User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 31

Confirmation
Hello! Do you mind confirming to the editors involved in this arbitration (Fell Gleaming section) that I revealed my former user name to you, and that I am not a sockpuppet of User:FellGleaming? My former name (which is now retired per WP:CLEANSTART) was User:Gniniv. Thank you for the help...-- Novus Orator 02:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've searched my e-mail and can't find anything. Was there an earlier note about this on-wiki somewhere? Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This was purely on-wiki...If you could just write a note in the ANI section above that I revealed my User name to you (as a arbcom member) that would help...-- Novus Orator 06:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I presumed the point of you coming to my talk page was to point out an earlier point where you revealed this previous user name to me (something that seems never to have happened, and which is confusing me greatly - I would have passed it on to ArbCom anyway for the archives as a record of the request, and I can't find any record of any such request before the post you made above). I think that what you are asking is for me to confirm that you posted to my talk page on 1 October 2010, which makes little sense as you can quote the diff yourself and because it post-dates the ANI thread (not arbitration thread) that you pointed me at. Indeed, if you are referring to any on-wiki diff, you can quote that yourself - you don't need me to confirm anything. I've been searching on-wiki as well for pages where we might have interacted, and I can't find anything. I'm afraid I really can't help you here unless you make it clearer what you are asking. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for all the trouble. I think everything is taken care of, so I don't need you to do anything. Thanks for being willing to help (even though I didn't really know what I was asking for)...-- Novus Orator 03:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to Terra Novus's page to follow up and found this exchange. Terra Novus is a user who has returned with a new name under a "clean start". Several editors, including myself, have expressed concerns about his editing, including his activity in contentious issues. Clean start are not intended to avoid scrutiny, so if the user has edited these topics before that there may be a problem. The request on ANI was for Terra Novus to reveal his prior username to an ArbCom or CU so that that functionary could ensure that best practices are being followed and that the guidelines at "Clean start" have been followed.    Will Beback    talk    09:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Struck
I've taken you at your word and struck my comment, ignoring AGK's ban.

I'd appreciate a chance to respond to your snarking and casting asprtions too - it seems rather cowardly of you to do that in a forum where you know I can't answer you.

William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to respond here. FWIW, you struck the wrong part. I was referring to the initial post you made that was casting aspersions on Rlevse and Cla68. Unless you meant something else by "worth noting"? Carcharoth (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm baffled. The bit AGK banned me for was the response to TGL - no? Are you saying that I *didn't* have your permission to strike that? If so, AGK is obliged to block me - you might want to let him know. How was I supposed to know which bit you were referring to? (I took your "started this section" comment to mean the response to TGL).
 * No, I won't respond here. You have, cowardly, attacked me in a venue that I can't respond in. Responding *here* is pointless, as others won't see it. And now of course it is too late because the lightening-fast collapses that mark the desperate attempt to close down discussion on this case have struck again. Pah William M. Connolley (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the majority of WMC's editing in this topic area was in the science articles
Err yes. That the FoF is wrong hasn't stopped any of the other arbs voting for it. I didn't bother protest before because I assumed that this carelessness was to be expected. Now you've noticed, can you get it fixed? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this request to get the findings as correct as reasonably possible in this very complex case. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked for more details on this finding. Carcharoth (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I remind you of this, and the section on edit warring, below. I hope it is obvious that I disagree with much else that you have said, but am not bothering to raise tthat unless the more obvious problems can be corrected William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Separate question about the Scibaby finding

 * Separate heading - Tony can you please not change subject as abruptly as that? Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

While on this subject, I think more clarity needs to be brought to the Scibaby finding which currently seems to be saying against all available evidence that at least 20% and as many as 40% of suspected socks are subsequently found to be unconnected. This gross mischaracterization of the accurate and useful work of the checkusers, clerks and reporting editors is likely to have adverse consequences after the case closes. Just because some editors have repeated a claim many times, does not make it true. See the discussion on this topic on the talk page of the proposed decision (Scibaby is in the section heading). Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This percentage was from the AUSC report that ArbCom requested in this area. SirFozzie (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, won't do. As has been pointed out on the t:PD page, and never answered: if there are so many false positives, where are all the unblocked editors and accounts? Do please name some, now you're here, or admit that you know of none William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been pointed out before, and will again, that the AUSC report dealt with range blocks not sock blocks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The finding specifically refers to sock identifications. I think it could be made more clear if the problem is people putting in bad rangeblocks. If they don't know the main problem is with blocking admins misusing rangeblocks, how are they going to fix it? If the people reporting possible socks are falsely accused by arbcom of misidentifying socks, how does that help?

Just so you know, the people reporting suspected socks (usually with uncanny accuracy) are not the people blocking. --TS 00:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ArbCom's response to the AUSC report, which was never made public (though it is widely leaked) is located at . It did not deal with anything other than Raul's rangeblocks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Raul? You mean Raul654? The last rangeblock performed by that admin was in July, 2009, when he blocked the range 84.134.152.0/24 with the summary "Range used by Lir."  He also did some "range used by Scibaby" rangeblocks in the same month, over a year ago. What has that got to do with the handling of ongoing sock puppetry in climate change? I hope I don't have to explain who Lir is. --TS 00:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. That is the AUSC report being refrenced, and the rangeblocks on which the math is being done. Hipocrite (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the Committee really should draw a distinction between what might have happened before Raul654 resigned his checkuser role and what has happened since. If they don't the result is to slur innocent checkusers and admins (who actually do an astoundingly good job) with the faults of a state of affairs that is long gone. --TS 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Climate Change related articles
Err, and again, on the off chance that you care about reality: are you aware that this FoF is false, which is why NYB has held back? Diffs on his talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I don't assiduously read the talk page of other arbitrators. There would have been more chance of me finding the discussion if it was mentioned on the PD talk page. But thanks for drawing my attention to this, I will have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The section is William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually this may well be irrelevant: see User_talk:Newyorkbrad William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Question from Hipocrite on CC case
I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will take a look over the next hour or so while dealing with other stuff to do with this case. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed
Carcharoth, I realise that the CC case is stressful for arbitrators, but I still feel the need to register my disappointment with your comments about me on the PD talk page. Firstly, your message felt to me like you are basically saying I should get lost and leave wikipedia. I am hurt that you have such a negative view of me, and also that you choose not to consider my ArbCom-related comments as critique, not to mention my other contributions to the encyclopedia. Secondly, you appear to have misunderstood my comment - the Cla / Rlevse thread was started raising the issue of arbitrator impropriety, and I noted what I consider a more serious example of impropriety during the case, ArbCom promoting an editor under investigation during a case. It was more a comment on ArbCom than on Lar or LHvU, and was on topic. I am not in the habit of changing the subjects of threads, no matter what you might believe; I would not add a comment I did not consider as being relevant to the ongoing discussion.

On Hoffman, I am surprised to learn you have change your view so substantially. After all, you praised my comments during the case. If you think the arbitrator actions during that case were acceptable - like an arbitrator declining to recuse while playing prosecutor and making unacceptable case-page comments, or an arbitrator recusing but still replying to confidential case-related email, or an arbitrator posting sanctions without the evidence being presented - then the need for a code of ethics for arbitrators is even more urgent. I suppose I can only take some comfort that a majority of ArbCom was sufficiently concerned about the events of Hoffman to declare it "fundamentally flawed" and to issue an apology. I think those actions were necessary (albeit overdue); apparently you strongly disagree with me.

On the WP:RANDY issue, we both know that the arbitrator involved sought assistance from another editor, who helped to get the original oversight done. We also know that that arbitrator voted for that other editor to be appointed to AUSC. You may believe that such actions raised no conflict of action issues, and that it does not "appear to conflict with their trusted roles" (to quote the draft ArbCom policy). I disagree, and I am actually more disturbed that no arbitrator raised the issue publicly.

As for you putting together the comments on the recent appointments, my general comments (which were ignored) were just as relevant after the list was published as before it. I took the view that ArbCom were going to go ahead with the appointments no matter what was said, so I saved my time. Maybe there was lengthy discussion off-wiki - I can't know - but what I do know is that no indication of any shift in position as a consequence of comments was visible on-wiki.

Carcharoth, there is a difference between people who only criticise (or worse yet, abuse) and those who critique. Perhaps you didn't notice that my comments at the race and intelligence case were far more critical of the case participants than they were of ArbCom; my only major criticism of ArbCom in that case was that the initial PD draft was too close to a content decision, something about which most arbitrators seemed to agree. On Climate Change, while I think that the scorched earth approach that seems to be prevailiing is extreme, I can understand the reasoning and have not criticised the approach. I am critical of the approach to Lar because I think his actions have made him involved, and I think ArbCom should be resolving that not editing an area does not guarantee being uninvolved. If ArbCom want to emphasise that his intentions were good and noble, then fine, but leaving a hole in uninvolved benefits none of us.

Anyway, it is a shame you don't see me as someone with good intentions who wants to see decisions improved. I am not ArbCom's enemy. EdChem (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for the reply. When the current case is out of the way, I will be happy to discuss this at length, noting here that in both cases there were reasons why I felt your critiques missed the points. It is not so much the initial critiques, as I think your critiques are excellent in principle, but more the returning to previous critiques as part of a 'body' of ArbCom concerns without recognising that at some point things need to move on. Relitigation of previous cases is a big problem, especially as the volume of previous cases grows. Some ArbCom decisions are less than optimal, but sometimes people have to accept that, make a statement somewhere for the record, and then move on, rather than returning to past decisions in a persistent attempt to get things changed. There are some old ArbCom decisions that I've disagreed with, but unless the old decision is actively being cited and causing current problems, there is too much to try and 'correct', even if there was something to correct, which I don't accept is the case in the examples I pointed out. And that was a bit longer than I intended. I'll try and return to this after the weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Right
You are so right I unfortunately got my fingers burnt trying to deal with admins who didn't have this sort of clue. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh an LessHeard vanU has been very consistent in his defence of Lar, generally only popping up when he feels Lar is criticised (by his own admissions) and also closely conversing with Lar off wiki. Whilst Lar criticises others for being cabals etc. he supports a group of loyal followers who back him up at every turn. Still he has used this support to keep commenting as uninvolved far beyond the stage any other admin could even contemplate getting away with it. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you get a chance....
You can see if there is anything missing/unbalanced/under or overcovered comprehensivenesswise on chess, which is at Featured article review/Chess/archive3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I may not have time before Sunday, but thanks for pointing it out. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it'll still be there after the weekend. YM will be happy to se some more input on any FAR. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that i might make you rethink...
This. Now don't get me wrong - i'm not trying to get you to withdraw your signature - but rather that you give me a chance to explain that my standards do not differ between articles. I've really tried to "live" by standards, so that one hurts. :) [i'm btw in discussion about a voluntary restriction here, which i'll do no matter what - since the appearance of differing standards, is significant enough for me to retract]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The diffs I found inconsistent were this one and this one. I'll check back here and at Risker's talk page and see how things go. For the record, I may not support remedies on everyone with findings of fact about them. For some, the FoFs will be sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - those are the ones that i figure was most different. The first one was a blog talking about a twitter message that Gore was supposed to have sent. The twitter message might have been a reliable source to the information - but a blog, with no relation to Gore, claiming that such a message existed ... shouldn't be. As i said there a statement "X was in Y at when Z" is a direct statement about a person (X) - thus BLP. What if X wasn't there? The second one was purely discussion, where i did state that weight (relevance) was an issue, and wasn't arguing for inclusion. But with regards to the BLP part: if you watch the critique, then you will find Abrahams was very careful not to do ad hominems - but instead address the slides that Monckton presented. Ie. Abrahams criticized the claims(science arguments), on which he has expertise, not the person.
 * Regarding the last sentence: I'm going to voluntary (with or without Arbcom's interference) stay away from BLP for a significant period (not less than 6 months), no matter what. As said, if uninvolved commentators have that diverse opinions on this issue, then i'm going to take the consequence. I just don't like to be on record for doing something, which i've been trying very careful not to. Unfortunately we've all been involved in edit-wars, so that part is correct, although i'd like to mention that i've taken voluntary consequences already (1RR, and no participation while the case is running), and i truly hope and pray that the new sanction regime will be an improvement. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nb: you are welcome to draft a voluntary restriction as well - i'm not partial about who does it, i just don't feel that i'm the correct one to draw it up :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge
Hi. Because you are a member of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to make you aware of the following post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've commented on this here.  Roger Davies  talk 07:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on voluntary proposal
Found here - i was trying to address the issues that have been raised. I'd like to get some comments on it - so that it can be submitted? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

incivility and battleground
Carcharoth, you recently voted on a case finding that called me uncivil. There are only about 12 diffs total, and 7 of the first 8 diffs were me simply warning admins who had acted inappropriately. How is that uncivil? If you examine those diffs, I focused on their actions and expressed my opinion that they should withdraw. Isn't that the first step of dispute resolution? I was fully prepared to escalate if they ignored my warnings, but warning the editor directly is the first option.

What should I have done? These were direct requests on these editors' talk pages. If I had gone directly to RFC or AN/I, I would have been told to try to handle it directly first. And my concerns were certainly warranted -- please see this section which shows the source of my concern about 2/0. I could present similar evidence on the other admins I warned.

My point is this: if an editor's actions are problematic, an admin warns them before escalating to blocks. But when an admin's actions are problematic, do we not also take the same approach: warn, then escalate? It seems I am being sanctioned for those warnings. The basic problem here, Carcharoth, is that one long term editor involved in this topic area had a lot of admins defending him even for acts that would have gotten others sanctioned. Those diffs are my response to that long-standing problem, which the committee seems to have acknowledged in the findings. So, if the committee agrees that this editor was disruptive, and if these admins were defending that disruption, then why am I being sanctioned for questioning those admins?

By the way, I have never been opposed to the SirFozzie "ban everyone" approach. I had no problem getting caught in that net. But as it stands, I am being removed while at least 10 other problematic editors are not mentioned in findings -- all of whom acted no better than I ever did. For example, I am being sanctioned for questioning admins directly; there are at least 3 editors who were highly critical of Lar, sometimes to the point of mocking, yet are not reflected in these findings. Again, see the thread on Shell's page for details. ATren (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have posted an extended response in this section, detailing the context of my warnings. Please explain to me why my warnings directed at these admins were out-of-line. Thank you. ATren (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded my evidence in that section. I believe my complaints against at least 3 admins (representing 5 diffs in my finding -- nearly half) had merit. And for the most part, I presented those concerns in a civil, impersonal tone. Given the evidence I've presented there, which establish the context of my complaints, I would like to know why my complaints were unwarranted. Please read and respond there. Thanks. ATren (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth: I've substantially responded on my talk page. It might be better to respond there, if you are minded to respond, to keep this somewhat centralised.  Roger Davies  talk 05:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppetry in climate change topic area
I suggest that if the wording of the remedy is to be changed, now would be a good time. Please see this comment by an administrator who works mainly outside the topic. --TS 21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Caveat
Admins stepping up to the plate may not happen as long as admins already on the scene continue to engage in battlefield behavior. That needs to be nipped in the bud, and I don't see more than a halfhearted effort in the decision. We cannot have an "uninvolved" admin pledging to level the playing field by targeting one side of the debate for sanctions while attempting to shield the other side. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda worried about this too. I'm disengaging from the arbitration now because, although I put it badly in a comment I've since removed, there is a lot of what looks like deliberate provocation going on in the thread started by Cla68 and there are worrying signs elsewhere that some editors may be preparing to game their R3 exclusions.


 * To respond now would be premature, but as I am reconsidering a return to article editing in this fascinating topic should it ever become stable again I am worried for the implications going forward. A completely clean break with the past seems unlikely unless those now engaged in noisemaking and stirring on that page can be persuaded to drop the stick and find another topic. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Although the remedy "Lar is an uninvolved admin but advised" looks likely to fail at this point (but that could change, who knows), I do plan to (as Carcharoth suggests) take the advice given on board, and step aside to let other admins try to resolve this matter. I am dubious whether this will work out well, since the decision fails to meaningfully acknowledge or tackle the factionalism and skewed battlefield, and leaves a lot of the worst participants unmentioned, much less advised, but I am going to give it a rest and see what happens. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what (or who) Jehochman and TS are referring to, but I do have a concern about the wording of the definition of 2.1, "uninvolved administrators." I think that it needs to be broadened to avoid problems in the future. See . ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I could have made my meaning more clear. I'm not concerned that Lar for instance may use his tools inapprophately. I'm concerned that he and other editors who have been asked or ordered to disengage seem to be showing an unwillingness to do so even at this late stage.

I unwatched the proposed decision page and one or two user talk pages because the activities there are of the kind that led me to take the decision to radically scale back my article editing in the topic and to avoid the dysfunctional probation enforcement page and the early stages of arbitration.

There is an unhealthy obsession with game playing and point scoring. This just has to end. It cannot be acceptable for the parties to behave as if the arbitration had never happened. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The case isn't over, Tony. There are still proposals being made. Asking someone to not participate in the case isn't reasonable if they are possibly going to be impacted by it. Wait till the case is put to bed and if you still see worrisome behavior, speak out then. Make sure you're speaking out about all the problems you see and not just those on one side though. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That last bit is totally uncalled-for. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary it's very good advice to everyone involved... speak out about all problems you see and not just those on one side. Is there some reason you disagree? ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd go further: speak most loudly about the problems of those editors who tend to agree with your editorial views. Such comments carry greater weight. Jehochman Talk 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, it's too early to propose action, but the warlike manner in which certain parties (who do not all identify with any one "side") have chosen to run out the clock goes against the spirit of the arbitration.

If all this back-biting shudders to a graceless but final stop on the stroke of the appointed hour, I will be relieved and amazed, but for now the damage to our prospects of building a collegial editing environment for the coverage of this important field of science is ongoing. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this kind of battlefield behavior does not bode well for the future. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not risk importing such disputes here. Enough, I think, to say that it would be better if every participant in that late brawl were to step back and walk away. Just disengage and let the new regime get off to a clean start. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the example is pertinent. There is a battlefield conduct finding against Lar but no appropriate remedy. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the case is over and post mortems of this kind are not helpful. Lar has already addressed this and stated his intention to disengage. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * TS, you and Jehochman raised the issue originally, and I believe you raised the issue of Lar's behavior as well. This is not a postmortem as the case has not closed. Behavior in the arbitration pages is specifically mentioned in the decision. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lar has expressed his intention here in this discussion, it isn't an issue. He is entitled to have us read his statements in the light of that assurance. He is not the only player in that brawl and probably not the worst. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

These are delicate matters to which I am temperamentally ill-suited. I'm unwatching this page too. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar has agreed to remove himself from acting as an administrator. He has not agreed to remove himself from the CC articles, nor has he been asked to do so. Thus his comments in the PD page and elsewhere are pertinent. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree my comments are pertinent. So are yours and so are those of many others. I'm not sure where you were going with that. ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To respond to some of the points raised above, my reading of remedy 1.2 (the discretionary sanctions specific to this case) is that the wording of that remedy specifically covers admins named in the decision (one of whom is Lar). See what Inksplotch said here and what Risker said here. Thus talk of voluntarily stepping aside and taking the advice offered, while good in itself, really only applies outside the discretionary sanctions regime. But admins should be in no doubt that the primary focus of dispute resolution in this area once the case closes should involve discretionary sanctions, and that a clean start is needed here. Hopefully everyone still permitted to comment will be on their best behaviour going forward. Those not allowed to comment (those topic banned) would be best advised to work in other areas to demonstrate the collegial editing needed for any topic bans to be lifted as specified in the decision. Admins named in the decision who wanted to participate in arbitration enforcement and use the discretionary sanctions authorised here, would similarly need to appeal for an exception to be made in their case (it hasn't been specified, but demonstrating good admin work elsewhere would be a likely prerequisite for such an appeal to succeed, along with a case to be made for why, given the history here, they would be better suited than other admins to helping out in this area). Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope that's everyone else's reading too. A fresh approach by fresh folk is needed. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That resolves my concerns. Jehochman Talk 17:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you not respond to my request?
I requested you review evidence regarding my finding and comment. Did you review it? If not, why not? And if so, why didn't you comment? ATren (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you intend to respond to my repeated requests for clarification? Please indicate yes or no. Specifically, I would like to know why I was sanctioned for battlefield behavior while those who attacked Lar were given a pass? ATren (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryoung122 and Longevity myths
Hi. I'm one of a group of regulars at WP:FTN who are concerned about the Longevity myths article. I posted at WP:COIN about User:Ryoung122. I have become aware that his potential COI has been discussed before, and he was even indefinitely blocked. At one point you said that you would be able to work with him. We haven't had a great deal of (or any) uninvolved input at COIN. I thought at least you should be notified. Would you be able to have a word with him? Anything to break logjam and get more uninvolved, policy-aware people to look at the issues would be much appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your work
... in unblocking me. A question for you regarding the posts that got me blocked: Can you tell me what forum or page I might approach to see if an investigation can be done to find the perpetrator of RevolutionExpert and obscene rant/threat by 66.36.231.25? I have a strong suspicion who it might be. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat
Would it be acceptable to contact other people who have interacted with this user about the RfAr he has filed against me or would that be considered canvassing? I see that the admin GeorgeWilliamHerbert has already left a comment. Edward321 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand
The relevance of your comment here to my amendment request. Has there been anything unsatisfactory about my activity? Or are you saying that because some editors are behaving disruptively, the principle of collective guilt and community annoyance with the area applies to others, like me, as well? Or is there a principle that no matter how many editors were sanctioned in the case, only the first few will be given consideration, and requests by all others will be seen as excessive? Please note I am not asking about the other editors, I am asking the Committee to review my activity, and mine alone. Forgive my inquiring tone, but I do not understand what makes my request so difficult compared to the ones that were quite speedily approved in the past few months. Please note that as of now, over 7 months of my 12 months topic ban have passed. Has there been any indication I will not edit constructively in the topic area now? Has my activity on WT:POLAND allowed by the last amendment few months back raised any complains? PS. Regarding not having to do this again in 2011, see my thoughts here. If nothing changes, I fully expect that yes, you will have to do so (although, at the very least, I am pretty sure this time I will not be involved :>). PPS. I like your ideas here, I'd suggest you try to act on them (if you won't, who will?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat concerned as well. Let us say I return to Baltic/EE topics when my topic ban expires. If there is a so-called content dispute where I demonstrate someone is misrepresenting a source and that editor turns around and counters by leveling accusations of a personal attack (this is not conjecture, this has happened in the past), then I will be held as being disruptive by being involved? So far my attempts at moving on from past conflict have been met with stalking, block shopping, blatantly demonstrably false accusations of outing (which if true would have mandated my immediate and complete block ), and marked apathy. If there is a flurry of activity on the part of my detractors upon my topical return I am not accountable for any nonconstructive disruption on their part. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 16:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but asking individual arbitrators on their talk pages about matters related to arbitration is no longer a viable option, if it ever was. I am going to be ruthless about off-topic posts on this talk page and redirect all discussion to actual arbitration pages. Having discussions spread over the user talk pages of different arbitrators really does not help. Centralised discussion is what is needed, and I will aim to answer any brief questions posted there, but here is not the right venue. The correct process is as follows: post your concerns to the relavant arbitration page; ping me here if I don't respond; I should then answer there. But please don't post more than a notification here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Would that be Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests (for amendments) or the specific case talk page (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The former. If it has been archived, then the time spent on this page has been wasted. If it is still open, post there and ask me to reply there. The whole point is that user talk pages should be used for notification of discussions, not for discussions themselves, or for spreading a single discussion over several venues. Most serious discussions on Wikipedia (unless it is an interpersonal matter) should take place at article talk pages, or in the Wikipedia namespace (or its talk page), or the relevant places for public discussion. By this, I meant public where everyone can see the discussion. Not everyone follows or watches user talk pages, and one of the most annoying things about trying to follow discussions on a matter is when you come across a side-discussion on a user talk page that should really be more visible to everyone else, not just those who know to check user talk pages for such discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rogue administrators
I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to appeal from the account that was blocked, or use e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unanswered questions
Just a polite note that there are several unanswered questions from me on this talk page. Search for ATren to find the sections. I realize you have been mostly inactive but I would appreciate a response. ATren (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reminder, but I am unlikely to address issues relating to a closed case unless a formal appeal is submitted. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? The questions were asked during the case, and now you refuse to answer? ATren (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, really. There is a reason cases close. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You were aware of this evidence and these questions before it closed. But in any case your refusal to answer is noted. I honestly expected more from you Carcharoth, but I guess my mistake is continuing to believe that arbs actually care about getting it right. ATren (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, those questions were asked while the case was open. That you didn't respond at the time can hardly be used as an excuse in itself for ducking the issue later. --Michael C. Price talk 13:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, but I can say this is the wrong venue. I used to be fairly strict about parties to cases who came to my talk page. I would tell them to take their concerns to the case pages, or to the right arbitration pages, that user talk pages are not the right venue for this sort of thing. Quite why I let things get like this,I don't know. So please, take this to the correct venue. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Going to arbcom over this would be tiresome and buereaucratic; why not just explain your endorsement decision here? It would do a lot for lowering tensions and removing the sense of unfairness that exists. --Michael C. Price talk 12:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your service on ArbCom
Seeing that you've made your decision public to not run for re-election for a seat on ArbCom, , I want to thank you for your work on the Committee over the past few years. It is a tough job, and you have served the community well. A few more months and you'll be able to have a normal life again. :-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 09:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto what FloNight says. You did give up a lot to be an arbitrator.  Soon you'll be able to have the time to actually do some editing again.  Thanks from me too, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  09:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. - jc37 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the case was over?
Carcharoth, when I asked for clarification, you flatly refused to answer because the case was over. Now in the last few days, you have responded repeatedly to WMC issues which center around the same case. How does that mesh? Given that you are still actively involved in this case, please answer my good faith questions, which in all fairness were asked before the case closed. Thank you. ATren (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, would you please check out this diff and tell me why that editor is not being sanctioned for battleground behavior, as I was? ATren (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are post-case issues. You are trying to re-argue what was covered in the case itself. It was covered there, maybe not specifically addressed by me, but ArbCom as a whole voted on your sanctions after looking at the diffs provided. If you don't think we addressed any concerns you had, or that we failed to review your case properly, then the proper venue to appeal for an amendment or clarification is either Arbitration/Requests/Clarification or Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, depending on whether you want a clarification or an amendment. I've said the same to WMC, and I should really say the same to anyone who comes to my talk page. I agree that posts by an editor trying to warn off an admin from getting involved are not good, but again, my user talk page, indeed any user talk page is not the right venue. And those who are topic banned should not be getting involved - arguably, by pointing to that diff, you are involving yourself in process related to the topic area. The whole point of the topic bans was to clear the decks and see if things improved. That cannot happen if people continue to snipe from the sidelines. The only thing you should comment on is stuff related specifically to your sanctions - pointing to what others are or are not doing about others is distracting from where the focus should be - your conduct. My advice is to prepare an appeal focused soley on your conduct and not on what others are doing or have done. Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My questions were directed at you because you voted on the finding, and with very little comment as to what aspects of the diffs presented were considered violations. It is my impression, based on 4 years of experience here, that when you have a problem with an admin, you approach that admin first. That's what I did in these cases, and you voted to sanction me for it. I've asked repeatedly for arbs to comment on this apparent contradiction, and I've been stonewalled. Now you're doing the same.


 * If an admin warns an editor who seems to be making problematic decisions, does that admin have the right (in fact, duty) to warn that editor before taking further action? And isn't it the same for editors warning admins? Why are my warnings, which were presented civilly, cited as evidence of battleground behavior when admins and editors do this kind of thing all the time as the first step of DR? What if I had skipped the warnings and gone right to RFC, what would have happened? Well, of course, the first question would be "did you try to resolve it with the admin first?" These are questions that have never been answered.


 * Indeed, what could I have done in this situation when I saw evidence of mis-deeds? Immediately file an enforcement request or a RFC? Is that the way it works, Carcharoth, we are to immediately escalate to DR? Because that's the message this finding -- and your vote sends. If I was wrong to approach those admins first, then what was the correct course? Immediately to DR? How would I fill in the field on the RFC form that asks for evidence of prior attempts?


 * I am fully prepared to formally appeal my finding, except for one little detail: I still don't know what I did wrong. I've seen dozens of editors and admins do the exact same thing I've done here, and none of them received a sanction. I've seen editors openly mocking Lar over a long period of time when he participated in the CC enforcement board, and every one of you arbs ignored it even as you voted to sanction me for telling a few to take a step back after clear evidence of problematic actions. It doesn't mesh, and I still have not gotten a good answer from anyone.


 * So please, explain to me, what should I have done as a first step when I witnessed admin misconduct in the probation? ATren (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You should have engaged in discussion of their actions, not issued warnings. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's quite a fine line between acceptable behavior and an arbcom finding don't you think? And in any case, except for 2/0, I didn't really formally warn them. In Jeh's case, I politely informed him of my concerns and asked him to step back even as I acknowledged that the topic area was difficult to manage; in TOAT's case I only told him I found his actions "highly inappropriate"; I told FPAS to "back off", which was about the most aggressive thing I said, but FPAS himself was being particularly aggressive, implying that an editor had the intelligence of a ten-year-old. With 2/0 I was somewhat more verbose about my concerns, but in that case I was fully prepared to follow up with an RFC (I had the evidence all collected and if 2/0 had continued, I'd have filed -- but they didn't). In fact, you've seen the evidence I collected against 2/0, I submitted it in my defense and you were notified of it.


 * In fact, it was my fondness for 2/0 that caused me to continue asking them to step back instead of filing the formal RFC. I really didn't want to file a formal action against 2/0 because I thought he was acting in good faith, so when 2/0 didn't initially respond to my messages, I kept trying. And then, eventually, 2/0 did seem to address my concerns, so I dropped it. I didn't realize that all that time 2/0 was collecting diffs against me so he could ambush me at arbcom. Note that he never personally asked me to step back or protested my inquiries, and the first time I realized he had objected at all was when he presented that evidence at the case. Rest assured, if I had known that he was collecting these diffs to build a case against me, I would have filed the RFC immediately with no added courtesy or warning. Lesson learned.


 * In any case, I fail to comprehend where any of this rises to the level of an arbcom finding, especially when half a dozen editors were relentlessly hounding Lar, and most of them got no finding. Tell me Carcharoth, how are my words to these admins any worse than a group of editors mockingly using the term "milliLar" to refer to admin bias? Is snickering and mockery of an admin less of a battleground tactic than my comments, which were civilly presented and addressed the admin directly? Why was I singled out here even though I did less than others? ATren (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I've asked these questions to at least 3 arbs now, and not one of you has responded to my very specific specific questions. In particular, none of you seems to want to address why those editors who relentlessly mocked and baited Lar got off with nothing while I got sanctioned for simply confronting admins with concerns as the first step of DR. Given how active you've all remained on CC matters since the case ended, your refusal to answer this question is a clear indication that you simply do not have good answers, yet still refuse to admit you got it wrong. Shell, Roger, and you have all steadfastly refused to answer this (or other equally direct questions). Honestly Carcharoth, of all the arbs who voted on my finding, I expected you would be the one to admit your error. ATren (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! 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 03:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Since I see you're not running for re-election, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your service on the Committee. I think you've been a great asset to the Committee, and I've never regretted voting for you. In fact, I'd vote for you again if you were running, despite the fact that we tend to see things differently. But then, I knew that going in. :) Anyhow, since you're a lame duck, I figure I can say this without sounding like I'm trying to butter you up. :) Cheers, and take care. Enjoy some well-deserved downtime. MastCell Talk 05:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your email
I just noticed the email you sent me nearly two weeks ago. I'm sorry that I didn't saw it any earlier, and thanks for taking the time to extensively reply to my concerns and to explain your position at length. I'll let the RfC run its course, but if the final conclusion is that defaultsorts will be auto-added to all articles with multi-word titles, I'll not oppsoe it any longer. There are good arguments for this, but I do believe that the good arguments against it are too easily ignored by some people in the discussion. But tagging them all is certainly preferable over the haphazard way it happens now. And if the discussion also leads to the creation of a "change-defaultsort-after-move" bot, then it will have lead to some positive effects, even if they weren't the ones I set out to achieve :-)

As for biographical articles, I indeed agree that they should all have a defaultsort, even if the sort is identical to the page name, to prevent people adding an incorrect one from a Western naming bias. Exceptions can be made for single-name persons, but these are not so common after all... Fram (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me about the e-mail, as I'd forgotten about it! :-) I may try and reactivate my interest in biographical things in general over the next year, as I saw a comment that the Biography WikiProject is still a bit moribund. I have a feeling that with the right approach, that WikiProject could fulfil a role, albeit not a normal WikiProject role, but something sort of inbetween, like a conduit to other areas and an umbrella to bring together those with similar interests. But that will have to wait a bit, unless someone else gets there first. As you can tell, its the biographical stuff that interests me most, not the DEFAULTSORT stuff per se, but still, an interesting debate. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity again
Dear Carcharoth. I posted here a month ago, but I think at the time you were very busy with an arbitration. The issue remains. Some of us are desperate for uninvolved help with cleaning up all the articles relating to Longevity. I believe that you have in the past given advice to User:Ryoung122 who, prima facie, has a serious conflict of interest. I posted on WP:COIN to no avail, and now a post at WP:ANI also seems to be ignored. My last stop is ArbCom, I think, but surely something can be done before it gets that far. I came to the articles via WP:FTN. Thanks very much for any help/advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note, and apologies for not replying to the earlier message. I am familiar with Ryoung122's past editing, and I did comment on his indefinite block and engaged in correspondence with him back before I was an arbitrator, but though I have followed some of the recent events, I'm not really best-placed to help here. I would recuse if any case came before the committee, and I would still be reluctant to get involved even after my term ended or in the event of any case being requested and accepted. I hope things get sorted out, but I'm not going to be able to help here, I'm afraid. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Belatedly on my part this time, thanks for your reply. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The ideal
Without commenting on the particular case (as I'm not too familiar with it), I thought that your comment here was beautifully expressed, particularly the next-to-last sentence. Echoing the sentiments a few threads above... thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks to those who commented earlier (and apologies for seemingly ignoring those earlier thanks). Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Infallibility (moved over from WP:BN)
"the reason they have been banned or topic-banned is invariably because their contributions on-wiki to a particular area have become a net negative" - what I like here is the humbleness of this unqualified statement. It has something nicely Catholic about it. Does the infallibility only apply to unanimous ArbCom decisions, or does it devolve to individual Arbiters? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want ArbCom's opinions on something, ask the full committee, not individual arbitrators, and certainly not at this noticeboard or on individual talk pages (see Roger's comment below). Remember what I said about answers and questions being dependent on the venue? Anyway, we've troubled the bureaucrats long enough. I invited you and Hans earlier to continue this at my talk page if you want, so please feel free to do that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I possibly should have sprinkled some *sarcasm* tags through the text. What concerns me about your statement is that it presupposes that every ArbCom topic ban ever has correctly evaluated the value of the contributions of an editor. That is not only wrong, it's a form of hubris I find extremely worrying in someone whose job should be based on thoughtful reflection of not only others, but also his own and ArbCom's effects. Re-reading Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee might be a useful exercise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon my intrusion (and I'm probably opening up a can of worms here but...) What does a topic ban have to do with "correctly [evaluating] the value of the contributions of an editor"? Topic bans typically have to do with editor behavior, and have almost nothing to do with the actual content in question. - jc37 10:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How, if not by their contributions, to editors interact on Wikipedia? Maybe we have a different definition of "contribution" in mind - for me, any edit is "a contribution". But that misses the main point. No matter how it is measured, my concern is about the absolute statement of "invariably ... net negative". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was looking at your usage of contributions and reading that as content.
 * In carcaroth's statement, substitute the word "actions" for contributions, and perhaps that would be clearer? The word "contribution" tends to appear positive semantically, and in this case, I am presuming that he meant the word as neutral, and applying it to negative contributions.
 * All that aside, do you seriously feel than an editor topic banned due to being considered disruptive would be considered anything but a net negative to the topic? The concept seems kinda obvious to me. An editor is considered a net negative to a topic, ergo they are topic banned. And needing to topic ban an editor is territory WAY past WP:AGF-land. They have to have shown repeatedly that they are disruptive. Or are you saying that you see no repeated disruption in the CC discussions? (Without even talking about page reversion and other types of disruptive events/actions.) - jc37 11:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What I see is the difference between "an editor topic banned due to being considered disruptive" (presumably by some people, in a given context) and "is invariably because their contributions on-wiki to a particular area have become a net negative". The first is (with the implicit assumptions) a defensible opinion. The second is an arrogant assumption of infallibility. And this has nothing to do with any particular individual case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that (in general) the intent of the latter was the former.
 * Let me reframe based upon my presumption:
 * "... is invariably because their contributions on-wiki to a particular area have become consistantly disruptive, and therefore a net negative."
 * With that in mind, however, I'm not a fan of absolutes either. "invariably" could be changed to "typically", or "in most cases". But someone else might suggest that we're skirting things.
 * As I can only guess at his intent from context (same situation as you), I suppose at this point, I should wait for him to comment : ) - jc37 19:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose 'invariably' was a bit strong. I wasn't presupposing infallibility on the part of ArbCom, but speaking from experience that in nearly all cases, those topic-banned were handed such a remedy because a vote had been taken by ArbCom where arbitrators reviewed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the conduct was such that a topic ban was warranted. As I said, you might disagree with that, but you would then need to show by means of an appeal that the decision should be overturned, rather than continuing as before under the assumption that ArbCom must have got it wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Request on Longevity
You may wish to comment on this pending request for arbitration. TML (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comments are solicited at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop. JJB 20:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)