User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 43

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dudley Clarke
Hiya! A little while ago you reviewed Clarke at FAR; that one petered out due to lack of consensus, but he's back on review if you have any further comments/ideas! cheers. --Errant (chat!) 14:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The timing of my wikibreak meant I wasn't able to return to the original FAC before it closed. My wikibreak has also been a bit longer than planned, but I'll try and have a look at the new FAC at some point this weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:LotR navbox
Template:LotR navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WB
Welcome back : ) - jc37 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see some crazy things happened while I was away. Par for the course, I suppose. But even so. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And following that line of thought, kinda sad that I have to ask "which ones?" lol - jc37 01:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like your advice
Over the last week or so, I've asked several people if they would like to run for arbcom. After awhile, considering some of the responses I've received (and my own understanding of life on the committee), I've started to feel like I'm offering to sell someone the Brooklyn bridge...

So with that in mind, and the discussion at here in mind. What would your advice to me be? I'm kinda torn between my wont to help, and all these people I respect telling me how awful it is. - jc37 03:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My advice to you would be much the same as what AGK said. I would add that a good way of working out whether you (or anyone else reading this) are ready to stand in an election like this (and be an arbitrator) is to read through the general questions and jot down some preliminary thoughts, responses and draft answers. And to do the same while reading through a recent arbitration case or two. You should also be confident that you would do as good a job or better than at least seven of the people currently standing, which given that only ten are standing so far is not very difficult. Who knows, maybe more will put up candidacies tomorrow? One final piece of advice, if you do decide to stand, commit fully at that point and really try and answer the questions posed of you. Don't decide to stand and then do a half-hearted job of the questions. Best of luck in making your decision! Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your insight. I appreciate it.
 * I'll start working on the questions and see where that leads. - jc37 22:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, the next time I hear that too many questions are asked at RFA, I think I'm going to take the book of questions at the arb elections and slap them upside the head with it : ) - jc37 00:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're noticing this about the questions as well : ) - jc37 01:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was worse four years ago... Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, well that definitely scares me. These multiple multi-part questions have been something. I really wish people would number them themselves so I didn't have to deal with all the formatting : ) - jc37 01:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom
Would you please consider running? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While I wholeheartedly agree, please see this: User_talk:Carcharoth/Archive_42. - jc37 04:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. I had read that. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm considering it, though I do still have some reservations. I should have decided one way or the other by tomorrow evening (Sunday) as I will be unlikely to have time during the first few days of the week to submit a candidacy. I was waiting to see which of the arbitrators whose terms are ending will stand again, but that factor may not influence my decision as much as I had thought. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saw you transcluded your candidacy. Awesome!! : ) - jc37 00:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

precious
 * Precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

fixed
I absolutely did not intend any misrepresentation of any candidate, of course, and you will note your "upgrade." Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The book
Oh dear, apologies if that wasn't clear! I assumed that because the book was mentioned in a few places on my talk page, and that I had mentioned it to Brad, it would be obvious. Also, in your edit here, you linked to a comment of mine which begins by mentioning the book. That was on 22 November.

Although now I have another question: given that anyone can register and ask questions on the election pages, why should the fact someone was writing a book make any differences to the answer, given that the election page is public? Is it because you would have to be more careful? But then why would you be more careful talking to a writer or journalist than you would be talking to the community? Or is it because the material might be used in the book? But then why would you be concerned about being quoted from a page that is public? I mean, any journalist can read the election pages and write whatever they like, of course.

My policy for the book wherever possible has been to send people copies of any material quoted. That is standard practice. Obviously where the material is already public domain, this may be harder, but then it is public domain.

The book has raised many fascinating issues about how we deal with openness and transparency in a world where everything is supposed to be open and transparent. My thesis is that it leads Wikipedians to be less open and transparent. The radical openness makes it inevitable that people will seek privacy, with inevitable results.

Happy to continue this by private email if you like (slight irony!). I would still be interested in discussing the other observation which you say "is an excellent point". It was the problem of the double bottleneck - Wikipedia needs both breadth and depth, the wiki solved the problem of breadth, it did not, in my view, solve the problem of depth. Is there a problem? Can the arbitration committee resolve it? Hestiaea (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * About the date of 22 November, I mention that in the second sentence of my reply on the election questions page. I was aware that you are writing a book. I just hadn't fully thought through some of the implications, mainly because I was focusing on the other questions at that time. You are right that anyone can register and ask questions, but there are certain standards that I would follow if I was a writer or journalist writing on such a topic. One of them would be making clear to people why you are asking the questions. I too would be happy to continue discussing the other observation (the double bottleneck) and similar issues, but that is not really anything to do with the arbitration committee (which is a relatively narrowly focused body). Wider issues, and especially content issues, are something that are discussed in the 'community', though there are times when that is like herding cats. I mentioned your comment to Casliber. You could take up that point with him as well. Going back to matters of openness and transparency, I noticed this comment by one of the other candidates in the election. This brings me to another point: things on Wikipedia happen on so many pages, it is difficult to keep track of things, even with watchlists and 'related changes' and whatnot. It is surprisingly easy to miss things even when they are being talked about semi-openly. Sometimes you have to know how to read between the lines, and even then it is possible to misinterpret things. Carcharoth (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK! I would like to discuss the double bottleneck but I understand you are 'fighting' an election at the moment. So, good luck with that and I won't bother you again for now. Good luck again. Hestiaea (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Though like many elections, I am not sure how many voters truly read the more detailed stuff (though there are sites that give page views). I'm going to read (in full) all the answers the other candidates gave to their questions (though that will take a while), and decide how to vote, though I see that voting itself may be delayed. Carcharoth (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to engage
Re ; I don't recall having given any answer that related to you specifically, but if you picked up any error in a response or mine, or just want to discuss it, I always welcome dialogue. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, nevermind, it was my memory failing. Yes, if you think I misinterpreted or mischaracterized your position, feel free to clarify matters.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine as it is. I was slightly taken aback to find that the question I thought Cunard had asked just of me was also asked of others, but I presume that he came up with the questions before all the candidacies were announced. It must have taken him a while to write those questions! :-) A couple of other thoughts: (1) Some of the differences between answers to questions don't always show up in this sort of format (you may be interested in the talk page section above this one). (2) An election where all the candidates debated on the same page with each other would be 'interesting'. There are several ways the format could be modified. Maybe another year. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would. The wiki format would probably be a nightmare for anything resembling a debate though.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed...
But User:Ealdgyth/2012 Arb Election votes is probably mostly finalized. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. One day I really must sit down and try and get a handle on what my edits in various places add up to and what exactly I did during some years. Probably amounts to the proverbial hill of beans! Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but if so, rather than a "hill", it sounds more like it's a heaping helping of stone soup : ) - jc37 01:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Carcharoth, I would be very interested in your replies here, as you're currently running for ArbCom. I'll keep a watch on the page. --Elonka 17:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree Elonka. There was a similar comment posted here as well.Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates Several candidates have posted their comments, and it does seem like a relevant topic that !voters would want to scrutinize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 November 2012‎


 * Thank-you for the note and comments. I saw a version of that questionnaire a while ago. It looks interesting, but looking at the talk page I largely agree with those who have concerns about how it is structured and phrased (see in particular the comment made by ErrantX). Given those concerns, I've decided not to take part in that survey. If you (or anyone else) have any specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them on my election questions page, though the timing is bad as I'm not going to have much time to respond to questions between now and 10 December (a bit unfortunate, but of the three weeks of the election I was only ever going to be available for around two of them). I've added a note about that to my election questions page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood, as the questionnaire is indeed lengthy, and parts of it are of limited usefulness for this particular situation. I would be interested though, if you could provide an answer for Scenario #3? See User:Elonka/CERFC. --Elonka 04:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you considered the request. I have mostly resolved to not rebut any choice a respondent has been kind enough to post. However, I ask you to indulge a follow-on, and hope you do not perceive ill will of me for doing so; I mean well. For transparency, I am primarily an advocate for clear policy and uniform application. And I believe it is doable, to define the tolerable limit for acceptable standards, ie civility. I may be as wrong as I am young.  While it might appear favorable to my position, not overly encouraging the inclusion of opposing views, I am more interested, by my endeavor, to see the range of opinions included, for consideration, opposed to omitted by a moral boycott, that I feel is misplaced. I have interacted with several respected users in the past week, who have different insight than what I have included, and many, like yourself, have expressed some form of disdain, for the process. Too often (in my opinion), their response was to decline participation. Please tell me why it would be better for a significant viewpoint to not be included?  The points of your criticism, as much as they are similar to what others have said, are valid, they serve Wikipedia better by being included in this important discussion, yet so many will likely not be, like yours.  If a question is bad, the answer can say it's bad, perhaps why, and if fortunate, a counter example, or point of refocus. Good counsel and unanticipated insight are not going to be ignored!  The whole notion that the RFC, questionnaire, concept, and form, were authored with bad faith, and predisposed objectives, is not an accurate premise. In closing, I hope you will take a moment to provide some insight to my query above, because I can't fill in the blanks, and I'm beginning to fear a significant imbalance of important considerations, for omission. Best,  My 76  Strat  (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried my best, and am only too aware of the problems potentially caused by the prevalence of people who are upset by the questionnaire itself refusing to participate. This cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, result in anything other than a very non-representative result.  I'm following Elonka's lead here, and linking to my own response to the same question. User:ThatPeskyCommoner/CERFC.  Pesky  (talk ) 11:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the comments. I see Piotrus has asked all the candidates in the elections about this survey, so I'll reply in more detail there. Briefly, I do appreciate the effort that went into producing the survey, and I don't think it was done in bad faith with predisposed objectives (not sure where that idea came from, My76Strat). Elonka, the problem I have with Scenario 3 is the way it leads those reading it to a (seemingly) obvious conclusion. But if you compare the answer you gave with that given by Pesky, you see that in some situations your approach might work (some people do change their approach after an initial warning block), and in others Pesky's approach might work. I would certainly want to hear a description (and explanation) of the situation from the editor themselves, rather than what is here clearly a description of that editor's behaviour written by others. The 'warn and then block' approach and the 'counsel and mentor' approach. The difficulty is in judging when to draw the line, where, and how. The problem with someone being at ANI 15 times is that (unlike blocks) there is no easy way to keep count of that sort of thing (ditto with warnings). Anyway, enough of that, I only have a limited time tonight to answer questions (I did after all spend a large amount of time last week answering the questions before the election started), so that will have to do. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that reply. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting that you alleged bad faith, and biased framing; You did not. Several others have, and they were not ambiguous in their allegations. I suspect it will continue throughout the discussion, and I expect to rebut them as they are levied. Best regards. -- My 76 Strat  (talk)  00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)