User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 30

Comments on proposed findings of fact
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I’ve made some comments here on your proposed findings of fact about specific editors. I expect that other editors will probably also be commenting on them shortly. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
How many CU/OS applications has ArbCom received? You can assume this includes invalid applications (like those received by non-admins) and applications that did not have complete questionaires by the due date (if any) so that there's an idea about the total number. (Although this is being asked in a dual capacity, I'm specifically not asking for names - just a number, if possible). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A number should be possible. I'll ask the arbitrator handling the applications. Carcharoth (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We received 27 inquires. Further information will be available on August 13th. KnightLago (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, (and I appreciate the promptness of your response). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Striking this in light of my joint complaint and question (the latter of which has not been answered at this time) here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note "inquires", should read "inquiries". KnightLago (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on proposed findings of fact
Hi. I have some minor comments on your proposed finding of facts related to me. (I could be wrong about some of these. I don't have access to any edit count tools.)

First, I am not sure that "edited almost exclusively in that area" is a fair statement, at least when it comes to article space. Because I have been involved in mediation and this Arb Com case (neither process started by me), the vast majority of my total edits have been in this area. But, in article space, I have edited a dozen or more articles having nothing to do with this. So, at "worst" --- to the extent that this is a bad thing, I would say "mostly" rather than "almost exclusively". (There is no need to make the article/non-article space distinction clear, unless you want to.

Second, you correctly note that I was blocked. But I think that that block was ludicrous and would appreciate it if you would include a link to my response in your findings. Perhaps adding "but he strongly contests that block." would do the trick.

Third, you note (correctly) that MathSci has edited a "diverse range of topics." I believe that I have as well. I think you should either make the same note about my editing or remove this note about MathSci's. Although it is fair to note that both Occam and Mikemikev are much narrower in the editing interests, I believe that both MathSci and I edit a similarly wide range of articles, at least over our Wikipedia careers. (MathSci has done many more edits, as you correctly note, but that is a different question.)

I realize that these are minor points, unlikely to change any outcome. But, since you took the time to write them, I have taken the time to comment. Good luck with the rest of the arbitration. David.Kane (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I had reviewed this earlier, but forgot to reply to it. My review didn't change my mind, and I will be leaving the finding as it is. If you want other arbitrators to see what you have written, you will need to make your case at the proposed decision talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Armero tragedy?
Hi there Carcharoth! Hope everything's going well. I don't think I asked you previously, so I'll ask now - would it be possible for you to help me out a bit at Armero tragedy? You found quite a lot of useful sources that I missed at DAJ, and like that article, I'd like to get Armero tragedy to FA for the 25th anniversary of the eruption in November (I wanted Nevado del Ruiz the main article to be there, but it was put up as a random TFA a year ago). The prose needs a lot of work still and I don't think I can take it on my own. If you're busy, feel free to decline, and I'm sorry for interrupting you.! Thanks,  ceran  thor 14:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can try and take a look, but the one that catches me in a macabre fashion is this one: Yungay, Peru for the 1970 Ancash earthquake and the landslide from Huascarán. If you get time, read this. The bit at the end is heart-wrenching. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We could definitely write that article. I have a friend (Editorofthewiki) whom I have collaborated with before who might be interested, and I'm sure Andy could provide some sources or weigh in.  ceran  thor 14:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And Armero has its own heart-wrenching side-stories, see Omayra Sanchez. This picture does the same thing to me. Sometimes when I read through the article I have to just walk away from the computer, as there are bodies under the mud, which is a horribly horribly gruesome and sad thing to picture.  ceran  thor 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for PD
I saw your comment on the GW/CC Proposed Decisions talk page -- please do open the workshop pages and continue your comments. I think that would help ease the tension that is building. Relief is needed. Thanks. Minor4th  02:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Action on clarification issue
Although you have expressed an opinion on the matter, as has Steve Smith, this question of clarification appears to be stalled. Without a decision on this matter, my appeal cannot proceed, as Sandstein has made this a precondition for progress.

Do you anticipate framing a motion to bring this clarification to a conclusion? Thanks for your attention. Brews ohare (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been resolved now. I am sorry this was not resolved to your satisfaction. I do hope you will take the advice that has been given. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Carcharoth
Dear Carcharoth, some editors are saying that I am Jahntellero7, or Jahnteller07, but I'm not, and I was told that only people like you can run a checkusing on my account to show I'm not, so I was wondering if you can do that for me and put the results on my channel page? Thank you, Grignard4120 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grignard4120 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay in replying. You will need to ask others about this. WP:SPI is the usual place to ask for this sort of thing, but I doubt they will run a checkuser for the reasons you are giving. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment
This is a prime example why we get upset over the speed of light issue. [] is a rosey example of hounding and persecution. Kinda funny how he can block when he is knee deep in the. Itas hard to say I'm assuming bad faith when there is multiple statements like []. In the past Brews advocaters have been blbamed for brews issues but here is what happens when someone doesn't say something. Can you please comment on this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been resolved now. Apologies for the delay in replying and sorry this wasn't resolved to your satisfaction. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
for this moving of SirFozzie's comment. I was just contemplating asking for this to be done, and for him to be reminded of the meaning of "recused". EdChem (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions
Hi, I'm not involved in any of the Climate change arbitration or articles. I do lurk and ocassionally make a comment on the sanction page and at ANI but not at the arbitration page. Am I allowed to make a comment at the PD talk page here? It is unclear to me whether I can or not. Also, if an email is sent to the arbitrators, can it be done anonymously? This case has a lot of powerful editors and I think it should be known whether an editor can do this or not, I'm not saying I am interested in doing this just looking for clarification. Thank you for your time, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  10:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can make statements at that page, yes. E-mails are discouraged unless it concerns private matters, as transparency is needed when discussing a case like this. No-one should be scared of so-called 'powerful' editors. If you are concerned about that, it needs to be raised both as a general issue, and as one specific to this case because it is difficult to tell whether such concerns are one of perception on your part, or one of attitude on the part of other editors. Having said that, it really is best not to think of other editors as powerful, as that promotes the wrong attitude. Everyone needs to be able to work together, and 'power' should never come into the equation. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between theory and practice, Carcharoth. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which bit of what I said are you talking about? Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sentence 3 & onwards. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I agree with you. In practice it can be difficult. But the correct reaction to perceiving vested contributors (I presume this is part of what 'power' refers to here) throwing their weight around is not to avoid the issue, because that only makes it worse. State your concerns and try and resolve them through dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you only understood part of what I was saying, so I'll say more about the other part. People sometimes have to put up with a ridiculous amount of unsubtle abuse, purely because a vested contributor is being outright vindictive. It's not at all pretty, and it simply furthers perceptions about those users. So many people know this cycle where they will be put off contributing at all. So when given the choice between either doing "the right thing" (where they become at risk) or hardly saying anything at all (which may involve less/no risk to themselves), most people choose the latter. This is especially when wiki dispute resolution does not always work in practice as well as it does in theory. Even on that front, for example, it is not ideal if the community's views are mischaracterised and omitted during a prominent arb case that revolves more a controversial topic. People would often rather do something else than go through the long DR process as they feel it will probably result in no action being taken against users: Obviously, there are times where this is not the case and the process actually works well (and has at least at one point, worked well in every stage of DR), but arguably, it's not frequent enough for users to feel comfortable with the current DR system in practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * who are misusing their position against the helpless editors (who aren't on Wikipedia to fight wars and play politics/needless-bureaucracy/games)
 * whose judgement has serious issues
 * to protect those who are acting in good faith, trying to do the right thing, and willing to take responsibility for their actions (this is especially important when blocks become involved).


 * Thank you for your responses. I have to say that Ncmvocalist has pretty much nailed what my concerns are when I say powerful editors/administrators. If I speak up, I could end up on the hate list like WMC ended up. I watched as groups of editors claimed that WMC was like the head of the snake. What I mean by that is that if they could get him banned then the rest of the scientific editors (cabals, factions or whatever term they decide on now) would be cut off and slowly die off from the articles either by leaving or getting themselves banned from the articles and more control would be given to a different group of editors. In this case there are actually two distinct groups of editors. One group though has a couple of very powerful and vested administrators backing them up and what I see is their planning has resulted in exactly what they said they were going to do. I had issues with an editor where it took a slew of editors who were also called a cabal constantly months and months before we actually got DR to stand up and pay attention that there was an editor who was the source of the problems. That editor finally got community banned because of persistent socking. The administrator we went to didn't do a thing to help and just told us not to behave the way I see him/her behaving now. The power came into my mind because the administrator was going for even more power than he/she already had, which in my opinion is way too much for any one editor/admisistrator/CU/bureacrat rather than dealing with and finishing what they started towards bringing peace back to the community. Two administrators in the CC case seems to still be in that kind of power since most of the PD page shows most of what they wanted to accomplish. Requesting administrators to show past histories with any editors that they are doing battle with should be given upon request, not ignored. I'm not a great writer like some here are but what I am trying to say is that the PD as written is missing the mark badly. In my view of what I've read and watched, old feuds are now being settled esp. with regards to WMC and Polargeo. Their behaviors weren't stellar but they weren't any better or worse than a lot of others in this dispute. I do not edit nor do I watch the articles. I watch the boards like An/i and the CC sanction board and ocassionally the COI and BLP boards, along with some of the editors involved talk pages. I am not seeing completely what you arbitrators are apparently seeing. I may get bold and make a statement but at this point with reading the comments already there I see no reason to put myself at risk of reprisals against me. I would suggest you reading some of the talk pages of the main players in this area. After reading them from the start of this dispute, will you honestly be able to say there is no past dispute between some?  I would also suggest doing a seach of WMC name at the WP:BLPN board where he was brought time and again and the conclusions from others was that he did nothing seriously wrong nor did he have a COI.  This is about as far as I am comfortable at saying things right now.  But as an outsider of this case, I see this arbitration as totally missing the jest of the problems.  I think revenge is more apt in a lot of this. You are more than welcomed to check me out and my history of editing here.  I think you will find that I have pretty good behavior and a lot of editors can vouch for me as an editor in good standing.   Thank you for listening. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you and Ncmvocalist for your comments here. I agree with several of the points Ncmvocalist makes, but don't have any easy answers. To respond to what Crohnie Gal is saying, when you have a topic that is heavily watched and commented on, it can be difficult to know where to start. My advice would always be to (as you have been doing) watch and read first, and only get involved gradually where you are sure about what you are saying. It is a problem, because when very new editors get involved in a topic area like that, they are invariably accused of being socks (and sometimes they are) or their newbie errors are magnified and picked on. The opinions of editors with a longer editing history here (like yourself) are needed, but only if you are sure about how you can contribute. The integration of outside editors into an existing and heated topic, where there are established dynamics, is something I don't think Wikipedia does that well. Anyway, I can't really spend much time responding here, as I have other matters to attend to, but thanks to you both for expanding on your thoughts here. If you want to continue the discussion (and I think it would be useful to continue the discussion), there should be a suitable Wikipedia talk page somewhere. Possibly, even a discussion at the proposed decision talk page on how both completely new editors and those like yourself, can be brought into the topic area without feeling scared off by what is going on, would be useful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Carcharoth Thank you also for taking the time to give me thoughtful comments. I really appreciate what your are saying to me and will do my best to take it slow and try to help bring more light than than heat. I think my fear of discussing matters are being addresed at the PD talk page quite well lately.  I've mostly been reading but I haven't been on that much lately due to RL issues. I do though want to bring something to your attention that looks like it was over looked.  This editor here, which is whether they are Jebus989 or Bigred58 seems confused about who s/he actually should be signing and talking as which brings up red flags to me.  I just thought it should be brought to someones attention and didn't think it would be wise to bring it up at the PD talk page.  I leave it to you to see if there is any issues to address.  Thank you again for being so nice to take time out of your busy schedule to talk to me about my fears of adding to the PD talk page. Be well, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed that as well. As far as I can tell, what happened there (if you look at all the contribs by both editors) is that Bigred58 was trying to move their statement to a different part of the page, and did this by blanking their statement in preparation for moving it. Jebus989 then reverted this (presumably thinking it was vandalism) and left a warning for Bigred58, but then removed the warning and reverted the reversion (i.e. restoring the status quo). Bigred58 then carried on with moving the statement to a different section of the page. Rather confusing, but looks OK. Which reminds me, I need to explain the misunderstanding over the block they are objecting to - not the most important thing on that page, but still. Carcharoth (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary CC editing restrictions
At the time these were agreed, there was some doubt as to when they expired. You indicated at the time that we needed to revisit the issue when the PD was issued, and sure enough it has. I guess my question is, are the vol restrictions over? ScottyBerg (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could ask on the PD talk page, that is better than here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that the discussion was moved somewhere, and I don't really object as it was sort of off-topic. I'm assuming from the general thrust of the discussion that the voluntary restriction is moot/no longer applicable. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Took me a while to track it down, but it was moved with this edit and presumably taken to WT:GS/CC/RE. You should be able to pick up the trail from there. It's not really something ArbCom will rule on. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I was just trying to get to the bottom of this. I guess this is one of those situations in which there is no bottom that can be gotten. ;) ScottyBerg (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Logos Peer Review
I have recently initiated a peer review of the logos page and I am hoping that you might be able to help, especially if no one else pitches in. Please see Peer_review/Logos/archive1 for details on this request. Thanks! Edunoramus (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A note
Thanks for your engagement with everyone at the PD page. I've said some things that would better have been left unsaid and that I would like to hope are not typical for me. If I had it to do over again I would wait a day to compose my thoughts before beginning to comment. But I didn't, and there's nothing I can do now but offer my apologies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks again for being so prompt to apologise (though it is not me that some of the apologies should really be directed at). I can't promise to engage every day at the proposed decision talk page, but I will continue to read it closely. Carcharoth (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Debating points
(moved from the PD talk page, better suited here) "Lar, have you ever written a proposed decision for an arbitration case?", "Without exception, those participating in a case see their case as THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ARBCOM HAVE TO DEAL WITH (tm). " ... those both were completely uncalled for remarks, in my view, so I rebutted them. Sorry if you didn't like the smackdown, but you were pwned. I'll stop trying to score debating points on you if you do the same for me. You first. ++Lar: t/c 06:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Smackdown? pwned? Can you not see that your debating style is antagonistic? Carcharoth (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a pass through the last 8 months of my user talk some time if you want to see antagonism. It's been a constant incoming barrage. I'm just tired of it all. Tired of that faction and their continued passive aggressive (or outright aggressive) behavior, and how it's colored my own. Fight against something long enough and you run the danger of turning into it. Maybe I'm doing myself no favors by being so caustic, but I really have about had it. How many more messengers get shot before the message gets across? You guys just do not seem to get it yet. Instead you rag on me too. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no special love for Lar, in fact, I almost banned him from my talk page yesterday, but he's correct here. He's been repeatedly harassed and attacked by the same group of editors who refuse to admit that they behave as a faction.  It's disgraceful and needs to end.  What is ArbCom going to do about this?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about Lar or WMC? Hal peridol (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar, I think, but if you guys wouldn't mind, I'd prefer to keep this conversation between me and Lar. Not that I have anything specific to say to his last point (which I've read), but I would prefer this not to develop into a long thread with multiple people posting here. It is best to keep talk page threads limited, as the real work needs to be done back at the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading it. As a note, there is an important difference between explaining factors behind behavior, and claiming an excuse for it. I've explained, but I'm not claiming that it's OK that I lose my temper or act in ways that are not exemplary. In fact I regret it and I would prefer to do better. Hal peridol might take note of that, as that's an important distinction to aid him in his apparent confusion. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain
From the Proposed Decision talk page: ''A note to JohnWBarber and Polargeo: from posts on this page (especially the ones at the start of this section) it looks like you are both engaged in an interpersonal dispute. Please try and resolve this elsewhere and please don't make it part of this case. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)''

How do my comments look more like an "interpersonal dispute" with Polargeo than they do sharp criticism? On the PD talk page, I'm neither addressing him, responding to him or even sharply criticizing him, just repeating concerns I've stated before and asking why the draft doesn't reflect those concerns. (edited to add: Actually, I was mentioning a more recent development that I thought ArbCom should consider.) As he has stated, we had barely any interaction (and none of it uncivil) outside of dispute resolution forums (and when he went to my talk page). Here's all of it: I had a civil discussion with him (about the behavior of other editors) on the talk page of an RfC (I think Lar's RfC). At the talk page of WP:GSCCRE, I commented on his disruptive behavior once. Then, when this case began, I filed evidence about his behavior and discussed it on the Workshop page. He and I discussed that a bit on my talk page (still there, unarchived). He followed me to an article I'd just started and made an edit that I complained about at the General Discussion page, where, you're aware, he was roundly criticized by people on all sides of this dispute. I commented at the PD talk page in a civil manner about my sincere concerns on points very relevant to the decision. He responded with multiple comments that were personal attacks against me. He was again roundly criticized for that by editors from different sides. I saw no need to comment further to him or about him.

The concerns I raised about Polargeo's conduct have been incorporated into the draft, which should lead you to assume I wasn't making frivolous accusations. I made those accusations in the right forum and nowhere else. I didn't attack Polargeo anywhere. I did criticize him strongly for committing what are some of the worst personal attacks I've seen on Wikipedia, and I explained that fully on the Workshop page.

First question: What do you mean when you say I'm engaged in an interpersonal dispute with him? (Not a rhetorical question. Please answer it.) I'm engaged in an ArbCom case and all my comments directly relate to proper matters of an ArbCom case, as reflected in the draft. Second question: Please tell me where I've deviated from the subject of the page, it would be helpful for me to know. Third question: Is there a problem with the way I've stated my concerns about Polargeo? If so, tell me just how I could have rephrased or limited my comments without omitting what I reasonably think is important to point out to arbitrators.

I understand that there are heated, inappropriate comments on that discussion page. I didn't make them and I didn't try to incite them. Final questions: Why do you tolerate Polargeo making personal attacks on an ArbCom discussion page set up to discuss ArbCom's draft which is in part about his previous personal attacks? Who should I complain to that an editor is making personal attacks against me on that page? Aren't you the one most responsible for stopping him from doing that?

I thought about a reply to Polargeo's comments, but not to Polargeo -- to ArbCom. I was thinking about asking ArbCom whether or not Polargeo's continued bad behavior, right on the PD discussion page, should make the committee consider whether or not a harsher sanction is in order. As you know, the draft already includes a diff from a personal attack he made on ArbCom discussion pages. I decided against making that point because I thought it was too obvious and wouldn't contribute anything ArbCom members couldn't already figure out. But your reaction now makes me wonder.

Again, you say Please try and resolve this elsewhere and please don't make it part of this case. Since discussion with Polargeo quickly devolves into him making personal attacks against me, and since the only thing I have ever had to say to him (after our first discussion) are complaints that he's violated WP behavioral policies directly related to this case (or stemming from it in the case of his vandalizing the article I started), there really is no "elsewhere". Or -- again, not a rhetorical question -- do you think I should take a complaint about personal attacks on an ArbCom discussion page to AN/I? Should I ask an uninvolved admin to deal with Polargeo for conduct on an ArbCom page? Wouldn't any admin tell me that I should go to the clerk? Those last two questions were rhetorical. I think I know the answers to them. Please address the rest. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that him editing that article you were working on is not part of the climate change case. I'm asking you both to keep that separate from the case. Dragging in other matters makes cases more complicated than they need to be. I actually think you have a very good case to be made, but trying to drag it into the climate change case is the wrong approach (and you brought this matter to the climate change case pages first, remember). There are other venues where you can go to resolve those matters. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since all of the interactions he and I had were related to this case, except our first one (the one he mentions on the PD talk page; I also commented once on his conduct at the GSCCRE talk page), his edit to that article was clearly in retaliation for my comments in this case. Therefore I considered it related and relevant to consideration of this case. Recall that when I first posted a comment on this on an ArbCom page, I asked whether or not there was a better venue. I also took your reply at the General Discussion page to mean that there was no problem with me bringing it up at the PD discussion page: I suggest being patient and waiting for the proposed decision (on which more work was done yesterday and today) and then asking this question again then. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Or did you mean ask again at the GD page? In any event, the point only needed to be made once, and Polargeo hasn't said anything about it that I feel a need to respond to. I'm still concerned about Polargeo making personal attacks on me right on the PD discussion page. When Arbs or the Arb clerk doesn't do anything about that after seeing it, it looks like you sympathize with it. These are clear personal attacks. Why are you tolerating them?
 * further evidence of JWB's personal campaign against admins as he has shown towards myself. This shows a certain amount of bitterness which should not be allowed to be cultivated
 * JohnWBarber being out to get me in this case. [...] This, for want of better expression nastiness,
 * I now understand where I interacted with JohnWBarber before this case, it was on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Lar. That is where he gets his grudge against me from.
 * I am truly amazed that an editor I had even forgotten I had any interaction with then turned that single thread against me into a single minded attempt to get me desysopped during an arbcase though.
 * to me he personifies the worst of the most undignified traits possible
 * I'm not looking for him to get blocked over this, just told to stop making personal attacks. What's the point of strongly admonishing him for it on the PD page and tolerating it from him on the PD talk page? Your only comment there was to criticize me as much as him. That's not right. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Shell warned Polargeo about some comments and told him to stop - please look for those as well. I haven't managed to catch up yet with all that's been said on that page, and I'm even less likely to get caught up on reading that page if I have to deal with this as well. Hence my advice to you to take this somewhere else. We are not going to get distracted from the main points of the case and spend lots of time on this, so please don't try and force us to arbitrate between you two in the middle of a case. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did see that. He ignored Shell. I thought the point of sanctions was to prevent future behavior of the same type. You've got an editor committing the same misbehavior that you're considering a sanction for. Right under your noses. That's a distraction? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * please don't try and force us to arbitrate between you two in the middle of a case This case is by definition arbitration between parties. The draft names Polargeo and has evidence in it that I provided, including evidence of an attack Polargeo made against me. (fifth link at Fof 11 ) So let's get it straight: It's your job here to arbitrate between Polargeo and me in the middle of a case because it is already part of the case. You've repeatedly looked the other way when Polargeo made personal attacks against me, and now my restraint in replying to them on the page makes it look like his attacks have substance. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have missed Shell's later note to Polargeo, which is after your diffs above, and Polargeo seems to have got the message that time. The long and short of it is that Polargeo has been warned by Shell about the approach he was taking, so as long as he abides by that, it can be left for now. As for what you have to say about Polargeo, we have noted what you have said and that will be considered along with all the other comments made at that talk page, so if you could also leave that for now, that would be appreciated. You are both more than welcome to say things about other parts of the proposed decision, but continuing to focus on that part of the case won't really help at this point. With apologies, I'm also going to bow out of this thread at this point, as replying here is taking up time I need to spend elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. The next time one editor makes a series of personal attacks against another editor on an ArbCom page, please don't address the victim and the victimizer as being equally in the wrong (A note to JohnWBarber and Polargeo: from posts on this page [...] it looks like you are both engaged in an interpersonal dispute. Please try and resolve this elsewhere and please don't make it part of this case.). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Another comment
This is related to your statement here.

No, we don't do that. This was one guy shooting his mouth off and saying that named people broke the law and should have been prosecuted. He was not in a position to make that statement. He was ultimately reprimanded by the Parliamentary Committee for not only doing so but then refusing to correct himself. We knew about his equivocation at the time--before the Commitee reported. We (not I but the editors involved in editing at the time, and of course that means the greater we, Wikipedia) didn't take it into account because there was a lot of bloodlust in the air and I wasn't there to try to make people see sense. We fucked these people around. We should not do that.

We have a policy about this: it's called the Biographies of living persons policy. It's supposed to be one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, and I agree that it is. We should follow it.

There was no reliable source for the contention. It should not have been reported. Waiting just a few weeks would have let us be sure either way. --TS 22:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read all of what I said, you will see that I agree with you: "Wikipedia [should] remain silent or non-committal on an issue until the full facts are known or conclusions and reports are published". Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From your account I definitely misread your statement. Sorry. good job I took it up here instead of the proposed decision talk where this would have run to 16,000 bytes, eh? --TS 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm supposed to be analysing and reducing discussion not adding to it. You did a good job of reordering the page, by the way. I'm going to do a bit more there, and link to some of the archived discussions as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your wording on sourcing and BLP reflects how you've described it here, as I see it. But there are legitimate points of difference on interpretation of policy, and I would be foolish to argue such interpretation with an elected official whose job it was to interpret policy. Anyway that's minor stuff, so let's try to work towards the best possible solution to this mess. --TS 22:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither of you appear to have followed the links to quotes from the sources I cited. Here, let me make it a bit easier for you both (first quote from the Science magazine reporter's blog; all of the following from my Nov 30 comment at the bottom of this RS/N discussion ): According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt. Here's a statement issued by the ICO, the UK government agency that handles FOIA law: Destroying requested information outside of an organisation’s normal policies is unlawful and may be a criminal offence if done to prevent disclosure. The ICO has specific guidance relating to the destruction of requested information that can be found on our website. No one shooting off his mouth. No WP:RECENTISM problem (if we're going to have WP articles about controversies, we're going to have to keep them up to date, this was important information to give to readers as of the time of the discussion). And, of course, what's important is the partisanship. The information I wanted to add was neutral. The opposition to it wasn't. That's evident. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * John, amid all those opinions you don't seem to have come up with a relevant incriminating fact. It was the absence of such facts that led to the fellow being reprimanded. Let me put it this way: if I am writing about a murder suspect and write about the potential crimes he might be charged with if found guilty, wouldn't it be relevant that I ignored the failure of those naming the suspect to present any evidence that the suspect had committed a crime? Anybody can say "I suspect that X did Y".  Where the statement is clearly unsubstantiated and the claimant refuses to clarify and acts evasively, we would be unwise to report the claim. --TS 23:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec with above)"Wikipedia [should] remain silent or non-committal on an issue until the full facts are known or conclusions and reports are published". Remember these two words, Carcharoth: MAY and LIABILITY That's "non-committal". No responsible coverage of the CRU controversy could have avoided coverage of the possibility of FOIA violations in late November and early December 2009. Except that Wikipedia's coverage did. Out of partisanship. Silence was partisan. Silence is part of the toolbox of bias when the matter is important or even relevant to the subject and the sourcing is impeccable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, as a professional reporter, I've written about murder suspects. Liability is a fact. An important fact in some situations, including this one. If we're going to have articles about ongoing controversies, we can't avoid mentioning one of the important elements that actually makes it controversial. Which is what the FOIA liability was. Which was why multiple reliable sources said exactly that. Liability is separate from guilt. That is how a responsible report about something which may or may not be a violation of the law can be published in either the U.S. or U.K. before authorities rule. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the members of Committee each have their own opinion on the BLP and nothing I could say would change their attitude. --TS 23:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec with above)Tony, no one anywhere but you (and members of your faction) on Wikipedia was saying that it was totally ridiculous to suspect the emailers of violating FOI law. The emailers' own statements (particularly Phil Jones') very obviously and directly brought up the reasonableness of the issue. The reporter from Science magazine, to my knowledge, has never been accused of being some kind of anti-CRU partisan, much less some kind of anti-AGW partisan. Was the legal expert he quoted a partisan? Would you like me to quote Phil Jones' email, or would you be satisfied to just follow the link I provided above and see the quote I provided at the RS/N discussion? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to catch up on the proposed decision talk page. To avoid my orange message bar going off constantly, could you guys take this discussion elsewhere please? And not to the proposed decision talk page. I suggest to one or other of your talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed of Light.
Can you look in on the discussion regarding the amendment again? There are people accusing Iblis and myself of being disruptive in our ocmments. One has accused me of calling people nazis, corrupt officials and otherwise. I've asked for proof in what I feel is calm and collected manner. In the past my main outbursts have been because of vague allegations or outright incivility. Can you please comment on the assumption of good faith or the fact that there is no problem with Iblis and myself have not crossed the lines in our discussion. I'm sorry because you've been in this longer then I have and I'm extremely sick of this too, the same people show up time and time again on both sides. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your comment
In reply to, I do not want to clog the PD talk page so I'll post here instead:

I'm all in favor of pointing out mistakes and showing people examples of how to handle things better. What's problematic is dredging through hundreds or thousands of diffs and coming up with a small number of errors and then giving an admin an admonishment that can be cited against them in the future. This is not a good way to motivate and train personnel. When punishing people for minor failures, you will see poor morale and worse performance.

I wasn't notified of User:Rlevse's proposals against me. It was only by chance I noticed them. To me this felt very much like an ambush because nobody ever discussed concerns with me over the incident six months ago, and nothing about these matters was posted to the workshop (as far as I know) nor did anybody point out the evidence to me that Rlevse was relying upon. As somebody only tangentially involved in this case I did not thoroughly review all the evidence. My only workshop proposal was a principle. If Rlevse had concerns about my two attempts (22 hours, and many, many edits apart) to close a WP:GS/CC discussion thread, I wish he would have asked me for an explanation before proposing findings. A judge should hear both sides before forming a view. To me, an uninvolved administrator trying in good faith to resolve a nasty dispute, his actions were extremely offensive, and I told him so, possibly using terms that were too strong. I doubt my working relationship with User:Rlevse will ever be the same. This is regrettable, and if you have any advice how to repair that, I am all ears.

I think it would be a good idea to archive old content in the workshop page and pose these new proposals there for discussion, and send notifications to the affected editors. This way people will not go through the same experience I did. The proposed decision page does not allow discussion by anybody except arbitrators, and using the attached talk page is problematic because of the volume of comments here. Things tend to get lost, and there are no links from the proposals to the responses (unlike the workshop, where proposals have a designated area for affected editors to comment). I am concerned that some people may be blindsided by proposals that are completely unanticipated, as I was. Jehochman Talk 02:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what the fix is, but this system isn't working, and it's worse in this case than many. Arbs should have used the workshop page like everyone else instead of closing it for a month, then proposing stuff without a proper vehicle for give and take. The older way in which the workshop wasn't segregated by originator may be better... segregate the proposals by topic instead. Then arbs can move the ones they truly are ready to vote on to the PD page. ++Lar: t/c 12:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if a workshop page becomes too long and cluttered, the arbitrators can create a Workshop 2 page by extracting (abstracting?) the most relevant proposals. Once everybody has had a chance to comment, the best proposals can be copied to a proposed decision and voting may commence.  The current system is not working.  My response to the de novo accusations against me is buried so deeply in the talk page, nobody will ever see it.  It would be much fairer if the person directly affected by a proposal had the chance to post a response directly below the proposal. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you. I made a couple of comments about the appearance of sanctions against administrators and editors too.  I have to say I was shocked when I saw the ones about 2/0 and Lar and also the one with Jehochman  and Lar.  To me they are both stale and more like a one event type issue that you all resolved between yourselves, at least I believe you did.  I don't like the way the PD is being done.  Even if there are problems with WMC, going back 5+ years to bring up issues from back then  and other years without giving both sides of the issues is just plain wrong. This is happening in other locations too that they are trying to fix.  I don't understand what is going on with all of this.  To be honest it feel like internal politics or revenge type things being added to the PD.  I don't follow all of the articles but something is definitely wrong with the PD as it is now.  Maybe a rewrite is necessary before everyone starts voting?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

TS's clerking of the CC PD page
Carcharoth, I'm coming to you directly since you seem to be the most active "clerk" on the CC case. Tony Sidaway continues to collapse sections which I believe to be relevant discussion. TS is not a clerk, and further, he has a history of involvement in this topic area. It is not for him to decide what is relevant and what is "bickering". I have no problem if an arb or a clerk collapses sections which they consider irrelevant, but not when that judgement is being made by someone else, especially an involved editor. I've reverted him several times but now others are expressing concerns that I shouldn't be reverting, so that's why I'm coming to you. Thanks. ATren (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just notified a clerk to look into it. Jehochman Talk 03:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you JEH. ATren (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Modification of CC talk page
Do you want me to do some of this? Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be OK. Let me finish up what I'm doing now, and then see what needs doing. How long are you around for? Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another 6 or 7 hours, but I'll be going out at sometime for an hour to walk the dogs. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Intermittently I should add, I won't be sitting here all that time. :-) Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I should be done with the structural stuff in half an hour. Could you look for what you think is off-topic? Maybe make a list on a notes page somewhere? Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! I'd rather do what you're doing. How do you define off-topic? Some stuff marked OT looked on topic to me. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Give me another five minutes and we can discuss. Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See my talk page also, I don't know what more Lar wants, TS agreed to stop archiving, you asked him to stop collapsing... Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What you said there is fine. The untangling of the PD talk page is taking longer than I thought. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Odd, at one point when I clicked edit on a section where you'd added, for example, P.3.14, what I saw was just E1. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that numbering system won't work. I renumbered everything. Carcharoth (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing that does need doing. Could you leave notes on the talk pages of all those saying "support" and "oppose" and remind them: (a) this is not a vote; (b) constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) is better; (c) they should remove the S/O bits, though the comments are perfectly valid. Feel free to remove the S/O bits yourself and cite what I say here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted to their talk pages asking them to remove the S/O bits and saying if they aren't around I'll do it later. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The first responder struck his, but I think he should be asked to remove it entirely (he's asked me if he did it correctly). Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Entire removal of the words support and oppose. They should just be bare comments with no preceding bolded bit, struck or otherwise. Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at your talk page and check Clerks-L. Thanks. Do you still want me to do something about OT stuff? Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Abrahams
In response to your last comment, the particular over-the-top material that drove me away was a series of attacks on Professor John Abrahams, who has produced a long and tediously detailed video talk rebutting some scientific claims by Lord Monckton. It is not appropriate or accurate to describe Dr Abrahams' scholarly and courteous work as political or a hack job. I do not intend to continue discussion in such an environment, which certainly would not be tolerated on article talk pages, where I would not hesitate to remove the material. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Abraham's unpublished presentation is directed at Monckton and openly questions his qualifications, honesty, intelligence, associations, and integrity, despite the attempt by some to paint it as some sort of noble scientific treatise. ATren (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What you have just written is precisely the kind of gross misrepresentation I am complaining about. You either know that this is false or you have not viewed the presentation. I feel wretchedly disgusted that this kind of attack is being condoned on Wikipedia. Tasty monster (=TS ) 02:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony, perhaps you have watched the revised presentation, in which Abraham re-narrated the entire thing and removed much of the loaded language after Monckton threatened to sue the university (though it's not clear whether he was responding to the threat, since the original is still there). You may wish to view the original presentation. It's mostly dry scientific analysis, but there are also direct attacks on Monckton's integrity and honesty. For example, slide 104 in the original presentation, Abraham says "When your connections to ideological organizations are this deep, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you can separate your results from the interests of those funding you" This is a clear attack on Monckton's integrity. In the revised presentation, he tones it down, but his slides listing the funding organizations is still there, clearly implying that Monckton's motives are questionable. At other points in the original presentation, he accuses Monckton of "sleight of hand", "misrepresentation", "trying to confuse" the audience, etc. and while much of this was scrubbed in the revised presentation, many of the slides remain and the implications are clear.


 * Look, I personally think Abraham's points are compelling, but as an extended unpublished criticism of an ideological opponent in a contentious debate such as this, it is highly inappropriate to link or source it in Monckton's BLP. I am frankly shocked that you would think otherwise. ATren (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, ATren. They deserve to be in the discussion on the PD talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than bickering here, would you please allow Carcharoth to respond first. Jehochman Talk 11:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't bickering, I was just correcting misconceptions about the presentation. On the other hand, this is bickering. ;-) ATren (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that one rebuttal is reasonable. Cheers, Jehochman Talk 12:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman for telling people to stop, as I get the feeling this thread could have got much longer otherwise. To answer Tony's original question, I think discussion of this aspect of the case is reasonable, but people do need to watch the language they use. Rather than denigrate sources, try and give a dispassionate analysis of sources. If there is disagreement over a source, find sources that talk about the source and so on, until you find something that is indisputably reliable. And please don't go round and round in circles talking about the same thing for months on end. Try and find a way to resolve this. If you think people are being disruptive while discussing sources (or anything), we (ArbCom) can deal with that, but we can't rule at the level of detail on which sources can be used and which can't, as that is a matter of content. Oh, and please don't have the discussion on this page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

PD questions
Your questions have been answered. I'm interested in your thoughts, as well as those of others and now that I've answered, would like to invite comment by others. It's odd that these questions were asked on the PD page... they seem much more workshoppy. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just another backwards arbitration case. Carcharoth, please take that as feedback for the future: use the workshop, not the proposed decision, to hammer out proposals. As I've already said, if the Workshop becomes messy it can be refactored, archived, or versioned to distill the most relevant proposals for further discussion. Jehochman Talk 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I argued in favour of a workshop, but those sort of decisions are not taken unilaterally. The decision was to go with a proposed decision immediately, and I acquiesced to that. We all need to work with what is there now, and I have been refactoring and organising the discussion where possible so it doesn't become too unmanageable (though in hindsight that is largely thanks to JohnWBarber setting up the initial section by section discussion framework that I later expanded on). Changes to the proposed decision have been and will continue to be made based on at least some of the comments made so far (which is actually more responsive than some arbitration cases, though other cases tend to receive less comments). Lar, to answer your question, I'm satisfied with what you said there and don't have further questions, so please do invite others to comment. One of the reasons I asked the questions was that no-one was discussing the finding about you, and I thought discussion was needed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you
I'd do this myself, but I don't want to upset anyone. Under the section entitled, "Frivolous probation requests intended to harass William M. Connolley" Kim and I were discussing the edit war we all had in the IPCC article. If it wouldn't be too much trouble could you place this in an appropriate section so it doesn't get lost in the mess. I think this is highly illustrative of the problems in the area and it should be easy to follow. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is better placed elsewhere, I will consider that. You can also ask the case clerk to do this as well. Dougweller, as Amory is still away. Also ask AGK if he is around, as he said he would be able to cover at some point this week. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Soon and Baliunas controversy by WMC
I've placed a RPP at the RPP notice board, but thought it might be more appropriate to bring it to your attention. I've notified a couple of other ArbCom members also. I don't have a preference for which version is protected, if we can stop the unnecessary drama. If this is out of line, please let me know on my talk page, I'm not trying to stir the pot. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The contributions history shows that in the past couple of days WMC has made two edits and you have made three (in both cases treating consecutive edits as one per WP:EW). Given those facts, if he's edit warring why aren't you? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to say, strictly personally, that if somebody is being considered for a six month ban in draft at a proposed arbitration decision perhaps it's time to step back. Honestly William is not the only person who can edit climate change-oriented articles, and if nobody else feels like making the edit perhaps it shouldn't be made. Not even once, let alone twice. This opinion is not intended to be prejudicial to the merit of the edit made (I haven't investigated it, I'm only commenting on conduct). --TS 22:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * TS said it better than I could have. Let the RPP noticeboard deal with this. Those mentioned in the case proposed decision should indeed be stepping back, but equally others should not be provoking them (not saying that happened here, but that should not happen). Regular editors in this area will still be scrutinised if a version of discretionary sanctions passes, and conduct like this would be included in that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

@Boris, check your count again. You aren't really counting the minor edit (changing "was" to "were" - plural tense) as a revert are you? That it happened to be the last edit before WMC removed material makes your mistake understandable, but it was a day before and not connected to this issue. I also note that there were three editors that commented on the talkpage, two of us were for inclusion, and WMC removed it again anyway. GregJackP  Boomer!   23:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you've made exactly the same number of edits as the person you accuse of edit warring? --TS 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe edit-warring was too strong - how about removing sourced material without consensus? In any event, as long as the page is protected and it stops, I'm happy.   GregJackP   Boomer!   01:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter


We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your piece on BLPs
A couple of weeks ago on the talk page of the Climate Change arbitration proposed decision you wrote some advice about editing BLPs. It was well received and today I noticed that Shell Kinney also referred to it in one of her votes. It impressed me too and so I've pasted a copy of your words (with my added paragraph breaks for readability) on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, in the hope that it might be useful in clarifying the wording of that policy. --TS 16:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think an underlying issue is that in the case of living persons we are legally obligated to not slander, while the behaviors you list (finding and inserting out of context snippets about people we despise, creating content misrepresenting the person, etc.) are perfectly acceptable if the person is dead. Ultimately what is required is more unified guidelines and policy toward the biographies of individuals, recognizing BLP as a subset, not as a separate set, of articles. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 17:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head
In your latest edit on the climate change arbitration proposed decision you referred to the lack of admins as a key problem. That is exactly the case. While the probation did draw in some admins who had not formerly been engaged, I think it failed to bring enough in to make a difference, and those few who did come in were too easily drawn into a culture of administrative powerlessness because of the emphasis on restraining all administrative action prior to discussion and consensus to act--the very opposite of what is required. Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

New username
Hi, I'm writing to inform you that I'm going to make a fresh start contributing WP under a new username from now. I'm informing you about this as per here to avoid any deceptive or accusations of ock puppetry. By the way, should I use any template on my current account or should I redirect it to new username? Thank you. --Saki talk 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this section (which I seem to have missed earlier). I'm really too busy to deal with this now, so if you could ask another arbitrator, or e-mail the arbitration mailing list instead, that would be better. I'll leave a note on your talk page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Further to, above, and Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons, there is currently a proposal to add a sentence to WP:BLP at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. Please have a look and let us know if you think this would help, or if you have a better idea. -- JN 466  14:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know
It got archived pretty quickly, but I want to make sure that you see this:. Good work! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review proposed finding
Please review this alternate proposed FoF re: WMC on the CC page:   Thanks  Minor4th  19:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated links proposal
This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price talk 10:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't really have time to look right now, but thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)