User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 14

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

Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15

Contents

Request for Arbitration: notification[edit]

I've placed a request Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#Matthew Hoffman for an Arbitration case, in the matter of User:MatthewHoffman, in which you would be a party. Charles Matthews 08:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman[edit]

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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, RlevseTalk 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know, I don't care to debate what happened to Hoffman. My interest is to make sure Arbcom doesn't lean too far against necessary protection efforts. That Hoffman block was terrible, and the response was worse. This is a small matter. The larger matter is the allegation that admins as a group have become sloppy. Hopefully there will be clear guidance from this case to help prevent future problems, including sloppy admins and incompetent handling of unblock requests. That's all well and good, but we also must be careful not to get too bureaucratic, as I've said, when we need to react to prolific sock puppeteers like Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs). I also think that Charles Matthews is being too snarky, and that his hinders the dispute resolution process. Best regards, my friend. - Jehochman Talk 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in general. Please put this on the talk pages as well, so that the arbitrators who read the talk pages see this. The whack-a-mole principle is interesting, but it should be made clear it is nothing to do with Hoffman. Carcharoth 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that the decision has already been written up, at least in part. - Jehochman Talk 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that as well! I was still meandering around the evidence page. I hope some the arbitrators propose and vote on some less stringent remedies, just to clarify exactly where their opinion lies. Carcharoth 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Vanished user seems to be unable to mount a defense. This process is inherently unfair if the committee does not consider the good things Vanished user may have done for the project. At minimum we should put together a paragraph or two summarizing his work. It may be the case that these problems account for a small fraction of what he has been doing. If that is the case, a warning would be more appropriate than de-sysopping. On the other hand, if we find general poor adminship, then de-sysopping can proceed and not be attacked later as hasty and one-sided. Would you be willing to ask the committee for more time? - Jehochman Talk 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to updated response from CBDunkerson (eom)[edit]

POV-pushers[edit]

I do see the difference, but I rather thought the "Though I don't intend to block for that reason in future." was strongly implied. Vanished user talk 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing[edit]

I think your arguments will gather more attention and be more effective if you copy edit for brevity. I see you have started. [1] - Jehochman Talk 01:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

AN, please cmt[edit]

Carcharoth, I trust both in your good faith and intelligence. If you could find the time, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at WP:AN#WP:POINTy or otherwise strange action. Irpen apparently still has my non-existant RfA page watchlisted, and he pre-canvassed against me. I have no intention (nor the slightest chance) of ever becoming an admin, but that kind of behaviour stresses me out. If you, like the other admins there, think that I'm just paranoid and oversensitive, please tell me so, and I will let it go. I dorftrotteltalk I 23:46, December 4, 2007

Your discussion with Durova[edit]

This is not the same thing whatsoever, but here is a year-old unused account which has "recently resumed editing": [2]. Presumably this editor has been lurking and has learned the rules.

I am pretty new here, I just removed it, should I take it further? IMO I'd call a game misconduct and send to the league for review along with the first contrib, but maybe I'm a hardliner? (And there's no question I could remove in the first place, right?) Franamax (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You were quite right to remove the comment. Language and personal attacks like that are unacceptable. A block or strong warning may be warranted here. Let me look into it. Carcharoth (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Issuing a strong warning as no previous warnings had been given, plus advice on the one productive edit. Carcharoth (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Carcharoth. I guess I am a hardliner, you blew the whistle and took the puck down the ice, but there's no-one there to take the faceoff. We'll skate off and the player will still be able to glide in and evade a semi-protection later. I certainly respect that approach, it justs seems somewhat of a conundrum, AGF on the basis of a single-letter beneficial contribution. (those are hockey metaphors BTW :) It feels a little raw to hope that's gonna become a productive account, but I am watching, not doing, so... Franamax (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems. The warning history is there for later admins and editors to see. If you were upset by the personal attack, that means it's probably best for someone else to make the judgment. There should have been a welcome and advice at the time of the earlier article deletion (see Toby du toit - a valid deletion), and a warning for the earlier personal attack, but the user has been warned and welcomed now. It's up to them which way they go now. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I commented on this issue here. --CBD 13:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And I did too. And Carcharoth, I agree with every sentence and clause in your last response above - thank you. Franamax (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have Durova's page on my watchlist, and I didn't lift a finger about that, knowing somebody else would take care of it. - Jehochman Talk 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Amusing link[edit]

This looks like it got lost in the sands of time. Cheers—Cronholm144 11:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've learnt not to do that in future. BTW, where did you find that? Reading last year's arbcom election pages? Carcharoth (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, Paul August's I think, but I have been opening multiple tabs and reading arb cases, arbcom votes, and user histories for a couple hours now so it has begun to blur in my mind. What a strange and interesting history wikipedia has! Cheers—Cronholm144 12:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your discussion redux[edit]

Again, not the same thing, but here is another year-old low-activity account: [3]. Can't help that she's on my watchlist! Franamax (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't have time to look into this one, but I'd leave a note for Durova pointing out that you removed it. She may want to respond to it. It's not technically a personal attack, but could be seen as fanning the flames. Think of it this way, if I'd posted that question, would you have been removing it? Judging motivation on account activity is not the best guide. The article is quite misleading though, and Durova might like to know about it on that basis alone. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going with shaky precedent, the same link was removed earlier today/yesterday by another editor, Durova very nobly refactored and responded. Yes I will let her know. Just making a point I guess :( on how they can wake up quickly. Probly be sorry soon I got involved. Oh well. Franamax (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah. You mean this? That changes things slightly. As she's already responded, no problem. You could point Metsguy234 to the earlier response, if you want. And if there is a next time, mention in the edit summary that the link has been posted earlier and responded to, though the link is not actually there any more. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's the contrasting attitude, the enforcer comes off the bench quickly and settles the matter. I honestly don't know which approach is the right one. I go sleep now :) Franamax (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this a response to Jehochman in the section above? Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's a response to the indef-block of Metsguy and directed to your alternate approach in the other case. Mets is a shade different but has attracted much more definitive attention, even my talk page has been cleaned. I'm not actually sure what JEH is conveying; I didn't even see your 2nd last response (which again is right-on); and I'm yawning. Those who need to know, know. Nightey:) Franamax (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your evidence[edit]

Actually Jason Gastrich has been banned for more than a year and a half. He's been a persistent sockpuppeteer, though. FWIW Gastrich is a Biblical literalist rather than an IDer. His prose and research style are distinctly different from Matthew Hoffman. I never thought they were the same. DurovaCharge! 04:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are the same. Just pointing out the allegations that I could see. Laying out the whole story and timeline. If anything, it shows the attitude of the regular editors at that article. What would be interesting is looking at the recent history of that article. Someone on your talk page mentioned that the sock puppet stuff was a red herring, and that the real issue in that thread was the pushing of POVs. I would have looked into that, but it is too content-related for my liking. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way. Can you edit your own talk page when it is protected? Carcharoth (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. I'm not a sysop anymore. BTW at least the "recently banned" part of your statement is worth altering. DurovaCharge! —Preceding comment was added at 04:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Collateral damage[edit]

We managed to get one good faith editor unbanned already. I haven't checked the rest of the history yet, and desperately need some sleep. So if you would like to check for collateral damage, then that would be very nice! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The other case was User talk:Metsguy234 - that is waiting for Neil to come back online. (Copied to your talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Light[edit]

See [4]. There's no reason to debate when we can get action or an answer from the person who placed the original block. - Jehochman Talk 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One more[edit]

Stop me if you think I'm harassing you. Another sporadically active account suddenly interested in Durova has a question. I think even my contrib history is more distinguished. I was hoping to post a more extensive discussion and request to you tomorrow on past stuff, but here I am finishing for the night - should Durova wake up to this? Would you use the T-word here? I'm hanging back from now on as far as doing anything, but this kind of thing is maybe different from the run-of-the-mill, carefully crafted and oh-so-innocent. Franamax (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm always happy to give my opinion, so don't stop asking questions. In this case, though, I don't see anything remotely actionable, and the contributions look fine if somewhat sparse (which is common with those not as involved with Wikipedia as others). It may be a perfectly valid question (I don't know). My advice would be to let Durova handle it. Carcharoth (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Crat Hat[edit]

Ever thought about going up for bureaucrat? You seem like you'd be good at the site-leadership tasks they perform. At least you'd have my Strong Support Mbisanz (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but I'm not really active enough at WP:RFA for that, which is, in my view, the main role of bureaucrats. They do perform other roles (generally involving a high level of trust), but not really a site-leadership role. Anyone can take the lead on nearly anything on Wikipedia. Good arguments and some experience of the system is all that is needed. Also, I think we have enough bureaucrats at the moment. Editing and admin tasks are the main parts of Wikipedia. Everything else only needs a small number of people. Leadership out in the trenches is the thing I think Wikipedia really needs at the moment, but then I don't really do that either! I tend to float from one area of interest to another, seemingly at random! :-) Maybe one day, if I get more organised. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Decidely less calm"[edit]

There was nothing uncalm about this. This is extremely unfortunate, because it validates PMA's trolling of FA instructions. Every few months he, without any discussion or a hint of consensus, ups and changes instruction wording. It springs from a crusade against the MoS and his trailing Tony and Sandy around. Marskell (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oy, reading on "And further, helpful peering over someone's shoulder and helping them out is, well, helpful." Fifty thousand edits on, Sandy is well passed needing instruction. PMA was not in the least way trying to be helpful with "Is this a claim of collective ownership of articles on Chavez? and if not, what is it?"[5]. This is calculated harassment. Marskell (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said PMA was trying to be helpful. I said that sometimes it can be helpful. If you think User:Pmanderson (please don't confuse him with User:PMA) is stalking or harassing anyone, please collect evidence and diffs instead of making accusations based on one incident. I'm aware of the long-running dispute at FAR, and I think you should all sort that out instead of letting it spill over into other areas. And that means not responding aggressively to PMAnderson's edits in other areas - areas he has every right to edit in. Carcharoth (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I use PMA as shorthand.
The above is a touch contradictory. Do not let it spill over into other areas but it's all well and good that he badger a user in another area just after disputing on FAR? Not letting it spill over into other areas is precisely why I warned him. Marskell (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that he is commenting on article content and article editing. You and Sandy are focusing purely on editor behaviour. It looks like a refusal to engage in the concerns he is raising about article contents. Carcharoth (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I really have no idea what to do with this comment. An accustion of OWN is not "commenting on article content." "Ignore the MoS" (his most common comment on FAR) is not commenting on article content but an exercise in POINT. Marskell (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ownership does affect article content. Accusing someone of wikistalking to deflect accusations of ownership is unhelpful. It would be better to address the ownership concerns. Lots of people have concern about the application of the MoS at FAC and FAR. If you must know, I think the issues go all the way back to the FAC for Orion (mythology). Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"Ownership does affect article content." Well thanks. All of our P&Gs affect article content, at least vicariously. The link above is clearly a comment on the person, not the content, your parsing aside.
The MoS. Yes, I know that there are concerns. I'll say what I've said before: it's neither ignored nor treated as gospel. FAs are not removed because of dashes. Like the citation debates, there are extremes on the issue and FAR needs to navigate a middle path. If Pma could raise his concerns without his aggressive tendentiousness he would not be disruptive on FAR. To be fair, Tony1 could raise his concerns from the opposite side of the ledger with less sarcasm. It's their running battle that has been at the heart of this. Marskell (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And you and Sandy, as co-ordinators, should try and stay calm and defuse the tension. Only take it further (as with accusations of wikistalking) as a last resort. Monitor the situation and try to mediate impartially, or find someone else to mediate. If things have to go further, make sure you have evidence to back up your assertions. Carcharoth (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, Carcharoth, and was perfectly calm when I posted to Pma. There is a difference between being acerbic and being agitated. I've interacted with Pma dozens of times—kid gloves are pointless. And I explained my rationale with reference to the edits in question. But you're talking past me, so there's little point in explaining further. Marskell (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can accept I misinterpreted an acerbic comment as agitated. Apologies for that. I'll refactor at the ANI thread. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll only add that I'm satisfied with the last formulation on AN/I—not an innocent move even if not stalking. Best, Marskell (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My Talk[edit]

I've removed your comments and diff. relating to the archived debate. [6]. Sorry, but let's not fan flames. I deliberately took the subject to ANI, and you commented that in future I should get others involved ?? Huh?? What the hell's ANI for??? It's over, and I'm not interested if no one else is in stopping narky comments. FYI I've defended Kurt before in his blanket opposition and care not one jot for or against it. Same as I care not one jot for a flame war. The matters at an end. I hope next time we interact it can be constructive. Pedro :  Chat  17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing out that you seemed to get close to carrying out a block due to your personal reaction to something. Having read the RfA thread in question, I now think that you should have ignored Kurt from the beginning, or registered a mild protest. My later comment was because when you posted to ANI you failed to provide the context, namely that Kurt's initial comment gave an adequate reason, and instead harped back to his "oppose self-nom" behaviour. Which was not helpful, in my opinion. If you don't want to discuss this, though , fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to back down, because basically it's not worth the argument with you. I thought I did the right thing. Apparently I didn't. Apparently AGF is something we only do to newbies these days. Pedro :  Chat  17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
On further reflection, although I believe I did everything in good faith, I believe I have not assumed the assumption of good faith with regards to yourself, and for that I apologise. I hope we can move on in a positive light. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course. No problems at all. I can see you were upset, and that shows you care. It is difficult to stay calm sometimes when others disagree with you on something you feel passionately about. As I said, I'm very happy to move on and forget about this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and as ever, best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?[edit]

Would you be interested in Mediating the scope and purpose of FAR? Your comments on 1755 Lisbon Earthquake indicate that you would retain FA with fewer footnotes than I would, and I am plainly considered a dangerous radical. (I agree that the article appears perfectly sound, but I would like some more indications of what comes from where.)

In the meantime, would you have a look at {{FAR-instructions}}? The current flap began when I attempted to get rid of some of uses of facilitate, and of the Bureaucratic Passive; if FAR is going to encourage good writing, its instructions really ought to be in decent English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take part in any discussions about WP:FAR, but I don't think I'd be the best or most impartial mediator. Sorry about that. Do let me know of any future discussions though. If this is all about wording of the instructions, I'd encourage people to concentrate on actually reviewing articles. Common sense should matter more than precise interpretations of wording of FAR instructions. Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to be the mediator; I'm asking if you would represent your POV in mediation, since you are a calm exponent of a widespread POV, now insufficiently heard in the proceedings of FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought I'd misunderstood something! :-) I actually agree with you about the Lisbon article and its notes. I too want to see what came from where. I just don't think that FAR should bother with that sort of thing, other than prodding people every now and again to do some work on it. Point me at the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To do so, we need a supporter of many notes who is both rational and willing to discuss; I've asked Ling.Nut. but he's not particularly interested. Raul would have to be after the election. Who else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No idea. I'll keep an eye out. Sorry not to be of much use! Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Say, did you ever hear back from Robert Young?[edit]

I ask because you were going to bring up, on ANI, the issue of indefinite blocking of an editor with 7000 edits, and without previous warnings or blocks, for a dipsh**t offence like "disruptive editing". Which is basically what happened to user:Ryoung122, unless there was something outstanding I missed. But I couldn't see that you had. I tend to agree that if what I see at first glance is what happened, it represents a sea-change in policy, and it stinks to high heaven. I did see BrownHairedGirl fulminating about seeing somebody nearly raped in Egypt, as if that had something to do with Robert Young. In any case, I hope you get it (and this case in particular) thrashed out. If it happened to Robert, it can happen to me, or anybody here who isn't an administrator. And it's not good. We're editing an encyclopedia where people once got 24 hour blocks for blanking a page and replacing it with swearwords. Now we've gotten to permi-banning people because they piss off the wrong cadre of admins. And it's not the first time it's happened. SBHarris 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The latest on this sort of thing is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman. Robert's case is different, but I'm hoping that Robert will have calmed down after his break and will eventually file an unblock request - or e-mail one, as his talk page is probably still protected. I'm hoping the Hoffman case will persuade some admins to be more cautious about jumping straight to an indefinite block. It is possible that the follow-up to the Hoffman case will be a community discussion at WP:BLOCK to set more rigorous limits on what individual admins can do with regards to indefinite blocking. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Which would be really cool. Duration of block really should be in proportion to how many admins agree with it, with no "indef" possible for cases where there's a genuine debate (ie, not vandals). A ban is rather like the death penalty. Right now, an indef block is hypocritically treated as though it was a whole-community-decided thing, since anybody (in theory) could reverse it, but (in practice) nobody will. However, in reality there are very strong social strictures against administrators undoing each others' decisions (since it makes the first admins feel like fools or reversed-judges), and so in practice, an indef block by one admin WAAAAY too often sticks until the victim is disgusted with Wikipedia and leaves for good. Which of course is the idea. Jimbo pretends this is not a problem, because he has refused to set up any meaningful policing of administrators FOR administators. Which makes the place work, as I've said, like the police with no Mayor, City Council, or Dept of Internal Affairs. Not nice. SBHarris 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Check a thread[edit]

Could you have a look at this thread? [7] Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI[edit]

I reverted your decision to close the discussion about Kurt's RfA behavior. It seemed like a conflict of interest to close a discussion in which you have been actively involved. If you believe I have done this in error, please let me know. Thanks! :) - Chardish (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes it is best to allow those involved in the discussions to take the lead in proposing ending the discussion, but I can see the merits of others doing this instead. Carcharoth (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, since a second RfC has started, there is no sense leaving that discussion open to attract more people. I've reclosed per WP:BOLD. Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That seems prudent. - Chardish (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately SwatJester didn't think so. I think the lesson from this is to politely suggest redirecting a thread in the thread. Wait for a little bit to see if people agree, then add the tags. Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kmweber's RFC[edit]

Hello, Carcharoth. I posted six more diffs since Kmweber's last RFC (four opposes and two supports) which demonstrate reasoning different from the contentious one that is being discussed. See here. I don't know whether I followed correct procedure, since two users supported this view before I added the additional diffs. I trust you to move or remove any or all diffs as you see fit. Thank you! ---Sluzzelin talk 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

James I[edit]

Personally, I would include as many sources as I could reasonably fit into the text, in descending order of reputability. The issue of James' sexuality has been raging for years, and so I would be inclined, not so much to just try to given due weight, but to have an entire discussion on historical and contemporary points of view on the subject. But I think that would take some real effort. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events[edit]

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

1755 Lisbon earthquake[edit]

Hey, I'm gonna uglify it tomorrow with {{cn}} tags, unless someone beefs up the cites as discussed. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Won't have time to do anything before then, so go ahead. Thanks for the notice. Carcharoth (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Finding ME redirects[edit]

I don't know if you saw my reply to your question, but I've been looking into ways to find redirects that still have ME-project tags on them and found this: [8]

It's a tool that can be used to find category intersection, and as far as I can tell uses current info. In this case, we can use it for Category:Middle-earth redirects and Category:Tolkien articles by quality (or Category:Tolkien articles by importance), and it will search the categories and their subcategories to find redirects with remaining tags.

(By the way, I tried it and it didn't find any) – Psyche825 (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That will be because Category:Middle-earth redirects is populated by hand or template, and hopefully everything in there or its subcategories have already had their {{ME-project}} removed from their talk pages. What is needed is for someone to go through all the (currently) 357 unassessed articles and see which are redirects (not worth it, really). If the article pages were categorised, they would show up in italics. Unfortunately, the talk pages of redirects don't show up as italics in categories. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Innocentvictim[edit]

Could you look at Innocentvictim (talk · contribs) and see if you think there are editing similarities to Mister ricochet (talk · contribs) and Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs)? Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 03:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Missed this. No time at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I see, but you had time to stir the Hoffman case a bit. This was posted here in an effort to engage you in some sort of cooperative effort because our relationship seems to be moving towards animosity. I don't like being accused of "corruption" by an Arb. If you want to remove your most recent comment, I will remove mine. That will help reduce the temperature. Go ahead and remove your comment and my replies if you like. - Jehochman Talk 12:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not stirring the Hoffman case. I'm trying to make sure relevant issues are discussed properly. I'd prefer to see the Hoffman case done properly than spread myself over too many issues. I also find the "editing similarities" kind of analysis is only helpful up to a certain point. If there is no rush, though, I will try and look at this later. In future, if you leave this sort of request, it would be helpful to give some sort of timescale. Carcharoth (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough about Innocentvictim. I am upset about your recent comment at Hoffman. I am trying very hard to ignore Charles, but the issue keeps coming up. It would help if you strike your comment. It contains an unsupported claim of "corruption" which is very problematic. No need to repeat that. - Jehochman Talk 12:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Gp75motorsports[edit]

Re this, the reason I reduced the block straight away (and risked causing controversy) was that I didn't want the user to be permanently driven away through such an excessive block, so I felt that immediate action was needed. Discussion is all very well, but if Gp75 had felt that he was being persecuted by the community and had departed for good, the discussion would have become academic. I believed there was a real danger of that happening, so I decided to take immediate action. Further discussion can, of course, take place on the ANI thread, and if the community consensus is to extend the block then I will accept it; but I make no apology for my actions, which I believe were in the best interests of Wikipedia. (Btw I'm not attacking Maxim; I know he had the best intentions, I just think he was very wrong in this instance.) WaltonOne 19:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I disagreed with the block as well. I just think that undoing actions, even with the best of intentions, can increase drama, though I do see your point here that the reduction of the block was intended to avoid potential damage due to the block. Anyway, I see events have moved beyond that with an unblock. I'll comment further at the ANI thread. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You totally deserve it[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I award the Original Barnstar to Carcharoth for invaluable assistance in obtaining iconic photographs in Birmingham campaign Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Several months ago, while puttering around Wikipedia, I saw the sad state of this article. It had a huge impact on my memory when I first learned about the Birmingham campaign years ago, affected primarily by the visuals now in the article. The story is riveting and multi-faceted - irresistible. The photos now help illustrate an article that I hope very much will become a featured article. Thank you very much. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

£$%^^&*&^&%^$%%&^&[edit]

Season's greetings and a merry new year to Sir Searchaloth Van Helping. Thanks for all your work on James the Annoying and on the mysteries of Queen Catherine's piles. And thanks for being one of the good guys. Have a good holiday. qp10qp (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! What does £$%^^&*&^&%^$%%&^& mean?? Is this a test, or something? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Carcharoth, I know you'll find this hard to believe, but not everything has a meaning. The above is what's known as random gobbledygook, and long may it be my second language. Well, trust you to dig up something on Jacobean Christmases: very interesting, though not fully accurate—I mean, we have almost no reliable evidence of what Shakespeare performed in: his name's on the cast list for a couple of Ben Jonson's plays and that's about it. The page reminded me that I once saw a Twelfth Night on ice: absolutely brilliant. At the interval we were allowed on the ice to buy hot wine and delicacies of the time roasted on braziers. qp10qp (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Gobbledygook? I suspected this, but was hopeful it might be a code... Twelfth Night on ice, eh? Sounds great fun. I'll keep diggin for more Jacobean Christmas tidbits. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:James_I_of_England#Category:LGBT_royalty[edit]

Replied. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links[edit]

I do appreciate them and am reading them avidly; very, very interesting. I wonder if my recent redraft of the WP:PRIVATE proposal is in keeping with what some of the arbitrators had hoped, based on that "opinion". Best of the season to you, Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrator involvement in IRC[edit]

I saw your addition to the request for arbitration regarding the page on #wikipedia-en-admins and the edit and admin war there. I certainly can't speak for other arbitrators, but I'm personally willing to be quite clear about my level of involvement in the IRC channels. However, the format of a request for arbitration doesn't really give a space to put such a statement, so I'll make it here. For the record:

I use IRC on an infrequent basis, perhaps a couple of times a month for short periods, normally when looking for someone in a situation where speedy communication would be useful. I have access to #wikipedia-en-admins and am likely to visit it on the occasions I do join IRC. After one of the previous blow-ups about IRC, one of the chanops asked the arbitrators if anyone would be willing to take on chanop privileges in order to help with the channel, and I stated I would be glad to. I believe I was thus added. I know I have never actually used any sysop functions on that channel.

I consider myself sufficiently uninvolved in the issue to be able to arbitrate it fairly, and therefore will not be recusing. I hope that's sufficient information; please ask if there's anything you're not certain about. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for replying so quickly. The note about not recusing maybe could be squeezed into the acceptance vote, though that's probably implicit anyway. Still, this is now on the record somewhere on wikipedia, and I appreciate that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC[edit]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GFDL question[edit]

Hey Carcharoth, I saw your edits on AN/I regarding another GFDL question and you seem very knowledgeable in this area. I have a question that I wonder if you could answer. There is a website, Encyclowine, that is using word for word copies of several of our wine articles (including images)-such as Fermentation/Fermentation (wine), Walla Walla Valley/Walla Walla Valley AVA. My question is whether or not Encyclowine needs to abide by any attribution requirement stating where they original got the information or image. Thank you for your time. AgneCheese/Wine 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, they need to attribute Wikipedia. To be honest, you'd be best raising this at a noticeboard. There are people watching those who will give you a better answer than I can. Try Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh no problem but to ask a very naive question, which noticeboard? :) While I'm not a newbie, I mostly stick to my little corner of the project working on wine articles rather than deal with GFDL issues. AgneCheese/Wine 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I was looking, but didn't find a place to report GFDL violations. Ah, I just found Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. That should have enough information. Post your query on the talk page if you get stuck. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for your help. :) AgneCheese/Wine 02:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, I saw something just before Xmas and was wondering what the situation was. This page was (apparently) directly copied from Heritage Minutes sometime between 25Oct04 and 02Jun06. I am also going to try Mirrors and forks as you suggest, but on looking there I note 1) I'm not sure I really understand it :) and 2) the Talk page doesn't look too reassuring. Here's some questions for you Carcharoth:
You say "the short answer is yes, they need to attribute" - what's the long answer? How important is this? It bothers me a bit to see copying, how much does it bother Wikipedia? Your answer above seems to indicate there's no specific policy page to address this, which seems to be a deficiency.
Are these types of copying something we are left to pursue on our own (with advice from F&m) or is there a dedicated group that takes over documented incidents? It's not clear from the F&m pages exactly who should do what, and I'm not sure whether I'm qualified to go charging off to defend WP. (Maybe I'm asking my first question over again).
That's what you get for trying to give anwers - more questions! :) Thanks. Franamax (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Blub. Throw it at Wikipedia:Help desk and see what happens. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at arbcom[edit]

That was good.[9] I'm a big fan of injecting humor into tense situations. Sometimes we take ourselves entirely too seriously around here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom evidence[edit]

I forgot about that. I'll add it in, it's probably worth mentioning. --Coredesat 06:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On a separate point - you refer to JzG's editing of a page protected by Alison. (Sorry - diffs are too complicated, stupid workplace operating system.) That actually refers to him editing WP:PRIVATE while it was under Alison's protection (so to speak), and he did self-revert after being asked the second time. Alison was a very busy lady. Risker (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. JzG did edit Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins after protection, but it was a very minor edit which I've noted elsewhere. I've removed the link to that talk page section from my evidence section. Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I missed it entirely, there are so many people on that list. Looks like JzG was pretty busy too. Good on you for unraveling all these facts and putting them in a semblance of order. I have to admit it is disconcerting to see my name there - heaven only knows what's gotten into me lately. Risker (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom statement[edit]

Yeah, that's the diff. I guess 'revert' isn't the proper term for Jimbo's actions, I was being more general in regards to the history. David Fuchs (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be fine with it, but if you want more opinions bring the topic up on WP:AN. David Fuchs (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I know I warned him first, but I thought he reverted again, and that's why I blocked, but the history doesn't show that... I might have been looking at an outdated watchlist page. :\ Oh well, he woulda' tried anyhow. Thanks for bringing that up. --David Fuchs (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom evidence[edit]

Just a heads-up - in addition to the diffs and links you provided, there was also apparently a discussion at Phil Sandifer's talk page - here and the threads immediately following. I didn't want to mess with your evidence. Videmus Omnia Talk 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added those. I'm sure there are others as well. It's all a bit depressing, really. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree (with the "depressing" part). Videmus Omnia Talk 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom evidence from my talk page[edit]

One question - what is it evidence of? Help me out here, because I had fully intended to archive my talk page today, and just remembered in the nick of time to leave Geogre's message behind. I'd really rather have everything archived well before the case closes (there is a reason behind it that only peripherally relates to Wikipedia), but at the same time I don't want to mess with what people might think is important evidence. Risker (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive away. I'll update later. The links I've provided at the evidence pages aren't permalinks. I'll be switching to those later. I should use these from the start, but I don't always remember. The only thread of interest anyway was Geogre's comments, but they will probably be incidental. Might even drop your user talk page from my evidence section. (sorry!) Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I am preparing to be away for a while (planned some time ago, not directly related to recent events) and just want to get everything organized. Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot knowledge[edit]

II'm wondering if you have any knowledge of how to write bots or know any edtiors who'd be willing to work with an accounting major on a bot idea. Its a two part idea after seeing the recent AN debate.

1. An automated bot that will place alll images with the fair use template, lacking a valid Article= variable in a category like "FU images lacking article variable" (I'd prob need to specify that such a category SHOULDNT be used as an automated deletion playground.

2. A semi-automated script that would look at "file links" and fill in an Article=x variable for an image in that category. The user would activly have to click save to indicate it is the right rational for that image.

Like I said, I'm not a comp sci guy and know nothing of programming. But I'd be willing to take responsibility (read: complaints, blame, flames) if another user could code such a feature. Mbisanz (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that such already existed. See Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink. This is populated from the use of the non-free rationale template, though I'm not sure if all the templates work with that category. There are doubtless many images out there with manually written rationales and not link, but finding them is difficult. Try WP:BOTREQ for that. As for a script, that is mentioned at the category. I've never used it, so I don't know how good it is. Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, ok found that category. The automated bot part can be scrapped then. I took a look at that user script, and it seems like its in-use, since the first 20 random images in the cat I selected all had more than 1 article and no-backlinks. Still, with an image like Image:Envigado.gif Image:Ctvn-logo.gif., I'd think a semi-automated script should be able to "see" 4 FURs and 4 file links and do the work. Or, and this could be controversial, a script that duplicates the exsisting FUR to the number of file links and suggests that as a save. Mbisanz (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, a case like that probably needs a human to carefully consider the best way to handle it. Sometimes short stubby articles need merging. Sometimes there are reasons to use the logo on every separate article. Sometimes the image use does need to be reduced. I think you will only find support for bot-addition of single links. User:Quadell would know more. Try asking him. Carcharoth (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
ps: I saw your evidence over at arbcom, wow, your really know your way around here, Mbisanz (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It's very confusing at first, but after a while it becomes second nature. Though there are areas of Wikipedia itself that I've never been to or even seen. Rumours of far-off and distant lands. The technical stuff is also difficult, but the basics are usually easy to understand. Sheer size. Technical stuff. Policy stuff. Article stuff. Probably other stuff as well. Wikipedia is not a small place or easy to understand, but sometimes you don't have to. You can settle down at a single page and work hard on it for a few weeks, or drift around from page to page, or do any of hundred and one other things. Frequent breaks are recommended though. Carcharoth (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm contacting Quadrell, but figured you might want to comment on my more fleshed out user specs here User:Mbisanz/ImageSystemProposal Mbisanz (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Urban planning[edit]

I've just seen the discussion on ANB at the removal of links from urban planning. As this was apparently not about me, would you be willing to change the headings on the page so it doesnt look like it is. I think I got mentioned because in fact i have at various times removed a number of spam links for that page myself. i've just seen the discussion--nobody alerted me. I dont wantto do it myself. DGG (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've been thinking about this. I think it might be best to point out, in the thread, that it is a personal attack and request that it be removed. I'm not entirely comfortable with refactoring it following a talk page request. I'll still do the refactoring, and note it over there, but I'd prefer to respond to a note from you in the thread itself. Oh, and best not to timestamp the comments, otherwise the bot will delay it's archiving of the thread. Carcharoth (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
right. DGG (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done the changes. Sorry for dithering. I apologised over there as well. Not quite sure why I was so hesitant, but there was no reason. It was silly. Sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thanksDGG (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR [edit]

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with, today it's the turn of the "B"s and "C"s! I'm hoping at least one of you chaps will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: deal with this tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Doc's blanking of Bish's evidence[edit]

Doc has chosen to blank the IRC chat log that Bish posted as part of her evidence. Is this acceptable (blanking of another's evidence)? If not, please deal with Doc, and with the blanking of the evidence. 24.182.64.206 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been sorted now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

About Caras Galadhon[edit]

Please see my response here. Thanks. Superlost (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC[edit]

Hey, that API method is neat! I hope it won't make the other arbitrators' heads spin. I'm sure you'll be able to explain it to them. I had one other thought while looking at that table. One of the page protections expired naturally. The one that ran out at 21:38 on 25 December. Maybe you could add a row to the table to make it clearer that: (a) edit warring didn't start up again straightaway; and (b) the next edits were to an unprotected page (some might take the absence of an unprotection to mean that the page was still protected). Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a handy method, you just grab the oldid out of the URL. On edits while protected, the far right column has a little red indicator for edits made while the page was protected. Around the middle of the timeline there are some there so you can see what it looks like. The expiry time is also in the protection summary which is quoted. --bainer (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nice work[edit]

Thanks - the sourced site is in blog format but the publication itself (which the site promotes, and gives previews/samples of) is probably notable and well-known in Conan/Robert E. Howard fandom, since it was nominated for the World Fantasy Award twice, and gives its own awards. A bit like TIME and TIME.com. The way I've shortened the fan edit stuff, I think it doesn't matter much where it's put - it's more of a footnote, not on the level of the Phantom Edit. I put it in Tolkien fandom as well. Uthanc (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

James I[edit]

You seem reluctant to join in, or you haven't seen, the new version of the discussion on James I. When you get a chance, would you take a look and perhaps offer your opinion? Thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume I joined the right discussion. I see the Scotland/England thing has come round again. Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing layout[edit]

What do you think of the reorganizing the headings for character articles? There was a suggestion to move the concept/creation section and place the Appearances section afterwards. The only problem with that is some of the information in the concept/creation section may touch upon information that won't be explained until the Appearances section, and it would be more effective to explain the concepts to readers unfamiliar with the topic in the context in which it is written, which would be in this case the Literature section. On the other hand, it does place an emphasis on the topic's fictionality (yes, I know that's not a real word) — so I tried to work something out on the test page. So I experimented with the layout of the headings and made some drastic changes (i.e. splitting up concept/creation and appearances sections). I'm still not satisified and something feels wrong, so I was hoping you could possibly provide some suggestions or input.. *sigh* I picked a bad time to retire, didnt I? We have a lot of things to clean up after and fix. —Mirlen 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a day or two to get round to this. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Just notify me on my talk page when you do. —Mirlen 05:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense. I like Súrendil's proposal a lot, actually. —Mirlen 01:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your analysis (IRC timeline)[edit]

  • I agree that many of those are relevant (that users had placed their statements on the RFAR and then continued to edit had not occurred to me) and I've updated the timeline. --bainer (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for offering a suggestion[edit]

about how I might proceed in dealing with war memorials. I am conflicted for several reasons, one being that I'm pretty much a (semi-) retired wikipedian, another being that I am not quite sure of the scope of the war memorial project here and how I can best fit in. Perhaps what I need to do is 1) to try and actually understand what you are suggesting because I've done little or no re-directing and/or really any of the sort of behind the scenes stuff, having been content to just add content - text and photos. However I have in my home library a whole shelf (40 or so books) on war memorials, mostly American, and a lot of pictures from my road trips around the country and and interested in putting some of it out here. Best might be if I just include articles on specific ones and not get too concerned about a bits and pieces approach. Anyway, thanks for responding to me. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask a favour?[edit]

Hi Carcharoth - I have finished a significant but partial rewrite of an article, James Blunt, in my userspace at User:Risker/blunt. It's also had some light copy editing by another user, so I know that there has to be a merge of the history. Can you walk me through the procedure to transfer the rewritten copy to the existing article and then get the history merged? Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Never done that, sorry. You are probably best off asking someone else. Those who watch WP:MERGE may be able to help. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and good suggestion. Thanks. Risker (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Block records[edit]

Just noting that I replied on my talkpage. I don't edit often, but I attempt to read daily (didn't get an opportunity to do so for the last couple days, sorry!) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanished user RfC[edit]

I think you are demanding more than your fair share by posting so many different views at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vanished user. I suggest you restrain yourself to one, or at most two different views. The appearance is that you are turning the RfC into a circus (or a faux arbtriation) and trying to overwhelm the other views by posting so many of your own. What you are doing may be allowed, but it is not socially acceptable. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think RfCs should be better organised than they are. I think I've posted two views, and I think the desysopping views from me and B should be combined under a single heading. The other four are directly from the arbitration case, and it was discussed on the talk page. I left it for two days before doing anything, in order to allow people to object. Vanished user didn't object, so I went ahead. Can you think of a better way to do this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There are links to the arbitration case. Rather than copying those proposed findings here verbatim, why not invite people to review the remarks already made, and weigh in at the /Workshop. This will avoid redundancy and allow the RfC to take its own course instead of becoming a shadow of the arbitration. You are over-framing the issues, in my opinion. You posted the initial statement of the dispute and your own view. That is sufficient, I think. Also, this is not the place to introduce new RfC procedures, and we know from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova that lack of objection is not agreement. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've already removed them, as I had another look and it does look (and probably is) overdone. I'd like you to comment on the talk page as well, as that would be better than here. You are right that the RfC needs to take its own course. One problem I have is seeing inaccurate and biased statements, and wanting to support half of what someone says but not the other half! In that sense, request for comments should be more tightly focused. People should be allowed to post views on specific issues, as well as overall views. But let's continue this discussion at the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Saving images project[edit]

For your consideration: WP:TODAY. Lawrence Cohen 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanished user's RFC[edit]

Martinphi posed a direct question to me in his statement that I had already basically answered on the talk page before he wrote his opinion. That gives readers a misleading impression. If he refactors that part of his statement I will gladly remove my rebuttal and discuss it elsewhere. DurovaCharge! 10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. But if a threaded discussion develops, it could be a problem. I'll change my note to say that further discussion should be on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You could withdraw your threaded comment and help avoid that. DurovaCharge! 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Peace
I award you with this barnstar of peace because you always seem to be a sane voice of compromise and reason in quite a number of conflicts I've witnessed on Wikipeda (including at least one I've been involved in). Not perhaps what one would expect from an individual who takes his name from the demon-wolf of Morgoth Bauglir, ;-) but appreciated nonetheless. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name[edit]

An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz talk 01:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP Chicago[edit]

I saw on the page for WikiProject Reform that you had had a discussion in May with the "Director" of WPChicago regarding the sheer number of pages that are being tagged by the WikiProject. At that time, the 7000 articles seemed like you to be too many, and that number has DOUBLED in the seven months or so since that time. Apparently, they are tagging any article that has any tangential relationship to Chicago -- Jon Corzine, while Governor of New Jersey, is a University of Chicago alum, and, thus, is tagged with the project. Is there anything that can be done? —  MusicMaker5376 21:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask them to stop tagging and assessing peripheral articles, and to concentrate on getting a steady throughput (or increasing an existing throughput) of good and featured articles? Carcharoth (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of your previous conversation was that you were asking them to do just that. —  MusicMaker5376 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My question[edit]

I probably took too much offence because it was a comment that came from an editor I respect. Seraphim Whipp 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the message. I hope there are no hard feelings. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Course not. Thanks for your apology. Seraphim Whipp 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Image-Simpsons cast.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Simpsons cast.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham campaign up for FAC[edit]

I appreciate the assistance you gave on the photos in this article. If it wouldn't trouble you too much, I'm asking the few people who are somewhat familiar with the article to respond to the FAC. It's not getting a lot of feedback. You can find it here. Thanks for what you already did. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham[edit]

Good work you're doing there. With my patented highly sensitive POV detector, I spy a small problem over "by force, using the fire department's water hoses". Might fit some peoples' definition of "by force"... but not others'. What sayest thou? --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends how forceful the water jets are. In general, water jets are used to force people to disperse. The picture, and quotes from the sources, show that powerful jets were used. Maybe the point can be made slightly differently. Let's try something... Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Having said that, there is a discrepancy there between firehose and water cannon. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Good spot (and nice amendment, btw). Our article on water cannon is a little hazy on their history, but says the first ones were adapted fire trucks. I guess the question is whether they were actual fire trucks or adapted ones... a fine line (!) but for an FA article these ticklish little POV issues are important. WP couldn't go wrong with having firehose consistently applied, so how bout that? --Dweller (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it was just fire hoses, but it makes little difference to the people facing the water jets. Many sources conflate the two. For a picture of firemen (not policemen) using the hoses, see here. For another picture, captioned "water cannon", see here - but remember that the reporters often (in fact invariably) don't write the picture captions - that is often done after the reporter has filed the story. I'll change our caption to "high-pressure water jet", which leaves vague what is producing the water jet. Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I could be argumentative and say that it makes a difference, as an adapted fire truck would presumably make a better (worse?) 'weapon', but instead I'll stick to "well done" :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here we go: [10]:

"Five minutes after the journalists arrived in Kelly Ingram Park, the scene of anti-segregation demonstrations, firemen had been ordered by Police Commissioner Bull Connor to bring out their hoses to contain the swelling crowd. Moore crawled on the pavement and took a position between the firemen and the protesters, who were getting pummeled by a virtual wall of water. The scene disgusted Moore but he felt a responsibility to keep shooting. One of the firemen told him later, “We’re supposed to fight fires, not people.” One of Moore’s most remarkable photographs showed three students forced against a brick wall by a fierce spray of water propelled at 100 pounds per square inch. Fourteen-year-old Carolyn McKinstry was unaware at the time that she was being photographed. “After getting hit with the hose, that was the last thing on my mind. Dr. King had had motivational meetings with us. He had never mentioned the water hose but said there might be dogs and they might even spit on you,” she said in a 1998 interview."

So it is hoses, not water cannons, though the firehose article should have a link to water cannon. Carcharoth (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Birmingham Hose Award[edit]

Firehose75mm.jpg The Birmingham Hose Award
For all your work on Birmingham campaign, but in particular the splendidly pedantic piece of detailed forensic investigative work into the water cannon issue, I, Dweller, hereby make you the inaugural and, no doubt, last recipient of The Birmingham Hose Award. Good job! --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback and the crux issue[edit]

The crux issue has nothing to do with enabling the tool. The crux issue is whether or not en-WP has arrived at consensus to permit administrators to issue the tool. That is what can be taken to Arbcom. There are all kinds of tools that are enabled but our admins are not permitted to issue. I don't have a horse in this race, but I am certainly not impressed by the activity surrounding this question. Not sure which one of you is writing up the Arbcom request, just wanted to make sure someone would note this. Risker (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I'm not paying attention here, obviously. There are many issues, and mine is the whole "developer-community" thing (with Foundation issues thrown in for good measure). I currently seem to be debating it with Simetrical over at least two threads, if not more. I daren't go near the RfArb page yet, and have no interest in filing any case. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded[edit]

I've responded to the admin tools thing. Basically, I think the problem is real, but the proposed solution to it awful, and think that there's more productive ways to deal with it, e.g. a forum for pre-discussing blocks of any length. Vanished user talk 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template[edit]

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging for Commons move[edit]

Responding to your earlier question, the appropriate tag for this is Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. I'll try to take care of cleaning up Category:Library of Congress-verified public domain images soon, which probably requires a more complex approach than just the use of that tag.--Pharos (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a missing category colon. No wonder I couldn't understand what you were saying! :-) I'll try and pitch in at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

1a[edit]

Every time I look, I find little glitches. Your scrutiny will be appreciated, even if I might not always agree with your conclusions. Tony (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the harder (i.e., longer) exercises are more ecologically valid. If you ever have the time and the inclination, you might take a look at my work in progress—advanced editing exercises. I think the first few may be a little long. Do the colours work? Do the hints serve a useful role? Tony (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Will try to find some time for that at some point. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion[edit]

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [11]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a... long discussion! Maybe later. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. Practicing rollback[edit]

Many thanks for adding rollback to Wikipedia:Rollback feature - I've been on a wikibreak so I'll try and advertise it as soon as possible. Thanks again, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Biography articles with listas parameter" category[edit]

Hi, Carcharoth! I don't believe I've addressed you directly before, but I've respected the well-considered viewpoints that you've expressed in regards to such topics as the WPBiography banner, and "List of People by Name". I wonder if you would consider commenting at this discussion on the WPBiography template talk page; if I recall correctly, in some previous discussion you presented a good reason for using this category. Thanks, Lini (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Lini (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the January 2 DFUI backlog[edit]

When do you suppose you'd endorse me going through the category? I'm not going to wait forever, if I sense that there is no work being done, I will delete the images. Maxim(talk) 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficult isn't it. Could you possibly work up a list of the remaining images and an idea of how many there are? Some actual figures on how much the total is changing by would be more helpful than a "sense" that no work is being done. What I'd want to do, for example, is preview (not save) segments of the list in a gallery, and then pick out the ones I think are worth saving. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Around 4.6 K images left. What would be ideal for me if users used the subcategories; they hold maximum 1000 images, and when uses are done, I could delete the category and everything in it. Maxim(talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll take a look at those subcategories. Could you give me until midnight on Sunday? You could post another notice at the other page to warn others as well, and then we can all move on to the next lot (there are lots more to deal with, right)? Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm kinda glad we can sort of agree on that you can't save eveything. :-( As I understand, I should start deleting around 00:00 20 January? Maxim(talk) 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but do ask others first - like at the talk page of WP:TODAY - if they get a big clean-up effort going, then it wouldbe best to hold off. I'm not too worried in the long run about saving things. The stuff that is really needed can always be undeleted or uploaded again. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria[edit]

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2[edit]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant quote from Brigitte[edit]

Aptly done. Applause. DurovaCharge! 22:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Birgitte. But yes. I had read it in relation to something else entirely. Re-reading it an hour or so later, I'm surprised how well it applies here, and indeed to all ArbCom cases. I've been guilty sometimes of being more willing to stick up for those I know better, or who I get on with, but the bits about supporting your 'worst enemies' (you tend to find they aren't so bad after all) and criticising your 'friends' is well made. The bit about perennial arguments over interchangeable issues strikes to the heart of personality clashes, as opposed to content or philosophy clashes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, Birgitte. DurovaCharge! 06:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

All in the Family (jpg)[edit]

I have read the WP:NFURG policy and I believe all the rules are met so that the image can be used. Please explain the deletion as I am totally confused. Please point out what the problem is. Thank you, --Jazzeur (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no deletion. The image has been fixed and what people are trying to do is the same as you - ie. remove the deletion tags and categories. Have a look at this edit you made: "Concern addressed: dispute template removed." The edit I've tried to do, and which you've reverted, was doing nothing more than removing the image from a manually-added deletion category. In this case, Disputed non-free images as of 2 January 2008 1, which doesn't even exist any more. ie. "Concern addressed: deletion category removed." Is that understandable, now? Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I am truly sorry for this imbroglio. I am relatively new at editing in Wikipedia and, believe me, there is a lot to learn. Thanks to persons like you, who take the time to explain things with additional details and simple words, the learning curve becomes a little bit less steep. Thank you, --Jazzeur (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image tracker lists and academic journal articles[edit]

Right now, the bot works in two ways:

If you want me to make special lists, such as all images with the word "journal" in the description, just let me know. east.718 at 04:34, January 20, 2008

ITN reform[edit]

You commented on monotonehell's previous proposal for ITN reform. Given recent events which have highlighted the continual problems with ITN, I've taken it, made a few modifications and I'm trying to bring it back. It's currently at User:Nil Einne/ITN reform and any comments or thoughts are appreciated. Also, although I put this on a subpage of my user page, I don't consider this my proposal and would appreciate any help in pushing this along particularly given it's a wide ranging proposal that is likely to take a very long time to get anywhere. I primarily put it there so I could work on it without creating confusion. Also, I thought it might be helpful to avoid a mad rush of people commenting so I'm just informing a few people at first Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to response from CBDunkerson (eom)[edit]

visual gallery[edit]

You mentioned on AN/I that you can set up a visual gallery and scan the images that way. How would I do that for User:East718/DFUI/Logos? MBisanz talk 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hit edit. Copy the list into a text editor. Remove the "*[[:" and "]]" bits. Paste into a suitable page. My page is User talk:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries (feel free to copy the layout). Put nowiki and gallery tags around the list, and save. Do this for as many lists as you want - they will all be safely saved in the page history. When you want to view one of the lists, go to the page history and click the version you labelled with a helpful edit summary identifying it, and then click "edit". Remove the "nowiki" tags and hit preview (not save). This will bring up a gallery of the images. Keep the lists small (my largest are usually about 400), as I'm not sure what effect this has on the image server - they are only thumbnails, but better safe than sorry - might even be better to limit it to 200 (the number on a category page). Once the preview screen has finished loading, scan it and select the images you want to work on (I open each one in a new tab). Have a few rationales and image templates handy in another tab or window. Away you go! :-) PS. While doing my scanning, I've spotted some of your image work - good stuff! PPS. The reason for all this bother, and the reason why NOGALLERY is turned on in most of the non-free image deletion categories (apart from the replaceable images ones), is to avoid non-free galleries. My method here even avoid the galleries being present in the page history. Carcharoth (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[12] this is not nearly as sexy as your layout, but it works for my needs. Thanks for the tips. MBisanz talk 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
And a final tip. Viewing the underlying source at Special:Contributions/ImageRemovalBot within the right timeframe, usually allows you to track down which articles a deleted image was in. That way, if it turns out that an image can be fixed (eg. adding a rationale), then it is possible to put it back in the articles it was in. You do need to be sure that the image is 100% acceptable though. Carcharoth (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jan 2 DFUI backlog[edit]

Would you mind if I finish clearing it out? That was the second e-mail, basically. Maxim(talk) 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've finished with that category, yes. Would you like a hand clearing it? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, the script should do fine. Maxim(talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah shucks, Rettetast beat me. Maxim(talk) 23:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Thread[edit]

Yea, thats him, if you look at the details of the email it will say "reply-to:Maxim@whatever.com", I got confused about that too, but after closer investigation i found the email was from him. He also was wondering if he could continue clearing the category or not. Once your done, it is probably best to archive the thread, but sense you are the one who opened it i will respect your request for it to remain open. Tiptoety talk 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a new thing I want to try there. Any ideas for a partly resolved template? Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me work on it, I might not have it for your tonight, but tomorrow? Tiptoety talk 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Question mark.svg Partly Resolved. What do you think?? Tiptoety talk 04:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sweet, then you can put like: "Refer to WP:VP for other half of discussion" in where you can insert words. Tiptoety talk 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IP thing[edit]

Frankly, I think people are getting a bit over-excited, but if he does have access to some sort of checkuser tool, it would be a big problem. There are legitimate reasons for having different IPs. If you email me with the IP, I will reply if it is one that is accurate. Regards. Woody (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail sent. Then I realised I'd boobed big time. Second e-mail sent chasing after the first. Hope that made sense. Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I assumed you had, replied, then received your reply, so I think we are all set now! ;) The wonders of cyberspace. Woody (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mass-removal of logos[edit]

Hello, I'm a bit confused... On one hand you say that "removing the logos is being disruptive", but as the same time, you tell me not to revert... Shouldn't disruptive changes be reverted? I'm not trying to pin you on inconsistencies here, just want to understand... Óðinn (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting the removals was probably OK. After that, it is time to discuss. Once consensus is reached, then the editing can restart. Hope that's clear. If not, please ask. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I reverted it once and then he immediately removed it all again, at which point I decided not to bother. And yet I get reprimanded by an admin and some user who had nothing to do with it, while the IP user is exonerated... Oh, the mysteries of WP editing... :-) Óðinn (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. You are right, the IP address should be warned as well, but accounts are, well, more accountable! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, no problem. Glad we sorted that out... Óðinn (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, me again, just wanted to ask if users are allowed to remove warning messages from they talkpages, like here? Thanks. Óðinn (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes they are. The removal (and the edit summary) indicate that the IP has read the warning. A good admin will look at the recent page history for removal of such warnings, and take this into account if the IP continues edit warring. Please report to a noticeboard or ANI if that happens, as I'm leaving this computer soon so probably won't be able to help. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to the utter surprise of no one at all, he continued as User: 156.34.210.147. Reported him on ANI, like you suggested. Óðinn (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More logo-related nonsense[edit]

I don't want to clutter ANI; since you are involved with this I give my observations to you.

  • Óðinn has complained about the IP address WQA. I don't know if it makes sense to discuss this all over WP.
  • The first contributions of the "stalking" IP address were three "vandalism" reverts (counting related reverts as one) that don't look like vandalism to me, each followed or preceded by two vandalism warning templates.

--Hans Adler (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD images[edit]

I worked up a thing with East718 that should let me segregate all DFUI images that have a source from those that don't. Would you object to me tackling those that don't with Db-unksource after the intitial 7 day period, but before the extended review period (the AN thing with Maxim, Misza13, and East)? MBisanz talk 20:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are saying here (what is DFUI?), but yeah, anything without sources does need tagging. Not quite sure what you mean by the deadline thingy, but maybe there is a discussion I've missed somewhere? I'll have a look at AN. My deadlines were rather arbitrary and can, of course, be replaced by any reasonable discussion and consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This is DFUI User:East718/DFUI/Logos. Right now there is a window between the 7 days after BCB tags an image for failings NFCC and when an admin deletes, because of the backlog and the deal you've made with the deletion script admins to hold off on mass-deleting the cats. In that window I'd like to tag images that have no chance of survival with the speedy cat to sort of eliminate the need to double check images. MBisanz talk 04:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. You don't need any sort of approval from me (or anyone) for that! (It's only the deletions under 10c that I want to see given lots of time - images without sources need dealing with - I sometimes try and track down sources, but the uploader really needs to have done that themself). But thanks for asking. :-) One thing, could you make sure the deletion log (or db-tag) makes clear that the images are being deleted (or tagged for deletion) for a different reason? Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I could if I was an admin, but I'm not. I will include that in my edit summary. MBisanz talk 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking replace the tag so they are moved from the 10c category to another category? That way the deleting admin will probably have a standard (and correct) log summary ready. I think this is what you were proposing anyway, so sorry if I misunderstood. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is no template for this behavior [13] but what would be the right way to address this user. MBisanz talk 07:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk to them, don't template them. If they continue, revert to get their attention. Then if it continues and they don't discuss or change their behaviour, escalate and review their contribs. Sorry, can't help, I'm reading the IRC arbcom case pages at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

twinkle, fluff and stuff[edit]

I've looked up, and found that Maxim isn't using the current versions of twinkledeli, but an older beta version that doesn't have any flow control at all (see User:Maxim/simple.js). AzaToth 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. That sounds vaguely bad if fixable, but I'm sure you and Maxim have things under control. Thanks for letting me know (it still goes over my head a little bit). Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, what he means is I don't use a script that is included in TW anymore, yet it is an old version of TW. Maxim(talk) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. The bit about no flow control sounded bad, but if I've misunderstood, fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"PS. Don't do what the kid in Melbourne did at his party..."[edit]

(from Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Viewing_and_editing_Wikipedia_while_running_scripts).

Hahaha! Nice. You wouldn't believe the irony of it - we're contemplating (not too seriously) inviting the same press that reported on that stuff (and, incidentally, on me) to our meetup. Great minds must think alike ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Community Input[edit]

I listed it here - if you can think of anywhere else I am all ears. I guess it could be a postscript/discusion on the WP page on disruptive editing which I can't find now.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think advertising specific proposals in ArbCom cases is that helpful. There are lots of important stuff in ArbCom cases, and I don't think this one warrants any more attention than any of the others (in other cases). The Israel-Palestine one, for example. Carcharoth (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this Wikipedia talk:Community Portal a new WP:CN that I'm gonna need to start watching! MBisanz talk 07:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, did you really mean WP:CN? That has nothing to do with that talk page as far as I can see. Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Anyway, back to Arbcom - it depends on how wide or narrow the case becomes really. I haven't been involved in one before but I think it really is tip-of-the-iceberg stuff as far as behaviour and etiquette go. I am happy to play by ear here as I am not sure how much is supposed to be contributed by partied and how much by arbcom. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
My experience is that ArbCom write their own proposed decisions with guidance from the workshop pages. They very rarely adopt a workshop proposal verbatim, unless an arbitrator proposed it. But then I haven't participated in that many ArbCom cases. Carcharoth (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually meant WP:VP but couldn't think of it. It would be nice to have some redirects in there for all the talk pages that should redirect ot a central page. MBisanz talk 07:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration[edit]

The United States Capitol building, 1846 daguerrotype.

You mention collaboration as one way to move forward. FWIW I've been doing a lot of image restorations. Not much of that restoration work has been architectural, but in instances where the structure has undergone significant changes this could be quite useful. It would hardly have been possible to get a photograph of this particular building in its original state much later than 1846. If you click through there's a link to the source file so you can see how dingy the original version looked. This sort of contribution might be a useful adjunct to featured article drives. Worth bearing in mind? DurovaCharge! 12:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good edit![edit]

[14] Excellent edit summary too. Just wanted to say. Haukur (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! My first Main Page edit as well. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Since when do we require the ownership source of fair-use images? Image:WalterBryanEmery.jpg. I thought a simple declaration that the image is non-free and can be obtained at X is enough. I mean a user scan of something will never result in an ownership source. MBisanz talk 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically you are right (there are plenty of cases where websites and books try, but fail, to track down the copyright holders, and they say "please contact us if you have further information about this picture, and will will use the proper credit in future editions"), but that's not how things are done on Wikipedia. The non-free content criteria on Wikipedia are stricter than fair-use. I think the argument goes that it is better to know the copyright holder for sure, when trying to distribute a "free" encyclopedia, rather than having uncertain images. My personal approach is to judge whether or not the image is really old enough or likely to have a known source, and if it is, then we need to try and find it. The late-19th century photos are good examples of photos that we rarely have information for, so a lot of assumption is involved there (the pre-1923 thing only works if you can say when it was first published in the US). Having said that, in this case of a photo in the mid-20th century, I'd be willing to bet that if we do track down the copyright holder, it will either turn out to be PD, or an anonymous work-for-hire. My guess there would be that the photo was part of a university publication, or was commissioned by a book publisher, or Emery himself provided it to someone on request. In this case, why not contact the calgarycoin website and see what they say. I also see that the image is available in at least two other places, here and here. So someone could ask them as well. Failing that, ask the University of London. My personal hunch is that the calgarycoin website mentions "ARCHAIC EGYPT by W. B. Emery" - I'm guessing the photo was scanned from there. So the first step would be to contact the calgarycoin webmaster and ask them about the scan and if it is from the book. Or get the book yourself for $9... Carcharoth (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well since that was Blofeld's image and not mine, I'll leave that up to him to buy. But Image:Caldor-rainbow-gif.gif was only used by the company before the creation of the internet and is probably now owned by some random firm from a bankruptcy distribution. Another case would be Image:Texas Vs The Nation Logo.JPG where the source is clear (user scanned), but its probably owned by some random texas non-profit. I'd think that as long as we say its a non-free image that is found in X, that would suffice since we're establishing that some other person has the right to make money off of it. Maybe I'm just thinking this through wrong. And in that case, wouldn't all logos from pre-1923 be exempt from non-free rules? I'm thinking that the reason ALL logos by default are non-free is that we don't want to infringe trademarks which may or may not be active (infinite life when active), but if we're defining non-free strictly under copyright laws of person X holds a post-1923 copyright and we're fairusing it from them, that changes the rules I've been thinking under. MBisanz talk 06:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I may be wrong. Best to ask at a noticeboard or at WT:NFC. I think logos ultimately trace back to the company - but I'm not sure about bankrupt or defunct companies or organisations. Carcharoth (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback question[edit]

Hey, Carcharoth; remember I had questions when I first got rollback, and you advised me to stay away from it? I wanted to run this by you. This is, I believe, a perfect application for rollback. Am I wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure what you meant there, then I clicked on all the diffs, and you are presumably saying that the editor is spamming the articles with links to that quotations website? I personally wouldn't use rollback until a discussion somewhere came to the conclusion that the links are all unhelpful and should be removed. In other words, I don't think that case is totally clearcut for rollback - but why don't you ask over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback? You should get an answer there pretty quickly, and I'd be interested to see what others have to say. The other thing I'd do, probably first, is to ask the editor what they are doing, and look for evidence that the website is being spammed onto other articles as well. See Special:Linksearch, where it turns out that the only links are those added by this editor (all 22 of them). There is no rush to remove those links (the record is in that contributions log). If someone else comes along and edits the page, then rollback is no longer possible, but undo will still probably be possible. Short answer: rollback probably not needed, should really contact the editor first, and should also get a consensus first as to whether this site should be linked. i.e It is not vandalism but it could be external links spam. If others agree, then someone could use rollback, but even then that is best done with a script that can give an edit summary, and if it is spam, it should be reported anyway. Also, some people will think they are useful additions, and in some cases they may be right. WP:EXTERNAL and WP:SPAM might be useful, and I can't find that place where people discuss external link spam. Maybe the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam might be able to help? Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the detail; I'll get in on a bit later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Arb pages[edit]

I noticed your comment on the arb talk page. Convention has always been that arbitrators do have control of the arbitration pages. There's a note on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop to this effect. Both FloNight and Thatcher asked Giano to edit or remove his comments, and he had ample time to do so. If the comment was made on a page that wasn't an arbitration page, how would you handle it? For reference, the edits in question are [15] and [16]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw Thatcher's request on Giano's talk page, and FloNight had asked earlier, true. I think the second edit is the problematic one. My real problem with this is that removal of the whole talk page thread was excessive. Sure, she moved it, but without leaving a link behind, even in the edit summary. I had to look through FloNight's contributions to find where she had moved it to. I think a better response would have been to remove the second offensive edit, leaving a "offensive comment removed" note. I would have removed it at the time, and regret not doing so - I failed to remove it partly because I have a very low threshold for such things - I tend to laugh when people say things to me that others would get offended at. Really, though, if Thatcher (say) had carefully removed it, I would have no problem, but the second comment was directed straight at FloNight and by removing it herself she has now given the appearance that she has been offended by this to the point of removing a whole talk page thread. Maybe she hasn't, but I do think arbitrators should be careful when interacting with parties to a case. They need to keep a certain distance and let clerks or (maybe) other arbitrators deal with things, and then support those actions afterwards. Some distance and decorum is needed, and when arbitrators stoop to the level of getting involved on talk page disputes, some of that necessary distance is lost. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I also would have removed it, but because of the nature of the arbitration page I left it to Thatcher and the arbitrators. The second comment is clearly intended to offend, so I can't think of criticizing FloNight for being offended. Perhaps she could have emailed Thatcher privately to ask him to remove it, to preserve the decorum that everyone expects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Flo and I were on IRC when Giano made those comments, she thanked me for posting to his talk page, but did not ask me to remove them or protect the page. If she had, and I had, it would have preserved the appearance but the underlying fact that Flo was deeply offended would remain, only better hidden. This is why I have a problem with arguments about appearance of impartiality. I would rather have an arbitrator(s) who acknowledges being offended while still working on the case (and adding additional findings for balance) than an Arbitrator who uses a back channel to get offensive material removed, switches her vote to "ban" and then goes off and does something else. It is to Flo's immense credit that she is still working on the case in good faith, despite the proud and determined efforts of one of the parties to be as offensive as he can be to every Arbitrator who shows up on the talk page. Thatcher 15:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You have a point there. But appearance is important, if only because some arbitrators being more open distracts from those that may not be. Carcharoth (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your answer on ANI[edit]

Here, in compliance with your ANI advise at (I figured) your turn of service[17], I present my attempt to make Dbachmann provide the diffs to back up his claims, including his rejection to cooperate: [18]

Quoting you:

"I see Dbachmann's statement that you have quoted as something that could be true, and should be seen in the context of Dbachmann needing to make clear his views on the editors he finds himself dealing with. Rather than complain about any personal attack, why not consider trying to refute his claims? First, ask him to provide diffs to back up his claims, and then take matters from there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)"

Considering many previous incidents [19], and the persistence of hostile, deliberate and verifiable distortion of facts and words, I am deeply concerned of a kind of abusive behaviour that I consider both incendive and contagious to disingenuous elements. Contrary to what has been suggested, I don't count myself among the editors of the vindictive type that have their edits refuted [20] or heavily criticized [21] (this one still waiting for a follow up), or that simply feel threatened for being a weak editor in need of an alpha admin. My own edits are open to review for anybody interested, and liable to rephrasing or tuning for anyone that sees fit, obeying some simple rules. However, the intention to line up en mass to be organized for promoting popular misconceptions, sometimes impying permissivness to abuse [22] or even dangerous negationism, should be properly addressed.

I admit to be puzzled by your words about "the context of Dbachmann needing to make clear his views on the editors he finds himself dealing with". First, because I don't feel this admin is making himself clear at all. To the contrary, I can see him entangled in an increasing cloud of unwarranted statements on other people. So why Dbachmann - in your words - needs to make clear such a view? Here I feel you mean to say: as an admin. Correct me if I am wrong, since so far I considered my disagreements with Dbachmann to be at the level of content and being agreeable. Now, with your interaction, I feel proper adminship is involved as well.

Please supply your feedback in order to make progress in having this matter resolved. Rokus01 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but you really need to find someone else who is interested in taking this further. My advice was general and not intended to indicate that I had the time to look into this. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion at NFC[edit]

I think your idea to keep a separate FU-clean version of Wikipedia articles is really interresting, even thought it doesn't seem to get any traction in the discussion you mentioned it in. Althought I have no idea if it'd be technically and legally possible, this may be something to keep in mind.

Personally, I'm pretty fed up with the kind of discussions at WP:NFC, but I would be willing to participate in constructive discussions, so I just wanted to ask you to inform me if you ever decide to bring it up again. Thanks. Malc82 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Will try and remember. Thanks for following this up. Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, I know you're one of the resident stat trackers. Not that it's an important query, but did you happen to see Wikipedia talk:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something#Question? I figured you're as likely as anyone to know if this has happened before. --JayHenry (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a clue. "Probably" would be my best guess. Have a look at the RfAs that nearly reached 100. I too think that WP:100 should be for those that ended with over 100 supports, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter a great deal. WP:100 is only a bit of fun, really. Carcharoth (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deadline[edit]

Is it accurate per Category:Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008 that we get until Feb 3, 2008 to fix images in that cat? I've forced myself to learn firefox and FURME and now feal confident I could meet such a deadline. MBisanz talk 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise working on that backlog sooner rather than later. It's not really agreed anywhere (it was a bold move on my part to do that), though several people are 'aware' of it. I really hope no-one ignores it or starts deleting without discussing somewhere first. I see it is now down to 879 images from 1563 only a few days ago (21 January). Again, I find it difficult to be sure what has been deleted or not, but previewing the original list I grabbed, it looks like only a few have been deleted, so presumably most of that 600 decrease in the backlog is due to images being fixed. Hopefully with care. Also note that there is now a 4311 image backlog from 24 January to add to the 2755 backlog from 21 January. Neither of those last two have any warning date on them. I'll try and organise an agreed upon date for those two backlogs to be cleared. Carcharoth (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Comment on ArbCom talk page[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, and thanks for the advice here. I hadn't been saving periodically as I was editing back and forth within the text - but you're right, I whould have used a text editor. As for working on a sub page of my user page, I have no idea how to create one - pretty new around here, actually, so if you could explain, that would be helpful. EdChem (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the information on sub-pages. Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

indefinite blocking log[edit]

I saw your proposal to see if indefinite blocking is more common or not.

no written standards causes draconian measures by some[edit]

I find it very amateurish that Wikipedia blocking is performed by volunteers who have no written standards. There should be clearly written standards for administrators to follow. For example, I was indefinitely blocked because an administrator didn't like my comments and falsely called it trolling. I have seen in articles for deletions that reasonable administrators just add comments like "this user has few edits". Such comments are what you call "NPOV" but calling comment that you don't like "trolling" is POV. Worse yet, the administrator removed the comments instead of just adding comments below. I mention this not to seek retribution of the administrator but because there are no written standards so the administrator can do anything he wants. Is this what Wikipedia is - the Wild West or Liberia under Charles Taylor - I hope not!

evidence is suppressed and hidden[edit]

I also see that there is a Category:Unblock. However, there is no record or archive of the decisions. Therefore, if someone's request is denied, there is no reasonable way to audit the decisions. I have looked at the board for a few hours and have seen some quite rude comments denying unblocking request. Even if I don't judge whether the denial was justified or not, the hostile and rude tone is inexcusable.

Based on the temperment of an administrator, I fear that I may be blocked for writing this. However, be reasonable. I mention no names so retaliation against someone is not my intention. My intention is to mention two areas of weakness, 1. lack of written standards for blocking and 2. lack of archives for unblock requests. These suggestions are very reasonable. Whoaslow (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Have a look at User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks. Written standards for blocking are at WP:BLOCK. Archives for unblock requests is an interesting idea. Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free promotional discussion[edit]

Hello, Carcharoth. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. —Bkell (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cfd[edit]

Could you, wikibreak permitting, opine at this cfd? There are quite a few articles which include embedded lists; this makes a neat use of your idea of categorising redirects, IMO. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

Thank you for the advice: "Input from the arbitration committee can be obtained by filing a case here. If they reject the request, then you know where they stand."

Is it a fair thing to do, to ask ArbCom to look at a RFC in progress?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you file an arbitration case. I was suggesting that Vanished user might want to file a case against Whig. I see the filing of the RfC and call for a community ban as an attempt to game the system. Community bans should be, in my opinion, for cases where arbitration has failed. I suspect not many people agree with me, but I think community ban discussions are far more like to be acrimonious than arbcom cases. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I misunderstood.
Based on the few I have seen, these RFC's on user conduct are very acrimonious.
Of course, all the ones I've seen involved the same people.  ;o)
Wanderer57 (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

News from Paul's[edit]

Heyho!

And have you looked at old John recently? qp10qp (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing Eddington[edit]

Yes, that's fun! Wonderful images. I don't think you need to fill in all the gaps before you put it up, but just add some more explanatory material about the link between the relativity theory and the deflection of starlight (for science dunces like me), perhaps. Then you can fill in the various stories and anecdotes once it's up. Bravo! (And there was me fearing articlesticism had lost you to administratoriosis!) qp10qp (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Block questions[edit]

I see above that you're on wikibreak? If this is you on break, let us know when you're fully active so we'll understand why the servers are so slow :)

Anyway, I have a few questions, in case no-one else gives you the software you need:
1. Where does one see unblock's? Are they in the block log and I just haven't found one yet? Can you give me a recent example of an unblock so I can see it logged somewhere?

2. The various block/unblock templates say "please don't subst". Is this request generally/strictly followed? This would make a difference in searching talk pages to find unblock request/response sequences.

3. Would another useful datum be to know whether the user talk page was protected on or after the block? This would be a block combined with a gag order. If it's relevant, where would one find a log of page-protection actions?

Or if someone else is already running with the ball, you can just say "moo" :) Franamax (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold those thoughts. The wikibreak notice was intended to make me feel guilty and do other stuff this weekend. It failed. I will be genuinely busy over the next few days, so here are a few answers in case you find time to run with the ball. Unblocks are logged the same way as blocks - look in the block logs for "unblock". I hope the block/unblock templates are indeed not subst'd - probably OK to assume they are not. Talk page protection could be useful, but lots of unblock requests go to a mailing list or direct to ArbCom. More useful, probably, would be number of edits. Page protections are also in the logs. Look at Special:Logs, and specifically here. Others running with the ball? See User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks. But that's as far as people have got. I think you are the only one running with the ball at the moment. Look after it! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WPAJ[edit]

I'd be interested in more activity from the project as well. Much of the problem is our different backgrounds, everyone seems to be familiar primarily with the journals in our respective fields. I'm really not even capable of reading a medical journal, our science-minded editors don't have much interest in the economics or IR journals with which I'm familiar, etc. Thus it seems that perhaps the most successful thing that we can do as a project is develop guidelines for when to include the various items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Scope. I tend to feel that most any journal which is widely cited is notable, but I wouldn't dare venture to set the threshold for "widely".

I don't have a good idea at all of how to develop standards for conferences and symposia. I recently cited the Proceedings of the International Elephant and Rhino Research Symposium in an article, and it's certainly a valid citation, but an article on the symposium itself seems unnecessary even to me. I'd suggest this as a focus for our discussions. I think occasionally poking everyone to have a discussion will still be an effective way to use the project even if it's not active daily. --JayHenry (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

I have been very impressed with the way you have handled yourself and addressed issues in the IRC Arbcom - I've consistently had the impression you've kept an open mind about all of the issues. I fully expect to have the opportunity to type "support" under your name come November. Best, Risker (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrmm. I might go on wikibreak then. Depends how things pan out this year. There is a lot more to Wikipedia than just ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Which only demonstrates your level of wisdom. I can understand why your interest there could be easily eclipsed by development of new and interesting articles. Risker (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You know your way around, don't you! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Indef block stats[edit]

I've managed to do another analysis - User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks 2. Hut 8.5 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for that. Now to try and make sense of it all... (may take some time). Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's an interesting example for your indef block research: User_talk:Cagey_Millipede#Unblock. Notice how precision in the denial of the unblock request provided the user a path that they successfully followed. Jehochman Talk 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. I'm less impressed with Raul's "reluctant" comment. Unblocks should be done wholeheartedley or not at all. They should give someone a clean slate, not leave them with a cloud of suspicion hanging over them, as implied by the "reluctant" comment. Reminds me of Vanished user's "it looks like there's no call for an indef block, provided you are not a sock" - which is crazy logic. Either prove they are a sock, or drop it. Don't say "I'm going to unblock you, but you might still be a sock". That is just missing the whole point. Anyway, thanks for the example, J, and sorry I never took you up on the Frankish-Mongol alliance situation - I'm following that one with interest now. Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That is an interesting and subtle point. "I will take you at your word and unblock you" would probably have worked much better, while still conveying the same information for the benefit of any future checkuser who might look at the unblock and ask why it was done. Jehochman Talk 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is another interesting case. User talk:CarencroJew. An indef block was used instead of a warning or coaching. Definitely a case of biting. Jehochman Talk 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

introduction to evolution[edit]

Good job of the close. Started messy, and headed for worse. You were right to put an end to it. DGG (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image backlog[edit]

Well it seems progress on the Jan 15 backlog has slowed significantly. Maybe its time to delete? If it matters at all, I've caught up 100% on my logos backlog and am now working with BetaCommand to pre-process that sub-cat for me to work on. MBisanz talk 02:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably do some last minute thing on Sunday, if the category is still there. I hope people do wait until then before deleting. It was only 642 last time I looked, so there is no harm in people being patient and waiting for that deadline to arrive. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WEA MfD[edit]

Hey Carcharoth. I'll re-iterate Risker's praise above, you conduct yourself in a very even handed way from all that I've seen. We have a problem with the IRC arbcom case, in that it has become nothing to do with IRC, and is in danger, if it has not already, of becoming a poisoned well that will sour interpersonal disputes for a long while to come. Arbcom appear deadlocked as to how to handle the interpersonal situation, and we've waited a month now for some kind of movement regarding the IRC issue. They've effectively kicked that into the long grass and appear to be focusing on the 'behaviour' of editors.

I'm seriously considering nominating WEA for deletion again. David Gerard appears to believe the page is now owned by Arbcom. An MfD will first test community support for the notion that pages can be 'owned' as Arbcom contend. Individual Arbs may also benefit from community soundings, before closing the case. Secondly, the very reason for the last close of the MfD was to await the result of the case - this was a month ago and we aren't any closer to any kind of resolution regarding WEA. Third, I'm hoping to take some of the pressure out of the tires at the Arb case - there's a lot of intelligent people over there - Arbs and parties - taking chunks out of each other, who would be better employed expanding arguments to the pro's and cons of the WEA page and #admins in general.

I feel, in part, this situation is actually a result of a previous Arbcom stalement last year. Their weakness then resulted in a fudged compromise where the community was asked to trust there would be more envigilation on the channel, including by prominent arbs, which actually failed to address the issues of accountability and presentation of evidence of misbehaviour there. I know we have a new body of Arbs, but the new order seem as unable to agree as the last. What's I think is needed, is full community debate about the issues - clearly RfAR is the usually forum for examination of behaviour, so we perhaps shouldn't be surprised that the situation there has become as it is - I believe the correct forum for discussing IRC is either a bold MfD or an RFC. My view is there's more to be gained from testing the deletion of the page, we can get a quick sounding and then possibly launch and RFC. David Gerard has now disclaimed ownership - we shall see how keen Arbcom are to keep it, and in the process the new relationship of Arbcom and #admins can be tested and determined.

I'd be grateful for your thoughts. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. My post to David Gerard's page was fully intended to clear the way, and prepare the ground, for an MfD. I'd be happy to do a new (third) nomination based on what you said above, but as I've been very involved in that arbitration case, it might be better coming from someone else. You've been less involved, and your arguments above make sense. If you want to nominate it, go ahead, or we could do a joint nomination. The critical points are: David Gerard and Jimbo appear to have passed responsibility for that page to arbcom - I would even suggest (if the MfD works) moving the WP:WEA page to a subpage of the IRC case, both to preserve the evidence and make clear that the community have rejected the page. Marking historical won't be enough. How much difference it will make to the arbcom case, I don't know. If the MfD fails, I will suggest a move or merger anyway. The options, as I see it, are (please add others if you think of them):
  • (1) Delete outright
  • (2) Move to subpage of the IRC arbcom case
  • (3) Move to meta
  • (4) Move to David Gerard's userspace
  • (5) Move to subpage of ArbCom page (as they now own it)
  • (6) Merge back to WP:IRC
  • (7) Keep permanently
  • (8) Keep until arbcom case finishes and restart MfD
  • (9) Reconvene at a request for comments page
Let me know what you think. I don't have time to write something, but would be prepared to co-nominate and sign something you write. Carcharoth (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll draft something up over the lunch hour and post it here - it can wait until your back on line I'm sure. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) will be the link you need. I'll be around, just not editing much. The critical thing is to make clear that this debate is not just about deletion, but is intended to help clarify some points, and help the arbcom by providing community input about the page. Make clear that early closure and moving the discussion somewhere else is an option, but ask that the nomination be left open for a set time or until it is clear that the wider community are aware of the discussion. WP:MfD is not strictly for that sort of things, but has been used that way in the past. Carcharoth (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, there's a draft here --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. A few things. Is "indentified" a typo? Shouldn't the IRC case link be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC, rather than the talk page? Some links might be useful. Such as User talk:David Gerard#Future of WP:WEA page and (from the proposed decision page) this. The ownership issues appear confused, as shown by this, but the follow up (after David Gerard e-mailed the arbcom mailing list) was on the talk page here. Finally, how do you want to handle the nomination? Just you, and then I add a background comment? Or what? Jehochman refers to a previous example below. Should that be included? I agree that too many options would be bad. My proposal would be to merge back to WP:IRC (keeping that as an information/how-to page - mainly just links), and then create a subpage of the arbitration pages and direct people with complaints there. But that may have to await the pleasure of the arbitration committee, and if created now, should be tagged as "proposed". The root of the problem was an attempt to use WP:WEA to make a complaint - so my solution would be to create a proper venue for such complaints. Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A previous instance that may be of interest: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination). The discussion resulted in deletion of the process, and the page was marked historical. For clarity, I suggest reducing the number of choices offered, or not offering any choices and allowing the community to form whatever consensus they prefer. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman. Am I right in thinking there was a big deletion of one of the WP:AN processes - was it NPA or something - how was that effected (or is the one you've linked, the one I'm thinking of?) I've framed the draft mostly as an opportunity to debate the issues, and given a few examples in prose form - Unusually, I've mostly tried to keep the nomination fairly neutral (as far as I'm able), to hopefully encourage a better quality of debate - I'll give my opinions later. I'm happy to take soundings from anyone that reads this page. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great idea[edit]

I don't think that an MfD on the decision page of an ongoing arbcom case is likely to work out well. The most likely situation is that it will simply be closed early. The chance that that page would actually be deleted without the arbitrators agreeing is, I think, vanishingly small.

On the other hand, I have no particular opinion on the MfD chanes of the WEA page itself. Most likely it will just be moved somewhere else, I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea of MfDing the arbitration case pages is not great, I agree, but that is not what is being discussed here! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I realized that before I added the second paragraph above. It was on my mind since it was being discussed on the arbitration page. It looks like Joopercooper did nominate WEA for deletion; I'll look at that later. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WEA mfd[edit]

Ok - after much bodging I think I've done the nomination here. I think MfDing the Arb case pages is shooting at the moon - the WEA page deletion has some merit - does anyone want to get the ball rolling with the debate? I've got to get back to work. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added something. Don't want to state my views straightaway. One thing that could be done is to link to the talk page bit I pointed out - the half-abandoned "ownership" proposed FoF is a bit misleading. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Just edit as you see fit Carch. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your idea for an essay[edit]

I have been pondering your suggestion here about an essay that would distill down the philosophy employed with success at evolution to combat erosion and improve the article. I think it is a good idea. So how does one write such an essay and where does one go to get it featured as an "official" (if there is such a thing) essay on Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this. Start it in your user space, like Raymond Arrit's Expert Withdrawal thing, and get it in good shape. Then ask selected people for opinions, then gradually open it up to a wider audience. At some point, there should be a move to support making it a Wikipedia namespace essay or proposed guideline. It might even become a guideline at some point if it catches on. That would need a much wider debate, and can be discussed later. The important thing for now is to get a good essay written about this, and to think of a good name for it! Good luck. Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok as a starter, I welcome your comments on this and this too. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)