User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 50

As a subscriber to one of

I would like to observe that your opine on this case is quite apt and would like to draw your attention to this where where I observed that there are several ArbCom case requests (or moving to very shortly) with Administrator rights abuse and make a suggestion that ArbCom deliver a blanket (no fault) notice reminding all Admins about their duties. Thank you for your time. Hasteur (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting here for the record the following edit, reverted here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just logged in an incident on ANI. Check this [1]. I feel that the action by the admin in discussion was harsh, sudden and one sided. Whilst I wait for the discussion on ANI to progress, I am placing a request to you if you can review this independently and give me your feedback. Cheers AKS

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13

}} to your friends' talk pages.

Happy Holidays...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Clair Thomson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Lister (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Did a bunch of editing to Commonwealth War Graves Commission this afternoon. Care to take a look before I resubmit of GA? --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Labattblueboy. I've been meaning to get back to that article, but haven't had the time yet. I had a quick look and those edits, and they look great. I think there is more that could be done (see my comments on the talk page) and tidied up, but don't let that stop you resubmitting the article to GA. I will try and do some more editing of the article at some point, but more on the history of the Commission. The current matters I'm less familiar with. You may also want to be aware, if you didn't see it already, of the edits by User:Commonwealth War Graves Commission (see also that user talk page). I do have some questions to ask about editing in and around the WWI topic area in general, can I ask you about that at some point? Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carcharoth, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi- just to let you know that a copy-paste problem meant that your submission page wasn't created correctly. It's fixed now. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Carcharoth. You have new messages at Talk:Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act.
Message added 20:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for coming late to the

I soon came to understand that these articles were based almost exclusively on one author and followed the text of this document very closely, paragraph by paragraph, and that the editor in question was skilled at paraphrasing. Although the names and dates of the military campaigns are treated differently by different specialists in the field, the titles of the WP articles follow this one source exclusively, and any discussion about renaming the articles always met with resistance, but without any explanation of the underlying reasons. Once I understood this, I saw no reason for my continued participation, as this is a task that can be done by one person.

My take on the editing milieu at that time is pretty much the same as the editors who commented on the just-completed case: that there was one editor willing to take the lead, as far as working COPYVIO and other issues, and who had the consensus of the group to do so. And the upshot of the case, if I am interpreting the smoke signals of the committee correctly, is that rather than vindicating the judgement of the editor in question, the editor has been officially found to have exercised that leadership inappropriately, and the new leadership will now devolve on the WP:AE admins. Now, I have not examined all the diffs of the case in detail, but the ones that I looked at, I could not see the edit warring that was supposed to have taken place, certainly not judging by the 4 reverts/24 hours standard. But like I said, I didn't have time to look at everything in detail.

So as it stands now, the influence of the one user who seemed to have any luck with the situation, and who was probably following policy, has been blunted, and another user with a finite skill set is expected to become a different person. Probably not a good time for bystanders either, if experience is any indicator. No advice, though, not this time. I'm just glad those pages aren't on my watchlist. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, I am recused on this case, so I can't comment on what the committee's intentions are or were here. If you want clarification or to seek any kind of amendment based on your views of the case and the editing history of the parties to that case, you will need to address the committee, not me. I will add a diff to the current amendment request drawing the committee's attention to what you have said here. Actually looking at what you have said, I think I can discern who you are talking about above, and as far as I can tell you are saying the case should have been about something else entirely, rather than what it was about, but is there a reason why you are avoiding naming people? Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this seems to be an invitation to talk about specific people, I'll cut to the chase. I totally don't get what is expected of Rskp at the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitrator views and discussion 4clarification request. Some sort of quasi-religious ritual that seems to involve seeing the light, making a confession, and being reincarnated, if I may mix religious metaphors, mixed in with some innuendo about being manipulative. I think it would be more productive to substitute a cognitive approach, based on what is good for the Wikipedia, what is good for the MilHist project, and what is good for Roslyn.

First, what is Roslyn good at? Writing articles. Alone. The parts that I have spot checked have been very, very good, and detailed as well. Roslyn is good with keeping a huge number of details straight.

What is Roslyn not good at? Explaining things. Copyright issues. Moving stuff around in an article without consensus.

It also seems that Roslyn has been able to follow the parts of an edit restriction that were explained simply, i.e. "don't edit for 72 hours". The Ottoman/Turk thing I don't get--the Ottoman army had other nationalities beside Turks in it--so what's the problem with calling it the Ottoman army? I don't actually care anymore, but I challenge any of the arbs or AE admins to explain it, especially if they're interested in enforcing it. Is there an essay? I seem to remember it came up a year ago as well.

I would also note Roslyn's statement in the clarification request:

Mention must also be made of Neotarf's note in Carcharoth's link which claims articles were written by someone from a list of battle names [2], none of which were used in the three articles referred to and the lists of citations and references clearly demonstrate the error of claiming the articles were based on this one source.

Not true. Used in

First Transjordan attack on Amman [5]

. While later historians don't seem to use this document at all for classification of battles, this appears to have been quite an important document at the time: it contained almost daily descriptions of the actions, and I understand it was used in processing veterans benefits.

So here is my free advice. 1) Let Roslyn do what they do best: write articles. 2) Get someone else to do the part Roslyn isn't good at, ie. editing the article page. I have seen edit requests work well, when someone is willing to take on a voluntary restriction. 3) Negotiate the gray areas--talk pages? Transferring article out of user space? 4) I see Jim Sweeney gets frequent mention on Roslyn's talk page, for evaluating articles and deleting too-close paraphrasing. If Sweeney is willing to keep doing this, I say give him a barnstar, double his salary, and send him an official ArbCom t-shirt.

I don't see any point in all these precipitous AE blocks. Whatever happened to using the talk page? If an AE admin wants someone to do something, why don't they just go to the talk page and say, "hey, I think what you just did violates the terms of X,Y, and Z. Would you care to revert and discuss the matter?" And then WAIT. I have seen blocks follow in less than an hour after initial discussion. One of the Arbcom pages, I forget which one, advises editors who find themselves in too much drama to step back from the keyboard. An editor should have some time to think, to sober up if necessary, and to compose a measured response. The Arbcom might start thinking of ways to encode this so the AE admins know how to follow the spirit, as well as the letter of the case decisions.

Footnote: Does anyone know if Roslyn goes by "he" or "she"? For some reason I thought it was "he", but I don't see anything on the talk page.

I will not be posting at the request page, so make what use of this you will. I would point out that I am not an admin, and would feel neither welcome, nor comfortable, nor safe there. And this topic area does not really interest me, except for its intersection with governance issues. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I will point Roslyn to it (I've assumed Roslyn is she, but now you mention it, I'm not sure of that). The Turkish/Ottoman thing should never have been an issue (the Turks were the ruling political class within the Ottoman Empire, so the term Turkish can quite legitimately be used, though with caveats - having a footnote and now, it seems, a FAQ, on the single article where this became an issue is massive overkill). But that is a content issue and needs to be kept separate from the conduct issues. I am going to keep things as simple as possible with the advice I am about to give on her talk page (not right now, but in an hour or so). Carcharoth (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You have listed yourself as a

Apologies for the delay in replying. I don't have time to do this right now, but I hope you do manage to find someone to review the article. Thanks for asking, and apologies again. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the

Because you have edited

Please ponder thoughts that 28bytes left us, on waste of time and needed compromise, and my agreement with Nikkimaria:

"As far as I'm concerned (now), you can have an infobox where you are the main editor, assuming no consensus against it, etc. But: it might not be exactly as you want it, and I'd like not to have one without discussion first where I am a main author. Can we work with that?

It results in "my" Bach cantatas looking

I've looked Gerda, and those articles are at different stages of development. It is not really fair to compare them as they currently stand. Logically, if they are on the same topic, they should either both have an infobox or neither, as that would best serve the reader. Wikipedia should be about the reader, not the editors (sometimes that will involve adding an infobox, sometimes it will involve removing it or changing it). But you need to be able to generalise without making points about specific articles (try writing down your thoughts on infoboxes without talking about Bach cantatas - that would be a start). And no, I'm not going to return to the amendment request discussion and say anything further. I know you mean well, but I've got other things to worry about right now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I wrote down my

thoughts on infoboxes long ago, including that I was against them and it took me half a year to understand. - All "my" Bach cantatas (and other articles) would have an infobox, even stubs. None of Nikkimaria's would have one, not even the most developed ones. That is a conflict I can't solve. All of Andy's articles would have an infobox, if he wasn't restricted in this way that does not make sense to me and places people who feel the same in a difficult position. - I also have more important things to worry about than the little boxes: the loss of editors such as 28bytes and many more, --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Gerda, and sorry for not replying earlier. As I've said before, it is not the existence of infoboxes that seems to cause concern for some people, it is the placement and the accuracy. There are article writers who spend an immense amount of time carefully building up an article, taking great care to balance the sources and get the wording just right, and then summarising everything with a carefully written lead section and a carefully selected lead image. What I think happens is that seeing an infobox parachuted in that diverts attention from all that triggers some deep impulse in those who write (as opposed to those who aggregate data - and yes, I know many do both). That, IMO, is at the core of this dispute. Understanding the mindset of writers is key here. Some writers learn to accept infoboxes on some articles, some don't. The 'metadata' argument is a powerful one. Having the data in an easily maintainable place (and not hidden away like Persondata) is also a very valid argument. Articles that have writers stewarding them are less likely to suffer from infoboxes being unmaintained. The obvious solution would be to find some way to have different options for infobox inclusion. The default option would be at upper right. Other options (such as collapsed and/or down the bottom) have been explored. What you, and others, and the wider community need to do, is really thoroughly explore and lay out the reasoning behind all this and have that community-wide RFC that no-one has bothered to work on yet. Simply returning to ArbCom time and time again will not help. Those you could ask for help with this include Nikkimaria, Brianboulton, Quiddity and RexxS. Together, the five of you, and possibly others I have forgotten, would surely be quite capable of sorting something out, though preferably somewhere other than my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The link to my thoughts was part of the evidence not looked at. Did you see my latest entry to the clarification (last permitted anyway, no more than 2 in any infobox discussion), mentioning collaboration of Nikkimaria, Andy, RexxS and myself? Did you know that I never inserted an infobox where I expected conflict, -

sometimes I was surprised. I rarely added an infobox to an article I had not written myself anyway. How do you like this? Did you read what 28bytes wrote, my reason to come here? I miss him. The little boxes are not at all important to me, people are, --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 15:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice article. Though I see the article text does not explicitly say he died in Philadelphia. The infobox does. Adding an infobox is an aesthetic decision, relating mostly to presentation and style. Like categories, navboxes, series boxes, and so on, infoboxes are a bolt-on accessory to the core content. The core content is the text and its references and (possibly) the images (some images are mostly decorative, some are central to and tied to the text). Most of the effort spent on Wikipedia articles should go towards driving up standards for the core content and its references (i.e. the text of the articles). That includes tracking down and accessing the best possible sources for an article, and checking the current text to make sure it is acceptable. Everything else, nice though it is, should be secondary to that and can come later. Arguing about the extra stuff at too early a stage is like arguing about what colour to paint the walls of a house while the foundations and basic framework are still being built. Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you see what's unusual about that article? That two people collaborated who are on opposite sides of the so-called infobox war (a war which is a sad myth, if you ask me). I don't argue at all about infoboxes, I think they are as useful as book covers, and no article is damaged by telling a random reader the time and location of a subject. I am known for respecting an author's wish for no infobox (ask

Beeblebrox asked for it. - 2014 had a bad start (I closed completely, and opened again only because a person died who had no article yet), it can only get better, let's work on that. --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 18:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

ps: when I added the infobox Philadephia was in the line about his death. By some additions it appeared higher up, but I now duplicated it to that line. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Working together on articles is not that difficult. That you keep pointing to examples of collaboration is nice, but you are talking to the wrong person. As far as I am concerned, being asked not to add infoboxes is not an onerous restriction. It is perfectly possible to do all sorts of editing without needing to add or remove infoboxes. i.e. some people's approach to infoboxes is not a good fit with the current environment. The environment needs to change before such restrictions are lifted.

The only amendment to the case I am likely to suggest is one that would repeal the current editor-specific remedies (which focus too much on who created or authored an article) and replace them with a blanket remedy that states that all parties to that case are forbidden from adding or removing or changing any infoboxes, or discussing specific infoboxes for a particular article. The remedy would be lifted once a discussion has taken place where all sides of the argument are assembled carefully and without bias, and presented to the wider community for formation of a lasting consensus. That urging for wider discussion is the key remedy in the case, and that the parties have returned to focusing on their individual restrictions, while ignoring the key remedy, feels wrong to me. Instead of working together on articles, why not try and work together on guidelines for infoboxes? If you asked for an amendment to allow you to do that, I would gladly support that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought I asked something simple in the clarification request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

On other matters (changing topic), there is an article on an Ernst Roth (1896-1971) on the German-language Wikipedia, but I don't think there is an article here. I have a picture of his gravestone, which I will add to Commons and the German-language Wikipedia article at some point. Would you or someone be willing to translate that article for the English-language Wikipedia? Carcharoth (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to do a stub. I just got this one ready for DYK nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

started, replacing a redirect, Ernst Roth, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, though it looks like

William Birdwood. Some of the other gravestones, though, were in less good condition - being in a graveyard like that, it does make you ponder on mortality and the slow decay wrought on stone memorials by wind and rain and time if not maintained by successive generations - maybe Wikipedia will be like that one day! The contrast between the Victorian end of the cemetery, with a mixture of decayed, fallen and restored memorials, and the more recent end (with relatively recent headstones) was very noticeable. Carcharoth (talk

) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Primary topic: no, there was only one link, I changed it.
• I am so in the mood for gravestones. Real life:
  Hermann Müller (Idstein), here 28bytes (Wikipedia "lost his dedicated service"). I wrote Sorrow and The Lord bless you and keep you ... and give you peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk
  ) 08:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Still in the same mood: it looks as if this will go to the Main page "naked" (as the author would say). Did you know that a gravestone image I took made it to the Russian Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In much better mood (as 28bytes said he will peek occasionally): DYK was fast, will appear in a few hours, I hope you will manage the insertion of the image during the time when he's shown to more people, - I will travel, can look only later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realised you had put the Roth article up for DYK. It has gone from the main page now (I am surprised it went through DYK so fast), but I will put the picture up as soon as I can - it can be tedious to get pictures off my camera, so please bear with me for a couple more days.

Take all the time you need, people will keep seeing it, not too many look at biographies in DYK anyway. I expect more for the painter on the Main page now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've watchlisted

In your decline [6] of his appeal you referenced the possibility of a "better case." My understanding is the sanction was imposed for "Their comments here serve no useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable, and are also mainly concerned with casting aspersions on others, further personalizing the underlying dispute(s)." Looking at the page as it existed at the time of the sanction [7], the instructions on top of the page state "Messages posted here that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be redacted and may be deleted." Discretionary sanctions should be for editors disturbing mainspace, not making comments on a dispute resolution board. If Neotarf et. al.'s comments were, in fact, "casting aspersions," they should have been simply removed.

Does that meet your criteria for a better case? NE Ent 14:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier, NE Ent. I broadly agree, but to be honest I am less concerned with quibbles about notifications and even cases involving administrators. Both those detract from getting arbitration decisions right where the impact is on actual content. Readers of the encyclopedia, as someone once said, care very little about what goes on behind the scenes, it is what is in articles that matters. But to go back to one point, the bit about "casting aspersions on others, further personalizing the underlying dispute" is not likely to ever take place in articles. Maybe a different approach should be taken, but casting aspersion is still something that needs to be addressed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of notable people under FVEY surveillance/archive1

-A1candidate (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm afraid I don't have time to help with that. I hope you manage to find someone to review the list. Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF to enable us to close the case.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)