User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19

Middle earth wikiproject[edit]

I think that when the article index is done, it will replace those other pages, and hopefully will be a central depository for all our articles. Also, I look at the wikiproject pages themselves, and this project desperately needs to be revamped and redesigned, perhaps like the Final Fantasy Wikiproject. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A revamping would help. More editing of the articles would also help! I'll try and help as much as I can. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Post-wikibreak comment[edit]

Mostly for myself, but also for the benefit of any others reading this page: I was on wikibreak during the last half of July and the first week of August, a total of just over three weeks. I wasn't totally out of touch, and still lurked in a few places and followed some of what was happening and e-mailed some people now and again, but I did miss quite a bit as well. Like previous wikibreaks, it will take me a while to get back up to speed and to get editing again. The break also gave me a chance to reassess the approach I take to Wikipedia, so the next few weeks may see me spending more time adjusting the way I do things around here. Nothing too drastic, just trying to be *slightly* more organised! :-) Now, I have some Signposts to read and other areas to catch up on. Carcharoth (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Good to have you back, Carcharoth. You were one of my favorite Wikipedians before your break, and I'm sure you'll remain so afterward. S.D.Jameson 16:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Depends if me being more organised affects the laid-back attitude! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary reorganisation[edit]

  1. Do lots more content editing, from wikignome work to extensive writings and rewritings of articles.
  2. Be more focused in non-article namespaces (ie. see things through to a conclusion rather than just commenting and contributing to drift and endless cycles of discussion). If something ends up unresolved, don't just move on - make a note somewhere and come back to it later. Start a page of unfinished business and long-term projects that need attention every now and again.
  3. Balance time between different WikiProjects (eg. Midle-earth and Academic Journals and History of Science) and Wikimedia projects (eg. Commons and Wikisource).
  4. Allocate more time to organising (both myself and various projects).
  5. Find the time to write essays on certain key topics.
  6. Identify areas I have wanted to spend more time on and become active in those areas.
  7. Keep ongoing notes to keep things organised.
  8. Sort my watchlist and keep it tidy by using RecentChanges on subpages created from the watchlist.
  9. Subscribe to various mailing lists (definitely wiki-en-l and maybe others).
  10. Don't try and do too much. Aim to get the balance right between various areas.

More points to be added later, eventually to be integrated into the ongoing self-reorganisation. Try not to write lists of more than about 10 points. When a list gets that long, switch to doing work on one of the points on the list. Always try and leave a particular area tidy so that it is easy to come back to it later and do more work in that area (or for others to carry on the work). Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I have one for you to look at, with regards to #1. I created John Koethe just a few days ago. I'd love to hear if you have any suggestions for improvements or whatnot. S.D.Jameson 17:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • One other that could use some of the same type of work is this one, which I'm trying to work with the FACC to get up to featured status. They've not been real active on it, so any help you can offer there would be great as well. Great to have you back, Carch! S.D.Jameson 17:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, it's good to see you back! Seemingly energized and with new resolve. Don't forget to set aside time for Tranche Beta - though that's still a few months away. :) Franamax (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) Energized and with new resolve right enough. Let's see how long it lasts though. I fear the 10 points I wrote above could keep me going for a while... Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You do have a problem (which I would not consider being a problem, but this is a wiki after all) with writing very apt multi-point summary and analysis of complex issues c/w laying out directions to move forward. These are typically rejoined with one or two editors seizing on a single point and running with the ball. As a consequence, your useful summaries get lost in the noise, and no comprehensive solution develops. I have no idea how to correct that, I personally prefer the "sum up, address each point systematically" style - but unless you're a business manager with full control over your department, it doesn't often work since people prefer to do anything but address details. That is what I see as the real-world impediment to your admirable style. As I say, I've often seen you IMO do the right thing and have it come to naught, no idea on how to correct that. :) Franamax (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Stable version on de-wiki[edit]

Just added an interwiki link to de:Hoher Kasten (back to the en-wiki article, which is a lot smaller, but still). The interesting thing is that this is a chance to see stable versions in action. I'm guessing I just wait for someone else to roll by and verify my change, and it will go live. Wonder how long that will take? Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems to have happened already. Or maybe not. Can anyone understand German and explain how it works? Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Your edit has been 'sighted' by a user named Herzi Pinki. That being said... a couple of weeks back they switched to showing the most recent edit to all users by default. So the 'sighting' doesn't really impact display at all. Even if/when they switch back to showing the most recently sighted edit by default that only applies to unlogged in users... while logged in you would still see the current edit regardless of whether it was flagged. Finally, even IP users would see edits they MADE immediately after saving, but if they reloaded the page it would then 'disappear' until someone flagged it. --CBD 21:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, right. Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian PD?[edit]

Image:Stalin jeschow molotow.jpg Someone suggested you might have insight into this dilemma. I've posted queries to noticeboards on both English Wikipedia and Commons to ask how we're handling works that may have exited the public domain under the new Russian copyright law. Do you know whether there's an effort to come into compliance, or where any centralized discussion took place about how to deal with the change? In all likelihood, thousands of images fall into the same gray area. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 19:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not a clue. Wish I could be of more help. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal drive?[edit]

Hm, another post of yours popped up on my watchlist. In case Portal:Arctic interests you...

All featured pictures. Also, Ziegler Polar Expedition was a DYK. DurovaCharge! 20:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It does look like Portal:Arctic could work quite well! I'm still slightly stunned that nothing similar exists yet. I think people interested in this are more important than content, so trying to find at least one other person who sounds interested enough for me to <ahem> shove it all at them... Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I happen to have a good working relationship with Wikipedia's most prolific contributor of featured portals. I can't make promises on his behalf, of course, and we're collaborating on a couple of other drives. But if there are enough solid B-class articles to support the undertaking, he might be persuadable. Generally this means a minimum of 10 biographies, 10 non-biography articles, and some other things. Do you think the subject has that strength? DurovaCharge! 06:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Saw your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian Territories. did you get Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America? I'm not sure if I've seen any others on the various native people in the Arctic. Slightly releated may be Wikipedia:WikiProject International law who might be able to help with some of the various claims in the Artic Ocean and Northwest Passsage issues. Looking at Durova's comments above, finding 10 non-bio B class should not be a problem. There are plenty of bio articles, see Category:Canadian Inuit people for example, but I'm not sure if there are enough B class bios. Though if you include Arctic explorers, Category:Explorers of the Arctic, then that should not be a problem either. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that I would be willing to help. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that I would be willing to help. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there an echo in here? :-) Something else has come up, but I should get back to this soon (hopefully tonight). I'm still rummaging around to see what material there is. What would be best to start first, a wikiproject to tag articles, or a portal to feature the best of the "Arctic" content? Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the double post. I've been having problems with rain showers cutting the Internet off during the day. I would suggest that the project and tagging come first. The portal could wait. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Artic[edit]

I can probably help you with starting the wikiproject or portal for the artic project. See my work on the Queens of the Stone Age taskforce, wikiproject Russia, wikiproject Pink Floyd and wikiproject rock. Just contact me and i'll start work. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and leave you a note on your talk page, but maybe you will see this? As I said above, I'm considering what exactly is needed to start this going. I can't remember what is needed to set a wikiproject or portal going. Last time I looked, there were approval processes. Has that changed or not? See also my answer to CambridgeBayWeather above. Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow this link[edit]

Click and read to the bottom. This will show why I am concerned about Abd. Wikipedia:Competence is required. In spite of good intentions, if Abd's behavior drives off good contributors, and Abd does minimal article editing, then we may have to act. We cannot know whether somebody is a troll or if they simply lack social skills. Its the effects that matter, not the motivations. Jehochman Talk 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

My view is that Abd should not come under pressure simply because someone has said Abd is the reason they are leaving. That way you leave the door open for people to apply pressure by "leaving". I'm not saying that Fritzpoll is acting this way (and I have a great deal of respect for his work), but that if he doesn't want to engage in discussion or finds it too stressful, then that is his choice. But he shouldn't use that as a parting shot. Some of my most stressful moments have been when I've been criticising others (not very strongly, or so I thought) and then they suddenly "leave". I'm like "what? what did I do? come back!". I still think this can be resolved by Abd moderating his style, and people trying to understand *him* a little better (if you have time, I'd point you to some of the mailing list posts that Abd has made), as well as people getting the right balance between "this is a volunteer project and if I don't like what's happening I can leave" and "I'm going to stick around and stand up for how I think things should be around here". It is one of the more difficult balances to strike. What Fritzpoll has effectively said is "I'm not coming back until I can be sure I won't face diatribes from people like Abd" (those are my words, not his - what he said was "until I'm sure that I can edit without feeling the dread, without waiting for you to tell me"). Fritzpoll may not realise it (please point him this way if you get the chance), but that is in its own way a threat. Do you remember what happened with User:Cryptic? He seemingly just walked away (though no-one really knows what happened there). That is a loose end that never got resolved - people walking away and leaving things unresolved can be very damaging. See User:NoSeptember/Leaving for more on this. Essentially, what I'm saying is that Abd should moderate his behaviour, but don't *react* against him for Fritzpoll leaving. That is being reactive, rather than calm. Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could have a word with Fritzpoll to make him understand that. Yes, administrators should not be so quick to walk out in the face of criticism. It is easy enough to just ignore Abd if one does not like his style. However, there is a point that valued contributors should not be badgered until they leave. That is a persistent problem with our community, that civility in language is enforced, but not in actions. Additionally, Fritzpoll invited Abd to use dispute resolution, but Abd continued to make complaints in ways and places that would stir up drama rather than move the problem towards resolution. This behavior does look quite a lot like trolling. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If Abd is a troll, I'll eat my hat. :-) (no, I don't have a hat, but you know what I mean.) My post to AN may not have helped, but I think the key here is to get Abd to move on, and to get Fritzpoll back. One thing Abd (and everyone really) should remember is that even if what you write is not intended to be threatening, it might come across that way. Hell, what you wrote to Abd came across as threatening. Abd, maybe you could post here (and not at AN) about what you think the problem is, and I'll have a look at it if you like? Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Abd doesn't bother me. I just skim their posts and shrug. Yes, we need to separate those two because continued interaction is harming the encyclopedia. Abd could be recommended an article writing project. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've posted to his talk page. Will now post to Fritzpoll's (and hope he reads it). I hope everyone else is calm now. Maybe something should be posted at the AN thread? Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I wikitrailed my way here. I think the only thing that at this point should be posted at AN would be an archive box around the thread. Keeper ǀ 76 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure Abd isn't a troll? [1] That diff has me worried. Jehochman Talk 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Should have said I was leaving one computer. Now I guess I have an even longer AN thread to read. I'll go and have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know[edit]

Fritz basically closed the topic ban thread as "consensus reached" when there were something like 20 editors supporting, and maybe 1 or 2 opposing. It wasn't controversial in the least. S.D.Jameson 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point that Abd was making (badly and overly verbosely) was that what was needed was a re-examination or re-opening of the discussion. An independent review of it. But I'm getting a bit confused about it myself. It doesn't help that I keep confusing it with the Carol Spears business. I was around for that, but missed most of the WW threads. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Fritz made the point to him that he couldn't simply overturn the community's topic ban. He pointed Abd to appropriate ways to contest it. Abd ignored him, continued to badger him, and made veiled threats about getting him deadminned, hauled before Arbcom, and a dozen different things. S.D.Jameson 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it was clumsy. Sorry, Abd, if you are reading this, but it was. There are other ways of making the points that you (Abd) make. In this case, the ball was firmly in WW and Abd's court. He or they should have gone to AN and asked where the right place is to review a community topic ban. This is why I prefer such bans to be time-limited, rather than indefinite, and with structures for appeals. Otherwise the appeals start the very next day (and justified appeals get rejected as forum-shopping), or those under the restrictions never bother to appeal and the community collectively forgets about it. Worse, and it has happened, after a year or so, the community forgets about the topic ban, and then a new community (the one a year later) has to deal with someone dragging up this year-old topic ban when the user in question may well be a much better editor. Instead of the topic ban being quietly over-turned, much drama ensues. Sorry if that was a bit obscure. I can explain the case I have in mind if anyone is interested. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. I've read your comments over at WP:AN, and, although I should point out that I didn't just do a quick tally to determine consensus (as I told Abd several times), I am willing to accept that alternative interpretations exist; it was, in fact, with this in mind that I started the thread on AN to begin with.

With Abd's blocking, WW no longer has her advocate, and does not, I believe, want to engage the community in determining her DYK status. There are, as I have repeatedly accepted, legitimate concerns about WW's topic ban. As such, and given that you are the nearest admin to this whole problem, I'd like to make you the same offer I made to Abd: could you either be, or could you find a neutral administrator to reassess the value of the close. If you/they disagree with the stance I've taken, I will, as I promised, retract my close and defer to the appropriate processes. How does that sound? Fritzpoll (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was away when this all blew up. You might want to find someone else willing to gather the diffs and represent the case for review. I think User:Gatoclass expressed some concerns. He might be a better advocate to approach. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If you were away, you might be the better one, since you weren't involved. All you have to do is review the two AN/I threads (the one where the copyvios are discussed and the one where the community commented on the need for a topic ban) and determine if the close was valid. TO be honest, WW doesn't need advocacy - she doesn't care. This is about getting the ban right, and making sure the community can be confident in the decision. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If it can wait until tomorrow, I'll look then. Could you provide diffs to the two threads? Carcharoth (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see there being any urgency, since WW is happily creating articles anyway. There are a handful of AN/I convos, but the only two ones relevant to WW are the original copyvio thread and the gathering of editor commentary some time afterwards. I'll discuss your comments with you once you have them - I would appreciate it if you could chat with me first about it before announcing it elsewhere. Cheers Fritzpoll (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll look tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Now that's how painless it was supposed to be :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Will look this evening. Sorry for the delay. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Have read the two threads and also User talk:Wilhelmina Will/Archive 3. There are some other threads I need to read as well. Deep down, it seems to be a complex mix of motivations to create content (DYK awards) and concerns about quality of content (copyvios and accuracy), made complicated by interactions between editors. More checking of new articles and DYK submissions is, as always, urgently needed. Plus a better way to both raise such issues and to follow them up. Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've seen no evidence that WW submits copyvios, I think the main problem is that she's been editing articles whose content she doesn't really understand in order to win DYK awards. So it seems to me the most obvious step would be simply to ban her from submitting DYKs on technical subjects. As long as she sticks to everyday topics, I can't see why she couldn't keep submitting to DYK at this stage. Everyone at DYK knows of the wikidrama she's been involved in, so I'm sure they will be double checking her work to ensure it conforms appropriately with policies. Gatoclass (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio is probably the wrong word. It is more copying stuff when not understanding a topic. Sometimes that comes from the best of motivations - not wanting to change stuff due to not understanding the terms being used - which ironically is usually when trying to retain accuracy. Quoting or letting others paraphrase is best in those cases. I agree that a ban on technical articles is one possible solution, but even better would be just to have DYK regulars check all contributions during a probationary period, or some kind of mentorship. That needs a willingness on WW's part to accept criticism and improve - it can be hard for anyone to do that gracefully, especially if they feel they are being singled out. Anyway, I need to take a closer look at the actual articles before saying any more, but that will be later. I now see the this one was something that was brought through something like the AfC process, and was the website people themselves submitting their own content, or something. Have a look at the apology at the bottom. Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that proposing a period of DYK mentorship would be the ideal, but WW has so far refused mentorship or being involved in groups. That's where I got stuck in trying to work out how to extract from the problem - unless WW engages in the community process, the avenues of escape are very limited. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm stuck as well. The sticking point, as you observe, is WW engaging with people. I think some people, on her talk page, were having some success. Possibly things should just be left for you, and those others (such as DYK regulars), to deal with as best you can. That might deal with things better than another AN/ANI discussion. One important point to make is that if the same problems recur (or continue) in future (and some have suggested this is already happening), then WW's failure to engage with the issues previously will be a factor. It's absolutely her choice whether to collaborate or not, but in general, those that don't work with others around here when they need to (eg. when sources or writings are challenged), don't end up "making it" as WW put it (or, more to the point, their contributions don't survive - the best way to ensure your contributions survive is to discuss them with other people and see if they are accceptable). Might not seem fair, but that is just how things work around here, partly due to the system and partly due to the ethos and tradition. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
And that was my stalemate, leading to my determination that consensus and the evidence suggested a DYK topic ban until WW engaged with the community to resolve the issues was appropriate. We could just keep the topic ban in place until the community discussion comes up with some alternative, but I don't think a straight lifting of the ban would be helpful, and we'd always need WW to acknowledge any conditions that applied to her. Do you have any thoughts on this? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think "copyvio" is a more than the wrong word. There was the one incident from January, but that is all that anyone has found. The other incidents (calling Bechtic "revolting" and reverting an edit to keep the article above the 1500 character DYK minimum) also seem to be one-offs. The ongoing issue isn't copying, but that in trying to avoid copyvios she changes the phrasing of the journals she uses. And since she apparently doesn't always fully understand those journals, she sometimes botches the meaning when she rephrases things. And while that is something to take seriously, it is not nearly as prevalent as was suggested during the initial ANI discussion. Unfortunately, the problem now (as is discussed above) seems to be that WW can be difficult to engage, and the events over the past week haven't seemed to help that. Abd was the one person who seemed capable of engaging her, and that seemed to be at least partially offline, so hopefully he is still able and willing to engage her during his block. Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am curious if you are still doing anything in terms of reviewing the WW situation or have you completed your independent review of the situation and the closing? --GoRight (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't make it clear enough. My main response was here. I think discussion is still continuing, but at some point someone will have to step in and do a summary and come to a conclusion that everyone will hopefully accept. I'm beginning to see the point of what Abd said about someone needing to take responsibility for closing and logging the conclusions of any such discussion, especially if anyone is claiming support for a topic ban (or support for the absence of a topic ban). My basic conclusion is that until someone feels strongly enough that consensus has been reached so that they can add something to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, and notify the editor in question, then there is no topic ban in place. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Having just been the recipient of such a restriction, I would agree that if there is not already there certainly should be a formal recognition that until someone takes responsibility for closing the discussion and actually having something entered into Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that no conclusion has formally been reached. This provides a nice clean line to answer the question of whether such a ban has actually been imposed. --GoRight (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I will raise this at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with that summary, but I might add that it is not entirely true that "there is no ban in place". I don't propose to accept any articles at DYK that she writes on technical subjects or with offline references, and I will be making that recommendation any time she or someone else nominates any such article of hers. So there is in fact a de facto restriction on what she will be allowed to submit for the time being. I don't really see the point in trying to pursue further restrictions at this stage, given the apparent difficulty in getting any sort of consensus over this at AN/I. Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Gatoclass, are you a regular participant within the DYK community? Rather than focusing on the actions of this one user who appears to have been unlucky enough to cross paths with User:Blechnic, would it make sense as part of the DYK process to require an independent review of any such articles not simply ones from WW? Or is there already such a review process in place? I apologize for not being up to speed on the formalities of the DYK process. --GoRight (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Gatoclass is indeed a regular in the DYK process. I suggest you raise this further at User talk:Gatoclass or (better) at Wikipedia talk:Did you know (or wherever they hold their general discussions). Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, will do. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of bringing some sort of closure to the current WP:AN thread on this issue, and in consideration of the fact that (unfortunately for the two of you) both you and User:Fritzpoll are already viewed as being the primary administrative reviewers on this issue, might I propose the following course of action:

  1. You consult with User:Fritzpoll and come to some sort of a joint decision as to whether there is, or is not, an existing DYK topic in place for WW based on your joint assessment of the entire discussion, any actual evidence which has been provided in terms of diffs, and any subsequent analysis thereof.
  2. If you decide that such a ban is warranted and appropriate in light of that assessment, that you provide a clear description of exactly what the ban covers (i.e. self-nomination and/or nomination by others) along with a statement of the terms and conditions under which the ban might be lifted.
  3. If you are uncomfortable making any binding decision on your own (jointly) that you then open a new straw poll to assess community consensus on whether a ban is appropriate, or not, based on the discussion and analysis which has occurred subsequent to the original vote.
  4. Finally, based on the results of this latest vote that one of the two of you declare a final result and, if a ban is still supported, that you record it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and declare the matter settled.

Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Could you drop Fritzpoll a note? Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Will do. --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm now under a self-imposed general ban from editing outside my user space, but I specifically exempted matters affecting Wilhelmina Will, and some others. I came to the same conclusions as Carcharoth, early on, but gave Fritzpoll an opportunity to take responsibility for the close, or, if he didn't and no administrator did, the ban would not have existed, kind of like an AfD with no determination of a consensus that is also based on evidence and cogency of argument, something that !votes don't do, in themselves, no matter what the numbers are. Since Fritzpoll elected the outcome that he was closing, he was then the go-to person for minimally disruptive challenge to the conclusion, or other clarification (such as term, specific restrictions, etc, none of which was clear from the original discussion). This is really how Wikipedia decision process works, and that this wasn't understood by many was quite frustrating. Fritzpoll continued to take the position that, no, it wasn't his decision, the community decided, and hence the community had to be consulted before some different decision could be made. This would be like an admin who closes an AfD as delete, then comes across evidence that showed the conclusion was flawed, and, had he had this evidence in hand at the time of the close, and if he had understood it, he'd have closed differently, but who claims that it wasn't his decision, he'd only looked at the !votes (or the !votes plus his prior impressions which were not part of the discussion). I'll point out that we could replace the vote part with a bot or a clerk. A judge with discretion, who decides not on !votes but on arguments and evidence, may reverse an earlier decision, based on the merits as newly understood, within the range of what the judge could have earlier decided. It is highly efficient, avoiding, quite likely, a useless Deletion Review, and if anyone disagrees, there is Deletion Review or, later, a new AfD. Setting aside the sock puppetry distraction that Fredrick day (I conclude) crafted to disrupt the process, I was blocked for arguing for this (the early warnings, consider to be warnings regarding my offense, came prior to the sock puppet problem). But my block is irrelevant here. And any possible errors made by Fritzpoll are, likewise. I agree completely with Carcharoth's suggestions, above. It's pretty much what I had in mind, but the process was interrupted by the flap and my block. Fritzpoll and I would have come to this place, and quickly, quite without AN, which simply delayed it a bit. Thanks, Carcharoth, and thanks, Fritzpoll. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And thanks, GoRight. You are a relatively new editor, and probably shouldn't have started compiling evidence at AN, it just makes the natives restless, they don't want extensive content there, but, hey, for a new editor, it's been quite good, overall, I appreciate deeply the assistance and your advice during my block. I've made the first steps toward a review process for the block that will be minimally disruptive, it's entirely in my user space, so if something things that disruptive, well, they have recourse, but I rather doubt that such an opinion would be sustained! And, ultimately, I'll get the answers I seek, one way or another; most likely, I predict, it won't take any edits outside my user space, except for occasional comment like this. But you never can tell... --Abd (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to draw attention to this diff. [2] WW does seem to be willing to reach out to others on technical articles when she is unsure of something. She does seem willing and able to learn and improve, even if she is somewhat reluctant to engage the broader community in discussions about the accusations surrounding her. This would seem consistent with the issues surrounding copyvios, which apparently were an issue several months ago but which she apparently learned to stop doing after it was brought to her attention, even if she didn't make a grand announcement about it. Rlendog (talk)

I agree. If WW were to say something, I think lots of people would support WW now. Refusing to say anything is WW's choice, but maybe someone could explain that going against a community consensus like that (even if it is mistaken) is difficult if WW stays quiet on the matter. The ball really is in WW's court. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

U haz[edit]

e-mail. Maxim () 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Replied again. Maxim () 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I had got that one, just hadn't replied yet, though I have now. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Polar exploration: possible featured topic[edit]

SandyGeorgia has pointed out to me your note on the Featured topic talkpage, about the possibility of a featured topic on the history of polar exploration. During the past six months I have brought ten polar articles to FA status - basically, all those you list except for Andrée's balloon and Harry McNish - and I am currently working on Southern Cross Expedition.

I believe that "History of polar exploration" is far, far too broad for a single featured topic, and could embrace hundreds of articles. What I am hoping to do, eventually, is create a featured topic entitled (possibly) "British Antarctic Exploration in the Heroic Age". This will comprise seven expedition articles (Southern Cross, Discovery, Scottish National Antarctic Expedition, Nimrod, Terra Nova, Imperial Trans-Antarctic, and Ross Sea party) and five polar commander articles (Borchgrevink, Bruce, Scott, Shackleton, Mackintosh). There will also be a summarising article embracing the entire topic. The Southern Cross article is in progress, the Carsten Borchgrevink article needs a lot of attention, and the summarising article needs to be created. These are my current projects and will probably take me to end-September.

There are plenty of other potential featured topics within the polar history umbrella. One I would dearly like to work on, when time permits, is "Ships of the polar explorers". I hope also soon to begin a series of North Pole articles - I am visiting the Arctic myself in mid-September. If you have any particular ideas you would like to discuss, in relation to current or feature topics, please feel free to contact me on my talkpage. Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I knew there had to be someone churning out all that great featured content! :-) I'll drop a copy of this on your talk page. For now, would you have any time to look at List of Arctic expeditions? Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your note. I will look at, and add to, your List of Arctic expeditions, but I doubt that this will ever be fully complete, unless you set certain boundaries to it. For example, there were at least fifteen expeditions which set out in search of Franklin - are you going to include all these?

And, yes, I'm well-informed on Arctic history, though I chose first to churn out my Antarctic articles. I have various future plans for the Arctic, which include developing the Jackson-Harmsworth Expedition article, which I've created as a brief summary, raising the standard of the existing Fridtjof Nansen article, and creating articles for Nansen's Greenland and Fram expeditions. I have been collecting source material for all of these, and next month I'm going to the Arctic to take some photos. I started the stub Farthest North, with a view to developing it along the lines of Farthest South, which I am still polishing.

As to who actually got to the North Pole first, who knows? Cook was discounted early (though I have a book that "proves" he actually made it). Peary was generally accepted until recent times, and still is in some quarters. Other contenders are Robert Byrd (aeroplane, 1926), Nobile, Ellsworth and Amundsen (airship, 1926), Alexander Kuznetsov (aeroplane landed, 1948) and Wally Herbert (on foot, 1969). There's lots of scope for some interesting articles here.

Finally, good luck in whatever you decide to do, and I am happy to co-operate wherever possible. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, I guess I knew that List of Arctic expeditions wouldn't be possible to turn into a comprehensive list. What I think would be useful is a timeline summary of the important points in the history of Arctic exploration. Similar to polar exploration, but as a timeline rather than an article. That would point up redlinks where articles are needed, and would arrange existing articles in chronological order, which is always helpful. If you know of any expeditions that are redlinks and which would make substantial articles, please add them. Thanks. I'm also slowly proceeding with plans for a portal and tagging articles for a wikiproject (see User:Carcharoth/Arctic articles), but improving the existing content should always come first, so I'll let you get on with doing that and help out where I can. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Arctic[edit]

This sounds like a good idea, to get more going for this neck of the woods as a Wikiproject/portal. Have you had any feedback. I can probably help putter with some odds and ends over the next few days or so...and I enjoy setting up portals and whatnots. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 05:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to do some of the legwork with compiling lists of relevant WP:GA and WP:FA articles, as well as at least 10 WP:FPs, and other tasks along the way, I can help with the portal-drive. This is a bit trickier without the handy dandy statistics that would have already been compiled had there been a preexisting active WikiProject though. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that tagging the articles would end up with those stats, but creating a (possibly incomplete) listing to get things going is not a bad idea. The list I did earlier (at "Featured topics") was nearly all Antarctic exploration history. I've recently been doing category work, and getting confused by the existing polar/arctic/antarctic categories, and the Soviet/Russia ones. One thing that does need discussion is when (sometimes splitting hairs isn't that useful) and where to draw the line between Arctic stuff and other stuff (definitions include: latitude, isotherm, climate), and how far to deal with subarctic stuff. One things I did get started was asking for a bot to examine articles and list those with latitude co-ordinates that fit the "latitude" definition of Arctic. Apparently that is being done at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be a helpful To do list to get started: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arctic. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I found 11 featured pictures, including the 3 Durova listed above, and put them at User:Carcharoth/Arctic articles. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. I'll try and copy these discussions over there, or at least bring them over there. I had been considering asking "permission" at that requests page for starting wikiprojects, but I guess starting a talk page will be OK, and technically permission is not absolutely required, just encouraged or something. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I'll also try and update the notices I left and reply to those who have left notes. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh oops, I went ahead and created the project page, also asked for help from John Carter (talk · contribs). But if "permission" is not actually required from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals then no worries. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Starting up this wikiproject/portal is something I've thought about for awhile. Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I'll help. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Aboriginal peoples in the Arctic & Regions of the Arctic[edit]

I noticed you were populating the two categories and started looking for more to add. I added a couple but then started wondering about the best way to do it. What I mean is, if Category:Nunavut is in Regions of the Arctic then should the Nunavut article be there as well? For Aboriginal peoples in the Arctic should the Category:Inuit be there and the article Inuit? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The category structure is confusing at the moment, and until it settles down my changes might not look that logical! As I said above, currently trying to get the Soviet/Russian/Soviet and Russian and Polar/Arctic/Antarctic stuff sorted. As for categorising categories as well as categorising the articles (instead of one or the other), that is something that confuses I lot of people. I don't always get it "right", but I tend to err on the side of only inlcuding the category if it makes sense. I much prefer to either include both, or just the article. It depends on what I think people arriving at the category will be looking for. Feel free to juggle things around or ask me to stop something if it looks like I'm heading in the wrong direction. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards having both included but didn't want to start adding a bunch with seeing what your intentions were. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

categories[edit]

re: You removed Chelyuskin steamship from Category:Polar exploration by Russia and the Soviet Union. While formally it looks correct, it is not. A signif part of the text is not about ship per se, but about its work in polar exploration, which is not described elsewhere in wikipedia. Therefore the deleted category is IMO in fact useful for navigation. When updating categories, I would suggest to review the whole article content, rather than its major topic. I understang that this is a grey area, and you will not include the article spoon into the category "Restaurants" just because the "spoon" article says that spoons are widely used in european stype restaurants :-). I am merely suggesting to be less formal, although I suspect usage of various automated tools makes you think less and click more. Anyway, keep yourself busy. wikipedia needs you :-). `'Míkka>t 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The same applies to much of my reorganisation of Category:Exploration of the Arctic. I'm aware of this and for now I think people can get from the the "Exploration in the Arctic" category to the "Arctic exploration vessels" category (Category:Arctic exploration vessels - I think I added that to the Chelyuskin article) without going too far wrong. I'm also creating redirects to help navigation, such as this one (Lady Franklin Bay Expedition). In my view it is a trade-off between having categories that make sense and category tags that cover what an article contains. I know it can be contentious, but have a look at Category:Arctic and see if you can suggest better ways to organise things from (a) the point of view of someone browsing the categories; and (b) the point of view of someone reading an article and considering the category tags as a starting point for more browsing. About the automated tools, there is an option in HotCat to press Ctl and click OK, and then modify the edit summary and the edit. I will try and do that more. I would also like to turn of the "minor edit" marking, which is annoying. But category work is so much easier with automated tools! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings: FA review[edit]

The Lord of the Rings has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Davémon (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight's suggestion[edit]

Sorry, I was away for a wedding over the weekend (not mine) and couldn't respond adequately to this. I'm happy to follow his suggestions, and so want to know what your interpretation of this matter is, so that we can start a discussion. Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to skip straight to point 3, unless you think we can up with something at point 2. What do you think? Has enough new evidence and discussion come to light that a new straw poll is needed? You might also want to look at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions to see if I represented things right there, or not. Did I get that right? Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be concerned that a new straw poll would be overdoing it a little bit without a specific proposal - the community discussed it at AN/I to start with, I asked AN to confirm the original discussion, and that discussion is still ongoing. My personal opinion would be that we should close the matter together, taking into account the new discussions that have taken place at AN. If we did, I suspect that the outcome would be that WW is no longer under a DYK topic ban, given that any concerns editors had about her work appear to have dissipated, and that her most recent articles since coming back from her holiday have proven to be good, and that she is willing to work with other editors to check technical details. We could ask for more stringent checks at DYK of her nominations, but given the lack of recent evidence (and the disputed quality of older evidence) as regards the issues initially raised, this would seem punitive rather than preventative, so I would avoid it. I too would feel a little odd jointly foisting this on the community, but if you are amenable, I'll propose this over at the current discussion for a straw poll. I might do this anyway, given that it will widely be reviewed as a change of heart on my part and it would be best for WW if this can be resolved quickly Fritzpoll (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me. I'll try and drop by the discussion later, or you can point people to this discussion. Hopefully people will still, as always, have high standards for new articles. It's a difficult thing to judge. Let's hope it turns out OK. Carcharoth (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've posted it as a subsection of the existing discussion - check it and make sure it sounds ok. Your comment (hopefully support) would be very useful at this point. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If there are no objections by the end of the day (1600UTC), I'll overturn the ban. That sound ok? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd wait longer, but not so long that it gets archived. I find it also helps to state at the start when a discussion may be closed, but hardly anyone (including me) remembers to do that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Ban overturned. Thanks for the neutral set of eyes - pity it wasn't asked for earlier. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Troll or newbie?[edit]

What's your opinion on this remark, and the user's contribution history? Jehochman Talk 20:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

He or she seems angry about something. Looks like a very political account, which given the former user name is not surprising. Possibly removing the AN thread he or she started might not have been the best idea. I agree with the article deletion as regards a single-event article about a person. But really, I'm not the best person to ask about US politics. There are concerns about the attitude, and I could see problems in the future, but I can't see anything right now that couldn't be a combination of picking up the wrong attitude through lurking and inexperience. If they learn to talk civilly and less confrontationally, things might go OK. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, on a gut feeling I did not block them, and they have been talking with me civilly enough. Hopefully they will get up to speed. Perhaps it's somebody from another wiki. They seem familiar with at least some aspects of what we do. By the way, I appreciate your ability to read edit histories and correctly view situations through diffs. Not everybody is so sharp. Jehochman Talk 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I tend to be pleased when people know how things work. It can save a lot of tedious explanation. Treat them like they know what they are talking about and tell them to ask questions if you go too fast for them. If they are genuinely new, it will show eventually. It was a short contribution history, thankfully. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Community ban/indef block[edit]

Apologies for the late response; I'm not normally very active over the weekend. I issued the indefblock in response to copyvios reported on ANI. In the ensuing discussion the question of a community ban was raised, but there was no unanimous consent for this as one or two editors expressed a willingness to unblock under very specific conditions, so the thread closed with the block in place and the editor's talk page being monitored.

The same editor was brought up again on ANI around three weeks later later, having apparently been evading the block by editing from her IP and creating an alternative account. Her additional lack of productive response on her talk page led to new calls for a community ban (discussion here), which this time were unanimous. I was only peripherally involved, and don't know who closed the thread, but I assume that since my original indefblock was still in place, there was thought to be no need to take any action other than noting the ban on her pages. If I've understood the thrust of your comments, you seem to be implying that the closing admin should have reblocked to reflect the new consensus and link to the ban discussion, which makes sense to me ;)

I hope this helps. EyeSerenetalk 08:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It did, thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal Arctic[edit]

Thanks for your note. Thanks for the heads up on the DYK. Also thanks for the searches made on the WP already! You truly have been busy. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 14:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Have completed all the boxes now to some extent. Have to yet finish adding completely all the awesome images you have found. ound a few FA bios as well. Slow going, as I am tagging talk pages as I add the articles. Made 3 tentative intros. Perhaps the topics section is a bit full, probably would like to make a general Arctic topics template, which combines the best features of all topics from all templates or categories or lists. The categories and Wikiprojects sections are a bit empty so will probably add roating pictures there. Have some more tweaking to do as per some peer review suggestions which I have used on past portals, but the basics are up and running. Need another break.SriMesh | talk 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all that. Nice example of being WP:BOLD! :-) It wasn't me that found the pictures, though. That was User:Durova, who may find some more soon. Have a nice break, anyway. Maybe someone else will carry on things or come along to help - I know some others were interested in this. Carcharoth (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal Bios[edit]

Hello there. I agree with you about the bio on Jake Gyllenhaal after that one, I added marginal articles and biography aricles to the nominations section.. Me thinks B class bios should be plopped into the nominations section as well unless they are high importance. I will peruse your link shortly to see if there are any B class articles which should be close to GA nomination...SriMesh | talk 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the majority of B-class articles is that their introductions are 1 to 2 lines long, and the portal uses the introduction only on the portal, and should be about 10 lines long to help balance out the box sections, and to give an entire overview of the article as a whole, and not just a dictionary definition. Maybe some of these articles can be fleshed out in the introduction to introduce each section over the next while, because they are of top to high importance to the arctic in general.SriMesh | talk 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Me again, put the excellent arctic-related biograhical articles up for nomination to get some votes, and added one B class article, and removed Jake. See NominationsSriMesh | talk 23:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

BHG[edit]

Did you notice her Wikibreak? You might not get an email till September. PamD (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I did notice that, but wasn't sure what to do. Thanks. I'll wait a few more days. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC[edit]

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I asked Jehochman to look at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, and this was our conversation: permanent link. He suggested I contact you. The conflagration leading to my block was started by Jehochman's warning, and it seems to have been obviously improper to me. I'd appreciate it if you could look at it and comment, preferably in the RfC with a note to Jehochman, but however you choose. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Aye. Please do look. A warning is a signal of possible danger, to save somebody from trouble, hopefully. Whoever places a block is responsible for their own action. They must check the facts themselves. Jehochman Talk 05:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks, Jehochman. However, the block came after a complex series of warnings under heated conditions (which I responded to, I'd thought), and so I'm starting at the beginning. Jehochman's warning was cited by Iridescent for her block, when I requested the evidence for it, and there wasn't any sign of anything blockworthy, on anybody's part, no warnings, not even a complaint by Fritzpoll, until Jehochman issued the warning. If Jehochman's warning had been accurate, I'd agree, I should have been blocked if I had continued. Others apparently saw his warning and popped in with concurrences, but it's unknown if they investigated the background. Iridescent later provided block evidence that seems pretty inadequate to me, but in a context where Jehochman's warning was trusted, it might have been considered sufficient as a "continuation" of presumed prior behavior. So it's necessary to start there, with the warning. If it was proper, not in error, I presume that I can be advised how it was so, and probably I'd then drop the matter, and if it was improper, he can retract and apologize, and then I can move on to the other warnings and the block itself, which might be easier to address with error of the first warning acknowledged. There is a little more. The warning was, I'd assert, uncivil, and, even if "correct," uncivil warnings can be ineffective, and should probably be considered inadequate as warnings before block. I took the warning seriously, anyway, but that's a general principle. --Abd (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
In particular, for simplicity, I'd suggest looking at Jehochman's warning, and at the edit he diffs as the cause for the warning.[3], then at the Question and Subquestions in the RfC. --Abd (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Reply is in the section down below where you nudged me about this. Not very helpful, but the best I can do. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal Arctic[edit]

Thank you for the comments regarding the portal...Did change a few more items, different articles a bit, added more intros and such, added the new feature picture that was added to the wikiproject. I didn't get a reply on the DYK archives, and they are still the same, without the arctic DYK. I am not sure what user neutrality was doing, so I am not sure what to undo and redo. Will now get some news articles added so will categorise and add a wikinews portal as there have been some good reading there. Then the wikipedia portal can link to the wikinews portal. SriMesh | talk 03:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Middle-earth seconday literature[edit]

Hi Charcharoth: I'm still a bit new to this whole Wikipedia thing, but I wanted to help out with the Lord of the Rings article and the Middle-earth Wikiproject in general and try and improve the articles on secondary literature and similar issues regarding critical reception (not so much public reception, but the sorts of themes and issues picked up on by the literary world). I was wondering if you were working on anything similar at the moment or you or anyone else you know of would be interested in collaborating on such a project. I've started by making an annotated bibliography of the various articles. However, once that is done, I will certainly need some help if anyone already has a copy of Scull's new encyclopedia, for instance, among other things. And at any rate, there isn't really a point of going through such an extensive review twice. --Astraflame (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me until the middle of the week to get to this. I very much want to do this properly, but by all means make a start. Put the annotated bibliography you've done on wikipedia somewhere, and maybe we can work from there? I work best with editing what others have done, though I could make a start myself, and will at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
By all means, no rush. I'm not done yet with the information that I have (I've mostly been farming the Tolkien Studies archives, as they do an annual review every year), but once I am, I'll post it somewhere, probably sometime this week. Where should I put it? (I'm still really new, so I have no idea how this normally works..) Thanks, Astraflame (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> I daren't check back to see what is happening there. Finding the time to tackle this sort of thing is *impossible*. The latest Signpost had an interview where Mav talks about how a few years ago it took four hours to write something like this. Now it takes four hours to just read the sources first! Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Updating myself and my bosses on the recent literature is also something that I should be doing for my job as well, so when I started doing this project, I sort of took it as practice for the two other similar projects I had to do for actual work. Plus I did want to know what the state of Tolkien studies is for my own reference. In short, I put in more time than was probably necessary for just updating the article, but the pay-off is that the final product is fairly extensive, nice to look at, and probably one of the only annotated Tolkien bibliographies for 2001-2005 besides the as yet unpublished projects by Michael C. Drout.[4] It's good to know, though, that all future projects on Wikipedia should not take quite that much time, and I can probably spend a great deal of time working with the information in the bibliography itself.
I'm not quite sure, though, where we should go from here. Once I get some time, I'm planning on posting the actual bibliography as a subpage on my own user page (I'll send you a talk when this happens), but it's really just a list of references and what summaries I could find of their authors' theses. Hence, it's not really a review of Tolkien studies. For that, probably the best and most recent thing would be Drout and Wynne's review of Shippey's Tolkien: Author of the Century[5] or even Shippey's book itself may be more useful reference, particularly for updating that Reception section. On the other hand, it may be more useful for a more updated list of Tolkien research and to work towards fixing that ridiculous-looking Themes of The Lord of the Rings article. The best book, by far, to update the J.R.R. Tolkien's influences section is going to be Shippey's The Road to Middle-earth. I've always meant to read it, and along with a summary of Verlyn Flieger's major works, that would be my next project, in terms of personal interest. However, regarding the Lord of the Rings FA review at hand, I suppose it would be more pertinent to work on the Themes and the Reception information first, wouldn't it? I'm just not sure how this works, frankly, and not sure what / how much you are comfortable working on or how much I should otherwise leave open-ended for other editors. Meanwhile, though, I'm currently hard at work on the aforementioned bibliographies I have to do for work, and probably won't get to posting the bibliography until the end of the week. Regards, Astraflame (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I must confess I had forgotten the bibliography you mentioned. I'm looking forward to seeing it. One word of warning. If it is stuff you are doing for work and it is going to be published under copyright, you probably shouldn't post it on Wikipedia. If it's just a bibliography that you are happy to let anyone use, then that's no problem, but I thought I should mention it. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for more on what it means when you press "save" on Wikipedia (well, that might not be the right link, but it should be a good starting point). Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about copyright. I don't work at a job nearly so exciting as looking up Tolkien studies. Anyway, the bibliography is posted here. Astraflame (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Only checking in briefly, but it looks very interesting. Will discuss on the talk page over there when I get time over the next few days. Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Template[edit]

If you scroll down to the Beta part of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/B you will see I have a lot more to add to that template. MBisanz talk 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It would be interesting to do that for other editors... Nothing under my name, sadly. Or yours. Not sure if that index is up-to-date, though. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It is old, sadly, but the AN search feature could do the same thing, I'll run it tomorrow for you and me. MBisanz talk 03:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Did anything come of this? Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I got sidetracked onto other projects, and the sheer number of Beta related threads, makes it difficult. You have participated in 269 AN/ANI threads, none with your name in the title, oddly enough it says I've never participated in a discussion or been referenced in one, so it may be broken. MBisanz talk 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
269? Wow. I once tried to list threads I participated in on the Reference Desk, but it is a bit laborious. Is this tool available to use easily, or is it something you've done yourself? Carcharoth (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Should work for anyone at [6] MBisanz talk 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

List of fair-used images[edit]

Hi there,

A quick personal note to thank you for bringing this topic; you just have opened a door to possible solutions not only for me but for a lot of future editors. As you can see already, some of the people opposing are simply holding themselves to the current policy; while I think you proposed a change in the policy (am I correct?). I am currently fine with the present articles I am building, but I will not be fine for other countries where I will not be able to obtain free-use permission in a good time-frame, so your angle is definitely important for me.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,
I have seen no progress in the fair use image in lists discussion. I was wondering if you knew what the process is, maybe I am just too impatient to getting this issue solved.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carcharoth,
What can we do about this topic, since it seems dead? Apologies for the rush from my side, just wanted to know what is next.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. The discussion at WT:NFC, last I checked, was rather inconclusive. I feel that the "stamps and currency" exception to NFCC (which I had forgotten about) is a good point. That bolsters your argument, but I fear those arguing about character lists won't let the perception of a double standard rest. I think you might want to have a quiet word with the featured list and featured article people, and see whether they would want stronger support for the idea. Having said that, the Austrian one is, as far as I remember, resolved now, isn't it? You just need to get the paperwork sorted out, or wait for others to sort it out for you. Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carcharoth,
I was in touch with OTRS and commons, and that is a dead end; meaning when I explained my angle they clearly told me is a copyright violation. Basically I know a numismatics magazine that have rights to scan all of the eurozone coins, and they prodcued high quality images, some times actually better than the mint's images; but they do not have the rights to say that their scan is their own work or that is free to use; so case dead from that stand point.
I am not concerned about Austria anymore, since I have proof that their images are free (is clearly stated in their web site). On top of that, I am in another project with ECOFIN's assistance, and partially that is why I am not into Wikipedia now a days as much as I used to be since I do want to finish that project first so I can continue freely in Wikipedia; this new project will open me doors to free images for a lot of countries of the Eurozone, but not for all, at least in the near future. The other countries may change their mind, but we do not know when will that be. As a result I will have permission to use images for some countries, but not for all (Austria and Belgium are one of the first ones).
However, I am very interested in this policy change topic, since as you properly understood, the articles we am working on do not live without the images, and the group image can not do either. Do you know who shall I bring this topic to, in order to see if there is a possible change? I am sure that some sort of common sense, policy exception can be applied here, or else no list like the ones we are working on can ever be built. And if the number is just the problem, then I can create a good 1000+ stubs with two images per article. Obviously I do not want to do that.
I will follow your advice and will have a chat with the FLC committee, but I am sure they would prefer me having that solved with the policy guys first.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Recall innovations[edit]

You might also look at User:Pedro/Recall and User:MBisanz/Recall for different implementations of what you seem to be getting at on RFAR. MBisanz talk 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pedro's is nice. Yours is, um, detailed and I quite like it as well. I didn't realise there were so many good ideas knocking around in the set of recall criteria. Feel free to add them to the RfArb page. I've jumped into Alecmconroy's ramble, so I suppose you could add some more there. Or wait and see if a discussion takes off somewhere else. Incidentally, I'm still confused as to why CAT:AOR was put up for deletion and not WP:AOR. Carcharoth (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The essential problem is that we don't know how to do deliberative process. The Spartans had a kind of Range voting, apparently, in their public assemblies. Whatever side shouted louder prevailed. As long as the assembly had a good process for deciding what to shout about, which shouldn't involve much shouting, it would have worked, probably well. Wikipedia's design was pretty good when there were a few hundred seriously active "citizens." But classically, direct democracy fails when the scale increases much beyond that. (We say that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but by most definitions, operationally it is, even though, theoretically, the Foundation has veto power and the keys to the servers.) There are two classic solutions: elected representatives, with direct democracy among the elected representatives, and then various forms of election process used (from pretty bad to pretty good), and what is done in business (though only to a degree): proxy democracy. The latter is almost entirely unexplored outside of property rights, but, it turns out, it was proposed for Proportional representation by Lewis Carroll in 1884. Regardless, to work, the system has to scale down discussion to a manageable group size. We scale it down, all right, but very unreliably, and not in a deliberative environment, where, for example, there is the collection of evidence, preparation of reports, and argument, and an agreement that a matter is ready for vote, before there is a vote on the main motion. What we do is highly vulnerable not only to participation bias, but also to knee-jerk responses without deliberation, i.e., the systematic examination, one piece at a time, of evidence and arguments. If we had better routine process, we'd be able to set up admin recall that would work. We would also have, by the way, admin suspension, where, if an admin's use of the tools were called into question (i.e., there are plausible allegations), the right would be suspended, by summary process which is quick. Deliberation takes time. Some arbitrators have suggested a Wikipedia Council that could make decisions, presumably by vote, like ArbComm does. It could be done. But we have no process for making decisions, and setting up such a thing is a decision! Hence, my approach is to try to set up small-scale demonstrations of how deliberative process could work, efficiently, and voluntarily. It remains to be seen if there will be sufficient interest, but I'm trying, one step at a time. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Arctic tagging[edit]

I will do better with the nesting. I got tired, and was leaving the javascript layout too much. Will nest if already started. What I would like to also do now, is vist my tagged articles, and add category:arctic to the mainspace of the articles as well. I tried to start with some of the more relevant Arctic articles listed at the WP and Portal, and peeked at few of those see also articles as well. Sorry about not nesting. Kind Regards....SriMesh | talk 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problems. When categorising, try not to populate the main category. Try finding a suitable subcategory. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Category talk pages and renames[edit]

Per your comment here: talk pages often get deleted if a category is even trivially renamed. I can't speak for any other closers, but when I rename a category, the talk page gets moved as well (regardless of how trivial the rename is). Just wanted to let you know.  :) --Kbdank71 14:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I suspected it wasn't quite as bad as I thought, but I do like to remind people every now and again. I think Cydebot is what I was thinking of. Dunno if the bot ever deleted talk pages, or whether it still does. Don't even know if it is still running, actually! Though I assume some kind of bot does help with the category stuff. Carcharoth (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC[edit]

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR[edit]

As this keeps oming up and I cannot keep people from discussing it, I have decided to give a full accounting of my health problems on WP:RFAR. Frankly, if the committee cannot keep quiet about me having health problems, I would rather the information that others get be factually accurate and complete. Frankly, there's no real way to disguise that you collapse for whole months at a time, so I don't see much need to waffle about it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the way people approach this sort of thing is very personal. It's not what I would choose to do, but it seems you either feel forced by circumstances or are happy to state things in public. Having said that, I haven't even read what you've said yet, so I'll go and do that now. Thanks for the message. Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not do it, but it keeps getting made an issue. I'd rather control how it's dealt with, than to leave it to others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've also been discussing this with Durova on her talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the above request by myself and Jehochman?[edit]

[7].Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did yes. This might sound terribly rude, but do you think you two can sort it out yourselves or not? I vaguely remember Jehochman's warning and thinking that it was a bit overdone, but equally I wasn't entirely surprised either, as I've seen that sort of thing happen before. I think that someone did need to say *something* to you, if not precisely that. Sometimes people just rub each other up the wrong way. I've had that happen to me. It's not nice, but sometimes it is best just to move on. Carcharoth (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not rude. However, did you notice that I already attempted this,[8] making it very easy and simple, and that Jehochman declined, but suggested you, and then later said that an examination by a neutral party would be necessary.[9] While you would be ideal, since, I think, you are respected by both of us, if it is not to be you, can you suggest someone, because the next step would be, shall we say, more complicated? This isn't about Jehochman, Carcharoth, it's not personal, and I can work with Jehochman when it's called for. I'm not pursuing him and have no intention of harassing him, even though he did, in fact, harass me; he backed off when warned by others. The harassment is not the issue for me, the issue is the block and the record it has created. Dealing with the warning is the first step.
If, in fact, the warning, as it was, was proper, I would indeed drop this matter. I'd probably also drop Wikipedia for the most part, concluding that I must be sufficiently deranged and unstable that it's not helpful. I'm an old dog, if my tricks have become harmful, it's better to stop. There might be some losses, but at least I wouldn't be doing any more damage. On the other hand, if it was improper, I should get an apology, or, in any case, I could then proceed to deal with the block. I'm not even beginning to address the block yet; what I was blocked for was trivial compared with what Jehochman had alleged. I'm not charging bad faith, if you look at the RfC Talk page I referenced. I just think it was an error, probably colored by Jehochman's general opinion of my work here. It's possible that it would be enough if you simply encouraged him to deal directly with me, but that's up to Jehochman. That's where I started, and I did hope that it would be enough. --Abd (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I will try and find time to look this week. But I'm saying you might want to find someone with more time on their hands. Carcharoth (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It might be much simpler than you expect; in particular, you might find that you can handle it in not much more than the time it would take to read a single response of mine on my Talk page, specifically [10], which is roughly 12K, to see if it is what Jehochman claimed in the warning,[11] i.e., whether the diff'd post "is a personal attack on User:Fritzpoll and includes major assumptions of bad faith." and whether or not it was evidence of a "campaign to drive off User:Fritzpoll." Jehochman continued with "Your past editing history shows that your account is mainly used for disruption and drama mongering. As such, your account could be blocked indefinitely, per policy." However, the only question I ask in the RfC about that is whether or not it was appropriate in a warning for specific behavior alleged to be contrary to policy. (My assertion is that a comment like that makes a warning less effective.)
So there are three basic questions to keep in mind when reviewing the subject post of mine: Personal attack? Assumptions of bad faith? Harassment? The third question can be answered narrowly, i.e., was this particular post harassing if repeated (i.e., if I repeatedly responded like this on my Talk page to comments from Fritzpoll.) To answer it more thoroughly, i.e., to look at the overall pattern of my posts with respect to Fritzpoll would take some more time; all the relevant posts are shown with diffs on User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block/Evidence, but I could understand if you abstain from going into that; and, likewise, to truly examine the charge that "my account is used" as described would be much more of an undertaking. Whatever you can do will be appreciated.
I'm not in a hurry. I've cut way back on my activity on-wiki, as I said I'd do, pending resolution of this affair, and today I used the time freed up to go back and review the work I was doing on identifying sock puppets, a new method, though possibly somewhat similar to what was used in the Mantanmoreland case, and I think I've hit pay dirt, it may be ready to start revealing what I've found, carefully. It could be disruptive, and I'm making no assumptions, I'll be consulting privately.--Abd (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
oh no, the sockmaster general rides again! Have you never worked out that besides one slip-up, you've only ever caught the socks I reveal to you. Who are you going to wrongly accuse this time? enjoy your next block! --87.112.5.23 (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Fredrick, you made a series of mistakes. You made, for example, the slip that revealed you to be Section 31. That was not deliberate. However, you made lemonade, as you always try to do. Biggest mistake, though, was continuing to harass and provoke. Unless, of course, your purpose was to reveal that you do, in fact, have an administrative account. I'm not stupid, Fredrick, just lazy, you had to poke me repeatedly to get me to do the serious work it took. You may be given an opportunity to quietly disappear, I'm not going to act alone and without consultation. Enjoy your block! You have other accounts, I'm sure; it takes me about an hour to confirm or refute sock puppetry for a given account and a suspected master, and I can't do that with every Wikipedia account! (Though the process could be automated.) I ultimately identified, as a beginning, about six or seven suspects; when the method was sufficiently improved, I applied it to four of them, so far. Three clearly show up as not connected with you. One is connected, and the difference is like night and day, it stands out like a sore thumb, once one knows how to look. I'd suggest you start planning your retirement, or how you are going to explain this thing to ArbComm. While this is technically behavioral evidence, it isn't based on personality or choice of language or any such complexity. "Behavioral" is simply a reflection of the fact that humans aren't good random number generators. Imagine there is a soundproof and opaque barrier between two people. There is another barrier that prevents us from seeing the people, but there is a hand from each extended, and we can see it wave. From looking at the hands, at any point in time, we can't tell if there is one person showing two hands, or two people each showing one hand. How could we tell the difference? It's actually easy, Fredrick, it's not rocket science. Behind a substantial series of edits, is there one mind or two? I understood the principle immediately, months ago, but I'm not as quick with the execution as I used to be, and what I've come up with is crude. It would be improved with database access, and the analysis technique could be refined. But it works quite well enough to know black from white, and only with advanced evasive techniques would it be necessary to improve it. I rather doubt you were using such techniques in 2007, for example. Even with your more important accounts. Bad hand, Fredrick, is connected to bad mind and bad heart. --Abd (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To you both, I'd like to point out that I have blocked the IP for 48 hours. Just strolling through.... Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the intention is appreciated. He just rebooted his modem, takes only a minute, and it has been considered that a range block will do too much damage, a significant number of edits from his common range, 87.112.-87.115, are apparently legitimate, though there is no easy way to be sure. (Fredrick day makes legitimate edits!) It may be possible to place an abuse report to his ISP, but I'm not holding my breath. Once again, I apologize for any stress my comments about the Fredrick day IP edit (that used the first person to refer to you) may have caused you. False suspicion is one of the bits of damage that block-evading socks do, both to the one suspected and the one who suspects. One other person has been suspected who, I'm now quite sure, wasn't Fredrick day, simply because he made a phone edit that used the exact IP Fredrick day had been using occasionally. The new method I'm using would have immediately exonerated him. Checkuser did not, and the only reason he wasn't blocked, I'd say, was that he wasn't disruptive, and checkuser was merely "possible." I'd interpret that as meaning that the editor uses the same ISP, probably in the Fredrick day range, but the checkuser didn't find exact matching IP during the last month. --Abd (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ping. My next step would be to solicit wider comment, gradually, if we can't resolve this more efficiently. I hope you can find time. ~-Abd (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This matter is resolved, as far as Jehochman's involvement is concerned, see [12]. --Abd (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration[edit]

Thank you very much for your support at new project proposals. We've expanded the umbrella to cover audio restorations as well as images. Our shortcut is WP:WPMR. Hope to see you there and best wishes! DurovaCharge! 06:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war[edit]

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Kelly[edit]

I don't do the barn star thing, but you get a thumbs up.--Tznkai (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edward Burne-Jones as an influence?[edit]

In the article on Edward Burne-Jones, I found a comment that Burne-Jones's works in the Birmingham gallery "are believed by some to have influenced the young J.R.R. Tolkien, then growing up in Birmingham." This seems like it ought to be true, but "believed by some" is pretty much weasel-wording, and I cannot find any supporting entry in the indexes of Carpenter, Shippey, or Hammond & Scull, which is where I would expect to find such a comment. Are you aware of a source for this? - PKM (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the connection is a general one that includes William Morris. See here. Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Your link is great, thanks. That'll do it. - PKM (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Saruman[edit]

Hi. I just noticed the discussion on Awadewit's talk page about the most suitable scholarly sources for Tolkien study (in relation to improving our LoTR coverage). I wanted firstly to say that (if I have time) I'd be interested in helping out (I've got some of the more obvious sources - Shippey's two books and a selection of HoME). Secondly, I've done a fair amount of work on Saruman recently, but I'm well aware that the article can go no further without a wider range of scholarly sources - everything is currently based either on JRRT's own writing, Christopher Tolkien's work or Shippey's stuff. None of these are likely to be very critical of the subject. If you come across any good stuff on Saruman in the course of your researches, particularly if it is critical of the character, I'd be interested to find out about it. Finally, I'm not sure about scholarly, but I've got the book 'Smith, Jim; Matthews, J Clive (2004). The Lord of the Rings : the films, the books, the radio series. Virgin books. ISBN 0-7535-0874-5.  ', which gives workmanlike coverage of the various film and radio adaptations, if that would be of any help. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Please join in at the discussion at User talk:Astraflame/Tolkien Bibliography. The current pages are User:Astraflame/Tolkien Bibliography, User:Astraflame/Tolkien Disregarded Sources, User:Astraflame/Tolkien Incomplete References and User:Astraflame/Tolkien Key Studies. Carcharoth (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Extreme longevity tracking[edit]

Greetings Carcharoth, it does seem that one thing that is clear about Wikipedia is that there are many who operate here with the height of arrogance. I am disburbed by the unfair comments below:

Extreme longevity tracking Your removal of the 'globalise' cleanup tempalte from Extreme longevity tracking has been reverted, since you made no relevant change to the article before doing so. Any article which claims that pension tracking is "near-universal" is clearly written from a "first world" perspective. Similarly, your removal of the "who" template, since adding the single word "people" to "some think" does not substantiate the disputed claim. Finally, your pejorative edit summaries were not acceptable. Please remember WP:AGF Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This user knows nothing about the field. The purpose of the article is to trace the historic roots as they developed (which happened to occur in Western Europe). The message, however, is global: that claims to extreme age are universal across societies, and only where systems of record keeping have complete coverage(compulsory for 100% of the population) and are in place for a century or more can be expect national data on the extremes of age to be reliable. All of this can be found in reliable sources online. The article is "under construction" but to tag it as "globalise" seems a bit off.

Note it seems that this user is a fan of birdwatching and was apparently offended by the comment that "birdwatching may seem esoteric to some." I find it a bit off logically to be offended when I had compared supercentenarian tracking to birdwatching: in other words, I was actually defending it as a worthwhile endeavor. Apparently, this user couldn't be bothered to think logically, operate civilly, or even make an "correcting" edits. Note that he added a quite silly "who" tag, and deleted my insertion of the world "people."

Rather than get dragged into another conflict with someone who thinks he is better than he really is, I suggest you mediate. I know how these people operate and their agenda isn't the improvement of Wikipedia but showing "who is more powerful." Citing Wiki policy on "civility" while making uncivil remarks and edits is just another hypocritical example of some people thinking the rules don't apply to them.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 02:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I'm off out today, so don't have time to look at this in detail, but my advice would be to assume good faith. Don't comment on the contributor, but comment on the content. Just show that you know what you are talking about and don't get distracted by things like "bird watching" comments or trying to work out motivations or how expert someone is. You will always get people of varying levels of expertise editing articles on Wikipedia, so you have to get used to that. Just look at the content of the edits and try and explain things rather than commenting on the contributor. But do so without being condescending. If you see this, please point Andy (Pigsonthewing) here. I'm quite happy for you two to discuss things here instead of on your talk pages. Andy, if you are reading this, please try and work with Robert. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hi there Carcharoth. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. Will be out for rest of the day. Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User page MfDs[edit]

I MfD'd five user pages and I thought you might find them interesting:

Any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated; your insight in this area has always been very good. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Eventually got to this, but only by the time it reached DRV! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Its that time again[edit]

To FUR up some logos at User:AWeenieMan/furme/DFUI/Logos. Feel like helping out? MBisanz talk 12:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Urgh. Maybe not this time. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Your loss, you know how much fun image tagging is! MBisanz talk 12:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review: Sleep medicine[edit]

Hello. I found you listed under 'History' at wp:prv, interested in "obscure topics and anything involving science, medicine and ..."

I've listed "my" article at Peer review under natsci, but its not really a medical article. Could have listed it under history, but perhaps not too many historians would consider the last half a century as history.

Any general or specific comments would be appreciated, if you have time. I'm thinking of "canvassing" not more than three potential reviewers today, then waiting several days before pestering anyone new. Thanks for reading this, and I hope you'll be able to take a look at Sleep medicine. Regards, --Hordaland (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Will try and look this weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

When initiating this debate, I made up a short list in my head of who to prod towards it. You were on it, but you joined anyway. Thank you. I think think this is the matter that needed to be fixed long ago. This is one of the pages most frequently cited as a justification for an abuse. It works precisely because of its dire shape. Whether this policy is needed at all is a question on which good people may disagree. But that we cannot allow to have a so frequently cited page to just be there while it obviously does not represent the community consensus. Thanks again for your effort. --Irpen 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Carcharoth. I have verified what you wrote and I don't believe there is any misrepresentation. I'll be having a look at the whole discussion and give my feedback. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL[edit]

Hi Carcharoth,

You quoted me correctly. If I can muster the enthusiasm, I will take a look at the discussions going on at WP:CIVIL. However, I'm not optimistic about having valuable contributions to make, for two reasons. First, although I think WP:CIVIL is defective, I must admit I don't have a clear idea what would make it better. Second, I have learned, both by observation and by participation, that trying to change policy is, 99 times out of 100, a hopeless time sink. Some group of people (no idea who they are on that page, as it changes from page to page) will resist change at all costs, and will no doubt filibuster, drag feet, make borderline attacks and skirt WP:3RR to keep it the way it is, and there is currently no effective way to fight that. Even if there is no such group at this particular policy page, the sheer intertia of a decision-making body this size means change is unlikely.

Perhaps this is end of the week exhaustion, rather than rational thought. if I feel less fatalistic this weekend, I'll wander over and take a look. Either way, good luck. --barneca (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline[edit]

The ANI thread started with Protonk's 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC). Kurt responded to this (defending his attacks on a new user) and responded to the second thread, begun by me, at 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC) in which I raised concern about him calling deletionists a "fucking retarded subclass". He responded acknowledging the comment was over the line, but pledging to irritate all deletionists until they quit. The first explicit call for blocking was 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) although he is a long time user who has been warned ad nauseam about his civility. He was blocked at 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC). The conversation remained on the Main Page until Sticky Parkin's 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC). At this point, MBisanz moved onto a subpage with no explanation. In total, the discussion has been running for several years, as you know, because it's on ANI weeklyand other forums with a degree of frequency which I find startling and incredibly counterproductive. This particular iteration began about 52 hours ago.--JayHenry (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A very short time-scale then, as I suspected. That doesn't inspire me with confidence. He is indeed a long-time user (since 8 May 2004), but that shouldn't excuse his behaviour and comments. I just fear that the RfA stuff (the community disquiet at that has been rejected in other forums, including RfC and RfArb) has contributed to the feeling in the community. A block of weeks or months might have been better. I'm still concerned about Majorly's comments about IRC. If this was being discussed on IRC (and I have no way of knowing whether it was), Majorly's comment about Kurt being banned on IRC seemed almost to say: 'we've got rid of him there, why not do the same here?' How many of the people voting there heard about it on IRC? As for this having been going on for several years, are you sure? To really say that, you need to pinpoint when this started (Kurt's first prima facie oppose?). That was probably pinpointed on the RfC. And please, ANI weekly? That is hyperbole, unless you can really point to thread every week. And his block log is interesting. I hadn't looked at it in detail before, but the blocks are actually a long way apart and appear to be due to around 6 incidents. Not the worst three-year block log around by any stretch of the imagination. And the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Kae Knecht is interesting as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point that I have seen many times before, in both well-meaning and sinister contexts. A user has made enemies in the past, perhaps undeservedly. Some of these people, no doubt, are just waiting for him or her to slip up. Then they "form a lynch mob" or "scream burn him at the stake" or "have a witch hunt" or whatever. It's hard to dispute that most humans have at least some vindictive tendencies. The problem is that past grudges can be used so incredibly effectively as a shield, cloaking all current behavior, by saying "oh this is all just past grudges" or "stop the witch hunts". Anyways, I only injected myself into the conversation because I felt that, as an avowed inclusionist myself, there would be no distractions with the messenger (a crippling problem in our community), if I pointed out that "deletionists are fucking retarded" and "deletionists need to be irritated until they quit" is unequivocally unacceptable. --JayHenry (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Has there ever been a proposal to deprecate the practice of creating subpages on these threads? That would seem like a positive step to me. I believe the subpage was created because of genuine concerns with page size and edit-conflicts, rather than agenda driven mobhunters trying to hide their witchburning. But the perception of the latter is sufficiently more troubling than a couple of edit-conflict screens and, for that reason alone, should be enough to stop the creation of subpages. --JayHenry (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
There are some threads at WT:AN (or its archives). Carcharoth (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see that subpages are a perennial battle as well, and now it's back to one. Yet another reminder of why I (try to) avoid these things. Already the predictable factions are taking up their predictable talking points of "witch hunters" and "nuh-uh". I gather that I'm part of the angry lynch mob myself, although I endorse no block and only intended to make the non-controversial observation that calling others fucking retards and pledging to irritate people with whom you disagree until they quit does not contribute to a collaborative encyclopedia. I can't help but think, Carcharoth, that the primary useful function performed by ANI is that it attracts all the bile--from both sides it's incredibly bilious!--and factionalism and keeps it away from the actual encyclopedia for a short time at least. There's the specific (though not unique) problem--how do you protect people with minority opinions while at the same time not give them carte blanche to rampage over other editors--and the general problem of why do ANI discussions so rapidly devolve into factions, and I can't help but think that the only good coming from any of it is that the people with the problems are self-quarantined away from articles for the time being. -JayHenry (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I swore off ANI when I discovered that talk page conversations get much better results and with far less stress. But sometimes big group discussions are needed, as in community ban discussions. I'm a bit ambivalent myself, because I've sometimes started ANI threads that might have felt like a witch-hunt, but I usually try and aim for a resolution short of indefinite blocks or bans. I agree with Jehochman that better structure is needed for the ban discussions (there was a discussion about that previously that I should look up), but without the voting. Whose bright idea was it for the community to be able to ban, anyway? Discuss, yes, but the discussion needs to be kept under some semblance of control and final decision needs to be decided by a neutral that all will accept as neutral. Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Over at the Japanese Wiki they have a WP:Requests for banning page. I've been tinkering with the idea of drafting a model here with an eye towards formalizing the informal nature of AN/ANI and ensuring some sort of due process/sanity to such discussions. MBisanz talk 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be different to WP:CSN, right? I'm still puzzled how everyone (including me) let the ball drop since last time this sort of thing happened, and even after the discussions about how to improve things for next time. These messy ban discussions really do need to be handled better. And by messy I mean not that the result is not clear (the result is very clear here, at least as regards the block), but that the process was shameful (poor presentation of evidence, excessive speed, a pre-emptive block, a massive pile-on, people whipping things up and encouraging the process, discussion location wrong to start with and location changing inappropriately) and the provenence was also suspect - ban discussions spun off from an existing thread are invariably "heat-of-the-moment" things, and can sometimes be no more than someone seizing a "chance" to force a ban through (see Sceptre's attempt in an earlier thread) - this has happened many times before to many people, and the times when one of the discussions goes through, you are left wondering if it was just chance that the community that was around at the time finally lost patience. More than that, though, it was the way it started off being a block for the current issues, then it subtly morphed (like some arbcom cases) into considering a ban, and then later all past behaviour seemed to be fair game, along with rewriting history. People made inaccurate comments (ie. presented their "opinion" as fact without any supporting evidence), and then openly began citing the AfD and RfA behaviours as the real reasons for the ban, despite that being discussed before with no clear consensus on some issues and a clear consensus against taking action in other cases (eg. the RfA stuff). If the discussion had stuck to the current incident, and a block of a month or so been imposed (he hasn't been blocked for longer than a week before), then fine, but as soon as it was clear that there was a possibility of more, some people just couldn't help themselves (maybe I'm being charitable here?) and whipped things into a frenzy (I still wonder exactly how everyone gets drawn to discussions like this). Of course, I could be wrong - I was late to the threads, but this is what it seemed like to me as I looked back over what had happened. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I happened to see your comment to Pedro, and Guy's recent comment on the thread. It seems like Guy was a little more on the mark here. Though there may have once been productive contributions, they dried up some time ago, and it's been little but provocation for months. Nothing collaborative at all that I see-all combat. It's not just the prima facie thing at RFA, you know? It's been recently the Cool Down Block trap, where he asks a candidate about CBDs and if they agree with WP:BLOCK he opposes because real community servants know that policies are descriptive not prescriptive, and people who don't, or people who see policies as the community's wishes, or whatever don't get it (and nevermind the scenario of someone who agrees, but thinks CDBs are bad-that's not a possibility the mind admits). Anyways, what is it you're trying to extract from people? You want everyone to say, "I acknowledge the RFCs about his behavior at RFA were inconclusive, however, based solely on recent events such as attacking new editors, pledging to irritate others until they quit, calling people 'fucking retards', or saying they hate Wikipedia, and in light of previous warnings for personal attacks, which he was again warned about in this thread, and responded with the second threat above, I now endorse a block on these grounds and these grounds alone"? Look--the thing about two RFCs, even if they don't conclusively say you can't continue with what you're doing, is that if a tremendous number of users express concern with something, and since we're a collaborative project, maybe it's time to make some adjustments, even if it's not mandated, as a basic gesture of good faith. Certainly don't take it as an endorsement that you can now branch out into whatever attacks you like. And perhaps it's not just witchhunting and people can conclude something if instead the user continues exactly as before and also continually seeks out new methods that cause strife, create Catch-22s, and continues to insult people both directly and by implication. (By the way, is there an unspoken paradigm that every opinion is valid when it comes to withholding adminship privileges, but only certain opinions are valid when it comes to withholding editing privileges?) Please bear in mind my position at the RFCs and the fact that I would be okay with more chances for Kurt, and I don't endorse the block, let alone the ban. --JayHenry (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be cynical or anything, but did anyone stop to think why his productive edits dried up? I would have liked people to concentrate purely on the behaviour since the last RfC, or even open a new one and not take the two previous ones as any endorsement of anything. In my view, the two RfCs (have you read them?) and the rejected RfArb, and a few other discussions, resoundingly concluded that taking action against Kurt was not needed, though a vocal minority continued to, as the metaphor that was used at the time, "beat the dead horse". If there had been an RfC for his recent behaviour, and a consensus there that there was a problem (and there would almost certainly have been) then fine, I would have held my peace. But when I see ANI threads with people all worked up, suddenly switch to a ban discussion, with certain people taking an instigating role and egging others on, then I do have a very real problem with that sort of behaviour. To get back to Kurt's behaviour though, I agree that what was needed was for him to stop pushing the boundaries in general, and the behaviour that you have described in more detail (why did no-one think to mention that behaviour in the actual ban discussion?) does sound problematic. If one of the previous RfCs had had, as one of its resoundingly endorsed views, that Kurt "continually seeks out new methods that cause strife [...] and continues to insult people both directly and by implication", then that would have been a clearer shot across his bows. Clearly telling him to stop it. As it is, he got mixed messages from the community (and those "supporting" him were probably as much to blame for that as anyone), so I'm not surprised that he felt it OK to continue as before. Which in hindsight was going to be a recipe for trouble eventually. I haven't even read the August 4 thread yet. The one here. I now see it was the same pattern there. Someone comes to the boards with a complaint. Immediately someone (here, Sceptre) jumps in and complains bitterly about Kurt in general, and relatively quickly (just over 1 hour later) starts a section proposing a ban. I see that the thread was closed with "Sceptre took it to Arbcom". I found the RfArb thread here. Barneca said there: "Civility - getting worse, but keeping in mind that he takes a lot of unjustified crap from a lot of people, I don't think we're at RFAR or RFC levels. The best solution would be if some of his friends had a discrete word with him to dial it down a notch or two.". What Neil said there was: "the two RFCs were focussed on his RFA / AFD voting patterns, not his behaviour, and I would suggest an RFC aimed squarely at his behaviour would be wholly more accurate." That is exactly what I've just been saying to you here. I'm sorry to say this, but what I see here is an intrinsically unpopular editor with eccentric but ultimately harmless views (unless you think people use Kurt as a role model) being pressured over the years to conform, refusing to knuckle under to peer pressure, becoming more and more cynical, and eventually crossing some invisible cost-benefit analysis line in the sand, and getting booted out by the community, with the spectacle of some editors cheering from the sidelines and putting the boot in. Goodness, I don't usually get that worked up, but there is a long history here of certain types not really fitting in here, and Wikipedia actively driving away editors who are "different". Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I wrote up a proposal at User:MBisanz/RfBan MBisanz talk 03:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, since I was mentioned in [13], I might add I spent considerable time "calling out Majorly" here and here. Did he act poorly on that AFD page?, sure, will I call him out each and every time he acts poorly?, probably not.
I notice a concern in your comments about people wanting to ban Kurt for his AFD-inclusionism and RFA-opposition. You may wish to read Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy, particularly its focus on consensus as a method of reaching decisions. I don't see anything in there though that the decisions must be fair, or follow the concepts of liberal democracy or anything else as a qualifier. Could I suggest then that even if people were motivated to ban Kurt for voting in AFDs and RFAs, that there is nothing wrong with such a ban? That Wikipedia sets its own rules for behavior, Kurt knew many people felt he was violating those rules at RFA and AFD, and that he was banned as a result? That doesn't mean the rules are just or that Kurt is even right or wrong, just that the community no longer wants his involvement with the project. MBisanz talk 11:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. You are right about you calling out Majorly before. I wasn't talking about you there. It's more the minority opinoins thing, not the democracy thing. Mmore free speech than consensus. I know Wikipedia isn't an experiment in free speech either, but still. I think your RfBAN proposal is great. Will try and get to that later. Trying to update the documentation to get future discussions to happene at WP:AN for now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re block and possible ban of User:Kmweber[edit]

The total mess of the history of this shows how badly our process is broken, unable to deal with the scale involved. Lots of editors seem to assume a consensus when none is apparent, neither for the block nor for the ban (though there is clearly a majority of comments supporting the block, but a majority doesn't a consensus show. You were right to note the problem with moving the discussion off of AN/I, but AN/I -- or an AN/I subpage -- is a terrible place to determine controversial sanctions, it's designed for non-controversial, emergency actions, police actions, essentially, and frequently creates a mess when used for anything requiring deeper judgment.

It's pretty clear to me that Kmweber's commentary is "disruptive," by which I mean needlessly raising controversy, as if trolling for outrage. However, he's also raising issues of significance, saying, sometimes, what should be said, even if he says it with hyperbole or what might be called "general incivility." (I.e., not making a personal attack, but attacking classes of editors, usually "deletionists" or sometimes "power-mad administrators.")

The community has the right to exclude such, there is no doubt about that, but this is the problem: we should not ban an editor unless we have set clear boundaries or some process such that the editor can know what is acceptable and what is not. No editor should be banned who is willing to respect a community consensus. But the difficulty here is that it is actually quite difficult to obtain a community consensus on editor behavioral issues, where the behavior is actually controversial (i.e., there isn't any expressed consensus that it is inappropriate).

An editor who expresses important minority positions can easily offend enough other editors that a pile-on will occur in a discussion that is actually not related to the true "offense," i.e., that which is actually motivating these editors to participate.

So, two considerations: First, how to find consensus on behavioral limits for Kmweber, should such be warranted, and by "consensus," it is greatly preferable that Kmweber's agreement or at least consent be part of it. If he consents to behavioral limits, and then willfully violates them, banning becomes appropriate. I've been trying to experiment with a way of doing this with a self-RfC, as you know. The idea is to find a way for the community to advise me; I control it, and that's important. (I could invite another to "chair" such a process, and a class of users could arise who are skilled at this: i.e., at finding true consensus as distinct from a mere majority of editors divided from a significant minority.)

Then, how to implement it in a minimally disruptive way. As you know, your participation in my self-RfC was specifically invited, but, without it, there is a tentative consensus appearing on certain issues. On-line full deliberative process can be glacially slow, and low participation means that any consensus found can't be presumed to reflect general consensus, but it's a start. Before I'm done, I'll solicit wider participation through some general announcement, but it won't be disruptive, unless someone needlessly attempts to crush it, which I don't think will happen; attempts so far have failed.

So far, what passes for deliberative process on Wikipedia (RfC starts to get there, and ArbComm is even more so) has confirmed that Kmweber should not be sanctioned; hence he has apparently assumed that he need not alter his behavior. The current block is outside that process and contradicts it. Hence, if the block stands, I'd expect further disruption, should he appeal the block, as is his right. Kurt is disruptive, I'll agree, but attempting to stop him, outside of some orderly process, is more disruptive, as we can see by the huge fuss that took place in his absence over the issue.

There is obviously substantial sentiment to ban him, but, as well, substantial sentiment that this is improper. My view is that Kurt has violated Rule 0, in a minor way. A sign of Rule 0 violation is that the real motivation behind a sanction will not be stated; instead, a sanction will be stated as being due to some lesser violation, sometimes, (Ron Duvall was indef blocked and considered banned thereafter, for creating a non-notable article, not a hoax, and sourced). Or the block will be due to some general, non-specific violation, such as "trolling." Socrates was ordered to drink hemlock upon a charge of "corrupting the youth," not a specific crime. I'm not equating Socrates and Kmweber, but, instead, I'm pointing to what happened to that society. Because it suppressed the "change agents," those who suggest change, the society was unable to adapt to new circumstances, and was ultimately crushed by outside competitors. We must find a way to accommodate the cranks and fringe advocates and oddballs and that editor who, just maybe, knows the next step we should take in our development. There is no way to keep the latter, reliably, without keeping as many as possible from the former.

So the ultimate question is how to contain the disruption that those who propose change can trigger. In RL, there are people who know how to do this, how to facilitate consensus that includes all parties. (Yes, *all*, though when the scale gets large, it may be impractical to go to that limit.) Basic thing it takes is time. It can't happen quickly, normally. Our process tends to be extraordinarily impatient. Part of it is possibly the average age of our editors.... --Abd (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with much there. :-) Sorry not to have, um, "found the time" to participate in your userspace RfC. I'm still kind of hoping that you and Jehochman (and the others) have put that behind you now. BTW, you are very into issues of consensus and stuff like that, but what about the principle of "moving on"? It is not possible to stop people from dredging up old things, or failing to drop something (and sometimes that is good and needed), but equally it is not just the age of some editors, but the speed of editing here that causes some of this. The wiki in Wikipedia means quick (to be more precise it was wiki wiki), and the interaction of a fast pace of editing with the problems of textual and online communications, might be at the heart of a lot of the problems. Anyway, if you want to see the other stuff I've written recently, have a look at my contribs. Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand "moving on." Do it all the time. However, I'm not doing it with this one; instead, I'm trying to avoid disruption, and I can, and do, work with Jehochman and, as well, Iridescent. In that sense I've moved on, and, in fact, was never stuck, though a tad inconvenienced during the block. However, the work I see most important, here on Wikipedia, I've stopped. And that's because an apparent block for personal attack, assumption of bad faith, harassment, and general disruption, if allowed to stand uncorrected, can and will be used in the future to interdict my work. Jehochman could "move on" very simply and easily: apologize for the warning, or, at least, do not oppose a finding that it was improper (in the sense of describing behavior that wasn't as described). I'm not seeking any sanctions, just a correction. Specifically, I'm looking for a block log annotation (but Jehochman didn't block; his warning is relevant because it created the backdrop for the block and was cited as such by Iridescent). And I'm attempting to do this with minimal disruption and maximum respect for true consensus. One step at a time. You were invited to comment because both of us, Jehochman and myself, clearly respect you. So a few minutes of attention might resolve that part of the RfC quickly; then I'd move on to the next issue: the block. That, as well, might be simple. Or not. I can't predict.
The self-RfC was cited here as an example of something that could have application with Kurt. Indeed, one of the reasons I'm sticking with this is that there are wider implications and possibilities. As long as we keep fighting fires, then moving on as soon as it seems the fire isn't blazing any more, but not truly cleaning up, we will continue to be fighting fires, not preventing them from breaking out in the first place. --Abd (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I feel no ill will whatsoever. On the contrary, I feel like I now better understand Abd's concerns. I know a user who was formerly indef blocked who has become an administrator. People should not hold past incidents against you, and if they do, let me know and I will tell them not to. Jehochman Talk 15:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You forgot to mention Wikipedia:Umbrage. :-) Or is this something subtly different? Template:Emotion-footer is something I look at when searching for a word sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman has generously consented to a statement which resolves this issue completely as far as his involvement is concerned. Thanks for your diligent advice. Umbrage was not involved here, she was busy hemming and hawing on a bridge project in Alaska. --Abd (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Kurt and arrogance and AfD[edit]

Firstly, may I say that you have caused me no offence in that summary ;) Now, I didn't actually have a second look at the AfD in question (which in hindsight was probably quite stupid, looking at it now) and I do indeed see that my comment on the blocking could be seen as in spite of him for that one incident. Of course, that attack does no favours for me. Nonetheless, I would just like to clear up that I made the comment before seeing the attack on the AfD page. Also, yes, I would have changed my !vote if I had seen the expanded, sourced article in contrast to the unsourced, weasly version I saw. I hope this clears up any concerns - if not, please tell me. Thanks! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Clears up everything just fine. :-) Thanks for taking the time to reply at length. Much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. My concern with Kurt's actions are not directed by a grudge, by any appreciation for the people who are involved in the regular square-dances we see with Kurt, or anything else like that; it's simply that he's become a net liability to the project through his comments and actions. Two good-faith editors with lots of great contributions to articlespace were quite rudely called out because they felt that an article Kurt created should be deleted. Frankly, I did some research on the topic myself and found some minimal sourcing that indicated some notability, but it was borderline; I didn't comment on the AfD because I had commented on the ANI thread, and figured I was putting myself into a "bad-faith vote" complaint had I done so. The windmills, in this latest case, at least, are the concept of "inclusionist vs. deletionist" in which Kurt certainly seems to feel that *everything* should be kept and that we should be ignoring the guidelines set in place to define notability. Ain't gonna happen. But, I know that if it *does* happen, I'll personally find something better to do with my time than trying to polish the heaps of garbage taking the forms of garage band articles, "zOMG MY PRODUCT IS SO AWESOME!!!" paeans to junk, et al., into feasible encyclopedia articles. As for the situation with Majorly, no, his comments aren't helpful in a lot of cases, and I hope he backs off. Unfortunately, he's providing an opportunity for just that kind of commentary - "well, HE does it!" - that seem to dilute the discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for this as well. With some of the opinions flying around, I was kind of hesitant to ask, but the responses from both of you have (in a good way) restored some of my faith in things around here. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Are you not ashamed?[edit]

You misunderstood me. I wasn't asking what the verdict was; the MfD said the article was one sentence. What sentence? (I'm not an admin, and I missed the joke.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right! :-) "If you insult a fellow editor, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you insult them in bad faith, we're all ashamed of you." - I now see that's two sentences. Does that explain Geogre's Wikipedia:Have you no decency left, sir? At long last, have you no decency left?. I haven't Googled it, but it sounds like a quote or parody of some sort. Ah! Interesting. It a famous quote of what someone said to Joseph McCarthy. See, Geogre's comments always go over my head. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You could rent this. I'm pretty sure you can hear the lines, as originally uttered, in a strange, Brahmin accent. Jd2718 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your remark[edit]

Hello Carcharoth, I've responded to your questioning of my comment at this point in the Kmweber ban discussion. I hope it clarifies my view. Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't reply, but I think we all need to move on from that. It was a long weekend, to say the least. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; it sure was. I think it is drawing to a close as we speak. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Busy[edit]

Hey Carcharoth, I'm going to be going abroad pretty soon, so while I will still have internet, I won't have access to nearly as extensive of a library in English as I have in the States. I'm bringing Flieger and Shippey with me, and will start working on updating those articles and getting my notes on them out, but I probably won't be able to do much more than that for the next few months. Sorry to leave you on the lurch here as things are just getting started, Astraflame (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Do have a look at the WikiProject talk page if you get a chance. Some automated selection of articles for WP:0.7 has made things a bit exciting - nothing like a real deadline to encourage some real work. :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

books about wikipedia[edit]

you were asking about books about Wikipedia on Charles Matthew's talk.. I left this comment there as well. I'm not sure there is a list, actually. Offhand I can tell you that our book & John Broughton's are the only books about the English Wikipedia that have been written. There's a book in German, one in Polish, and one forthcoming in Swedish. There's also a book about MediaWiki that was published. Andrew Lih's book, about the history of Wikipedia, is forthcoming next year. Then there's the collections of articles: WP 1.0, WP for Schools, and the German Brockhaus collection. I think that's about it... phoebe / (talk to me) 01:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I just need to remember where to find this again when I need it... (or write it down on a piece of paper? How low-tech). Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Or start a page on meta! It'd be a useful reference and I'm not sure I have them all here. :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't find a page on meta, and wasn't sure what to call it. So I posted this. And I found Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story! Fascinating. Carcharoth (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Butter[edit]

Moderately seriously, butter is a lubricant. The problem with incivility, at base, is that it impedes discussion; mutual appreciation, on the few occasions I have seen it tried, does assist discussion and encourages mutual respect.

We could use an equivalent of the parliamentary "honourable and gallant gentleman", which serves the same purpose and is shorter and routine; but we don't have one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Just start using it and see if it catches on. Maybe link to an essay. BTW, did you see the McCarthyism bit on Geogre's talk page - it all came from me following up his quote (which I'm sure you recognised, though I didn't) after you posted above. I want to thank you (the "honourable and gallant gentleman") for that, because it was a fascinating bit of history there. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologetics Attacks on Local churches[edit]

Greetings,

For some reason this article is a favorite attack target of right-wing fundamentalist apologists who believe it is their job to "save" people from it. It is not Wikipedia's job to proselytze but to present the facts in a fair, objective manner.

Also, this topic shouldn't even be controversial: the only controversy is that there is a controversy (a circular argument). There is no logic behind those that insist there is a controversy. The only ones arguing that this is a controversial topic are doing so from a RELIGIOUS standpoint. There is no government sanction or anything to back up the level of vitriol.

Compare this to Tony Alamo where there are allegations of serious wrongdoing by credible sources.

Perhaps a protection template is warranted. Note that many of the editors insisting on adding negative material (from religious websites) have made little or no edits in other areas (i.e., single-issue editing).

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 02:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You could try WP:RPP. If people there think there is a problem, they will protect the page. But they will only do that if there is edit warring, I think. If there are WP:NPOV problems, then the policy page gives some tips on how to handle it. If living people are involved, it can be reported at WP:BLPN. Apologies for the acronym soup! Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV[edit]

In view of your work at Wikipedia:Categorization, please feel free to comment at the National parks category name DRV. Thanks. -- Suntag 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Thanks for your helpful edit and the encouraging edit note. :) DurovaCharge! 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)