User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 15

Request to admins not to provide info to user with legal concern
On 25 January, you put a message on the talk page of Bduke for admins not to respond to requests from another user because there was a legal issue involved. Since then, this user has gotten user DGG to reassemble a deleted talk page for him. This is contained on the talk page of DGG.202.142.220.65 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked those involved what happened. See below. For the record, my reference to "legal issues" was based on this edit, which referred to libel. I wasn't suggesting that any actual legal proceedings had been started, merely pointing out that libel had been mentioned, and thus to proceed with caution and ideally direct communications to those who can deal with such things. Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

American Journal Experts
I was the one who deleted the article because of the vote and stronger arguments but I was not aware of the potential libels issues before Blue1 alerted me in regards to that use. He pretty much said the same thing then at User talk:Bduke and I've basically directed him as other thus the Mediawiki/Foundation area. -- JForget 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see BDuke's comments at the Articles for deletion/American Journal Experts. I looked again, and I still do not think listing in the manner that this was listed shows notability; the inclusion on the nature.com author information page might have meant something, except it was copied from the company's publicity. There is indeed something odd--the history shows that the first version of the article had a flattering description and also an attack on the company--but you can see it yourself, of course. The company, instead of trying to remove the criticism, tried to remove the article. (The similarity of the names is probably because Blue is the Duke school color; that's not enough to prove it was an employee--a disgruntled client could have done just the same & ingeniously written the article in a similar fashion.)  How respectable the company is, is of course not for us to determine.
 * The question is whether I inadvertently might have done wrong in emailing the deleted talk page, visible to admins at  . I do not think I did any harm--it contains nothing that could be seen as compromising the identity of any contributor--mainly an email ad of theirs, which could have come from multiple sources.   Obviously the foundation will turn down a request for editor information unless there's a subpoena. Nor did it contain anything remotely viewable as libel. The criticism of the company is the sort we would immediately remove without RSs, and keep if there were, regardless of what the company wanted.  I've dealt with similar situations involving term paper companies; trying to post such complaints about the quality of service is fairly routine. Companies commenting here about such things only call attention to the situation; the more sophisticated one realise that. If anyone thinks there is still a problem, email me. there has already been too much public discussion.   DGG (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem here. Just wanted to get something on the record, mainly prompted by the IP post above. Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have only just seen your question on my talk page. I am way behind after spending all day yesterday manning a stall at the Australian Linux Conference. I know nothing further. What is the libel issue? I thought the author was trying to find out whether the guy who wrote the article was an ex-employee of his company. --Bduke (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was this. But as DGG says, probably nothing revealing in the talk page contents. Still, I don't like the way the user went admin shopping. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So it was, and on my talk page too. When I first read that, I could not see that anything in the article was a libel, so I must have forgotten it. --Bduke (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The company, instead of trying to remove the criticism, tried to remove the article." We did no such thing. The page had been deleted off of Wikipedia before we even realized it. Also, I apologize for "admin shopping". First I asked for the IP. That guy said he couldn't see the IP and to ask someone else. So I asked someone else. Was told they couldn't provide me with the IP for legal reasons. So I asked for the talk page from the person whose profile said "ask me about deleted talk pages". If you don't want people to make these requests off of you, don't advertise as such. In any case, the multiple non-logged in IP posts by someone have given me all I wanted. What now concerns/puzzles me is how Wikipedia allowed a blocked open proxy to make that comment way up there. -Blue1 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be talking to someone who is probably no longer watching this page at this point (a week later). I suggest you go to their talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"if it was a joke"....
Obviously, if I'd been serious, I'd have moved it myself.--Docg 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I just finick over categories like that... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing:. I'm always open to lectures and constructive criticism, but just two things. It is best to address my on my talk page, and to check your facts first. You also accused Geogre of edit-waring when I don't believe he has been doing so.--Docg 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not going to argue the toss now. I'll note over there that you object. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment
... has an answer. FT2 (Talk 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

your deleted contribs
when the toolserver server yarrow is back up with the database copy I can get you a full list of all your contribs. βcommand 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I could see them myself already? Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, Ill show you what I mean in a few days. βcommand 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

rationales
I've made a list of comics articles which need rationales at User:Hiding/no-rationale which a couple of us are working off to provide rationales. The trouble is there are a lot, and we tend to cherry pick the ones we really want to save. As you can see, there's a lot of star wars images, and trying to work out which ones to keep is time consuming. We're pretty much using a standard template rationale, which is bad form but better than nothing and moves the argument on to the next point, it's now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 31. I'll see what I can do, but I really want to try and do some work on the comics article, I've been pootering on it for nearly three years now and I think it's at the verge of FA, so I'd like to beat the three year deadline. And speaking of deadlines, thanks, I'm glad the rewrite is being noticed. Hiding T 22:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-en-L
You're welcome to post as far as I am concerned, but please be aware that my first response included the wrong link (arggh!!) so it isn't exactly pristine. I'm fine with copy-pasting the contents, as well. Risker (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh der!!! Never ask me anything before I have consumed the requisite amount of caffeine ;-). In any case, Steve has posted the link to the wiki-en-L list.  Nice summary, by the way.  Risker (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: AN thread
Hi Gurch. Would you have time to contribute at Administrators' noticeboard? I presume it was you that made this wiki-tech mailing list post at 01:39, about 25 minutes after the Main Page deletion and history merge by East718. What I'm interested in is how you found out about this? Do you know what communications were taking place? If you could shed any light on this, that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How did I find out about it? Er... the Main Page was deleted. It's the sort of thing that gets noticed – Gurch 17:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I suppose so. I'm still trying to work out why this seemed to be discussed for a while off-wiki before finding its way on-wiki. Different cultures in different areas of Wikipedia, I suppose. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop trying to pin the blame for this on IRC or some other form of off-wiki discussion. The blame lies entirely with the users who carried it out. They failed to discuss it with anyone else, through any medium, before doing so; how they communicated with each other is not relevant. No, deletions don't show up in watchlists. But the 13 null edits that were made after the page was restored certainly did. These were made between 01:21 and 01:23. I became aware of the issue at 01:24 when I happened to check my watchlist. At 01:25, I noted this in the IRC channel. No discussion was forthcoming. At the same time I was composing an e-mail to Wikitech-l, to notify the developers, which I sent a few minutes later. Then I went to sleep, because I have a life. Yes, I could have raised the issue on the admin noticeboard and half a dozen other places too, but I figured that would happen anyway, as indeed it did – Gurch 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for clearing that up. Please realise that those who only use on-wiki channels of communication need to be told things like this, as there is no way of leaving people to find out for themselves (as is sometimes done on-wiki). Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard thread you just pointed me to was started at 03:14; I realize things move fast sometimes but that's really not that long to wait. And anyone could have gone and looked at the Main Page history themselves and they'd have known just as much as I did – Gurch 18:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are right. As I've said over there, it is the manually added dummy edits that puzzle me. It looks like there was an off-wiki discussion that went "Hey East and Beta, why these edits and the deletion and history merging?" - "Need 5000+ revisions to help avoid main page deletions in future - remember that joke deletion a few days ago? We are trying to fix that." - "But I've just tried to delete and the warning message is not appearing, you are a few short" - "Oops, you are right, how silly of us" - "Don't worry, I'll add some more" - "Thanks!" and so on. Do you see what I mean? I apologise if I implied you were taking part in any discussions like that, but it is the conduct of the people on the off-wiki communication channels, not the channels themselves, that needs, as others have said, bright lights shone on them. Carcharoth (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: AN thread
I've responded on WP:AN regarding Krimpet, Animum, and on-wiki vs. off-wiki discussion. As for the three minutes Maxim waited, I imagine it had to do with him trying to contact the stewards to ensure he wouldn't be de-sysopped. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said
An excellent wiki-philosophy. Indeed, I can think of a couple of senior editors around here where this is the only effective way of dealing with them - and any co-editing with them requires extensive application of this principle. Risker (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're my new crush. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * New? Who was it before? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You really have to stop reading my mind. I was also wondering about what effect the remedy has if there is no enforcement provision agreed to - do admins have to log their blocks at WP:AE or not? Is a remedy without an enforcement provision enforceable? Although I suppose in the long run the remedy itself is mom-and-apple-pie, since it is basically a restating of a policy that applies to all editors. Risker (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we will find out. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:ME-disambiguation
I've already seen several cases when this template was removed from the talk pages (understandably). Since the only actual benefit of using it is keeping track of related dabs, maybe we should blank the template so that only category remains? Súrendil (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also stumbled upon Articles for deletion/List of Middle-earth weaponsd film stuff. What's that? (And what is to be done with it?) Súrendil (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Disambig category only sounds fine. That film stuff one is someone moving something that didn't need to be moved, but still. Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/IRC
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak my eye
So I see you're busy on AN/I - well put, again. We really have to stop this synergistic writing, however. Earlier this evening, I made a post to Wikback, saying we really had to step away from this SPA mindset; after all, most of us started off editing a single page or topic area...well, at least this time I got to say it first. Risker (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I did not edit for most of two days (just archiving and stuff), but I hate seeing indiscriminate blocking like that. I am deadly serious when I say that some accounts around now would have been blocked in their early days under the current climate. Wikipedia has changed, but it shouldn't have changed that much. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG
I think you're concentrating solely on the negative, and I don't think it reflects well on Wikipedia that we often do this to good administrators. The checkuser has just confirmed a nest of twelve socks in three separate groups. The bad blocks were easily picked up and reversed, but the job needed to be done and by doing it I've no doubt that Guy has deterred a number of people who could have tied us up for months over this affair. --Tony Sidaway —Preceding comment was added at 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm sorry, but you've missed the point completely. I focused on three accounts (none of which are the twelve socks you are referring to), one of which was already unblocked, the other one of which was later unblocked, and the third of which I accepted needed to be blocked (Drstones is too close to the legal stuff), but who I hope can be persuaded to edit other articles. I never made a big fuss about the other blocks, which were clearly meatpuppets and or sockpuppets, though some of the meatpuppets might one day edit Wikipedia properly. Also, I supported JzG in those other blocks and his handling of the Oxford Round Table situation. I spent a long time explaining why I did this review (it is at the end of this post), and Guy and several others have thanked me for this. I'll quote in full what I said: "'And I should probably say something about my response to all this. Firstly, I was trying to take a wikibreak when this all sucked me back in, and that explains why I spent most of yesterday sending people e-mails and not posting on-wiki. After I gave that up as a lost cause, I posted all this and the preceding stuff. To forestall criticisms of how I've responded to all this (or maybe it will encourage such criticisms, I don't know, but I should be the last to object to any criticisms people make of me), I will state openly that I am hypersensitive to incidents like this. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman for an example (and I'm saddened to see how that is ending). I am also aware of Guy's present circumstances (having left two posts to him about that, which I hope were of some comfort to him), and I have asked one of the blocked people concerned to be nice to Guy. My concern here is addressing the ingrained culture that sees blocks like this as acceptable collateral damage. I made a similar long set of posts about the conduct of Betacommand and East718 over the recent Main Page deletion/merge incident. See here for how I handled that. I feel that a thorough and systematic handling of incidents like this helps to resolve them properly, make clear what lessons need to be learned, and help the admin corps as a whole improve their conduct. But this can only work if admins accept that they will, ocassionally, be criticised like this, and accept it with good grace, instead of taking it personally.' - Carcharoth 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)" As I've said over on the talk page of the proposed decision for the MatthewHoffman arbitration case, once something has been resolved either way (either side agrees they were wrong - though sometimes they have to agree to disagree), then I will drop it and move on, and switch to ensuring that lessons are learned and mistakes not repeated (as far as possible). Tony, it might come as a surprise, but supporting someone does not mean being entirely uncritical. Criticism can play a useful role. Oh, and for the record, Guy didn't file the checkuser case - someone else did. I agree with Jehochman: the correct way to handle this is to do the sock analysis, and then block. Blocking and then relying on unblocking and apologies later is risky. See what Trusilver said to Amelia9mm here. You had already commented in that thread and showed no interest in anything other than uncritical support of Guy. You are still commenting in that thread without having read all of it. Consider what Paul August and Jrichardstevens said: "'It appears that this important principle is being ignored with regularity. It is much better to err on the side of caution in situations like this. Disruptive editors will eventually be identified and dealt with soon enough. Good new editors are a necessary resource for the project. If treated poorly they usually leave becoming a permanent source of bad PR, dissuading many others from participating as well. This is a serious matter. One good editor lost does far more harm to the project than dozens of disruptive editors not blocked at the first possible moment.' Paul August 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)"
 * I suppose you could say that we don't know whether we are getting the balance right, but the second quote above leaves me in no doubt I was right to pursue this matter, though I will note that it was User:B who first noted the incorrect block and carried out the unblock. I just followed things up from there. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The differences between our points of view may be related to my experiences. During the early days of the project my account would regularly be blocked because it was on an IP shared, by my provider, between several hundred users, one or two of whom happened to be persistent vandals. In those days in my opinion we had a healthier, less fetishistic attitude towards blocking.  I decry the tendency to see blocking as some kind of blot on an editor's character.


 * Blocking is a tool, and Guy used the tool well here; he has a good record of using his judgement and taking decisive action where serious abuses such as this are occurring. The bad blocks can be reviewed and reversed, but we should not agonize over the undoubted fact that in such cases we will sometimes temporarily block people who shouldn't have been blocked.  An editor who really cares about the project isn't going to mind a brief loss of access if he's made aware of the real problems that led to it. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely those blocks of your account were IP blocks and thus not recorded in the block logs? Having said that, I agree with all your points, except "Guy used the tools well here", and your assessment that the situation was serious enough to warrant indiscriminate blocking. I agree that blocking of the SPAs was the best way to get them to understand that they shouldn't be messing with an article where there were legal concerns, but it is possible to do that without doing collateral damage. Tony, it is OK to criticise someone. It can even be helpful. There is a list of minor things that Guy forgot to do, but that's not important. The important points are that he could have taken the time to check the list, or waited a full day for more ANI advice before blocking. Either of those would have avoided this. He could also have filed a checkuser case - the checkuser results and the closing admin would have dealt with the AfD vote-stacking, and protecting, deleting or blanking the article would have dealt with legal concerns. Please, go and read the talk pages of the non-sock (or only 'likely socks') accounts that have objected to their blockings: User talk:Academic38, User talk:Nomoskedasticity, User talk:Drstones, User talk:Amelia9mm, User talk:Slintfan, User talk:Jrichardstevens. Then tell me that this sort of indiscriminate blocking is worth it. Sure, some will stay and edit, but the bad feelings that some now have was totally avoidable. The checkuser would have resulted in the socks being blocked, and that would have been that. What is it that makes the difference between a new editor staying and going? Sure, the ones that want to come back will, but some of the best might not. If this has been unavoidable, I would have supported it, but it was, in fact, avoidable. But I fear we will start to go round in circles here. I have to stop soon, so will look for a reply in the next hour or so, and then log off. Carcharoth (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You still seem to think I'm missing the point, even though I've stated my opposition to the fetishization of blocking as plainly as I believe is possible. Obviously your characterization of these blocks as "indiscriminate" isn't helpful. Which was pretty much my original point, really. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not fetishizing blocking. I'm saying it could have been avoided and it would have been more efficient and less bitey to do things another way. Do you see the difference? I too wouldn't mind blocks so much, if only there wasn't so much resistance to unblocking. When you find it a struggle to overturn a dodgy block, either because the admin is missing a point (like we both seem to be doing here), or the community has a collective blind-spot, then it is understandable that there will be resistance to the idea of blocking first and asking questions later. And could you tell me what criteria Guy used to hand out those blocks? To me it looked like he looked through a list of those editing the article or the AfD, and picked some out at random. You do realise that the checkuser he failed to file picked up several accounts that he had missed? It picked up several I'd missed as well, though I did spot User:MedWoman. My point is that while it wasn't totally indiscriminate, it was by no means discriminating enough - it both included uninvolved accounts (User:Amelia9mm), and excluded involved accounts (User:MedWoman and others). Have you even read up on the background to all this, yet? I did ask you to go and read those talk pages, you know. Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we do it better? Yes.  Could you have managed your response better? Yes.  I think a checkuser and a few block adjustments can be handled without resort to the public handwringing that seems to have become a popular means of expression on Wikipedia.   --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Tony. The next time I see you engaged in public handwringing, I'll let you know. I'm sure you will do likewise. Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG seems to be one of the main people responsible for fetishizing blocks... if not reversed, they turn into bans, and then JzG pounds his chest and insists that the banned people are unpersons and must be treated as pariahs, with all ideas they have ever advocated suppressed and references to them in any way permitted only when part of Two Minute Hates to promote Wikipedian solidarity. By expressing approval for his tactics, people like Tony are acting as enablers for his harmful, abusive style that is doing great damage to Wikipedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You have history with him, right? No, don't answer that. I don't follow everything that happens around here, but thanks for the comment. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes to self
- Carcharoth (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * User talk:Carcharoth (where the quote is)
 * Administrators' noticeboard

Your e-mail (reproduced here with your permission)
1) I noticed the following ANI thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=190224142#Is_it_just_me...

2) After noting that one of the blocks had already been questioned, I looked further and discovered that another two (making a total of three) accounts were clearly not "single-purpose accounts" in any sense of that label.

3) I e-mailed User:B, User:Jzg and User:Jehochman to point out the problems with these blocks. The latter has replied, B doesn't seem to have read my e-mail yet, and JzG has posted on-wiki since I sent my e-mail to him.

4) I noted that you queried the Nomoskedasticity block and got it lifted - but don't seem to have noticed the other two blocks that (in my opinion) were without any justification whatsoever.

Anyway, here are most of the links I sent to the others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/wp-stuff&diff=190067231&oldid=189938182 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/wp-stuff&diff=190125218&oldid=190082411 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/wp-stuff&diff=190142450&oldid=190125218

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm

Oxford Round Table article was created on 13:10, 9 December 2007:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Round_Table&oldid=176761914

Jrichardstevens:

Account created 4 November 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Jrichardstevens

Eight innocuous edits to unrelated articles over a period of around two years. Not the greatest of contributions, but the potential is there for someone who was interested enough to register an account to (one day) start contributing more. Indeed, the foray into Wikipedia namespace showed someone who might well have started contributing more. But given his reaction to the block, that may no longer happen.

Amelia9mm:

Account created 25 May 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Amelia9mm

Two minor edits to the article in question. Absolutely no reason to block.

If you look at the account creation dates for the accounts listed in that ANI thread, you will see that all the accounts, except three, were created in the period from December 2007 to February 2008. Two of those are the ones I've mentioned above. The other one is Drstones:

Account created August 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Drstones

And indeed, when we look closer, we see that the initial edits of this account are fine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_capital&diff=prev&oldid=166991026 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hale_Boggs&diff=prev&oldid=173488684 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hale_Boggs&diff=prev&oldid=173488786 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hale_Boggs&diff=prev&oldid=173488880 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=County_Unit_System&diff=prev&oldid=173992593 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=County_Unit_System&diff=prev&oldid=173992965

And from later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_Bulldogs_football&diff=prev&oldid=178780071 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_Bulldogs_football&diff=prev&oldid=178780451 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Sanders&diff=prev&oldid=183890489

This can in no way be labelled a "Disruptive single purpose account", and the same comment applies to the other two accounts. For the record, the three accounts that are not, in my opnion, SPAs, are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jrichardstevens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Amelia9mm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drstones

I'm left asking myself - was I the only one to bother reviewing *all* the accounts that Guy blocked? Admittedly, I didn't realise until just now that one of the accounts (Franknfair) had been blocked much earlier for legal threats (so *why* did Guy list that account at ANI?) and that Guy seems to have failed to block one of the accounts (Coligny). I'm increasingly left asking what is going on here? How can ANI be so bad at doing a review like that? Why did Guy take a single reply in that thread, after it had been up for three hours, as an OK to indefinitely block the lot of them?

Carcharoth


 * Thanks for this e-mail. I agree that Guy's blocks of supposed disruptive SPAs appear - to the extent that I have reviewed them - to have been inappropriate and that the accounts appear to be neither disruptive nor SPAs. I am not surprised, though, that the ANI thread was unproductive, due to the number of involved issues and accounts. I regularly patrol WP:RFU and am used to responding to individual requests in that context. This, in my experience, usually yields the correct results, precisely because blocks usually do need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Sandstein (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I actually found the ANI thread to be fairly productive. Have you had a chance to follow up the various links in that long thread? Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick thanks
For your oversight regarding the wikidrama at Oxford Round Table. As you'll see, I recused myself from the entire issue for precisely this reason. Talk about a case of Cassandra complex. ColdmachineTalk 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. I like your quote here: "The minute there's a wikidrama like this it's better to find something else to edit on the 'pedia. You can guarantee that the admin mop, wielded by fallible human beings, will be dirty by the end of it all." That is an instant classic. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As Zenwhat has created the Tao of Wikipedia for us, we need some wiki-Bokononisms, too. This one would correspond to the saying of Bokonon: "Sometimes the pool-pah [wrath of God/shit storm] exceeds the power of humans to comment." S  B Harris 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you liked it! No offence intended, by the way, it's just something I've observed ;-) ColdmachineTalk 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Indeed - yet another reason also why I am a firm believer that there should be a transparent process by which one can apply to have blocks struck off the record, at the moment it requires about the level of a BLP violation and a very secretive process for that to happen, and I'd guess the great majority of such requests are ignored or refused. As an example, this user, if you examine his block log, should by any measure have a clean one - one was issued completely in error to the wrong entity, the other was such an egregious violation of WP:BLOCK that the admin who made it ended up at ArbCom and ultimately resigning under a cloud. The lone block in my log was a case of a pre-emptive block which was subsequently resolved in discussions which should have taken place before, rather than after, any consideration of such. I cite these two cases merely because I'm aware of them, but there are hundreds of others, most of them not involving long-serving administrators (it is always at the back of my mind that were there to be such a process, the two of us would be in a lot better position to action our requests than, say, Jrichardstevens). So I think there should be room for other long-standing users and admins to make such requests on other people's behalf. That being said, though, any such system would need to be safeguarded so that legitimate blocks are not removed, and we don't open up a minefield where tendentious users can avoid scrutiny. Just my thoughts. Orderinchaos 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if there was some body to appeal to have a block removed. I know Arbcom is busy, so their probably not a great choice, and the last thing we need are more red-tape groups like BAG or mailing-list based operations like Oversight.  I'm wondering how the community would feel of a committee of retired arbcommers and medcommers reviewing requests to remove blocks from the record?  Obviously they'd have to have left the committee in good standing, but it would put them and their community-based trust to use.  MBisanz  talk 08:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think expunging of blocks, however transparent, is needed. What is needed is for those unblocking to do so in good grace. To make clear when unblocking whether the block is merely being shortened, or whether an unclear or unjustified block is being undone. And it is very important to use neutral language in a block log summary. There is nothing more annoying than persuading someone to unblock, and than to see them do so in bad grace with a snippy comment like "second chance" or "unblocking" (with no reason), and leaving the sometimes baseless allegations in the initial block log unanswered. A transparent way to annotate block logs would be one possibility, but then that leads to edit warring over what a log should say! I don't think the current system is too bad, because at the end of the say, as long as the block log summary is not offensive, and apologies are made where needed, a short block shouldn't be a big deal for established users. New users are a different matter of course, but they come in a thousand different varieties, and picking out the useful types of new editors from the 'bad' ones is sometimes difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Still on break? You've been away for 30 minutes already :)
Email request for you. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that got sorted, right? I do need a nice long break, so that wikibreak notice is staying there until I can't ignore it any longer... Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image backlog
So we haven't had a new run of BCB since Jan 24, and there are only 50 days left to become compliant for foundation purposes. I know you were looking into a schedule of when we could expect big runs of images. Has anything come of that? I really don't want to get to 10 days left and have a backlog of like 20,000 images all at once.  MBisanz  talk 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You really need to ask Betacommand. I wouldn't know. Sorry! Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Guessing he was watching us :) Category:Disputed non-free images as of 12 February 2008.  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I've got a nice 2000 logo backlog here User:MBisanz/Logos if WP:TODAY ever gets off the ground.  MBisanz  talk 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And Betacommand's talk page turned red-hot with complaints. Would have been nice to have some warning. Would have been able to help field angry users. Hammersoft has been nice an diplomatic at times, and not so diplomatic at other times, but then he was rather alone there, apart from Beta. Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice board
Would you be adverse to the creation of a noticeboard for WP:ME? - jc37 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Could you explain a bit further? I vaguely remember seeing a reference somewhere to the creation of a Fictional topics noticeboard. Would it be a subpage of that? Or do you mean a subpage of the WikiProject? The WikiProject talk page seems to be a de facto noticeboard at the moment, but though it is better than it was (it fell into a bit of disarray when Mirlen went on a very long break), that talk page, and the project itself, could be better organised. So what exactly are you proposing? Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Example: WikiProject Comics/Notice board - jc37 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a great idea. Do you want to propose it at the project talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, did so : ) - jc37 07:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Email
FYI, you have email. Jay*Jay (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Replied. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on User:MatthewHoffman were unjustified. It also states that Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the Arbitration Committee,  Cbrown1023   talk   13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanishing users
Rather than users who exercise their WP:RTV renaming their accounts and then going around removing their old name at random, wouldn't it be better to set up some formal process where they request their name be removed, and then a bot, who has setting to make sure archives and formatting aren't broken, goes around and replaces the names with something other than a generic name. Like say a link to a page descbing the WP:RTV?  MBisanz  talk 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be better, yes. If you have time to nurse that idea into a full-blown process... :-) It depends really how many people make this request. People do have the right to vanish, but if we make it too easy, then more people will abuse it. The right to vanish is being legitimately exercised here, but in the past people have abused it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note also that the bot would need to look for variants of the name. For example, where a user name is a full name, just the surname may be used as a short hand in some places.  The with / without space form variants would also need consideration.  Also, some care is needed.  The surname in a topical example is also the title of a main sapce page, FYI. EdChem (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Replacing just use of the Christian name is another consideration. In general, as that is a common Christian name, that wouldn't really be needed. There would be a lot of false positives there. A Google search should find most of the "surname alone" hits if you restrict it to namespaces. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that the amount I know about actual coding for a bot could be inscribed on the back of a smallish postage stamp in largish letters... with space to spare. The programming I did was a long time ago.  My intent was to point out some issues to consider. :)  As far as christian names go, I think the specific case is unproblematic, but the generic needs consideration.  Suppose we had a user Zaphod Beeblebrox who was vanishing - the uses of "Zaphod" may be quite suggestive - particularly on user talk pages where threads would point to the new name.  In a discussion thread at AN/I or in XfD (to choose two possible examples), you could get abbreviations like "concur with ZaphodB".  Worse, if the user was named in a thread title, it isn't that helpful for the username to be removed from the title if there are abbreviations like "Zaphod", "ZaphodB", and "ZB" dotted through the thread.  I think the bot is a good idea, but there is a challenge in the coding! Best, EdChem (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you could get 90% of them by loading the users contributions and checking the diffs automatically. That would only leave comments by others on that user. And usually that a simple username search (without code formatting).  MBisanz  talk 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

New Image for Streamline Cars
Streamline Cars Ltd - Image:Streamlined Car.png

With the rampant deletion of historic photos from Wikipedia I though you would like to see an addition. I hope my non-renewed copyright research survives on the Commons. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

random images
The page you want is special:random/image. No I don't have the copyvios since I was generateing sets of 20 then closeing the tabs as soon as I counted the templates.Geni 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. So special:random/user, special:random/user talk, special:random/wikipedia, and so on, should work? Ooh. This random sampling is addictive! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly due to the way deletion is done on wikipedia it creates a lot of ah paperwork. You should also note welcome templates are pretty common.Geni 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm currently trying to make the blurb at the top of Special:Specialpages tell people to go to Help:Special page for more information, such as these parameters for specifying namespaces. The help page is already linked, but it would be nice to have something more explicit along the lines of "for more information about how to use the pages listed here, see Help:Special page". Maybe I'm too used to having things spelled out like that and everyone else just clicks on the link? MediaWiki:Specialpages has deleted revisions and was edited by User:MediaWiki default, one of those nice developer MediaWiki scripts. Having said that, User talk:MediaWiki default is a bit strange! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image exhaustion
So I can tell your probably reaching a bit of an exhaustion point with the whole non-free image issue. I know I am after fixing 3200 images. I've seen the statements on ways to improve it in the future, and I'd say the single biggest thing would be to recode the Upload screen. If when a non-free license was created, the user was presented with individual form fields for each field of the FUR template, and couldn't submit the image without filling them all out, that would solve 95% of bad drive-by FU images. But I don't know coding, so I can't implment it. And I filed a bugzilla, but obviously its low on the priority chain in the entire MediaWiki universe.  MBisanz  talk 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, as I suspected, Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c is be interpreted the way I thought it would be.  I'd really suggest it be merged with the other page you created that has a neutral title and tone, and either deleted or redirected.  I'm thinking for second how a page like Imagespace/MBisanz and bad FURs or Dispute Resolution/Durova and Sleauthing would be dealt with.   MBisanz  talk 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee
Responded on my talk page (summary, the block appears good). &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  13:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:My talk page
Sorry for not responding to your apology. I meant to, got distracted, forgot that I hadn't. Anal archiving is my thing. I hate long talk pages. Anyway, there was no need for you to apologize, although I do appreciate it. I'm really just annoyed with the whole situation, and it's not even my bot. Your participation in the discussion doesn't bother me, but I can't deal with some of the others. It's too frustrating as I'm outspoken and suck at censoring myself, so I'm just not commenting anymore, at least not on that page, and not with people who make false claims and utterly ridiculous statements to try to make their weak position seem stronger. Again, I'm sorry I didn't respond right away. I'm not in the habit of ignoring messages, as I agree it's rude, and I didn't intentionally ignore you. Best regards,  Lara  ❤  Love  14:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! :-) That's really nice of you, and I'm glad that's all sorted out. Carcharoth (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BC Pages
Sorry - missed the thread because it wasn't one of the ones I was following and didn't mention the bot or images in the header. I moved it into the subpage while people are discussing the propriety of the page because I don't want to have even more disjointed discussion as a result of the move. Avruch  T 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy
Thanks again for the graphs. I think the breakdown of the NFCC is a very good idea. What I've found interesting is that throughout this whole image debacle, the entire focus has been on BCB's edits of adding tag. I haven't seen anyone take a stab at actually changing the EDP/NFCC policy itself. For instance, "The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." could be replaced by "The topical area each image may be used in and a machine-generated list of articles it is used in", with the file link serving as the machine-generated list. It seems that the reason for the article identification is to ensure that there is minimal use and that the use if significant, but doing it this way, as opposed to humans parsing a list like User:Kotepho/reports/fair use per article or another list I can't find at the moment seems like overkill.  MBisanz  talk 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats an interesting suggestion - could you basically say "This image is used for this general purpose in the absence of a superior free image." and then list the articles its used on? For something like a flag (which is what appears to be the main culprit in the list you linked to), practically any use would have an identical rationale in any case. The problem is you sort of bypass the ability to verify any sort of compliance by machine. Avruch  T 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, flags are one issue, mascots are another, and renamings and mergers are a third. For instance, many corporate logos and artist album covers get dinged when they appear in the original article and a subsequnt article on a merged company or an album article.  I'm thinking this sort of approach would recognize that article titles change by virtue of renamings, disambigs, and content growth into new articles, as opposed to a rigorous interpretation of updating every use of an image everytime its name changes or a new content area is made.  And your right that it would make it more difficult for a bot to police.  I'm wondering if some sort of heuristic bot could be employed to point out uses of an image in multiple articles, when there are no cross-links (cats, wikilinks, common sources) between the articles.  Anyways, I think this might be a more useful line of logic, as opposed to trying to de-bot betacommand for enforcing what is right now, a set policy (treating the symptom, not the cause kinda thing).   MBisanz  talk 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds a bit complicated. I deal mostly with images that have only one or (at most) two uses. I know that logos and similar images can get used in loads of articles, but I find that a bit excessive. All part of the NFCC#3 debate, I think. I do think it would help to start some of those subpages and list common examples of where the acceptable boundaries are. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free images/Images using a rationale template
Hello, per you request here, I made a list of intersections between Category:All disputed non-free images and Template:Non-free image rationale, Template:Non-free use rationale, Template:Album cover fur, Template:Book cover fur, and Template:Historic fur. The list can be found here.

Note that a spot check of that list shows several images that are now fixed but the fixer did not remove the deletion tag as well as images that have one proper fair use tag, but are used in more than one article, etc. Let me know if you need anything more detailed. - AWeenieMan (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Shank-boy
Well, the whole discussion went off the deep end, but I wanted to say that not everyone thinks your an evil admin who blocks people for being "pro-Shankbone". Cheers, David Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do strongly criticise people if I think there is something that needs strong criticism, but I very rarely support blocks, and some of the claims people were making were, frankly, bizarre. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

fair warning
I invoked your name here. Sorry. Nandesuka (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong context
So I've been going around and making my point on these various BC discussions, trying to assume good faith on his part. But I finally got around to reading WP:AN/BC and saw Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacommand. So I'm gonna pull back lets say 50% of the vigor with which I've been commenting. If a bot did that to me, I'd be as mad as MickMacNee has been.  MBisanz  talk 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A change you should be aware of
I've changed the arrangement of my user talk page, not as a means of lessening the penance, which is sincere and will be longheld, but to make it more likely that people wanting to leave a message on my talk page will find it easy to do so. I am considering reverting to the practice of maintaining a separate user page. --TS 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c‎
While I do appreciate your note to me that the MfD was mentioned on the admin noticeboard, I don't think my nomination was POINTy and am honestly taken aback that an editor that I respect and (I'd assumed, perhaps wrongly?) respected me in return would think it were.

I feel that if there is a problem that affects as many people on-wiki as this potentially does, having the discussion at a location that only serves to filter those interested in the debate does little good. I might suggest, in lieu of simple keep/delete, instead moving the debate to RfC and archiving the Bots subpage and referencing it from the RfC. The main problem, in my opinion, is the very limited visibility on the issue. Certainly more people are aware of wp:rfc than they are regarding wp:bots.

If I've overlooked your reasoning on the issue, misconstrued your statement, or taken it out of context in ignorance, please forgive my fault. I'm afraid I've given up on #wikipedia-en-admins, but trouting me via email or talkpage is a viable option. If you can enlighten me on why RfC, specifically one based in the user conduct section, is less appropriate than a subpage of BOTS, that would also be of use. Thanks. ~Kylu ( u | t )  22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I went a bit over the top in calling the nomination pointy. I was in the middle of a long argument with Hammersoft at the time. We were both climbing the Reichstag, or trying to. I agree that moving, renaming and archiving would have been OK, but I was rather surprised to see you put outright deletion on the table. Personally, instead of MfDing, someone should have been bold and moved the page to RfC or something. MfD doesn't handle debates about discussion pages well. Hope that clears things up a bit. I do respect you, though I haven't interacted with you a great deal recently. I just get a bit caustic sometimes under stress. Please don't take it personally. Oh, and respect doesn't last forever and isn't constant! There are admins and editors I've respected in the past that I no longer respect or have lost a lot of respect for, and there are some who I've gained respect for. Worryingly, I think the same applies to my own opinions about myself! I sometimes read comments I made years ago and think "Who said that? Oh, it was me..." :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin actions and discussions
Are you going to do anything with this? —Random832 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If I have time. What were you thinking? Essay? Guideline or policy discussion and possible change? Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on your MfD comment
"Betacommand doesn't delete revisions of his talk page that say things like this, does he?"

Actually, he does. I read his talk page and his bot's talk page, and he frequently deletes or ignores comments left. I guess he feels that they're issues that have been gone over. And yet there's still no FAQ. I cannot tell you how frustrating this whole thing is.  Enigma  msg! 21:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * unrelated comment: You have a link to the fictional wolf, which implies that someone might get to this Talk page by trying to find the wolf. Hehe. How is that?  Enigma  msg! 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By delete, I meant removing a page version completely from the page history - which is the equivalent (for a single post) of deleting a whole page. More specifically, 'deletion' means something different on Wikipedia to just editing a page to remove a comment. In the former case (deletion) the comment can't even be seen in the page history. In the later case (editing or blanking a comment), the comment can still be seen in the page history. As for the wolf, try a Google search like this. The article comes up first, but the next hit down is the user page, so my note above is for people using Google who end up here for whatever reason. A search for Carcharoth + Tolkien is even worse, as it brings up my unfinished timeline! And worse still, another unfinished article is there as well! Aargh! Thanks for prompting me to do these searches. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. On both counts. I know deletion of a page is different than merely removing content from it (like salting someone's Talk page, for example), but I thought "deleting comments" could merely be editing them out. I also see what you're saying about Google. I conveniently forgot that many people access individual pages from search engines. I was more thinking along the lines of someone who went to Wikipedia and entered "Carcharoth".  Enigma  msg! 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

-BOT Discussion
As you proposed the idea of BAG observers and have been quite reasonable in discussing the BCB page name issue I brought up, I figured you might like this proposal for a formal BOT complaint process Bot_owners%27_noticeboard.  MBisanz  talk 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposals, proposals, proposals
Hello Carcharoth. I seem to have jumped back into things in a big way in recent days. As you requested, I outlined how the category types would be applied to the Opera categories. I've also started a discussion at WP:OCAT about categorization by association. It seems difficult to start a conversation these days, there has been very little feedback.

I've just started work on a radical proposal that would get rid of AFD and PROD. I'm inviting a few people to look at it before I present it in a larger forum. Since you seem to like most of my proposals, I'm coming to you first. (I hope you feel honored!) Anyway, the proposal is called PROMTUS -- PROposed Move To User Space. I would very much appreciate your feedback, and perhaps even your help getting it going if you think it has merit. Thanks. -- &#x2611; SamuelWantman 10:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, was waiting until I had time to answer properly. I too share your concerns that it seems difficult to start a conversation these days. I wonder if that means anything more profound? I recently started Non-free content criteria compliance, but it has got very little attention compared to Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c. Your PROMTUS proposal is interesting. I don't think it is the first time something like this has been sugggested, but I think the problem with forks and how to handle redirects makes it unworkable. If you leave pages in the main encyclopedia linked to these "user pages", then that is no different to keeping them. If you make those links redlinks, then people will click on them and create a new article. If you preserve the mainspace page with a soft redirect (saying "see here for a userspace version of this page) then that just looks bad. It feels too must like ghettoising certain types of content into subsections of the encyclopedia. I think I prefer the current AfD and PROD system, which actually works out OK if you can provide sources, which is as it should be. I'll copy this over to the PROMTUS talk page and reply about the categories over in those two threads. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on main page deletion incident
As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)

This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event

Regards --User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rife
Hi- I sent you an email through this page on Tuesday regarding Talk:Royal Rife, and have not received a response. Did you receive it? HorusFlight HorusFlight (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. Sorry for not replying yet. I'm not sure I can help much. I will try and look at it in the next few days, but can't promise anything. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No hurry. I will hold my tongue over there awaiting your opinion. HorusFlight

FAR comment
Hi Carcharoth. Sorry for no reply sooner on the FAR post; the replies provided may seem a bit meager :(. Ultimately, you've just got to contact as many people and places as you can, and if the article still doesn't seem up to par then take it to WP:FAR.

Your comment and the (lack of) replies reminded of something I've considered before. Perhaps you want to comment here. I'm suggesting a single FA talk page, and used your thread as an example. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
Sorry for the intrusion but could you look at this article? A series of anon IPs (same person based on comments) has added an unusual addition under popular culture with no attribution other than his/her viewpoint/OR. Of a more serious nature, the editor has also made inappropriate comments on the article's discussion page and my talk page. Thanks for your assistance. FWIW, I may be asking a number of admins for their review of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Maxim
I was going to leave Maxim another user talk note but he deleted the last one and I don't want to appear persecutorial. Could you politely leave him something as a third party? If you don't want to be involved, no problem. I asked Georgewilliamherbert, as well. Marskell (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to go further than the comment I made in the ANI thread about an old block. Maxim has, in the past, accused me of hassling him about things, so I think it would be better if someone else does this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand. I think there's inevitably going to be a flame-out, with one or both of these editors. Mikka appears to be reverting every comment put to him on his talk page, for instance. I find it all extremely peevish. Marskell (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Status
So I haven't been following this BC thing as much as I should, I'm trying to ignore it and move into other areas (SSP, AdmincCoach, etc). But what I'd like to know is if we ever got a definitive answer from BC if the run on Feb 18th was the last, especially now that there are 195 images in Feb 25th?  MBisanz  talk 09:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to say this here...
As Beta's ANI page is already a mess.

You appear to be purposefully aggravating the situation. Your comments and replies to other editors degrading Betacommand over and over and over and over again come off as you baiting him. And, it probably feels like harassment to him. Speaking of that, all the diffs you posted from his alternate account (which is his regular nick plus a 2, though you word it like it's some big secret and his use of that account is somehow questionable) are not him being uncivil and attempting to harass MMN. Quite the contrary, actually, they show how he feels in the situation. He feels attacked and harassed.

Consensus about what that page is was not reached one way or the other, but BC is not alone in his interpretation of it as an attack page. You and others want to complain about valuable points raised that were ignored and are now archived behind a redirect, but perhaps MMN should have considered that before building the page in the tone he did, and should have done his research to avoid padding valid points with misinformation.

You and MMN have been poking him for what, a couple weeks now? Ease up. If you think BCBot is so evil, code a bot to run the way you think it should. Until then, stop poking Betacommand, making derogatory comments about him, and repeating your issues with him endlessly to the same people. You're aggravating an already out-of-control situation.  Lara  ❤  Love  14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Lara, thank you for coming to my talk page to express your concerns. Personally, I think some of your comments during this whole affair have been less than helpful (I can provide diffs for that if you like), but I think you should review my contribs before suggesting that I have been poking Betacommand. I am frustrated by all this as well, but take a look at the other discussions I have started in order to try and move things forward and away from Betacommand. Why has Betacommand ignored several high-profile discussions I have started? I don't think BCBot is evil. I don't make derogatory comments about Betacommand, and I don't raise the same issues. If you read what I write, you will see that I try new suggestions and try new things. I can lay all this out in a series of diffs for you, if you like, but I'd like some assurances from you that you will try and put aside your preconceptions and objectively assess the diffs I provide. Will you do that? Carcharoth (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Betacommand2: "this is my Test & VandalProof account" - from WP:SOCK: "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." Sure, Betacommand's behaviour on his main account is drowned in all his other edits, but I have been confused more than once when trying to find something Betacommand said, and having had to look in the contribs from the second account. It is borderline and I would ask Betacommand to stop this, but then I would be accused of harassment or worse. Do you see the problem when people fling the "harassment" card around and overuse it? Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not talk about cards and who's throwing what. I also don't need diffs. I know what I've said and I've read what you've said. The best examples of what I'm talking about have been made on Beta's ANI page in the past 24 hours. Those comments, many of them, are prodding. Some of them merely in the fact that you're just repeating yourself. Everyone knows you have issues with Betacommand. You don't need to keep repeating it. Some people get responses from Betacommand that leave much to be desired while some of us don't. Perhaps there should be some reevaluation of approaches.  Lara  ❤  Love  15:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You may not need diffs, but I do. Which specific points do you have problems with? As for re-evaluation of approaches, how about Non-free content criteria compliance? Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Compare what you wrote here: "How lazy are you people becoming that you demand a bot be coded to do this for you? If it's such an easy code to write (certainly much easier than just writing your own FUR), stop complaining and get to coding." and what I wrote here: "they are often intrinsically lazy [...] and they can program bots (a very useful skill)". As you can see, I'm comparing image uploaders and bot programmers. I'm not unaware of the issues, you know, despite what you might think from a superficial reading of my contribs. I've spent months on these issues, and if you take the time for a calm, reasoned discussion with me, I think we could agree on lots of things. How about it? Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all about working for the greater good of the 'pedia, and improving communication with Betacommand. The problem I have with you, specifically, is found in edits such as this one. There are two completely different sides to this, but Betacommand did not launch a "ridiculous attack" against MMN, nor was their a "witch hunt" for that page. Pure and simply, the page was written in the completely wrong tone, filled with misinformation, and was, at best, a borderline attack page. Turning the situation around and making it seem as if Betacommand has gone after MMN for no good reason is not helpful.  Lara  ❤  Love  18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In my book, the unsolicited MickMacNee talk page spamming by BetacommandBot was an attack, pure and simple. And the reaction to that page started by MickMacNee was, if not a witchhunt, a gross over-reaction. That page could have been dealt with diplomatically, but Kylu, you, Hammersoft, and others (including Betacommand), insisted on escalating things and having an MfD when a merger or move or archiving after a bit of dicussion, would have avoided the MfD and the DRV. In general, XfD does not work well on discussion pages. Have you never wondered why it is rare to see threaded discussion pages such as RfCs and talk pages, at MfD? Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The spamming of MMN's talk page was in response to what Beta felt as an attack page. Not nearly on the same level. Beta's action was pointy, not an attack. One click of rollback fixed that problem. We had to go through an MfD and a DRV to attempt to get rid of the attack against Beta. And even now, it's a linked archive. So it isn't gone at all.  Lara  ❤  Love  18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lara brick award
Don't worry, it's nothing to do with you. It's a snide aside at the EPISODE people. Will (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. OK. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, the "redirecting is deleting" argument makes its rounds at WT:EPISODE every so often. It's quite a prevalent, but completely wrong, viewpoint. Lara's shown common sense by saying it isn't deletion. You could too qualify for the award for your massive spiel of differences :) Will (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Redirecting is blanking" would be more accurate. Or maybe "redirecting is redirecting"? Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The latter is the one I'd like. Will (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd forgotten anchored redirects. Those can be used to redirect to existing content, sometimes content that is older than the source of the redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch
FCDW/February 25, 2008. This is long enough for me. If you'd like to make some tweaks or add a comment, feel free. (Though I'd do it before Monday ends.) Cheers. Marskell (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd be happy for you just to edit in what I suggested on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did closely follow some of your wording from the talk. And the graph is yours, of course. So we have a by-line together! If there's any sentence you really don't like, notify me. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion Review for Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c
I would rather strongly object to advertising the DRV. Those who are interested can easily find the discussion from the ongoing AN discussion (on the subpage). This discussion has even (much to my shock) been listed at Template:Cent -- it seems that it's received a fair bit of attention and that encouraging more wouldn't be the most appropriate course of action. It seems (from what I've been hearing) that several administrators (including ^demon in the comment you posted) agree that the page could possibly be seen as an attack page. It's evident that Beta has built up a long list of those who don't like this efforts -- I fear advertising this DRV (after the Bots subpage and the MfD) will only throw fuel on the fire. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I don't really tap much into the off-wiki stuff. Well, OK, not at all. Someone did mention IRC at some point (one of those rare e-mails dropped into my inbox), and some of the on-wiki comments did have that tone of continuing a conversation held elsewhere, which is more than slightly annoying when (like me) you just do stuff on-wiki. The cent listing is a total surprise to me. What I'm interested in is the opinions of those people who, like me, object to discussions being dealt with at MfD like this - and I know those opinions are out there - just rehashing the opinions of those following this closely enough to find the DRV isn't a representative opinion in my view. I'm also slightly puzzled by your logic in mentioning ^demon as agreeing that it "could possibly be seen as an attack page", when I mentioned ^demon as someone who had said it is OK to inform XfD participants of a DRV. But I did ask, and I'll ponder this for now and not do anything hasty. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it was Stifle adding the disputed page to Cent. I thought you meant the DRV was on Cent! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My real goal in redirecting the discussion was to centralize it while not making the revisions inaccessible. Also, I felt it was important that comments that were unsourced and mean (for lack of a better word) were not left entirely visible. Beyond that, I don't mind at all if the relevant and important parts of the discussion are merged or moved -- that's the reason I didn't simply delete the page. However, if comments and such are moved, please just be sure to remove attacks. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tangent
This is a only-somewhat-related discussion item, but I'd rather not start a fresh section.

Can we begin with the things we agree on?
 * BetaCommand can at times be incivil – I don’t think that there is much argument there.
 * His most vocal supporters have also been accused of being incivil – Again, while LauraLova may prefer the term “blunt,” if a non-admin comported them selves in the manner she does, a block would follow. (Case in point: Supporter number two, Hammersoft.) NB: I was sure HS was blocked last week for massive incivility on ANI, but now can't locate it in the log?
 * Some people have been rude to BetaCommand regarding the use of his bot –I note that when pressed for examples BC provided some very mild incivility as proof of provocation (“I hate your bot”) but let’s just take it as read that he receives grief.
 * There have been claims of “harassment” and “attack pages” made without much in the way of evidence provided. However, Carcharoth and MNM have been pretty consistent in keeping pressure on with respect to this issue.

If we unpack that last bullet point a bit, harassment is a perception issue: If someone feels harried, then the best thing is for the putative harassers to step back. There’s a bit of “eat your own pie” here: It’s routine to tell editors that it doesn’t matter that their perception of their own rudeness is not what’s important.

With that in mind, it might be best if Carcharoth and MNM both step back a bit from this, with the understanding that the “proBC” brigade also step back from their, umm, zealous defence.

152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I agree to all that. And yes, if everyone steps back, I will too. What I will do, if I still feel strongly enough about this in a few weeks time, is continue to try and document the history of the last year, either at that proposed page, or in my userspace. long-term, I don't want "history" to feed the myth that Betacommand and his Bot did a great job under immense pressure and did the best they could. Things could have been done better. There always was going to be damage as a result of the image policy, but the question is whether the damage was limited or not, and if not what the extent of the damage was - a question that will probably never be answered. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. Long run, we (e.g. "the community") needs some way to deal with flare-ups like this.  Too often, the same six people do 85% of the talking.  Sadly it's often some the most exteme individuals, which means that moderate discussion becomes progressivly more difficult.  We need a "yellow card" system, where once someone has used up their allotted 5,000 words on an issue they have to yield the floor. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Red card and Yellow card! Of course, the different sports have different systems, so the US and English won't understand the differences. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Diff me, for where I've made blockable comments.  Lara  ❤  Love  20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you want User talk:152.91.9.144. Seems to be a static IP address and editor, though I haven't checked. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Images
Hi Carcharoth. Are you by any chance available on IRC? I'd like to show you something in this regard what may be useful (in short, I am running LinkWatchers on 722 wikis, which check for additions of external links to wikipedia pages .. it should be able to adapt this to image use .. but not sure what extra load it would give on such bots and in which way that would be useful). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, should add, I am on holiday for a week from tomorrow. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can e-mail me, but probably better to wait until you get back. If you do e-mail, drop me a note here. Don't have IRC. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to quickly hack the linkwatchers into an image watcher, but that takes time. I will try to do that when I return.  If appropriate, could try and make a bot create logs for these for others to go through.  I'll keep you posted.  Thanks!  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

An idea
User talk:Carcharoth, User talk:LaraLove

After this edit, I have been giving serious thought to the idea of opening an Arbitration case on the whole Betacommand issue. As a largely uninvolved user, it seems that the big problem with this debate is that no one seems prepared to compromise - Betacommand's defensiveness is completely understandable given the amount of abuse he gets, but it is also indisputable that if he satisfied some of the reasonable requests that have been put to him - be more communicative, answer questions, give more details of the bot code, etc - he'd get less abuse than he does currently. Similarly, the number of utterly unacceptable comments lodged in the reams of debate we have going on this issue beggars belief. If the ArbCom ordered Betacommand to give them copies of the bot code, he would give them copies of the bot code. If they ordered him to be more communicative, he would be more communicative. And if the ArbCom ordered that anyone making unacceptable NPA or Civility violations about or around Betacommand be dealt with harshly, then people would, eventually, stop giving him the thoroughly undeserved abuse that he's been taking all this time.

I'm posting this to you personally rather than take it anywhere public for obvious reasons. You're both active on Betacommand- and non-free-image-related discussions, and also on and around the arbitration committee. You also seem to have the most level heads of all those on WP:AN/B! So what do you think? Is this a good idea? Will the ArbCom hear it? Will we be able to get a sensible case heard without it collapsing like all the other Betacommand-related discussion? If it is a good idea, who should present it, and what should they say?

I would be delighted to hear your thoughts on this matter. Happy‑melon 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think give it a month. Let the deadline arrive. See how things pan out in the next month and after that. ie. No arbitration case. I am worried, though, that constant bickering will detract from constructive discussion. During March, I will be widely advertising and re-asking my question about what happens after the deadline, and I hope one month will be enough time to get a clear answer. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also giving serious thought to filing an RfAr on this issue. I'm a little worried that it would get framed as a simple Betacommand conduct issue, when it isn't - the underlying issue seems to be the policy, and its enforcement in general and particularly by bot. The correct interpretation and application of policy, and whether violations have occurred, is something that ArbCom could provide - in a decision that would hopefully not include all of the bickering and back and forth we will inevitably find on the /workshop and WT:.../proposed decision pages. Avruch  T 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also endorse an Rfar on the community's inability to come to a consensus on what the NFCC/EDP policy means and how to best enforce it. I think the several hundred Kbs of discussion on this, spread across a dozen or so pages and archives SHOULD be proof that we've tried other dispute resolution mechanisms.  Hopefully the arbcom wouldn't send it out for Rfc for form's sake.  And since BCB has finished tagging all legacy images, I don't have the same concern of leaving it hanging during a case.  MBisanz  talk 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever anyone does, don't put "Betacommand/BetacommandBot" in the title of the request or case... Personally, I'd wait until after the 23 March 2008 deadine passes. I predict more fireworks then, unless people really start seriously discussing my concerns about what people will think or claim they can delete after that date. If any extended and persistent "deletion on sight" with claims of "invalid rationale" takes place without reasons, discussion, or proper tagging, then an arbcom case may become necessary. But I'm supporting things up until the deadline, and then waiting to see what happens after that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like to think (pretend) that the deadline has already passed, since all the legacy images are scanned. I think the remaining points of contention are: 1. Should this continue to be bot enforced?  2. If yes to 1, is BCB the way to enforce it? 3. What sort of timeperiod must we enforce it on new images (2, 5, 7 days)?  How should continued analysis and editing of non-free images be handled (BCB proposed phase 4)?  What sort of level/tone of communication is required/expected by users given special tools by the community (ties into another continuing ANI issuse). But given that I see other more experienced users have already taken quill to paper, I'll probably just add a statement as an involved party, as opposed to spending 10 hours gathering diffs, archives, stats, etc.  MBisanz  talk 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What's not good enough for me...
What's not good enough for me is the obvious slant to your position. You're quite willing and have the time to take me to task for my comments, and equally conclude that I'm having some sort of meltdown, but aren't willing to take MickMacNee to task for his blatant personal insult. Concerned for me? I seriously doubt it. I had hopes for you. I knew you were tilted, but you usually remained honest and forthright in your efforts...something I appreciated. Now I know better. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you like, I will take a closer look at what happened there when emotions are cooler. I hope you will too. My initial impression is that as soon as MickMacNee arrived, your stress levels went through the roof and you eventually started saying some things that don't really make sense. I could have refuted some of those points, but I won't for now. I think a more measured, calmer approach, is needed than back-and-forth on a page like that. I'm prepared to write something like this and do it properly, in the hope that it will help. As for the "blatant personal insult", as I said over there, I'm too involved in this - you need to find someone with fresh insight to say whether that was a personal insult or not. I will agree he could have phrased things better, but I don't (at the moment) think it was a personal insult. Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

CAT:DFUI
Do you know if work is still ongoing on the categories whose "deadlines" have been expected? I cleared out about 1.5 K images from Jan 24 on Feb. 26 and I was wondering if the "deadlines" have changed etc. on other cats.  Maxim (talk)  00:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been distracted. Never got round to looking at that one, but don't worry about that. There has been talk of letting all the currently tagged images have a whole month to be fixed, as Betacommand says he has practically finished his tagging runs (except the routine scans of new uploads). If you, or someone, volunteered to carry out a mass check and clear-out of categories at an agreed time on or around 23 March, then there would be no harm in letting the backlog stay until then, IMO. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still muddling around, give me another week or so and I should be done with my areas of interest.  MBisanz  talk 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (2 of March or 23? It says 2nd on most extension notices) I'm currently considering drafting an arbcom case about this issue overall. Do you think such a step is useful at this point?  Maxim (talk)  00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. See a section above. Seems many arbcom cases are being drafted. I'll repeat my position - no arbcom case needed until after the deadline has arrived and passed. It will just distract from the work that is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When's the deadline for the cat's? A lot of them have a 23:59 2 March as the deadline, you said 23 March. What deadline should I use?  Maxim (talk)  02:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'estimated' wikilink in the notice at Category:Disputed non-free images as of 13 February 2008 needs updated. --Geniac (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think there is consensus to extend the deadline to 23rd March, feel free. You could check with Maxim and/or Betacommand. I'm not extending it any further without more discussion. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean the deadline, I'm just talking about the wikilink to ANI being broken now that the conversation has been archived. --Geniac (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice on fair use rationales
I have an article that uses a magazine cover and a related book cover, both are non-free fair use. The article is TV Typewriter. I think my fair use rationales are more than sufficient. Would you please check them and let me know what could be done to make them excellent examples. Both of the covers are a bit higher resolution than my typical cover but I give a reason for this.

These two covers use a non template rationale; in Model Rocketry (magazine) I use the template form. After following the non-free content debate on Wikipedia for a year I am still not sure what makes a good fair use rationale. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I dobbed you in
I dobbed you in :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RfB

 * >o< POKE >o<
 * (grin)
 * Joking aside, you should... jc37 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Young
Thanks for the note, but I wanted to comment here (rather than on Bart's talk page) about my serious reservations on having the block on Robert Young lifted. To be blunt, Young engaged for a month in a campaign of harassment on Wikipedia that extended to his personal website. It was targeted against me and BrownHairedGirl for sure, and anyone else who disagreed with his edits. And while I can't speak for anyone else, I know that this has caused me a lot of stress in both Wiki and real life. The man threatened to sue me at one point for Christ's sake. This isn't just fluff, I have screenshots of many of his messages, email reproductions and anyone can go through the history of my talk page to prove that this harassment was very real and very substantial. You said on Bart's talk page that you believe BHG is making it out to be more co-ordinated than it is. In some of his messages, he accused us "declaring war on supercentenarians" and in one debate he accused me of "supercentenarian holocaust" (on Wikipedia). All of this was brought up at the time. I don't like the idea that he can just say "okay I'll try harder" and all would be forgiven. It would be a great disservice to all the hardships that he put me through (and, again, though I can't speak for others, presumably others as well). I already get enough stress from certain other users who act as a proxy for him and routinely violate consensus and Wikipedia policy to enter their own subjective biases (Ruby Muhammad, List of living supercentenarians etc. etc.) It's taken months of work to get these and other suprecentenarian pages closer to Wikipedia's guidelines and I don't think we're anywhere near. Before Young's editing privileges are re-instated, he needs to (at the least):


 * 1) Agree to not posting large, unformatted chunks of text on talk pages (article or user).
 * 2) Agree to abide by WP:COI, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPA, WP:OR and all other relevant policies. Obviously he would be a valuable asset given his unique resource base, so I wouldn't suggest prohibiting him from editing supercentenarian articles, but he should be made very aware that EVERYTHING has to be sourced and that no article is a vehicle for his original research. Any fact without a reliable source citation has every right to be reverted on sight.
 * 3) If he is reverted, rather than engaging in a edit-summary snipe war, he must discuss it on the talk page in a manner that obeys WP:TPG.
 * 4) Allow any Wikipedia admin to join his group so that they can review my (and anyone else's) claims of previous harassment when considering the unblock. The last time I heard, he had restricted access to his group "to prevent spying". As a side-note, why do you need to "prevent spying" unless you have something that you don't want others to see?

Most importantly, if he breaks any of the above, it should be acknowledged that he will be indefinitely blocked once more and he can discuss his actions on his talk page with other admins. I do NOT want another situation where Young consistently breaks the rules and harasses others for months until someone finally gets the guts to set down a block. I've never gotten an apology (aside from maybe for the legal threat and side-comments agreeing that he should calm down a bit) and I think he should have to give a lot more than anyone else if he wants to come back. His off-Wikipedia behavior has improved, so perhaps he deserves a second chance, but he should know that, like with the emails and Facebook messages he sends me, I'm going to delete anything he posts on my talk page on sight - anything that needs to be discussed can be discussed on the article talk page. What I want to see is just a statement from promising to abide by those four points and agreeing that if he violates them, he may be blocked BEFORE the discussion takes place. And I want just that statement, not a long message tactfully half-agreeing to these but also spending a substantial chunk personally attacking me or anyone else. Young can read this message or someone can alert him of it, and I would agree to him having his talk page unprotected if he uses it solely to discuss the terms of his unblocking in a constructive and concise manner (although others may not agree, and I wouldn't want to slight anyone else's opinion). All other argument is irrelevant to me unless the foundation is based on him agreeing to these principles.

Evidence for any of these claims can be provided on request (though not until this weekend, hooray spring break!). Thank you for your time, consideration and for alerting me to this discussion. I will go notify BHG immediately as well. Cheers, CP 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * CP, first of all I'd like to thank you for the detailed response. It is good that you and BHG can present your side of things on-wiki, but to be fair (and I am trying to be fair to everyone involved here) the full story needs Robert to present his side, on-wiki, about what happened. I was aware of some of what you mention (I had come across the ANI threads involving you and Young), but some of what you say above is new to me. I had only really seen what happened with BHG back in November 2007, not anything involving you. I agree that there were problems, but my concern is that none of this received enough on-wiki review. I'm also concerned that the response either went too far, or not far enough. And it is not really acceptable to say "he can come back, but he mustn't talk to me" (though I agree that article stuff should be discussed on article talk pages). My feeling is that with probation, an eventual unblock could work, and I don't think it is acceptable for people to stand in the way of that unless they are prepared to layout their evidence properly and systematically either in a community ban discussion or an arbcom case. That way both sides get to present their case, and the behaviour of everyone is examined. Anyway, I may say more later, but that is my reply for now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to start a committee dedicated strictly to Robert Young's edits, count me in. A committee that looks at all of his faults, policy-violations, and simply bad moral behavior. I'm sure BrownHairedGirl would like to join, assuming she has the time. Basically anytime anyone has a thing against Robert Young or what he did, he reports it to the committee dedicated specificallt for him. This is of course, to handle all of his case 1 by 1. Whether it's a WikiProject or anything, I don't care. Neal (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC).


 * I'm very willing (and after this week, able) to lay out my evidence. As I said, I have no problem with Robert Young's talk page being unprotected so that he may respond to accusations. Having said that, however, that needs to be discussed with both the protecting admin and any individuals for whose benefit the page was protected, because they may have very valid reasons for the action. As for him being able to post on my talk page well, quite frankly, we'll have to agree to disagree given his prior actions. There's nothing he needs to say to me that can't be said on an article talk page if there is content disagreement. Cheers, CP 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The most coherent of the previous discussions
Unfortunately, I haven't bookmarked any coherent discussions, if they actually existed at any point in history... In any case, I should probably keep quiet as a non-admin, non-content contributor. Community patience doesn't always seem to last for people like me who make any noise. --Onorem♠Dil 04:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If I might "attempt" to help, it's been throughout the past couple years of WP:UCFD, and even at WPCFD before that. Black Falcon started a topic archive here. The ones which typically have the most discussion of what you're asking about (read that as the ones with the most sense of personal identification) would be the religion/philosophy/lifestyle related ones, as well as any admin-related ones. In addition, there have been several discussions at AN, AN/I, and the Village pump. I'll probably have to dig to find them again. There have also been quite a few DRV endorsements as well. Hope this helps. - jc37 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh goody. Bedtime reading. :-) Seriously, though, don't expect me to turn up with some magic solution. But thanks for the links. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

BAGing
You've mentioned it (non-bot ops being on BAG) before, and I agree its a good idea. I'd be willing to chip in some time there, but given I'm both a new admin, I'd rather not be the single guy test case that flames the idea out of existence. I can think of some other users who probably would be good at it. Would simultaneous runs appeal to you?  MBisanz  talk 14:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually going off the idea. As long as WP:BAG reaches out to the community areas that need to provide consensus (as per the bot policy page) then things should be OK. And there is always the option of commenting on all the bots. It's making the arguments at the approvals pages that really counts, not whether you are on BAG or not. But feel free to run if you want. I'd support you (if you remember to tell me about it). I'm actually really happy with Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. That really looks like it might work. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'll probably just comment. I like the NFCC Bot, but I still worry that in the last month, BC mis-used BCB's rather awesome power three times, one of which is explicity against Bot policy (people cat removal).  But I'd rather not see the arbcom that would result from continuing to push the issue.  I'd imagine the 100 diff limit would need to be suspended during its course for both sides.  MBisanz  talk 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"As long as WP:BAG reaches out to the community areas that need to provide consensus" is a great principle, but will BAG accept it? The discussion on NFCCbot has been curtailed for a second time, despite several unresolved issues including what appears to me to a clear breach of policy regarding shared accounts. I have raised the matter at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was in the middle of writing my own incident report! Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: DotA
I'd like to know what links you take issue with, so I can find other sources for the info if it's not suitable. I'm also confused about what portions you mind OR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you have the right person? Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sh!t, I need sleep, you're right. Sorry for the trouble :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Research
Here is a list of bots User:MBisanz/Botlist that look like they have official names.  MBisanz  talk 00:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the RedirectCleanupBot is a special case, as it is an official bot. WP 1.0 bot also has special status although this is no problem as it effectively has its own sub-namespace which it exclusively operates within. Orderinchaos 02:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:RefDeskBot got missed off that list. Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the list its not a bot.  But since its obviously a bot, I've added it.  MBisanz  talk 03:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually as long as we're on the topic of . It seems that the bot can be run by any individual using a webinterface at its userpage.  Isn't this a "shared" account?   MBisanz  talk 07:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope - if it was shared it would mean people could log in as it. All we can do is send it instructions to update our own project assessments - which is a pretty uncontroversial action. Orderinchaos 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, as far as I can tell, this new NFCC bot's handlers can only trigger the image scanning program and tell it which category to scan (1-59). I wonder if a web-interface, like WP 1.0 bot's could be used with indviduals passwords for each handler to solve the shared account issue.  MBisanz  talk 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a great suggestion. Why not raise it on the bot talk page or with User:ST47 (who seems to be the main bot operator). Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems his answer is no Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval and that given certain user's behavior, the community may no longer comment on this process.  MBisanz  talk 18:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
I've listed an arbitration case under this tentative name to resolve the longstanding conflict basically surrounding this issue. This is a message to inform you that you're listed a party there.  Maxim (talk)  00:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just checking, when you say to draw attention to my comments. Is that in the sense I framed them wrong or just that their interesting? First real rfar and I don't want to make any faux pas.  MBisanz  talk 08:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was drawing attention to the points I particularly agreed with, and your submission was one of them. So, that's in the good sense! :-) I haven't looked through it thoroughly, but you have a good collection of diffs there. I've also replied to you in the section above (or am about to). Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk about the rfar. I will comment there, but in drafting any submission I wanted to include some diffs, and nearly went mad when doing so, because I couldn't find the diffs. Eventually I persuaded myself that I wasn't imagining things, and that a huge chunk of the revision history of the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand is missing: see this history, and the gap before 22:43, 4 March 2008.

I have raised a query at Village pump (technical); not sure if that's the best place, but it was the best I could think of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! turns out it was just a moved thread, moved from Administrators' noticeboard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:RfAr Comment
Hi, Carcharoth. You are correct that the outcome of the MH case was not entirely up to ArbCom. However, ArbCom still deserve a lot of blame for the outcome. Out of respect for NYB, I have declined to comment further at WT:RfAr. But, the net effect of ArbCom's actions were the loss of a valuable editor, encouragment for the tendentious editors who have made some articles uneditable, the disillusionment of other editors, and a loss of confidence in ArbCom in general and some of its members in particular. Those results are ArbCom's responsibility. EdChem (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Assertions

 * For insisting on prenotification:, , , ,


 * For phase 4: The current version as described over the last several days does not include notifying templates as described in Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive91.
 * I've now asked this question at least twice (ok, I know I'm not consensus on my own). One on BC's talk page over a week ago and one at the NFCC Bot's approval request.  BC didn't respond on his talk page and archived my request.  The approval request was closed within 15 minutes of me asking the question.
 * Even at Archive91 I'm not seeing a definitive consensus and there are blatant errors such as there only being 60,000 non-compliant images. We now know there were at least 110,000 without FURs and some undefined number with a FUR but not enough FURs.
 * And this Bots/Requests_for_approval/BetacommandBot_Task_5 appears to be the original BAG approval for the Non-free image work. I see no mention in it of removing images from articles, merely tagging images as being non-compliant.  MBisanz  talk 09:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Do you have diffs for your direct questions to Betacommand? Carcharoth (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ,,  MBisanz  talk 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now do something with this evidence! :-) I tweak my statements after submission (FT2, one of the arbitrators does lots of tweaking). You can add more stuff if you want. Best not to do that too much though. Carcharoth (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done before you posted. Not going to cite my own statements since that could be interpreted as trolling and it doesn't add anything to my points.  MBisanz  talk 09:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You still have "Since its taking time to gather all the diffs, I'm transcluding what I have so far so it will update as I add to it." in your statement. Carcharoth (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a notice, Ive said this before, when I start phase four I plan on filing a BRFA. I have not even started to code for the next step, coding will be between one and two weeks. and Due to real life issues I probably cannot start on that for a few weeks. βcommand 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your query...
has a reply. FT2 (Talk 11:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
I was just reading your comment on ANI and saw you reference this diff. I had not seen that before and feel that I should clarify a couple of points about the "discussion with all involved parties, from me, BAG, and the Bcrat were conducted". I was twice contacted off-Wikipedia about this bot. First when it was being proposed that a bot should betacommand for FU image tagging work. I expressed my support for that idea but when it was explained to me that the bot would be operated by several users, I raised a concern about this aspect of the proposal. In particular I think this has the potential of making it difficult for users to know who they should contact if they have problems with the bot's edits, I although think it may lead to the operators being less responsive - if, say, they all think someone else is going to handle a particular complaint or question. I recommended that each operator should run the script on a separate bot account. Secondly, I was contacted again when the bot was approved and ask to flag it. It is fairly standard for BAG members who use IRC to let me know when a bot requires a flag (as bots have languised waiting for flags in the past)- as I have expressed elsewhere, I do not believe that bureaucrats have the authority to refuse to flag bots which have been approved by BAG. I flagged the bot in accordance with its on-wiki approval.

It is not usually my practice to reveal advice I give privately, but I do not regard these discussions as having been secret, and am unhappy that the reference to me by Betacommand suggests greater support than I expressed, or a greater role in the approval than I played. I hope that clarifies that element of the diff. Regards, WjBscribe 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, that is ok then. I was planning on making a rather long TINC rant about Sekret Evidence and such if the RFAR was accepted, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the crat-BAG part of the discussion.  MBisanz  talk 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * MBisanz, just as a heads up for you, many people agree that I should step back from the main on-wiki bot NFCC tagging. I privately worked these details out with the parties involved. in order to get the transfer completed without much trolling, which I know would happen with a standard BRFA. I got all my ducks lined up, so that the whole process could be done with very little interfearance. its a clone of an existing bot so no real discussion is needed, a bot currrently does the same thing. most complaints are that there wasnt enough time to turn the debate into an anti-BCBot trollfest and flame war. If you have questions or BCBot requests feel free to take them to my talkpage. βcommand 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No answers tend to demotivate me from trying.  MBisanz  talk 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DFUI Extension
We're gonna need an extension on Category:Disputed non-free images as of 8 March 2008. Instead of March 15 I'd say March 20.  MBisanz  talk 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably. Could you deal with this one? Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done  MBisanz  talk 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment
... has a reply :) FT2 (Talk 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NFCC bot name
SQL makes an interesting suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:BRFA of a username RfC on the bot, if you still feel there is a general issue. I'd add a policy RfC might also be a venue, given the large number of official sounding bots I found.  MBisanz  talk 06:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note
While I have no great enthusiasm for dredging up selective diff's, I have no problem at all volunteering others for hard work. If your ears are burning, c'est moi. Franamax (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ping
Don't know how often you check your Wikipedia email account, but you should have incoming. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hasn't arrived yet. Will check again in a few minutes. Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

BC RFArb
Feel free to move the threaded conversation, I was about to do so myself, but didn't want to seem like I was trying to hide discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Smile!!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. - Warthog Demon  00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Peake
Cheers. With Peake, De Critz, and  van Somer blue-linked, I've done my bit for obscure Jacobean painters, I reckon. qp10qp (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Script v. Bot
I'd really like to see some debate on when a script becomes a bot. Look at User_talk:Betacommand, I checked and for at least six hours straight, there was an edit every minute or two. And a user was at the Village Pump asking if they need a bot account cause they use AWB for 6 edits per minute for several hours. How are these not Bots, but something like AWeenieMan's script that updates 3 times a day in his userspace is a bot?  MBisanz  talk 16:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hou Yifan
I tried to respond to your comments on the AN but the page was sprotected, so I'm responding here.

In your list of redirects, you missed a few which I made into pages or redirects to the right targets. These were Chess career, Betul Cemre Yildiz, and Türkiye Is Bankasi. As for the disruptiveness of the actions, I just had a bad feeling about it because these were names of real, independent people (young chess players) being lumped under the name of one single chess player. It seemed like a very demeaning statement to make about those players, many of whom will have careers of their own (and some of whom may eventually deserve Wikipedia articles) -- that they're all just insignificant compared to Hou Yifan.

Finally, as for the issue of sockpuppetry, I'm no expert, but I doubt that RFCU would have accepted the request.

The accounts were created very close together in time and seemed to be SPAs. If I had to guess, I would say that this was probably a group of friends who decided that they would do this for a lark, rather than a single user, but who knows? I did warn two of the users on their talk pages, but when I discovered the that there was actually a third one I gave up ("two times is a coincidence, three times is enemy action"). --128.12.103.70 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll post your comments at AN. It's a pity it is sprotected. Carcharoth (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Discussion of the Jimmy Wales stories
I was reading Wikback and saw your comment "Wikipedia: Village Pump used to have a "News" section; don't know what happened to it. Posting this on WP:AN or WP:AN/I would result in having it immediately deleted. I will repeat that I am surprised that threads about this have failed to appear on either WikiEN-l or Foundation-l. Both had numerous posts about the Carolyn Doran matter. " I've actually posted a link to the BBC News story on ANI, and it hasn't been deleted (yet). It will undoubtedly be mentioned in the Signpost in due course, but like you I'm surprised how little on-wiki discussion there has been on this. Maybe you could mention the BBC News article over at Wikback? The story seems to be going: (1) Marsden; (2) Wool allegations; (3) Merkey allegations. All with the common thread of Jimmy Wales. It will be interesting to see how it all ends up and what the overall impression will be on the public. I think this whole 'perfect storm' (well, maybe it is more accurate to say people are jumping in with their grievances on the back of the Marsden story) shows how WMF and Jimmy need PR people to handle the press. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this has been a PR mess -- unfortunately, the latest of several. IMHO, step (1) was a non-starter, & (2) escalated things, yet could have been handled by adopting the most appropriate of one of the following:
 * Explained that nothing wrong happened -- & provide the evidence showing so;
 * Admit that the events did happen -- but explain the reasons for these questionable expenses;
 * Admit that the events did happen -- but promise that steps have been taken to make sure they never do again.
 * (Step (3) will only harden the differences between the two camps -- those already suspicious of Wales & the Foundation will believe that where there is smoke there must be fire, while the "true-believers" will continue to dismis Merkey's allegations.)


 * The Foundation seems to combine the worse parts of the casual approach (lack of attention to detail) & the professional approach (say as little as possible), thus compounding their problems. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS -- Er, I forgot to mention that I did post the link to the WikBack as you asked. Let's see what people say. -- llywrch (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, and agree with you above. Thanks. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit
Didn't mean to make you dizzy. Durova Charge! 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not literally! :-) But I do think some of the gifs can be very annoying, especially the faster ones. God forbid that any of our flashing images ever set off an epileptic fit in someone! Carcharoth (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
... on my talk page. Made me think. At this point I'm not ready to work on the project you suggest. Noroton (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just happened to notice this comment from Ilywrch:
 * The Foundation seems to combine the worse parts of the casual approach (lack of attention to detail) & the professional approach (say as little as possible), thus compounding their problems. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking just exactly the same thing about ArbCom (and said it this afternoon in that Wikback thread you'd mentioned), but there's a lot of these comments going around right now. Noroton (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Category logs
How does one discover the existence history of a category? Is there a log showing when a category was deleted? Subsequently recreated? Franamax (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Click on the redlink or go to the page history tag and click on "View logs for this page". For example, Category:Saint has no page history or logs at all, but this category does exist, but the page logs show no deletion. For an example of a category that did get deleted (albeit later) see here. The edit that led me to this was this one, where the bot was immediately reverted. At some point, the spelling was corrected to Category:Serialized novels (as opposed to 'Seriali s ed novels'), but I haven't found that yet. Ah, here we go, here on 8 October 2006. So BetacommandBot didn't really cause that correction at all. Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would assist with this, but anything more advanced than an excel pivot table makes my poor computer scream. You might ask User talk:AWeenieMan or User talk:Random832.  They seem to be proficient at processing large data blocks.  MBisanz  talk 13:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Outlaw halo award

 * Ooh! Thanks! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Beta-mess
Hi Carch, do you have any ideas on a way forward out of the Beta mess, specifically non-Arb ideas? This is all getting way too messy, polarized, lined-up armies-type stuff. Is there a way within a wiki to form "working groups" to identify and resolve specific issues, or is this a total open-outcry system? BC is back-against-the-wall right now and is probably not going to flex. Can we co-opt BC's friends into a discussion? Any other way than going nuclear? Franamax (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to try and start a new discussion to try and move things forward and identify what needs doing most urgently (or what is easiest to do). Even after 23 March I don't really want an arbcom case - they take up huge amounts of time. I'd much prefer to quietly work through it all, and keep the non-free content and other stuff separate. There probably does need to be a little bit of give from Betacommand though - that would help to defuse things a lot. What are the latest developments, though? Have I missed something? Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my part in the activity on beta's opt-out forms. You've done a better job of seeing what has to be done, but I can't withdraw the MfD, as others have !voted delete.  However, once the image deadline passes, there will be no reason to unblock betacommandbot when it's blocked for screwing up, and beta refusing to fix it.  Is that (betacommand being forbidden to run bots) preferable to the battle at RFAr?  I'm not sure.  (And I was willing to wait until the deadline before commenting in an RFAr, but there are a number of issues which hadn't been brought up until my comment.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. it is a bit difficult to keep up with everything though. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hee hee, latest developments indeed. I'm technically still AFK, but trying to catch up.
 * I would have been very happy to try to help in getting some semblance of order to the issues: issue x - discuss here-and-only-here; issue y - discuss-there-and-only-there; etc. Resolve each on its own merits or agree to leave unresolved and thus potentially arb-able.
 * For instance, it would have been nice to isolate the issue "Beta won't show around his code" and get a consensus, which for me would be, Beta owns his own code, if that's not acceptable, develop an alternative. Instead it's going to be discussed in the general goat soup of an ArbCase.
 * Is there any way to petition ArbCom for an injunction that issues be identified separately (a la my Statement from when I was happily uninvolved)? An injunction that certain issues be dealt with outside of AC (mini-RFC's) before re-addition? An injunction that everyone chill for two weeks under activity and civility restrictions with mandatory self-trout? Or is this just going to steamroll on?
 * Thanks for the comments. Franamax (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You could try and petition those involved, and others, to show that some issues are resolved or have widespread consensus. You could also just ignore the arbcom case and carry on trying to resolve certain separate issues, especially if they get little attention in te arbcom case. It is unlikely that the arbcom case will cover everything. I'm in two minds at the moment about how involved to get. Arbcom cases can be very time-draining. Oh, and "goat soup"? Where did that mental image come from? :-) Thanks for the e-mails as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose that what I'm thinking about is a way to separate out those issues that could be addressed individually in an effort to reach consensus before going into a general Arb hearing, and hold off on the general case to see what could be resolved first. I'm especially thinking about how much I would prefer to not do a diff-hunt, you're absolutely right about the time-drain thing.
 * As to "goat soup", well that's complex. Of course, there's the album name; there's the awesome use in Jamaican food of goat; and there's the tendency of Indians (or at least two Indo-Canadians I know, anyway) to use "lamb" to refer to any of lamb, mutton or goat meat. To clarify then, I offer the following definition under GFDL, for the benefit of humanity: "goat soup: a complex mixture of varying proportions and ingredients; a mixture in which it is not possible to determine the individual components; a mish-mash; confusion." Use it wisely ;) Franamax (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If some people organise themselves well, it may be possible to bring order out of confusion. I fear that much time will be spent rebutting common misunderstandings though. Maybe an arbitration case FAQ? I am not going to be submitting evidence until after Easter though, partly on prinicple (not having wanted a case before the deadline, I will be working on non-free images instead until 23 March), partly because I will be away over Easter in any case. Carcharoth (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any way I can help with non-free images? That is by far the priority. Where's the worklist and how can I figure out which are the simple and obvious things where I can save someone more experienced some routine fix time, so they can address the harder stuff? I'm late to the party but I've read some of the issues and I adapt well. Post specifics at my talk please (and here for anyone else reading, if you wish). Franamax (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Various image stuff is at [|topical listing] and all tagged. User:AWeenieMan/furme is a script that makes fixing things much less painful.   MBisanz  talk 14:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I made one edit
How is one edit to the page "edit-warring", and worth a warning? Please explain, as I'm completely confused by the warning. Bellwether B  C  01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your reply, as a warning for "edit warring" for making ONE EDIT is completely confusing. Bellwether B  C  01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really help. I saw that in the discussion at the MfD, even many of the "keeps" were saying "if the last sentence is removed." Well, if that sentence was removed, I would be a "keep", so I went and removed it. As such, no edit warring (at least from me) occurred. I find it odd that I was warned about edit-warring in this case, without as much of a "what were your intentions?" question posted to my talkpage. Bellwether B  C  01:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, call it pre-emptive if you like. I wanted to stop you both from fighting over that sentence. Maybe you wouldn't have done that, and if so I apologise for pre-empting you, but I've seen situations like that go downhill fast. I'll refactor what I wrote on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to redelete it. I figured if he readded it, after even a lot of the "keeps" felt he should delete it, that would say a lot about how entrenched he is in his position right now. In my mind, there was no reason to redelete it, as it would have clearly just been rv-ed by him again, causing more, not less, drama. My attempt to remove it was simply because it seemed like a pretty clear consensus of folks (even the "keeps") felt it should go. Nothing more, nothing less. Bellwether B  C  01:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And even with your refactoring, I see no need for you to have "warned" me at all. Speaking of checking the history, I made one edit, and gave no hint that I wished or intended to "go to war" over that sentence. Bellwether B  C  01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Carch, now that things have cooled down a bit (at least for me--I was pretty upset when you dropped this note on my page yesterday), I wanted to revisit this for a second. I was wondering if I'd been veering off track or something, to cause you to drop the note on my page after my edit to that page? I've tried to stay very calm, in an attempt to decrease drama, throughout this whole kerfuffle, doing nothing to intentionally fan the flames. Were you seeing something specific that made you feel I was doing failing in those goals? As for how frustrated I became after you dropped the warning, I apologize for that. It was just so unexpected, but that's no excuse for becoming so frustrated. Regards, Bellwether B  C  16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really nothing to worry about. I was trying to be even-handed and "warn" you both just to try and stop things escalating, but I should have taken the time to explain that. Apologies if it upset you. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement
I'm dissolusioned both by his response (though not unexpected), and the response of others that one must be rude to deal with pov pushing folks. I don't have a problem with him as I both have a fairly thick skin, and usually agree with him in terms of article content. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table RfC
Thank you for your help in clearing up the blocks re this article. There is now an RfC posted on the talk page by Nomoskedasticity. Could you comment on it? Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um. Could you remind me again tomorrow if I forget? Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortness
I just walked in the door after a 2 hour train-ride from the NYC wikimeetup. And its now 1:30AM local time. I guess I'm just tossing out some ideas at this point. I didn't want to make a long wordy statement since that would be arguing a point instead of just presenting it. Should I be justifying the proposals?  MBisanz  talk 05:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe expand them later? Repeating what others are saying is also not the best use of time. I tend to spend more time on the evidence pages, but I'm trying to avoid that until after Easter. What I do want to do is a proper analysis of Betacommand's work on categories. An irrefutable demonstration (if that is needed) that his work on redlinked categories did cause extensive and lasting damage. The blame for that lies with the community for not questioning this work earlier, though that depends how much previous work was done on this. Hope the wikimeetup went well, btw. If you have a laptop and US trains have wireless internet yet, do arbitration case work on the train journey next time! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, besides Brad, there was Kat Walsh from the board and one of the Devs. Not much arb talk, but a fair amount of image talk.  The Dev pointed out that when Cat:Logos was renamed to Cat:Non-free Logos, there probably should've been a Cat:Free Logos (with license tag), created for non-copyrightable geometric shapes. So I have a new task to work on.  Oh, and Kat had real-life barnstars for us!  MBisanz  talk 06:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh. Any news on what the 23 March deadline really means? Does the world collapse after that point? And I would have like to get you to ask them about historical images, if I'd seen the message in time. Oh well, maybe another time. Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ST47
Could you look at Image:686_Logo.jpg? I'm not seeing where the uploader failed and neither are the folks at ICHD. I asked ST47, but this is the second image his bot tagged that looks wrong. And I'm going to bed soon so I was hoping for a fresh set of eyes.  MBisanz  talk 08:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks wrong to me. How many has his bot tagged? If there is more than this one, ST47 will need to revert the run where this mistake occurred. Carcharoth (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that was tagged March 14, since then he's tagged ~2,000 images at a pretty steady clip. That image incidentally is linked to User:ST47/NFCC10c with Rule 1 next to it.  Which is either No free equivalent or Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder. Maybe he's not liking the generic FUR source?  MBisanz  talk 08:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth is "rule 1"? Answers are needed here before any more tagging work is done. And I still don't like his "death to fair use" slogan on his user page, and the "say NO to Fair Use - Free Wikipedia!" banner at bottom right. Is that in the CSS or something? I can't find the page it is on. Carcharoth (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He says it was an error with variable identification and numbers and that he fixed it. So I'll trust him on this one, since the tagging puts the images in a place I'll find them (AWeenieMan's lists pick it up).  MBisanz  talk 23:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding fair use images
When I am adding the summary for a fair use image I intend to upload, what do the following mean?


 * Portion=
 * Low_resolution=
 * Replaceability=
 * other_information=

Valtoras (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean what do I put there? Valtoras (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not see what people put on other images? That would be the quickest way to learn what they mean. Other information is optional. Replaceability should explain why the image is not replaceable. Low resolution should say yes or explain why higher resolution is needed. Portion should say what portion of the entire copyrighted work you are using. eg. screenshot of a film, cover of a book, etc. Carcharoth (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Resizing
This discussion has fixed the technical issues Bots/Requests for approval/ImageResizeBot and is now on to how different cats of images should be handled. Since I only do logos, I have a rather myopic view, but you seem to be broader.  MBisanz  talk 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and more questions
1. Thanks for the link. Always quite vexing when I realize I just had to look a bit more instead of bothering someone else.

2. Can you check ? Random pick from CAT:DFUI. I added a free-hand rationale and removed two templates. Is that kind of the right way to do things? Should I be trying to use the entire FUR template instead? Should I just slowly back away from the keyboard and leave it to others?

3. Where you made some suggestions at my talk regarding Category:Denver Public Library images, considering that I'm not able to see deleted items, I'm not sure how to proceed.

Would appreciate your comments on point 2 as a priority, I hate wrecking stuff! Franamax (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Point 2 is an edit where you (correctly) removed the deletion tag and the non-free tag, because the image is in fact free. That's not really adding a rationale (none was needed). By removing the non-free template, you ensured BetacommandBot would never look at it again. For an example of a templated rationale I did, see here. I did that by erasing the deletion tag, and adding American Jewish History . For a list of widely used non-free rationale templates, see Category:Non-free use rationale templates. Hope that helps. I'm shutting down the computer now, so won't be able to answer further questions. Just look around other images to see how things are done. If all else fails, a hand-written rationale using Template:Non-free use rationale works best. Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've done a few more FUR's. This is hard! Now, if someone has just grabbed an image from somewhere else on the web, and 1) it's an upload of someone else's copyright image, is it acceptable to write a FUR ignoring the provenance and referring only to the IP owner? 2) image comes from (undecipherable is unsalvageable? And for self-acquired images: 3) for instance here, a screenshot from an undefined source, best to just leave it? (especially since I'd rather prod all the anime articles :) and 4) this one, after 20 minutes or so trying to figure out the source, just bail out?
 * Sorry to bug you on this, as you can see, I'm working on the M's, I think I've got at least a few right and nothing seriously wrong so far :) Thanks for the help! Franamax (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually don't bother answering those questions, it's all gone now. I saved twelve or so. Deletion wins. I learned about image FUR's along the way, it's all good. You could answer my original question 3 way above though, or point me somewhere else where the images won't get deleted out from under my feet while I'm still working on them. The more irretrievable damage prevented, the better. Thanks anyway. Franamax (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a list of images that were deleted, has a script that will undelete them all quickly.  Are you familiar with WP:FURME? for images that seem valid, its a good way to get NFCC 10c compliance done with, even if you don't have an explicit source.  MBisanz  talk 06:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ga-a-ahh! My list of images is all the images that were deleted without a human checking them out. I was getting about a 50% success rate on CAT:08 Mar DFUI Images, and to do it right, you really do have to examine each case. I'd love to see all the images Maxim nuked starting at 00:00 today back for me to look at but realistically, it needs a team effort, I could save a few dozen of them or maybe use a recently discovered short-cut to put a few hundred into sufficiently questionable status that an admin wouldn't delete. Specifically, whack in there something like "This image is used in the articles specified in File Links below because there is no free replacement and it serves an educational purpose". They're all gone now, and article editors will be removing those image red-squares as we speak. I am unsure as to how to proceed - to say the least. :( Franamax (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the redsquare links are bot-removed, which makes re-adding deleted image very very difficult (unless its obvious), you usually end up looking in the uploading editors contribution history to about the time they uploaded the image and then see which articles they edited right after they uploaded. If they are images of a similar type, look at an old version of  pages there and you'll see all the redlinks.  I'm seeing now that your not an admin (yet at least), so feel free to hard-link me the page version of AWeenieMan's subpage, and I'll convert it to a format East718 can use, then he can undelete them all, you can go in and fix those you need, and I can delete the remainder by hand.  MBisanz  talk 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge history...
Hey - I noticed you asked about this over at ImageResizeBot's BRFA... Thought I'd take it here instead as it's not relevant... You wanted Image:Simpsons cast.png and Image:Image-Simpsons cast.jpg merged, right? (just wanna make 100% sure) SQL Query me!  15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Second thought... Howabout I show you how :)


 * 1) Undelete Image:Image-Simpsons cast.jpg and all it's revisions.
 * 2) Delete Image:Simpsons cast.png completely. use WP:CSD.
 * 3) Move Image:Image-Simpsons cast.jpg to Image:Simpsons cast.png.
 * 4) Undelete all history at Image:Simpsons cast.png.

Merge should be complete at this point. I hope this helps :) I know, we didn't get off right, before, sorry bout that. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not aware that we didn't get off right before (maybe it seemed like that, but I'm fine now), but thanks for the apologies. I'm also trying to see the larger version of the image, but can't find it in the history. Is it a cache problem or something? Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the deleted one, I only see one version: 17:34, January 6, 2008 . . Carcharoth (Talk | contribs | block) 638×230 (40,735 bytes) However, on the current one, there are a few deleted versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Simpsons_cast.png. HTH SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  15:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry! I thought you had actually done the merger! I'll make a note to do it myself when I get the time. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I thought you'd wanna do it for the experience :) SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  15:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

user:Bart Versieck
First User:Ryoung122, now user:Bart Versieck has been blocked/banned. Wow.. I've lost my share of disagreements but I've never taken it to that point. You really have to work hard to get banned from wikipedia. Why didn't they just quite while they were behind and try to approach their issues from a different angel at a later date. I'm amazed.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Background
For some background to the following, see and. Carcharoth (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here
I am not going to discuss matters with you further. You have demonstrated to me twice now your willingness to assume the worst and turn the other cheek when others against me speak in gross violation of WP:CIVIL, and further threatening me with action by ArbCom, which is why I refused to engage in the RfAr on Betacommand out of fear of retribution from you. I did ban a person from my talk page who twice called me a dick and refused to entreat with my civilly. I don't have to tolerate abuse on my talk page. I could have had him blocked for his incivility but chose instead to stop the discussion in its tracks. I got what I wanted; him not talking to me uncivilly anymore, and he didn't end up with a block on his record. That's a win-win. I didn't ban you from my talk page. I refused to discuss matters with you. That is my choice. No policy on Wikipedia forces me to talk with you. I am, like you, a volunteer here and choose to spend my time as I see fit. You can not and will not force me under any threat you care to make to engage you in any discussion. If you persist in this line, you leave me few options. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You really fear retribution from me? Do you really think I do things like retribution? Of course you don't have to discuss matters with me, but my enquiry was a polite one, and I was taken aback by your response. I was trying to work with you, and I got that thrown back in my face. I may mention our past interactions in the ArbCom case, but don't you trust the arbitrators to be fair in their judgment? All I was wondering was where you got the 100,000 figure from? If you don't know, you could have just said that and nothing more would have been said. I still don't understand why you reacted the way you did, but I guess I do have to accept it, though I hope you will allow me to say that I am somewhat saddened by all this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:me-cite
I tried using me-cite and got gibberish. Is it broken, or have I failed to grok it? What I tried was RotK. Thanks, Elphion (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. No idea. I would say ask User:CBDunkerson, but he hasn't edited since January. Ask at WP:VPT? Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A indef blocked-student wikidrama threatening to pull in a longtime editor
Thought you'd be interested: S B Harris 04:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks finished now? Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I sure hope so. S  B Harris 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Retraction?
I'm not sure why. You are aware of his conduct during the arbitration case; I recall you posted to his talk page questioning why I called his remark misogynistic and then agreeing with me when I supplied diffs. I think you are also aware that my comment on his talk page, which was to the effect of, "that was not a nice thing to say to a lady", was responded to with an email telling me to fuck off. I also recall that during the case when Flo posted that she was offended, that was used by some to campaign for her to recuse, as if being offended had suddenly rendered her judgement suspect. I note that although the IRC policies were discussed by the chanops (including Ryan P and FT2), and are posted in Cbrown1023's user space, Giano has at least twice descended on Flo demanding answers, and that he has not similarly demanded answers from Ryan, Cbrown or Dmcdevit, or any of the male Arbitrators. I do not pretend to read minds but I note that during the IRC case and since, Giano has been generally dismissive and contemptuous for Arbcom, but when he singles out one arbitrator for extra abuse, it seems to be Flo. Thatcher 14:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad blood, not gender discrimination. I would have thought that was obvious. Of course you don't have to retract, I'm just suggesting it. I also suggest you talk about it with Giano on his talk page. Discussing blocked editors on other pages can be annoying for them if they are continuing to read the pages, so direct accusations should be avoided, in my opinion, or taken to their talk page. Giano has posted a comment on his talk page. I've said I would tell you about it, and I suggest you two talk about all this and see what you can sort out. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Flo offered to set up a working group but there was no support from the rest of the Arbitrators . What possible purpose is served by continuing to pick on her.  I'm not very good at quick off-the-cuff analogies, but it seems similar to a citizen who complains to his town councilman about a problem, the councilman places it before the entire council for a vote and loses the vote, and then the citizen continues to hound the first councilman for not getting the job done. Thatcher 14:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally, the first councilman apologises. But let's not stretch the analogies. What I do want to see is the explanations (that arose in response to Giano's questions) recorded somewhere, so that if anyone else has the same questions they can find them, or can find links to the existing explanations of what has happened since the arbitration case. Can you think of a suitable place, or a way to increase links to the existing places? I know Cbrown's user subpage is linked from WP:IRC, but as one of the major developments, surely it can be linked from a few more places? Currently just IRC and some of Cbrown's pages. Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure entirely what happened myself, as I did not involve myself in that issue. I also found Cbrown's pages to be organized in a less than self-explanatory fashion.  One roadblock of course is that if IRC policies are decided by IRC people who are not (technically) accountable to WP (even though they are WPians with shared goals etc) then the meat of the matter has to be kept off-wiki or in user space.  Maybe ask Cbrown to tweak his presentation and make it easier to follow? Thatcher 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not easier to follow - just not widely advertised. I only stumbled across it by accident. Of course, wider linking is something you or I or others can do. But where do you think those page should be advertised so those who followed the arbitration case, but might not visit WP:IRC, become aware of them? Carcharoth (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WT:RFAR, maybe WP:AN? Thatcher 16:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There should be somewhere on the arbitration case pages as well. By the way, Requests for arbitration/IRC needs updating, doesn't it? Is there nowhere there to note some of the other steps taken after the case? In particular, what happened to this principle. At the moment, someone reading that page and then looking around could be forgiven for missing the changes. Carcharoth (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Brevity
Apparently brevity only occasionally works for me. Sadly it seems I am notorious for length and re-editing my own edits. Ryan P. finally decorated my talk page to that effect, and I gather my length of writing is an in joke that comes up repeatedly by others :) There's worse things. I'm sorry!

Crossref: user talk:FT2 for communal views :)

Best, and regards,

FT2 (Talk 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Preview button? Never heard of it. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification
You might want to add this diff to your request for clarification - it is the remedy that arbcom voted in to make changes to the process. (Interesting concept, for the committee to approve a remedy about itself. Geogre is not the sole source of irony on Wikipedia.) It's probably better coming from you than me; I am afraid to get blocked if I point out another conflict of interest. Risker (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Saw your edit, thanks. Risker (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of account on fr.wp ?
I saw you had difficulties asking for a renaming. Do you want me to ask fr:user:Carcharoth on your behalf if he consent to be renamed ? If not, after some time, I might rename him anyway, depends on how SUL goes on. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't actually asked on fr-Wikipedia yet, just heard that it might be difficult. I'm only asking on Commons at the moment. If you can speak French to fr:user:Carcharoth on my behalf, that would be great. Thanks! You could also ask if he is the same person as the one with the Commons account of the same name. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given their contributions, I'm positive fr:User:Carcharoth = Commons:User:Carcharoth. I've left a message on both talk pages. Regards, Blinking Spirit (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this. I'll try and remember to update the request on Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New project
I'm working on a new project related to images you might be interested in. East wrote a code for me that compares cats. So in a day or two (assuming my computer holds), I'll have 2 lists. One will be a list of all non-free images not in the big All non-free media cat (meaning they probably have a corrupt license/subst'd license) and a list of all images appearing in both a non-free and free image category. The list size will be somewhere between 1 and 300,000, hopefully closer to 1. Since none of these can be bot fixed, where would you reccommend advertising this list for human correction?  MBisanz  talk 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, do you think there is any danger to uploading this list to a userpage? In theory someone could claim these images are all I3, Improper License.  In reality, probably 90% of the fairuse images will be keepable, with the free tag removed and the FUR properly formatted.  MBisanz  talk 06:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as you have the list, you can ask for undeletion later. So I'd put the list up somewhere and get people working on it. Depending on how large it is, of course. Keep me updated. I can't promise to work on it, but I'd be interested in the numbers. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/Catherine de' Medici/archive1
I know you are busy with all sorts these days, but if you could spare the time, I'd appreciate your input at the above jolly old peer review. I know I already owe you big time from before (though I did write John Chamberlain as a sort of present for you—I mean, I doubt anyone else has even read the bugger), but you are an excellent reviewer, and I supect some parts of this article might intrigue and amuse you (though I left out most of the proper juicy stuff for fear of not being believed).qp10qp (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'm busy until April, but will try and pop in at some point then. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand RfAr
When you have a moment, please let me know (replying here is fine) whether you anticipate posting more information or evidence in the Betacommand case. I am happy to wait a couple more days for you to have a chance to present your views on the relevant background and your thoughts on how the matter should be handled, as several users have suggested that your knowledge in the area is significant, but I don't want to delay drafting a proposed decision unduly, so a rough idea of your schedule on this would be helpful. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my knowledge is not really "significant", and others have posted enough about this case that I probably wouldn't have had that much to add anyway. Also, Friday has now passed and I still haven't found the time to do anything like what I wanted to do, and likley won't for the next few days. I am away this weekend as well, so I think it is best if I pass on this and concentrate on other things (both on and off Wikipedia). Apologies for delaying things and then in the end not submitting much at all. I may still post stuff later, but no need to wait for that. Thanks for waiting in the first place, and apologies again for not using the time provided. I'll go and update my evidence section. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem and of course I will continue to keep an eye open for your (and everyone's) comments even after there is a draft posted. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

please submit this request for arbitration

 * Request blanked (see page history)

Sorry. I don't want to get involved in this. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a sock of banned user Archtransit. Mr.  Z- man  01:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)