User talk:Carcharoth: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:37, 9 March 2009

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. For the fictional wolf of the same name, see Carcharoth.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carcharoth.

I was appointed as an arbitrator for a 2-year term following the ArbCom elections of December 2008, For details, a brief summary of my approach to arbitration, and the pledges I made during the election, please see this page. I will update this talk page notice at intervals throughout my term as I make updates to that page. If you have a question or request relating to arbitration, please leave a note on this talk page, or e-mail me. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup in Cambridge

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2 - we're scheduling this for 28 February, pm. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will look. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case...

I very much respect and appreciate the thoughtful and insightful comments you have made on all pages, and wanted you to know my comments were not critical of you in anyway, just in case they sounded like that...(olive (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not at all. I'm always happy to talk at proposed decision talk pages. Doesn't always change anything, but talking is good. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RINGS

The merging discussion has expanded a bit. Related: can we use this drawing of Sauron by Tolkien, found here, under fair use? One possible problem with the image is that it's a scan from a book. Uthanc (talk) Uthanc (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will look. Hope I'm not too late... Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to copyedit Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project

If you have the time, would you be willing to help copyedit this article? It has a request for peer review that has been open for a couple weeks now, and the only feedback received was that the article needs copyediting before it can become an FA candidate. Thanks, Musashi1600 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't find time to get to this one. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Principles

Hello, I've recently been doing some work with the Mediation Cabal, and, as I was researching relevant material to the case, I came across several ArbCom findings of principle that applied. Can those be considered as Wikipedia policy, guidelines, interpretations of policy and guidelines, or simply as advice? Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for letting this one slide. You would be better off asking this at WT:ARBCOM. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Sunday

Yeah, I'd never heard of it before until I started exploring from the other articles in the "Darwin celebrations" cat you just created, and found it linked in the See also section of Darwin Day. Re:DYK, thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. And congrats on the Signpost editor role! Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My blog post

Thanks for the heads-up, and for the interesting discussion. For the record, I don't publish deleted pages on a regular basis but this case I thought it was useful to add some clarity to the situation, which not many other writers (and I suspect, no journalists) could provide. Incidentally, are article histories covered under GFDL or not? One worry I had was that of copyright but I figured as the copy was under GFDL so would the screenshots. Qwghlm (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue about GFDL and article histories. If you find out, let me know! Carcharoth (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get technical about the GFDL, under "1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS", paragraph 1: This License applies to any manual or other work...that contains a notice - everything on this site contains such a notice; The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work... - so when we see "Document" we mean a GFDL-licensed work; A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. - so anything associated with the article/page that is not the article/page itself is a Secondary Section; A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title...[is] "History" - so when you click on the history tab, you are moving to a Secondary Section (sub-unit) of the Document; and under "4. MODIFICATIONS", section "I", Preserve the section Entitled "History"...and add to it an item.

Now the MediaWiki implementation of GFDL smears around some of these definitions but it does comply with all of them. So, short answer, yes, article history is licensed under the GFDL, it can be freely republished with the express provision that it is properly attributed as to the source. You can modify the document as you wish (including removing everything but the Secondary Section entitled History, so long as you indicate such in the History and indicate on the Title Page a distinct title) and redistribute it as you wish, so long as you always include the GFDL license, attribute the source and provide the History.

To clarify, the History you have to provide is on the lines of "History section of English Wikipedia document "<article>" (<article link>) obtained from <history link>" and you need to put that at the top of the history section; and your Title page will be "Article history of <article>"; and you have to make clear that you are re-licensing under GFDL.

And for another, much better opinion, User:Moonriddengirl is the GFDL master mariner that I know of. Hope this helps! Franamax (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup after looking beyond the straight question of whether history is GFDL-licensed: yes, I believe it is - however the position of admin carries with it specific responsibilities and obligations so especially in the case of republishing deleted information, you could well lose the position regardless of the precise licensing details. That's the difference between a right and a privilege. Franamax (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, if a bit overwhelming. Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious accusation from Robert Young

Hello Carcharoth, I would like to bring up a very serious issue that is quite important to me. In a recent edit, Mr. Young accused me of recruiting a meatpuppet on Wikipedia. I went to his talk page and insisted that he either retract the accusation or bring it to the proper forum. And I do mean insisted, not asked, because I take any statement that impugns my character or conduct, be it in real life or on Wikipedia very seriously. This is not a light accusation for me. He has thus far refused to do either, so I have no choice but to attempt to resolve this issue myself. I want to speak with you, as his mentor, first, however, to see if perhaps you could help dissolve this situation before it flares up anymore. If there is not a retraction, I have no choice but to pursue the accusation to prove my innocence. Cheers, CP 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Hope things got sorted out. If there are still problems, let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on the mailing list

The reason Robert Stuart, Duke of Kintyre has an article and his sister Mary doesn't is almost certainly that he was created a peer and, for a month or so, enjoyed the privilege of peerage, as distinct from his sister, who was only a royal princess. Choess (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes some kind of sense, though I'm still not convinced. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Please help me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Syriac_Orthodox_Church/archive1 ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not finding the time to review this. Hope others managed to get to it. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe science

Please make sure the Committee checks my comment on the proposed decision talk page before closing the case. Sanctions against SA are just barely passing. It would be a shame for them not to take my view into account. Jehochman ^Talk 09:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. This did get addressed I think, though I'm not totally satisified with the results. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found them a mixed bag. There are some systemic issues that the community hasn't faced yet. In any case, I'm here because you wrote this in the current RfAr/Clarification re ScienceApologist's topic ban: Administrators should still use their judgment though - correction of typos, for example, can be ignored, and administrators should be able to judge when the line is crossed between helpful edits and engaging in disruption.

I agree that typo correction can be ignored, but that it also can be sanctioned. The problem with allowing such apparently harmless and helpful edits is that, if more than rare, they can complicate enforcement of a topic ban. When we block an editor, we do not allow any edits, and "violating edits" (i.e., sock edits) can be reverted on sight, without regard to content, with few exceptions.

If topic ban enforcement necessarily depends on judgment of the individual edits, there is no clear boundary. If an editor crosses into engaging in disruption, the editor could be blocked without a topic ban, so what does the ban accomplish? Ban enforcement must be simple, or bans can be disruptive. --Abd (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

extended discussion, proposal for how to allow helpful edits to content covered by topic ban

In the evidence I presented in the current RfAr/Clarification (in the collapse box there), it can be seen that SA intends to disrupt the topic ban and its enforcement. I've concluded that a topic ban should be strictly enforced when an editor shows intention to defy it; an occasional spelling correction or other harmless edit would not normally create disruption and the truly harmless edits involved in the present clarification would not have resulted in disruption if not for Hipocrite cooperating with SA by reverting them and demanding enforcement. (Some of the edits aren't clearly harmless but are provocative.)

I've also pointed out that if an editor who is topic banned sees a non-controversial correction to make, the editor can do what a blocked editor may also do; if a blocked editor came in as IP and made a spelling correction, then reverted himself with "(username) blocked", which would take seconds, it would also only take seconds for any other editor to confirm and implement the correction, and I would strongly argue that such edits, if indeed harmless, would not constitute block evasion. They are really "proposed edits" that require no fuss but allow legitimate edits to be implemented quickly and easily. Indeed, when the editor comes off the block, and if there were any such lingering about that weren't fixed, the editor could quickly revert them back in.

A topic banned editor, if truly interested in cooperation, which requires respect for community process, can do the same.

My attention was called to the situation when SA removed an edit of mine from Talk:Cold fusion that had mentioned him, though not in a way that could reasonably be construed as an attack. He then made a spelling correction to the article. Hipocrite reverted him and reported the edit to AE. I reverted SA's Talk page removal, Hipocrite reverted me -- in part -- and I decided that if my comment was going to do any good, it had already been done, and I'd let it be. However, I then undid Hipocrite's reversion of the spelling correction, and if I noticed any other reverted spelling corrections by SA, self-reverted or not, I'd fix them, too. Cooperation with even banned editors in improving the project is to be encouraged; I've undone reversions of banned editors when I was willing to take responsibility for the edit, and attempts were made to slap me down for that, which properly failed.

SA would likely push the limits with even this suggested process, I suspect, from his declared intentions; however, he should be allowed every opportunity to reform his behavior; the tragedy is that his "friends" aren't warning him. Hipocrite might be seen as having done so, except that in discussion, Hipocrite showed that his intentions were aligned with SA's. No, SA has friends among the administrative community, and these are the ones who should primarily be reigning him in, he's more likely to listen to them. If they don't, they will lose him, he will end up completely banned.

The limits would be pushed by using the self-reversion process, more than occasionally, to propose a disruptive edit; a friend would then revert it back in. However, the remedy in this case would be to ignore SA's involvement, as such, except possibly when considering the life of the ban (just as if the edit had been proposed in Talk), and treat the reverting editor as fully responsible for the edit to the article. WP:MEAT is actually moot when the possible meat puppet is an established editor, not an SPA dedicated to backing up another editor.--Abd (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but really? Typos? If they are being corrected to gain attention, they really are best ignored. Carcharoth (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SA and his friends are already using these edits to create disruption. I would have ignored it; in fact, I reverted back in the one I saw, after Hipocrite reverted it. The RfAr/Clarification was clearly filed as a form of cooperation between SA and Hipocrite, this is covered in the evidence I cited at the RfAr. But I'm not sure you understand my approach. Topic bans should be simple to enforce. Indeed, 'twere possible, we'd make them automatic, like blocks. If they aren't simple to enforce, they can create disruption and waste of time, exactly as we are seeing. I'm not suggesting that we should necessarily or routinely block for typo corrections, but I am saying that it should be within the discretion of any admin to do it as arbitration enforcement, and the committee can request that such blocks not be overturned without committee consultation. And then I've pointed out how it's possible that SA, if he really does want to make helpful edits, can do it in a way that wouldn't risk a block, if the interpretation I've proposed is made clear: self-reverted edits, not disruptive (i.e., not uncivil, for example, not clearly made to irritate rather than help), don't violate a topic ban, they are like Talk page edits proposing an edit, except both less distracting and more helpful (i.e, it takes much less time to undo the self-reversion than it does to read a suggestion on Talk and then go to the article and make the edit). So whenever there is a concern that an editor might be pushing the edge, the editor can be warned to self-revert if the editor truly wants to be helpful and not disruptive to arbitration enforcement. And then it would be clear. --Abd (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The self-reversion is a good idea. I will be interested to see if SA takes up that idea or not. Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, not sure how many peer reviews I actually did, so this form letter might not apply to me! But thanks anyway, and I'll add the template to my user page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge meetup

The second Cambridge meetup is confirmed for this Saturday, 3pm, at CB2 on Norfolk Street: Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2. We could, for example, explore the topic of succession boxes at more adequate length. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles. I'm afraid I can't make this after all. Sorry about that. I was planning to be in Cambridge, but other things have come up and I need to deal with those. I will be there in the summer at some point, so I'll see if I can co-ordinate that with the next meetup. Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion log

Hey Carc. In case you're interested, I set up a deletion log for myself yesterday that excludes the non-old IP talk page deletions. It updates daily here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bakshi

The filmography section had a summary, but it was deleted by a copyeditor. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Am asking about whether this is the normal approach to take. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this peer review. Per your post on the peer review talk page, I am not sure I understand what about the PR acrhives needs to be fixed / cleaned up. Would you mind clarifying what it is that needs to be done and I will try and fix it if possible? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise peer reviews took place on archive pages, and I didn't realise project reviews were dealt with separately. :-) The redirect is confusing - maybe that could be sorted out, as you said elsewhere, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. R. Tolkien FAR

I have nominated J. R. R. Tolkien for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 :::Yeah, but really? Typos? If they are being corrected to gain attention, they really are best ignored. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth#top|talk]]) 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 ::::''SA and his friends are already using these edits to create disruption.'' I would have ignored it; in fact, I reverted back in the one I saw, after Hipocrite reverted it. The RfAr/Clarification was clearly filed as a form of cooperation between SA and Hipocrite, this is covered in the evidence I cited at the RfAr. But I'm not sure you understand my approach. Topic bans should be simple to enforce. Indeed, 'twere possible, we'd make them automatic, like blocks. If they aren't simple to enforce, they can create disruption and waste of time, exactly as we are seeing. I'm ''not'' suggesting that we should necessarily or routinely block for typo corrections, but I ''am'' saying that it should be within the discretion of any admin to do it as arbitration enforcement, and the committee can request that such blocks not be overturned without committee consultation. And then I've pointed out how it's possible that SA, if he really does want to make helpful edits, can do it in a way that wouldn't risk a block, if the interpretation I've proposed is made clear: self-reverted edits, not disruptive (i.e., not uncivil, for example, not clearly made to irritate rather than help), don't violate a topic ban, they are like Talk page edits proposing an edit, except both less distracting and more helpful (i.e, it takes much less time to undo the self-reversion than it does to read a suggestion on Talk and then go to the article and make the edit). So ''whenever there is a concern that an editor might be pushing the edge, the editor can be warned to self-revert if the editor truly wants to be helpful and not disruptive to arbitration enforcement. And then it would be clear. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
+:::::I agree. The self-reversion is a good idea. I will be interested to see if SA takes up that idea or not. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth#top|talk]]) 04:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 == Thanks and a request ==