Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 7 August 2009

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

Archives

• July 2005
• September 2005
• February - March 2006
• April - May 2006
• June - July 2006
• August - September 2006
• October - November 2006
• December 2006 - January 2007
• February - March 2007
• April - May 2007
• June - July 2007
• August - September 2007
• October - November 2007
• December 2007 - January 2008
• February - March 2008
• April - May 2008
• June - July 2008
• August - September 2008
• October - November 2008
• December 2008 - January 2009
• February - March 2009
• April - May 2009
• June - July 2009

Cognitive science literature

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

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

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: 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 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

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?

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 /_{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)

Favor

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

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

Moore

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 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

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

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

George III

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)

RFAR/Mattisse

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)

ListasBot

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for name disambiguation/Batch 3 and Misplaced Pages: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)

Message

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

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

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 07:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

please note

my latest addition to . 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

• File:UnfinishedTalesCover.jpg - orphaned, superseded by File:UnfinishedTales.JPG, which is a better version (1st ed.) Thanks. Uthanc (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Someone else got there first. Sorry for the late reply. Carcharoth (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia findings

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

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

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:

• A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:

"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."

• B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:

"This guy is out of control, man."

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)

DefaultsortBot has stirred up some controversy...

Hi Carcharoth,

Sorry to ask you to drag yourself into this, but I figured since you requested the bot, I should ask for your input.

You may remember that 2-3 weeks ago you asked me for a bot that could try to put {{DEFAULTSORT}}s into as many biography articles as possible. I've since written it, obtained approval for it, and put it into operation...and started getting objections left and right with 5 seconds.

At the moment, the biggest outstanding objection is from Magioladitis, who is claiming that not every page needs a DEFAULTSORT, especially when the DEFAULTSORT is the same as the page title. I'd appreciate your input on the matter. It's been moved around several times, but the bulk of the discussion at the moment seems to be going on at WT:Categorization#DEFAULTSORT = Pagename (although you can also read User talk:Mikaey, User talk:DefaultsortBot, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive541#A rogue bot, and WT:BRFA#a serious problem to get some background on what's been going on).

Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm not too late for this. I'll drop a note on your talk page to find out where the latest discussion is. Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Clean up tag on Ian Blair

Hi, I notice that you have been active on the talk page of this article in the past and am wanting your opinion on the clean up tag I have placed there. My view, as explained on the talk page, is that the article consists of a jumbled collection of facts with no rhyme or reason given as to their selection. Two anon users (probably the same person) argued with me and then today someone has removed the tag which I hav e reinstated. Could you, as an experienced and respected editor, please give your opinion. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My views won't have changed much. They will be in the talk page archives or still on the talk page. Sorry. No time to look right now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've eventually gone for WP:3O adn got input that way.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mail to arbcom-l

I noticed you're posting some votes in the Macedonia case at the moment. I've sent a suggestion to arbcom-l, but it seems to be stuck in moderation; I don't know if you have moderator access, but if so, could you possibly take a look? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An e-mail has arrived. I presume it is the one you are referring to. It is being discussed, and when Kirill or Roger see it, they should send out an official confirmation that it arrived. Carcharoth (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

List of helicopter prison escapes

Not sure if this is your cup of tea but I need a skilled hand to fix this page. It almost made FAL but was held back because of bad grammar, inconsistency, etc. Needs a good copyedit to whip it into shape! I'd do it but most of the problems on the page are caused by me. Me no good at english -- Esemono (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. No time right now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are on TV!

You have just been mentioned in the Colbert Report. --Itub (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true, it's true! Colbert was talking about the AC Scientology decision and said how the Arbitration Committee is made up of people named "Carcharoth, FloNight, Newyorkbrad and Wizardman". Carch, yours was the first -nym shown on the TV set! :) Then he said something about how these judges don't wear robes, they wear bathrobes... But that's a totally different cabal, maybe I should write in and straighten that out. :) Franamax (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We are still accepting applications. Images can be uploaded to the project or sent to me via email. We currently have no members who are Arbs, however, all are welcome. :D لennavecia 12:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch the segment here. (2 minutes) Jehochman 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone else might want to use this link, AOL limits viewing to US viewers. Regards SoWhy 16:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. Managed to find a clip of it, and it was fun watching it. Some people in some threads got the pronunciation right! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests for comment Is Skinwalkers evidence acceptable and can I be allowed additional space to respond to the accusations?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not active on that case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FPAS

I like your suggestion here. If you would make this into a binding remedy, I would support it. Desysoping is indeed too sweeping, and the other proposed alternative seems like it might become torture. Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I ended up supporting the temp desysop remedy. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

J&S application

Hi Carcharoth,

I respectfully direct your attention to this. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not currently active on anything arbitration-related except two cases. Have notified the other arbitrators, though. Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nogrod Belegost

Hi! I'm from Turkish Misplaced Pages. I searched some Middle-earth fan to ask a question and I saw you edited the portal Middle-earth. Well, this is the question, which one of those articles tell the truth about the founders of Nogrod and Belegost,

• 1. Realms_of_the_Dwarves
• 2. Nogrod and Belegost

Either the first one or the latter is wrong. I had translated the first article into Turkish, then I just realized that disaggreement. What do you know about that?--Tuleytula (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You might get a quicker answer at WP:WikiProject Middle-earth. Ask on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia" - it would be interesting to discuss that definition in detail one day. Anyway, from what I can see, the idea didn't take off. Maybe look at similar ideas that have been proposed before? Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Active arbs

Hey Carcharoth, since you've returned to active editing should you perhaps be noted as active on the arbitration committee page? Nathan 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I went on wikibreak the next day (it was really two wikibreaks close to each other). But now it is July, I should remove the notices, and will move my self back to being active. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

(Notifying you personally because you were one of the arbitrators who showed some interest in the content side with your questions.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As you asked about where the discussion was advertised: it's been registered as a regular RfC, listed in the WP:CENT box, and notifications were given at WP:VPP, WP:ECCN, the Macedonian wikiproject, and about a dozen relevant article talk pages. Personal notifications (similar to the one above) were also given to the editors who had participated in the Greece poll in March, and some people who had taken part in the debate after the page moves of April. These notifications were mostly done by Shadowmorph and myself (and I'm glad to say they are one aspect of this story that hasn't created friction so far.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I had not seen your reply on the AR/C page before now. Just to clarify, I did not intentionally neglect to place notification of the RFC in various places. This is going to sound rather foolish, but in any case, I started working on moving to the next phase in middle-late afternoon local time. It took me approximately two and a half hours to update the pages and file the RfC. Just as I finished filing the RfC, my dinner (pizza) arrived, so I went to go eat. When I got back, everyone was going crazy because Michael Jackson had been confirmed dead, so I got caught up in trying to help maintain order in that area, and the Macedonia issue completely slipped my mind. When I remembered the next morning, Future Perfect at Sunrise and I believe Shadowmorph had already placed notification in all of the obvious places. I'm telling you this not so much as an excuse, I just wanted you to know that I was going to do it myself, but I got distracted. In the future, I will make sure that I complete each task I am doing before I move on to another one. J.delanoy_adds 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Doesn't sound foolish at all, and it is reassuring to know that there was a plan in place for the referees to do the notifications, even if the meltdown from the Michael Jackson news did disrupt things. It is also good to see that people do stuff on their own initiative to finish things off. Thanks for explaining what happened there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Publicising discussions

Thanks for letting me know about the name change. I've taken the liberty of making a number of copyedits, hopefully improving the flow, readability, and clarity of the page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for letting me know. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler as mentor/adviser for Mattisse arbitration

Fowler&fowler has stated his willingness to be one of my mentors/advisers. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Thank you for being so helpful, in general. You have eased the pressure on me. I am grateful that you took the time to clarify issues as my arbitration ended. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:e-mail from ArbCom

Newyorkbrad tells me that you tried e-mailing me, but it didn't go through. Sorry for causing bother. What address were you trying to send it to? My current one, and the one attached to my user account, is Gmail with simon.pulsifer as the address. I also checked my old Yahoo account, but I didn't find anything from you over the last few weeks. If you resend it to my Gmail I should get it, and I'll respond quickly. - SimonP (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I sent something to your yahoo email address about a month ago because that was the one in my address book. We can resend it, no worries. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding National Portrait Gallery

Dear Carcharoth, thank you for your message. The discussions that I had with NPG concerned the portraits of M. C. Bradbrook (see in particular this section: ). At the time I even produced a low-resolution and smaller version of this portrait and e-mailed it to them, asking them whether I was permitted to upload it to Misplaced Pages (arguing that my low-resolution and smaller version would never compete with their version), but that was also not acceptable to them. As I have mentioned earlier (in that piece which you have quoted from me -- incidentally, I have no problem with the reproduction of my pertinent comment), they told me that they were in the processes of some negotiation with Misplaced Pages for arriving at some mutually-acceptable agreement, but not having been in touch with them since then, I do not know what has become of their negotiations. Unfortunately, since then I have changed my laptop (due to the breakdown of my previous laptop) so that at this moment I do not have access to my pertinent e-mails; otherwise I would have made them available to you so that you could see for yourself the details that I wrote to them and the things that they wrote back in response. I should say, send them an e-mail and they will certainly respond; my experience with them is overly positive --- the person who communicated with me was a very nice person and throughout our exchanges I had always the feeling that he genuinely wanted to help (he really understood my points and very sympathetically explained to me their side of the story --- all the e-mails that I received from him were genuine e-mails, and not some cut-and-pasted pieces of standard remarks meant to keep me happy). Kind regards, --BF 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply. If I get time I'll point it out to various people. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom: ADHD

You wrote: "All the advice is good, and recommend a six-month review by ArbCom to see if the advice has been followed." Sounds like a very good idea. Is it too late to get that included in the decision? - Hordaland (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As the case has closed, it is too late now, but do come back in six months yourself and see if the situation has improved. If it hasn't, then do point that out to us. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm making a note of that, hoping it won't be necessary. - Hordaland (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom: User:Ice_Cold_Beer

I hope I am in the right place. I request administrative restriction of User:Ice_Cold_Beer for the following reason:

He has blocked me and others from editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy, but I will focus on myself. The contributions I have made to the article for the most part have been sourced, if not by other references, by already established Misplaced Pages articles. Yet he says that I have been making contributions without source. He has accused me of POV pushing, despite the fact I have clearly explained my position and if you see in the article (priroly, I responded to the POV issues clearly). This article is a chronology of the controversy itself, and I have contributed to the chronology clearly, with citations (at least if not immediately, within a 3 day period).

My concern is that he has a biased agenda of his own, and that is to eliminate as much possible any inkling of knowledge or insight of the black Egyptians. The article is certainly clear that there IS a debate, but the article continually goes into discrediting one side (the black side) by calling it Afrocentric (and thus attacking Afrocentricism) instead of focusing on the controversy itself.

He accused me of personal attacks, but I responded to personal attacks,

But most importantly, without warning, without discussion with me directly first, he proceeded to ban me for, not 1 week, not 24 hours, but six months. An extreme use of his administrative power, based, I feel, not on any objectivity, but on a mission to silence a POV he feels he does not agree with. That is the only logical conclusion. I understand "any" editor can ban, but it is aginst Misplaced Pages policy for editors to ban based on neutralizing a legitimate POV, which is certainly happening here. Please advise.

Also, please forgive my inexperience. I am seeking admins of a higher level than user:dbachmann and user:Ice_Cold_Beer who can resolve this. Because the violations have simply gone up a level. Now, admins who are POV pushing via administration are messing up an article. And finally, anti-black POV users are not being banned when they engage in the same behavior. --Panehesy (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss this. You want to put the above at requests for arbitration, and I see that there is a request there, so I will comment there when I get round to that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Got your email

I got your email. I was not aware of the matter, but knew that I wasn't interested in participating just from the email. Things around our governance are too toxic for me to enjoy participating in them, and that was the primary reason I resigned as an administrator. I'm not at all interested in getting more involved in project governance matters. GRBerry 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully one day things will have improved enough so you feel able to return to administrating and other things like that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,please check your mailAlsoam (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have. Should there be an e-mail from you? I can't see one. Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thelnetham Windmill

Hi, I wondered if you would cast an eye over the Thelnetham Windmill article and maybe do a copy edit on it. I'd like your opinion on how close it is to FA standard, and what work is needed to bring it up to that level. WP:MILLS currently lacks a FA, so it would be nice to get at least one. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

impressed

Carcharoth, your objectivity impresses me. We need to get at the equivalency of behaviors, whatever username is involved. Thanks, Outriggr (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, thanks, Sometimes impressing is too easy. Do you want to review the windmill article above? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(Would I be tilting?) Oh, that would take work—most of us old-timers have moved into a post-work Misplaced Pages limbo, it seems... Outriggr (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles with listas parameter Is Going Away

Hi!

You were once concerned about the pages in this category that had erroneous values. I have cleaned out the ones after Z twice. However, because Magioladitis agreed with Gurch that the category serves no purpose, despite my disagreement and indication of a legitimate use, Martin re-programmed {{WPBiography}} so that the category will be empty. (The discussion is here. Notice that Martin was not involved in the discussion and that his edit summary of the programming change indicates that it is by consensus.)

You no longer need to be concerned about eerroneous values for {para|listas}} as there will be no way to find them except by accident.

JimCubb (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Dear Carchaort. I would like to ask a question about Misplaced Pages's tagging system. I've been recently tagged as a "possible scibaby sockpuppet" and I'd like to know:

1)how can I clear myself of accusation

2)how can I find out who tagged me and why exactly.

I'm sorry for bothering You but I need someone to help understand a few things. I was recently involved in a very suspicious case that ended up in partial success for me but still I'm tagged.

I was editing discussion panel on climate change denial.The topic is controversial so I started a thread titled "this article could become neutral". Right away I got this tag and local editor William Connolley with his friends who apparently disagree with me on the topic used the fact that I'm tagged to delete my thread from article's talkpage. After I cited wikipedia's rules from "Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets" KimDabelsteinPetersen changed his strategy ans started to claim that my comment includes a private opinion which makes it a soapbox and deleted discussion again. They ignored a rule "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" from talk page guidelines. In response,I've found a few sources and reverted my thread back to article's talkpage thinking now everything was going to be OK. But I was wrong. Kim's friend Aunt Entropy deleted my comment again without any explaination. I asked why did he do that on his talkpage but he simply deleted it! Despite threats I didn't give up and tried once again. This time with succes. Someone responded to my thread and local usurpators stopped censoring the talkpage.

I find this case very bizarre. Hours ago, user Treedel wrote to me : "The reason you have been tagged as a possible puppet appears to be that the last thing User:Scibaby did was get into a sockpuppet revert war with User:William M. Connolley. Since that was in late 2007, I think it's just an overzealous script finding a meaningless coincidence"

Does it mean that tagging is now a weapon against editors with opposite views??? Please help because I can't function normally with this tag. (Sorry for making ma point this long:)78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You are better off discussing this on your talk page with the editors you mention above. This is not really a dispute I want to get involved in, and I'm a bit too tired to look at this right now. Let me know if you have trouble finding anyone to answer your questions. Carcharoth (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, You got me wrong:) I only wanted the answer to first 2 questions - all the rest is just a context. Didn't mean to get You personally involved. Anyways, have a nice sleep:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tolkein in Lancashire

Hello and apologies for any Misplaced Pages editing faux-pas I am about to make in contacting you. I am completely unskilled in the field of Wiki editing and have no clue as to what the procedures are, but felt that you were the person to talk to. You are a constant contributor to the main J._R._R._Tolkien article, and I was wondering why there is no mention of Stonyhurst College, Clitheroe, Lancashire, in the article? It is well versed around these parts (I live not too far away from the College) that Tolkien took much inspiration from and wrote large portions of the LOTR books whilst in Lancashire, yet the article only mentions his Birmingham roots.

Here are some links that I feel would be of use to the article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/lancashire/lifestyle/2003/12/12/tolkien.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1696891.stm

http://www.oldclitheroe.co.uk/page172.htm

http://www.enjoyenglandsnorthcountry.com/movies/page.asp?pagekey=16&tcat=16&tid=1

I hope this is useful and that you don't mind me writing here.

Angstpristine (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

George Motion 4

Hi, would you please consider, provided you haven't already, my proposed motion 4? You seem anxious to get this case over with, that is understandable, but let's not allow the cost of haste to be injustice to one of Misplaced Pages's most venerable and best writers. Thank you,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My questions

I've posted a response to you here. I just want to thank you separately for taking the time to reply in detail, both to this question and to previous ones. The responsiveness and openness are very much appreciated. SlimVirgin 06:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review of Zoroastrianism

Hey,

Would you mind Peer Reviewing the article on Zoroastrianism. The archive can be found here. Thanks Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Progress on archived requests for amendment?

Last month you was kind enough to state that you would seek to speed up the process on some requests for amendment in the Date Delinking ruling; cf. your edit here. I was wondering if this was to no avail? For example, clerk Hersfold archived my request just two days after your edit. Any remark would be most welcome, as I am, of course, disappointed about the failure of my request. Kind regards, --HJensen, talk 23:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)