed to focus on a single concrete dispute - I don't think I could legitimately "certify" an RfC against Milomedes, regardless of the concerns I and others have about his approach to this project, because that approach is spread out as a pattern over numerous disputes. If he interacts with one or two users per dispute, and threatens them, then there is never really "critical mass" to meet the technical requirements of an RfC, though (I would submit) there is ample evidence of a real behavioral issue.

Anyhow, just wanted to follow up on your comments. Thanks. MastCell  ^Talk 21:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always found it strange that RfCs are meant to be limited to a single dispute. That has never made sense to me, as there are times when you need to have some way to address a pattern, or series of disputes. Where should someone start when they notice a pattern like that? As for intimidation, I've seen admins use a mild form of as well, especially when they are too involved to use the block tool, saying things like "if you carry on like that, you will end up banned or blocked" (i.e. by someone, but not them). It might seem like an honest warning, but it can be very intimidating as well. But yes, the diffs you pointed out are concerning, and if you did file an RfC, I think the pattern of behaviour would make it a single 'point' of concern, and hence something suitable for RfC. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I've seen plenty of RfC's shot down or deleted for what I consider overly technical reasons, involving a close parsing of what constitutes a "single dispute" (check this log for what I consider a particularly egregious example). And the likelihood of an RfC effecting a positive change is, in my admittedly jaundiced view, very low. The lone "success" I've seen was probably Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3, where I think JzG was actually convinced to exercise greater restraint and civility... but we all know how that ended up. I haven't considered it a good trade-off in terms of my time up to this point. To be honest, I don't really interact with Milomedes since I've unwatchlisted Broda Otto Barnes for my own sanity, so it's more a general concern about seeing other editors subject to the same treatment. And I'm not sure how far I really want to go with that. MastCell  ^Talk 23:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping a note to say that your comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision warmed my heart, and I hope others took note of them:

1)"a consensus among uninvolved users" and the use of "an appropriate venue" is rare - more commonly, the discussion is at a drama-filled location, and includes involved users, who are deemed to form part of the consensus and

2) The initial review should be brought up by the user who has been topic or page banned. Cases where the banning admin, or a user supporting the ban, brings a ban to a community noticeboard for review, can appear like the seeking of an endorsement, which is dynamically different to a review. In effect, it is a double-whammy, first the admin imposes a ban, then someone else or that admin gets the ban rubber-stamped by the community. That is not how independent reviews of a ban are meant to work. The only way the community can properly review a ban is if they have the information presented to them properly, by both the banning admin and the person who is banned. I would also quibble with "reasonable steps" - in my view, talk page notification of such bans, and logging them somewhere, is a must.

I suggested that we create ad hoc randomly generated juries. Or maybe make every Wikipedia user who's reached a certain number of edits and has edited within a certain number of days part of the database. If their names are pulled, they can say yes or no on whether they want to participate, and then they have to investigate and reach a decision. Of course, it's hard to guarantee that people read and make rational decisions, but it's better than the rambling mess that happens at ANI. The decisions can then be appealed to ArbCom. II | ( t - c) 02:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

would you consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_34#DreamHost "Ah, I see that Guantanamo247 is a known sockpuppet of a longtime troll on the DreamHost boards. Interesting.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)" with a link to http://bob.dreamhosters.com/, which provides the user's alleged real name, to be a violation of wp:outing? also, would you say it's appropriate or acceptable behavior for scjessey to have called 194x144x90x118 a "problem editor" an IP editor a "problem editor" who made "undiscussed" changes, even though that is a lie, and then reverted me as "rv problem editor". then jessey went to my talkpage to warn me about my "wrongness [7]. at that point, i'd had enough, so i moved the thread to his page, and asked rather nicely and clearly not to contact me on my talk page because it felt harassing. and not to respond to this. just leave me alone.. so what does jessey do? even though i had moved the conversation to his talk page and requested very clearly not to contact me on my talk page, he immediately posts on my talk page a diatribe about how he can post a message on my talkpage whenever he wants to [8]. this is par for the course for jessey, and this is all directly related to dreamhost, but is it acceptable behavior? Theserialcomma ( talk) 04:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What you have posted above should be copied to one of the case pages, such as the evidence page or the evidence talk page, and not here. This will allow others to see and discuss what you have said. I can't comment until I've looked more closely at this. It would also help if you summarised your editing history at that article. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize at the time that might be a concern. Now that I think about it, though, I think that posting evidence of a long-term off-wiki campaign against an editor being brought here should not be a violation of the spirit of WP:OUTING, though it may very well be a violation of the letter of the policy.

As far as the discussion about Scjessey's editing behavior goes, I'd think that would have been much more appropriate for the DreamHost arb case than one brought against 194x for his behavior across 3 completely unrelated topics. It feels more like distraction when raised here. Carcharoth, do you think that the scope of the case should be formally expanded to cover all DreamHost issues, since you've been thoroughly evaluating the history of that article?-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In my mind, the case was always accepted to examine the behaviour of all parties in all those disputes, not just the behaviour of 194x in those disputes. Looking at just one side of a dispute rarely tells the full story of what has been going on. I've been looking at the history of the DreamHost dispute because it has been going on for so long and there are persistent claims that need to be addressed or dismissed. If I've missed anything in my timeline and comments at the evidence page, or misrepresented anything, please do comment on the talk page over there. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I definitely don't see any misrepresentations. The only significant dispute I don't see you touch on there is the one about talk page archiving (45 v. 90 days v. never). I'll review my evidence and see if there's anything I need to add. You should also take a swing through, as I'll probably come up with a prosy description, and you've been cutting right to the core of things. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey linked to a bunch of archive dispute diffs, so rather than recategorize them in my own section, I'll just let them stand there. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 22:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

i am going to have to decline taking part in this. i just don't have the time. whether you decide the evidence i presented is relevant or not is up to you. as for whether sarek was outing, i think he was because there is no guarantee that the evidence on the off-wiki page, including the guy's name, is accurate. some website says name X did Y harassment, but how do we know it's true? that is why i think it's outing. it should not automatically assumed that because dreamhost has a webpage outing a harassing ex-customer, that their conclusions are 100% true. they are not a court of law, and there is a liability and a COI in trusting what ex-customer.dreamhost.com says an ex customer. based on that line of reasoning, i would say linking that page is outing. just because dreamhost says ex-customer harasses them, it doesn't mean sarekofvulcan, a happy dreamhost customer, should trust the information and post about it on wikipedia. Theserialcomma ( talk) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly why I didn't think of the OUTING guidelines when I posted the link -- I only saw a long list of alternate accounts that that editor had used in the past. That his actual identity might be one of them went straight over my head. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 22:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

oh, i guess you missed the only part of the page that is written in LARGE BOLD on the top of the page that says his alleged full name and what city and state he is from, along with his alleged personal website. maybe that part wasn't there when you linked it? Theserialcomma ( talk) 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

well, i guess that's not the case because according to the wayback website (it shows old versions of websites), even in 2007 it said his name in BIG BOLD on the top of the page. do you still think it's not outing to link to a page with someone's alleged full name/city and state? or was this just an honest error? Theserialcomma ( talk) 22:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please, take this to one of the case talk pages. This isn't the right place for this. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

well, since i said that i don't have time to do so, and sarek probably won't be reporting himself for outing, and you're the arbitrator, i guess we've reached an impasse. you can choose to do what you want with the info i've presented here, but i don't plan on presenting it twice or arguing further. thanks. Theserialcomma ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure if my previous argument made sense. what i meant was, whether the information sarek linked was true or false, it was a link to a webpage which exists to specifically out a user's alleged real identity and city/state. i don't think whether the information is true or false should have anything to do with the intent. if i link to a site.com which says sarekofvulcan is really XXX YYY, whether it's true or false it should be considered outing. Theserialcomma ( talk) 01:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be Garrett Fitzgerald, of Brewer, Maine. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

as an admin, you should know it's not WP:outing if the user already discloses their identity on-wiki, as you already have, which makes it curious to me as to why you would post this information as if it's somehow relevant to you outing Guantanamo247. when you linked to http://bob.dreamhosters.com/, which blatantly attempts to out user: Guantanamo247, had he already disclosed his real name on-wiki? because if so, then i apologize for accusing you of outing. but if not, you violated a strict and unambiguous harassment policy: Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. i suggest you request oversight on this. btw, do you run this outing site? or how did you find out about it otherwise? does scjessey run it or did he notify you about it? Theserialcomma ( talk) 19:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable with the sections that make it look like this is a DreamHost-only dispute. After all, the request was filed by someone completely uninvolved with DreamHost because of 194x's behavior in his sphere of editing. I'm not trying to duck sanctions here -- if I'm found to have done something sanctionable, so be it. It's just that this problem is wider than DreamHost, and focusing there would not properly convey the scope of the issues. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The findings about 194x144x90x118 also cover his activities elsewhere. As to your other questions, I've made a reply at the proposed decision talk page, and that is where any future comments about this case from you or anyone should go. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Carcharoth. I want to use this opportunity to thank you for your efforts related to my arbitration case. I also want to say that I disagreee with the assesment that I fail to "recognise the need to change". At the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:194x144x90x118#Finding_it I speak a little bit regarding a edit dispute that I was involved with over on the Bobby Fischer article and it was atleast my intention to express regret regarding that matter since my actions regarding that edit were simply no good really. I do however realize that you may have read that section but may have deemed that "insufficient" which is perfectly alright. Either way I wanted to thank you for your involvement since it somewhat helps out with my faith in humanity which is something very important to hold onto in order to function in this world.-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't help myself but say though regarding the Bobby Fischer article that while my dispute regarding that one edit was simply ridiculously badly handled by me that since then I have contributed I'd say extremely well to that article and had a positive impact on it. Thanks again.-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 21:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look closely at the Bobby Fischer article, but aside from trying to give too much weight to Fischer's claim that he was still world champion, I think you did make some good points. But really, this is too little, too late. It is good that you are finally acting calmly and showing you can talk to people without being caustic and outspoken, but the best you can do would be to repeat what you have said, but at the proposed decision talk page, not here. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.

I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.

The message is here.

Thank you. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I said it before, but I felt it needed to be said again directly to you. I was extremely impressed by the great lengths you went to in the 194 case with respect to discovering and presenting background information, and writing up fair summaries of your findings. This kind of effort is very welcome indeed. Thank you. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One point to make about other cases that you have expressed discontent with is that those cases were far more complicated than this one. I don't want to get into details, but I think you know the sort of cases I mean. Those are the monster cases that in all likelihood will end up returning to ArbCom several times before things settle down completely. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I quite understand. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Arthur P. Luff, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Bruce1ee ^talk 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my hook here. I couldn't have done it better. -- Bruce1ee ^talk 07:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd [9]. Courtesy to who? I express my desire that it be unblanked. Did you ask any of the other participants? William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton specifically asked for this. See here. My view is that rather than be selective, either the whole case and everyone's "evidence pages in userspace" should be blanked, or none of them (that doesn't include your criticism subpage, which is different, and came towards the end of the case). I stated my intention to do this here (and had suggested it earlier as well, on the proposed decision talk page). I was in the process of carrying out the courtesy blankings, when my computer crashed . Same problem as last night. I'll finish up now, and then we can see what the verdict is. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC, please see here for more on this. That would be the best place to discuss this. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What you do with stuff in usespace should not be mixed up with what happens to the official case pages. I hope you're not suggesting that I should have been aware of W's blanking request or been watching that page. I've now responded there William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why have you continued with the blanking despite my request for you not to [10]? It is unclear to me why W's request should take priority over mine William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not suggesting that you should have been aware of Woonpton's request. But what you do need to be aware of is that no single request takes priority over another (though as one of the parties to the case, a request from you does carry more weight in some matters). If anyone makes a reasonable request for case page blankings, we do usually honour that. What Woonpton requested wasn't exactly blanking of the case pages, but that is what I had been talking about when I mentioned it to her. I had made clear to her in that initial mention of page blanking that all such pages would be blanked, not just selected ones, or sections of ones. When considering what to do, I considered what was said on those pages about other people as well. I continued with the blanking because the resulting discussion, in my opinion, was best held with either all the relevant pages blanked, or none. As it happens, I didn't have time to deal with the 25 pages in various userspaces (Abd, Enric Naval and GoRight's userspaces, and won't have time tonight, either). But I did start the discussion section as a place for you to raise your objections. I've also made clear that this is not set in stone yet. It depends to a large extent on what the result of the MfD on the 'cabal' page is. But once everything is gathered back in one place, all the evidence pages have to be treated consistently. Either all are blanked, or none are. And now I really need to go to bed. Tomorrow evening I do want to address Woonpton's comments as well, because there has been a misunderstanding there. My intention all along was to be responsive to concerns such as those she raised, and also to those you have raised (which is why I'm writing this). To have that misunderstood and twisted to make it appear as if there is some attempt at a cover-up is not good. I want to try and work out how that happened, and work something out (even if that means unblanking everything again). I may be back late again tomorrow, so please don't expect rapid responses to this. I will try and look in tomorrow morning and see what has been sorted out, but as I said, it is a case of either all the evidence pages get blanked, or none of them. See also what I say here over at WT:AC/N. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

But what you do need to be aware of is that no single request takes priority over another (though as one of the parties to the case, a request from you does carry more weight in some matters). - this doesn't appear to be true. W's request has taken priority over mine. What Woonpton requested wasn't exactly blanking of the case pages - and it wasn't even a request to do what you did. I had made clear to her - no, reading W's responses makes it perfectly plain that this is not true. I continued with the blanking because the resulting discussion, in my opinion, was best held with either all the relevant pages blanked, or none - no, no good either. You could have restored the status quo ante. It depends to a large extent on what the result of the MfD on the 'cabal' page is!?! - in other words, on the votes of a people unconnected to the case? That is utterly weird. OK, but I know what I have to do now; thanks William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

←OK, I've tried to be as responsive as I can, but there is a limit to the amount of time I can spend on this. I'm going to try and finish up here and bring this to a conclusion, as we are starting to go round in circles, and I can't neglect the other arbitration cases for much longer. The main points I want to make before moving on are:

• (1) From when courtesy blanking was first mentioned, right through to now, there have been misunderstandings about what was intended and why this was done, misunderstandings and incorrect assertions made by you and others, assertions that you've repeated in your latest reply to me here and elsewhere. I do want to clear up those misunderstandings, but that will take too much time to do right now. I suggest that the place to clear up such misunderstandings is on this page. I will be aiming to add notes there at some point. Please let me know (by leaving me a talk page message here) if you want to resume discussion there.
• (2) I've read through the arguments for and against the blankings in the discussion at WT:AC/N, and given that there was some degree of support for the blankings, and that many people (not just those who objected) had aspersions cast about them in those pages, I'm not going to reverse my actions (though I did come close to doing so). However, given that some people have failed to realise that the full text is still accessible in the page histories, I've modified the notices on each page to include a link on each blanked page to the version of the page before blanking, and to the page history, and links to all the other pages in the case (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I know this is not the full unblanking you wanted, but I hope it does address some of your concerns about accessibility, and your desire for people to be able to see and judge for themselves what happened in this case.
• (3) There are a multitude of pages in userspace that still need dealing with in some way. A total of 23 pages. I've made a list here. You did ask me not to mix up userspace stuff with what happens to the case pages, so rather than going ahead with what I proposed earlier (moving to subpages of the evidence page and blanking) I've made that list instead, and will leave notices for the users concerned, and then notify my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee, and leave those pages for those users and the rest of ArbCom to deal with.
• (4) If you are not happy with any of this, my advice would be for you to wait a few days or weeks, see how you feel at that point, and then if you still want the case pages unblanked, to file a request for clarification. I will abstain from voting on any clarifications filed with respect to the final disposition of the pages in this case, though I may make a statement if needed. I'll remain active on clarifications and amendment requests on other matters related to this case.

As I said, I have to move on to deal with other things now, but I hope this addresses your concerns. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an all-too-typical stonewalling. You've ignored all my questions, you won't undo what you've done no matter how wrong it was. Sigh. Can we try to take this piece by piece, starting with some of the stuff you've ignored?

• I had made clear to her - no, reading W's responses makes it perfectly plain that this is not true. Do you accept this?

Now lets try some new stuff:

• given that there was some degree of support for the blankings, and that many people (not just those who objected) had aspersions cast about them in those pages, I'm not going to reverse my actions - this makes no sense. If casting aspersions is grounds for blanking, then you are conceeding the points made so often that you have failed to accept - that arbcomm lost control of this case and allowed the pages to spiral out of control. If they should be blanked now, they should have been blanked (or better, the aspersions should have been selectively removed, and the asperter (or whatever) controlled) then. If they should be blanked, so should vast numbers of other pages. And given that there was some degree of support means what? You appear to be asserting that if any one person in any way associated with an arbcomm makes a request, no matter how informal or unclear, then you will blank against the clearly expressed wishes of those directly involved? William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please read what I've said? I've stated what I've done and why I've done it. I've indicated where you should go to continue discussion with me on the details of what was said where and when (which you continue to misread and distort). I've explained that I read the discussion at WT:AC/N and used that as a basis for my reply. I've changed the blanking notices in response to your concerns. I've made a list of the userspace pages that also need dealing with. I left them alone per your request and left them for others to deal with. And finally, I've told you where to go if you want to take this further. That is not stonewalling, that is being responsive to concerns, continuing to communicate with you and others, and guiding you towards the next steps you need to take if you want to take this further. "Can we try to take this piece by piece?" I would be very happy to do that, but not on this talk page, as this will take some time. I will add some diffs to the other page I pointed you to, as a starting point. Please see here. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur P. Luff, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW ( Talk) 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ref [11] to be fair to you it is not clear what you think although it is clear what WMC thinks. Can you provide a link to a diff stating roughly your opinion on the whole thing? -- BozMo talk 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied over there. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- BozMo talk 17:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I assume you're following this. Just mentioning that a specific question, deserving of an answer, has been asked under Further discussion. Also, FYI, I've dropped in uninvited on Nja's talk page, where you are mentioned. - Hordaland ( talk) 15:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Commented at the amendment request. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you mentioned that you are waiting for statements from ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon. I've not formally listed the latter as a party because the way I see it only Law's conduct requires arbitral intervention; the two others can probably be handled at AE level, though of course a clarification in the matter at hand would be helpful. Both or either might not comment on the case because of their interaction ban. If you would like them to comment, because you consider proposing a motion affecting either of them, you might need to invite or formally allow them to comment. Best,  Sandstein  15:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I missed that. Will go back and change that at some point. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a ping to let you know I'd posted alternative wording on the Ac noticeboard. I'm sure the gaggle of lawyers/lawyers-in-training/otherwise educated folks on the committee could come up with better wording than what was used and what I've proposed, so I hope that will happen for future cases. Didn't want my comment to get lost in the argument there - and you mgiht also note Cenarium and Boris' comments on language at the (current) bottom of the same thread. Nathan ^T 18:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not violated any of my editing restrictions. There is not a single diff where I have edited content about the president or contacted the editor who needed to be restrained from interacting with me because of relentless stalking and harassment. I don't appreciate being smeared or having my edit history misrepresented. If there is any article that you or any other administrator doesn't want me to edit all you have to do is let me know. Of course there is a relentless effort to go after me and your "broadly construed" abstractions encourage stretchign the limits to any article where someone has a disagreement with me and can contort some kind of perversion to suggest I've violated the unjust and misguided restrictions imposed on me by you and your colleagues at Arbcom.

Your actions have served to undermine our most basic values and core policies. Encouraging packs of editors to harass, stalk and intimidate those they disagree with is very damaging to Wikipedia. You’ve turned your back on assuming good faith and encouraging collegial discussion to resolve disputes. Your actions have done a lot to encourage incivility and you’ve lent support to censorship and thuggish mob behavior. I hold you personally responsible for your role in condoning these grotesque and abusive actions. I hold out hope that in the future you will do a better job standing up for Wikipedia’s integrity and editors that are targeted for abuse. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. Please do not discuss an active arbitration request on this talk page. Either make a statement there, or (if you feel you would say things you might regret) let what you've said so far speak for you. My advice is that you need to first and foremost argue your case civilly, without resorting to excessive rhetoric and attacks. You may have some important points to make, but because of the way you are presenting them, the message is getting lost in the noise. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys don't play by the rules. The length of the block was absurd. Sandstein has consistently and repeatedly misrepresented my block log, my editing history, and lied about our interactions. Blocking a good faith editor against policy for a month is absolutely outrageous. He should be desysoped. And if you stand by that kind of abuse and make excuses for it then you're no better. The fact is that an editor who has been going after me for months continues to do so. If you want to play that game and encourage it that's on you. I'm letting you know that what you're doing is wrong and immoral. It's shameful. It's damaging to Wikipedia and YOUR ACTIONS are causing a large disruption. It's time to step up and take responsibility, to lead by example. This is supposed to be a place of collegial collaboration not the gangland war zone you're endorsing by supporting those playing GOTCHA politics and wikilawyering. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a Middle-earth cfd again. Occuli ( talk) 11:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not just any Middle-earth CFD, but Category:Middle-earth horses which you cited in the policy WP:CAT-R as a good example. Your addition to that policy on categorisation of list entries is explicitly called into question. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I commented there. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - the banned user Rbj has been editing again using the false moustaches 74.104.160.199 and 38.104.186.254. See for example Planck units and the discussion page for that article where I have already 'outed' him. I have not deleted his edits since I no longer edit Wiki articles (a self-imposed ban) and it is very frustrating to find that Rbj is still active despite the community ban placed on him. I used to be User:Lucretius. Thanks. 121.223.69.138 ( talk) 03:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, here is some proof I obtained after a bit of fishing around, taken from the Talk Page of another user, Tomruen (an innocent party):

Hi, there are plenty of references about the 2009 Mayoral election. The fact is that Montroll (D) was the Condorcet winner and was eliminated in the 2nd IRV round (if the Condorcet candidate makes it to the final IRV round, the Condorcet candidate will also win the IRV). I could send you an analysis/commentary regarding it, if you want. My email is rbj@@@@@@audioimagination.com. 74.104.160.199 ( talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I emailed with Terry Bouricius and he sent me the data which I confirmed this interesting result. But what it really needs for Wikipedia is an online source to reference, either the data (that I have), or a published analysis. Tom Ruen ( talk) 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Damned by his own damnable words! 121.223.69.138 ( talk) 04:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no clue what you are talking about. I will post this at WP:ANI and ask someone to help you. Please see here, though that page might be semi-protected and not accessible to IPs. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok - looks as if I bombarded you with too much info, much of it irrelevant from your perspective. The email address by a banned user Rbj was the conclusive proof and that's all you needed to know to get some kind of action going. Anyhow, I've now added my comments to the page you cited and hopefully that will have some result. Thanks 121.222.35.162 ( talk) 23:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your concerns about admins edit-warring on Persian Empire here: [12]. I see absolutely no evidence of such activity. One new admin may have made a rookie error, but that's about it. There is certainly no case for ArbCom to investigate. Cheers. -- Folantin ( talk) 11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This was addressed elsewhere. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Scuro is alledging that Doc James reverted me. [13] I placed a tag on a section to resolve copied and pasted text, so Doc James summarised it in his own words and then removed the tag which was no longer necessary. That is not a revert, he resolved the issue, the tag I added was no longer needed so was removed. That is not a revert but what I would expect after copied and pasted text from source issue was resolved.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k? 12:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be returning to that amendment this weekend. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)