User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 26

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

Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27

Contents

Welcome to Milhist![edit]

Thank you[edit]

For your votes. They are a nice surprise, at the time I am really very close to becoming part of this trend. Could I ask you - why have you voted as you voted? Your votes certainly don't fall in the "vote with the majority" group, but I see you don't provide comments with them. I am in particular curious w/ regards to your votes on FoF 9 (Use of administrative tools in disputes), 10 (Disruption - Piotrus), 16 (Disruption - Radeksz), and remedies 2 (Piotrus banned), 3 (Piotrus topic banned) and 10 (Radeksz topic banned). Mind you, my question is part personal (for obvious reason), part academic (I've seen enough of ArbCom that I think doesn't work that I am quite interested in the parts that I think I do :>). PS. Per your previous comments, I am asking this of you publicly. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did I vote the way I did? The main reason is that I have to devote more time to other matters, so was unable to complete voting. Effectively, I've deferred the matters where I have abstained without comment for my colleagues to decide, which you may not be entirely happy with, but that's better than retracting all my votes on the other matters, which I have reviewed enough to be able to vote on (where I have abstained with comments, that is slightly different). One thing I always say to anyone facing sanctions is that good behavior in other areas can lead to reduction of the sanctions after a few months. Carcharoth (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Obama case[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, I wanted to post this query to one Arb rather than something more formal and I'm afraid you've drawn the short stick, in part because I had to pick someone and in part because I know you have at least some familiarity with these matters.

Per the final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles two editors, User:ChildofMidnight and User:Scjessey, were topic banned from Obama articles for 6 months. They were also prohibited from interacting with one another, as were ChildofMidnight and User:Wikidemon. The topic bans were passed on June 21st so they will be expiring in a couple of weeks, whereas the interaction bans seem to have been indefinite/permanent (which I think is completely fine).

As I've been discussing with Scjessey and Wikidemon here and here, there is a question about how the interaction prohibition will function once Scjessey and ChildofMidnight return to editing at the Obama articles (Scjessey has already said he plans to do this, ChildofMidnight I'm not sure about). In terms of avoiding one another, it's obvious that Wikidemon should not follow ChildofMidnight to an article he created or vice versa, but all will be able to work on articles related to Obama, and it would not be surprising to find them all expressing a view on a given topic which could get a bit dicey.

The rub of the matter is: how has this sort of situation generally been dealt with in the past? Are there unoffical guidelines for how editors prohibited from direct interaction handle working on the same article, particularly when it comes to talk page comments? (that they should not be reverting each other rather goes without saying I think). I've helped out with article probation enforcement on the Obama articles in the past and am familiar with the underlying issues, and my goal here is to avoid any miscommunication or confusion if and when the topic banned editors return to editing (as you no doubt recall there has been some confusion about how to interpret the Obama remedies in the past which had led to disputed blocks and the like).

Any thoughts you could offer would be appreciated, and I'd be happy to pass that along to the three other editors in question so that you don't have to worry about it further. I think it's better to avoid taking this issue to the whole committee via a request for clarification or something similar unless there is an actual problem that crops up, but some information about past precedents could be helpful in preventing those problems from occurring in the first place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is tricky. What is really required is great restraint and self-discipline on the part of the editors involved. If any of the parties feel they are unlikely to be able to avoid getting dragged into, or joining, arguments that include the other parties, then I would advise avoiding the articles. Temperament and all that. It is possible to work on different articles at different times, and to focus purely on content without referring to another editor by name or indirectly, but difficult at times. Essentially, all the parties need to consider that if they share common interests, any mutual interaction ban will make it difficult for them to work together on the same articles. There are precedents in other cases, but this is something I think is best clarified with the committee as a whole, and before the topic bans expire. So despite you not wanting to bother the whole committee with this, I think you will have to do so, unless the parties themselves agree on something (without interacting of course - maybe through a mediator such as yourself). The only thing I can think of is that a willing mediator agree to field ongoing concerns and help keep things going smoothly - but again, check with the committee that this is desirable. Too much overhead (as in one current case) is sometimes not good. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very helpful. I think what I'll start with is contacting ChildofMidnight to see if he even intends to return to editing of Obama articles (if not then there's not much of an issue). I should point out that that editor has been strongly critical of my work as an admin in the past (I don't at all agree with his thinking, but obviously he's entitled to that view, and it should also be said that I have also been strongly critical of ChildofMidnight's behavior on a number of occasions), so I may not be the best "mediator" in this situation given C of M's lack of faith in my objectivity. However I'll drop him a note to see what his thinking is, and if he is planning to return to Obama editing I can at least be the one to put this in ArbCom's lap so the three editors in question don't have to worry about it. If it comes to that, would you recommend making a formal request to the committee (I assume a request for clarification?) or starting with an e-mail to the ArbCom list, or something else? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
On-wiki clarification would be best. In this sort of situation, all parties need to see what is said by you and others. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversight Requested[edit]

Hi, my email is in a number of pages. Deleteding the text will still leave an edit history, and previous edits are logged in the edit history. How should I contact you, via email?174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please e-mail the address given on the WP:OVERSIGHT page. Carcharoth (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Opinion[edit]

Good day! I would like to ask you opinion if this user could be unblocked. I have been "roaming" around looking for new users which have been blocked. This user was indefinitely blocked for POV edits, which I believe was a result of ignorance to the rules of WP. He didn't even defend himself about the complains he received in the talk page. He has valid points in his edits (according to another user) but he doens't discuss them in the article talk page. I am here to ask your opinion if this user can be unblocked. I am not this user. 222.127.91.97 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please tell the user himself to use the {{unblock}} template, following the instructions there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain your vote?[edit]

I commented about this here. Could you please explain which previous cases do you mean? Some of the mail group members (like Ostap and Hillock) were not involved in previous cases. Others, like me, commented in previous EE cases but did not appear even in the Fofs. I am especially concerned of 11C which prevents people from participating in discussions. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Rf Clarification/Amendment[edit]

I've asked another question there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

socionics arb case request to include niffweed[edit]

On account of niffweed's confession to making bad faith accusation towards other editors, niffweed should be included in the judgment and his actions investigated for sake that he had intentionally caused contention with accusations of bad faith, misuse of wikipedia conduct reporting in place of positive cooperation, and in place of any potential or expected cooperation caused negative escalation of conflict between the editors by his actions. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppression follow up[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. I'm just following up in my capacity as a Signpost editor regarding the David Gerard suppression issue and your recusal. Since we don't have the suppressed text regarding your recusal, I just wanted to clarify what you had actually recused yourself from and why? Hiding T 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

When I re-entered my recusal (here, 23:45, 2 December 2009), I didn't quote in full what the edit did or the edit summary. The suppressed edit I linked to (this one, 15:08, 29 November 2009) was an edit where I remove my name from the list of arbitrators "Not voting" and created a new listing for "Recuse", listing myself there. The edit summary said (after the name of the section, which was "David Gerard"): "entering recuse for the record, after motion was published, was absent when voting took place". The original (now suppressed) recusal edit did not state the reason for my recusal, though I have stated to ArbCom why I recused. In short: I recused myself from the original motion that was voted on, and chose not give on-wiki my reasons for recusal. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Hiding T 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your switch to oppose[edit]

I have no earthly idea how you could consider a sanction prohibiting Mattisse from attacking FAs of those she dislikes "unworkable." Mattisse has proved in the last few days, through her actions targeting 3 FAs of those she doesn't like, that something such as what Sandy suggests is sorely needed. Until Arbitrators develop the will to sanction her for this type of behavior, nothing will change. UA 02:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just be patient, OK. I had to get some sleep, and I'm now making clear that I'm supporting a similar but different type of restriction. It needs to be one that does not personalise the issue. Naming people that have been in conflict with Mattisse is perpetuating the personalisation of these issues. Carcharoth (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I am disappointed that Unitanode's assumption of bad faith and assertion of article ownership has gone unchallenged, in the face of the evidence contradicting Joopercoopers perceptions about Mattisse's editing. Geometry guy 10:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No such "evidence" has been presented. Some attempts at explanation have been made, but -- from my wadings through the muck that the clarification request has become -- I have seen no one adequately explain how Mattisse just happened upon those three articles. Good faith is not infinite, in the face of evidence to the contrary. (And please don't point to the Dr. Pda list. There were a bunch of other articles, so the probability that she just stumbled upon those three while using that list is still pretty small.) UA 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I provided information here on the correlation between Mattisse's edits and Dr. Pda's list, and invited factual corrections. So far, there haven't been any such corrections. If you have some, please let me know. If you prefer to stick to your preconceptions and are unwilling to sort through the lengthy request for clarification (as arbitrators have to do) then I would imagine Carcharoth has already taken on board your concerns and does not need to be troubled any further. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That in no way explains how Mattisse "happened" to stumble across three FAs from her enemies. I'm not certain what you're even trying to "prove" with that post. UA 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
How nice. An argument on my talk page. The other arbitrators vote as well, so if either of you want to say something that they will read, you need to say it at the clarifications page. I've noted both your comments and will review the clarification thread and motions to see if anything needs changing. But please, no further replies here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Motion 2.2[edit]

Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:

  • "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.
  • "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.
  • "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:

  1. Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
  2. Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
  3. Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering. SilkTork *YES! 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree, which is why I opposed that motion, and have raised objections with those who supported this motion or abstained. I see you have contacted the other arbs that voted there as well. I will see what they have to say. I think what you suggest has a good chance of being adopted, though some more time needs to be given to allow people to respond to your post of the above at the clarifications thread. I will copy what I've said here to there, and the discussion should continue there. Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Secret arbcom evidence[edit]

Tothwolf has said he sent secret email evidence to arbcom about his case. I emailed the arbcom list two days ago and haven't seen a response. How can I see the secret evidence? Miami33139 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned[edit]

I've raised concerns on the Requests talk page about your status as an uninvolved arbitrator. Although it might appear that there won't be many arbitrators left if all involved recuse, you do seem to be more conflicted (at least from a "prejudged the issue" perspective) than most and there's a whole new batch of arbitrators to join at any moment anyway. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll go and have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I have been spot editing away, but somehow, unknowingly got logger out ,not an uncommon occurrence, but when I tried to edit while logged out I received this message:
Editing from 98.23.192.0/19 has been disabled by Dominic for the following reason(s):
I'd like to know more about why I am blocked. Can you help? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed this out to Dominic. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there a way that you can determine why this address was blocked? Carptrash (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I could, but I'm leaving it to Dominic to answer your questions. You could ask on his talk page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I got to him, he got back to me. Thanks, Carptrash (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

You posted your decision to decline the case one minute after I posted a suggestion, which was based in part upon your statement that you'd consider recusing. It's not rendered obsolete by your choice to decline a full case, though. Could head off future dilemmas. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Separation_of_powers. Durova386 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Change which behavior[edit]

Which behavior? Where I made statements about linguistics and the ArbCom inappropriately said it wasn't within my expertise when I am even editing a dissertation on the very topic that discusses the link between Saussure and Derrida in linguistics and language theory?

Or where I called an academic not respectable and that was a "BLP violation" even though I could provide many reliable sources to it.

Or do you mean where I put up three polls and worked with two RfCs to get the Persian Empire page restored and after every consensus not to change it, it was edit warred back by the people who consistent came to those pages?

Or do you mean where I put up an RfC for protecting Geogre's sock puppetry for five months before Coren got enough information to indef the Utgard Loki account? And that I should avoid admins abusing their ops to delete it?

Or do you mean where I was "unable to work with others" or "deal with being wrong" when the only evidence is a guy who claims that I an unable to "write English" and I have proven that I have worked with dozens of people without a problem, and even the ones that were a "problem", like Malleus and Ceoil ended with us compromising and moving on to work on even more pages proving there was no real problem to begin with?

The only thing I do is right on articles. Lets see, what have I done in the past six months outside of article space - the Chillum and drug dispute, the RfC on Risker and Bishonen, and asking for Peter Damian to not be banned even though he was always a jerk to me.

But did you say anything about Risker approving of Unitanode as a restart account and Unitanode going after both me and Mattisse? Making accusations that I "hate" others, edit warring, and other things? On an account that clearly had a history with me but since he was a magical restart no one can know about there is no way to prove if he had a history that would allow for him to be banned for the nonsense?

Or how about that a CU was placed on Fowler when it was claimed that there was no basis for it? Or that a CU was placed on Moreschi when it was claimed I didn't even have enough suspicion to claim they were meat puppets?

If you want to ban me for being incivil, where are all the incivil fights? If you want to ban me for personal attacks, where are they? If you want to ban me for edit war, where is the list? How about sock puppetry? POV pushing?

None of that was provided. Two incidents of mocking academics for saying things which were provenly wrong by reliable sources and accusing a group of people who consistently appeared in the same areas who consistedly responded to conversations involving the others, who consistently appeared on each others talk pages mocking me, and who have been known to be in the same IRC room, as, gasp, working together. Yet they also accused me of canvassing without any statements against them. -I- don't run my own IRC room and organize with these people to fight "nationalism" like Moreschi et al do. It isn't a coincidence they all have the same essay about how nationalism is evil and consistently appear in all the same debates.

Ever think that 200+ AFDs with the same vote was curios? And that even the most prolific AFD editors, like DGG, were still not even close to that with many votes in the contrary? Yes, people just coincidentally agree like that without 45 minutes of each other and happen to vote in the exact same way.

Oh, that's right. That's my fault. I do apologize for the sarcasm, but you can add that on the ArbCom as an -actual- fault. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether you were right or not, but how you handle disputes. You can go one of two ways here (the arbitration case decision is not going to change). You can either dispute the result of the case, and see how far that gets you (you would need to spend time writing up a clear summary of what you contest about the case, not what you wrote above), or you can accept the result of the case and work on how to handle disputes better, and then see if there are ways for you to demonstrate that you can handle disputes better, and ask to return to editing at some point (between six months and a year). The other advice I give to people on the verge of a site ban, or wide-ranging topic ban, is to find work to do elsewhere. It may not help if you disagree with the result of the case, but it will help you carry on with at least some of the things you enjoy about Wikipedia (e.g. wikisource, wikibooks, and so on). But an actual break of a few weeks to calm down first is also a good idea, as getting involved in disputes elsewhere after a siteban here is not a good idea. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
How I handle disputes? Lets see, I put up three straw polls and an RfC, all saying the same thing, and I had Wizardman consistently tell me I was right. I guess that was handling it wrong too? Or how about the fact that Folantin, Akhilleus, and Dbachmann edit warred and blanked the page against consensus? Its called a double standard. I haven't made even close to the amount of personal attacks that are on that Workshop page, yet it is -me- who has the problem handling disputes? When I put up the WQA and a user on probation edit warred against me inappropriate, that was -my- fault? And if my way of handling disputes was so bad, where were the blocks? Why did so many admin side with me? Why do so many users still side with me? Hell, Wizardman had to retract the claim about Oscar Wilde because there was no legitimate way to dare claim that the two sentences in a guy's article without any references and without any publications on Oscar Wilde could make a claim that he HAD SEX WITH YOUNG BOYS when it goes against over a thousand legitimate biographical articles and books. Sure, I may have been upset, but I was upset for the damn right reasons. I have already shown how your fellow Arbs abused their spots - two refused to recuse, one made deals with Moreschi and lied about his CU checking, and another made a deal with me, while another told me to just stay quiet and sit back even though I was being nastily personally attacked up and down the workshop because "they would be dealt with" and I wouldn't have to worry about them doing such thing anymore. Oh, I am sitting on far more than what I have revealed publicly. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hell, Carcaroth, you know Unitanode is a restart account that had a long history with me and Mattisse. Why haven't you banned him for continuing his previous actions on a new name to hide from any reprocussions as such users are normally banned? You can't magically start harassing someone on a new name when you had a previous history with them. There Unitanode is up on your talk page. And I know the ArbCom talked about him being a restart account - I have that email. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML[edit]

I sincerely hope that you all keep in mind that the more lenient you are towards the EEML, the harsher you are to everyone having the misfortune of becoming their target. I have made that sad experience, it is not fun. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, topic bans (and some site bans) are passing, but if there is more trouble, those can easily be upgraded. And if there is battleground behaviour on the part of others (no matter what "side" they are on - there should, of course, be only one side here - the side of those writing an encyclopedia and working with others to do that), the case can easily be extended by amendments. It should be clear that the committee is fast losing patience with all those arguing incessantly about such matters. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Recused but emailing all and sundry[edit]

So recusal means trying to influence people off-wiki while pretending on-wiki not to be taking part? Which arbs are doing this please? DuncanHill (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not as bad as that, but yes, some of those recused have edged onto that line. I will leave it to them to explain what e-mails they sent and why. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC) And no, I'm not going to name them, so please don't ask.
Well, I did ask, but I won't press you - at least you had the decency to point out that it was happenning and ask for it to stop. Perhaps you could advise them that their behaviour is the sort of thing that only encourages conspiracy/cabal theories. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)[edit]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I really hope to this isnt true, and hate to bother you[edit]

[Report of COI] I figured since WND is Rather Right wing this is not true, but this is odd, it seems you are the highest person i can report to without contacting wikimedia Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conveniently, I've just been reading a talk page that mentioned this, and I agree with the advice given here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings[edit]

Re: Henry Allingham World War I contest question[edit]

Hi, since you created yourself your submission page I hadn't have it watchlisted until now and was unaware of your submissions. I'm terribly sorry and apologise if this changed somehow your contest performance. As I looked over your submission page, you seem to be at the moment just 1 point behind the last competitor which qualifies for the second round (and he hasn't been very active recently). So if you want to continue, go ahead, create an article and catch him up (you still have more than three days to do this). I will award you the points for your submissions first thing after arriving home from my holiday. Thanks and best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, they'll count for the second round as the articles are not assessed yet. However, you are qualified for the next round so there is no reason to worry. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A Middle earth map[edit]

Hi! I had uploaded a map on tr.wikipedia. It's here. I'm not sure if it breaks copyright rules. As you are interested in Middle earth things, you might know whether that derivation is legal or not. I found it on a forum, 'tis not my work. Have a nice Christmas!--Tuleytula (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't read that language, but I think it got deleted. Anything you find on a forum that is not yours is probably copyrighted. I'd try and do without a map and look to write about the responses to the books, to balance the articles written about the content of the books. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Sopwith Schneider.jpg

You are one of the twelve editors advancing into the second round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The second round started at 00:00, 29 December and ends 23:59, 31 January. The top six ranked players at the end of this stage will advance into the final round of the contest so keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow![edit]

Trophy.png

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)[edit]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Magnus Carlsen[edit]

Current events globe On 3 January 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Magnus Carlsen, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming[edit]

I agree that some people have interpreted the global warming probation as an opportunity to "take out" those whom they see as the most egregious offenders, and that a reliable predictor for this perception of someone as an offender is whether or not that person personally accepts the mainstream view of global warming or not. As experienced Wikipedians we know that isn't how it works. It's possible to strongly disagree with somebody's perspective while recognising that they are as committed as you are to getting the best article written, and the ability to work together is a key Wikipedia skill.

It has been observed that the half-life of climate change skeptics on global warming articles is much briefer than that of those who tend to accept the scientific consensus. This brings its own problems. Some of it is just a matter of mentoring relatively new editors who sometimes interpret Wikipedia's policies in a way that can be puzzling for those of us who are informed by the historical development of the policies. Some of it involves dealing with quirks that are thrown up by the dissonance between the overwhelming acceptance of global warming as settled science within the scientific community and the rather different public perceptions in some countries.

For instance you have to explain why a blog like RealClimate, which is run by climatologists and talks about the science of climatology, can be a reliable source on that subject, while Wattsupwiththat, a far more popular blog run by a former weatherman which also talks about the science of climatology, isn't normally regarded as a reliable source. The fact that the former is mostly written from the point of view of the scientific consensus while the latter is skeptical even to the point of questioning the data from American weather stations, is inevitable given the state of the science, but of course it is easy for climate skeptics to see ulterior motives in our occasional reliance on RealClimate. Perhaps the solution is to eliminate or drastically reduce our use of RealClimate--there should be plenty of reliable sources that are more suitable than a blog.

What the probation is intended to do is to reduce or eliminate edit warring, personal attacks and whatnot, which have become regular weapons in a war of attrition. Without these distractions the articles stand a chance of getting written instead of fought over. Or at the worst we stand a chance of discussing how to incorporate material instead of having edit wars over the same question. And I think it's already beginning to work. Although there is also some probing of the limits, too, I hope the novelty of that approach will wear off when independent sysops show that they're unimpressed by such gaming.

One perennial problem is a real world split into ideologies. At the governmental and scientific level and in most countries at the level of popular involvement, the science of global warming is accepted and uncontroversial. In others, for largely local reasons, it is still under heavy challenge at the level of popular debate where a strong ideological split is visible. This is mirrored, some people were surprised to learn when they read selected emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit last month, at the level of scientific debate, where it is normal for theories to face regular challenges which must be resolved by further research, and personal feelings are involved. That poses problems for an encyclopedia which tries to present both the prevailing scientific consensus and the often very political controversy over that science. Editors who have expertise in the science, and whose work is invaluable on the science, may have baggage that limits their ability to write about the controversy. By the same token, editors in different countries will have extremely different views of the controversy. Editors from Europe, for instance, are likely to put far less weight on what they see as mere parochialism and foot-dragging in America--akin to the anomalous popularity of creationism and intelligent design in America. Perhaps the solution is to write about the national debate over global warming in the American context, in the European context, and so on, possibly splitting into distinct articles. Such decisions showed signs of being made even before the probation.

So I agree with some of your reservations about the global warming articles, but I don't think this is beyond the capability of the community to resolve. There is a lot of willingness, but we have to deal with the Wild West-style problems before we can clearly see a way forward. --TS 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying here (I was waiting for the request to be archived). Some good stuff said above. Hopefully things will work out, and some of the reservations expressed will also be addressed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor TFA[edit]

Yes, it was the Italian War of 1521–1526 I was talking about. Maybe I was being overly derisive, but I find this to be a problem with many history articles; a carelessness about the age of the sources. There's not enough understanding for the the fact that sources get outdated and superseded by new scholarship in the humanities, just as in the sciences (though admittedly not at the same rate).

I could take it to FAR, but I'm not sure what the result would be. I don't think I have the resources/expertise/time to improve it single-handedly. It would be a shame to nominate it just to get it delisted. Lampman (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A note on the talk page at minimum would be courteous, as there may be a reason for the seeming imbalance in the use of sources in the references between the older and newer work. I will do that at some point if you don't have time. Thanks for pointing it out, as that sort of thing is really needed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Lampman (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

BoP block[edit]

I'd like to know what is going on in regards to this matter. While I can understand that the matter is somewhat sensitive, I feel that - due to the lack of remedies we can offer BoP - some punitive measure is called for against MBisanz. I personally have little against the admin, but at best he should be facing a block for outing BoP. At worst, he should lose the mop for a time and having to re-apply. The man was acting on autopilot while making the incredibly poor decision to block. Admins have some pretty impressive tools; autopilot is not an acceptable behavior, especially when the result is the clusterfuck presented to us here. As I am not an admin, I have no idea what if any discussion is taking place here. Could you please assist? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The matter is still being actively discussed, and we are nearing a decision (for anyone else reading this). I understand that you want to know what is going on here, but it is best to wait until we have reached that decision, and people ask for further clarification if needed at that time. This won't go away, but neither does it need insistent follow-ups on-wiki. If you are not satisfied with the explanations and decisions eventually provided, please re-raise the issue at that point (in a few days time at most, I hope). Carcharoth (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your candor, Carharoth. I will wait as you prescribe. I think it is a mistake to have this discussion behind closed doors, but I know you guys don't feel free to discuss matters unless it is all private. Understand that BoP is being nice about this because he thinks you guys can actually fix his block log, which we both know you cannot. He is utterly screwed in any future RfA. The blocking admins enforced policy over guidelines. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There are at least four different policies that can apply to this situation and WP:OUTING is probably the least appropriate of them. This is a complicated situation and ArbCom is working on a comprehensive solution, which it is premature to outline at the moment.  Roger Davies talk 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
So long as we are providing more weight to policies (of which CleanStart is but one on point), and not behavioral guidelines, represented by RtV. While I agree that is wasn't a typical outing, per se, I cannot imagine an instance wherein the user's future RfA's will not be clouded by the block log line about "deceptive sockpuppetry under WP:SCRUTINY". Such a background - even if subsequent lines in the block log attempt to undo the damage (which has instead been compounded) - would give even level-headed voters in an RfA pause. And let's face it, most folk voting in RfA is not of the most level-headed type. The block log itself is enough to sink any future RfA for the applicant, and there is no reason to believe that the editor suddenly no longer wants to be an admin; they've sought it twice before. Unless the block log can be addressed, the user is pretty much screwed; and the tone of what I am getting in reply suggests that the two admins who did the screwing are getting nary a slap betwixt them for not seeking guidance on policy before ruining the user.
I know that ArbCom is working on a solution, but it would seem at least to this editor sound that, before laying out a "comprehensive solution", that they open the discussion to the membership, taking the temperature of the issue. This closed-door nonsense is precisely what promulgates and perpetuates the divide between editors and admins: it creates an atmosphere of suspicion and cabal-seeking. ArbCom is shooting itself in the foot by doing this behind closed doors because they don't want the potential headache of getting community input. I am sure that is a standard complaint; perhaps the regularity of this complaint would suggest that this back-room crap isn;t the proper method to handle these issues. The problem can be address through a public forum without damaging the user further. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There are very good reasons why this discussion is being done privately, Arcayne. We're not in the habit of bandying about potentially private information willy nilly. ArbCom is not going to toss a bandaid on the situation and walk away. We are looking to not only treat the symptoms, but fix the underlying issue that caused this. BoP has agreed to suspend editing while we go through the whole cause. Please have patience, the wheels grind slow, but they do grind fine. SirFozzie (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
SirFozzie, you must know that I have the utmost respect for you as well as Carcharoth; it is because of this respect for your wisdom and ingenuity that I posited that such a matter could be constructed for open discussion without revealing private information. Surely, this isn't the first time that a similar instance has occurred. Even Congress and Parliament have open discussions on thorny issues, and the only difference here is the privacy issue. Such can be effectively sidestepped by framing the question as a definition for bringing the guidelines into line with the current policy.
I do have faith in ArbCom to act as more than a band-aid; I just yearn for a more open forum, and rail against the closed door, sub rosa quality to these discussions. They potentially affect the entire wiki, therefore it should be discussed by the same. It is precisely this sort of secretive behavior that leads folk to feel that admins consider themselves above reproach - and they are not supposed to be such. I guess my concern hinges upon the extreme, deleterious effect that two admins had on an editor's future development, and the lack of true recourse to repair the damage done. While addressing the underlying contradictions between policy and guidelines, let's not forget that a good editor was screwed by admins not paying attention to policy. While ArbCom works to ensure that such doesn;t occur again, I think it's reasonable to expect them to take steps to repair the damage to the editor in question. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

dyk nomination problem[edit]

Hi,

Your dyk hook nominmated here is too long. Can you adjust the hook to be 200 characters or less, as required by the dyk rules? Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 02:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Will take a look. Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Now done. Hope it is all OK now. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed amendment[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, Your suggestion would make the situation much clearer for people like me. I would suggest using my request to limit my topic-ban as an occasion to amend the 9/11ARB ruling so that SPAs and new users are simply not allowed to edit them. This would also make people like Tom Harrison and Aude, whose influence on the articles is generally positive, less likely to abandon them in frustration. One reason that the articles need the sorts of improvements I try to make is that the content discussions between committed debunkers and determined conspiracy theorists bog down in "compromises" that are less than informative and not very well written. If conspiracy theorists who are not familiar with Wikipedia were simply not allowed to edit, the debunkers would not have very much to do. Other editors (with the relevant interests and expertise) would then be able to make the progress that is needed. I have principled reasons not to suggest it myself (it would turn Wikipedia into a much less interesting website), but given the emerging consensus among the arbs it seems worth making the general suspicion of SPAs (in the case of controversial articles) explicit. As always, thanks for your time.--Thomas B (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, there hasn't been much visible progress at arb amendments. But your proposal seems to be the consensus view. Everyone seems to agree that until I edit elsewhere, the ban should remain in place. Like I say, I think that principle will only be effective if applied more generally, but I'm certainly willing to leave it at the current consensus. Is the case closed?--Thomas B (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Villers–Bretonneux Australian National Memorial[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Villers–Bretonneux Australian National Memorial, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

3rd viscount monckton of brenchley[edit]

This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is being discussed on the talk page of the article. I'd suggest posting your comments there to try and resolve this. Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN statistics[edit]

I've posted the ITN statistics for the first five months of 2009 on User:Physchim62/ITN stats. The page obviously needs some more explanation of the figures, but you're welcome to take a look at them, and to comment should you so wish! Physchim62 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating! I will try and comment at some point, but for real discussion you should publicize it elsewhere (if you have not done so already), though you may be waiting until the whole year is ready before doing that. Thanks for doing this - I know this sort of thing is often under-appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll publicise it wider once I've finished the discussion sections, particularly the bit on stats for a single story – there are a lot of complicating factors which get smoothed out when you take the median but could be overwhelming for a single data point (ie, story). Also, the regional data needs discussion: the differences in viewing figures between regions are entirely due to the differences in the subject matter that gets posted: the USA doesn't get many (unpopoular) election stories, so U.S. stories automatically get a higher median hit rate. I might need to do a bit more analysis to be convincing on that one ;-) Physchim62 (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ypres League[edit]

Hi, Carcharoth. In case you haven't seen it yet, I've assessed the article for MILHIST. There's just the one spot that's missing a citation (shouldn't be too hard to track down a source for it), and then I'll be happy to pass it for B-class. Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed and replied there. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

posted[edit]

a question for you: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters[edit]

A belated reply. I'm happy to help further if I can. Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The_King's_Pilgrimage[edit]

Hello Carcharoth. I left a quick question/comment at DYK regarding your recent nomination before promotion. Any questions feel free to ask. Kindly Calmer Waters 08:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How do I add a statement?[edit]

It would appear that someone I've complained to you about before has gone and done something very similar. How do I contribute to the discussion here? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You go to the case evidence page, or the case workshop page, or the talk pages. If you are unsure, ask the case clerks - listed at the top of each case page. If you want to make a post-request acceptance statement, ask the clerks about that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I posted at Evidence. Sorry, I saw your reply after I saw one from someone else. Thanks.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The King's Pilgrimage[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The King's Pilgrimage, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work related to Rudyard Kipling. A well-needed addition. --152.3.129.206 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm also pleased that at 1.5k it got a fair amount of page views for what is a bit of an obscure topic. Not as many as the other DYK I did recently, but then that one did have a picture. Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


Oversight requested on IRC?[edit]

[2] or all of your own accord?  Giano  22:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Giano. Nice to see you too. Would you have time to answer a few questions I have? Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Depends what they are - and how long my good humour can last.  Giano  23:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe later then. I have a deadline to meet on an article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter[edit]

Life Preserver.svg The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Next issue Fairytale right.png

Content

Alternative[edit]

I read your response to the mass deletion of older unsourced biographies of living persons. If an arbitrator proposed a new version of the first motion, more or less the same but omitting the commendation of the deleting admins, do you think you would be able to support that? --Tasty monster 09:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the issue is resolved from ArbCom's perspective unless another battle involving tools breaks out, but I wanted to personally commend you for your principled stance in support of the value of the community. In as much as some real good may come out of this, it is good to know that there are those who do still respect the core truth of Wikipedia's enduring fame: the community alone has the power to make this project a success. I applaud you for maintaining sight of this, sir. Resolute 05:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. For what it is worth, the other arbitrators all recognise that as well, to varying degrees. The disagreements from those who opposed (as seen in their comments) were mainly over the "commendation" wording. I did draft a variant on the motion, which lost the "commend" wording (as Tasty monster/TS has just suggested above), but I wrote this draft in hindsight, after much of the reaction to what had happened had taken place (though before Tasty monster posted here). The motion that was passed was a relatively rapid reponse. Whether a rapid response was needed, or more time to craft something that would have got universal support from ArbCom, is something that could be debated, but the real point is to calm things down, and encourage people on all sides to both discuss and carry on working on the backlogs that need working on. Articles from 3 and 4 years ago that need fixing do need to be worked on. Anyway, I'll post the wording that I would have supported below, for the record.
To be crystal-clear, this text did not get voted on (or even written until very late, after the initial motion had passed), and it is the text that passed that should be referred to. Some arbitrators also responded to what I said, making some cogent points about the status quo ante. I'll ask them if they would like to post their thoughts here, as I thought it was very germane to how the whole BLP problem developed over several years. Carcharoth (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I suppose most of the Committee did feel the need to move fast to hold the community together, but I wish this alternate had been passed. The importance of dealing with the biographies of living persons is being diluted a little by the arguing over the action of a few admins.
While I strongly support that kind of action and would personally commend the admins, I think it's another matter entirely for Arbcom to go out of its way to commend them. And that for one reason only: that not all of the arbitrators agree on that relatively unimportant side issue. --TS 11:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Still a bad motion. "Administrators and editors who object to these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over procedural concerns." is still a high handed put down. "The committee finds that the dangers of harm to living persons justifies ignoring certain procedures in order to save precious time." would be better, thought it could use copy editing. Of course, without naming what some of those procedures are, it doesn't provide much clarity but plenty of people will get the gist. Reminding, and targeting those who object is unnecessary and harmful. The committee can simply say what they believe is true, and a lot of people will fall in line. --Tznkai (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but I was trying to find something toned down (losing the word "interfered") that would have got the whole committee on board. Anyway, the committee has (for better or worse) done what it has done here. What I posted here is no more than a personal codicil. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth refers to something I mentioned privately. I will simply point out that the status quo ante was indeed a "controlled manner that enables adequate review" such as he mentions in his proposal, otherwise known as our deletion processes. They have proved themselves inadequate to the task and, despite multiple efforts over the last two years to improve the deletion processes specific to BLP issues, there was stonewalling at every attempt, rendering no-consensus "decisions" pretty well across the board. Indeed, the fact that there had been such discussions that resulted in "no consensus" was used to prevent and reverse deletion actions throughout the site. I will expand those thoughts further now; I look at articles that people are frantically trying to keep that don't even fail CSD criteria, for example a single-sentence "article" on an astronomer who has "discovered" two asteroids. There's no context to say that this is notable; after all, we don't have articles on every biochemist who "discovered" an amino acid or microbiologist who identified a genus of bacteria, and it could easily be argued that someone whose day job is to run computer programs to compare images of the sky taken by other computers is...doing a rather mundane and non-notable job. This single sentence article is information, but it isn't knowledge. Without any further information (the reference doesn't even have his full name), and no further context, this article ought to fall under CSD-A1. It will be interesting to see if it is kept: Watari Kakei. (I will not comment in the deletion discussion so that my opinion doesn't "taint" the result.)
Deletion criteria have become more stringent and less flexible, while at the same time the threshold for notability has dropped precipitously in the last two years. This is the opposite of what should be happening at this point in the development of the encyclopedia; we should be pushing for higher standards rather than lower. Unfortunately too many people have confused information with knowledge, and we continue to reward people for creating new articles rather than improving older ones.
Those who deal with "problem" BLPs can tell you of the people who lost jobs or were accused of falsifying their curriculum vitae because of Wikipedia articles; of those who have been on the receiving end of harassment and violence; of those whose lives have been significantly altered by the existence of a Wikipedia article, let alone whether or not the information is negative.
Unsourced BLP articles are only the tip of the iceberg, but they are a place to start; without sourcing, there is nothing on which to base the credibility of the article. "Sourceable" is not the same as "sourced", and notability is a guideline, not a policy, that should never be used to excuse poor quality content about a living person. There are a significant number of articles in the unsourced BLP category where the individual is notable; there are plenty more where they're at best of borderline notability. Those articles that can't meet our minimal content criteria should not be here; perhaps give them a week or two to be developed in an incubator, but after that, if nobody cares enough to develop them, they can wait until someone is willing to do the job right. Risker (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with everything you say here, except the CSD-A1 bit: in that one sentence, there is clearly "sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". But equally clearly, it would be a good candidate for PROD or AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I can absolutely respect all of that, and I mostly agree with you. But I will give you an example of what concerns me about the blind endorsement of what happened. Take an article like Guy Chouinard. To any one of the instigators, they will see no references section, no inline references and immediately delete per WP:CSD#IDONTLIKEIT. Except that it does have references. They are just added in the external links area. One sources this persons playing stats, and the other (which, for disclosure, I just added, but to show what an "ideal" stub/short article on a National Hockey League player would have) sources their playing career and some rudimentary personal history. I simply do not trust any of the instigators or their supporters to take the time and check this. You are absolutely right that the notability guidelines for non-notables like people who happened to look in the right spot with there telescope one night should be removed. But by endorsing the indiscriminate deletions the way you have, ArbCom is now on the hook for the real possibility that articles on clearly notable individuals will be destroyed not because they are unsourced, but because their sourcing format is not consistent with what the indiscriminate deletors want. And I believe that many of the instigators of this are gleefully rubbing their hands together in the hopes that the current community discussion bogs down at some point so that they can once again put themselves above the community, take ownership of the project in its entirety, and resume the wholesale destruction of articles. At the very, very least, ArbCom needs to pass a motion that says blind, indiscriminate deletions are not acceptable. Otherwise, you risk damaging not only the encyclopedia itself, but also the community that maintains it. Resolute 21:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Amendment[edit]

I have a longer, extended, list of unsourced Polish BLPs from the list of the 15000 out of the 50000+. I didn't want to clatter up the page with this list. I can send it either directly to ArbCom, or, if it doesn't violate the topic ban, post in my userspace (Radeksz/PolandBLPs or something).

I can also separate out the articles which may be "controversial" although there's only a couple that may fall into that category. And even then, probably not - especially since the work (as I see it) would be mostly adding refs, rather changing/adding text.

As far as supervision and checking of sources, of course I don't have any kind of problem with that. For the sources - since a lot of them may be non-English - I think Steve's suggestion that any good faith request or concern about POV would cause a particular article to revert being covered by the topic would cover this. Of course, as always, any kind of request for translation or verification would be no problem.radek (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Moot now, as the amendment passed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure this is needed[edit]

Not so sure this is needed, per SirFozzie. Both Abd and WMC demonstrate the same problems with others, not just when they interact with each other, so this is not really addressing the core issues here - this is the rationale I would expect to be associated with an oppose, not a support, vote William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably wasn't clear enough. I would support more wide-ranging restrictions on both editors here. i.e. What is proposed doesn't go far enough, but I'm willing to wait and see if it will do for now. From what I can see, you are both failing to learn from previous incidents and case, and failing to learn which areas and topics and people you need to avoid, or be more restrained when dealing with. Carcharoth (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC) If the motion is passed, for instance, both you and Abd would be restricted from starting discussions like this, with the possible and sole exception of on arbitration pages.
Does the complete absence of any evidence trouble you at all? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The standards for evidence tend to be lower at amendment requests, as there is a presumption that the previous case implicitly supports the concept of possible extension of sanctions if people keep arguing with each other and failing to get the hint. Asking two people to stay apart is not an onerous restriction. If you are not happy with this, you could ask for a full case to be opened and see how much support there is for that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

EEML/BLP amendment question[edit]

Hello. Regarding your comment here, I have a couple of points I wanted to raise. The idea of having someone to supervise generally I can understand, and I'd be perfectly happy to volunteer myself for that. But your question "can anyone in good standing be found to vouch for non-English sources that may be used?" seems rather odd. I don't recall, with the possible exception of the usual arguments over German books, especially those of the 1933-1945 period, and Poeticbent's autobiography, that sourcing was a major problem in relation to EEML. Was I wrong? Are you sure that would really be necessary? I am not exactly a WBFF of anyone on the EEML, and I have had a spat with Piotrus over sourcing before, but I feel that this is perhaps rather extreme. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I ended up supporting the motion, as I agree with you that this is not a major concern. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For being the lone arbitrator to stand up and say "this is wrong" in regards to the BLP deletion mess, I hereby award you this barnstar. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


It saddens me that you were the only one with enough clue and guts to acknowledge that disrupting Wikipedia when one is sure they are "right" is still disruption. However, I am glad someone said it. We simply cannot accept being who refuse to step back and work out their difference in the proper manner. I also solute you for realizing that the real problem cannot be solved through deletion, that unreferenced articles are only a symptom of the larger unreferenced statements problem and not the cause. Finally, you statement was the only one that showed faith in the community to solve its own problems.
Thank you for being the long (arbitrator) voice of reason in the sea of BLP paranoia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this. It's a kind gesture and appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Ypres League[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Ypres League, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"serious personal attacks"[edit]

I'm very concerned that you seemed to rank "serious personal attacks" with BLP violations and copyvios. Perhaps I misunderstood "serious personal attacks." Certainly you don't mean calling another contrbutor a f**king a**hole ranks up there with writing an article about someone you dislike and pepering it with fake-sourced false allegations they are a child molester or copying over the content of a for-profit work, do you? Did you perhaps mean personal threats? Hipocrite (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I did, yes. Thanks for catching that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Phew. I was worried you were being a... well, that would be a serious personal attack. Have a good one! Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Hunt For Gollum[edit]

Have an opinion on this you might? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented there. Carcharoth (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)