User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 17

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

Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18


CfD nomination of Category:Middle-earth calendars[edit]

I have nominated Category:Middle-earth calendars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Wall[edit]

I think the difference between your approach and jbmurray's is that he wrote the article on Wall as cultural phenomenon whereas you want to rewrite it as a biography. Apart from anything else, the second approach is made impossible anyway by the lack of biographical information. A person's name at the top of an article doesn't mean it has to be a biography in toto. I've fielded plenty of criticism at Anton Chekhov for writing it as an impressionistic piece, modelled on the style of his short stories, rather than as a biography (though people have ruined that effect now, and I have caved in): but I felt that his biography was boring, while his literary style is what makes him extraordinary. I think editors should be allowed this degree of independence rather than being forced into the lumpen mould of conveyor-belt biography. It's the only way we are going to keep gifted editors from being ground down and put off the project.

Do you remember all the trouble I had at James I of England trying to research the birth and death dates of his children? The reason was that the historians could not be bothered with such stuff, even in lengthy books. Biographical information is not necessarily notable, and in my opinion we should avoid becoming obsessed with it on Wikipedia. I think jb should be allowed to do it his way, and even fail at FA his way, if it comes to that. Idiosyncrasy makes the whole place more fun, I think, and, after all, is justifiable on the grounds of ignoring all rules. qp10qp (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think the difference between your approach and jbmurray's is that he wrote the article on Wall as cultural phenomenon whereas you want to rewrite it as a biography." Yes, this is a nice and succinct way of putting things. I do also have an extended allegory up my sleeve, that takes in village fêtes, little old ladies, and the difference between chocolate cakes and fruitcakes. But I'll perhaps leave that for another day... --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your advice. TONY (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI...[edit]

[1] Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem as far as I'm concerned. That edit reflects more on him than anyone else. Thanks for letting me know, though. If you see anything else happen (outside of his userspace), please remind people that he was warned. Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry. I thought he was reverting my warning there. I see now he was reverting your warning. I should have checked. I'll apologise for giving him that second warning. Carcharoth (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I hand't noticed any of this, but, had noted the referred to edit. So warned [2]. SQLQuery me! 07:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Choco chip cookie.png

Here's a {{WikiCookie}} to recharge your batteries after all the hard work you put in summarizing the MZMcBride situation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Longish post[edit]

I avoid AN/I because I strongly believe that it is harmful to the project as a whole and should be abandoned with all due haste. But as it continues to be used (and defended), one begins to realize that you can't always get what you want. However, that doesn't mean I need to feed the beast. And so, I don't.

You mentioned to me several times that I should discuss deletions before making them. Well, I should point out that speedy deletions are supposed to be things that don't require any discussion. ; - ) But even if I wanted to post somewhere, I guess my real issue is where. Do we have an appropriate forum to announce such things. And, I suppose there's also a concern that making announcements will simply bring out vociferous users who do nothing but drama-monger. The general housekeeping work that I do is (supposed to be) uncontroversial. Though, it seems I can't even do CSD#R1 deletions anymore without someone getting angry. : - /

I think your discussion about the "watchlist effect" is spot-on. Not only do deletions show up in watchlists now, they also show up when attempting to re-create a page. And the detriment vs. benefit of these changes is unclear. One thing that is for certain is that my talk page is certainly busier than it used to be. There's also a "volume effect." For better or for worse, had I made the deletions that I recently made a lot more slowly, fewer people would have noticed / cared. The watchlist updates would have been spread out over days, and the talk page complains would have been spread out over weeks. Which I think explains how a lot of these deletions have been going on for years without any real notice given to them.

You've asked for a deletion analysis previously. I should be able to create something, though I'm not really sure what you're after. A lot of my earliest deletions were a wide variety of speedy deletions. I'll probably have to have a DB query run to get the full list and then it shouldn't be too difficult to parse. I'll get back to you on this.

Thanks for the heads-up regarding AGK's talk page. I read what you wrote there. I don't understand how you have the stamina to write as much as you do... : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I haven't had time to answer yet, but it is good to understand things a bit better. I see AGK has a nifty "backlog of talk page posts to answer" system. I should try that some time! Carcharoth (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I had one of the Toolserver folks pull all of my deletions from the database. There wasn't much I could do too easily to analyze them properly. However, I did remember that I've been writing a user subpage for a few months that you might find interesting. It's sort of technical, but it breaks down a lot of the maintenance work I do. It still needs quite a bit of updating, but it's a start. It's /CSD in my user space. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group (3rd nomination)[edit]

There are better ways of resolving problems with the BAG, such as WP:CENT. The current looks of the MFD is a 9-0 tally (excluding the nominators), and I would just speedy keep this one per WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW, but there are multiple requests on the page to let it run longer. Please let me know if you still object to it being closed early. Useight (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that CENT is one of the other options, but really, a 5-day discussion is not going to harm things. My view is that having the tag on WP:BAG for 5 days (drawing attention to the problem in a way that CENT would not - or do cent discussion tags get high profile visibility on a page?) is better than closing the discussion early and people edit warring again (it has been going on for months). People might say block or topic ban the edit warriors, but I've not convinced that would be the right course of action here because (a) Locke Cole does have a valid point; and (b) those reverting are BAG members, so it is difficult to judge neutrality. This is, again, partly why I didn't want to accept a BAG membership nomination. If the current tag were replaced by one to a discussion, then a close might be a good option. Finally, part of the problem is that Miscellany for Deletions are really sometimes just centralised discussions by another name. MfD came before CENT, and I'm not convinced that CENT solved all the problems or gets people's attention as much as it should. A visible tag on the BAG page itself and other location is the only way to get enough input, I think. Certainly, Locke Cole should have explored other options, but once the discussion is open, moving venue can sometimes be counterproductive. I'd still favour waiting to see what happens. Carcharoth (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Arghh, I got into some lengthy discussion with another Wpedian on other things whilst looking at the MFD. I was going to !vote "whatever Carch says" (with the option to say whatever I thought), but now it's closed. Dang! Sweeping under the table doesn't seem a good approach here, but I guess I'll wait 'til the next inevitable go-round. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page move redirects that were a year old[edit]

Hi there. Could I ask you to look in on the discussion at the bottom of the section here? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied but I can't see why this is an issue. --Kleinzach 08:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you little Carchzilla. bishzilla ROARR!! 12:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

Monthly updates[edit]

Thanks, that's kind of you to say so! TONY (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question...[edit]

.. has a reply - thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

. . . BTW, your note at the bottom of the page[edit]

You wrote: " . . . BTW, your note at the bottom of the page . . . . There are ways to do this cleanly, probably involving transcluding from a subpage, but it can get complicated. Just letting you know there is a solution if you want to avoid moving it down to the bottom all the time." . Thanks indeed. How can I do this? --Kleinzach 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress ( Image Titles[edit]

The following Discussion/Talk about Image:Project Paperclip Team at Fort Bliss.jpg was posted elsewhere instead of at that image's Talk page:

I've come across a Library of Congress (actually, Historic American Engineering Record) picture similar to Image:Project Paperclip Team at Fort Bliss.jpg, which seems to have been taken at around the same time, but where the provided information contradicts what is said at Image:Project Paperclip Team at Fort Bliss.jpg. The image is here, and it says: "34. HISTORIC VIEW OF GROUP PHOTO OF THE GERMAN ROCKET DESIGN TEAM SHORTLY AFTER THEIR ARRIVAL AT THE REDSTONE ARSENAL IN 1950." The image is number 34 on the list here (click on the "53 B&W images" link at the top to get back to the pictures). ... User:Carcharoth (Commons) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

However, the hyperlink identified as 53 B&W images" displays a page of thumbnails with captions -- captions that are themselves hyperlinks to the images. Please note that the hyperlink caption is what generates the inaccurate title for the image and that the actual image in question does not have a title. To illustrate, here is a link that has a different title for the image in question

Also, please note that the file Image:Project Paperclip Team at Fort Bliss.jpg has an Other Versions section, which is where an Edit is appropriate (instead of Discussion/Talk). Likewise, the Image page also identifies that there are differing captions for the Image. Mugs2109 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on topic ban[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, I've tried to reach you by email but haven't heard back from you. I am curious to hear what conclusions, if any, you reached about my topic ban. (I've asked John about this too.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think the pages are currently imperfect in the ordinary way. That is, I think they need to be improved by ordinary, civil editing. On the current interpretation of the ArbCom ruling, however, the pages are likely to become biased in a different way. A particular POV has been identified and is now being actively marginalized. I don't even hold that POV, and I've been banned just for proposing to treat its proponents with a modicum of respect.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I think that probabably means old style/new style, since January would still have been in 1664. These were later comets than the one James saw in 1618, but, reading around this, it seems that Robert Hooke thought one of the comets was the 1618 one returning. Although he actually turned out to be wrong, he was on the right lines in believing that comets were a returning phenomenon, as Halley proved much later. Interestingly, it seems that the scientific community in 1664-65 did not consider the idea of the comet as a portent, which was still a big deal in 1618—shows how far scientific thought had advanced in the interim. One gets the impression from Pepys of a scientific age in full swing by then.

Awadewit and I have put Mary Shelley up for Peer Review, if you can find the time to have a look. Not really my period, but I've immersed myself in the books and tried my best to keep pace with Awadewit. I'd be very interested in your thoughts on the "Naples charge" (see "Italy" section): this is a true mystery, with several equal possibilities: I hope to do an article on it sometime. I cannot solve it, but I wouldn't put that past your intrepid self. I've become obsessed with cracking it. qp10qp (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like an insoluble mystery. Particularly as the child died young. In fact, it is rather depressing reading about all those children dying young. And then I got to the bit where her husband dies in that boating accident: Percy Bysshe Shelley#Drowning. That is a really fascinating mystery! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't find that one so much of a mystery; I don't really believe any conspiracy theories about it. But what happened in Naples is extraordinary because clearly you had four people sworn to secrecy about what was going on. It's Elise who breaks ranks two years later. Basically, she says that Claire had Shelley's baby in Naples, and this is by far and away the biggest clue and the biggest likelihood, it seems to me, yet it seems none of the commentators go for it. My first principle is "never neglect the obvious", but that's exactly what everyone seems to be doing. The reason one has to be on top of one's game with Claire and the Shelleys is that in my opinion the threesome's journals are totally rigged. I don't think most scholars can quite grasp the fact that they are being blatantly duped by people who knew full well the power of diaries and the likely scrutiny of posterity. qp10qp (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting threat looming overhead behind me[edit]

It's not possible to put the threat behind me, because one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia, outside of the missing articles on major topics in tropical agriculture and its pests, is the amount of misinformation or poorly sourced information. This needs tagged. I'm not allowed to tag content as needing sourced on Wikipedia or I'll be banned. Looming threats lie overhead, not in front. I do hope you don't get whatever information you do have on tropical plant diseases from Wikipedia, though. ANd I'm sorry when I see so much bad information returned via google searches that find these Wikipedia wrongs. But, thanks for the note. --Blechnic (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just get banned if I point things out, so there's no benefit in it. Right now I edit crap, and it passes the time.
I shoot micrographs and have issues with false colorization for electron micrographs, except when the colors are for light micrograph sized critters and the colors are correlated with the LM, which is what I do: EM (SEM and TEM) and LM, as usual, then colorize my SEMs only according to my light micrographs. On Wikipedia it's done poorly by amateurs who know nothing about micrographs. For example, there's a featured picture where the carbon sticky tape has been elaborately colorized along with the bug. I was going to post some of my micrographs, but the quality of micrographs on Wikipedia is so poor and the editors so entrenched in keeping the poor ones that it seems pointless. There are excellent sources on-line about tropical agricultural pests, although in my area, tropical West Africa, most are in French--copyright laws in western Africa are diverse and complex. The limits are in the sources that describe the morphology of the pests and the ecology of the ecosystems. Still, there's good on-line material, particularly viruses. --Blechnic (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion Peer Review[edit]

Hello. You would be interested in participating in the peer review of the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image work[edit]

Actually, after receiving some advice by e-mail, I'm going to just disregard Redvers' warning. It seems pretty plain from other opinions that the warning was not serious, and I'm sure Redvers got that message from what others have said. I don't anticipate any problems here. If Redvers replies to the concerns, that would be great, but I don't consider it necessary. Thanks for your work in defusing this, hopefully it results in improvements all around. I've certainly learned something. Kelly hi! 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK - Redvers has responded. However, it seems that Redvers has a minority opinion, and if I modify my approach, the threat can be safely disregarded as irrelevant, I think. Given that a huge proportion of my work has been moving free images to Commons, and the big notice on the top of Redvers' talk page, I now see where the vehemence has been coming from. I will simply avoid this user. I personally think that User:Redvers/Say no to Commons should be sent to MfD as an attack on the good faith of a sister project (most of whose editors are also contributors here) but I am definitely not the right person to do that. Maybe I will call attention to the essay elsewhere, but I will do nothing until receiving your advice. As a Commons contributor myself (I do most of my work there) I find the essay insulting and disruptive, but I can just ignore it if need be. Kelly hi! 18:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom proposal[edit]

I'd be very interested in your take on this current proposed ArbCom decision. Until a few hours ago, the only place this was being discussed on-wiki appears to have been the related proposed decision page and its talk page. Notices have now been posted on WP:VPP and WP:BLP talk page. Risker (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's 19:59, 24 January 2006 all over again... I'm stunned by the facts that
  1. ArbCom issues rulings that clearly create policy,
  2. That there is such a strong chorus of "They can do what they want, live with it," and finally
  3. That stewards appear to simply rubber-stamp ArbCom.
I thought that we, as a community, had outgrown some of this elitism/appeal to authority. I came back to write articles, and this is practically the first thing that I see. *shakes head*
brenneman 00:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Marked as resolved[edit]

Well, I sure wasn't expecting anything better. Save your wind from posting on my talk page in the future. Don't worry, I'll do the same for you. --Blechnic (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point, the threads have to end. If you want your incident to be raised separately, by all means do that. I am currently tidying up some loose ends from that thread. Yours is one of them. Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Both incidents should be resolved now. There shouldn't have been a second incident because there was a month of no problems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe. I think it is more important to be diplomatic. You may have been right, I don't really care. The point is that Blechnic has got the wrong idea about how things work around here, and you should be making that clear, but not in the way you are. I would suggest an action you could take to help resolve things, but it needs to come from you, not me. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a month of no problems, because I'm not allowed to tag articles because you brilliantly harrassed me. Is this forum shopping? I've heard of it. And there's no resolution as long as I am under threat of one more wrong move and I'm permanently banned from Wikipedia. I got the wrong idea? That's what I was told by an administrator. If I got the wrong idea, I was lied to. --Blechnic (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My images[edit]

I like my images, and don't care how long it takes to load the page. And I'm sick and tired of people criticizing my talk page. --Blechnic (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it for now. Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI subpages[edit]

I think it's a good thing the ANI subpages, as it keeps discussion surrounding that particular user centralized in one place. Of course, if any thing did happen in the future, it'd be best just informing ANI of it. Some discussions (that Kelly one) was bridging over 100kb, and some discussions, notable the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil discussion, has now gone to 120kb and beyond. Having that on the ANI page was seriously clogging it up - in fact, in that discussion I believe serious advances have been made, so in that case, it was probably justified for it to have a subpage. I'm only doing it to unclog the ANI page, and some times it bridges towards 300-400kb, due to the weight of one or two discussions, which could still be discussed in some weight on a subpage and also because it states it in the header. Anyway, I'll stop creating/moving subpages for now. Feel free to bring it up at WP:AN, as I think we need a consensus about this. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Large ones, yes. Not all the time, though. I think WT:AN is the right place for the discussion, with a link from ANI and AN for visibility. Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. You go ahead and start the discussion, and I'll copy-paste my comment above. D.M.N. (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind starting the discussion? I need to do something else now. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. I'll leave a note at WP:ANI and WP:AN for visibility. D.M.N. (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

E miail[edit]

No, I don't accept this as anything but what it was and remains now that Ryulong seems to think he wants to continue: a gang band of a bunch of established editors and admins against an unestablished editor. And your comment doesn't remove the threat of being being banned from Wikipedia that Hersford issued. --Blechnic (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough[edit]

Done. Neıl 09:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP remedy in Footnotes Arbitration case and Signpost coverage[edit]

Strictly speaking, the quote I used is exactly true. Whether it adequately summed up the effects that the remedy may result in is certainly another question. The remedy itself is vague, and upon initial reading, the "any and all means" quote seems to be aimed primarily at page protection and deletion, given the clarifying second sentence. Other actions like blocking would seem to encourage compliance with existing policies like the blocking policy. The second paragraph, particularly the "sanctions" part, seems to strongly encourage practices that are already in effect; my assumption given the ambiguous wording is that the sanctions have to hold community muster. The "emergency measures" part may be the only new part of the policy, by my reading, and even that is possibly "de facto" tolerated, assuming that such measures immediately go to community discussion.

Since I can't speak for the Committee, I certainly can't tell whether they meant to create new policy, or clarify existing policy. My understanding is that it was overwhelmingly the latter, and FloNight's recent comment seems to me to encourage that viewpoint.

You are right that I haven't done this much recently; while I handled the arbitration report from August 2005 until July 2006; David.Mestel wrote it from July 2006 until last month. I've been covering for him while he's been busy. Ral315 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnoted quotes[edit]

Heh...I just realized now that I'm using footnoted quotes in my current work, for instance Utah State Route 9#References. Good thing the case didn't actually have anything to do with these :) --NE2 23:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Meaning of "special"[edit]

I suppose the real answer will be somewhat anticlimactic, but here goes:

The word was not intended to mean anything in particular; rather, I was looking for a suitable name for this remedy, and happened to come up with "special enforcement" as a term that wasn't already being used for anything else. The provision is modeled, in spirit, after the existing discretionary sanctions; but, because it's somewhat different in setup, I wanted a distinct name to avoid confusion down the road. Kirill (prof) 00:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wording of some proposals[edit]

I can't speak for the wording of the template, not having authored it, but a large part of the problem you see is essentially with my own writing style—which tended towards overly dense prose to begin with, and has gotten worse after a year of drafting the bulk of arbitration decisions. I try to avoid getting bogged down in my own verbiage, but obviously that doesn't work all the time.

To be quite honest, I'd almost be in favor of having more informal commentary by the arbitrators accompany the formal decision in a case, particularly for broad and contentious cases. This could give us an opportunity to outline our reasoning and motivation in more detail, and perhaps allow the community more insight into how we approach the case. The drawback, of course, is that such openness would quite likely undermine the community's regard for our decisions; we are often not as uniform in our opinions as the votes would suggest, and too much sausage-making out in the open has a way of disturbing people in any case. Kirill (prof) 01:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment; If arbcom was concerned about the community regard for itself, and its decision, we would have seen less of arrogance and pontificating and more humility (more in line with the demeanor of now sadly gone NYBrad and Paul August.) If one ArbCom member habitually Meh′s from the bench, the other has no shame in saying that he does not read the statements that are "too long" to his taste, the third boasts not bothering to read the workshop, the fourth has a habit of saying what he "would like to see", etc., this is not helping in bolstering the community regard. --Irpen 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How is transparency going to undermine anything? ArbCom doesn't have power to begin with. It has agreement from the agents of Wikipedia. Letting people see them reason poorly would give people a chance to speak directly to the causes of the bad result, but demanding that people pronounce by fiat their decisions as if from on high is a sure fire way to give people a choice only of obedience or leaving. I can't argue with your faulty step, if you don't show the steps. If all that we see is nothing at all and then an erroneous idea delivered with utmost force, the result is people leaving or defying. ArbCom is not the U.S. Supreme Court. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Coker response[edit]

Please see my response at [[3]] MBisanz talk 08:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive request[edit]

Can you archive this? I'm afraid that Bishonen and I were editing simultaneously and it was requested I repost this my request to have it archived, but I didn't realize it had been deleted, etc., etc., etc.[4] I ask you as you seem to be online. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a bot that archives it. I also see Bidgee is commenting in a new section. Hopefully someone will be able to come up with some response, as I don't have enough time to deal with it now. Sorry I wasn't around last night to reply earlier. Carcharoth (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

AE Post[edit]

Has a reply [5] . MBisanz talk 08:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Coker and BLP[edit]

Hi. Thought I'd let you know I just banned myself. See the Coker talk page. I probably should have proposed standard medcab back in Jan. But on the other hand Alansohn never made any proposal at all that I can remember. Anyway, I hope you stay active in trying to settle this and hope other outside editors help settle this issue peacefully. Best wishes.12:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talkcontribs)

You should still participate in discussions, just not edit to enact or enforce them, IMO. But thanks for taking this step. I think it will help. I will try and remain (or rather, start to be) active there. Please drop me a note if I fail to keep up with the latest developments. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
When on the Coker talk page, you said "those previously involved"..."should not edit the article but should be free to use the talk page" (paraphrased), does that include User:Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I am simply trying to avoid misunderstandings here. RlevseTalk 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Anyone and everyone, but some people should avoid editing the page itself over the issue in question. At least for a period of time, and certainly not without discussing things first. Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:Alansohn[edit]

May I ask what the reason was for protecting User talk:Alansohn? Does it harm anyone if he creates school articles while he is blocked? It might seem wrong, and maybe you are trying to enforce a break, but is it really going to help if it upsets him? Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been bothered with an e-mail yet, so it obviously doesn't upset him enough. If you don't think it's necessary, remove it. I just was under the impression that the user talk page is only editable during blocks in order for the blocked party to contest his/her block (hence why you can't edit other pages in your userspace that are equally, and perhaps more, trivial). -- tariqabjotu 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC) That has never been the case. The practice has been that user pages are protected when the "unblock" template is being abused, or the edits are inflammatory or violate policies like WP:NPA or WP:HARASS. It is the exception rather than the rule. Risker (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Excuse me for butting in, sorry...I'll get my coat

Something needs to be done.[edit] I've been waiting since the 16th June. Admin's are failing to do what they should be doing here. I've lost my patients with waiting. Some needs to be done now. Blechnic's issue was raised on the 15th of June and was resolved on the 17th, yet I've been now waiting longer and nothing! Bidgee (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like someone to place a note in Bidgee's block log, along the lines of what was palced in Blechnic's, since when I placed the blocks, I placed them on terms I considered equal for what I viewed as equal violations, since Blechnic's has been overturned after discussion, its rather unfair to keep penalizing Bidgee for being less vocal. MBisanz talk 01:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'm uncomfortable about the precedent, but I'll do that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright stuff[edit]

Originally posted here. Other editors invited to review the articles. Responses below.

The copyright thread at ANI is interesting. It got me thinking more about a series of articles I created back in April. They didn't get onto the main page, but they were created by effectively turning biographical data from a database into prose and wikilinking it and finding one or two other sources and tidying things up from there, though some were also built up from a PD DNB edition. The database in question is The Royal Society's Library and Archive Catalogues of brief biographical details of their Fellows. Would you be able to look at this list and have a look at a few of the ones from Augustus Matthiessen down to Thomas Lewis (cardiologist)? There are two points: (1) the copyright status of the biographical data; (2) the use of exact phrases. Regarding the latter, I'm afraid some of the phrases I used were not rewritten as much as they could have been. Compare the following:

  • "'Augustus Matthiessen (1831-1870), chemist and physicist; studied at Giessen, 1852, and at Heidelberg, 1853; returned to London and studied with Hofmann, 1857; F.H.S., 1861; lecturer on chemistry at St. Mary's Hospital, London, 1862-8, at St. Bartholomew's, London, 1868: worked chiefly on the constitution of alloys and opium alkaloids." - User:Magnus_Manske/Dictionary of National_Biography/10
  • "Worked with Bunsen in Heidelberg (1852-1856); isolated Calcium and Strontium in pure state; worked at the Royal College of Chemistry, London (1857); set up a laboratory at 1 Torrington Place to research the properties of pure metals; Lecturer in Chemistry, St Mary's Hospital, London (1861-868); Lecturer in Chemistry, St Bartholomew's Hospital (1868-1870); under severe nervous strain, committed suicide" The Royal Society entry plus biographical data in database form.
  • "Augustus Matthiessen (2 January 1831, London; 6 October 1870, London), the son of a merchant, was a British chemist and physicist who obtained his PhD in Germany at Giessen in 1852. He then worked with Robert Bunsen at the University of Heidelberg from 1853 to 1856. His work in this period included the isolation of calcium and strontium in their pure states. He then returned to London and studied with August Wilhelm von Hofmann from 1857 at the Royal College of Chemistry, and set up his own research laboratory at 1 Torrington Place, Russell Square, London. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1861. He worked as a lecturer on chemistry at St Mary's Hospital, London, from 1862 to 1868, and then at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, from 1868. His research was chiefly on the constitution of alloys and opium alkaloids. For his work on metals and alloys, he was awarded the Royal Society's Royal Medal in 1869. Matthiessen committed suicide in 1870 under "severe nervous strain"." My initial version of Augustus Matthiessen

Note that the Royal Society lists its sources as "Bulloch's Roll; DNB; DSB", though they don't specify which edition of the DNB they are working from, or when the information in that entry was compiled. I've also quoted directly from the award citations, but I think that is something different, and OK (though I should have put references in at the time to make clear where the direct quotes were coming from). If you have any thoughts on this, I'd be interested. You might need to look at a few of the other examples though, as this one (with a large chunk of text in the "database") is not representative. Most are just straight database entries that have been expanded quite a lot. For example, John Allan Broun and the Royal Society entry. Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation and plagiarism are not precisely synonymous. Then there's the issue of competing citation methods. Without spending too much time on this (I'm stretched a bit thin), the short answer is that if you're going to use another author's exact words, they ought to be attributed and in quotation marks. There are several ways to attribute paraphrasings, but it's not enough to mechanically change a word here and there. Take this example as a model for how not to do it. DurovaCharge! 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see a problem with that. The only real similarities are in the order, but this is, after all, chronological. It could use more sources, yes, but the prose is substantially different, and, so long as it's referenced, it's not really a problem. The problem in that ANI thread was that whole sentences and even paragraphs were being used without any substantial changes, which isn't the case here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree (obviously). I think it is the difference between taking a collection of facts and turning them into prose (something User:Polbot did, by the way) and copying or only slightly rewriting a piece of prose that was itself written based on a set of basic data (in the ANI thread case about plants). Going back to the original data, or decomposing the prose and rewriting it, is OK, but it does need care. It is a problem though when some short stub entries in different publications use the same basic style and presentation (for good logical reasons), and it becomes difficult to transmit the same information in the same style without ending up with something substantially similar. Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I chafed in exactly the same way until I got used to it. If a little practical advice is what you're seeking, here's what I do in a pinch: open a text editor, paste the relevant paragraphs from the sources, and then draw a line on the document. Beneath that line I write my own synthesis. In order to counter brief spurts of writer's block I'll pour iced tea and play some jazz. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It helps me, actually, to read a passage, put it down and ask myself what did that passage just say? Sort of the classic reading comprehension exam in grade school. My memory is horrible enough that I can't remember actual passages, but instead I get the overall meaning. For technical terms, lists, or other words that I can't avoid, I use pretty heavily. Every once in a while, I find myself using unmistakable words the source used, and I wonder if that's more of suggestion by proximity or association - as if reading it nearby snuck into my thought patterns. However, I do my best to change them when I find them. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
(e/c maybe e/irrelevant) I can't seem to get at the DNB sources to properly evaluate this, free links? Looking at Matthiesen, on the face of it "the son of a merchant" would rouse my interest - curious phrasing for a writer in 2008. I'm a little biased since I was involved in the Broun and errors on the RS website thing though. Franamax (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The DNB stuff is at User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography. It is the Concise Dictionary of National Biography and the OCR scan is here, though they call it the "Dictionary of national biography : index and epitome (1903)". But looking at the phrase that caught your attention, yes "Son of a merchant" did come from the Royal Society website. Should that have been rephrased? Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, are you worried that you plagiarized? Or are you just curious what others consider plagiarism to be? First, I don't think that copyright violation needs to be determined. I think we can actually hold ourselves to a higher standard instead of feeling relieved if we figure out no laws were broken. I don't know how much of the text in the Everglades article was part of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britiannica, but that had to go. My goal was adding enough material to remove the tag. If it's been done, it's been done, regardless of copyright status. Second, what you did was take a skeleton of text and expand it into a paragraph. I think that's about the same as taking a graph and putting it into words using the numbers in the graph. I don't think that's plagiarism. That's more difficult to ascertain because the examples you gave were so short. It's a lot easier, of course, when there's more prose to compare. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I worried I plagiarized? In some sense, yes, but I am also curious to see where others draw the line and where those articles I wrote come in the spectrum. I did try to aggregate information from at least three different sources, and to present the information in a different form, but sometimes a particular piece of information was only in one of the sources. Citing of sources are needed for verification, but also for attribution. As far as 1911, or other PD text, goes, I thought that the tag remained for ever, but in some ways removing the tag once it has been rewritten enough makes sense as well (the tag will still be there in old versions). Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I will review and rewrite, as necessary, these articles for you:
I have had a couple of conversations on the issue with Carol Spears. In general, Curtis Clark has a good point, Wikipedia doesn't have a plagiarism alert, but this is usually the problem, plagiarism, not copyvios. Yet, I believe that Wikipedia copyrights its own work, and this makes plagiarism problematic, I believe. I'm not a lawyer.

(outdent:) For what it's worth, I looked at a couple of the articles, but as I couldn't access the original sources, couldn't comment. For the example you give above, it looks fine on the whole: you put the phrase "severe nervous strain" in quotation marks; you should also of course have an inline citation there, to make it clear which source you're taking the phrase from. HTH. --jbmurray (talkcontribs)

Copying distinctive phrases from books without quotation marks[edit]

Unique descriptions and phrases copied exactly from books must be put in quotation marks as I did with "in the rock crevices and water-receiving depressions". It is not enough to correctly attribute the source, if the same exact phrase is used it must be in quotation marks. --Blechnic (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case I would add, in addition to unique descriptions and phrases, entire sentences or longer portions of text. It's a simple guideline. --Blechnic (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one problem is that people when they are citing something, they are also implicitly saying: this is where I got the information from. But they sometimes forget that if you preserve the form of the writing, you need to quote and attribute, and well as give a source, but I don't actually think the articles I wrote need much if any rewriting. I'll watch and see what changes you suggest or implement. Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When Wikipedia was young, the threshold for copying was similar to a blog or diary. Now that Wikipedia is established, firm and harsh rules must apply. Wikipedia must follow the same rules as print encyclopedias. No copying, no plagiarism, no moving a few words around. Those who do must be notified and asked to stop. We have to start acting like a trustworthy group, not a band of kids writing half-copied term papers. We also need to have good customer service and courtesy, not gossip, IRC, etc. Model710 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Some actual examples would be nice though. Without plagiarising (obviously!) we need something with which to educate our readers. WP:PLAGIARISM/Wikipedia:Plagiarism or some similar title (maybe "avoiding" in the title?) would be good. I see the latter already exists and redirects to WP:Copyright problems, which has a section on plagiarism. We also have User:Andries/Wikipedia:plagiarism, but not much else. Carcharoth (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the point "distinctive phrases" is key here, as, again also previously pointed out, having important events in the subjects timescale in the same order is simply following a chronological convention; nobody is going to muck around too much with such a basic format (you can do something in the order of "Subject, the 2005 winner of Prestigious Award, was born in 1963 in..." where the notability comes first, but afterward everything will follow the timescale convention. It is when "distinctive phrases" are used without attribution you get into murky areas. Sometimes it is difficult to use appropriate phrases without it seeming to be echoing the source - but often in scientific areas you cannot substitute words like synthesize or reduce because they have a specific meaning within the context - and perhaps no meaningful substitute. Plagiarism will occur only if the original authors train of thought is transported wholly and without attribution into another article - Michael Faradays unwillingness to experiment in the same areas as Humphrey Davy until his mentor had died needs to be written in a dissimilar format to that of the source, because even thought it is true (and well known) it is a turn of phrase that truly belongs to the original author, so it needs to be said differently. This is where some knowledge of the subject is most useful - knowing what is precise and unalterable appropriate wording, and what is the original authors "distinctive phrases" when describing the article. The former must not be altered (as anything else will render it inaccurate) and the latter must be, to avoid suggestion of plagiarism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
LessHeardvanU's last point is very important and may have been the source of some problems with Carol Spears, namely her inability to distinguish a "distinctive phrase" due to limited knowledge of the subjects she was editing. This is, I think a problem with a lot of Wikipedia authors. I've removed phrases from articles that are so distinctive from single sources from well known authors, that no one in the field would fail to recognize the plagiarism, phrases that were used without attribution, without quotation marks, as if the Wiki editor just made it up themselves. I'm not sure what Curtis Clark meant about academics not editing Wikipedia because of the plagiarism, but this is why I hesitate to edit Wikipedia for the plagiarism: I come across articles where living scientists have had their work stolen and used to create an article that gives them no credit. I don't want to seem part of that, so I try to avoid editing articles where this issue arises. There are times in science writing where a distinctive phrase is precisely the choice to use, because altering it changes the meaning as LessHeardvanU points out, but you have to have enough knowledge of the subject to know which phrases are this, belonging to the subject, and which phrases belong entirely to that author. --Blechnic (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on Elonka's talk page[edit]

Carcaroth, thanks for your suggestion that Elonka and I should reach an agreement. I've posted a proposal which I think would be a reasonable compromise - see User talk:Elonka#Proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to show some balls[edit]

This is an invitation to use your real name and to divulge actual credentials, such as work history and education.

My supposition here is that it takes real balls to work with those things being splayed out for everyone to see -- not the splaying of balls, but the splaying of whatever makes you (or anyone else for that matter) think that they have any right to review, vote on and determine the quality of the work of anyone else.

The strength that seems to be felt from an anonymous internet does not seem to do so much to improve the content of 1)this chunk of the internet and 2)the rest of the internet.

I could be wrong, but I am right about this one thing, it takes balls to not work anonymously on the web. -- carol (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's truly amusing. The sum total is invested in Carcharoth, there is no more you need to know. Judge that persona, he has always been consistent, it's all there, take a look through the contribs of Carch. What does it matter who the personal identity is? Judge the editor by the edits, it's all there for you to see. Franamax (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Franamax. You said it better than I could have done. Carol is right that it takes real balls to use your real name on Wikipedia. I have every respect for those that do, but I don't (yet) choose to do that myself. I also respect others that choose not to use their real names, or work under a pseudonym. Carcharoth (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
What about when respecting the anonymous fails though? -- carol (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind the difference between anonymous and pseudonymous though. We are real persons, with real personalities, just like you. We're not really anonymous, it's our same selves using the same names, over and over. You might know me as Franamax, a lot of my good friends call me franco, a long-time nickname. Carcharoth is not anonymous at all, there is only one Carcharoth, with many thousands of edits, and hopefully we will see Carch at Tranche Beta pretty soon (hints broadly:). I don't care so much about the name you use, I care a lot more about your ideas and contributions. However you choose to tag yourself, it's your mind that makes the difference in the end. Franamax (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone may participate. Carcharoth - or I, for that matter - could be a 12-year-old Ham radio enthusiast who has never stepped foot in the gardens of academe. None of that matters. What matters are the contributions each editor makes. We don't need letters after our names to publish material on what we find interesting. We just follow the MoS and cite guidelines and there it is for the world to see. Consequently, we can also review other articles and call into question any part of them. You may do that to mine, as can anyone who has access to the internet, including anonymous IP users. I see that as an advantage of Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Some of the problems I have created and were pointed out in the recent admin thing were when I asked people to either use a word correctly (or think about the use of a word) and I admit myself that words I have used boldly and with the strength of the others around me using them as well in a way which defied their meaning and defeated their purpose. Another incident mentioned is when a claim was made that a software could magically adjust for an aging problem in paper and I asked that this claim be substantiated. In that same administrative call out, a really well written defense was authored by a wikipedian who might be using a real name for his wikiuser name -- that user also provided information which really assisted me in understanding the botany information. So, there was a real name (perhaps), the claim of experience in the scholastic world of the subject and a wiki foot print of actual assistence with the subject instead of the often suggested 'if you don't know what you are doing don't author articles'.
If the twelve year old is making good edits and learning as the child goes and being productive with the encyclopedia; well, god bless this child and I want to be on that team. If the twelve year old is claiming experience in the higher education system and not substantiating this and other huge claims made annoymously, I think that the child should keep watching tele-tubbies (or whatever) until he has improved his self-esteem enough to be happy with who he is and looking forward to being who he wants to be.
I am actually excited if the people being contacted to review articles in my watch list are being contacted to review mine. I would prefer that people who had problems with me because they could not prove their claims about themselves and their tools be stricken from that list and consideration made from the other admin about the qualities that make the group of admin credible or not to the eyes of the users who watch and wonder.
And actually, there should be some place to really thank people for the review? The family Asteraceae is a very large part of the botany section of the encyclopedia; I have been trying to clean it up and somewhat standardize the articles (the taxonomy boxes and giving some articles references that did not really have any -- separating the food from the species and the gardening delight from the scientific presentation) and on the outside chance that review leads to assistance with the goal, I am all that more happy about the situation. -- carol (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you forget to Sine?[edit]

Can't help but notice this. I've told slakr before that I'll never be so grown up that I won't want that handy bot signing after me when I get too enthusiastic for the tildes. He's got an "experienced" directive in there though, as an edit count cutoff for those who should know better. Could we form a posse to hunt him down and demand a software change? I miss having Sinebot around to change my own personal diapers ;) Franamax (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I added myself to some list asking it not to follow me around. Mainly because I tweak stuff a lot and because there are times when you want to add text around something, or refactor a page, and not have a bot sign after you. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Third party for Elizabeth Bentley[edit]

Would you act as a third party for the article Elizabeth Bentley. My additions to the article are still being reversed. There are three people reverting the deletions, that should constitute consensus. The three additions are: her employer, the spelling of her name, and material about whether her death passed with "relatively little notice" while having an obit in the New York Times and the Washington Post. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Another McCarthy-era article. I'll have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
At least he corrected his error, now that I pointed it out. He reverted back to his incorrect version multiple times, each time going back to an error he added. Everyone has pride in their edits, but reverting back to an error, just because you added it yourself, should not be acceptable . --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll pass for now. By the way, have you seen Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? Sounds like an interesting story. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It still could use a third party. There are other issues in the RFC. It could also use a person to massage the paragraph about whether her death passed with "relatively little notice". Maybe you can come up with a way to combine the 4 publishers of her obit into one or two sentences that captures the notability of her death. Its getting very hard to get people to come to RFCs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rosenberg article is great. I like to bring the people on the edges of that era a little closer to the light. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Very cool, where did you find her marriage certificate? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was joking. She wasn't married, was she? having said that, I do see a glimmer of hope here. Turrill was her mother's maiden name, wasn't it? Has that been discussed before? Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a subscription to that gives me access to birth, marriage and death certificates. That is where I find missing middle names. Ancestry also comes with the index to Who's Who which also is a great source for middle names and missing years of birth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the third party changes. Its much better to find a compromise wording or placement of information than just deleting new information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Right, I hate to be a pain, but would you mind looking through the evidence I provided, and suggesting how I could best summarise it? I'm not very good at summarising evidence, I'm afraid; I think I tend to presume people are more capable of drawing conclusions from it than they are. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The way you presented it at ANI was fine (I know, sounds strange). Just laid out slightly clearer, and with the ANI babble stripped away, if you know what I mean? :-) Basically, on a page, with discussion taking place separately from the evidence, without the evidence all intertwined with the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Right. Should I start the RfC now, or wait until after Carol is unblocked and can comment? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As a courtesy, please wait until she is unblocked and can comment. If the RfC goes forward I can think of nothing worse than to smack her over the head with a page full of angry comments at her. --Blechnic (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I agree that you should wait. It is also sometimes best to start off with a draft in userspace. Framing an RfC the right way is tricky, and asking people to look at a draft first can help end up with an RfC that moves things forward, rather than increases the drama. Extensive evidence should still be on a subpage, otherwise no-one will bother to read it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm not an admin, remember? I can't move pages over redirects, so had to leave German chamomile where it was. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. As I said, might move it now, but the other chamomiles are at the common names. Need to check. You could always start a move disucussion or ask at WP:PLANTS yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talkcontribs)


How does User:Shoemaker's Holiday/RFCprep look? The Evidence page will contain the other comparisons from the discussion, maybe a few more if any show up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Incidentally, please ignore what I said about Durova being able to raise her concerns there. I had forgotten that This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. So I guess Durova gets to wait in the queue, which might be a weakness of the RfC system, but I think it is deliberate. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Depends, though. There is some connection, by way of the bizarre accusations made. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Lol! Anyway, I've left comments about it at WT:BIOGRAPHY. Feel free to comment at the link. D.M.N. (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course! :P D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin question[edit]

Carcharoth, sorry to bother you, but you've offered good advice in the past on admin actions. Is it appropriate for an admin to redirect questions about their actions, or anything else, to an obscure subpage in tneir userspace in order to avoid scrutiny? The page mentioned is linked from Stifle's signature. Kelly hi! 20:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Tis a bit strange. I saw that a few weeks ago. I'd raise your concerns with the editor first before seeing what others think. Carcharoth (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again...[edit]

I'm sorry I was snippy to you on my talk page, I didn't realize that people were showing up there due to Jayvdb's link from the plagiarism discussion. Now that I realize that and I've re-read what you wrote several times I've realized that you may have even been lampooning the criticisms made. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Stanovoy vs Anadyr[edit]

Interesting situation. The Stanovoys near Lake Baikal are well-attested everywhere, while my one not-so-detailed map of Anadyr's region doesn't name any of the smallish mountain ranges. It could simply be that there is a minor range of the same or similar name, and the EB editors in 1911 didn't mention the distinction. I would just edit out the ref in the Anadyr article, let somebody else with more info add the real scoop. Stan (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Russert[edit]

I think the paper was trying to highlight the leaking of information. I wasn't aware that it was leaked onto Wikinews too. I suspect, also, they highlighted the project due to the common recognition of Wikipedia. Wikinews should get more coverage and things which Wikinews should be celebrated for shouldn't be assigned to Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to combat the situation except press releases, corrections when there are misassignments, and fostering partnerships with small newspapers and bloggers. --Oldak Quill 12:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The people at #wikinews tell me that Wikinews hasn't had any exclusive or first-to-break stories. A lot of competition between news outlets, I suppose. --Oldak Quill 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Surname lists etc.[edit]

I've been busy this week. I've completely rewritten the scripts that I used to make the lists, and I've only just finished with them. Just 15 minutes before you left your message, I uploaded a new version of User:Eugene van der Pijll/surnames. I'm not yet happy about the formatting of that page, so I'm now doing a new run. Tomorrow, I will have all people on Wikipedia in a database, and I can easily run queries on them, e.g. to make indices.

Just to give you an impression of the scale of the database: I've found 477579 articles on individuals; they have about 175,000 distinct surnames. Of these surnames, 116,000 are redlinks (so they would be inlcuded on User:Eugene van der Pijll/surnames); 95,000 of those redlinked surnames are carried by only one person in the database. I think we'll have to think about how much work can be done by hand, and how much by a bot.

I'll upload some more lists in the coming days; if there are things you would like to see, let me know. I think I'm going to use the Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation project page to put my lists on. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll upload the new, definitive list later today; I think we should invite other people to work on them then. At first, I think I'll only upload the proposed disambiguation pages, where there's more than one person with that name. I see these pages as navigational constructs; to help people go to the right page. That's why they are disambiguation pages; not full articles about the surname itself. That's why I use {{disambig}} instead of {{surname}}. But the preferred location of such lists of people is confusing; I wouldn't mind more feedback on that issue. Since it's only a matter of formatting, I can easily and quickly change this in the entire list. Let's discuss this in a central place later. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've improved the filter to catch biographies, and now I have about 504,000 articles on people. Still 17,000 less than the WPBIO people; I may want to add articles tagged with a {{*-bio-stub}} template, but I'll leave that until the next time I run the filter; it takes about a day to parse the entire database on my computer.
The sample that is now at User:Eugene van der Pijll/surnames is almost the final product. I think it's ready for wider discussion, so I'll put it at Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation soon. I have some ideas about creating an index for these pages; I'll come back to that later -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I do check {{lifetime}} and its redirects (even though I don't like them); the problem with Pedro Abad Santos is that that template was only added on May 29, and the database dump I'm using was created on May 24... I think I have the Unicode problems under control now. The Macs and Mcs will be a problem; I take the sortkeys as the surname (if available), but they are not consistent. I get entries like this one for Maccarty, with possibly another one for MacCarty, McCarty, and Mccarty:
'''Maccarty''' is a surname. People with this surname include:
* [[Jim McCarty]] (1943-?)
* [[Kelli McCarty]] (1969-?)
* [[Darren McCarty]] (1972-?), Adirondack Red Wings player
* [[Chad McCarty]] (1977-?)

That is not good; I'll have to think about those some more. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Mac/Mc business: for the moment, I'll let this rest. I know the output is not perfect, so we need some human supervision in adding these pages anyway. I may yet improve this in the next version of my scripts.
It's perhaps time to ask for other people's feedback. I've taken over the Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation, and put the first page of my list online. (These are all A's, so this does not include any Mc's.) Let's see if people like this thing. I'll spam some related pages with a link to my list in a few days... (I don't have enough time currently) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for notes (and related edits) like this. You consistently make helpful edits of that nature and provide thoughtful feedback in many discussions. I just wanted to thank you and let you know it is appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. It is also appreciated! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

wikisource work[edit]

Since you're serious about this, and also a busy person, I'll give you some bite size chunks of work to get you started, and try to give you a broadest possible understanding of Wikisource in a shortest possible period of time. Prepare for a bumpy ride.

  1. Yes check.svg Done On Latin Wikisource, sign in using your SUL account, and set your preferences to display English. Head to s:la:Liber:De_assensione_Stoici_quid_senserint.djvu, click on the yellow "18", and verify the page. The page has already been proofread, so it should be 100% accurate. All you need to do is verify that the text on the right is accurate version of the image on the left. - 10 mins max. Click edit. If there was only a minor tweak required, make the change. Down near the edit summary is a set of radio buttons called "Page status". Click green if it is perfect. Click blue if you find a major problem. Click Save.
  2. Yes check.svg Done Log onto English Wikisource as soon as possible. You need to be autoconfirmed in order to understand s:Help:Patrolling.
    Thanks for creating an account. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Yes check.svg Done Verify s:Page:A Concise History of the U.S. Air Force.djvu/7 and/or s:Page:NYT - Fatal fall of Wright airship - transcription.djvu/1; or s:Page:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) Page 216.djvu (this is a bigger task, but has a higher profile); or s:Index:Rusk note of 1951 (which is four images)
    s:Page:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) Page 216.djvu was already done, so I did s:Page:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) Page 303.djvu instead. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Yes check.svg Done Proofread s:Page:Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu/163 and/or s:Page:Nietzsche the thinker.djvu/11 and/or s:Index:Publick Occurrences
    Well, when I say "done", I only did one of the three "Publick Occurrences" pages - maybe I'll do the other two another time? Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Proofread s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Veni Creator Spiritus using the pagescan found on the accompanying talk page; it needs to conform closely to the actual presentation in the original. At least one correction is needed: the verse should be wrapped in <poem>Creator Spirit, ... worthy Thee.</poem>. Before you click save, there are a set of "Text advancement" radio buttons. These are the main namespace equivalent of the "Page status" radio buttons (mentioned above) which only appear in the "Page" namespace.
    Once that is done, you can edit Wikipedia page Veni Creator Spiritus, replacing the newadvent link with {{wikisource-lang|la|Veni, Creator Spiritus}} and {{wikisource|Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Veni Creator Spiritus|"Veni Creator Spiritus"<br/>in Catholic Encyclopedia 1913}}.
    Notice that the local Wikipedia page has English lyrics, without attribution. The Wikipedia talk page has a link, but those lyrics are slightly different. A google search brings up one Wikipedia, so it is probable that it is based on the edition listed on the talk page, and adapted by Wikipedians. i.e. it is OR. Wikipedia is littered with these. If I have time, I reconstruct the translation history from the Wikipedia edit history, in order to contact the contributors and try to establish that it is there own work or not, so that I can copy it over to Wikisource with only the appropriate attribution recorded for GFDL purposes, or ask those contributors to recreate the translation from a fresh slate on Wikisource. As often as not, the contributors either cant be reached, or the contributors reply that they copied it from a modern work (i.e. illegal) - I can send you evidence of this if desired. More thoughts on the yet to be written "Wikipedia is not Wikisource" essay here: Talk:Poetry_of_Catullus#Please stop tagging Catullus poems for (re)moval. Only in the most obvious cases do I bother to remove the lyrics from the Wikipedia article, because usually I am reverted.
  6. While on the topic of translations, I suggest you take a look at s:Category:Works by original language, s:Category:Translations and s:Category:Wikisource translations. The last category consists of collaborative translations; sadly policy writing is our strongest point, so our guidelines are not indicative of our ability to manage this. Some of our better examples being s:Max Havelaar (Wikisource), s:Balade to Rosemounde (featured), s:Bible (Free) (specifically take a look at s:Talk:Bible (Free)/2 John), and s:Romance of the Three Kingdoms (this last one is a mind boggling effort - thousands of en.wiktionary entries have been created by the two Wikisource translators working on this project!). John Vandenberg (chat) 09:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Something got chopped off above? Anyway, cool! I went there and knew enough Latin to change my language, and I found a typo on page 20 - "Elcetram" (which I didn't fix) - does that make me qualified to help out too? I mean spotting the typo, not failing to fix it :) Franamax (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing has been chopped off; I am going to be periodically expanding the list. Sure you can help. Sure you can help. If you have found a problem with s:la:Pagina:De assensione Stoici quid senserint.djvu/20, edit the page and mark it as a problem! if you cant figure out the correction to make, just add a "?" so someone else knows where the problem is. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but starting this now. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please advise[edit]

You weighed in at Talk:Reaction to Tim Russert's death, so I thought I would ask you for advice. The folks who argued (and lost) for deletion at the AfD are now tag-team blanking/redirecting the article. I'm at the edge of 3RR, I believe. Is it acceptable for them to do this, and then warn me (as Horologium did at his talkpage) about it? What, if any, recourse do I have about this? I've already started a thread at ANI about it. S. Dean Jameson 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My advice would be to let it go now, and then revisit in a few months time, and then a year's time and then 5 year's time. At each stage, there will be more sources available to make the case for a separate article. It may be, though, that the sources never appear, and that this event (in terms of its media coverage) will become only a footnote in history, rather than a page or chapter, if you know what I mean. As with all events like this, time is need to give perspective. We are all too close (in time) at the moment to judge this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
So, should that not default to "keep" not "delete through redirect"? My problem is that these guys are trying to bully there way to a deletion after they failed at AfD, and have now put me on the edge of 3RR. This is patently anti-community behavior, in my view, as one (Tariq) is open about the fact that he doesn't feel they'll be able to develop consensus to merge, and yet he's now trying to do it anyway as well. Is there no recourse against such behavior? S. Dean Jameson 16:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to butt in Carcharoth, but S. Dean's statement that "one (Tariq) is open about the fact that he doesn't feel they'll be able to develop consensus to merge" is taken out of context. What I said was "We will never achieve consensus for merging, because you will not recognize or accept it." Clearly, that's not the same point S. Dean is conveying. -- tariqabjotu 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Butt in all you like. I've offered to make a list of the 15-20 editors who have weighed in against deletion/merger, as you have attempted to paint it as if I'm the only one. And now one of your fellow deleter/mergers have done it again. Bully for you, right? pun intendedS. Dean Jameson 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And now Fletcher has joined the tag-team. This is ludicrous and tendentious in the highest degree. S. Dean Jameson 16:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It would help if you were less confrontational. Talk to the other editors about this and see if you can find some common ground. I would try different angles to incorporate the material. One of the problems with the article was that it was written too soon. Articles written in the "aftermath" always tend too expand too soon. Wait for the sources to appear and take things slowly. You may not realise it at the moment, but a "no consensus keep" and then a later "merge" is not too bad. Unlike a delete, it can be undone later if a better article can be written, or more material emerges. My advice remains the same: don't get worked up and just see what things are like in a few months time. Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • When I began in the discussion, I was simply discussing. As it appeared that there were some who were going to enforce their views with or without consensus, I basically gave up. Then, today, I decided to try to keep them from simply steamrolling the requirements for consensus. It's apparently not working. If you have some time, look back through the discussion. You'll see that I've grown increasingly frustrated as those on the delete side made it clear they were going to get their way, whatever happened. S. Dean Jameson 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my attitude and tone[edit]

In looking back through my discussion with you (and others of your view), I recognize that I have advocated my position with such vigor that it has led to hard feelings and anger. I apologize completely for the role my tone and attitude have played throughout. This is my first real dispute on Wikipedia, and I have not handled it as I should have. Please accept my apologies. S. Dean Jameson 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's good that you can apologise. You'd be surprised how many people don't do that. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. In looking back through the discussion, I could see how I became progressively more frustrated, and I let it affect both my acions and tone. S. Dean Jameson 21:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is now an open RfC on the talkpage, should you wish to participate. You seem to be a clear-eyed editor, with no ax to grind in the situation, and I think we would all appreciate your input. S. Dean Jameson 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry. No more time today. Maybe later. Carcharoth (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, that's no problem. I'm sure the RfC will be posted for at least a few days, though I'm not exactly sure on the protocol for such things. S. Dean Jameson 13:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've now commented over there. Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the feedback. My response is that I already read right through the Blechnic case the other day, and then went right back to the beginning of his edit history. I would not have made the comments to him that I did had I not done so.

What I've seen right from the outset, as I said at Wikipedia talk, is a user who is chronically sarcastic, abrasive and generally uncivil and who manages to piss off virtually everyone he comes into contact with. So for example, while his prior blocks were technically incorrect and were cancelled, I have little doubt that the real reason he got blocked was because of what Rylong termed his "vitriolic" rhetoric. He seems to leave a trail of upset and ill-feeling wherever he takes himself, and the DYK pages have been no different in that respect, DYK has a bunch of about the friendliest admins you could come across and he managed to piss off virtually all of them in the space of a few posts.

Yes, I'm sure he is an expert in his particular field and has made some valuable contributions, but it appears to me that the damage he is doing on his way equals if not outweighs whatever benefits he may bring. Furthermore because I think his caustic personality is unlikely to be modifiable, I think he is probably inevitably headed for the door whatever the outcome of the current fracas. Just consider that in little more than a month he has already managed to alienate at least half a dozen established admins - that's quite an achievement!

So, you are entitled to see things differently but I have to call it as I see it. His article contributions might be worthwhile, but his interactions with others are problematic. If he is able to modify his behaviour to interact more civilly, then he might become a net contributor, but quite frankly I have little reason to believe he is capable of doing so. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just making sure you were fully aware of the history. Just one warning. It is important to get the balance right. If you continue to predict that Blechnic is unlikely to make it here, I will continue to point out that you seem to have made up your mind already, and are not giving Blechnic a fair chance. In other words, I think what you are doing here is making a self-fulfilling prophecy that is a breach of WP:BITE (specifically, "It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with the policies, standards, style, and community of Wikipedia (or of a certain topic) before they start editing. If any newcomer got all those things right, it would be by complete chance."). Wikipedia admins and editors need to be able to work with a wide range of personalities, not just the "nice" ones. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
would you consider posting something to Blechnic's talk page to show that you want Blechnic to stay
No, I'm sorry, I am not going to state a falsehood. I am not particularly concerned about whether or not Blechnic stays or goes at this point, I just don't particularly want to have anything more to do with them personally. As long as he stays out of my way, I'm happy. Unfortunately, that probably means that either he or I will have to quit contributing to DYK, because I am simply not interested in trying to collaborate with someone with such a gift for obnoxiousness. I have my doubts whether too many other DYK regulars will long be interested in such an arrangement either, but that's just my opinion.
As for considering "what Jay Henry said", perhaps you should consider the response he got to his very generous apology. In it, Blechnic explains that while he accepts Jay's apology, there is no question of he, Blechnic, apologizing in turn because Blechnic was fully justified in being "really pissed off" at Jay for the latter's transgression. That ought to give you some insight into where Blechnic is coming from, but if you need some help, note the total failure to take any responsibility for the unpleasantness of the initial exchange. It was all Jay's fault. Blechnic is right; others are wrong; and as long as you understand that, you and he will get along just fine.
One final comment: while I do appreciate your eagerness to keep an obviously knowledgeable contributor aboard, I think you are making a serious misjudgement here. Blechnic in my opinion is a bully, and even if you manage to patch things up and entice him back to the project now, it will only be a matter of time before he either leaves or is shown the door, but how many other decent contributors he drives off in the meantime will be your responsibility. Perhaps you should also bear that in mind whilst weighing the equation of "civillity versus competence" as you put it. With respect, Gatoclass (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out Blechnic's response to JayHenry. I am aware that the balance works both ways, but I'm dismayed that you have reached such a damning verdict about another contributor without actually justifying it. If you came across one editor calling another editor a bully, what would you do? Again, look at the decent contributions (do you want me to list them for you?) and the articles started or expanded (on the now-deleted user page). I'll also note that you seemed to get on OK with Blechnic at first. Is there any particular reason why this has got you more worked up than if this was another editor on another topic? If Blechnic did apologise and started commenting at DYK again, would you still walk away from DYK? Would you like it if someone else came out with a "it's you or me" comment? I've encountered those before, and it can be deeply disturbing to the person receiving such comments that there are areas they feel they can't go to because someone they've fallen out with is there instead. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"Without actually justifying it?" I'm sorry, but I'm not about to prepare a case just for your benefit. If you want to go ahead with your RFC (although I can't imagine what you think you will achieve by that), I guess I will have to compile a case then. I'm not going to do it for the benefit of just one user.
As for reaching "such a damning verdict" - I wouldn't quite put it as strongly as that. I can only go by the evidence I've seen, and on that evidence it's not a pretty picture. Obviously though, I haven't examined every diff he's ever been responsible for. Maybe I was just unlucky, and all the diffs I happened to click on the other day were negative ones. However, the law of averages says that's unlikely. So at this point I am obliged to maintain my position.
it can be deeply disturbing to the person receiving such comments that there are areas they feel they can't go to because someone they've fallen out with is there
From my POV I am just expressing the way I feel, and I feel that raising the possibility of leaving the field to one's protagonist is about as unconfrontational as it gets! So I'm kind of suprised you would try to construe this as confrontational. I simply don't want to work with the guy, and if he is hanging around DYK I may have to find some other place to make a contribution. And I think I'm entitled to say so. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, from the discussion that ensued, it looked as if he had changed his mind about that retirement. I will refactor it, though, to where he sort of implies that, despite the fact that he seems to think we're all a lot less competent than he could be at reviewing DYK hooks, he's only willing to verify stuff that he personally knows something about. The whole point of including sources is so that anyone can verify these things regardless of subject (I suspect what he means is he that he wants to verify every single fact in the article, whether it's part of the hook or not).

I'm sorry, but that position really ticks me off, and I tend to agree with Gatoclass there about Blechnic and his attitude. Daniel Case (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, he left, and even if he was uncivil, he was still a great mainspace contributor. And I feel partially responsible for that. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's be very clear about what is going on on Wikipedia. When I post a simple comment that something is wrong with an article, it is ignored. The only way to get the sort of attention to anything important on Wikipedia that is necessary is by throwing a fit. AN/I is home to the drama/rama.
"As long as he stays out of my way, I'm happy," says Gatoclass, and this is spot on accurate. The issue to Gatoclass was not the plagiarisms, or the currently wrong fact highlighted on today's DYK, but that anyone would question him or get in his way of winning more and more awards for DYK.
I fail to see what is wrong about only verifying what I know. Since others are having difficulties verifying what they claim to know, like the African article disasters, it seems the safe way to go about it, working within my won knowledge, and the best way to maximize a contribution. I know the sources, I know the styles, I know the background. There are already so many articles it requires more than one editor, yet the only way anyone will be satisfied I am willing to participate is if I devote 100% of my time to DYK, stop writing about the African tropics and quit my job to work full time fact checking? How about I check what I know and other people check what they know?
And, again, I point out, I don't need to check the sources to find the plagiarism. I find the plagiarism first, then I go looking for the sources, and it takes about 5-30 minutes to find the source of the plagiarism. And I always find it, because I am doing what I know.
No matter how poorly the Third World is represented on Wikipedia, there is always something more important than writing about it and filling the blank spots, isn't it? Maybe Gatoclass could slow down in his quest for awards and advance fewer, but accurate, DYKs?
Also, let's face it, I posted the copies, and their sources, and they still ran on the front page. Gatoclass, don't be a pussy, this is about your ego being bruised, and you want me as far away from being able to do that again as possible. You weren't willing to listen to calm posts about issues at DYK, and you're willing to fan the flames to whatever heights are necessary to get rid of me.
Don't be a dick, indeed, but do keep fanning the flames of dickdom.
Meanwhile, African agriculture, viruses, tropical plants languish in the absence of editors, so that Gatoclass can get pretty picture awards for DYK quantity not quality.
--Blechnic (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Calm posts? You mean like this one and this one? That was what you were pinged for, the double whammy on a user in good standing who was obviously already feeling embarassed and humiliated by the minor transgression you picked up. You spoke to a long established user and administrator as though he were some kind of contemptible criminal, when what I saw was a valued contributor who at worst just happened to get a little lazy and borrow a couple of phrases.
So that is the first point I want to make: that if you haven't done so already, then I think you desperately need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, in the latter of which you will find the golden rule of Wikipedia, to wit: comment on content, not on the contributor. Unfortunately, your contributions to talk pages up until now have been a litany of "comments on contributor" and that is something you are really going to have to work on if you want to stay the course.
The second problem I see with your conduct is closely related to the first, which is the bossiness. You appear to like to take charge, and when others resist your moves, you quickly find ways to humiliate and crush them and thus force them to tacitly acknowledge your intellectual superiority. Well - perhaps you've had a lot of success with this approach in life, some people apparently do. The problem is that this is not how wikipedia works. The leadership model here is quite different, and the people who end up leaders here are those who are best at getting along with others and getting different groups of people to work constructively together. So again, if this is how you are used to dealing with people, then that is something I think you will find you have to drop here too. (I'm hoping, incidentally, that I'm mistaken in this impression).
Finally, while I'm not nearly so confident of your potential value to the project as Carcharoth apparently is, I think everyone acknowledges that a person of your obvious knowledge and intelligence could be a fine asset here. In fact, I think it at least as likely that you will ultimately find this project wanting than the other way around, especially once you realize that Wikipedia is actually dominated by fourteen year old kids zealously protecting articles like this. I'd just like to see you contributing your best to the project rather than something else. Let's face it, nobody's perfect, but there are plenty of avenues on the internet for venting one's spleen or demonstrating one's intellectual superiority. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. So my suggestion to you, if you like to engage in such pastimes, is to take that to another venue and bring your more constructive energies here. That way we should all get along much better. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
First, please, read both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before the next time you decide that your administrative duties include fanning the flames by calling someone a dick.
And, speaking of WP:NPA, you don't know my personal life, and you need to get out of it, and out of speculating about my life off Wikipedia, and talking about my personality, rather than providing diffs that show examples that support your comments. Your entire paragraph, after you advise me of Wikipedia's golden rule, is an attempt to invade and speculate upon my personal life. You haven't given any diffs or examples of "bossiness," you've merely commented upon me, rather than the content of any of my posts. If you had posted something and showed how I could have done it better, that would have been a comment upon the content, instead you ascribed a negative adjective to me personally, without any proof. This is the opposite of what you preached just before, when you recommend I read NPA and you point out its golden rule to me.
You then question how this applies to my personal life--how is this a comment upon anything else but the contributor? Is my personal life on Wikipedia? Is the article about my personal life? No, it's not.
The facts of this matter are, there is rampant plagiarism in DYK. You don't act in a way that indicates you want anything done about it. Even though I posted the exact sources from which the plagiarism came, and pointed out an additional problem with the one article, these articles ran on the main page with the plagiarisms and problems still in them. You spent a lot of time searching my edit record, but you spent no time addressing very real concerns I raised, or reviewing the plagiarisms I posted, and when people attacked me for raising the concerns, you did not act like a leader and ask that they focus on content. Instead, you demand that I stop personally attacking, after you've fanned the flames sky high with threats, and you encourage and support their personal attacks by completely ignoring all attacks on me. And by ignoring the plagiarisms to allow DYK to continue running non-Wikipedia writing on the main page.
Your focus is not on the articles. Your concern is not on the articles. When I gave examples of articles I could work on I was insulted for not agreeing to drop everything and devote my life to DYK. Why should I, when you intend to run articles with plagiarisms and unsupported hooks in them, even when they're pointed out? This seems like a bad idea for Wikipedia: I stop writing articles I'm qualified to write, and tell people who aren't interested about plagiarisms in DYK, then the articles run with the plagiarisms and unchecked facts anyhow. What has been accomplished? Nothing.
I don't see you qualified to speak about leadership on Wikipedia, when you tell me to read a policy you break in the next paragraph, and you suggest I waste my time accomplishing nothing, and you allow and encourage the placement on the main page of badly written articles that have been plagiarized from mainstream sources. I used the tool the poster provided and inserted the sources from the DYK articles, and they each returned hundreds of exact matched words, including, in each source, dozens of multiword phrases, excluding things like company names. You allowed this. You encouraged it, by driving me away. Your behavior towards me is not an example of leadership I would follow.
I also don't see you qualified to make guesses on Wikipedia about my personal life.
And, because you are doing that, making guesses on Wikipedia about my personal life. No amount of speculation by you about how I am in my off-Wikipedia life will ever show that you support that you've read and understood WP:NPA.
And you failed to address the important point, again, the articles on the main page that have been plagiarized. There's more plagiarisms queued up to appear, by the way.
I've read some good articles by apparent teenager editors on Wikipedia.
And, I remind you again, of the most important point in this matter: I spotted and continue to spot plagiarized articles in DYK because I am an experienced writer. I don't need the software I used, although it will be convenient to use to find sources. I don't need it, because I am an experienced writer and reader. Other experienced writers and readers are reading these DYK articles and knowing the same thing I know: Wikipedia publishes the work of other writers and claims it as their own.
A leader would have taken the rampaging bull by the horns, not called the person on the sidelines saying, "look there's a bull lose," a dick. If you can't focus on the plagiarism issue, which you appear unwilling to address as long as I am not requiring you to do so, please do consider how you demonstrate your leadership when you start calling people male genitalia.
--Blechnic (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Struck the speculative comments about your personal life, I agree they were inappropriate.
I don't see you qualified to speak about leadership on Wikipedia, when you tell me to read a policy you break in the next paragraph
"Comment on content, not on contributor" is the general rule, it's not an absolute. Sometimes unfortunately we have to comment on behaviour, when behaviour becomes an issue. Like it or not, it's part of an administrator's job to address behavioural issues when users step out of line. However, when an administrator criticizes a user's behaviour, that user is obviously extended the reciprocal right to criticize the admin's behaviour in turn, as you have just done in my case. And no-one is about to deny you that right.
I'm sorry you found my comments above offensive, but what I have tried to do is give you some feedback, to try and indicate to you how someone else is perceiving your behaviour, in hopes that you might accept the need to modify it somewhat. I'm not trying to make any claims about you personally, I am simply trying to indicate to you how you are coming across. You are pissing people off with your caustic responses, and if that sort of thing is identified as a pattern of behaviour on this project, it will usually be considered as disruptive.
It's clear you are not about to concede any misbehaviour on your part, I do hope however that when you've had a little more time to reflect, that you might be prepared to privately acknowledge at least that the sarcasm which you are prone to employ in exchanges with other users may not be helpful on a collaborative project like this. Because it seems to me at least, that your natural aptitude for the withering rejoinder is inevitably leaving behind a trail of ill feeling that is obviously not helpful. I'm just trying to prevent that occurring if possible, for the sake of everyone involved. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I believe what you say here, Gatoclass, particularly after your flaming encouragement for me to leave. Exactly why would I take advice and insights from you? You didn't call the guy to task who screamed at me, "I DEFY YOU!" You didn't bother with the poster who frantically focused on one plagiarism and attacked me for it, in fact you defended his behavior and promoted his article to the front page with the plagiarisms and unverified "fact." The only behavior you seem concerned with is mine, yet you seem to be implying that I'm setting a bad example, while you were not equally concerned about the plagiarism I brought up, and you celebrated my leaving as an excuse to ignore the plagiarism. So, now, you feel comfortable that you aren't simply fanning the flames by acting the daddy role and discussing my behavior? In fact, at this point, you are the single person least qualified to discuss my behavior, you know glass houses/penises/dicks.
The fact remains, no one listens to my simple posts about problems on Wikipedia. No one even heard me until I started getting nasty. You didn't bother listening until then. No one on Wikipedia can be heard when they speak quietly because they are drowned out by the cacophony of voices about 3 year old arguments concerning sock puppets and reinstating some user--conversations that a search of AN/I archives show occur more than a few times a year, every year, and gather the tangential attention of dozens of administrators, while problems like plagiarism and abusive admins who go around slapping users with DICK! get ignored. I will try posting something quiet some time in the future, and just see if I don't get totally ignored. You ignored me the first time I complained about DYK.
If people listened to other voices before they became loud and sarcastic, maybe they wouldn't become sarcastic.
"Sorry I found your comments offensive" is not an apology, it is simply meant to further antagonize the situation. Someone on Wikipedia wrote an essay much less offensive than the penis all the admins like to slap people in the face with, called a no-apology apology. You don't know if I find your comments "offensive," but what you can own is when you are offensive. Then, when you tell other people they are offensive, you might have a leg to stand on.
It's clear you're not about to concede any misdeed on your part, but that you will continue to take every opportunity to fan the flames about misdeeds on my part.
It might make you cough and choke on the smoke during your victory dance, though, so be careful. And I am as concerned about that as you are about me. So, when you can come up with some behavior worth following, I'll think of being less of a phallic symbol/dick/penis/piece of male genitalia.
Sorry you're only sorry that I was offended, not that you acted offensively, --Blechnic (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
As an outside observer (Carch's page is on my watchlist), I think you're being willfully obtuse. You know very well he's not calling you a "piece of male genitalia." That essay is about "being a dick" in the context of acting like a jerk, which you are certainly doing. Were you right on the facts of the matter, initially? Yes. Is your behavior now completely unbecoming? Most definitely. I can personally attest to the fact that a true apology for tone and attitude (without sacrificing the merits of an argument made) can go a long way towards healing rifts. For the record, I have interacted with neither of these two users previously, at least to the best of my knowledge. S. Dean Jameson 17:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Once a man starts throwing his genitalia around all bets are off. Having a linkable essay titled "don't be a dick," is about as lame and low as Wikipedia could descend to, except for having administrators who actually throw it at people. If you want to write an encyclopedia get your head out of your crotch and that other guy's crotch. No example of anyone else's behavior comes well from someone who supports genitalia graffiti. It could just as readily be called, "Don't be a jerk," and be the sort of essay one could actually use in a community that claims its primary mission is writing an encyclopedia. But, no, it's not called that; and guess what, there's one called, "Don't be a pussy," also, which is about being weak. I should be more surprised and disappointed than I am. --Blechnic (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
My concern here is that with the possible exception of BorgQueen, nobody devotes more of their time and energy to the quality of the Did you know project than Gatoclass does. Gato has spent literally hundreds of hours going through hooks, checking against sources, and I've personally seen him stop probably hundreds of articles with problems from going onto the main page. Gato cares more than almost anybody. To me actions speak a lot louder than words. Let's not lose sight of the fact that those actions tell us that Gato class is the one who cares so much he's devoted a huge portion of his real life to the problems. --JayHenry (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I was supporting Gato above. I think that Blechnic has been acting like a jerk. S. Dean Jameson 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
My comment wasn't specifically to Dean. We've gotten a little off track now anyways. The important thing is we all care about plagiarism and stopping it. Let's turn the focus back to that, and come up with ways to work toward that solution. Let's keep in mind that we're all opposed to plagiarism, but it doesn't mean we're going to agree on how best to stop plagiarism. A good rule going forward might be not to talk about ourselves or about other editors, and keep it focused on plagiarism, systems that could stop plagiarism, and potential flaws in those systems. No need for any first person singular or second person pronouns in such discussions :) --JayHenry (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh shit, what a mess. Look, I have quite limited tolerance for wikidrama, and it was certainly not my intention to drive Blechnic from the project - a possibility I'm afraid I never even considered beforehand - and I feel this has all spun into a much bigger deal than I really intended to make it. I just felt I couldn't tolerate Blechnic's sheer fucking arrogance any longer and something had to be said.

On reflection however, while it's true that she manages to piss off quite a few people who cross her path, including me, and while I suspect she may quietly enjoy causing a little friction, I'm not sure her level of disruption is all that serious. And I am also keenly aware of Carcharoth's desire to keep her on the project. Perhaps it would seem a little selfish then, to make my irritation with Blechnic the central issue here.

So at this stage, I am willing to try and put aside the wikidrama of the last day or two, and see if we can perhaps start over. I must add however, that I'm still not persuaded that I personally will be able to work constructively with Blechnic, and I'm pretty unhappy about the current proposal floating around to have Blechnic checking the next update page for plagiarism. If that's what the current proposal is, then I think I might just sit on the sidelines for a while to see how well that works out. If that is not the current proposal, then I guess there is either going to be a discussion about what needs to happen as an alternative, or else it's business as usual. Whatever the case, I'm thinking that I myself might be taking a break from DYK for a few days anyway, as I'm afraid the drama over the last few days has, one way or another, managed to somewhat diminish my enthusiasm. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should not loose sight of the main problem this is all about. The quality of the DYK maintenance is unacceptable. Poorly referenced, POV-pushing and otherwise unacceptable entries get to the mainpage on a regular basis, users who protest get railroaded by the article's authors and DYK admins doing too little to help this mainly because they are too few.
Their being too few has everything to do with a pity shape of the admincorps overall, as there is just a handful of admins who concern themselves with the main part of this project, its content, while there is a plethora who are here to merely "run things", block, hanging out at IRC and drama-boards. My experience is that Gatoglass personally is trying to do the best job he can but with too little help, he cannot resolve this problem. He got too defensive from Blenchic's way of dealing with it while Blenchic was too blunt. Overall, I think we should make every effort to retain a volunteer who takes it upon himself to do some fact checking of DYK candidates and should try to accommodate him in whatever reasonable way. The job he is trying to do is in a great need to be done.
I tried to be more involved in helping ensure DYK quality but I stopped doing this since it is too stressful to deal with the authors of contentious articles who are committed to ensuring their stuff gets to main page whatever it takes. Some examples of my past attempts can be found at the archives of another DYK admins User_talk:Carabinieri/Archive8#DYK_checking, User_talk:Carabinieri/Archive8#Relevance.3F. If there is any hope that we may see an improvement, I will try to help again. --Irpen 21:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
"The quality of the DYK maintenance is unacceptable. Poorly referenced, POV-pushing and otherwise unacceptable entries get to the mainpage on a regular basis, users who protest get railroaded by the article's authors and DYK admins doing too little to help this mainly because they are too few."
It seems there are some people that get my point. A number of other posters on AN/I, in e-mails to me, on my talk page, and on DYK have posted this same sentiment.
Gatoclass, you're missing one major point (well, quite a few) that I keep making: I don't want to fact check DYK. I just want DYK to stop posting plagiarisms and unverified facts on the main page. I want to occasionally read a hook on something interesting on the main page and go to a short, well-written article, that isn't plagiarized. An article about something obscure that I've never heard of or know nothing about. I want you to get it right so that I can enjoy reading DYK.
What I want to do on Wikipedia is to rewrite all of Wikipedia's articles on tropical agricultural plant pathogens (well, African ones) and write another couple of thousand, mostly stub or start class with a few planned necessary big articles, for tropical laymen who grow these plants who have to research the pests and could use readable articles with proper links to peer-reviewed and scientific research laboratory publications on the topic.
And, while I'm doing it, I want to occasionally roam Wikipedia for something interesting to read. But I want it to be something written by a Wikipedia editor, not by one of my colleagues who doesn't write for Wikipedia.
--Blechnic (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
And I want a hippopotamus for Christmas. I find it frankly incredible that you demand that Gatoclass do a job that you're unwilling to do yourself. He is not your employee. What's more, Gatoclass is demonstrably the one who cares about plagiarism and about the quality of DYK as he spends hours working on it and I've personally witnessed him stop dozens if not hundreds of flawed articles from reaching the main page. His actions speak much louder than your words. You are allowed to fine tune and review the process, but that has nothing to do with barking orders and insults at other volunteers. Brainstorming how to fix it is very welcome. Blechnic, please, I completely agree there's a problem. It's obvious to me that Gatoclass cares the most, and that you care, and that the rest of us care as well. We agree there's a problem; it doesn't mean we will agree with every proposed solution. I can state with a great deal of certainty that yelling at Gatoclass is not even a small component of a solution (nor him at you). He has agreed to no longer make this personal, can you please do the same, so that we can move forward? --JayHenry (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to do, since one of the issues Gatoclass brought up was that he didn't want me to do the plagiarism checks.
"...and I'm pretty unhappy about the current proposal floating around to have Blechnic checking the next update page for plagiarism. If that's what the current proposal is, then I think I might just sit on the sidelines for a while to see how well that works out."
But, no matter what I say, you and others will find some way to damn me for it. I'm damned if I do plagiarism checks, I'm damned if I don't devote my whole life to it.
Please explain to me why the only way a problem can be identified on Wikiepdia without being bullied and badgered for identifying it is if you agree to fix it 100% yourself?
Maybe, when he agreed to no longer make it personal, had he not included the personal comment about me, JayHenry, I would not have replied to it. However, again, no matter what I do or say, someone will damn me for it, and protect Gatoclass for doing the exact same thing.
So, in other words, the only way this moves forward is if I agree to do 100% of the plagiarism checks on all articles and Gatoclass quits?
And, yes, why all of you are crapping about me, why didn't one single one of you get any one to back off of me? You won't ever, JayHenry, because it's a one way street: everyone established on Wikipedia can shit on anyone relatively new, but not vice versa. So, people can slam dicks at me, scream at me, make it personal while saying they're not, and demanding that I do, and nothing I say will ever be good enough.
And, yes, that makes perfect sense, Wikipedia's virus articles are a disaster, so take the viral editors and force them by being as disagreeable as possible to them to do something outside of their area of knowledge that no one already working in the area is doing. Maybe if I'm the only one who can do DYK plagiarism checks it ought to come off of the front page. --Blechnic (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
My intention was not to damn you. I disagree with some of the things you're saying. But just because I criticized aspects of your behavior does not mean my intent is to crap on you. I want to discuss this, and I want to fix it, and along the way there will be disagreement. When I disagree I will express this -- something I've done to Gatoclass many, many times on the DYK talk page in the past. As for nobody sticking up for you, Carcharoth made a sincere and concerted effort to get people to back off of you. I also made an attempt to de-escalate, even though I was angry that you accused me of not caring. I really care a lot, and I really am trying to move this forward to finding some solutions. I want to get this focused back on how to improve DYK, but I don't know how to do that at this point. --JayHenry (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How you could start doing it at this point is stop your damn picking on me. Just stop it. Once you decide that you simply cannot pick on me, you'd be surprised the ideas that will flow. You close one door, and you see that the room has thousands of other doors to select from, because you're no longer blinded by the light from the open door.
I wasn't yelling at Gatoclass in my last post, I wasn't making it a personal attack on him, I was trying to focus on the most important thing: making DYK a quality part of Wikipedia. Pointing out that I'm not the only person on the planet who can spot the plagiarisms as clear as a bell: others are reading these, too, and saying, well that wasn't written by the Wikipedia editor. This is something almost all trained writers of nonfiction learn: how to spot plagiarism. It's not a natural skill: it's training.
I was also pointed out something that keeps getting me slapped around: I don't want to search for plagiarism. It's unwelcome coming from me, and the plagiarisms run anyhow, so there's no way in hell I'm going to waste my time with it. So, why doesn't everybody lose the stance that I can't point out how bad the plagiarism is (rotten bad), unless I correct it all then run around damning me for correcting it? My corrections are ignored and the problem is too big and Gatoclass clearly doesn't want me to correct the plagiarisms--he said just that.
And, you know what else can't seem to make a dent? If you have someone who writes well about a topic that they know that is poorly developed on Wikipedia, don't have them do tasks that other editors can do. The articles I've added details on about plants and viruses have sat around underdeveloped and wrong for ages. Articles about big major African trees that no one on Wikipedia knows are trees. Rare hippo reserves that appear in articles, but no one knows these are places where hippos live. Want a hippo all you want, but if you never know where to find them, you're not getting one. --Blechnic (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Blechnic, I am truly and sincerely sorry that I insulted you in the course of this. My anger at being accused of not caring clouded my judgment. I did not intend for my disagreement to ever come across as picking on you. --JayHenry (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't even know what to say. It seems from an outsiders point of view that the people editing DYK don't care if plagiarisms get in or not. This comes across in the many posts and the attacks on me. It also comes across loud and clear every time I read a DYK and see a plagiarism in it.
It's the primary reason I don't want to check for plagiarisms there: the plagiarisms will still be posted, and I will be part of it. For all I've been accused of, you don't think I get a little angry, too? --Blechnic (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
PS That little edit conflict with Bidgee was a good idea of the crap I get accused of and hounded about on Wikipedia. You know, it's hard to get over a bad attitude, when what led up to it never ceases. --Blechnic (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've got this talk page in my watchlist (May have left a comment here in the past). I seen content removed [6] but then notced on what you tryed to do and I reverted my revert [7]. Bidgee (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess from an insider's point of view it seems like we get accused of not caring at all every time a mistake slips through, and get no credit for the thousands of mistakes that the project fixes. At one point I promoted an update where almost all the hooks were related to America. Because of my mistake everyone in DYK took a lot of criticism for not caring about the rest of the world, for perpetuating American hegemony. I have made other mistakes in doing the next update and I find it profoundly humiliating. Because I really do care, and I'm personally ashamed when I make a mistake, both because I've failed my own standards and also let down the rest of the project as well. --JayHenry (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

UNDENT It's so hard on Wikipedia, though, to say that anything is wrong. I'm not used to this type of environment, because I have daily meetings and weekly meetings and monthly meetings that are entirely about what I did wrong. All of my work is criticized by multiple people, all of the time. That's what makes it better. But we sit around and we see what's wrong, and we brainstorm how to make it better, and we move on. When you point out that something is wrong on Wikipedia, some content wrong, or something, it is all taken so personally. There's no way to discuss content. I don't even know how to do it. And, I'm really gun shy, but tend to come out like a shotgun blast, because I have to be ready to be taken down so hard every time. JayHenry, you write so well that you're probably wasting your time being ashamed when you make a mistake, because you would never get better if you never made mistakes, but one mistake you don't make, is claiming other people's writing as your own. I don't know what to do. I do know that accepting the plagiarism is unacceptable in my eyes. --Blechnic (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems there are some people that get my point
With all due respect for Irpen - and he's an editor whose contributions I do by and large respect - he has his own POV on one or two subjects too, and I don't necessarily agree with him when he sees bias in an article. I do try to check for POV issues in DYK submissions before I promote them, and if I have doubts I will generally reject them, ask them to be rewritten, handpass them to a relevant wikiproject, or sometimes try and fix them myself on the fly. So I don't think that too many examples of POV editing get through.
I don't want to fact check DYK
Well then we have at least one thing in common, because neither do I! More importantly, I simply don't have the time to fact check articles, and I don't have time to check them for plagiarism either. DYK is a 24-hour, 7-days-a-week project, and on any given day probably around 60 articles have to be reviewed, about half of which will fail. Even if only five minutes is spent on each article, that's around five hours work total - and we really only have three regular hands there - me, Borgqueen and Daniel Case. So that's approaching two hours work apiece right there. But then there are always the articles that one has to spend 15, 20, 30 minutes or more on, trying to rectify issues that arise. And then hooks have to be trimmed and rewritten, links have to be checked, updates balanced, pictures uploaded and protected, errors rectified, hooks archived, notifications done, etc etc.
There's only so much a few people can do, or are willing to do, on a volunteer project like this. So from my POV, talking about multiplying the time I spend on each article by perhaps an order of magnitude while I try to scan multiple references for plagiarism is just ludicrous. It ain't gonna happen. And if suddenly this is what DYK is going to be all about - laboriously combing references to look for possible copyvios - I'm afraid they are going to have to find somebody else to do it. Either that or they are going to have to start paying much better wages. That's how your proposal looks from my perspective.
On the broader question though - as I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure I see the point in trying to eliminate all possible incidences of plagiarism from DYK submissions, when over 1,000 new articles per day are added to overall. I mean, even if we managed to get rid of it all at DYK, it's clearly only the tip of the iceberg. One might as well stand on the beach like King Canute and order the tide to retreat. So what is actually achieved by all this additional effort? Will anyone even notice?
Additionally, I wonder if your position on this is not in part due to some misconceptions about what DYK is about. DYK is not a place that features "Wikipedia's best new articles", it's just a place that features "Wikipedia's newest articles". It's there to give readers a rough idea of what sort of subjects people are writing about and what a basic new article looks like. The idea being that someone might look at some of these new articles and think, "I could do as good as that!" So it serves to remind readers that you don't need a PhD to contribute here, or to have your contribution valued. It really is an everyman's project. We already have a spot for featuring Wikipedia's best articles, and that is the FA spot. DYK serves a different purpose - in my opinion, anyhow.
What I want to do on Wikipedia is to rewrite all of Wikipedia's articles on tropical agricultural plant pathogens (well, African ones) and write another couple of thousand, mostly stub or start class with a few planned necessary big articles
Great! I'm sure we'd all be very happy if you did that! All I have tried to impress upon you, is to please try not to bite other contributors while you are going about it. Not only because we want this to remain a fun place that people actually want to come and spend their time working on, but because if you continue to irk other contributors, eventually enough of them will be pissed off that they will move to have you kicked out or otherwise sanctioned. Because folks tend to have long memories around here. And I'm explaining this for your own sake as well as anyone else's, because plainly you are here because you'd like to keep contributing as well. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, you know, you keep targetting my bad behavior but you seem to have enjoyed the attacks on me well enough, that I'll take your last paragraph about as much as you've shown I should. If you want to explain something for someone's benefit, start by showing you're not biased against them, it's something you would do with/for other editors, and it's something you routinely do, and, clearly, in this, when you've ignored the attacks on me, that's not the case. --Blechnic (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let me put it this way. I'm quite familiar with Jay and his editing, and I know he does not in general have a civility issue. You on the other hand Blechnic are a new and unfamiliar editor, and I saw what seemed to me like a pattern of behaviour from looking through your diffs. In general, it's only patterns we worry about around here, not the odd inappropriate comment, so in your case I felt something needed to be said, and in the case of a Jay or a Bedford I didn't. So, maybe that's a little biased from your POV. Maybe I was a little unfair. However, I'm just an amateur trying to do his best to keep things happy families here, you know?
What I am trying to emphasize now, is that I think that at this point it would be better for all concerned if we just ended the recriminations and agreed to start over. Yes, mistakes have been made. Yes, things have been said that would have been better left unsaid - some of them, I suspect, from yours truly. But I fear that continuing to discuss rights and wrongs from this point is only likely to worsen relationships rather than improve them. Can we all just please drop this now and get back to editing the encyclopedia? That's what we are ostensibly here for, after all. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have moved on, and you keep asking me to move on. I have no idea what you want from me. --Blechnic (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with plagiarism suggestions?[edit]

You know, Gatoclass, I disagree with you strongly that the plagiarism can't be stopped, and I think that if you feel this way, you may be defeating some reasonable ways to combat the plagiarism. I think it can be stopped. --Blechnic (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we're always open to suggestions. Gatoclass (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made some, they've been dismissed, should I make more? Will they all be dismissed? Is anyone else making any? It seems the focus keeps going back to, "let's discuss moving on," and "Blechnic has to do all the work," but there are many more ways to deal with this situation. How about we go over, honestly, some of the suggestions I've already made, with a mind to making them work? It's a bit difficult to make suggestions when they're dismissed so readily.
I suggest that the responsibility for finding the plagiarism not be among the few DYK editors. I suggested the projects, this was roundly dismissed. If there are not enough DYK editors to do it, then some way must be found to get another group of editors to search for plagiarism. How about making an award for finding plagiarism? --Blechnic (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How about making an award for finding plagiarism?
Hmmm, actually, I think maybe that's one thing we could try. Awards are definitely an effective way to motivate at least some people around here. So while that may not be the whole solution, it would probably be a step in the right direction. Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, awards for finding plagiarism, but for those who have submitted an article that has significant plagiarism in it, another 5 days to rewrite the article, and let's not worry about warning the plagiarizers except for serious repeat offenders. But, the article comes down for 5 days for fixing, along side a nice note explaining that the text must be in the editors' own words, not the words of the source. This takes the need to badger and try to fight for promotion and leave the plagiarism in, while giving adequate time to fix the article, and not punishing the many, many folks who just don't seem to understand the concept, while teaching them something useful, and not making a big deal out of people who are just careless or confused, or who, in good faith, were mixed up on the situation. --Blechnic (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with all these ideas, however, I suggest you now take them to the Wikipedia talk:Did you know page, where I already started a discussion about this proposal. Gatoclass (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Off topic[edit]

I've seen this in my watchlist (No idea why it's in my watchlist) and I feel both sides are at fault with digs at each other but Blechnic needs to cut out the attatude to other editors. Bidgee (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Cut it out, Bidgee. You're just here to provoke the situation. There was already enough flame fanning on other pages, which is why it was move here. If you came here just to get in a free jab to me, you've done the wrong thing. --Blechnic (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to "provoke" you nor am I here to "jab" you! As whats been stated before in this talk page "comment on content, not on the contributor". Bidgee (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Says the user who came here solely for the purpose of commenting on my behavior? Everyone, please just ignore Bidgee, and I will also. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to seem them continue to edit but comments like this[8] (and the comment above) are rather showing that they're unwilling to tone the attitude and uncivilness which can put editors off from editing. Last thing I want to see is an editor who is willing to help in the DYK getting banned. Bidgee (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is everything OK now?[edit]

Hey there, Blechnic, Gatoclass, JayHenry and Bidgee. I get back from the weekend and find this long discussion on my talk page! :-) I've briefly read through it, and it looks like you've all had a chance to talk through some things. I'm hoping everything (or most things) are OK now, and that the specific discussions can carry on elsewhere, but let me know if there are problems in the future. I'll try and drop by DYK as well if I get the time. Otherwise, I'll archive this discussion at the normal time (for my talk page) at the end of July (well, maybe a bit earlier as I'm going on a wikibreak towards the end of July). If you want to copy bits elsewhere, or link to this, it will be in the June-July 2008 archive. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything OK? Well, I don't know I'd go that far :) Not just DYK, but all of Wikipedia has a never-ending uphill struggle teaching people about plagiarism and copyright and neutrality. DYK needs constant attention and improvement. And as Blechnic notes there's sometimes a crippling amount of inertia entrenched in everything we do. But as far as your talk page is concerned: well, let's just say sorry that we had a bit of a brawl and left all these broken beer bottles in your living room while you were gone for the weekend. There's more drinking to be done, but in other places and hopefully under friendlier circumstances :) Feel free to archive. --JayHenry (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Still a few minor cuts and bruises, but hopefully nothing that won't heal, so I think you can probably safely archive this now. But before you do, allow me to just add a small comment in appreciation of your own intervention in this debate, which added a valuable "outside" perspective that I think probably assisted in its resolution. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the space, Carcharoth, and for leaving us alone in it. For which I don't exactly give you IQ points....
Thanks JayHenry, and Gatoclass for trying so hard to work with me in the face of insurmountable odds, and for making me see that you do care about plagiarism on Wikipedia, and that others also care.
I do okay with working with people on articles, in spite of appearances, because it doesn't bother me to see my work corrected, usually improved, expanded, sourced, and corrected where necessary. But, sometimes things irritate me, like bad micrographs, and plagiarism, and others ignoring these issues, or not taking them immediately to the high level of importance I want at this instance! I am pretty damn competent if I could find a way to just edit without getting drawn into things that irritate the hell out of me--someone early on offered to negotiate this aspect of Wikipedia for me to allow me to edit, and both of you are thinking, "find that editor!"
I think a lot of people have put too much time into Wikipedia for Wikipedia to accept second-rate. And, still, there is so much more that could be done. But damn there's a lot of inertia for accepting things as they are.
I have a summer language immersion course for a new field/research position and limited time to edit this summer. --Blechnic (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism software[edit]

I'm not sure if Blechnic is contributing anymore or I'd ask there. Can anyone tell me the software they are using to find plagiarism? Ref. above "I used the tool the poster provided..." and "I don't need the software I used, although it will be convenient...". I'd sure like to know what that is. Sorry for interrupting this thread! Franamax (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, Someone posted (at the ANI thread I think) . I didn't try it myself. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this has been sorted. Sorry! Working my way through a talk page backlog. Carcharoth (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Introductory articles[edit]

There is a discussion at Template_talk:Introductory_article#What_does_generally_accessible_mean.3F about what the introductory article template really means. It will be helpful if you weighed in. Thank you. Loom91 (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Commented over there. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Any Idea[edit]

...where CBD disappeared to since Jan?? Or why? // FrankB 07:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. Have you tried e-mailing him? Let me know if that fails and I'll see if I can get hold of him another way. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Not for a while, think I did a while back (?3 months???!) but may be misremembering conflicted with user:David Kernow... but it was likely it was both. DK's email bounced back, so I know that addy is dead. Conrad's? Depends on whether my address book is still alive. My email crashed around then (3-4 months ago) and was monitoring some things via the web interface from the ISP, but reluctant to do a lot with no file cabinets, and so I've minimized emailing lately. Not having the addressbook sucks too. I need to backup things so don't have these point failure modes... All that was royally delayed... Couldn't find my OS CD-ROM, which a reinstall from the CAB files was insisting upon. Ironically, my oldest turned it up just two days ago--somehow it got from the attic to my wife's desk drawer--a mere two floors aways. (Don't tell Jon, but I suspect he scarfed it when he was having laptop problems and didn't put it back. Teens are good at the "didn't put back" part!) Pretty sure it'll all resurrect okay... had to reinstall last fall too, though can't recall why. It was probably related to loosing my power supply. Or new A/V software maybe? (Is there anyone that can remember why he's had every problem overcome on a PC? Not! Too many!) Right now, I'm off to bed. Just pulled an all-nighter after I was having trouble staying awake around ten when I opened up the laptop again... Oooops. Thanks. // FrankB 09:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce and RAN[edit]

Hiya, I see that you've been helping out at Talk:Elizabeth Bentley. I was trying to help out at Talk:William Remington too, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that the dovetailing of these two users has gone into WP:LAME territory (and I see that you mentioned that at the Bentley page). They are clearly exhausting community patience.

I've been thinking about how to deal with things, that doesn't involve just blocking both users. Aside from the fact that they disagree, one of the things that seems to keep causing problems, is the technique of using "revert" as an idea of compromise. So I'm thinking that maybe we should put both of them on 0RR restrictions when it comes to each other. They can change edits, but not just blanket delete/revert. Think that might help? --Elonka 00:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they handle things OK with Bold, Revert, Discuss cycles, but the problems come when they carrying on reverting with minimal discussion, and where no-one else contributes to the discussions. I would suggest they are urged to stick to 1RR, and to discuss things on the talk page, and if they still can't agree, to seek out a third opinion. I tried WP:3O the other day, and it seemed to help. I would also happily provide a third opinion, or another alternative, or suggest a compromise when they fail to find one, so I don't think 0RR is needed quite yet. Anyway, sorry for the delay. I'll try and drop you a note, but if you see this, could you let RedSpruce and RAN know? It seems my talk page was used over the weekend for a long discussion at what was presumably a "neutral venue" (see above), so I'd be happy for them and you to discuss things here if that would help. Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, which kind of 1RR? One per day? Or per week? --Elonka 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking one per issue, but why not let them decide? Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce at G David Schine[edit]

  • Here is a summary of the same deletion multiple times, despite 3 editors reversing his deletions. Saying he is just removing quotes from references is a red herring. Even if consensus is established the edit warring continues: Here Redspruce removes facts not added to article by himself on May 01, reverted by AlanSohn and again the same deletions here back to his version on May 08. Again during an active Arbcom on this very subject. He does it again on June 02, reverted by AlanSohn and once again on the same day here, again reverted by AlanSohn; again here on June 06 reverted by me; June 15 reverted by BioPhys; and again here on June 19 and it is reverted by me. The only common thread to the deletions, is that the information was added by me. I believe that is why Elonka is calling is disruption and harassment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Something interesting from Mackensen[edit]

You might wish to comment on Wikipedia:Devolution, a proposal to address some issues related to Arbcom workload. Risker (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks quite complicated. Need to read some of the other proposals as well, including the ones from FT2 (um, I mean from ArbCom!). Some of the ideas that FT2 posted (regardless of whose ideas they were) look interesting as well. Would be good to centralise things a bit. Too much to follow at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Three days worth of editing to catch up on[edit]

I was away over the weekend, which means I now have more than three days worth of editing to catch up with (and some fairly major WP:ARBCOM developments to look at in more detail as well). It will take me a while, so if you've posted to my talk page, e-mailed me, or are waiting for a reply elsewhere, please be patient. If it looks like I have forgotten something, or an issue is urgent, please drop me another note here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm good look - there's a hell of a lot to catch up on. It's been a bad weekend for the wiki :-( Ryan Postlethwaite 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, that will sort itself out eventually, I think. There are enough people commenting on it right now. I'll get to it later in the week, I think. I've decided to concentrate on clearing my talk page backlog today. Carcharoth (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom history[edit]

Thanks, Carcharoth -- I edited my comment accordingly. — xDanielx T/C\R 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano enforcement[edit]

That's exactly the motion I was thinking of, and it's a pity it stalled. It may well be worth resurrecting it as I still believe it has considerable merit. Unfortunately what went on over the block/unblock/reblock of Giano also calls for a look at the activities of other editors, which justifies a new case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Got 1 of 2[edit]

I got an email from you a few minutes ago. I did not receive the prior one to which you refer. The filtering on my work email is not under my control, but I do have an Outlook rule to actively put those starting "Wikipedia" in a particular folder. This is the second I've learned died enroute in recent days. GRBerry 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Resending now. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

Is this an acceptable fair use rationale? Jehochman Talk 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Would need to be of direct relevance to a passage of text in the book, or used on an article about the book. I can't imagine either being acceptable. The article on the book would get deleted, and the article on the two religions, well, I see that is up for deletion as well. That feels like a PHG contrast and compare thing (which I must say, in case PHG is reading this, I always found very interesting, despite all the stuff about sources). Oh. Looks like I was right. Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The parent article also has a bunch of maps without sources. These appear to be original research. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Given the article is at AFD, it isn't worth addressing the rationale until the AFD closes. After all, if the AFD closes delete there will be no articles using it and the image will go anyway for other reasons. But in the long run, no that is not a good rationale. The article doesn't even quote the book, so it is false, and if it were true then it still wouldn't be a good reason for using the book cover. The only information this cover adds is that the authors also wrote The Jesus Conspiracy, which isn't mentioned in the text, and there isn't enough data for a reader to interpret. GRBerry 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that the AfD will close no consensus. As was noted during arbitration, PHG was very good at creating articles that looked good, but failed source verification upon deep inspection. Many people commenting at the AfD do not realize how badly compromised this article is. If you look at the history, you will see that it was mostly written by PHG. I also find his writing to be incredibly interesting, and if he published a book I might buy it. Alas, Wikipedia is definitely not the place for that sort of writing. I open to any ideas about how to fix this problem without starting major drama. It is my assumption, at this point, that PHG has turned over a new leaf. However, we still have much work to do to clean up past issues. Jehochman Talk 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the amount of work being done to clean up after another editor who is being shown the door at ANI via a community ban discussion? I'm not even sure whether the Sadi Carnot mess ever got fully cleaned up. I had to ask a physicist the other day to check an article that SC had edited. It is these sort of cases where stuff gets bedded into articles, and it very hard to identify and extract, that makes me very uncomfortable about the Wikipedia model. Simple mistakes are easily caught and reverted, but subtle, chronic damage, is much, much harder to undo. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Carcharoth. This is why I am keenly interested in finding such mess makers and stopping them at the earliest possible moment. Jehochman Talk 23:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've seen small glimpses of that other project. I think we need to encourage more bold total article replacements. That was how I salvaged Otis Moss III from an AFD last month. I used the existing article as a topic identifier only, went and did research, rewrote it from top to bottom, then replaced all the article content in a single edit. It takes significant effort by a reasonably knowledgeable editor to do that, but it eliminates all the prior subtle errors. It works on obscure topics; it won't ever work on edit war topics. GRBerry 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree very much with your approach, GRBerry, but this Buddhism and Christianity article is high profile. Such a replacement edit would be reverted, and the resulting discussion would be very long. As PHG has created or expanded dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, that approach may not be scalable. I am tempted to ask the Arbitration Committee to implement another remedy in this case: "Any administrator may blank (or replace) entire sections, or articles, where PHG has added information that is either (1) unsupported by a citation, or (2) cited to an obscure or inaccessible source. Such edits should be noted on the talk page with a link to this decision, and logged at {drop in subpage of arb decision}." Something like that would allow us to clean up the mess within a reasonable time frame. What do you think? Jehochman Talk 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested to comment, I have taken this matter back to WP:RFAR. Jehochman Talk 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley[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/Geogre-William M. Connolley/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/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair?[edit]

I'm curious about your use of "To be fair" [9]. It can be just null-padding; or maybe you really mean that you think its fair that they not do this. I would disagree with the second interpretation William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was talking rubbish, and I've now changed it to "to be frank". Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Cheers William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Good idea. Please be sure to include commentary made on WMC's talk page; I posted stuff there which he apparently deleted by accident then I had to ask him to reinstate it, and added a message about the Tango arbitration case, and I believe several others were posting there as well. Risker (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Will take a long, long, time. There is lots and lots of stuff. Mostly rather boring, but some of the timings are interesting. I'll save what I've done so far in a few minutes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping - relevant email en route. Risker (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Same old[edit]

I believe this was discussed at enough length. Can you please quickly look at this activity? This will help you better understand what the problem is. I have to go now and I don't have time to talk to the guy since, from my experience with self-appointed image taggers, one post won't be enough. If you, or anyone who watches your page, can explain to the guy that the url is not the only possible source and that the dead url is as good as a no url and does not make a clearly PD image non-copliant bla-bla-bla, it would be great and save me and others time to clean up. Thanks, --Irpen 00:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you were busy with other matters while I was off-line. Anyway, I am back and wrote to a user. Luckily, he was off-line and did not tag any more 300-year old art as "unsourced". The thread below is fascinating. I will address it separately. --Irpen 03:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Sorry about that. Let me know if you need any help. Some of those images could do with online links to sources - it will stop it happening again, even though it is not technically required. Some way of showing where the scan came from - it is honest to do that - or at least provide a similar link if the original can't be found. Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree that the valid url is always a good idea. But its absence in itself does not make an image non-compliant and it is next to impossible for me to locate the exact image whose copy we are using by searching the web myself. At least it is very difficult and the cause is not good enough for me to spend hours on that. I think, if we cannot find the source and the uploader is not around or can't remember, if the patroller is still obsessed about lack of URL despite it is not required, the patroller is free to spend time finding a web-page with exact same image. Problem is that it is difficult while going on a tagging spree is easy and makes one feel important and making a difference. I know I sound cynical. Seen too much, --Irpen 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There was a project to try and get people adding in source URLS. Ask User:MECU (I think). Oops. The image clean-up month was June. Maybe he meant June 2009? <sickly grin> Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


In re "Decorum," I think it's an interesting exercise to step back and consider whether there is any other editor on this project who requires such exquisite care and delicacy when handling, lest ye accidentally provoke a disaster. I for, have never learned how to tell that I think he's being a dick and ought to cut it out without being told that I'm a naive asshole in service of a conspiracy. I find this, on the whole, a frustrating experience as you can well imagine, and it's a major reason why I've left the administration of this project to others. I think we can only be grateful that many of our editors are prepared to accept criticism of their actions from people outside their circle of friends without issuing a torrent of abuse. I don't know how to heal the breach and end the cycle, but it's time for people on all sides to acknowledge the problem and discuss it honestly. I've said it before and I'll say it again--we can't go through this every 3-4 months. Something to think about. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My view is that there are plenty of other editors that require "exquisite care and delicacy when handling". The trouble is most of them have left. Because they were mishandled. Giano is made of sterner stuff than that, and also cares deeply about the project, which is why he is still here. If that was acknowledged more forcefully, that might heal some breaches. I think a complete rethink and protection of Giano (strange though it may sound) would actually solve the problem completely. Does anyone really think Giano is a clear and present danger to the encyclopedia? Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly right. Giano is only a danger to create featured content. We have real problems with editors who are wrecking articles. Let's focus on articles, not personalities. Giano is very easy to get along with in my experience. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree--does that not also apply to Giano, who focuses attacks on arbitrators and administrators whom he does not like? Mackensen (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
For my part, I don't, but I also think that the manner in which he comports himself, particularly in relation to those editors who have volunteered their time to administer the project, is completely unacceptable. Imagine if everyone did it. Do you think the Arbitration Committee hasn't wrestled with this issue? Have you noticed the way they bend over backward to accommodate him? If Giano was willing to meet them halfway, to acknowledge that he acts like a complete son of a bitch sometimes (and that it's a problem), I think we could make some real progress. Except that it's always Arbcom's fault. Or the IRC conspiracy. Or someone other than himself. I have rarely, if ever, seen anyone acknowledge that maybe Giano is responsible for his own behavior. Always it's provocation. As though no one else on this project has ever been provoked. I don't care much--having heard the same jeremiads for over two years it's in one ear and out the other. I don't like to see the institutions of the project run down by this endless and pointless bickering, and I don't believe that Giano has anymore a legitimate grievance that could justify his conduct. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... Carcharoth, I fear that adding your talk page to my watchlist this week was a mistake. The traffic you get is far too interesting for me. The psychic pain of power being questioned. Has a single article of the encyclopedia ever been disrupted by Giano? What exactly is this that we can't go through? Are any of the anonymous horde of editors on this project, with unflagged accounts and non-marquee names--that silent but overwhelming majority--worried about running afoul of Giano? In fact I'm very worried of running afoul, but Giano is among the last editors who is any sort of disruptive threat to editors like me. Such exquisite care and delicacy when handling is a funny sentiment--the sort of thing that Petunia Dursley might say during dinner to Harry (never mind that Giano isn't some orphaned ward; handling him is such telling word choice) whilst completely oblivious to Dudley's behavior the next chair over. Oh yes, it's always Harry's fault. Lock him under the staircase, Vernon--we can't go through this every 3-4 months!--come Dudley, let's go get ice cream.
Oy, I gotta take this off my watchlist, Carcharoth :) I have no clue how you do it but bless you for the temperance. --JayHenry (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I haven't made your acquaintance. Obviously my loss. Airy indifference and contempt was never my strong suit. Apparently for you ignorance is a virtue. If you like, I'd be happy to explain the context, much of which predates your time here, but I don't sense any desire on your part. Please inform me if I've misapprehended your purpose. Mackensen (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See, Carcharoth, that's really what we're up against here. JayHenry is quite clever to respond in that fashion; visits to Giano's talk page tended to get the same mixture of flippancy and literary name-dropping. I'm trying to argue that people ought to treat each with respect while being compared to a hideous caricature of Thatcherite England on the other. My only regret is that I never made more personal attacks; they're de rigeur now and make you look fashionable and hip. Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is, that if ArbCom, or whatever, were to stop bending over backwards, and just say to Giano - 'look, we are sorry for the way you've been treated', and then take things from there, they might be surprised at how things go. It would generate a lot of goodwill, and they would look human, instead of being aloof "masters" handing out finger-wagging admonishments. Sometimes there is continuity between new and old, and sometimes an institution needs to take a clean break from the old. Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if Arbcom knew what it was supposed to apologize for, that might be a start. The Carnildo RfA was two years ago. I'm sorry that he was blocked, for my part. I'm sorry that he acts the way he does and can't accept the failings of others. I'm sorry that we didn't take a harder line in 2006 when it might have been constructive. I'm sorry Carnildo blocked him for hate speech. I'm sorry he never accepted me at my word. I'm sorry I ever let him get to me. You get the point. If Arbcom could do all these things, would Giano ever apologize for all the intemperate, hurtful things he has said? Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Getting back to your previous comment, Mackensen (sorry for interrupting the flow here) - I have publicly stated on more than one occasion, and even on Giano's own talk page, that he is an adult and is responsible for his own behaviour. The overwhelming majority of concerns I have expressed about his blocks have focused on the poor administrative judgment in instituting those blocks (block 8 minutes after someone else warned, with no abusive edits in between? block for a 3RR five hours later, when there was ample evidence the matter had been calmed down? block an editor with whom one is currently having a heated discussion, for what was said in that discussion? escalate a block for talk page ranting after a block? make a block then take off for an unknown time, then complain using your alternate account that nobody notified you the block was under discussion?) Please. These are problematic administrative actions that should be questioned publicly, particularly when they affect an established editor. Any established editor. Sometimes Giano's behaviour has warranted blocking, but the administrative decision making has been so out of step with best practices that it could not be allowed to pass without comment. You know as well as I do, Mackensen, that there is a certain cachet in "surviving" blocking Giano. See what I wrote on his page today about the number of hits he gets on his talk page (more than Jimbo's talk page in April), and note how now people are following him around when he is trying to write content too. I don't know that Giano needs protection so much as other people need to undertake drama withdrawal treatment and start focusing on something else. They should follow your lead, Mackensen - seriously. Risker (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hah, don't feed my ego like that. I don't know about a cachet in survival; I feel as though I've presided over too many funeral pyres for admins who didn't survive. Maybe you're right--the idea is just too alien to my sensibility. Who would want to undergo that? Masochists? I'd be the first to agree that WMC's actions should be examined; but I would also insist that his actions did not take place in a vacuum. It's escalation. I was wrongly blocked once, if you can imagine (it's in the block log). My reaction was not a tirade, but again that's a question of inclination. You can't reason with a shotgun, especially when it's unloaded. I agree with you the decision-making process here is an utter mess, and I'm at a loss as to how we might repair the damage. Is there such a thing as a neutral mediator? Someone with sufficient stature yet independent? Mackensen (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thing of it is, deliberate ignorance is disrespectful, and Giano has useful things to stay. He's a keen observer, and his intervention over the Troubles was invaluable. I can afford to tune him out; I've removed myself from administration. That's not an option for everyone else. Mackensen (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the answer is, entirely. The suggestion of inviting a few respected arbitrators from other wikis to examine this situation isn't such a bad one. Sometimes there are advantages in people having no knowledge of past history. I've come to this whole drama rather late in the game, but with the benefit of having done some very extensive reading I can honestly say that the inciting issues happened long before the Carnildo block, they were back in the Eternal Equinox case in which he was found to have "taunted" a truly abusive editor, and a ban was even proposed. I look at the edits on which that finding was based, and can name at least 50 admins who say worse on a regular basis, including some who were on the panel at that time. Each subsequent incident has just compounded those initial injuries, and with each subsequent incident Giano becomes a little more jaded and his bile rises a bit higher. And yet a thousand people have the right to shut him down for any perceived slight, regardless of their knowledge of the background, or whether or not the standard is appropriate to the situation, or even if they themselves are part of the problem. I read something on someone else's talk page earlier this evening; he was asked why he had been opposing RfAs more frequently. His answer was "we don't need more admins, we need better admins." He's right. I'm hoping I'm part of the solution - time will tell - but the more I think about it, the more we need panels such as you proposed with the Devolution draft to at least allow challenges to some of the peremptory admin actions.
I think you're right about Giano, he does have useful things to say. It's my hope that we can find our way out of the cycle that's been perpetuated, where he says something, everyone ignores him, he pushes harder to be heard, someone bullies him or blocks him, he becomes shrill, and suddenly the message is lost in the drama. I tried (unsuccessfully, I fear) to pull the message back out of the maelstrom with the Rockpocket block of about 10 days ago, but folks went off message again when a fresh "evil admins" thread got started (I'll have to go back and find the chapter on keeping one's friends on message, I was having more success with those who disagreed). There are a lot of back stories with folks like Giano who have been here for a long time and made many friends and many enemies. Risker (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The last time I clicked on "Eternal Equinox", thinking "nice name", I got burnt fingers. I'm not clicking that one again. Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Wise decision. I hope not all of the decisions from that time were of equal quality. Risker (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent thread - reads with sense and even wisdom. Risker's nailed it with the Eternal Equinox thing. My involvement with WP had been very enjoyable up to that point. I'd resolved to try and get the top 10 most famous buildings in the world up to FA status. But seeing a great editor dragged through that by the people who were supposed to be there to protect good editors was salutory. Would I be falsely accused? Would such infantile misinterpretations be levelled against me? It's no wonder Giano was radicalised. I'm tired of reading all the drama now and have taken up on Flickr which I find much more enjoyable, but I'd return in a flash if I thought the management of this project was up to snuff. It isn't, but this thread gets the closest I've read to a realistic interpretation of the issues. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't find it now, but shortly before he left, Newyorkbrad very emphatically made the point that the EE matter, especially Charles Matthews' part in it, was what radicalized Giano. (I know it radicalized Brad himself, then a newbie, somewhat, too)[10] Poignantly, for me, it was yet another matter where Giano came to grief through his defence of myself. Just like the IRC case, you know. People are always snapping and snarling about me "defending G", but the boot is really more on the other foot. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

I think we can all agree that Arbcom put its foot in it two years ago. I would be the first to advance such an interpretation. Let me ask a question: when does the project stop paying for that body's mistakes? I realize that I often use words like "intemperate" and "tirade" to characterize Giano's words, but I do that because, to my ear anyway, the language he employs is much more violent than that of most users. If this is a consequence of radicalization then so be it, but it didn't (for example) effect Brad the same way. Every time Giano explodes (wasn't Franken Giano the term) he damages his own cause. Many administrators who might otherwise be quite well disposed are themselves radicalized when he launches attacks against the administrator body as a whole, and in harsh, ungenerous tones. This is a point that I've been trying to make, off and on, for about 18 months, but I feel as though neither you nor Giano as ever taken me seriously. I never paid Giano much mind until he assailed the administrator body as a whole, in a mean-spirited fashion, because the actions or one or two administrators had not met his standard. We're all volunteers here. I sympathize with Joopercoopers; I lost all willingness to help with the administration of this project after an editor verbally abused me, questioned my integrity, and made gross insinuations of character which he must have known were false. We've all sullied each other's reputations and accomplished nothing. Might we at least be quits? Is it possible to move forward, acknowledge, all around, that we blew it, and discuss what can actually be done to improve the project? Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking of NewYorkBrad, I've been working a bit on Learned Hand, which some people (not me, but I've joined in) conceived as a tribute effort on his behalf. The more I read about Hand, the more I see that NYB's spirit was similar to Hand's. In very difficult times (war, McCarthyism), Hand maintained the right of individuals to free speech, even if that meant allowing them to agitate against the government. Perhaps that's why I always paid attention to Brad in his short period as an arbitrator (I note that he tended to find for Giano). Hand never allowed procedural matters to obscure larger issues: if he was a Wikipedia administrator, he would not have been a blocker, nor would he have used IRC, as unconstitutional In fact, he sort of got blocked himself when he ruled in favour of the Masses magazine, which was suppressed for subversion under the espionage act: not only was Hand's decision overturned in a later appeal, but it was immediately blocked by another judge. Hand's decision was eventually understood as a contribution to freedom of speech. In my opinion (somehat garbled so far, I admit), therefore, Giano should be allowed to carry on as he does. Hand would only rule against dissidents if he felt they incited destructive action against the state, and, in our microcosmic world, I think we should take the same approach. Forget civility policing and process fussing, which are mere inventions in our fabricated world. If you don't like what Giano says, don't reply to him.qp10qp (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right that Brad took a generous view of the situation; that was his nature and we're poorer for having lost him. I'm uncomfortable with framing this as a free speech issue: the issue, at least for me, has never been Giano's criticism of the powers that be per se, but that he makes numerous personal attacks when doing it. Granted, if you think civility is a dead letter then treating a user badly is merely an attitude that one adopts, but frankly I think it's the reason the administration of this project has become so dysfunctional. As I've said before, I wouldn't block, but I also don't listen. The end result of all this is that the administration doesn't listen to Giano because his tone has alienated the moderates. That's a tragedy that could have been avoided, but if you frame this as an all-or-nothing free speech issue that's the almost inevitable result. Essentially, you're asking administrators to stop enforcing a policy so that Giano may continue making personal attacks against them. I must tell you that there's something deeply repugnant about that point of view, especially when Giano and others rightly criticized the conduct of some administrators on IRC. Either civility matters or it doesn't. I think it does. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Civility is a value: it is therefore a matter of taste. People who find Giano ill-mannered should stop speaking to him or visiting the places he visits. This is what we do in the real world, after all. We don't go along to the police station to try and have people dealt with on the grounds of civility. I don't exactly like you rewording my opinion and calling it "deeply repugnant", but that's life. We can't control what we say to each other: the only value our policies represent is the integrity of the articles. That's what administrators need to police.qp10qp (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I do apologize if I've mischaracterized your view of the matter but I think that's the outcome. I don't care what Giano says on his talk page, or on his friend's talk page, or such places. I care when he goes to the Administrators' noticeboard (for example), a place of business in this project, and derails a discussion by personally attacking editors and turning up the heat. I agree articles are important; I'm sure Giano does too. Wikipedia's administrators are called upon to deal with more than that. If the articles are all that matter, then why must we devote so much time and hand-wringing to things which don't affect them? I think live and let live would be a great policy if all parties actually agreed to it. Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's the rub. If you don't want to devote any time to hand-wringing, then dewatchlist all the forums of political argument, as I have done—dear Carcharoth's excepted. (It is even possible to be a good and busy administrator without ever reading the admins' noticeboard, though it's perfectly possible to read it without out taking any of the bait left behind by the aggrieved.) From my perspective, as someone concerned closely with article writing, the administration of this project is not in the mess that you perceive. So long as it provides stable articles and dynamic editing facilities, Wikipedia strikes me as a highly successful and efficient enterprise. qp10qp (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, I believe that is more or less what happened with many of us who have become somewhat politicised. We didn't pay that much attention to that aspect of the project until something affected us; then, when we finally waded into the administrative side, we were shocked at what we found. My politicisation came from finding out that a proposed policy was going to adversely affect content, and I managed after a point to extract myself from it. The block of a good, innocent content contributor was what drew me back into the cesspit. It is only when content-focused contributors are affected by the infrastructure that they realise how unstable and capricious it really is. Risker (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I expect I would think the whole country was in a mess if I spend all day at court cases. Wikipedia administrative-dispute pages are, like courts or hospitals, a place I only go if I have to. I hold my nose to prevent such visits spoiling the other 99.99% of my time on Wikipedia. qp10qp (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a volunteer too, Charles. Does it strike you that you address me in "ungenerous" tones? I appreciate that I've performed something of a "logical somersault" (as we say in my language), in assuming that, somehow, merely because you warmly invited Giano to your page, I would also be welcome there. Of course, the one thing actually has nothing to do with the other! However. I will ask you this: do you say that the ArbCom put its foot in it two years ago, and is not putting its foot in it now? Because I would disagree. I'm not referring to the Geogre/William case, or anything to do with Giano, but to the matter of FT2, and the matter of RFAR/IRC and the committee's failure to answer the community's urgent questions about it (after explicitlyundertaking to do so, round about Christmas-time). How much is the project expected to pay for those extremely expensive and demoralising mistakes/secrets/mysteries ? (I don't quite know what to call them—"scandals", perhaps.) The civility or otherwise of Giano is a mere red herring by comparison. A nickel and dime problem. In my opinion.
I don't want to sound like I'm trying to dictate to you how (or whether) to reply to me! But, hopefully without any such implication: it's really not worth your while to explain to me why and how I don't deserve a serious or full or approachable answer. I already know it. Sorry if I'm derailing your talkpage, Carcharoth, but I think I would be in the way on Charles's. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC).
I'm a bit taken aback by the tone you've adopted here; I don't know why you wouldn't deserve a full response nor do I know when I've refused to give one. You've never been unwelcome on my talk page; as far as I know I've never asked anyone to stay away. I may have called your comments unhelpful, but that's because I found them as such. I find bickering unhelpful in general, and I thought the tone you took toward MZMcBride, and the tone he took toward me and the entire issue to be a non-starter. That I think so has no bearing on whether someone is welcome on my talk page.
Moving to substantive issues, the point I was trying to make is that all of us, including arbs, are volunteers, but arbs are asked to undertake very difficult tasks by an often ungrateful community. I cannot speak for the committee on the IRC matter, from which I withdrew after I was subjected to repeated and vicious personal attacks and generally abused by our mutual friend. I paid a real price there, and I'm still paying. Someday I want to know what it was I did to deserve that. I've asked before but I never get an answer either. As for the OM thing, it's a fairly obvious cock-up. If the project is paying a price for it, it's because the project cannot comprehend that someone could make a mistake, and because there are those determined to have a blood-letting. It's obvious that there was no "secret trial" and that FT2 misunderstood what was said to him. These things happen and the situation appears to be working out. I daresay if we'd all kept our heads cooler it could have worked out even faster.
Let me re-iterate what I said about volunteers. We all contribute as much or as little as we can. We have the freedom to walk away. I walked away from administration after my term was up, because all I really wanted to do was to work on articles and fiddle with templates. I didn't give a damn about IRC, or BLPs, or nationalist fights, or what Arbcom was up to. I don't know why I've wandered back; it's just the same set of arguments. In another day I'll have my fill for the year and be off again. What gets me is that arbitrators have volunteered for the worst job on Wikipedia but are accorded little or no respect. Giano hurls abuse at them yet expects that they take no notice, feel no pain, and give him what he wants. It is a strange way to go about things. If Giano dislikes Arbcom and wiki-politics so much, then why get involved? Why does he permit himself to be drawn back if it angers him so? The affairs of the project would not suffer one iota if all of us made a pact to withdraw entirely to editing articles.
Sorry for this Carcharoth; the discussion wound up here. I don't have much else to say; certainly I have nothing new. I don't think dispute resolution functions particularly well, and I have proposed an idea for fixing part of it (Wikipedia:Devolution), but I'm generally at wits end. I welcome ideas from anyone, especially Giano and Bishonen, about how to make the system work. In my own limited, naive way I think the first step is treat others with respect, even those we hate and detest. A collaborative project requires nothing less. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is probably better continued at my talk page, if anywhere. Mackensen (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe your discussion with Bishonen, but the ongoing philosophical debate is best here; Carcharoth is smart enough to recognise he's got something very interesting happening here. You've brought up a couple of very good points in your last comment. One that sticks in my mind is the benefit of everyone withdrawing to write articles. Would that it were so. Sadly, we seem to have developed an ever-growing corps of people who seem to feel the opposite is more interesting. I speak not only of admins who cease regular article editing; I also include vandal-fighters who can't tell the difference between vandalism and good-faith but non-standard editing, or worse revert genuine improvements in articles; people who invest a great deal of time putting templates on articles without ever bothering to try and resolve the underlying problems; editors and wikiprojects that create elaborate infoboxes that force completion of fields that lead to edit wars (nationality fields, in particular - flags? no flags? place born? citizenship? country the subject has represented?) and then demand that such infoboxes be included in all relevant articles; you get my drift. Is there any possibility that we can create a B Ark?
At the same time, I agree that you've gotten the pointy end of the stick from Giano. I've a bit of an idea of why he has lashed out at you more than some others, but it doesn't make it any more palatable. I do hope that you continue your periodic forays here in project space (or DramaLand, as I have taken to calling it). I tend not to pay too much attention to policy development (I only have one on my watchlist, and that's mainly for vandalism reversion), but I'm shocked at how our core content policies have been denigrated over the last year or so. If someone changes WP:CIVIL, it doesn't affect what information I add and how I do it; but WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (not to mention half a dozen other less major policies) have undergone significant change for the wishy-washy and gameable. Content-oriented editors really need to pay attention to such things; when we don't, we're the ones who get whacked for failing to follow policy in our writing. I'm afraid we need more Cincinnatus-like folk to stick their noses on the meta side for a bit to make sure what is going on is conducive to writing an encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I confess I tend to ignore policy developments as well, but by choice I focus on content areas (19th century railroading, minor league baseball, peers) which don't attract much attention and have consequently evolved their own customs and conventions. Granted, if someone started a ruckus over the notability of minor league baseball players I can't guarantee my behavior ;). When the project was smaller I think administrators roamed more freely, but there were fewer tasks to go around. I've had my run-ins with recent change patrollers before and it's not the most pleasant of experiences. I tend to take the view that anyone who spends most of their time arguing about policy will develop a warped view of what the project is about. Again, I think we underestimate the transformation over the last three years. The site is higher-profile, attracting more POV-pushers and vandals. Inevitably we developed a class of vandal-fighting admins to compensate for the lack of effective tools. It could be that this is outmoded, but adminship's for life and changing is hard. Mackensen (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

CSD discussion[edit]

As you're usually interested in the deletions I do ( ; - ) ), I thought I'd mention my post here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your timeline and mine[edit]

Conceivably of interest: [11] Bishonen | talk 07:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

My timeline isn't finished yet. I'll try and work in something about the editing times versus the log times. Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Is that the right case?[edit]

The whole thing is still a work in progress; some of this stuff may not be used in the final decision, obviously. ;-) Kirill (prof) 16:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day![edit]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a way forward at the Russert/Reaction to the Death of Tim Russert Merge Discussion[edit]

It's basically what you mentioned, with one caveat about there being no prejudice against copying it to userspace and potentially working it back up to standards that all (or at least most) involved would find encyclopedic. If you have the time, I'd love for you to head up what you called a "careful merge" of the contents of the daughter article with the main one. I trust your judgdement completely, from the way I've seen you comport yourself both there and at this talkpage. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 02:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for commenting there. I completely understand (with how busy you stay on here) your not wanting to be involved in any future decisions regarding the suitability of a stand-alone article. I'll respect those wishes, and not bother you further with requests regarding that discussion. S. Dean Jameson 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on RFA/Arbs[edit]

Thanks for removing the comment, which as you seem to appreciate was incorrect.

However I still don't understand it. You wrote: Jenny, you have a clear conflict of interest here, as you have proposed motions to close before. Please don't try and get this closed by another route.

That isn't a conflict of interest, it's an opinion. If I have stated my opinion before, this would in no way bar me from stating it again. --Jenny 03:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it's more along the lines of "people arriving fresh to that section should know that you proposed a motion to close". More like not declaring your previous opinion, if you like. Not strictly COI but it feels like something that I can't put my finger on. As I said, though, what I said was incorrect and unclear itself, so I removed it. If you had prefaced the post with "In the past I've proposed this RfC be closed, but..." then it would heve felt more open, if you know what I mean. No obligation for you to say that, but that was my feeling on reading it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance. Arguments for opening or closing should stand or fall irrespective of who makes them. --Jenny 09:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Along with Jenny's interesting statistic of 150 partcipating editors in the RFC is another: By my rough count, of 1440 edits since the RFC went live, Jenny has 118, approx. 8% of the total edits. The "conflict-of" may or may not apply, it would seem the "interest" certainly does. I'm not in a position to judge the meaning of that factoid. Franamax (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as they are helpful and focused comments, volume should never be a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested that, in response to feedback, I've decided to adopt a rough rule of one edit per discussion per day in community space (Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk). I think my edits tend to be on topic, but at a higher volume, on those occasions when they veer off it can go pear-shaped pretty quickly. Also I think I've tended to neglect user talk pages, which are obviously better for this kind of discussion where most readers wouldn't be particularly interested. --Jenny 10:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed one or two comments lately from others along the lines of geez Tony, those are remarkably cogent and helpful comments (in a sincere sense). Again, I'm not in a position to judge history, nor present attitudes, nor pretty much anything. I just fall back on WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. As long as they don't get cancelled, I'll be fine :) Franamax (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me[edit]

I hereby award you this Order (1-st Class) of Saint Nicholas Thaumaturgus (the Wonderworker) for your contribution in the "accrual of the common good" as specified in the statute of this order per your contribution to this project overall but prompted by this post. Thank you! --Irpen 04:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC).


Thanks! I also have a thought following on from that, and I might post it here instead of there. I think one of the problems recently has been arbcom accepting cases as vehicles for other purposes. It might seem obvious to arbitrators (I suspect prompted by their internal discussions) which way a case should go, and where to expand the scope, but it can be extremely perplexing to others participating in the case, and absolutely incomprehensible to those who read a case after it has closed. We have "Evidence", "Workshop" and "Proposed decision" pages. I'm wondering whether adding a "Scope" page before all those would help? Anything that changes the scope beyond what was mentioned in the initial filing, and the statements made at the request by parties and arbitrators, should be discussed at the "Scope" page. That might make things more manageable. I do appreciate the award, but I was serious about what I said here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with that post. You know that I have been critical of this Arbcom before but, unlike Giano, I never made general damning comments on this body before FT2's case prompted this. The things I've said are not even aimed at embarrassing this arbcom into doing something. I am simply fed up by this committee of self-important career Wikipedians and lost any hope that anything may change until the committee remains in its current composition. Sorry, to have used your page for ranting. My award is a sincere appreciation of your efforts. Thanks again! --Irpen 05:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Interested in more BC stuff? In the past few hours, a lot's gone down, including a singularly terrible block (now reversed), and another one (shades of MONGO-Tango with this latest one). I've always found you to have an uncanny ability to cut through the nonsense and strike at the heart of the salient issues involved, so I'd appreciate any insight you could provide. east.718 at 14:20, July 6, 2008

I saw it earlier. At the moment I think Neil's block is the best of several not great outcomes. I think people should try and concentrate on that and move on from the mess that preceded that, and also try and get consensus nailed down over image policy - that was part of the arbitration case as well. Would you have time to start something along those lines? Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Elephant details[edit]

I do know the context of many of these quotes, and will fill in what I can. However, several of them relate to private information of various individuals, including non-Wikipedians. I am not quite certain how to handle that; I am almost inclined to post that I will email the information directly to an arbitrator for circulation within the list of arbitrators active in the case due to the relation to private information. Your thoughts on how to handle this? Risker (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Use e-mail and annotate the items accordingly. You might also point out to Kirill that his presentation of the diffs in a case may draw unwanted attention to the circumstances of some of the incidents. Ideally, Kirill would withdraw the points in question, and they could then be removed from the analysis. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Analysis of evidence[edit]

It's not anything specific to the secure server, per se. The secure server handles logins separately from the regular one; so, unless you happen to have logged in to the secure one, you'll see the default not-logged-in preference set when you view diffs through it. Kirill (prof) 03:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello and Good Day[edit]

Resolved: image added Darkspots (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello sir/maam I am a new user here in wikipedia so i cannot edit protected articles like Angel locsin, i am only just concern of the article because it has no image. I am calmly requesting you to Put this image Angel_in_Dubai.jpg click here to see the image, the image was already proven licensed under creative commons and it was already inspected by Flickreviewer,please put it inside Angel Locsin's article with the caption of Angel Locsin at the Lobo Tour in Dubai. Please give me your kindness. Thankyou so much. God Bless You! Watcher Wiki (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

New user award[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. I hope you don't mind being the first victim recipient of an unofficial new user award I created, the Home-made Barnstar. It is intended to convey respect for someone who dares to think outside the box, but also to get it right nearly all the time. If you don't like it, just remove it, I won't be offended. --John (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is the first time I've been the first recipient of an award! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Homemadebarnstar.png Home-Made Barnstar
For all your great work. Every time I see your name, it seems to be below something really sensible and intelligent. Please keep it up. John (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional information for other evidence analysis[edit]

Interesting post by Kirill on Giano's talk page today. I have created a brief summary on that page[12] with several links that can be used in the development of the analysis of evidence for the current case. Given that Kirill's statement of today is incongruent with Jimbo's statement of 26 December 2007 and the arbcom's remedy of 9 February 2008, at least some of Giano's remarks with respect to the committee are probably validated.

I will not have any concentrated time in the coming day or two to be able to put together any further evidence (I sent off the evidence relating to private information this morning, after having developed it last night), so if you or one of your talk page watchers can pull it together, that will be much appreciated. There should be sufficient links on Giano's page to be able to detail the process. Risker (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism and PD[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up. That section looked fine to me. I made this change to spiff it up a bit. Hope this helps. By the way, on my list of things to do is to remove {{1911}} from Philitas of Cos, but there's a way to go before we get there. Eubulides (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Linking to deletion discussions[edit]

Actually, in this case my error wasn't failing to link to a deletion discussion, but rather choosing G4 rather than G5, which was the actual reason for deletion. When I delete an actual G4, I do provide the link to the discussion. Sorry about that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Woodburning stove[edit]

Thanks for noticing! I saw it when I was in the Talk discussion. I was directed there by the AfD for Battle of the Harvest, which linked to a proposal for speedy deletion of albums. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Regarding the Tim Weiskotter article, I was getting a little too ahead of myself. Sorry about that. Chris (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

looks like it was a mess to clean up[edit]

See my talk. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In response[edit]

Please see I was not marking the individual redirects for deletion. I marked them before they were redirected. Yamakiri TC § 07-11-2008 • 16:36:18

Rainbow Kick[edit]

If reliable sources of info can be provided for Rainbow Kick can be found then by all means do it and when I say reliable I don't mean YouTube clips. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu[edit]

Was there a competition last time round for the Main Page redesign? That must have been before I got involved. Any links? Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We began (before I became involved) with a single draft, and as you might recall, it eventually was forked into numerous "competing" designs (with some calling for all of them to be put before the community for a "vote"). Fortunately, it became clear that such a plan was ill-advised, and we ended up combining the most popular elements to create our final draft. —David Levy 12:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer[edit]

Thanks for the pointer to the CSD proposal. Although we often disagree about specific topics, I have always found your proposals interesting and worth discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you were referring to in your note[edit]

My only contribution to those reversions seems to be this. In it, I was simply carrying out some RC work, and happened upon it, using rollback to revert to the user that you said made the initial mistake. What did I do wrong, in your view? I'm truly not certain how I could have known, in going through the RCs, that the version I reverted to was wrong in itself. S. Dean Jameson 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, I think I understand what you're getting at. Before gaining Rollback, I would normally compare versions from several changes back in the history, but this time, it looked like clear vandalism, easily reverted with rollback, and I didn't do it. I guess that's a bit of a drawback to rollbacker priviledges, and something I'll have to do better at going forward. S. Dean Jameson 22:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

bardcom block[edit]

Thanks for the timeline. Genuinely, I didn't see the warning, or interpret it as a block warning. The problem is that I actually was paying more attention to the first part of the statement, and there were about 10 article edits in the middle of an edit war at the time. Hence the template warning, etc. --Bardcom (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you say that at ANI, RfArb, and WMC's talk page as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably best if I don't keep picking at the scab, if you excuse the analogy....thanks again though. --Bardcom (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Piece of advice, Bardcom. Yes, don't pick at the scab. However, do apply some antiseptic. Essentially, figure out whatever you have been doing that wasn't proper and promptly admit it and apologize. Wikipedia is about editorial consensus, and the core failure is unilateral editing that becomes contentious and insistent. If you hold a strong POV, fine, you are an important part of the process, then. But the result should satisfy all legitimate concerns, and that takes process and patience and civility and willingness to work with editors with quite divergent opinions. I haven't reviewed your edits to determine any specific problem, but your revert of Connolley was edit warring (as was his subsequent reversion of you). In any case, this affair has wider implications that may have little to do with you, and what I'm advising you to do will protect you from possible fallout. There will be those who may consider that they are protecting their friend, Connolley, by claiming that he was really right to block such a disruptive user. If you get there first, if you acknowledge and apologize for any misbehavior, it will all be moot. Wikipedia, in theory, doesn't punish. It merely acts to protect, so it is concerned with misbehavior that has not been acknowledged and renounced, and which is therefore more likely to repeat. I am not claiming that what I'm suggesting will be easy. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is admin blocking of a user with whom the admin is in conflict[edit]

The block that was the subject of [13] was marginal, as you noted, because of warning and timing and poor explanation. What hasn't been mentioned is that this is a case of an admin both engaging in a content issue, by reverting the editor, and then in blocking the editor. I'm not convinced that the editor was given sufficient warning, for one point, but that the blocking admin had his hands on the content is far more troubling. He should have chosen one or the other: warning/blocking, or editing/reverting. It's not that Connolley's conclusion was wrong, per se, though it certainly was not an emergency. I think an independent administrator would have warned more adequately and clearly before blocking, but that the revert appeared first, followed by a warning, may have appeared as an idle threat by an involved editor (it shouldn't matter, perhaps, but did the editor know he was dealing with an administrator when he made that revert?) This is one more reason why admins should take their admin hat off when handling content, beyond, say, BLP or other emergencies. "Dare to revert me, eh? See how this feels! (short block)."--Abd (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and would encourage you to raise this elsewhere, at ANI, RfArb and WMC's talk page, if you think it will help. If not, I may point to both the edits you and Bardcom have made, if I may. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, for the record, I didn't know he was an admin. (note to myself, stop picking at the scab!) --Bardcom (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah, Bardcom, I suspected that, it's actually pretty normal in that context. The fact is, you shouldn't have to fear, it really shouldn't matter if the person who warns you is an admin or not, and if there has been edit conflict, you shouldn't have to fear that the same person will block you. You should take warnings serious, and it was contentious of you to revert him as you did, but, normally you wouldn't have been blocked for it, not without better warning and a clearer offense. My comments do not excuse, in any way, your behavior, the alleged "campaign," nor do they represent any investigation of it, I am merely concerned about what appears here to be at least a technical administrative abuse, it's become a bit of a specialty of mine, because I think that it is damaging the project. Carcharoth, yes, you may quote anything I've written anywhere. You may even edit it down, if I've waxed poetic or boringly.
To extend the principle here: warning is something that can be done by admins or ordinary editors, but there is a problem with a warning from an ordinary editor who is in edit conflict with a user, which is that the warned user may easily interpret the warning as a ploy in an edit war, and, in fact, such warnings often are. Hence, when there is edit warring taking place, I'd discount warnings made by involved parties; rather, an involved party may make a warning, but that warning, unless behavior is truly egregious, and the warning was clearly civil and helpful, should probably be reinforced before being sufficient to justify a block. Here, everything happened within minutes. --Abd (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, WMC's edit that included the warning ([14]) referred to the arbitration request. It was clear that WMC had read that and was acting with that (and possibly the RfC) in mind when he issued the warning, so that was the real background, not the article in question. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure. But that doesn't change the central concern: content vs behavior. In any case, I had noticed this affair, but it was complex enough that I wasn't going to say anything about it. Was he enforcing a community consensus at RfC? If so, the matter shifts, though I'd still be disturbed about the manner it came down, the apparent COI. on the other hand, the sense at the RfC seems to have been that the editor's behavior was acceptable, and that there was some propriety to his "campaign." In any case, my intervention on your Talk page was to raise the issue of admin COI based on Connolley's revert prior to blocking (plus after blocking). I think it's not uncommon for admins to do such things, so I wouldn't push for sanctions against Connolley just for this, but I'm concerned about a series of marginal actions he has made; for example, there was edit warring in an article where he was involved, another admin protected the article, and Connolley then edited it using his tools to take it to a preferred version, with it staying protected. With a gratuitously abusive edit summary.[summary.[15] And I don't see it as a clear BLP issue; the subject had written a highly notable article over which there is notable dispute, and the material Connolley removed wasn't defamatory. --Abd (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm disturbed by the idea that you believe he was enforcing a community consensus at RfC. The RfC was closed, with no consensus - and if anything, the consensus forming was that there was nothing wrong with most of my edits (just like any other editors edit record). As to my own behavior, I genuinely would like for someone to point out what I am doing wrong, that is not acceptable to the community. I believe I am perceived as participating in edit warring and that it results in my over-reverting articles. Is this the case? Because I believe I'm not... Anyway I'm not looking to justify past behavior, but to understand what I could/should have done instead. With examples if possible....if anyone's interested...if there's good advice going, I won't turn it down... --Bardcom (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Read carefully, Bardcom. That wasn't a literal description of your situation. It was a made-up case that might in some respects resemble your case. I've already stated, elsewhere, what you should do. (1) don't edit war. Period. (As with any rule here, there can and should be exceptions, but always make sure there is a good reason, and tread very, very carefully when making an exception.) In my work on the GoRight case, I defined edit warring as any repetitive revert or content restoration, regardless of time, without finding consensus, or at least lack of opposition, in Talk. Second, make sure your own behavior is spotless. Let others be uncivil, edit war, etc. Ignore it, stay focused on the issues, and, when the going gets tough, get help, involve others, don't try to face down an edit cabal, if it looks like that, by yourself. Unless you are prepared for heavy consequences. I did that once, but I knew that the "cabal" consisted mostly of socks and when, as I expected, they tried to block me, they were blocked instead. I didn't have to lift a finger. Partly, I was lucky, but partly, I just lied. I did lift a finger. I placed a one or two sentence note after the 3RR warning on my Talk page, where I knew that a blocking admin couldn't miss it. That's all it took. Don't try this at home. I might not be so lucky the next time. --Abd (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


The user has made some blatant image vandalism [16][17][18]. Along with some legit reverts [19][20][21][22][23] and some improper reverts [24][25]. I was on the verge of blocking based on the image vandalism but I'm not sure. BJTalk 00:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, then[edit]

I was the one who brought it up an AN, not knowing where else to go and acting off a suggestion from Risker to head to TFA. I figured that rather than spinning my wheels in the wrong venue, that I go to AN and present the problem and await input. It wasn't my intent to waste the nb's time. They were in fact the one's to fix the issue, though. So all's well that ends well. Maybe you could advise me on how to proceed, should such an issue in MainSpace come up again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not particularly clear, but Talk:Main Page and the errors section there, plus the talk page of the article, are possible places to raise this. The admins who watch the Main Page talk and errors section (Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors) normally know what to do. Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words.[edit]

I've now been warned as a result of my comments in User talk:William M. Connolley, and User:ATren seems to think that I might be blocked -- from a comment he made on my Talk. If I am blocked, I'd suggest that there be no wheel-warring over it, unless the block is in blatant violation of policy and the administrator reversing it has no apparent or discernable conflict of interest. Wikipedia is designed such that a short block of a knowledgeable editor is of little harm, there is time to consider it, and to, later, reverse any damage. I don't agree with ATren, though, but I could be wrong. If Connolley wants to waste time with SSP reports, or anyone else, well, I'd welcome it, if there is any reasonable suspicion, to dispel that. Besides, it would tie up an editor who might be doing damage elsewhere, if there is bad faith behind the report. I've been SSPd before, even more preposterously. (Two editors with history back to 2005 and no connection, no coincident interests until late 2007.) I wouldn't consider it harassment, since it would require little effort in response. But, obviously, I could create a sock account at any time (I have two legitimate sock accounts, announced when created, but I never edit with them. I should probably make the connection very explicit on my user page.) So, let's see, if I were really clever -- and stupidly devious -- I would create an account, edit legitimately in such a way as to attract blocking by an abusive administrator, and then I could comment on it. It's "stupid" because it's not necessary. There are abusive blocks all the time, but nobody pays attention to them. There are, what, over 1600 administrators, and more than one or two don't seem to understand some of the basic rules. What I can deal with, directly, is only a small part of the issue. What we could deal with, collectively, is much greater. Considering a comment about risk to an admin bit as harassment is pretty ridiculous. It's not a "threat," since I don't have the power to do it. No power at all. My "big stick" is simply the fact that I do have the power to bring administrative actions to the attention of the community, and I have not been exercising that power, directly. There have been no AN/I reports filed by me over anything related, and no RfCs. Instead, I've merely responded to such, with evidence and analysis, and I've commented in article Talk a few times, where it's related, and I tried to warn Connolley in the friendliest way I could muster, I was actually surprised when his response was less than civil. I'm not surprised, however, by the intensity of response. I've been computer conferencing -- we used to call it that -- online since the The WELL in the 1980s, where I was a moderator. Some people come unglued, it has been my experience, when I simply describe what I see. So I do try to be careful, but not at the expense of the project, and not to allow abuse to continue. --Abd (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your approach is refreshingly different. Don't worry, I don't think I would ever wheel-war. The sort of admin actions I undo are the sort where I'm usually just fixing something (undeleting PRODs and CSDs and redirecting or merging them). Whenever something serious needs doing, I invariably take so long investigating the incident, that someone else has dealt with it by the time I've decided what to do. I always use that "being closed" notice when closing XfD discussions. I'm much better at ferretting out the details that others might overlook. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, well said: [26]. I've been trying to make this point, that "defending articles," if done inflexibly, and with assuming that editors challenging the article status quo are "POV-pushers" and "vandals," will lead to increased necessity for defense and increased disruption. True vandals, we don't need to deal with directly (beyond blocking and protecting when necessary), but "POV-pushers" often have a point. In fact, isn't that part of the name, "Point" of view? Everyone has a POV, nobody, and no particular set of editors, owns NPOV. So what I understand of how Wikipedia works is that nobody owns articles, and that consensus is a living thing, not something fixed, rather it opens and expands, albeit more slowly as it becomes more fully expressed, with radical change becoming rarer. But always possible, in theory. While every "POV challenge" may not bring article improvement, "defending editors" should strive to satisfy any objection of the "POV pusher" if possible within guidelines, sometimes even stretching the guidelines if it improves the article, which I'll here define as meaning that it enjoys a broader consensus. Practically by definition, this will result in less overall disruption.--Abd (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review#Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)[edit]

Hi Carcharoth,

I am asking for a big favours of yours. I nominated the article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) for featured list, but there were too many small grammar problems, so we decided to withdraw it, and do a peer review first. The list is complete and very well sourced. It also followed all he suggestions given in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) (recently promoted to featured list), so in general is in a very good shape. Only the description fields for the coins are in a need of a good copy/edit. Can you please help us to get this list promoted?

Many thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Swiped your language from the header for my talk[edit]

Just letting you know. S. Dean Jameson 14:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requests[edit]

I am surprise at how often legitimate unblock requests appear at Category:Requests for unblock. Have you been watching that page? Jehochman Talk 22:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, but I'm not surprised. I don't think lots of legitimate unblock requests are too much to worry about, though I do wish there was some way of tracking that by admin, as if any single admin kept having their blocks overturned on appeal, that would be worrying. It is worth remembering that some of the unblocks are not appeals, but more "sorry, I realise what I was doing wrong, can I be unblocked", which is quite normal. It's the blocks that should never have been placed in the first place, or, even worse, the reinforcement of an incorrect block by confirmation bias on the part of the reviewing admin, that is far more worrying. One admin getting something wrong might be OK. Two getting it wrong is more worrying. I wrote something on one of the arbitrators talk pages once - it is here (the second of the two sections I posted - look at that version of the page to check the links I gave), and FayssalF's response here (again, scroll down there). BTW, is there an easier way to watch that unblock request category than just loading it up? Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
I'm beginning to come across records of blocks where the block wasn't legitimate (either not legitimate in substance, or, sometimes possibly legitimate in substance but the blocking admin had a conflict of interest), where there wasn't any complaint. These sometimes pop up in ArbComm desysopping cases, because someone will search back over an admin's block record and find them. There can be several reasons for this lack of complaint. If it's a short block, the editor (1) might not notice it until it's expired and thinks it is moot, or (2) doesn't believe that there is any use in appealing since "they all back each other up anyway." Even worse, there is a complaint, and the community (the restricted community that notices it) simply ignores it or dismisses it, often uncivilly. "Go push your POV somewhere else!" The result is that situations fester, and a "POV" editor becomes more and more frustrated, eventually boiling over and getting indef blocked or banned, thus confirming that uncivil judgment. The second cause is truly toxic, and the third confirms the suspicions. There are efficient ways to deal with the problem, but it all starts with identifying the problem itself. We tend to focus on particular examples, it's the old "bad guy" model, i.e., if we can just figure out who the bad guys are, our problems will be over. Not. We need some mechanism, some process, for seeing the forest beyond the trees. I have ideas, of course, who would I be if I didn't have ideas?
The basic idea is to start observing blocks and documenting the two kinds of bad blocks. It's too big a job for one person, will probably take some kind of wikiproject. This isn't about attacking "bad blocking" administrators, it's just about taking notice of what is happening. The blocks that tend to be taken most seriously by ArbComm aren't purely "bad blocks," unless complicated by COI. COI blocks are often quite correct, but the impropriety itself causes harm, through appearance. When a COI admin blocks a user, and the user knows that, say, the admin has been edit warring with them, the user is confirmed in a low opinion of Wikipedia process. We need to discriminate between purely bad blocks -- where the block record should be annotated so there is no prejudice against the user for the future -- and formally bad blocks -- where the admin should be pinged and warned, and the user then counselled by someone neutral, someone who isn't telling the user to go fly a kite. This is about remedying harm done, and, as to the future, if an admin refuses to recognize the problem with a COI block, then we'd need to start looking at de-admin process, which is exactly how ArbComm has treated the matter. Everybody makes mistakes, and especially a very busy administrator, doing yeoman work, is going to make more than a few mistakes. It is an inability to recognize mistakes that's the problem, and that would require community action (rarely, there might be a constitutional inability, a different problem, an unfortunate one). And, when a faction forms to "defend" an administrator, it can get even more toxic. The admin shouldn't be attacked in the first place, but what I've seen is that the most civil imaginable warning or plea is sometimes treated with contempt. And that is intolerable. --Abd (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Nah - you're imagining things! Do you have any examples of this so-called behavior? --Bardcom (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, I could present those examples, but it's a royal pain to collect the evidence, and I'm deliberately avoiding making it personal here. It tends to, then, get into debate over each individual case. Suppose an uncivil user is blocked for 3RR violation, by an administrator who was reverting him (like an ordinary user). Now, suppose the user did violate 3RR. And the user was uncivil. But suppose the administrator pushed 3RR, and only avoided 3RR by blocking? -- or by participating in an edit war involving other users? -- And was uncivil? I find it necessary to disentangle all this. In the case described, the block would be improper procedurally, that's clear. As to substance, it might be procedurally proper (i.e., a neutral administrator might have made the same decision), but, in that case, it might possibly have been unevenly applied. My point: we could debate forever about whether or not the user "should" have been blocked. But we should be able to agree that the administrator erred in blocking, because of the conflict of interest. And we can start to take steps to balance the matter out, and undo harm. See the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight, where there is an example different from the one Bardcom has in mind, though some of the players are the same, I think. I'm still working on evidence in that case, but, upshot is that the subject was involved in incivility and edit warring with a number of other users, but wasn't necessarily the most egregious offender. Yet he was the one blocked, and RfC'd. He was accused of, and blocked for, harassment, when his actions fell far short of actual harassment. And he was blocked by an administrator who had edit warred with him. And who has, so far, refused to acknowledge that this was a problem, and there is a set of administrators who are regularly communicating about this, shoring each other up, and dismissing contemptuously all criticism. There has been media attention to the situation, which is dismissed quite easily because the major newspaper involved is "conservative" and the writer clearly didn't understand well what was going on, in detail. But in substance? That's a whole other matter. This is a classic Bad Situation. And it is going to take time to disentangle it with minimal disruption. I'm grateful to Carcharoth for being a voice of reason in this, but I can see the wagons circling against him, as well. I think it's a suicidal tactic, because the larger community, and ArbComm, will become involved, if it keeps up. On the other hand, there are other voices of reason, and most people have a friend with such a voice. If those voices start to take involved administrators aside and quietly suggest that they lighten up, becoming more responsive to criticism, the disruption of an ArbComm case, or simply of an RfC, may be avoided. We are already at the point where I could certify an RfC, but not yet at the point where I'm personally satisfied that efforts have failed. Is my message clear? --Abd (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no way that I know of to watch a category, other than to load the page. I've placed a link on my userpage and click it once per day. I am not sure it would be a good idea to keep a list of bad blocks online. There would be value in knowing which admins had a pattern of making bad blocks, but I am not sure about the best way to save that information, nor who should have access. Jehochman Talk 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A request for the arbcom to examine the Guideo den Broeder situation[edit]

G'day - I'm dropping this note in to you because earlier today I responded to a request to file a request for arbitration. My examination of events led me to believe that there may be some use in the arbcom examining this matter, and perchance resolving an issue or two, and you have been named as an 'Involved Party'. As such, your thoughts would be most welcome at the Request page.

Yours rather nervously to be wearing a clerk-ish hat for the first time,

PM - Privatemusings (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carch, I'm hijacking this thread to ask you a question: why exactly does the new era of SUL change anything about handling of cross-wiki disputes? Creating an account with the same name and cross-posting to verify identity already involved only eight or so page-clicks, much the same as establishing an en:wiki approved sockpuppet, right? If it's now become marginally easier to move across WMF wikis, does that entail a major change in jurisprudence? Just curious.
(And the SUL thing is weird - I show as registered on 11 or so wikis. I certainly have posted to about that many, but as an IP, just before SUL took effect. Hopefully the new me hasn't been getting into trouble over there :) Franamax (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
fyi - I saw your comments at the arbcase page and realised that I hadn't dropped a note to Oscar - this was an oversight, because I certainly intended to! - my excuse is that I just used the links provided in the statement, and that I'm not very good at this sort of thing! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)ps - my answer to the above question would be that 'SUL' doesn't change anything in particular but makes it more important that we answer any unresolved issues preferably before cross-wiki editors run into problems...
SUL shouldn't change anything; different wikis have different rules, and always have. This has been discussed quite a bit on the Foundation mailing list, and that seemed to be the consensus - individual wikis may take their own actions, but they do not necessarily cross over to other wikis unless the second wiki's rule says "if banned on one you are banned here too" or words to that effect. The Poetlister case specifically was mentioned many times, as it seems from the perspective of many Europeans (and Brits especially), en.wp completely dropped the ball; their ISP system is radically different from that in North America, and people in opposite ends of the country can be serially using the same IP address, while WHOIS will just locate it to one of a few major cities. (For example, most British Telecom IP addresses locate to London or Manchester, no matter what part of the country they are actually used in.) Mind you, there is a move on the part of some to have global checkusers and vandal-fighters, but that is intended only to handle truly major vandals like Willy on Wheels or Grawp (or a couple of others who shall remain nameless in the interest of WP:DNFTT). Risker (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
(replying to all here) SUL should only change things in that you will get more people moving around wikis. I speak as someone who couldn't be bothered to create other accounts, and will now be more likely to edit on other wikis now that this (already low) barrier to entry has been lowered slightly more. I agree that actions on different wikis should be kept separate, but it seems that WP:NLT is an exception to this. Possibly the distinction need to be made between sanctions on other wikis being taken into account, and the actions of an editor on another wiki (with or without sanctions). I'm afraid I don't have time to read the Foundation mailing list. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting set of comments, thx all. C, I might not be following the action closely - does NLT apply when the editor is acting peacefully on the other wiki? When editors bring up the LT on the other wiki? How different is it if I'm suing you over something you said on the ru:wiki or because you hit me with your bicycle? Does it matter, as long as I'm being a productive en:wiki collaborator, for the purposes of en:wiki? R, the "second wiki" concept is also interesting, are you saying that an approved wiki with six total editors can enact a ban on en:wiki? This is probably not the right forum to discuss the issues, so ignore as necessary. Plus I'm going beddies :) Franamax (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

<- Hi Carch - I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at this new thread on Guido's talk page? - If you could offer any more help there it would be appreciated - and I think it might really help! big thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Elephant --> rhino[edit]

Hi, Carcharoth. FYI, I've added a little context of my own to your detailed elephant. Also, in view of Kirill Loshkin's recent FoF citing his Giano collection, I have posted a reference to your analysis thereof to eight arbitrators (compare my recent contribs). Bishonen | talk 08:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

RFAR question[edit]

Let me get this straight, the legal threat was on but was never made on Then Guido was blocked on because of that? If this is so, why was he blocked on Was it because it was imported to here? You seem to have a very good grasp of the details of this case. RlevseTalk 10:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't because that is in Dutch (though the translation indicates it was some sort of ultimatum). I think this is clearer, and so I don't think the case will now be accepted or Guido unblocked until he shows he understands what WP:NLT means. I'm still concerned that Oscar did this, which was only ever going to end one way, and effectively brought the nl dispute here, though I realise that might not have been the intent. Carcharoth (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that was Oscar's intent, but there does indeed seem to be very bad blood btwn the two. RlevseTalk 10:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to follow this case, so I hope you don't mind me replying here. While Oscar probably shouldn't have made that post, it was in reply to this post by Davidruben[27]. The dispute was brought here by other Dutch editors, not by Oscar (or Guido) initially. And those problems were solved, or at least dormant, at the english Wikipedia at the time of Guido's post which strated this RfArb. Fram (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Do you really think I am on a campaign to have Giano treated equally to other editors because he said something mean to me? Give me some credit please. If you bothered to check you will see I spoke out against his apparent immunity to policy long before I ever met him. I think it is really bad taste to make such leaps of assumption.

I have been insulted by countless users, do you think I go around trying to make their lives hard? Do you really think I would endorse action against a FA writer if I did not think his actions here disruptive?

Do you really think so little of me as to think I would be swayed by childish name calling? I do have a record to stand on, I have been an admin for some time now and have never had any sort of behavioral sanction put against me, nor has it ever been shown that I have acted with bias. Frankly I am a little hurt because I have respect for many of your opinions. 1 != 2 15:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe I only started noticing it after that incident. Do you have diffs for your earlier opinions? Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can dig them up, but so can you. I will get to it when I have time. 1 != 2 15:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You have other business to attend to first? Let me guess. Carcharoth (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have work. If you are in a hurry you can investigate your own accusations, or you can wait till I have time and let the burden of evidence lie on the accused. 1 != 2 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I believe the comment you are accusing me of holding a grudge over is this one: [28] where he accuses me of being a stalker. That was April 14th, 2008.

I will demonstrate that my position predates that comment, that it is based on policy and Giano's actions, and that it has remained consistent before during and after being called a name:

March 23rd 2008: [29] After encountering Giano took this edit of mine as trolling, I gave a polite request that he be more civil and assume good faith.

March 25th 2008: [30] I respond to a comment made by Giano where he says "Stalking is a gamge two can play". I was concerned that this sounded like a threat.

April 14th 2008: [31] I warn Giano that he is violating 3RR in an effort to prevent him from being blocked.

April 14th 2008: [32] When Giano stops edit warring and goes to the correct venue I encourage this productive new approach.

April 14th 2008: [33] While I was insulted this day by Giano, I did not block him or seek to have him blocked. Another admin saw the insult as a violation of his civility parole and blocked him. While I did defend the blocking admin after the fact, it was mostly due to the abuse he was receiving due to making a valid block, not some sort of vendetta due to hurt feelings.

After that unpleasant experience I have actually taken care not to post anything further to Giano's talk page, and have limited myself to public discussions about his behavior which are astonishingly common events.

I hope I have put your mind at ease regarding any bias I have against Giano and demonstrated that my only motive is to limit disruption on-wiki and have Giano(and anyone else) be held to the same standards as we all are. 1 != 2 13:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post this. I would have been happier with examples from futher back, before the arbitration cases, as my feeling is that the arbitration cases have made people more sensitive to Giano's conduct, which is a vicious circle of a sort. One thing I would say is that I don't recall you commenting on incivility by other people. If you were able to point to examples of you calling other people out on incivility, or were to start widening the scope of your attempts to ensure everyone is treated equally, that would reassure me even more. Not, of course that you really need to assure me or anyone else, in case that comes across wrong. Anyway, thanks again, and I hope we can all (you and Giano especially) try and move forward from the recent events (in your case) and the past few years (in Giano's case). Carcharoth (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you realize I should not be expected to further assure you or others that your accusation was not true. The further evidence you mention is out there, but frankly I am tired of doing your homework. If you take the time to look you will see I have expected civility from every user I have encountered. You are the accuser, you are responsible for due diligence before making such comments. I have already spend an hour of my good time gathering evidence to refute your claim, yet you have gathered no evidence to support it. I put the burden of evidence on your shoulders if you seek further confirmation of my lack of bias. Chillum 14:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC) (Was just 1 == 2 yesterday, now am Chillum)

Fair enough. I wasn't really expecting you to gather more evidence, I was just trying to note that the evidence only dated back so far. I am serious though that if I did take the time to look through your contributions in the area of "civility patrol", then I would hope to find you calling others out on civility and not just focusing on Giano. But you are right, this should be dropped until I find the time and motivation to do that. Again, thank you for taking the time to post the above - and again, in case that comes across wrong, I'm trying to end this on a friendly note. If you still feel upset, then we might need to discuss things more (I'd be happy to do that), otherwise I hope we can draw a line under this and move on. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am all for peace in this matter, I will gladly let it pass. I would not have been so insulted if I did not have respect for your judgment otherwise. I was given a similar accusation by a person on the same thread whom I don't respect nearly as much, and I just ignored it. Please be careful when making such statements, some people take their integrity on Wikipedia very seriously, me included. Peace. Chillum 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on the AN[edit]

Replied here. Didn't really understand why you were putting it across that some of us in that discussion seem intent on causing drama all the time... Lradrama 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

While I created that thread, I don't own that thread. However, as I'm the one trying to find a solution for whatever it is that's in the thread, no one can oppose my closing of it for whatever reason. If people were going to insist on it being a flamefest, then I'd have self-closed it (like I indicated). Obviously in the end, the result was the same and I regret opening it, If WilyD or the other user had reverted the removal once, it'd have convinced me a lot sooner (and that would've been that). I think it's best if the topic stays closed hereafter. Thanks for being bold in expressing your concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


mail. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

About Giano and his appeal -- and his rejection[edit]

I'd wondered, until now, what the big deal was about Giano. I'd seen a few "intemperate" posts, but I see equally intemperate posts quite frequently, sometimes from those who attack Giano.

But now I think I've got it. Giano is like the Reverend Wright, of Obama pastor fame. Wright is a black gospel orator, which is about passion, telling it like it is, so to speak, but not in an intellectual way, in an emotional and sometimes spiritual way. Hyperbole is common, because when we nuance statements, we dilute their emotional impact. Like Wright, Giano is speaking for an underclass, in a sense, for many editors who see the problems with Wikipedia but wouldn't say what he says, and certainly wouldn't say it the way he says it, which is very direct and not troubled by details and balance. It's dangerous to take literally what someone like Wright, or Giano, says, and it isn't necessarily even meant literally. (I can say that about Wright, with fair certainty, from what I know of his community -- which isn't my community, exactly, but there is a lot of overlap. As to Giano, I don't know.)

ArbComm has quite properly reserved blocking rights to itself, because a rhetoritician like Giano will make enemies very easily, and having a large number of administrators feeling empowered to block him would be disruptive, leading to wheel-warring, as we saw. People like Giano often have something valuable to say, and they will say things that others avoid. I was reading about Wright, today, and his comments about chickens coming home to roost for the U.S. on 9/11. People assume, from a comment like that, that Wright was pleased by those chickens coming home. I doubt it. But Wright simply says what he sees, and says it passionately. We are very concerned about 3,000 deaths, here, on 9/11. But how concerned have we been for deaths from massive destruction elsewhere, starting, say, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the purpose was clearly "terrorist," no matter how justified that may seem (i.e., on the argument that net lives were saved by avoiding an invasion of the Japanese homsland, etc.)? To even talk about this is extraordinarily difficult, I can imagine, easily, that I'd be attacked for saying this, which would make my point. Someone like Giano just goes ahead and says it, and says it passionately. I'll say it with lots of nuance, trying to understand all sides, etc., if I say it at all. If we aren't going to be censored, we have to allow voices like Giano, on all sides, and we need to find ways to contain the possible damage, to channel the energy involved. Just getting rid of Giano is simply going to force the underlying concepts to rise up in other forms. People want to hear the truth, even if not to speak it; I'm not claiming that what Giano says is "the truth," but that it expresses aspects and appearances of truth that are otherwise repressed, because of social convention, rules written and unwritten, and the like. --Abd (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll somewhat support this analysis, though comparison to nuclear weapons is stretching the point just a tad. It would seem, unfortunately, that Giano has been conditioned to believe that the only way to get a decent response is by the most outrageous means. Of course, I don't know Giano personally, perhaps he behaves the same way with the milkman, though I rather doubt it. To the degree that Giano over-reacts to perennial problems though, the best course seems to be to solve the problems, rather than solve Giano. For instance, had admin-IRC been demonstrably reformed, Giano would most likely not be making emotional and provocative posts about the problems with admin-IRC. Franamax (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, I saw that it'd been removed, but I wasn't willing to edit war over something I'd already been blocked for. ;) I stand by the point I was making, but I knew the method might've been inflamatory. Since Giano showed up and called out those who'd been trying to give him the bum's rush with false assertions, didn't seem worth pushing. Cheers, WilyD 20:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Seen this? Or has your wikibreak started? Considering the analyses you and Irpen posted on the workshop, I guess the "comments" here will tend to be a bit one-sided (as indeed they are at this moment) if you're both away while the RfC runs. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Re: Saw this and thought of you![edit]

(copied over from my user page:) Yes, well, it does make me smile that Peter Wall drew such criticism, when it was a far better article, and much more balanced. Meanwhile, I see that you haven't done much on that article. I thought you were planning to, which is why, per our agreement, I left it alone. Have you changed your mind? --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 19:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Guido redux.....[edit]

G'day Carch - this is a sort of 'bump' to the request I appended to the large-ish thread above about the Guido situation - I've had a conversation with him over here - and it would be much appreciated if you could take a look, and suggest any possible next steps / ways forward.... thanks! - Privatemusings (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the timing is bad, as I'm breaking off for a long wikibreak now. I was hoping that situation would have been resolved before I left, but as it hasn't, you will have to move things forward there yourself. Hope it works out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


I will be away for the next couple of weeks. Apologies for any unfinished business. I may still be able to check my e-mail from time to time while I am away, but that is not guaranteed. Back in early August. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My condolences. I can't imagine what could be better than slogging away on Wikipedia, losing sleep, friends, lovers, spouses and children, getting bleary-eyed, carpal tunnel syndrome, and a distorted sense of human propensity for pig-headedness and incivility. But, if you must, I suppose you gotta do what you gotta do. Be patient, you'll get through it. Best wishes, ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talkcontribs)

Re: Saw this and thought of you![edit]

(copied over from my talk page:) Yes, I took it off my watchlist, per our earlier discussion. I did indeed spend quite some time explaining the problems that I had with some of your edits--the ones you considered "uncontroversial." However, it was clear that our notions of how to write the article were very different indeed. Going through all the other edits you made would be a waste of both of our time. As per our discussion, I then let you get on with it. I dropped you the note yesterday to see if you still wanted to do so. I wasn't "waiting until you go away": please retract that accusation; I had no idea that you were going on wikibreak when I dropped the note on your talk page. Anyhow, do enjoy your break. --Jbmurray 08:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Retraction and further thoughts posted on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you copyedit the Transport section of Mangalore?[edit]

Hi there, I saw you listed at Wikipedia:PRV#General copyediting as a copyeditor. I was wondering if you would copyedit the Transport section of Mangalore which is a city article. The article is already a GA and it uses UK English. Language is very simple and the prose is quite precise. Copyediting the section won't take more than 5 minutes. Thanks!.Kensplanet (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)