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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 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)

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)

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)

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.

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)