Delicious carbuncle

I have removed the external links from your post, and revdeleted all revisions that contained the links. Please don't restore them. I have also asked a question about this incident at User talk:Worm That Turned, and I thought it would be polite to let you know about it. ‑Scottywong| express _ 17:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Scotty. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

DC ... I actually agree with your comments at Jimbo's page, that we should ban certain users, but I'd tone it down. Bearian (talk)

That's probably wise advice. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not unexpected. Thanks for letting me know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

When you were "making room" on your talk page earlier today, was it because you were expecting to need that room for the predictable shitstorm that would be created by your post on Jimbo's talk page? Just curious.   ‑Scottywong| yak _ 23:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Who can predict the future? Certainly not me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you reread WP:EW if you seriously believe you were not edit warring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You've been an admin since June. Perhaps you should sit back and let someone else worry about this. Just a suggestion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you are interesting in the George Maharis article, join in discussion on re-adding "arrest" content. --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am very interesting. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The consensus in talk page decided to have the arrest re-added. --George Ho (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This incident you did has been reported to WP:ANI. Comment there. --George Ho (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't explain at the risk of 1000 arbitration cases, but hopefully you know what I'm talking about. Thank you. Ryan Vesey 01:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Someone had to do it. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Were you aware before your recent posts of this section of Wikipedia:Child protection:

Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not only aware of it, but agree with it entirely. When ArbCom shirks their responsibility for upholding that policy, however, I don't compelled to observe it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

DC, where in that policy does it say: "Find compelling evidence anywhere on the Internet that someone may be a pedo and you can get them blocked on Wikipedia"? What you have been doing does not strike me as upholding the purpose of the policy, but trying to use it to act out your own personal feelings about who should be allowed to participate. That sort of mentality just encourages turning every contentious debate into a witch hunt and we don't need that shit (we already have it really, but we certainly don't need to encourage it).--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you should direct your ire towards ArbCom and the WMF. I would prefer that it could all of been handled quietly and privately, but that wasn't an option. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

What you mean is that you wish they would just block who you want blocked so you wouldn't "have" to violate the rules to whip up a public frenzy against someone to get your way. That isn't really the same as not having an option. Simple question: why is it so important to get the person blocked?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did you think to contact privately any of the admins who have discussed blocking such accounts before?

Can you explain your intermediate steps between apparent at first ignored private notifications and the big spectacle?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

He says he contacted ArbCom, who apparently are in the middle of a dispute with WMF over who is best suited to deal with such issues. If ArbCom aren't, and the WMF decide to hide behind the sofa and pretend not to be in, why should some lowly other admin take on the responsibility? John lilburne (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

John lilburne has it right. It is not about this particular case or any particular case - this is one of ArbCom's responsibilities and I expect ArbCom to carry it out. I can certainly understand why the issue makes them uncomfortable, but, as individuals, they knew about it when they stood for election to ArbCom. Georgewilliamherbert, welcome to the show, but you arrived rather late - perhaps someone will fill you in on what you've missed over the past months. Perhaps ArbCom will be more communicative with you than they are with me? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I may be missing something, but I think you misread the policy.

Any admin can and should block upon becoming aware, and then privately notify Arbcom for any appeals that may be made. Arbcom and the WMF arguing about whatever should only be affecting unblock appeals.

Am I understanding you correctly that you only went straight to Arbcom?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You need to read the policy again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I helped write the policy, and have implemented it on several occasions. "When an editor is blocked for such conduct, the blocking administrator is instructed to use neutral block summaries, and disable the editor's ability to edit their talk page as well as their access to the on-site user email interface. Blocking administrators should inform the blocked editor that any appeals or further discussion may be addressed only to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org, and then notify the Committee immediately."

Yes, that's prefaced by: "Reports of editors engaging in such conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussion, requests for comment or consensus. ". That's intended to avoid someone bouncing a request out on a noticeboard or the like. But it's been a semi-regular occurrence that someone pointed it out privately to an admin, the admin blocked and notified Arbcom.

It's been a couple or three years since the last case I took action on but if you'd showed me that info privately I would have acted here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The policy states in two places that reports of such cases should be directed to ArbCom. Admins can act and inform ArbCom, but there is no indication in the policy that anyone outside of ArbCom should be the first point of reporting. Blocks under this policy are appealed to ArbCom. That you helped write the policy notwithstanding, this policy is ArbCom's responsibility. It is good to know that you would have blocked this user, but that does nothing to alleviate my concerns that the body to whom editors are directed to report these cases chose not to act in this case (and in the earlier cases I have documented). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am coming to see from this discussion and the various discussions on ANI that your interpretation and understanding seems fairly common if not the usual one. Which would seem to create a problem if most everyone reads it that way and messages only into the Arbcom main mailing list with significant delay.

I am leaning towards a policy and process change being necessary for this. But I'm not sure which one. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Delay is not the issue. Inaction is the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom members have since stated that they were looking at it (I believe, I don't have diffs). Had they sent you an email telling you they were looking into it? If not, that might be the change that is needed. Ryan Vesey 20:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Specific to the "inaction is the issue" - While I sympathize with much of this, THIS part is not your call.

If you're an admin, it is - you're empowered by the policy to (privately in the non-public sense) assess and investigate the situation, if you feel there's a policy violation then block and report to Arbcom based on your judgement. Or you can punt to Arbcom with just a report.

If you're Arbcom, you're empowered to (again, privately in the non-public sense) investigate and assess and if necessary block, based on their evidence and discussions.

The policy is in place for a reason - in cases of false or mistaken accusations, there is essentially no possible recourse from the public accusations.

If I had looked at this and come to the conclusion that you were wrong - i.e., this person was in no way credibly holding or advocating those views - I would indef block you myself for having done that much damage to their reputation. It would likely be reduced on appeal, but I doubt the block would have been controversial.

Delay is clearly an issue and lack of communications is a issue. But in saying "inaction is the issue" you're essentially acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Which normal users are not authorized to do in these cases.

A case can be made that you should be indef blocked anyways, on the grounds that even if in this case you're evidently right about them (IMHO), we should not be selective about enforcing the clear policy not to discuss these on-wiki, because it sets up a precedent that will utterly destroy someone's innocent life sooner or later.

Under the circumstances, with an evidently guilty party, a community discussion underway and Arbcom highly aware and Jimmy highly aware, I leave it to the community processes et al.

Somewhere in here, attempting to forcibly assert the conclusion to the investigation crosses over into disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. And, again, if this guy wasn't self-evidently guilty, your damage to his reputation would be grossly inappropriate.

Such as, say (as a hypothetical only), there might be two Norwegians of the same or similar names, one of whom is not a child sexual predator but thinks the laws against them are silly, and the other one who is a semi-out actual child abuser. Accusing the first of being the second and being an abuser would be a permanent stain on his reputation.

Again, I don't think that's what happened here, that's just a hypothetical. But it's the sort of thing that the investigation needs to make an effort to get right, and until it's resolved the investigation should for good reasons be private.

Or, in another common case on-wiki, someone who stridently believes a reasonable age of consent should be 16 (which it is, legally, in 30 US states, at least according to our article) or 15 (which it is, legally, in much of Europe, again based on our articles) or 14 (which it is, legally, in much of the rest of Europe), or even 13 (Spain, some other countries around the world) is taken to be a child abuser by someone, who reports them for CP violation, when they in fact are just supporting or agreeing with a position supported by laws in a number of countries and US states.

There are a range of nuanced views in here, some of which are mainstream some of which are fringe some of which are actual advocacy of adult-child sex. Only the latter are actually CP violations and blockable.

It takes a lot of review and due dilligence.

I think you're correct on this case, but would not act without a long review (days of effort).

Arbcom is predictably more deliberative than that. For good reason. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. I am not qualified to decide who should be banned under this policy. Anyone who has passed an RfA and become an admin is qualified to make that judgment, subject to review by ArbCom, who are just editors elected by the community and are therefore the most qualified to make these determinations. Yes, I know, you didn't say "qualified" you said "empowered", but I think you get the point. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are saying and agree with much of it. Incidentally, I think your choice of "someone who stridently believes a reasonable age of consent should be 16" is a terrible example. For one thing, I don't think that they would be likely to be accused of advocacy of pedophilia, and, for another, being "strident" about anything implies advocacy, which is a problem in itself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The question of qualification has never been properly answered. Most editors and admins personally are uncomfortable enough with the issue to shy away from it.

Empowered was used for a reason. Whether the power is then not used, used appropriately and with good judgement, or abused is a separate issue. The policy was specific in not empowering everyone on this matter, due to the sensitivity and impact of possible false accusations.

I have not seen a gross mistake made by an admin doing this, and I presume Arbcom would privately counsel, warn, or sanction someone who abused it. But I don't know if that's happened.

We both agree that there exists a problem and it has to be dealt with somewhere, by someone. Arbcom's position of old was that they asserted authority over appeals and that admins could act, and the topic was touchy enough that public discussion of incidents was prohibited; that was codified by the policy, which among other things made it enforceable.

My point is, we need to be clear on the difference between "someone seems to have made the correct ID here" and "we want large public debates and accusations by anyone in the future". If what you just did becomes the norm for behavior, someone WILL ge falsely or mistakenly accused, and the usual lynch mob behavior against accused pedophiles will do irreperable damage to reputations. It will not matter that your ID will have been correct; it will have undermined policy and allowed that future miscarriage of justice and fairness to happen by creating an environment tolerant of those types of discussions and acusations being made fully public.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I should have said this as well - I don't feel you're not qualified. I don't know if you are or not; I don't know your background, etc. On the specifics in this case, on brief to moderate examination, you seem to have found evidence and concluded in a reasonable manner. I think the policy and community limiting empowerment to act on findings is the point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Off the top of my head I can think of one case where an editor was wrongfully blocked for suspicion of pedophilia advocacy. I can also think of one case where an editor protested quite strongly about their block with the defence that they were a legitimate author and "researcher" (although I think that block was more than justified). I am sure that mistakes have been and will be made in both directions. Just to be completely clear, I am not advocating that discussions of this sort be held in public or that these types of matters would benefit from community input. On the contrary, I fully support the part of the policy that states editors will be blocked for doing what I did. This doesn't mean that I think I should be exempt from such blocks, just that I am willing to be blocked if that's what it takes to draw attention to the situation. ArbCom did not act on any of the three cases I documented. Two of those editors are now blocked. If you haven't read the blog posts yet, read at least the first two (both are about the same user) and ask yourself what ArbCom should have done in that case. I think you will agree that they had ample time for due diligence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I read the latest blog post and researched some; I am aware of but have not read the earlier ones and not researched them yet. As I said, admins dealing with these things are days of work... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

My sincere apology for misreading the situation at Jimbo's talk page and having it colour my understanding of yourself since, and as such besmirching your name at ANI. It is no excuse for my inaccurate statement, but I hope you will recognise my state of mind at the time at the time I first read the note (the "further explanation" is linked there, I believe, if you've forgotten). That being said, I don't disagree with your goals, especially as related to child protection; it's just the means with which you and the community over there attempt to reach them violate my vision of civil interaction. I am fairly sure that, had we met under more favourable circumstances, I would have had a much different first impression of you.

TL;DR version: I've been an ass, sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted, but you should realize that there is a wide range of opinions "over there" at Wikipediocracy, even on this particular issue. Although I wrote those blog posts and they published them, I don't speak for Wikipediocracy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you for the clarification. I must admit my experience has been... less than impressive. I've already told you about my first experience with the forums at my talk page, although those I've checked recently have been much better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are a couple of points in all that has been written that deserve a response now rather than later, mainly to correct some misunderstandings on several sides. I may write more tomorrow when I have more time (having time and opportunity to respond in detail at the right point, and not hours later, is something that would also have helped here). The main point I want bring up here is one you mention here: "ArbCom and I have a relationship going back years. At times it has been more productive than it is at present, but I believe there is enough of an institutional memory in that group that Arbs know what to expect when they see a report from me."

What you may not be fully aware of is how fragmented this institutional memory can be. Some arbs are new, only elected this year or last year, some have been around for years, one (me) was around in 2009 and 2010, but was not around in 2011 and 2012. Now, after reading what you said above, I looked up the e-mails I received from you (all from the mailing list), and I see three e-mail threads before my current 2-year term, one from August 2010 and one from December 2010. If you have been active in sending in e-mail reports in 2011 and 2012, it is not something I would have been aware of, and not something other arbs would necessarily have flagged up to the incoming arbs this year. What I do notice, on reviewing the three opening e-mails I have from you since my current term started, is that you adopt a tone of familiarity verging on contempt, especially in the way you sign off the e-mails (I would quote those sign-offs directly, but you might object). That certainly put me 'on edge' with regards to you, and I suspect other arbs as well. This may be one reason why arbs have been, or are starting to, 'tune out' your e-mails.

The other thing that likely happened here is that some arbs really were not around over the Easter weekend, or were slow to respond. I may have been the first to read your e-mail when it came in and seriously look at it, and I should have responded to you then; for failing to do that I apologise. Your e-mail shows up at Fri, Mar 29, 2013 (10:58 PM) in my records (timings should be UTC, possibly BST). My response (to the mailing list) was Sat, Mar 30, 2013 (12:33 PM), mainly reporting that I had done a search within my records on the username (though this would not have picked up anything reported in 2011 or 2012) and pointing out some earlier discussion from 2009, and pointing people at the diff from 2007 (which has since been pointed out elsewhere). The details are broadly what I stated in my post to ANI last night. I then left the matter and waited for a response from my colleagues (it is easy to do this when there are lots of other things competing for attention, and that is always the case with arbitration). This weekend was unusual in that it was noticeable that not many arbs were around (I can back that up with details if needed). Nothing was said on the matter between my mailing list post on the Saturday and a response on Tue, Apr 2, 2013 (9:38 AM) that stated that you had turned up on Jimbo's talk page and were very unhappy about this.

Of course this could have been handled better, but I hope the above helps explain some of the background. For my part if you had sent a second e-mail asking what was going on, I would have replied. You may still be unhappy with how this was handled, but can I ask that if you make reports like this in future, and get no response, that you please e-mail at least one more time asking for at least an acknowledgement that the e-mail has been received. If I am around, I will send such acknowledgements in future, though I can't promise instant action - as Georgewilliamherbert says above (and a lot of what he says makes sense), "Arbcom is predictably more deliberative than that. For good reason.". Anyway, there are some other points I want to raise (I think this comment has the timings wrong), but that is enough for now. I'll aim to follow up tonight, and am willing to discuss this as much or as little as you want. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is why the WMF needs a dedicated point of contact for such issues. Somewhere where the person in receipt of such reports isn't influenced by the style of the report, or past antagonisms with the reporter, where there is institutional memory that isn't dependent on what a group of people may or may not have happened to have kept in emails, where procedural policies are enforced in the same way from case to case. It shouldn't be left to a group of elected volunteers to determine whether someone's past activity is contrary to child protection policy or not, otherwise you are being asked to determine what level of past paedophilia advocacy or activity is acceptable or not. I think that most people would agree that shouldn't be something that a group of volunteers deliberate on, it should be part of the official responsibility of the site's management. John lilburne (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a sound idea, although keeping ArbCom in the loop for investigations would likely be helpful since some of the users reported may have been discussed previously, as was the case here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Carcharoth, being as frank as I can be given the circumstances, ArbCom cannot fail to have noticed that I have been pressing them on this issue for some time now. I am not styling myself as some magical detector of undesirable editors. We may disagree on some cases and that's fine, but through our interactions I have formed the impression that ArbCom is shirking its duty in this regard. (And now actively trying to fob it off on the WMF who are unwilling to take it on in a meaningful way.) I started writing the blog posts after I gave up on the usual channels. The first editor I profiled was a no-brainer. ArbCom was told and did nothing. That user was blocked after a second blog post, but not by ArbCom. I followed up by profiling a second user. That user has not been blocked (but I am confident that it is only a matter of time). If you didn't understand by this point that it would be a good idea to keep an eye on the Wikipediocracy blog, you missed your wake-up call. If the circus that erupted from an unrelated blog post there about a different matter didn't put it on the ArbCom regular reading list, I don't know why not. My most recent blog post went up 25 March. Did none of the Arbs see it? Did no other editor email you about it? My email to ArbCom was a courtesy. Just about any acknowledgement of my email would have prevented my posting on Jimbo's page. I recall having had this discussion before and being told that the process would be changed. I guess it wasn't. I have no way of knowing what's going on within ArbCom, but the observable actions do not correspond with statements made by Arbs. On a more personal note, if you are inclined to dismiss reports of problems because you don't like the tone of the emails, you should not have stood for election to ArbCom. Who did you think writes emails to ArbCom - happy editors praising the quality of the articles? I would hope that my "familiarity" is a refreshing change (and my apologies if my sign off of "warmest regards" was offensive to you). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response, please feel free to be as frank as you need to be and I'll do the same. I'll start by saying that I agree with what was said here (I read parts of the Wikipediocracy forum, but rarely the blogs), though it was probably best that you reverted that edit as multiple people piling into this discussion will make it much more difficult to get anywhere. And while we are being frank, the part of one of your e-mails that struck a strange tone with me (I wouldn't have called it offensive) was where you referred to yourself as our "devoted servant". That struck me as just taking the piss.

Having got that out of the way, part of the reason I'm trying to engage with you here on your talk page is to ensure that at the end of this we are both clear where things stand. One point I want to really try and get across to you is that your approach nearly always makes it harder to deal with things like this, it politicises the issues when what is needed is calm and dispassionate analysis and decisive action one way or the other (if you want to get the handling in the abstract changed, see my suggestion below).

Over the matter in question, we had actually got to the stage where support was slowly coalescing to take some action as a committee, but that possibility was cut short by the action that was eventually taken. This is because such action is either taken unilaterally by an individual arbitrator (rapid action followed by later review if needed), or following deliberations that involve more arbitrators (much slower). There is literally no way to speed up the deliberative process if there are not enough arbitrators around (and there weren't over that weekend). The point where things went wrong was not acknowledging your e-mail. So I have to ask you direct, if this happens again, will you be e-mailing us or not? If you are, I have said I will ensure your e-mail is acknowledged if I am around. Can you please, even if you don't respond to anything else, answer that one question.

Moving on to another point, you say "ArbCom cannot fail to have noticed", seemingly as if ArbCom have some group awareness. We don't. It is extremely easy for individual arbitrators to fail to notice something - not all arbitrators are keyed in to what is going on. Thinking that addressing ArbCom as a whole means all the arbitrators are listening to you is about the most common mistake people make (the key is to get at least one arbitrator to listen and then make a fuss about something). Some arbitrators are very definitely not listening to you (and to some extent, I don't blame them). That is part of the problem here. Given that this is almost never raised during elections, you need to ask each individual arbitrator what their stance is on ArbCom's role in enforcing issues such as the ones you raise. That will help more than anything to move things forward, rather than you conducting some campaign and saying you have 'formed impressions'.

And I think you are still making the mistake of assuming that all arbitrators are aware of e-mails you sent to the committee in 2012 - those elected in December 2012 (including me) will not be aware of those e-mails. The other thing I think you may not fully understand is the amount of other work we do (among other things, a case has just moved to voting, and there is an appeal I am trying to get moved forward). This explains, though it doesn't excuse, why we don't always give things like your e-mails the full attention they may deserve. You may object to that, but as I've said, please send a follow-up e-mail first to try and get our full attention. It is not just you, that is advice I give to everyone. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC) On the diff I pointed to in my initial post here, I've attempted to clarify that here.Reply

DC, is there some recent report of yours that we have not already actioned?

• Your report (to ArbCom-l) on 3 April: Blocked.
• Your report on 6 February: Not blocked. Explanation given.
• Your report on 9 September 2012: Not blocked, though open to reconsidering if more evidence comes to light. You seemed happy at the time with this decision, and said we should reconsider if circumstances change.

I do not have any other e-mails from you on file that relate to child protection reports. AGK [•] 22:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

AGK, I'll try to answer as best as I can without being able to name the editors under discussion. In reverse order:

• 9 September 2012 report

• 9 September - first email sent, no response
• 15 September - second email sent, response "Regretfully, e-mails to us are sometimes not read, and your earlier e-mail to us was missed"
• 20 September - ArbCOM email to say that they will not be acting on this report

• 21 November 2012 blog post

• 21 November - first blog post, reported to ArbCom by at least one user, no response
• 27 November - discussion start on Jimbo's talk page
• 19 December - second blog post
• 19 December - discussion started on Jimbo's talk page, editor blocked independently of ArbCom
• 23 December - email to ArbCom about related issue, action promised by ArbCom but not carried out on an absolute no-brainer action
• 4 January - email to ArbCom to tell them that I had dealt with the issue myself

• 6 February 2013 report

• 5 February - blog post
• 6 February - email to ArbCom, no response (note that I originally reported this user to ArbCom to 2011)
• 11 February - follow-up sent, no response
• 26 February - discussion on ANI, "We didn't ignore the report; the Committee did not see any reason to take further action" (when I asked which report that pertained to, I got no answer)
• 27 February - discussion started at Talk:ARBCOM, "As for your questions at AN, I did look at them, and did not see anything I thought I could helpfully reply to" (AGK)

• 3 April report

• 25 March - blog post
• 29 March - email to ArbCom, no response
• 1 April - discussion started on Jimbo's page
• 2 April - discussion started on ANI
• 3 April - editor blocked independently of ArbCom

As you can see, the only one in which ArbCom took any visible action is the "9 September report" in which ArbCom declined to block. The situation with the user named in the "6 February report" is still not clear to me - does ArbCom intend to take action or not? As best as I can tell without a more thorough search, those are the most recent cases. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

Thank you for your follow-up. My point was that every report you've sent us has been actioned, albeit with some delay in most cases. We do not intend to take action on the 6 February report, for the reasons we set down in an e-mail to you, but this would change if more evidence came to light. AGK [•] 09:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

For clarity the email I sent, whilst not on behalf of the committee, explained the reasons we were not taking action. From what I understand, your first email on 23 December didn't exactly endear you to the committee, given that it included a direct personal attack, which was made clear to you. Whilst it was not grounds for blocking (as you pointed out in your second email), I'm sure it lead to some members of the committee ignoring you. I will also say that I dropped the ball over the Easter weekend, I pretty much ignored the arbcom email lists and focussed on article writing. I should have read and replied to your email, for which I apologise. Like Carcharoth above, I will do my best to acknowledge any emails from you that I see. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Worm That Turned, if members of ArbCom are going to ignore me because I called one of their own "a self-important twat" then they are welcome to do that. It won't help with the perception that ArbCom are ignoring their responsibilities, but as you can from the above, AGK thinks that ArbCom is doing a great job. For the record, I stand by my "self-important twat" comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's quite simple really Delicious carbuncle in my mind, if actually want Arbcom to look at a case, present us with the evidence quietly, as is suggested in policy. We seem to have managed well enough whenever anyone else does so. Creating blog posts, emailing snide remarks and highlighting the blog on high profile pages suggest that your motive is something beyond dealing with child protection issues. Worm^TT(talk) 16:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I make no secret of the fact that my aim here is to get ArbCom to deal with this issue. I don't know if it's working yet, but at least we're talking about it now. And I think one or two of the more far-thinking people see where this could end up and may take appropriate corrective action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

AGK, I was unable to locate a response from ArbCom on the "6 February report". I had a discussion I had in March with Worm That Turned, who was quite clear that they were not speaking for ArbCom. If there was an email from the Committee, can you resend it? As for the other cases, in what way did ArbCom "action" them? Admins blocked two of the users after ArbCom failed to act and I brought the issue on-wiki. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that you have deleted this particular article without any prior discussion with the article's editors. I think it would be better to discuss the reliability of references on the article's talk page instead of WP:edit warring - it appears that you have deleted this article's content without any prior discussion with the article's editors. Jarble (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would agree in most cases, but as that particular article stands now, your proposal seems like an unnecessary waste of everyone's time. Nothing has been deleted, so you are free to move anything that you deem worthwhile into the main article. Alternatively, you could improve that article to demonstrate that human-goat intercourse is sufficiently different from other kinds of human-animal intercourse that it deserves its own article. Failing that, I think a redirect to the main article is the only sensible option. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since it has been around for a few years, AfD would be appropriate, not just a unilateral deletion protested by several other editors. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nothing is being deleted and only a single editor has protested. Other than that, you are correct, it has been around for a few years, but that is clearly no indication of quality. It would somewhat pointless to have an AfD to delete the article only to immediately recreate it as a redirect. As I suggested to Jarble, you are welcome to improve the article or copy any important content into the main article. Failing that, please leave the redirect in place. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Three editors have objected now, and you've replaced the content with a redirect 6 times over their objections. Don't you think it's about time to explain on the talk page, per WP:BRD? Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your counting is better this time. I think the edit summaries are clear enough. I was about to propose a merge to the main article, but the stuff that isn't trivia is a misrepresentation of the sources, so there's really nothing worth merging. If editors insist of removing the redirect, I guess I'll take it to AfD, but it has never been my intention to delete it, since it is a valid search term. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• [Note to future self: article deleted at AfD, redirect in place.] Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've declined the CSD of this article because Wikipedia:CSD#A7 doesn't apply to creative works. INeverCry 17:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Delicious carbuncle. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Richard Kolker, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not all Professors are notable, but being one is an assertion of importance sufficient to avert speedy deletion. Suggest Prod or AFD if you consider he does not meet the general notability gideline. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 21:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Hello! You have a great sense of humor. You managed to make me smile, when I felt miserable. Thank you. Seleucidis (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia has a policy. WP:NLT and I agree with it completely. However, they do add the following:

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides.

That makes a lot of sense. So, please provide me with some contact so that I can contact you directly in order to iron this out. For me, you can contact me at john@johnclarkprose.com. I'll be glad to hear from you, SchroCat. Also Cassianto, MisterShiney, Dr. Blowfeld, Bencherlite and Delicious carbunkle. The rules sensibly provide for that course, so I know you will be happy to abide by it, and I will be happy to hear from one and all of you. JohnClarknew (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ignore this. JohnClarknew has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. Bencherlite^Talk 09:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's poor advice Bencherlite. Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, he clearly feels aggrieved. I've offered my services through OTRS, it's unlikely to be finished. Worm^TT(talk) 09:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ignore the implicit suggestion from WTT to give JohnClarknew your contact details for litigation purposes. Bencherlite^Talk 11:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, no, I'm not making any suggestions of the sort. I'm just explaining that you shouldn't just ignore him because he mentions legal threats. I've reached out to him for now and hopefully we can work out something where everyone is happy and we don't end up in a big mess. More at my talk page. Worm^TT(talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why he didn't just email me through WP, but I've sent a note to the email address he left here, so we should know soon what this is about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I added Amanda Filipacchi to Category:American columnists which is a legitimate sub-cat of Category:American journalists. There is no rule that people must be in the specific similar category to be in Category:American women journalists, they only need be in some sub-cat of ;Category:American journalists, and Category:American columnists clearly is a sub-cat of that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss this at WP:AN, not here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

What do you recommend regarding this? I'm out of my depth. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I expect it to disappear shortly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

on Kauffner's user page. What's wrong with it?--Launchballer 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Have you read WP:BLP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would say that if Kauffner had said any of that in a normal discussion it would be perfectly fine. Emblazoning it on a user page comes off as a polemical attack, even if it is a mild and humorous one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have. And I see no issue at all - if anything, the userpage is laudatory towards Filipacchi.--Launchballer 17:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm quite certain that is not what Kauffner intended. Why don't you ask them. The page is blanked now and it will probably stay blanked, I'm not sure there's anything else to say about it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you realize that Category:American columnists is diffusing on Category:American journalists? Do you care or not care about that fact? Because that is a pretty important piece of trivia that your accusation at AN left out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

It was brought up in the AN discussion. I completely understand your line of reasoning. I think I was clear in what I said at AN. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

What you said is that he ghettoized her. I read your opening statement. Do you realize that he didn't, b/c he also placed her in columnists? Would you like me to provide you a list of 20 women columnists that aren't in the journalists parent cat? Will you then drag those who committed such a crime before AN? I hope you can see from the bulk of the opinions that consensus is against your nomination - why don't you do the right thing and withdraw it, while there's still time to save your reputation. Even the so-called porn star, it turns out, she basically is a porn star (or close to it). The whole thing is a witch hunt. Why not put down your torch, and try to work to solve the problem. Do you really care about readers? Fine - work to refine WP:Categorization or WP:EGRS - banning editors who diffuse cats? No, I'm not feeling it. Look at Category:American women poets - do you know why there are 650 and not 450 women in that list? JPL is why - a few hours of his time, devoted to helping highlight women poets. Media parroted the claim that we have more articles on porn starts than poets, JPL is proving them wrong. Seriously... drop ... the... pitchfork... Also, you're very concerned about the special bio. Do you really think it should be treated differently than any other? I do not, not at all. If you do, that is sad commentary on wikipedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Obiwankenobi, I am concerned about Amanda Filipacchi's bio because the biographies of people who are publicly critical of WP often become targets. The fact is, it is being treated differently from other articles of comparable authors. Aside from that, Filipacchi has reminded us of how a reader interprets the categories they see at the bottom of articles and the interpretations that one can draw from the categorization of women apart from their males peers. This is not a new problem, but it may have provided enough impetus to finally deal with it. I defended Johnpacklambert on Jimbo's page when Jimbo himself suggested a ban, but if JPL does not have the good sense to stay away from Filipacchi's article and keeps making mistakes like those discussed in the ban thread, I think it would be better for everyone if he stayed away from bios altogether. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you detail what mistake he actually made? Do you think, for example, that calling her a journalist or columnist was a mistake? He honestly felt she qualified; consensus on talk was ultimately against, so he removed it. This is a lot of noise for a simple issue. Or, do you think he was being sexist by putting her in American women journalists and not American journalists, but instead in a non-gendered sub cat? Which bugs you more? For which error should he be strung up? I don't see anything about this incident that has "targeted" her, anymore than the jealous people guarding her bio have "targeted" her for special white-knight protection. Is calling someone a journalist or columnist some sort of smear now?

Seriously, I know you don't think you're carrying a pitchfork, but when you're outside a castle, holding a torch and demanding that a witch be burned for crimes which AREN'T EVEN CRIMES - you need to drop the pitchfork. You have brought nothing to AN which is contravention of any policy or guidance whatsoever - if you do have something, please share it. Take a look at this edit: [1] - should I also be banned for such divisive categorization of female journalists? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you convinced yet, or do you need umpteen other people to weigh in on the AN? Can you just do the honorable thing, ask an admin to early close it, that you withdraw the ban request, apologize and move on? The few who have voted to ban are people with extant, known grudges against JPL.

If you want to do an RFC for novelists, do it! - the door is right that way - but otherwise please stop attacks on editors - he's been through a lot, I wouldn't like to have my name dragged through the media mud, and then have fellow editors turn on me. Would you? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have not changed my mind at all. In fact, edits like this have only convinced me more. As I keep trying to tell you, I am not going to start any RfC's about specific categories. That will not solve the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you can't be bothered to fix the issue, why throw those who are trying to the wolves? Or do you have some other clever set of solutions up your sleeve? I keep on asking, and keep on hearing crickets - what positive contribution are you planning on making to solve this complicated series of problems? All I've seen is a witch-hunt, for now, on editors doing regular old categorization work. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not throwing anyone to the wolves, threatening to burn anyone at stake, or anything other than suggesting that JPL by banned from categorizing articles about people. That's all. Part of the problem here is that some people seem to be completely lacking in perspective. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

But that's like saying, I'm only asking Liszt to stop playing piano - he can play cello instead. Categorizing people is kind of the main thing he does here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe so, but I believe it would be better if he stopped doing that for the time being. I don't quite understand why you keep leaving me messages about this. I'm unlikely to change my mind and the decision is up the community (which does not seem to support a limited ban). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you think a category should not exist you should place this:

On the top of the category, and then explain at the resultant CfD why you disagree with the category. Attacking users for populating the category in accordance with existing rules is not the way to respond to the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Howdy Carbuncle, please forgive the intrusion on your talk space. I know you asked me to stay away from your talk page, and I have tried to respect that request. I have recently filed a inquiry at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard which directly involves some actions you have taken recently. I believe I have represented the actions and concerns fairly, but if I have unintentionally misrepresented your position please correct me. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

DC, I know more not than most people. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In what way does Russavia's efforts have Pricasso (draft) translated constitute an infringement of Wales' rights? I can't help but say that I expect to see this article moved to the mainspace at this point.   — C M B J   00:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did I suggest that Jimbo's righst were being infringed in any way? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

In effect, yes — by raising the point that the BLP sanction cannot prevent Russavia from further translating that draft, and by implication, allegedly violating Wales' rights.   — C M B J   01:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No sanction here can prevent Russavia from any activity on another WMF project, including his stated intention to have the Pricasso article translated for other language Wikipedias. I don't understand how you think this implies that I am stating that Jimbo's rights are being violated - can you explain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am a little tired to be trying to pull this off right now, but I'll give it a shot. On your third point, you describe Russavia's stated intent to have Pricasso translated into other languages and the possibility that he might upload the disputed files to each respective project, which you note would inherently fall outside the scope of policy here. Subsequently, in your conclusion, you propose a new type of WMF-wide action — something that I might be convinced to support as a community-centric function at meta, for a very limited subset of extremely abusive users where, say, no real opposition exists aside that of sock- and meatpuppets. However, in suggesting this action with respect to Russavia, the implication is that his behavior has violated and will continue to violate Wales' rights, which is more or less a stipulation of invoking the Terms of Use due to sexual harassment—freedom from which is often characterized as a right.   — C M B J   13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I neither said nor implied that the article about Pricasso constitutes sexual harassment. And I am not proposing "a new type of WMF action" - I am urging that the existing terms of use be applied to this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

"...Russavia has stated that he intends to have the Pricasso article translated into other languages [...] I fully expect that if the images are deleted from Commons he will have them uploaded to each individual project. The sanction here does nothing to prevent that."

"...but if Russavia is involved in hostile environment sexual harassment, as you claim, he should be removed from the project entirely..."

I considered those assertions combined to carry a pretty direct implication that translating the Pricasso article would constitute further sexual harassment. The action being suggested is also new for all intents and purposes, because as far as I'm aware, it has never happened, and even if it has, it certainly hasn't ever happened in a controversial setting.   — C M B J   23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anyone has asserted that anything about the article is harassment directed at Jimbo. If anyone did, it wasn't me, so I'm not sure why you showed up here to start asking me this series of questions based on poor assumptions you have made. Jimbo has made allegations about Russavia's actions, with regard to the images. I suspect that Jimbo and I are in agreement about Russavia's motivation but I have quite deliberately not said that I think Russavia is sexually harassing Jimbo. Russavia is quite obviously trolling Jimbo -- I think many people would call it harassment -- but as to whether or not it constitutes "sexual harassment" in the workplace, I am not qualified to say. I think it is a credible enough assertion that it should be taken very seriously. As for the terms of use, I do not know how often people are banned from the WMF projects for violating them, but I believe it happens as a matter of course for certain infractions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Considering the context of the proposal, I believe that one reading — and especially a quick reading — of your words can be interpreted as implying that the article's translation needed to be stopped. This does not mean that you intended to make that suggestion, and I am no stranger to words being completely and utterly misconstrued, as this even happened to me just a few hours earier. However, I did not come here with poor assumptions and I did not ask a series of questions; in fact, I only asked a single one-sentence question. I also did not come here at random: I decided to discuss the issue here because I understand that someone in Jimbo's position only has so much time to review messages and I didn't really feel that it would be respectful of me to start unnecessarily hashing out details in his userspace. In any event, I do not disagree as to whether genuine sexual harassment on our project should be taken seriously and I elaborated on this here.   — C M B J   05:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a side note, and although I couldn't much more strongly disagree with you about globally banning Russavia, I would like to stop and thank you for making several good points about why BLPE should not have been invoked, particularly with respect to protocol and fairness. I do believe that Newyorkbrad meant well and he obviously didn't have a lot of time to think things through, but ultimately there were ramifications that he did not foresee.   — C M B J   08:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, the article itself is not the issue. My suspicion is that Russavia will work to get the article translated into other languages and the Jimbo images uploaded to the local projects. I don't know how much success he will have with this, given that Jimbo has expressed his feelings quite strongly. The issue is the images. If the images appear in other projects, or remain on Commons, I predict that my proposed solution may be revisited. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I received a notification about a mention of my username that was included in one of your posts. I think that discussion is dead and buried now, but if you take issue with my conduct in the future, please drop me a message on my talk page too. Cheers, Ultimate Destiny (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ohhh, by the way, I like your userpage image, can I use it too?--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You used a 19th Century naughty postcard image of a topless adolescent girl in the infobox of Women in Libya. I used it as an example in a discussion of images, so far from having an issue with it, I thank you for this spectacularly inappropriate image choice. If you want to copy my userpage, I can't stop you, but I think it may lead others to wrongly assume a connection between our accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I asked precisely because I won't use it if you have a problem with it. Anyway, I just prefer people to say something to my face rather than behind my back, but I can't stop you either. So, good backbiting I guess.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You redirected a referenced and asked for page to another page for no reason at all, just claiming it was for *some people's* ("our") purposes and that some pop cultural references didn't help. What's your reason and what's the purposes you are refering to? Harold O'Brian (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

By "our purposes" I was indicating the purposes of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If boot fetishism is sufficiently distinguished from shoe fetishism as a topic, there should be reliabel (and authoritative) sources discussing it. Adding trivia about The Avengers does not substantiate any need for it to have its own article, whatever your personal feeling on the subject. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is more than sufficiently distinguished. It is not the same at all. Trivia about the Avengers could of course be removed from the article if that's important to you, but that's not what the article is about. If you READ the ARTICLE and not just the trivia section, you'll see this. If you try to redirect the article again, I'll be forced to report you for edit warring. It's not up to you to decide this. Harold O'Brian (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't want to force you to do anything, but I think I'm pretty well within standard practice redirecting such a poor article to the main topic. You may wish to consider which of us is actually likely to be seen as editing warring here (hint: both) and whether people will wonder about your knowledge of WP practise for such a new editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have reported you now. Your claim that shoe fetishism would be any kind of "main topic" for boot fetishism indicates that you know nothing of the subject, which makes your actions all the more questionable. I am not primaraly reverting your redirects, I am trying to work on the article. If you keep on redirecting it, of course it will never be more than a "poor article" in your eyes. Harold O'Brian (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but where in the hell did that comment come from? As far as I know, non-admins can close discussions when there's really no point in letting them continue... do you mind sharing what's on your mind? Dusti^*poke* 00:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

And yes, I do realize that went to something regarding biting newbies - but the concept is still pretty much the same. Not sure where the issue came from, but in any regards - I've closed the discussion again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it had already been discussed about closing the discussion as there wasn't really much that could be done. He can email Jimbo if he wishes, or take it to the appropriate forum. It doesn't take an admin to see that, nor does it take an admin to stop a discussion that's already dead. Dusti^*poke* 01:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dusti, don't run before you can walk. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I find it fascinating how rude you can be. Then again, your block history says loads about that as well. Here's a digital hug, seems like you need one. Dusti^*poke* 16:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not even trying, Dusti. I find it fascinating how completely unaware you are of your own failings. Thanks for the hug! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Negative. I've not failed thus far. I'm sure in 13,000 edits I've made some mistakes, absolutely - but I've never passively attacked an editor. "Get a clue" is certainly not polite nor professional. Reverting a closure on a noticeboard without notice to the editor also is neither polite nor professional. I'm not sure what your deal is, and it seems you're generally in the midst of controversy, so I'll let it stay at that, because I frankly don't care. Here's another digital hug if you need it. I don't really have an issue with you and I do believe I've interacted with you in the past. Have a good one. Dusti^*poke* 16:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dusti, I don't have a problem with you personally, just with your actions here and only some of those. A very long while ago, I tried to get you to stop closing AfDs because you seemed to lack the judgment required. You still do, yet you seem to want to make changes that require judgment. If you went around fixing typos or copyediting, I'm sure we would get along fine. Thanks for the hug, but I didn't really need it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would you please explain to me, why Bradley Quinn's book "The Boot" [2] is not a reliable source in your opinion? Harold O'Brian (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a reliable source if you are writing about boots in general, but it is not a book about sexual fetishes, so it can hardly be seen as authoritative on that subject. Interest in boots or shoes may be casually referred to as a "shoe fetish", but that is not speaking about a paraphilia. Similarly, a character appearing on a television show wearing boots does not indicate that the makers of the show are trying to appeal to people with boot fetishes. Without a source that says that in so many words, they are just a character wearing boots. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, you haven't read the book. It is a book about boots in general, but among all the other aspects of boots, it also deals with boots as a sexual fetish. (A quote from the book, page 68: "The relationship between boots and sex has been a focus of psychosexual and sexological studies for several decades. Among fetishes associated with an article of clothing, boot fetishism is said to be the most popular.") Everything I have written about the fetish which I use that book as a source for, is dealt with in the book. So if you haven't read the book, you can't really say it is not reliable for the information taken from it. Also, if a book is a reliable source, it is a reliable source for whatever message it gives you. And if you have a paraphilia which makes you sexually aroused by wearing boots or seeing others wearing boots, that is boot fetishism. It is not just something "casual". For people with sexual fetishes of this kind, it is very serious; it is part of their identity, just like your sexual gender preferences. And boots are not shoes, boots are boots. Harold O'Brian (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I get the impression that no matter what I say you won't change your mind, but please try not to misquote me. I did not say that shoe or boot fetishism was casual. Perhaps there is a language issue here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You say shoe fetishism is a casual way of refering to an interest in boots, like if it was some sort of a hobby. However, it is a well researched paraphilia. Why should I change my mind? You haven't said anything which could convince me that you are right. On the contrary, you have dismissed my sources without explaining why, just claiming the text "gets worse with every edit". Harold O'Brian (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

That isn't anything like what I said. Let me try again. The term "shoe fetish" is often used to mean simply an interest in shoes (i.e., someone who owns many pairs of shoes may be said to have "a shoe fetish") or to imply that womens shoes are popularly regarded as "sexy". Neither of those casual usages of the term is referring to the actual paraphilia. Since it is, as you say, a well-researched paraphilia, it shouldn't be that hard to find sources dealing with the paraphilia rather than a general interest book on boots. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Haven't you read the article shoe fetishism either? That article is nothing like the definition of "shoe fetish" you are advocating here. I know the term can be used the way you are saying, but that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. First, that casual use of the term has nothing to do with the encyclopedic view I thought Wikipedia would have. Second, we are discussing boot fetishism, not shoe fetishism. Third, the book I refer to deals with boots in general, their history and as a fashion item, but also as a subject of a sexual fetish. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You can't just dismiss a book because you think it doesn't say anything about whatever it is someone is using it as a reference for. How do you know the book is *just* a "general interest" book without any information about that interest as a sexual fetish? What makes you think I would be lying about its content? Harold O'Brian (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're a bit thick, aren't you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

How is it, you can't answer straight questions? Have you read the book or not? So far, it seems you haven't. As long as you say the book is not saying what it is saying, you are basically saying I am lying when I claim that it does. Since you can't give any reason for your view (no, so far you acctually haven't been able to, because your opinion about a book you haven't even read can't possibly count as a reason), I hope you will leave the article alone in the future. Harold O'Brian (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't be bothered to invest the effort that would be required to prevent you from turning a useful redirect into a terrible simulation of an encyclopedia article. I look forward to the inevitable gallery of images of a disgraced civil servant wearing shiny high boots. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 07:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

WilliamH (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your support at the Commons discussion. It is appreciated. A voice of sanity is very welcome. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do what I can. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with the revert and in allowing the conversation to continue, as it's clearly going to be a Snow Close, however, I won't edit war to keep it open. And a NAC was appropriate here. Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, it absolutely was not appropriate. Read WP:NAC (and then read WP:SNOW). I agree that this will be closed, but given the circumstances, it really ought to be done by an admin so that the closure doesn't become another point of disagreement. As I asked you years ago, please stop closing AfDs. You lack the necessary judgment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've sat here re-writing this post over and over, as I don't want to come off rude. You're wrong. My recent AfD closures are in-line with policy. This was closed as a procedural close. It is an inappropriate re-listing, it's being stated so on the discussion. The consensus is that this should not have been re-listed at this early of a time. Controversial AfD? Likely. Inappropriate close? No - It's a Bold close, and I'm interested to see how long it stays open. I'm not going to defend the closure further. NAC states I can be reverted, and as such I was. End of story. Dusti^*poke* 01:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dusti, feel free to be as rude as you like. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm feeling fine :) Thanks for the concern - and I'm not really a rude person, though I usually worry that I'll come off as rude, and I don't like that. You see, in this situation, we're at a deadlock. I know I'm right, you think you're right. It's not going to go anywhere. So I'm going to leave it as is. I'm quite proud of my recent AfD work, and in working with AfD with any work on Wikipedia - you're going to have those that disagree with you. You see, it wouldn't matter if I were a sysop or not in this case, you would still disagree with me, and you'd either take it to Deletion Review, or AN, or call for my head. It's because you dislike me, and while that's kind of hurtful (hell, a lot of your comments in your edit summary are hurtful), it's who you are, and I'm now learning to not care. I do ask that any time you revert me in the future, have the courtesy to leave me a note on my talk page (so, for the sake of my sanity, I know). Thanks! :) Dusti^*poke* 01:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dusti, I don't know how you "know" that you are right, but I think that I am right because of what WP:NAC and WP:SNOW say, not because I like or dislike you. really, this is about your actions on WP, not about who you are as a person. If you think I am being rude towards you, it is probably because I have a good idea of how many different people have asked you to be more careful closing AfDs and how many times you have simply ignored their well-meaning advice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Delicious carbuncle, just to keep you informed. I've hatted your statement regarding the Offsite comments and personal attacks case request, this action was carried at as an Arbitration Committee clerk so cannot be undone without ArbCom consent. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Wikipediocracy_and_outing". Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. I've commented there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

A bit odd for a white supremacist to live in Japan and have an affinity for so many other cultures, don't you think? I agree the evidence is damning due to the stormfront links, and the girl love bit is creepy if not conclusive, but something doesn't quite add up.

However, if all is at it's purported to be then that school may have a serious problem on their hands and people might be in serious danger. I have a feeling you've opened up a can of very screwed up worms.

Btw, when you write these posts do you give your subjects an opportunity to comment before before you publish them? If not, it might be something worth considering, for reasons I'm sure are intuitive.

You're a ballsy fellow.

N^oformation ^Talk 07:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not so odd now, don't you think? I'm guessing that DC's inbox is currently overflowing with thank-you notes from Japanese parents. Meanwhile, the shrieks of the usual suspects with zero respect for BLP "subjects" but plenty of admiration for their own sorry selves are turning this project into even more of a malicious joke than it already is. Draco^E 14:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just checked the inbox. There's nothing but a message from the Commons oversight committee telling me that they aren't going to oversight nude images of a woman whose name is included in the filename and who did not consent to the images being publicly posted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Noformation, it really isn't odd at all, but I am unable to elaborate here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Delicious_carbuncle Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It appeared to have concluded already. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Delicious carbuncle and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you are mistaken. I am not involved in that request and I hope to remain that way. I encourage everyone to simply ignore it and go back to whatever they were doing before Pink Ampersand showed up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I feel this is a very arrogant reply. You are being uncooperative. If you disagree with the allegations made, you should write your opinion there, not arrogantly dismiss other editors' views. LiquidWater 11:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm choosing not to participate in my own defence. That may be foolish, but it isn't arrogant. If ArbCom finds grounds to sanction me, they will sanction me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to force you into participating, but I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it if we got to hear your version of the story. LiquidWater 13:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious how you think you could force me into participating. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't. LiquidWater 13:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi DC, a couple of the Arbs have asked if you would make a statement on the case request mentioned above, as they feel it will provide more insight on whether a case is actually required. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

What we need is awareness, we can’t get careless.. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk

Don't believe the hype. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Back, but ready to contribute :) How've you been? 216.26.215.100 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've started a discussion at WP:ANI. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 13:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Things never change much around here. You know how it is. I just keep on trucking. Hope things are good with you. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Arbitration case request in which you were named as a party to has been declined by the arbitration committee. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

If you have any questions, you can ask me personally. I'm Ocaasi. I'm glad you're with us :) -- Ocaasi ^{leave me a message}

This is pretty clearly a personal attack. Please comment on content and not contributors. Dragons flight (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will take your good advice under consideration. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

To clear things up, I was not, in fact, tracking your edits. I added that page to my watchlist recently and saw one of the previous IP edits, so I was interested in what got removed. Having noticed an issue with the version that got restored, I went in and fixed it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Upon seeing a diff from you at ANI with my name in it and an edit summary of wtf, I was slightly worried :p Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

:) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed my WP:CANVAS post and your reply with it. If that was not OK with you, please restore it, but I do not want to have it up there otherwise. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fine with me. At least now you know how the ArbCom sausage gets made. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Delicious carbuncle. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

N^oformation ^Talk 23:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Containers, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Containers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Containers during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Beeblebrox, you know better than to make bad faith deletion nominations like this. Why are you doing this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I saw your comment on Jimbo's page about an issue you are having on that page. I remember a discussion in a wider forum on this issue, and perhaps User:AndyTheGrump can remember where it took place as I remember we both agreed on what should be done. But the point that brings me here- are you aware of List of rampage killers (workplace killings), List of rampage killers (school massacres), List of rampage killers (home intruders), and a whole slew of List of rampage killers for the Americas, Africa, and so on. This is a huge problem that I completely agree with you on and that editor with OWN issues is behind them all (Lord Gon or whatever his name is). I think, depending on what Wikipedia policy actually is on the issue, that perhaps there is competency issues that can be used, obviously an unhealthy obsession with the topic exists, but am unsure whether that itself adds up to warranting a topic ban. I would support one though and hope to coordinate with you on this issue.Camelbinky (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean this discussion? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes, and that discussion did not seem to get very far. The issue still stands it being an ownership issue and the fact that the editor himself is the problem. Consensus does not require EVERYONE to agree, and consensus sure does seem to favor the fact that "rampage" is vague and undefined. Not to mention there are multiple issues with the list article anyways. The lede is ridiculous and doesn't pass our standards of what to put, not to put, in a lede; Ive created FL articles before and this is terrible.Camelbinky (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Delicious carbuncle, we miss you   Lotje (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Wikipedia:Poetry is always wrong, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poetry is always wrong and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Poetry is always wrong during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

The article List of postal codes in Cape Verde has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete "just a list of postal codes" articles demonstrated in previous AfDs ([3], [4]).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. asilvering (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply