User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 22

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

Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23


Hello Carcharoth. :) I noticed you were listed here for general copyediting. I was wondering if, when you have time, you could copyedit Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. If you are too busy, I completely understand. Synergy 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

William Burns (Australian politician)[edit]

Yep. [1]. I did source him on the Deaths in 2009 page. Not many of the Australian newspapers pick up on the deaths of fairly obscure backbenchers like him, so generally we just have to keep an eye on the Hansard. Frickeg (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I should probably have sourced that in the article itself, really. The Parliament is such a very thoughtful institution - they do that for everyone who dies. Frickeg (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Seeing as you just moved it to officially closing, could you toss a quick eye at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MZMcBride/Proposed_decision#Note_on_Proposed_Deletion. Thanks. MBisanz talk 08:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

quiet aside on arb stuff[edit]

do you think arb activity on the wiki pages of open cases is a kpi for arbcom? I'm inclined to think so - and if you're unfamiliar with 'kpi' then I can only feel a burning jealousy for those halcyon days (when kfc was far more important ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to motions[edit]

Hi Sam. I'm not sure that many people want it (might just be me), but do you have a link to the state of the motions at the time they were closed in the Aitias case? I sometimes like to look at the voting and comments later. Kind of like the equivalent of the PD page, but for motions. What's on the page at the moment is only a summary of the final vote. Am also posting something to the evidence talk page - if you or Tip could follow up with a notification (unless I've done it myself) or ask other parties giving evidence to be more explicit, that would be good. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Something like Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias/Proposed_decision#Proposed_motions? I'll have a look at your other points later -- I have to go out for a bit. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 10:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
<facepalm> - how did I miss that? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrzej Stelmachowski[edit]

Are you looking for English language obituaries, translation of a Polish one or for Polish editors to add to the article from any they can find?radek (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

All three? I could only find Polish ones, so that will do, but needed a Polish editor to add it as I don't know Polish at all. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you make a negative comment on Orlady's handling of jvolkblum?[edit]

Ottava Rima is quoting you for a negative statement about Orlady, at her RfA. I basically said that he is probably misquoting you. [2] You may want to comment. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


I have responded here. If you would like to discuss the merits directly, you can feel free to leave a message on my talk page, email me, or find me directly on IRC. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I may not be able to find time, but will try to respond later. Carcharoth (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I can use?[edit]

Hi there. I'm really not sure who to ask about this, but you seem to be pretty active at WP:FAIR, so... what the heck. I'm currently working on GRB 970228. I would like to use this graph in the article. Should I email the authors of the article? Should I just call it fair use? Should I try to recreate the graph myself? Yipe! Thanks. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe try the Help Desk? Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


It just occurred to me that just minutes after you announced the new Macedonia move injunction, I have already broken its letter. Though not its spirit, hopefully: I do understand that the injunction is only meant to cover moves that involve issues related to the country or ethnic name or have some potential repercussions on it, right? I just did this, which I honestly think has nothing to do with it and will be uncontroversial. Fut.Perf. 11:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks uncontroversial to me. Interesting article. Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I ought to have reminded you guys of the need for this clarification before you passed the motion. But then again, I guess we can just leave it to common sense, hopefully. Fut.Perf. 11:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
We do trust that people have common sense. Cynicism not-withstanding. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise inviting users to an off-wiki discussion[edit]

I thought I should notify someone from the Arbs about this. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is inviting other users to an off-wiki discussion regarding the naming of the article Macedonia. Is this something that is allowed?--Avg (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

He may mean somewhere else on Wikipedia, rather then off-wiki. I suggest you ask Future Perfect at Sunrise what he means by what he said there before taking this any further. Any more concerns like this, please wait until the case opens and provide statements and evidence there. Carcharoth (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how it would be anybody's business, either Avg's or the committee's, where, how, or with whom I chose to engage in a friendly exchange of opinions, in order to reach a personal consensus with selected fellow wikipedians I happen to hold in high respect. Fut.Perf. 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If you plan to hold off-wiki discussions with the aim to form a strategy on how to proceed with a Wikipedia article, my guess is that this is something the Committee would be interested to hear about.--Avg (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
AndreasJS is not the sort of person who would be interested in discussing "strategies". I would want to hear his opinons. There are actually people whose opinions I would like to hear more of, but can't, for all the noise certain other people are making. Fut.Perf. 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, guys, not my talk page, please. Either take this to RFAR or wait for the case to open. Carcharoth (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, sorry for molesting you, but I would have sincerely hoped you would not also give encouragement to bring obviously frivolous vexatious complaints like this one to the case pages. Making evidence pages a free-for-all for this kind of bickering is precisely what has in the past made arbitration not work. Fut.Perf. 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Even within a single case, getting all arbs to agree on what is "reasonable evidence" is difficult. What tends to happen is that the arbs get drawn into the argument. My best advice would be to respond only to the evidence that you think it is worth responding to. I will try and guide parties as to which bits of evidence I personally see as most relevant to the case, but my opinions may not be the same as that of the other arbs - they may pay more attention to other areas of evidence. My advice to all parties is just to present the evidence as clearly and as concisely as you can: dates, timings, context, patterns, and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You found me.[edit]

I've replied on my talk page. I generally don't see messages there very quickly, but I'll make an effort to check as the case continues/starts/whatever is going on.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project[edit]

Hi. This little note is just to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. In addition, I'm proposing merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Monitoring Group, because their aims seem to be very similar. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Discussion about redirecting those projects is located here. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Child suicide bombers[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Child suicide bombers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Medical disasters[edit]

I have nominated Category:Medical disasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Health disasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


I appreciate you very much. My criticisms are given with a smile. Jehochman Talk 02:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You sound very stressed at the moment. Interestingly, some people say we don't have enough checkusers, and some say we have enough and SPI doesn't get backlogged. But I suppose if there were more checkusers, SPI would grow to to provide more work. Would more checkusers really help? I will point out what you've said when this next comes up (which should be soon). Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, more checkusers would help. It's really hard, time-consuming work to do a thorough job. The thing to watch is how often cases are more than 24 hours old. When people feel that Checkuser is backlogged, they tend to give up on the process and either do vigilante-style blocks, or just suffer with the disruption (and maybe leave the project as a result). I just left an interesting remark here. If we do things right the first time, we can save a lot of work by not having to do them again. We need to get at the roots of problems rather than treating just the symptoms. Jehochman Talk 03:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration:Koi Edit Warring[edit]

Since I can not directly comment on the arbitration page without a logon, I will provide you with my input here. I apologize if this violates protocol or is not the proper place.

I am the user at [3]. My logon is Jediknight95758. I made several attempts to provide edits to the Koi Article on April 7th which were all reverted back by user LawrenceKHoo. He reverted all information back claiming that my changes were unsourced, however a second look will show that references were there. I also used the talk pages at that time, which he ingored. The same occured on April 8th. Then again on April 10th.

On April 10th, the admin Ohnoitsjamie began deleting references to commercial sites. These sites had been on there for quite some time, and he ignored them. He also posed the question in talk back in Sept 12, 2006; but still left them there. This coincided with him reverting all of my changes back claiming that my references were commercial. I made updates afterwards with new references to non-commercial sites. Ohnoitsjamie reverted all of those back without explanation. I attempted to make the changes again, this time with explanation that no commercial sites were referenced. Ohnoitsjamie reverted all of those again with the threat that I was Edit warring and that I would be blocked.

Here is where I exercised poor judgment on my part. And even though I don't claim ignorance as a defense, I did not have a full understanding of what sockpuppetry meant and entailed. I do normally use the logon Jediknight95758, and in hindsight what I did was engage in sockpuppetry. I usually use my logon, but many times start making edits without realizing that I was not logged in. Once logged in, I made additional edits; which were initially reverted by Smartse; however the follow up statement from him in my talk pages indicates that he prematurely reverted them without realizing the justification. After receiving notification from Ohnoitsjamie on my talk page that I would be blocked if I continue I stopped.

I am a member of a local koi club in the northern california region that has a forum and message board. I posted information suggesting members look at the wikipedia article and comment on its accuracy. This would also explain why many of these accounts and users are located in the nothern california region.

One member initially did, Alexa415. She posted on the club forum that she made changes. This resulted in the assumption that she was a sockpuppet, and resulted in my logon, IP, her logon, and I'm assuming her IP getting blocked.

Another member, and also a friend of mine, noticed what had happened to the former club member, Alexa being assumed a sock. I suggested to him that he not attempt edits, but rather he request mediation. He created a logon, NeltharionCA and requested mediation which was subsequently deleted. Noticing the 'block' on my logon and not having access to my system (which is a work one). I attempted to logon from his computer to find out exactly what the 'block' meant. This resulted in his IP being used to log into my jediknight95758 account and resulted in his IP being blocked also.

The other users referenced, I can't speak to, and do not know who they are. After the indicident where the request for mediation was deleted, I stopped tracking that particular article up until realized that LawrenceKhoo and Ohnoitsjamie have continued to make unsustantiated accusations to me via my talk page.

I would also like to comment on the work that user Dominic alleges that he has done. My IP [4], is unique to the Health and Welfare Agency in California. Which unless these other users, including the ones that I know, are State of California employees, they could not possible have IPs that trace back here. The other IP [5], belongs to California State Franchise Tax Board a seperate state agency to which I have no access too. The third IP, [6]. is an ATT account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add, that all of my edits (not just on the koi pages) have been constructive attempts. I have never vandalized a page, made personal attacks against any other users. I have, in good faith, attempted to make edits which were factual, relevant, and verifiable. In using my logon, jediknight95758, I admit to violating the rules surrounding sockpuppetry, which was a mistake and error in judgment on my part. Given the circumstances however, it was extremely difficult in trying to make good faith edits where another user AND an admin were reverting everything, making accusations of edit warring (despite them reverting everything themselves), using the talk pages while they were not, and then getting threatened with being blocked. (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for providing that information. Technically (and thanks for apologising in advance), you should request to be unblocked to take part in the arbitration request with your account (IP addresses cannot edit the request for arbitration page because it is semi-protected). I will see if that is a possibility. For now, I will point out there what you have said here. I should say that not everyone will believe what you are saying here, and I need to check some technical points before taking this further than that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I would normally block this IP for block evasion. In looking at the edits, there was no edit warring. You were spamming Wikipedia, and other editors were removing spam links. Editors are allowed to revert clear vandalism and spam without limitation. You have no need to evade your ban. You were able to request unblock, email the unblock list, and you even emailed ArbCom. You need to immediately stop socking and block evading. Jehochman Talk 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman, I realise you think this shouldn't be at RFAR, but could you point out (here or there) which edits you are referring to above? I'm looking at some of the edits and I don't see what you are describing. We may be looking at different edits. Carcharoth (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a mystery. Is this spam?

Before posting that link, I looked at the wikipedia definition of spam and that site very carefully. It is not a commercial site in the sense that they are not selling products. It is a private hobbyist club that encourages other people in the area to actively participate in their meetings. Under wiki definitions of spam, I did not interpret a private, nonprofit organization as a 'commercial site'. If I misinterpreted the definition, I apologize for using this site as a reference. Jediknight95758 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs) seems to have reverted the movement of that link from one location to another. I think we can ask Ohnoitsjamie why they made this edit:

The question to ask Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs) is what's going on here:

Before anybody requests arbitration, I think it we should try to sort out these questions. We don't need sixteen arbitrators to look into this. One or two clueful editors should be sufficient. We should also ask Ohnoitsjamie how they discovered the dispute at this article. Jehochman Talk 11:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Another apparent spam link:

That's one of the sock accounts.

I posted this link without the realization that it was a commercial site. I also admit that I did not thoroughly review this site before posting it. This was one of the first references that I posted. Once it was pointed out to me that it was a commercial site, I did not attempt to re-post it, and from that moment on praciticed much more diligence in reviewing what references I was using. Jediknight95758 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Ohnoitsjamie questions to determine whether they were involved or not, and then provide a bit of counseling if that's what's needed? It's not our objective to run people out of town if they make mistakes. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A little background on my end. (1) Koi is on my watchlist because it's a frequent spam target. (2) I got involved when I noticed commercial sites being used as references. [7]. I removed them. (3) An IP continued to re-add them. After that IP received a final warning, Jediknight95758 picked up the same torch; edits were quite similar enough to the final-warned-IP.I warned Jediknight95758 that I would block both accounts if it continued. Jediknight95758 got on a kick of removing sourced material, material which was restored not only by Lawrencekhoo but by another editor as well [8]. (4) Other brand-new editors jump in to make the same reverts. I smell obvious sockpuppetry (though from the admission above, it appears that at least some of it could have been meatpuppetry) and hand out blocks. That's my story. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
A few clarifying points here. (1) I did unknowingly use a commercial site as a reference (and maybe two, if a site being used by a non-profit hobbyist club is considered commercial). Once pointed out to me that the site was commercial in nature, I did not attempt to post it again, but rather replaced it with a different non-commercial site. (2) The sourced material that I removed was questionably relevant, which was pointed out on the Talk pages on April 7th, before any sockpuppetry began. Yet edits continued to be reverted without any attempt by LawrenceKHoo to discuss them on the talk pages. By the April 10th, 2009 19:06 revision, there were no commercial sites in that revision, and there was no sockpuppetry involved at that time. But over that time period from the initial use of talk pages by me on April 7th, up until the April 10th, 2009 19:08 revert by Ohnoitsjaime; both Ohnoitsjaime and lawrencekhoo continued to revert changes with the reasons that sourced material was replaced with unsourced material (even though references were provided), commercial sites were used as references (even though at that point, all commercial site references were removed), and some times no reasons were given at all. On April 10th, 2009 19:08, I was told that if I edit warred again, I would be blocked, but now I raise the question: can one person edit war by himself? Or does it take other individuals to edit war in return? Again, at that given point in time; there was no attempt by Ohnoitsjaime or LawrenceKhoo to use the talk pages. Ohnoitsjaime claims to have not used the talk pages since, he would not engage it discussion with sockpuppets, but at that given point in time, there were no sockpuppets involved. This came later. (3) Ohnoitsjaime claims that there was another editor that reverted my edits, which happened to be Smartse. However, on my Talk page is a message from user Smartse apologizing for pre-maturely reverting the edit without reading the reason why the edit was made. This leaves two people, Ohnoitsjaime and Lawrencekhoo, reverting all of the edits and not responding in the talk pages.Jediknight95758 (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we leave all but one account blocked (i.e. unblock one, any one they wish), due to the fact that their identity has been exposed in this process, and we allow the blocked people to create new accounts if they wish. The only condition being that those other accounts are not permitted to become involved in this Koi issue. i.e. Only the one unblocked account should be permitted to continue working on this Koi issue, and the attempt at mediation resume where it was cut off at the knees. No need to have a big case; no need to run anyone out of town. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Though Jediknight95758 has been around since 2007, they have few edits and thus qualify as a newcomer. They screwed up a little bit, but should get a second chance if they agree to stop edit warring. Jehochman Talk 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
That's fine by me. I'm not an expert on Koi; as I said before, I only watch the page for spam and as such I don't have any agendas regarding the content. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In answer to the question of what I was doing when I made this edit, I saw that an editor that had been banned for socking was socking again, and pushing the same change to the article. I therefore reverted the change on principle that we should not encourage the breaking of community guidelines and bans. I then left a message on the talkpage telling Jediknight that if he wants to rejoin the community he's got to stop socking and edit warring, and follow community rules.
On the current proposed resolution. I don't have a problem with people who have broken rules rejoining the community, as long as they come clean, express contrition, and agree to abide by community rules in the future. However, in this case, I don't see any of that from Jediknight. His current position seems to be, 'no I didn't sock, I just forgot to log in' (even though the IP and Jediknight were pretending to be different people and agreeing with each other), and 'the other sock accounts were my friends'. On editwarring, his position seems to be, 'I wasn't edit warring it was Lawrencekhoo and Ohnoitsjamie who were edit warring against me'. I don't see any realization on his part that he has done anything wrong (except perhaps that he didn't realize that sock/meat puppeting is a big deal here, and that he would get banned for it). I'm ok with the proposed resolution. However, before we forgive and forget, he should come clean, and promise to follow the spirit and letter of our community guidelines. Not doing so is just asking for trouble in the future.
LK (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether we block him right now, or immediately the next time he tries to game us is not such a big difference in terms of trouble to us. He's unblocked. If he causes trouble, tell me and the account will be blocked if that is what is necessary to prevent disruption. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jehochman, thanks for getting people on the same page here and for moving this away from arbitration. You are quite right that this doesn't need the full attention of 16 arbitrators. I have some points to make here that I didn't make at the request page, but will have to leave that until later. For now, though, could I ask Ohnoitsjamie to consider whether the mediation page he deleted could be undeleted, per John Vandenberg's proposal (which I also endorse)? Rather than argue about socks and meatpuppets and what is and isn't edit warring, and when to let people back in and how to handle socks (including when to warn the sock master and when to block), and when to talk to people and when to block instead, can I ask that everyone here work towards addressing and resolving the content dispute? A good place to start might be the comments made by Aquafanatic at Talk:Koi. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If any of those who posted above are watching this talk page, could they either copy the above to, or link to it from, where-ever discussion is carrying on, or take part in the discussion at Talk:Koi. If no-one else gets involved, some third opinions may be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New post[edit]

I need a resolution. here is my story. I originally created a page that i had put on the main page but it did not according to your administrator fit wiki criteria which was nominated for deletion. my question is that i would have like my page reverted back to my user page but the user name "king of hearts" deleted my page without reverting it. and all of my work is gone. i thought it was free to have a user page with wiki but i guess i was wrong. i had acually thought about donating to wiki because i had always that this was a good website until my personal experience with the people that administer this cite. i do see that many people have user pages on this cite and unless they are paying for it than i think i was discriminated against and i would like this issue resolve

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keitaadama (talkcontribs) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about here. I won't have time to look at this until tomorrow, but it is unlikely I will be able to help. At most, I will probably end up pointing you towards someone else to answer your question. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, from what I can see, this was resolved here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cognitive science literature[edit]

Two years ago you created Category:Cognitive science literature, and I was hoping you might want to comment at Category talk:Cognitive science literature where I question whether certain articles should be in that category. However, I see you are pretty busy, so perhaps instead, I wonder if you know of an active editor who might want to have a look (it's not my field; I stumbled into it)? Thanks – I'll look here for any reply. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply there now. I think this is a record for a late reply, and you nearly fell into the "no reply" basket... Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The JS case[edit]

Hi Carcharoth,

I hope this isn't inappropriate. I fear some of the evidence may have gone ignored by those who have already voted, so I urge you to read the evidence discussion page and perhaps also a couple of the talk pages from the relevant period before you vote. Apologies if you have done so already. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be reading those and other relevant pages before I vote. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The situation when ArbCom members are recused[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, I noticed in your recuse from the case that would have been Episodes & Characters 3 that you posed a really interesting and important question. Namely: [t]he one thing I am uncertain about here is if I (and other recused arbitrators) do participate heavily in the case as editors, is the following: what standards apply regarding the arbcom mailing list and other such committee discussions to which we would be privy? Was an answer was ever given to this question (and if so, where), or would you please point me toward any discussions that might have occurred? I am considering making a further comment in relation to the proposed motion in the Matthew Hoffman case, and this issue is relevant. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the real world I use Basecamp (software) to manage project teams. For each project, only the relevant people are on the mailing list. Having complained very bitterly about recused ArbCom members being privy to the list during cases, I am surprised nothing has been done over the last 18 months to build a system with similar features. It would be possible to use Mailman (GNU) to manage a mailing list for each case. This is not tricky. You just need somebody with determination to solve the problem. Jehochman Talk 11:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting question. To state the issue, ArbComm members have access to a means for private discussion. If they recuse and are, in theory, like ordinary editors, do they then have inappropriate special access? I would say no. First of all, as to sending argument or evidence to ArbComm, ordinary editors can send messages for private consideration to ArbComm anyway, either by sending it to the ArbComm list (but it must be approved by a moderator if they aren't members of the list) or by sending it to individual arbitrators (which would be less preferred, of course; and I know that Carcharoth, for one, has informed me that messages sent to him will be forwarded to the entire list. -- he did that not to give me a means of reaching the list, though there would be no harm in that, but to warn me about possible inappropriate argument on a pending case (which I don't think it was, but he was heading off a possible problem).
So then there is the possible problem in the other direction: knowledge of what the Arbitrators are saying to each other, and this is discussion that is privileged, it cannot be disclosed to ordinary editors without consent of those who communicated. That's taking recusal too far, there isn't precedent for it from outside organizations. When a member of a board of directors is at a meeting of the board, and the meeting is closed to consider private matters, it would be unusual to require a recused member to leave the meeting; it would only happen if there were some special circumstances. The community has trusted arbitrators with access to private, sensitive information.
So, absent special circumstances where it could be damaging for an arbitrator to have access to information -- which would require a finding of recusal and privacy by motion -- I see no problem with an involved arbitrator having access to discussion. If any arbitrator feels that what they would say should not be seen by another specific arbitrator, I would highly recommend not sending it to the arbcomm list, but to other arbitrators individually (with notice as appropriate). Arbitrators may communicate privately with one another, at their own discretion. Recusal rules apply to voting only, and a minor point might be that an arbitrator participating as an editor should use the Parties or Other sections so as to not confuse other editors as to status and authority of what they write.
Administrators in general have access to information not accessible to ordinary editors. Should they abstain from using their ability to see deleted files in a matter where they are involved? Briefly, no. "Use of tools" for recusal purposes doesn't refer to access to privileged information, only to actions leaving a mark on the project. Besides, unenforceable, which would mean that bad administrators would use it and never get caught, and good administrators would ... maybe ... abstain. Unfair advantage!
One more consideration. Suppose some list device were used to exclude an arbitrator from a mailing. Would the archive contain the message? If not, then there would need to be a separate archive, in fact, what, as many as 15! archives, or certain messages would simply not be archived. I.e., want to do this? Set up another independent mailing list (closed yahoogroup, for example) or just use cc. All arbitrators should have the direct email addresses of all arbitrators in any case, very important precaution. (With normal list settings, they probably already do.) --Abd (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. It was pointed out by another arb that we can just use e-mail filters and mark threads as appropriate. That doesn't stop arbs reading all the traffic, but as it ends up in an archive anyway, there is not much point, and we trust each other either not to read the threads or not take advantage of what is read. Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I can appreciate the appeal and simplicity of an honour system. I'll add an additional comment to my comments on the MH ArbCom request with this information known. EdChem (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I went to post the additional comments to the MH ArbCom request, only to find that the request has been archived. This was done by AGK following private direction. In the two days prior to the archiving, Shoemaker's Holiday had made two further posts to the request, neither of which received any response on-wiki. I have posted to AGK's talk page about the archiving, asking whoever gave the private direction to be contacted. Whilst comments were still being added to amendment request, it strikes me as inappropriate for the request to be archived. When the underlying case is one that is controversial and an embarassment to ArbCom, some Committee member(s) issuing a private direction for a quiet archiving by a Clerk looks appalling. This was not a non-controversial and routine action. I realise AGK was acting on a direction, which was entirely proper - the propriety of issuing that direction is a whole other matter. EdChem (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have come full circle here to the matter of recusals on a different case. For the record, I'm recused on anything to do with the Matthew Hoffman case because I was a party to the original case, and as a consequence have been leaving that matter entirely for other arbitrators and clerks to deal with. See also my comments made at the time of the ArbCom election in December 2008. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Concern about user Proofknow[edit]

I am concerned about USER:Proofknow editing behaviour on the Human Rights Foundation article. I am concerned about the fact that it is a brand new account, but the user has knowledge of various policies (NPOV, RS etc.), and the political nature of the user's edits - deleting sourced material, for example, certain criticism of the organisation. I suspect the user could be a sock puppet or employee of the Human Rights Foundation. Could you advise me about how to proceed? Thanks Pexise (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have completely missed this note. Sorry. If there are still problems, drop me another line. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT - Mediation?[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. I saw your recuse note at RFAR, where you urged mediation, but I'd ask how you think mediation could work on a scale as large as this, and even if possible, who would actually take the case. I wouldn't..... Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Missed this. I didn't mean individual mediation, but maybe a group effort by a number of mediators to smooth over different obstacles in the process. Helping to keep things calm as slow progress is made. Carcharoth (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


Although you removed a section from my talk page, someone has put a link to that removed section at the bottom of my talk page. Would you please remove it for me? I am afraid to do so myself. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, as I have removed everything from my talk page. Please inform me if this is not correct behavior on my part, or is in violation of rules. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I blanked my page because other editors were adding a link back to the "torment" section that you had removed. I wanted to prevent that from happening again. I though if I left the archives, that would make it easy for them to do so. Also, in the past, editors have rummaged through my archives to find old material to use against me in RFCs. It is wrong of me to do that? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Would it be all right to email you? I have been warned by several people not to respond to the arbitration but I would like to answer any questions you have. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I/P articles[edit]

Thanks for your comment, Carcharoth. I've started a proposal at Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


MOORE, (Sir) Norman Winfrid

(3rd Bt cr 1919; has established his claim but does not use the title)

Born 24 Feb. 1923; s of Sir Alan Hilary Moore, 2nd Bt; m 1950, Janet, o d of late Mrs Phyllis Singer; one s two d

Senior Principal Scientific Officer, Nature Conservancy Council, 1965–83 (Principal Scientific Officer, 1958–65); Visiting Professor of Environmental Studies, Wye College, University of London, 1979–83 Succession

S father, 1959 Education

Eton; Trinity Coll., Cambridge (MA); Univ. of Bristol (PhD) Career

Served War, 1942–45, Germany and Holland (wounded, POW) Publications

The Bird of Time, 1987; Oaks, Dragonflies and People, 2002; scientific papers and articles Heir

s Peter Alan Cutlack Moore [b 21 Sept. 1951; m 1989, Pamela Edwardes; one s one d. Educ: Eton; Trinity Coll., Cambridge (MA); DPhil Oxon] Address

The Farm House, 117 Boxworth End, Swavesey, Cambridge, CB24 4RA

‘MOORE, (Sir) Norman Winfrid’, Who's Who 2009, A & C Black, 2008; online edn, Oxford University Press, Dec 2008 accessed 9 May 2009

Decleration of Interest[edit]

I left an answer about the ARBMAC2 about your historical interest in Macedonia. Historical concerns are part of policy. If they aren't, they should be in an encyclopedia. The guideline is the one ChrisO himself wrote but now contradicts. Shadowmorph ^"^ 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Zoological Society of London[edit]

You're welcome, yes, I forgot one! Just fixed that. --Cam (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

George III[edit]

Hello. Your answer was helpful but I never found out the title of the painting or the name of the painter.--Johnbull (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


I just read your questions here and wanted to say that although I don't have time to answer right now (need to get some rest), I think those are great questions. I look forward to reading the answers. Thank you for taking the time to consider and ask these questions. لennavecia 04:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


So just to clarify, what exactly is it that you are asking for? Are you asking for a bot that will bring the "NAME" parameter in {{Persondata}} into sync with what's in {{DEFAULTSORT}}? Thanks, Matt (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

More a bot to flag articles where persondata and defaultsort disagree, so that humans can check which is correct. I presume your bot already detects cases where DEFAULTSORT and listas disagree? Carcharoth (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There's not very many where, at least, DEFAULTSORT and listas disagree on the same page, because it causes the page to go to Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts, and User:JimCubb is usually pretty good about keeping that one cleared. The bot's behavior right now is, if DEFAULTSORT exists on the page, remove it and place it into listas in {{WPBiography}}, and bring all other templates that use listas into sync with it. Now, pages where DEFAULTSORT on the article page and listas on the talk page disagree? The bot doesn't check for that. Matt (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. That was a godsend. My ultimate aim is to have all biography pages having DEFAULTSORT, since that will really, really help with keeping disambiguation pages updated. Would you be able to list bots and categories related to biographical metadata at WT:Biographical metadata? Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Meh? I'm gonna have to ask you clarify that one, I don't understand what you're asking for. Matt (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
By listing bots and categories, I just meant keeping details of bots and categories at that Wikipedia page (or talk page) so similar stuff on biographical metadata is on one page for people to see. As for disambiguation pages, have a look at some dab pages for common names, and see how many articles we have that aren't on the dab page, and then consider how a system like this might help if it covered all people, not just living people. For example, if all the articles were correctly marked with DEFAULTSORT, this would be used to keep List of people with surname Smith up-to-date. Smith is an extreme example, but the above can be tweaked to give all the living James Smith people we have articles on. Compare that to James Smith and then look at the search for James Smith. It is likely that the match-up is not perfect between those three lists. Even James Smith is too common to be useful. Let's look at Holbrook and compare to Holbrook#Surname. Immediately, we see that Chase Holbrook, Curtis Holbrook, Terry Holbrook and Thomas Holbrook are not on the disambiguation page. That is what I mean by using DEFAULTSORT to help keep disambiguation pages up-to-date. At the moment, this only works for living people because they have a single category on their page. There is no equivalent category that covers all people. Which is unfortunate. If you can think of how to approach this, I'd be grateful. People have some big database dumps in the past, making suggestions for dab pages, but it is a massive task. See also Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation/Batch 3 and Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation if you are interested. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think a pretty easy approach would be to go through Category:Biography articles with listas parameter (note the with) and make sure the corresponding articles have {{DEFAULTSORT}} tags on them, and if not, copy it from the talk page. With Category:Biography articles without listas parameter quickly dwindling down (thanks to ListasBot :-D), this would seem like a pretty effective solution to me. So, that being said, do you just want something on WT:Biographical metadata saying that that's what the bot does? Matt (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind! Thanks. Your suggestion to copy from listas to DEFAULTSORT will work only if the listas value is correct (I noted there were objections made previously when going the other way, on the basis that people can get the sort order wrong for Asian names and Arabic names), but would be good. The category of articles that gets left out is those with no DEFAULTSORT and no listas. And then there are the biographical articles that are not tagged as such and don't have {{WPBiography}} on their talk pages. But that is another bot, I think... (various bots and people have tried to keep things up-to-date in the past with tagging biographical articles, with varying levels of success). BTW, if you get time, have a look at who created the "with" and "without" listas categories. ;-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC) OK, I didn't create the categories, but I did ask for the syntax to be added to the template.
I have much to learn from you, good sir. Matt (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. Getting stuff all on one page means everyone will know as much as each other. Me? I want to learn more about bots, and that will take me a long time! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


I don't kow how to address the arbitrators except through you. It is obvious that the FEC editors and affiliates will not let up. I feel it is hopeless. I don't want John Carter to have to deal with the ugliness, considering he is dealing with a death in his family. Therefore, I would like to withdraw all defense. If it is the judgement of the FEC editors and affiliates that I am unfit to edit at wikipedia, then I will not contest a ban. In most of the examples given, I have been right, but the editors would rather dump on me than take seriously my points. I will be better for me not to undergo this misery any more. Ir is affecting my well being in real life. So it will be in my best interests to ban me, if that is your decision. I would rather that than to be "supervised" on "parole" be those who have less knowledge than I do. My experiences is that these processes are misused. I am too tired to continue to go through this and would rather that it just end, whatever the outcome. Sincerely, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that this is not my decision to make. I don't have time to answer this fully until tonight (was away yesterday). I will let the other arbitrators know about your note here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I am back at this computer now, and I got the e-mail you sent me. One thing needs to be clear here. You said "I don't know how to address the arbitrators except through you." The way to contact all the arbitrators as a group is to e-mail them through the committee mailing list address that is given at WP:ARBCOM. I am currently consulting with my colleagues about your latest messages, but please be patient and remember that we have other cases to deal with as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia usage survey[edit]

You requested a more detailed survey of the usage of the term "Macedonia" in reference works. I've carried this out now; the results are at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/MOSMAC2#Reference works. Hope this helps. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Please let me know if you have any followup queries. Unfortunately I was unable to look at paper indices as you requested - all the works I had access to are electronic versions. However, it's clear that there was some kind of weighting going in with search results; the country article was almost always returned at the top of the list, followed by either the regional article or the Greek region article. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions to David D, Sandstein, and Moni3[edit]

Obviously these were not intended toward me, but I want to comment. When I blocked Giano, I tried to ensure the matter would be discussed. I personally believe that the discussion merited a reduction of the block to not less than 1 week, not more than 2. However, this discussion was very much ongoing, and as I commented there, we had plenty of time to make it. I had left a note on Giano's talk page explicitly asking anyone who wished to change the block to contact me, and wait for a response before doing so. I am disappointed that David D, Sandstein, and Moni3 all chose to ignore this, and the ongoing discussion, to take action which in all cases was unneeded. Prodego talk 07:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

please note[edit]

my latest addition to [9]. i would greatly appreciate a specific response to what i said about collect violating 1rr and collect continuing his problematic behavior since the RfC. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

why havent you responded? --Brendan19 (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies. Will look later on this evening. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
so what happened? --Brendan19 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The request got removed before I had time to comment further. Sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete my image, please[edit]

Macedonia findings[edit]

I appreciate your taking your time to review things before deciding, as you said, for instance as to whether I used my tools in the dispute, or the thing about the old RfC. You could, of course, also just ask me :-) These two particular issues weren't discussed in the workshop or evidence phase, so I think there might still be substantial clarifications and background info I'd have to give, over and above what's easily visible in Rlevse's diffs.

As a side note, I'm slightly amused that on the one hand, you caution me not to "encourage" the penguieater troll, explicitly striking out the "mocking" part, but then in the same breath you sign the finding that cites those same penguin diffs as evidence of terrible insults and intimidation. Slightly inconsistent, perhaps? Fut.Perf. 16:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Slightly inconsistent, but some of the incivility was unacceptable. I'd hope you would agree with that at least. If I have any questions, I'll reply to what you said on the proposed decision talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not commenting on whether some instances were unacceptable or not. I'm just a bit miffed at seeing some of the more farcical diffs mixed in with the serious ones. Fut.Perf. 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions answered[edit]

Your questions in the Giano II wheel warring ArbCom case request were valid. I took the time to answer them on my talk page. I understand if TLDR comes into play here, but I thought I should inform you that I replied. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. I need to deal with some other things first (and the request got rejected anyway), but I will look later on. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written[edit]

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
  • 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."
"This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, I won't be able to vote on this case. I'm going on wikibreak for a few weeks, and I've asked the clerks to mark me as inactive for this case. I hope the other arbitrators can address your concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)