User talk:Carcharoth

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

Archives

---

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

Request to admins not to provide info to user with legal concern

On 25 January, you put a message on the talk page of Bduke for admins not to respond to requests from another user because there was a legal issue involved. Since then, this user has gotten user DGG to reassemble a deleted talk page for him. This is contained on the talk page of DGG.202.142.220.65 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've asked those involved what happened. See below. For the record, my reference to "legal issues" was based on this edit, which referred to libel. I wasn't suggesting that any actual legal proceedings had been started, merely pointing out that libel had been mentioned, and thus to proceed with caution and ideally direct communications to those who can deal with such things. Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

American Journal Experts

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

I see BDuke's comments at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Journal Experts. I looked again, and I still do not think listing in the manner that this was listed shows notability; the inclusion on the nature.com author information page might have meant something, except it was copied from the company's publicity. There is indeed something odd--the history shows that the first version of the article had a flattering description and also an attack on the company--but you can see it yourself, of course. The company, instead of trying to remove the criticism, tried to remove the article. (The similarity of the names is probably because Blue is the Duke school color; that's not enough to prove it was an employee--a disgruntled client could have done just the same & ingeniously written the article in a similar fashion.) How respectable the company is, is of course not for us to determine.

The question is whether I inadvertently might have done wrong in emailing the deleted talk page, visible to admins at [1]. I do not think I did any harm--it contains nothing that could be seen as compromising the identity of any contributor--mainly an email ad of theirs, which could have come from multiple sources. Obviously the foundation will turn down a request for editor information unless there's a subpoena. Nor did it contain anything remotely viewable as libel. The criticism of the company is the sort we would immediately remove without RSs, and keep if there were, regardless of what the company wanted. I've dealt with similar situations involving term paper companies; trying to post such complaints about the quality of service is fairly routine. Companies commenting here about such things only call attention to the situation; the more sophisticated one realise that. If anyone thinks there is still a problem, email me. there has already been too much public discussion. DGG (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. Just wanted to get something on the record, mainly prompted by the IP post above. Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have only just seen your question on my talk page. I am way behind after spending all day yesterday manning a stall at the Australian Linux Conference. I know nothing further. What is the libel issue? I thought the author was trying to find out whether the guy who wrote the article was an ex-employee of his company. --Bduke (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It was this. But as DGG says, probably nothing revealing in the talk page contents. Still, I don't like the way the user went admin shopping. Carcharoth (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So it was, and on my talk page too. When I first read that, I could not see that anything in the article was a libel, so I must have forgotten it. --Bduke (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"The company, instead of trying to remove the criticism, tried to remove the article." We did no such thing. The page had been deleted off of Wikipedia before we even realized it. Also, I apologize for "admin shopping". First I asked for the IP. That guy said he couldn't see the IP and to ask someone else. So I asked someone else. Was told they couldn't provide me with the IP for legal reasons. So I asked for the talk page from the person whose profile said "ask me about deleted talk pages". If you don't want people to make these requests off of you, don't advertise as such. In any case, the multiple non-logged in IP posts by someone have given me all I wanted. What now concerns/puzzles me is how Wikipedia allowed a blocked open proxy to make that comment way up there. -Blue1 (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be talking to someone who is probably no longer watching this page at this point (a week later). I suggest you go to their talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"if it was a joke"....

Obviously, if I'd been serious, I'd have moved it myself.--Doc^g 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I just finick over categories like that... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing: [2]. I'm always open to lectures and constructive criticism, but just two things. It is best to address my on my talk page, and to check your facts first. You also accused Geogre of edit-waring when I don't believe he has been doing so.--Doc^g 03:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not going to argue the toss now. I'll note over there that you object. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

... has an answer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

your deleted contribs

when the toolserver server yarrow is back up with the database copy I can get you a full list of all your contribs. β^_command 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I could see them myself already? <confused> Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, Ill show you what I mean in a few days. β^_command 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

rationales

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

Wiki-en-L

You're welcome to post as far as I am concerned, but please be aware that my first response included the wrong link (arggh!!) so it isn't exactly pristine. I'm fine with copy-pasting the contents, as well. Risker (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh der!!! Never ask me anything before I have consumed the requisite amount of caffeine ;-). In any case, Steve has posted the link to the wiki-en-L list. Nice summary, by the way. Risker (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: AN thread

Hi Gurch. Would you have time to contribute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The next step? I presume it was you that made this wiki-tech mailing list post at 01:39, about 25 minutes after the Main Page deletion and history merge by East718. What I'm interested in is how you found out about this? Do you know what communications were taking place? If you could shed any light on this, that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How did I find out about it? Er... the Main Page was deleted. It's the sort of thing that gets noticed – Gurch 17:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I suppose so. I'm still trying to work out why this seemed to be discussed for a while off-wiki before finding its way on-wiki. Different cultures in different areas of Wikipedia, I suppose. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to pin the blame for this on IRC or some other form of off-wiki discussion. The blame lies entirely with the users who carried it out. They failed to discuss it with anyone else, through any medium, before doing so; how they communicated with each other is not relevant. No, deletions don't show up in watchlists. But the 13 null edits that were made after the page was restored certainly did. These were made between 01:21 and 01:23. I became aware of the issue at 01:24 when I happened to check my watchlist. At 01:25, I noted this in the IRC channel. No discussion was forthcoming. At the same time I was composing an e-mail to Wikitech-l, to notify the developers, which I sent a few minutes later. Then I went to sleep, because I have a life. Yes, I could have raised the issue on the admin noticeboard and half a dozen other places too, but I figured that would happen anyway, as indeed it did – Gurch 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for clearing that up. Please realise that those who only use on-wiki channels of communication need to be told things like this, as there is no way of leaving people to find out for themselves (as is sometimes done on-wiki). Carcharoth (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The noticeboard thread you just pointed me to was started at 03:14; I realize things move fast sometimes but that's really not that long to wait. And anyone could have gone and looked at the Main Page history themselves and they'd have known just as much as I did – Gurch 18:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. As I've said over there, it is the manually added dummy edits that puzzle me. It looks like there was an off-wiki discussion that went "Hey East and Beta, why these edits and the deletion and history merging?" - "Need 5000+ revisions to help avoid main page deletions in future - remember that joke deletion a few days ago? We are trying to fix that." - "But I've just tried to delete and the warning message is not appearing, you are a few short" - "Oops, you are right, how silly of us" - "Don't worry, I'll add some more" - "Thanks!" and so on. Do you see what I mean? I apologise if I implied you were taking part in any discussions like that, but it is the conduct of the people on the off-wiki communication channels, not the channels themselves, that needs, as others have said, bright lights shone on them. Carcharoth (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: AN thread

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

Well said

[3]An excellent wiki-philosophy. Indeed, I can think of a couple of senior editors around here where this is the only effective way of dealing with them - and any co-editing with them requires extensive application of this principle. Risker (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You're my new crush. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New? Who was it before? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I guess we will find out. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:ME-disambiguation

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

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

Wikibreak my eye

So I see you're busy on AN/I - well put, again. We really have to stop this synergistic writing, however. Earlier this evening, I made a post to Wikback,[5] saying we really had to step away from this SPA mindset; after all, most of us started off editing a single page or topic area...well, at least this time I got to say it first. Risker (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, I did not edit for most of two days (just archiving and stuff), but I hate seeing indiscriminate blocking like that. I am deadly serious when I say that some accounts around now would have been blocked in their early days under the current climate. Wikipedia has changed, but it shouldn't have changed that much. Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG

I think you're concentrating solely on the negative, and I don't think it reflects well on Wikipedia that we often do this to good administrators. The checkuser has just confirmed a nest of twelve socks in three separate groups. The bad blocks were easily picked up and reversed, but the job needed to be done and by doing it I've no doubt that Guy has deterred a number of people who could have tied us up for months over this affair. --Tony Sidaway —Preceding comment was added at 17:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I'm sorry, but you've missed the point completely. I focused on three accounts (none of which are the twelve socks you are referring to), one of which was already unblocked, the other one of which was later unblocked, and the third of which I accepted needed to be blocked (Drstones is too close to the legal stuff), but who I hope can be persuaded to edit other articles. I never made a big fuss about the other blocks, which were clearly meatpuppets and or sockpuppets, though some of the meatpuppets might one day edit Wikipedia properly. Also, I supported JzG in those other blocks and his handling of the Oxford Round Table situation. I spent a long time explaining why I did this review (it is at the end of this post), and Guy and several others have thanked me for this. I'll quote in full what I said:

"And I should probably say something about my response to all this. Firstly, I was trying to take a wikibreak when this all sucked me back in, and that explains why I spent most of yesterday sending people e-mails and not posting on-wiki. After I gave that up as a lost cause, I posted all this and the preceding stuff. To forestall criticisms of how I've responded to all this (or maybe it will encourage such criticisms, I don't know, but I should be the last to object to any criticisms people make of me), I will state openly that I am hypersensitive to incidents like this. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman for an example (and I'm saddened to see how that is ending). I am also aware of Guy's present circumstances (having left two posts to him about that, which I hope were of some comfort to him), and I have asked one of the blocked people concerned to be nice to Guy. My concern here is addressing the ingrained culture that sees blocks like this as acceptable collateral damage. I made a similar long set of posts about the conduct of Betacommand and East718 over the recent Main Page deletion/merge incident. See here for how I handled that. I feel that a thorough and systematic handling of incidents like this helps to resolve them properly, make clear what lessons need to be learned, and help the admin corps as a whole improve their conduct. But this can only work if admins accept that they will, ocassionally, be criticised like this, and accept it with good grace, instead of taking it personally." - Carcharoth 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said over on the talk page of the proposed decision for the MatthewHoffman arbitration case, once something has been resolved either way (either side agrees they were wrong - though sometimes they have to agree to disagree), then I will drop it and move on, and switch to ensuring that lessons are learned and mistakes not repeated (as far as possible). Tony, it might come as a surprise, but supporting someone does not mean being entirely uncritical. Criticism can play a useful role. Oh, and for the record, Guy didn't file the checkuser case - someone else did. I agree with Jehochman: the correct way to handle this is to do the sock analysis, and then block. Blocking and then relying on unblocking and apologies later is risky. See what Trusilver said to Amelia9mm here. You had already commented in that thread and showed no interest in anything other than uncritical support of Guy. You are still commenting in that thread without having read all of it. Consider what Paul August and Jrichardstevens said:

"It appears that this important principle is being ignored with regularity. It is much better to err on the side of caution in situations like this. Disruptive editors will eventually be identified and dealt with soon enough. Good new editors are a necessary resource for the project. If treated poorly they usually leave becoming a permanent source of bad PR, dissuading many others from participating as well. This is a serious matter. One good editor lost does far more harm to the project than dozens of disruptive editors not blocked at the first possible moment." Paul August 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just hope incidents like these raise awareness that more checks and balance and monitoring of each others' decisions may be warranted. Carcharoth has gone above and beyond the call of duty here. If he were not trying to raise these issues, I would certainly be gone from this community and be torching the lot of you in my media classroom (which would be erroneous on my part).

— Jrichardstevens (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that we don't know whether we are getting the balance right, but the second quote above leaves me in no doubt I was right to pursue this matter, though I will note that it was User:B who first noted the incorrect block and carried out the unblock. I just followed things up from there. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

You still seem to think I'm missing the point, even though I've stated my opposition to the fetishization of blocking as plainly as I believe is possible. Obviously your characterization of these blocks as "indiscriminate" isn't helpful. Which was pretty much my original point, really. --Tony Sidaway 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fetishizing blocking. I'm saying it could have been avoided and it would have been more efficient and less bitey to do things another way. Do you see the difference? I too wouldn't mind blocks so much, if only there wasn't so much resistance to unblocking. When you find it a struggle to overturn a dodgy block, either because the admin is missing a point (like we both seem to be doing here), or the community has a collective blind-spot, then it is understandable that there will be resistance to the idea of blocking first and asking questions later. And could you tell me what criteria Guy used to hand out those blocks? To me it looked like he looked through a list of those editing the article or the AfD, and picked some out at random. You do realise that the checkuser he failed to file picked up several accounts that he had missed? It picked up several I'd missed as well, though I did spot User:MedWoman. My point is that while it wasn't totally indiscriminate, it was by no means discriminating enough - it both included uninvolved accounts (User:Amelia9mm), and excluded involved accounts (User:MedWoman and others). Have you even read up on the background to all this, yet? I did ask you to go and read those talk pages, you know. Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we do it better? Yes. Could you have managed your response better? Yes. I think a checkuser and a few block adjustments can be handled without resort to the public handwringing that seems to have become a popular means of expression on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Tony. The next time I see you engaged in public handwringing, I'll let you know. I'm sure you will do likewise. Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

JzG seems to be one of the main people responsible for fetishizing blocks... if not reversed, they turn into bans, and then JzG pounds his chest and insists that the banned people are unpersons and must be treated as pariahs, with all ideas they have ever advocated suppressed and references to them in any way permitted only when part of Two Minute Hates to promote Wikipedian solidarity. By expressing approval for his tactics, people like Tony are acting as enablers for his harmful, abusive style that is doing great damage to Wikipedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You have history with him, right? No, don't answer that. I don't follow everything that happens around here, but thanks for the comment. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes to self

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is it just me...
• User talk:Carcharoth#JzG (where the quote is)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sporadic editors, sleeper socks, and single-purpose accounts

- Carcharoth (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your e-mail (reproduced here with your permission)

1) I noticed the following ANI thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jrichardstevens:

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

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

Amelia9mm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And from later:

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

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

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

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

Carcharoth

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

Thanks for the reply. I actually found the ANI thread to be fairly productive. Have you had a chance to follow up the various links in that long thread? Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick thanks

For your oversight regarding the wikidrama at Oxford Round Table. As you'll see, I recused myself from the entire issue for precisely this reason. Talk about a case of Cassandra complex. Coldmachine^Talk 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I like your quote here: "The minute there's a wikidrama like this it's better to find something else to edit on the 'pedia. You can guarantee that the admin mop, wielded by fallible human beings, will be dirty by the end of it all." That is an instant classic. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As Zenwhat has created the Tao of Wikipedia for us, we need some wiki-Bokononisms, too. This one would correspond to the saying of Bokonon: "Sometimes the pool-pah [wrath of God/shit storm] exceeds the power of humans to comment." SBHarris 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Reply

Indeed - yet another reason also why I am a firm believer that there should be a transparent process by which one can apply to have blocks struck off the record, at the moment it requires about the level of a BLP violation and a very secretive process for that to happen, and I'd guess the great majority of such requests are ignored or refused. As an example, this user, if you examine his block log, should by any measure have a clean one - one was issued completely in error to the wrong entity[6], the other was such an egregious violation of WP:BLOCK that the admin who made it ended up at ArbCom and ultimately resigning under a cloud. The lone block in my log was a case of a pre-emptive block which was subsequently resolved in discussions which should have taken place before, rather than after, any consideration of such. I cite these two cases merely because I'm aware of them, but there are hundreds of others, most of them not involving long-serving administrators (it is always at the back of my mind that were there to be such a process, the two of us would be in a lot better position to action our requests than, say, Jrichardstevens). So I think there should be room for other long-standing users and admins to make such requests on other people's behalf. That being said, though, any such system would need to be safeguarded so that legitimate blocks are not removed, and we don't open up a minefield where tendentious users can avoid scrutiny. Just my thoughts. Orderinchaos 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was some body to appeal to have a block removed. I know Arbcom is busy, so their probably not a great choice, and the last thing we need are more red-tape groups like BAG or mailing-list based operations like Oversight. I'm wondering how the community would feel of a committee of retired arbcommers and medcommers reviewing requests to remove blocks from the record? Obviously they'd have to have left the committee in good standing, but it would put them and their community-based trust to use. MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think expunging of blocks, however transparent, is needed. What is needed is for those unblocking to do so in good grace. To make clear when unblocking whether the block is merely being shortened, or whether an unclear or unjustified block is being undone. And it is very important to use neutral language in a block log summary. There is nothing more annoying than persuading someone to unblock, and than to see them do so in bad grace with a snippy comment like "second chance" or "unblocking" (with no reason), and leaving the sometimes baseless allegations in the initial block log unanswered. A transparent way to annotate block logs would be one possibility, but then that leads to edit warring over what a log should say! I don't think the current system is too bad, because at the end of the say, as long as the block log summary is not offensive, and apologies are made where needed, a short block shouldn't be a big deal for established users. New users are a different matter of course, but they come in a thousand different varieties, and picking out the useful types of new editors from the 'bad' ones is sometimes difficult. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Still on break? You've been away for 30 minutes already :)

Email request for you. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that got sorted, right? I do need a nice long break, so that wikibreak notice is staying there until I can't ignore it any longer... Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image backlog

So we haven't had a new run of BCB since Jan 24, and there are only 50 days left to become compliant for foundation purposes. I know you were looking into a schedule of when we could expect big runs of images. Has anything come of that? I really don't want to get to 10 days left and have a backlog of like 20,000 images all at once. MBisanz ^talk 08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You really need to ask Betacommand. I wouldn't know. Sorry! Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Guessing he was watching us :) Category:Disputed non-free images as of 12 February 2008. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I've got a nice 2000 logo backlog here User:MBisanz/Logos if WP:TODAY ever gets off the ground. MBisanz ^talk 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And Betacommand's talk page turned red-hot with complaints. Would have been nice to have some warning. Would have been able to help field angry users. Hammersoft has been nice an diplomatic at times, and not so diplomatic at other times, but then he was rather alone there, apart from Beta. Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice board

Would you be adverse to the creation of a noticeboard for WP:ME? - jc37 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Email

FYI, you have email. Jay*Jay (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman

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

Vanishing users

Rather than users who exercise their WP:RTV renaming their accounts and then going around removing their old name at random, wouldn't it be better to set up some formal process where they request their name be removed, and then a bot, who has setting to make sure archives and formatting aren't broken, goes around and replaces the names with something other than a generic name. Like say a link to a page descbing the WP:RTV? MBisanz ^talk 06:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be better, yes. If you have time to nurse that idea into a full-blown process... :-) It depends really how many people make this request. People do have the right to vanish, but if we make it too easy, then more people will abuse it. The right to vanish is being legitimately exercised here, but in the past people have abused it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the bot would need to look for variants of the name. For example, where a user name is a full name, just the surname may be used as a short hand in some places. The with / without space form variants would also need consideration. Also, some care is needed. The surname in a topical example is also the title of a main sapce page, FYI. EdChem (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacing just use of the Christian name is another consideration. In general, as that is a common Christian name, that wouldn't really be needed. There would be a lot of false positives there. A Google search should find most of the "surname alone" hits if you restrict it to namespaces. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the amount I know about actual coding for a bot could be inscribed on the back of a smallish postage stamp in largish letters... with space to spare. The programming I did was a long time ago. My intent was to point out some issues to consider. :) As far as christian names go, I think the specific case is unproblematic, but the generic needs consideration. Suppose we had a user Zaphod Beeblebrox who was vanishing - the uses of "Zaphod" may be quite suggestive - particularly on user talk pages where threads would point to the new name. In a discussion thread at AN/I or in XfD (to choose two possible examples), you could get abbreviations like "concur with ZaphodB". Worse, if the user was named in a thread title, it isn't that helpful for the username to be removed from the title if there are abbreviations like "Zaphod", "ZaphodB", and "ZB" dotted through the thread. I think the bot is a good idea, but there is a challenge in the coding! Best, EdChem (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you could get 90% of them by loading the users contributions and checking the diffs automatically. That would only leave comments by others on that user. And usually that a simple username search (without code formatting). MBisanz ^talk 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

New Image for Streamline Cars

Streamline Cars Ltd - Image:Streamlined Car.png

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

Looks good. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Academic Journals Collaboration notice

The current WikiProject Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week is Electrical Experimenter Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

random images

The page you want is special:random/image. No I don't have the copyvios since I was generateing sets of 20 then closeing the tabs as soon as I counted the templates.Geni 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. So special:random/user, special:random/user talk, special:random/wikipedia, and so on, should work? Ooh. This random sampling is addictive! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mostly due to the way deletion is done on wikipedia it creates a lot of ah paperwork. You should also note welcome templates are pretty common.Geni 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to make the blurb at the top of Special:Specialpages tell people to go to Help:Special page for more information, such as these parameters for specifying namespaces. The help page is already linked, but it would be nice to have something more explicit along the lines of "for more information about how to use the pages listed here, see Help:Special page". Maybe I'm too used to having things spelled out like that and everyone else just clicks on the link? MediaWiki:Specialpages has deleted revisions and was edited by User:MediaWiki default, one of those nice developer MediaWiki scripts. Having said that, User talk:MediaWiki default is a bit strange! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image exhaustion

So I can tell your probably reaching a bit of an exhaustion point with the whole non-free image issue. I know I am after fixing 3200 images. I've seen the statements on ways to improve it in the future, and I'd say the single biggest thing would be to recode the Upload screen. If when a non-free license was created, the user was presented with individual form fields for each field of the FUR template, and couldn't submit the image without filling them all out, that would solve 95% of bad drive-by FU images. But I don't know coding, so I can't implment it. And I filed a bugzilla, but obviously its low on the priority chain in the entire MediaWiki universe. MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I suspected, Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c is be interpreted the way [7] I thought it would be. I'd really suggest it be merged with the other page you created that has a neutral title and tone, and either deleted or redirected. I'm thinking for second how a page like Wikipedia:Imagespace/MBisanz and bad FURs or Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution/Durova and Sleauthing would be dealt with. MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee

Responded on my talk page (summary, the block appears good). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:My talk page

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

Hey, thanks! :-) That's really nice of you, and I'm glad that's all sorted out. Carcharoth (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BC Pages

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

Philosophy

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

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

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

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

Disputed non-free images/Images using a rationale template

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

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

Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Shank-boy

Well, the whole discussion went off the deep end, but I wanted to say that not everyone thinks your an evil admin who blocks people for being "pro-Shankbone". Cheers, David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do strongly criticise people if I think there is something that needs strong criticism, but I very rarely support blocks, and some of the claims people were making were, frankly, bizarre. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

fair warning

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

Wrong context

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

A change you should be aware of

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c‎

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

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

If I've overlooked your reasoning on the issue, misconstrued your statement, or taken it out of context in ignorance, please forgive my fault. I'm afraid I've given up on #wikipedia-en-admins, but trouting me via email or talkpage is a viable option. If you can enlighten me on why RfC, specifically one based in the user conduct section, is less appropriate than a subpage of BOTS, that would also be of use. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I went a bit over the top in calling the nomination pointy. I was in the middle of a long argument with Hammersoft at the time. We were both climbing the Reichstag, or trying to. I agree that moving, renaming and archiving would have been OK, but I was rather surprised to see you put outright deletion on the table. Personally, instead of MfDing, someone should have been bold and moved the page to RfC or something. MfD doesn't handle debates about discussion pages well. Hope that clears things up a bit. I do respect you, though I haven't interacted with you a great deal recently. I just get a bit caustic sometimes under stress. Please don't take it personally. Oh, and respect doesn't last forever and isn't constant! There are admins and editors I've respected in the past that I no longer respect or have lost a lot of respect for, and there are some who I've gained respect for. Worryingly, I think the same applies to my own opinions about myself! I sometimes read comments I made years ago and think "Who said that? Oh, it was me..." :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin actions and discussions

Are you going to do anything with this? [8] —Random832 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If I have time. What were you thinking? Essay? Guideline or policy discussion and possible change? Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on your MfD comment

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

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

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

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

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

-BOT Discussion

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

Proposals, proposals, proposals

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

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

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

Request for comment on main page deletion incident

As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)

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

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

Royal Rife

Hi- I sent you an email through this page on Tuesday regarding Talk:Royal Rife, and have not received a response. Did you receive it? HorusFlight HorusFlight (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. Sorry for not replying yet. I'm not sure I can help much. I will try and look at it in the next few days, but can't promise anything. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

FAR comment

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

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

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

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

Maxim

I was going to leave Maxim another user talk note but he deleted the last one and I don't want to appear persecutorial. Could you politely leave him something as a third party? If you don't want to be involved, no problem. I asked Georgewilliamherbert, as well. Marskell (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to go further than the comment I made in the ANI thread about an old block. Maxim has, in the past, accused me of hassling him about things, so I think it would be better if someone else does this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I think there's inevitably going to be a flame-out, with one or both of these editors. Mikka appears to be reverting every comment put to him on his talk page, for instance. I find it all extremely peevish. Marskell (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Status

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

I'm going to say this here...

As Beta's ANI page is already a mess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compare what you wrote here: "How lazy are you people becoming that you demand a bot be coded to do this for you? If it's such an easy code to write (certainly much easier than just writing your own FUR), stop complaining and get to coding." and what I wrote here: "they are often intrinsically lazy [...] and they can program bots (a very useful skill)". As you can see, I'm comparing image uploaders and bot programmers. I'm not unaware of the issues, you know, despite what you might think from a superficial reading of my contribs. I've spent months on these issues, and if you take the time for a calm, reasoned discussion with me, I think we could agree on lots of things. How about it? Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all about working for the greater good of the 'pedia, and improving communication with Betacommand. The problem I have with you, specifically, is found in edits such as this one. There are two completely different sides to this, but Betacommand did not launch a "ridiculous attack" against MMN, nor was their a "witch hunt" for that page. Pure and simply, the page was written in the completely wrong tone, filled with misinformation, and was, at best, a borderline attack page. Turning the situation around and making it seem as if Betacommand has gone after MMN for no good reason is not helpful. Lara❤Love 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In my book, the unsolicited MickMacNee talk page spamming by BetacommandBot was an attack, pure and simple. And the reaction to that page started by MickMacNee was, if not a witchhunt, a gross over-reaction. That page could have been dealt with diplomatically, but Kylu, you, Hammersoft, and others (including Betacommand), insisted on escalating things and having an MfD when a merger or move or archiving after a bit of dicussion, would have avoided the MfD and the DRV. In general, XfD does not work well on discussion pages. Have you never wondered why it is rare to see threaded discussion pages such as RfCs and talk pages, at MfD? Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The spamming of MMN's talk page was in response to what Beta felt as an attack page. Not nearly on the same level. Beta's action was pointy, not an attack. One click of rollback fixed that problem. We had to go through an MfD and a DRV to attempt to get rid of the attack against Beta. And even now, it's a linked archive. So it isn't gone at all. Lara❤Love 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lara brick award

Don't worry, it's nothing to do with you. It's a snide aside at the EPISODE people. Will ^(talk) 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. <looks confused> OK. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the "redirecting is deleting" argument makes its rounds at WT:EPISODE every so often. It's quite a prevalent, but completely wrong, viewpoint. Lara's shown common sense by saying it isn't deletion. You could too qualify for the award for your massive spiel of differences :) Will ^(talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Redirecting is blanking" would be more accurate. Or maybe "redirecting is redirecting"? Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The latter is the one I'd like. Will ^(talk) 16:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd forgotten anchored redirects. Those can be used to redirect to existing content, sometimes content that is older than the source of the redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Wikipedia:FCDW/February 25, 2008. This is long enough for me. If you'd like to make some tweaks or add a comment, feel free. (Though I'd do it before Monday ends.) Cheers. Marskell (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be happy for you just to edit in what I suggested on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I did closely follow some of your wording from the talk. And the graph is yours, of course. So we have a by-line together! If there's any sentence you really don't like, notify me. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion Review for Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c

I would rather strongly object to advertising the DRV. Those who are interested can easily find the discussion from the ongoing AN discussion (on the subpage). This discussion has even (much to my shock) been listed at Template:Cent -- it seems that it's received a fair bit of attention and that encouraging more wouldn't be the most appropriate course of action. It seems (from what I've been hearing) that several administrators (including ^demon in the comment you posted) agree that the page could possibly be seen as an attack page. It's evident that Beta has built up a long list of those who don't like this efforts -- I fear advertising this DRV (after the Bots subpage and the MfD) will only throw fuel on the fire. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I don't really tap much into the off-wiki stuff. Well, OK, not at all. Someone did mention IRC at some point (one of those rare e-mails dropped into my inbox), and some of the on-wiki comments did have that tone of continuing a conversation held elsewhere, which is more than slightly annoying when (like me) you just do stuff on-wiki. The cent listing is a total surprise to me. What I'm interested in is the opinions of those people who, like me, object to discussions being dealt with at MfD like this - and I know those opinions are out there - just rehashing the opinions of those following this closely enough to find the DRV isn't a representative opinion in my view. I'm also slightly puzzled by your logic in mentioning ^demon as agreeing that it "could possibly be seen as an attack page", when I mentioned ^demon as someone who had said it is OK to inform XfD participants of a DRV. But I did ask, and I'll ponder this for now and not do anything hasty. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it was Stifle adding the disputed page to Cent. I thought you meant the DRV was on Cent! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Tangent

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

Can we begin with the things we agree on?

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

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

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

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

Yeah. I agree to all that. And yes, if everyone steps back, I will too. What I will do, if I still feel strongly enough about this in a few weeks time, is continue to try and document the history of the last year, either at that proposed page, or in my userspace. long-term, I don't want "history" to feed the myth that Betacommand and his Bot did a great job under immense pressure and did the best they could. Things could have been done better. There always was going to be damage as a result of the image policy, but the question is whether the damage was limited or not, and if not what the extent of the damage was - a question that will probably never be answered. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Long run, we (e.g. "the community") needs some way to deal with flare-ups like this. Too often, the same six people do 85% of the talking. Sadly it's often some the most exteme individuals, which means that moderate discussion becomes progressivly more difficult. We need a "yellow card" system, where once someone has used up their allotted 5,000 words on an issue they have to yield the floor. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Wikipedia:Red card and Wikipedia:Yellow card! Of course, the different sports have different systems, so the US and English won't understand the differences. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Diff me, for where I've made blockable comments. Lara❤Love 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you want User talk:152.91.9.144. Seems to be a static IP address and editor, though I haven't checked. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi Carcharoth. Are you by any chance available on IRC? I'd like to show you something in this regard what may be useful (in short, I am running LinkWatchers on 722 wikis, which check for additions of external links to wikipedia pages .. it should be able to adapt this to image use .. but not sure what extra load it would give on such bots and in which way that would be useful). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, should add, I am on holiday for a week from tomorrow. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You can e-mail me, but probably better to wait until you get back. If you do e-mail, drop me a note here. Don't have IRC. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to quickly hack the linkwatchers into an image watcher, but that takes time. I will try to do that when I return. If appropriate, could try and make a bot create logs for these for others to go through. I'll keep you posted. Thanks! --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

An idea

User talk:Carcharoth#An idea, User talk:LaraLove#An idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's not good enough for me...

What's not good enough for me is the obvious slant to your position. You're quite willing and have the time to take me to task for my comments, and equally conclude that I'm having some sort of meltdown, but aren't willing to take MickMacNee to task for his blatant personal insult. Concerned for me? I seriously doubt it. I had hopes for you. I knew you were tilted, but you usually remained honest and forthright in your efforts...something I appreciated. Now I know better. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you like, I will take a closer look at what happened there when emotions are cooler. I hope you will too. My initial impression is that as soon as MickMacNee arrived, your stress levels went through the roof and you eventually started saying some things that don't really make sense. I could have refuted some of those points, but I won't for now. I think a more measured, calmer approach, is needed than back-and-forth on a page like that. I'm prepared to write something like this and do it properly, in the hope that it will help. As for the "blatant personal insult", as I said over there, I'm too involved in this - you need to find someone with fresh insight to say whether that was a personal insult or not. I will agree he could have phrased things better, but I don't (at the moment) think it was a personal insult. Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

CAT:DFUI

Do you know if work is still ongoing on the categories whose "deadlines" have been expected? I cleared out about 1.5 K images from Jan 24 on Feb. 26 and I was wondering if the "deadlines" have changed etc. on other cats. Maxim_(talk) 00:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been distracted. Never got round to looking at that one, but don't worry about that. There has been talk of letting all the currently tagged images have a whole month to be fixed, as Betacommand says he has practically finished his tagging runs (except the routine scans of new uploads). If you, or someone, volunteered to carry out a mass check and clear-out of categories at an agreed time on or around 23 March, then there would be no harm in letting the backlog stay until then, IMO. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

(2 of March or 23? It says 2nd on most extension notices) I'm currently considering drafting an arbcom case about this issue overall. Do you think such a step is useful at this point? Maxim_(talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. See a section above. Seems many arbcom cases are being drafted. I'll repeat my position - no arbcom case needed until after the deadline has arrived and passed. It will just distract from the work that is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

When's the deadline for the cat's? A lot of them have a 23:59 2 March as the deadline, you said 23 March. What deadline should I use? Maxim_(talk) 02:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'estimated' wikilink in the notice at Category:Disputed non-free images as of 13 February 2008 needs updated. --Geniac (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think there is consensus to extend the deadline to 23rd March, feel free. You could check with Maxim and/or Betacommand. I'm not extending it any further without more discussion. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean the deadline, I'm just talking about the wikilink to ANI being broken now that the conversation has been archived. --Geniac (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice on fair use rationales

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

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

I dobbed you in

I dobbed you in :) [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RfB

>o< POKE >o<

(grin)

Joking aside, you should... jc37 03:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Young

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

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

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

Evidence for any of these claims can be provided on request (though not until this weekend, hooray spring break!). Thank you for your time, consideration and for alerting me to this discussion. I will go notify BHG immediately as well. Cheers, CP 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)