User talk:Betacommand/20080701

Deletion review for Image:RollerCoasterTitle.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:RollerCoasterTitle.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Korax1214 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Rollercoasterscreen.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Rollercoasterscreen.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Korax1214 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:DragonsLairTheLegendScreen.png

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:DragonsLairTheLegendScreen.png. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Korax1214 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The above three undelreqs

Since it was your bot which did them, I suppose this is the right place to post. The fact that the images have been deleted from the Roller Coaster (video game) article is causing problems with said article; see its recent edit history. I will of course fix the fair-use rationales. -- Korax1214 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval

Hi there :), I was wondering being that you removed the backlog notice from the page, if you could approve me and some of the other users that are currently awaiting approval to use VP :). Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sunset Beach pictures

Hey Betacommand! I would like to ask you about the reason why you deleted all the pictures I uploaded for Sunset Beach List of Sunset Beach characters. They were all screenshots, each of them had a fair-use rationale for both the actor and the article. So, please, if you find time, before my pics get erased, can you explain what was the reason you deleted it?

I fixed the links in all of those pictures, if that was the problem. Can I return the pictures to the article now? Dmarex (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC Images in list are not allowed. β^_command 12:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If the page was titled "Sunset Beach minor characters," could the pictures be featured then there? Dmarex (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, its still a list of.. page regardless of the exact title. β^_command 12:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then what about One Life to Live minor characters? I just want things to be fair. Dmarex (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That has been addressed. β^_command 12:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess it's only fair for me to report the site that I created and wrote too: List of Santa Barbara cast and characters. I guess I should speedy delete all of those numerous pictures. And thanks for letting me know about the rules, nobody did for almost a year. Dmarex (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

the group picture at the top is good, but the excessive pictures of each character violate the non-free content policy. β^_command 12:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Ooops, you deleted all the character airdates on the List of Sunset Beach characters? And sorry if I'm bothering you. Dmarex (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry Im always happy to explain. I went ahead and fixed that, I miss read the source text and thought it was part of the image caption. β^_command 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Torchwood monsters and aliens

I'm at a loss to understand these image deletions; as User:Islander pointed out in his edit summary "if each monster had their own article there wouldn't be a problem", and whereas he may be wrong, I have spent considerable time (which has not been applied to getting other articles to GA status) sorting out the FUR's. Would you mind explaining in detail which part of WP:NFCC any or all of these images breaches, preferably on the article talk page so that others can examine the particular parts of that policy you have in mind, because being familiar with that policy, I just don't see it. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

there have been numerious previous discussions about the same issue, except for one or two group pictures, non-free content is not allowed in lists. β^_command 12:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already asked for clarification on the article talk page. But we really cannot have policy, if it is, in fact, policy, addressed to us without some reference other than WP:NFCC; that doesn't help. Any links? I know you understand these things but other editors are entitled to know exactly why their work has been removed. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Im going to e-mail you a copy of User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation (it has been deleted) Im attempting to have it un-deleted. but until I can recover the history of the page I cant post this on wiki yet. (it would be a GDFL violation). this should answer most of your questions. β^_command 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Received and digested. Meanwhile it would help if you stopped edit-warring on that page when not the policy itself, but the particular application of that policy, is being discussed. Editors may need educating, but threatening blocks isn't helpful in the circumstances. It's clearly a grey area and I don't rule out seeking further clarification. --Rodhullandemu 14:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

this issue has been talked to death already. except for group shots non-free content is not allowed in lists. β^_command 14:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it hasn't been discussed enough, 'cause if it had, the policy would be a lot clearer by now. What you've cited above is an essay, showing one interpretation of the NFCC policy (the very fact that the policy is open to interpretation shows that there are flaws with it). What you, as of yet, have failed to do, is state where in current policy it is stated that all uses of images in list articles consistute overuse. I definitely don't believe that in this Torchwood case there is overuse of free images. You state that my reversions (and Rodhullandemu's) will lead to our blocking - for what, exactly? You, on the other hand, are close to a 3RR blocking (though I'll admit that in my latest summary for the Torchwood article I miscounted your reverts - you're on two, not three). _TalkIslander 14:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please show me where it says "except for group shots non-free content is not allowed in lists" please. Dr. Stantz (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh

See article's talk page Cbsite (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use OK, the policy is not stated specifically, one, and two, there is some discussion about images for each episode; however, the images here are random screen shots not tied to any specific episode.Cbsite (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

see my comment above, I sent you a copy also. β^_command 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Betacommand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

there is no valid grounds for the block. the blocking admin has a very very clear COI and I have violated zero policies. β^_command 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not while you continue to make threats like those mentioned in the email below. — Viridae^Talk 01:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note - while I agree that the blocking admin does indeed have a clear COI, Betacommand has violated 3RR, in my opinion (by refusing to discuss and revert regardless of ongoing discussions. The exemption for NFCC removal is not valid here, as at least two editors agree that there is no vioaltion. This is neither an endorsement or opposition to the block. _TalkIslander 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

then why did I get the block message as I went to leave a comment on said talk page? β^_command 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What message are you talking about in particular? _TalkIslander 23:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Blocked text. the message you get when attempting to edit a page and are blocked. I was starting to leave a note on the talk page when I found out I was blocked. β^_command 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, because you are blocked. Whether you were just about to leave a note or not, we'll never know. Like I said, I neither endorse nor oppose said block because, like Rodhullandemu, I too have a bit of a COI here. I personally have a clear idea as to whether or not you deserve this block, but having the COI, it's not my place to state this. _TalkIslander 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There's conditional support for an unblock on AN/I at the moment, pending your agreement to stop reverting as well as stop removing these images from list articles. A discussion needs to take place to clarify the issue, and I'd be happy to unblock if you agree to these conditions. - auburnpilot talk 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not stop enforcing policy, non-free content in list of.. pages has been discussed countless times in the past, see the history of WT:NFCC. previous discussions have clearly supported my position. If you care to look into the archives you can clearly see that my position is supported. I dont want to be a broken record again. Also this block is against policy so I should be unblocked without conditions. β^_command 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rescinded my support for your unblock; see you in 31. - auburnpilot talk 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Betacommand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Invalid block, against WP:BLOCK

Decline reason:

Per Viridae above, whilst you stand by your threats, a block is still protective. This is being discussed on AN/I and discussion will come to a conclusion. At present, there's no clear consensus to unblock — Ryan Postlethwaite 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block was a minor infraction of WP:BLOCK, as the blocking editor was also enforcing what he sees as policy in a content dispute. However, if you continue removing image links per your interpretation of policy, you will be blocked, unless you explain your interpretation and obtain some consensus for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have consensus for this, if you look at what I have referenced you would see that my actions are backed up with policy consensus. (see WT:NFCC and AN/ANI archives). β^_command 02:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WT:NFCC does not show consensus for removal of all the images, even if you restrict the agruments to those who correctly quote policy. As for AN/ANI archives, tell me which ones. I'm not going to search through all 200+ for commentary supporting your viewpoint. You should know which ones they are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUEXPLAIN is a good place to start your reading. β^_command 02:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Images in List of ReBoot characters

Look I already read the policy plenty of times, and if my reasoning for the reasoning I gave isn't good enough for you, then I wouldn't be surprised if all articles that have images with similar reasoning/licensing are removed by you.

For example, the List of Beast Wars characters should be devoid of all images, since the reasoning/licensing is no different then what I gave.

Oh and the ReBoot images were up since last October and nobody else had a problem with them. Cloud S (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Transparency

You know, when I ran my RfA, I ran it totally above board. Everything on-wiki and visible and open to criticism, despite some bizarre interventions. Nothing to hide. That's why I took your block to WP:ANI. OK, maybe not a great block, but that's the way we operate here; we are not perfect, which is, perhaps why we should listen. Which is why this email from you:

<removed, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence>

is unacceptable, bordering on harrassment. I don't respond to threats. No way. Absolutely not. They are unseemly and unbecoming of an experienced contributor here. Please feel free to file an ArbCom case, I see they're used to you by now. --Rodhullandemu 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ill see you there for your complete lack of the ability to follow policy that all admins are required to follow. you fucked up and make a very bad block against policy. I ask that you rescind the block since you cannot follow WP:BLOCK. and that you resign as an admin since you obviously cannot follow core policies. you might want to review yet another policy that you ignore Wikipedia:PRIVACY#Private correspondence β^_command

No offense, but you can't make threats like that in an email and expect them to be kept private. Wikipedia emails are for constuctive discussion, not blackmail. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont make blackmail statements. it was a request that the incompetent admin resign since he cannot follow policy. β^_command 00:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the email was. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just making a statement regarding my future plans, and his ability to avoid a mess if he chose to. β^_command 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One lapse in judgement =/= requirement to resign. Regardless, I have to agree with Ryan - you cannot possibly make threats like that in an email, and expect them to remain private. _TalkIslander 00:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

a complete violation of BLOCK and ignoring core policies is grounds for desysoping. the fact that he abused admin tools in an edit dispute, and indef blocked a long standing editor without any comments is a wrong. β^_command 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, your opinion is as valid as mine. Still, why did you have to resort to threats via email? _TalkIslander 00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

it was not a threat it was a request that would avoid an arbcom case. Since he did not want to take a quiet resolution to the issue its going to go to arbcom. β^_command 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a suprise. Can I ask one more question? Why does it take a block for you to talk? You're discussing issues now that your blocked, and though I don't agree with you, it's good to hear your point of view. When it comes to issues of non-free images, and your own personal interpretation of NFCC, you brick-wall, which leads to frustration, which leads to edit warring, which leads to (justified or not) blocks. Had you taken the time to discuss in the first place, rather than bulldoze your point of view across, I reckon the whole of this could have been avoided. _TalkIslander 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to when I found out I was blocked. I do communicate, the issue is I have repeated the exact same thing 500 times. please take a look at the archives of WT:NFCC which validate my position. β^_command 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You were trying a bit late, then. WT:NFCC is not policy - WP:NFCC is. You cannot use WT:NFCC as an excuse to blind-revert or edit-war. _TalkIslander 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

again PLEASE look at that I am talking about the archives clearly show an agreement that current policy interpretation is that NFCC in lists is not allowed, β^_command 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would have preferred it if Rodhullandemu had forwarded it to arbcom had he felt harassed by it, posting e-mails on wiki should ring alarm bells, GDonato (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact that people receive threats like that is one reason that the proposed WP:PRIVATE did not receive community consensus, and why there is no official policy on posting of emails at this time. If you read the entire section that Betacommand linked to, you will see that policies specific to email evidence and private correspondence including emails have been rejected by the community. Frankly, it's more important this be on-wiki than that the sender have the right to hide his behaviour. Risker (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] 6) Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the [Arbitration] Committee. That is what I would have liked to have seen happened, also I didn't explicitly state I believed Rodhullandemu had violated policy; I just thought that him thinking twice about posting the e-mail would have been a good idea ("ring alarm bells") GDonato (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What alarm bells, out of curiosity? _TalkIslander 01:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't post any correspondence without the author's permission, even if it was threatening. I realise the failure of WP:PRIVATE means not everyone shares this view so I'm describing my own stance not policy. GDonato (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, GDonato, and I have a hard time imagining the circumstances under which I would post an email from a Wikipedian without permission. On the other hand, does it not sort of beg the question that the way someone is supposed to address an email threatening to take him to Arbcom is to send the email to...Arbcom? Risker (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, now the E-mail is removed, the block should be reinstated immediately for that E-mail, pending an ArbComm decision. Unless beta chooses to defend himself by posting the E-mail, and under his civility parole, he should be blocked until consensus or an ArbCom ruling that it is not a threat. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In May when I blocked Betacommand, I was told via a private IRC message that unless I unblocked his bot and made a crat re-add the bot flag, an RFAR would be filed against me within 24 hours. Where/what should I do with the conversation log, assuming I can find it? MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Such material should be sent directly to the [Arbitration] Committee [instead of being posted on-wiki]." Daniel (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How often do people get approved for vandal proof?

hi, I added my name to the Vandal proof list a few days ago, and noticed that the last batch of approvals was almost a month ago (9th June). Do you know how often you approve new people? Thanks, Nappymonster (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Images in List of characters in Daria

I've read the policy on the use of non-free images, and almost none of them violate the non-free content criteria. I won't say anything about the image of Helen Morgendorffer, because I didn't know about it, didn't upload it, don't know how the user who did upload it got the image, and I'd certainly agree that it needs a fair-use rationale tag, but the other images are undeserving of deletion. ----DanTD (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

per WP:NFCC non-free content is not allowed in lists. β^_command 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is when "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This is the case here. Also, "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." I can't see how this does anything to the contrary. "Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia." With the exception of the Helen Morgendorffer image, all images meet that standard. They were on the former MTV website, which no longer uses them. If I knew where the Helen Morgendorffer image originally came from, I'd either agree or disagree. ----DanTD (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

per WP:NFCC #3 and #8 it is not allowed in lists. β^_command 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Just what significant information do you expect as an alternative? ----DanTD (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To further that, neither NFCC #3 or #8 prohibit the use of non-free content in lists. _TalkIslander 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

there have been countless previous discussions where non-free content is not allowed in lists. β^_command 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Most if not all of which have resulted in rampant deletions of articles and non-free content that is allowed. ----DanTD (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

BC: If there have, as you say, been countless discussions, why on Earth has it not yet made it into the policy? Your argument doesn't add up/ _TalkIslander 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use. that is one example there are about 20 AN/ANI threads that support the fact that NFCC dont meet the guidelines of WP:NFCC. β^_command 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(untab) That's a signpost article, it's not policy. Policy is what we go by, and if there is consensus otherwise, it should be changed, but it is the policy that we go by, not other discussions. _TalkIslander 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to go with Islander with reference to this and this ; this does not appear to be policy. Cbsite (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And Betacommand still insists on trashing the images we submit. He would rather that we verbally describe each line, each curve, and each color used on each character than allow any images whatsoever!! ----DanTD (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:FUEXPLAIN it clearly covers why NFC is not allowed in lists. β^_command 13:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images in lists

You said, "except for one or two group pictures, non-free content is not allowed in lists", and many users have asked where that policy can be found in WP:NFCC. It can not, so in response, you link to discussions and debates, none of which are compellingly conclusive. It appears that you're deleting legitimate Wikipedia content based on your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Confused users will continue to flock to your talk page until either your interpretation is actually added to Wikipedia's official policy, or you stop deleting material en masse. E^robson (T^alk) 05:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

please see WP:FUEXPLAIN. β^_command 05:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's still your interpretation of policy, although it's better expressed than any of your explanations so far. (However, it's still "essay", rather than even "guideline" or "official interpretation of policy". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the history. I did not write that. β^_command 05:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a comprehensive explanation of this interpretation. The part that interests me most at this point is in the very beginning: "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may follow it or not, at your discretion." E^robson (T^alk) 05:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the related discussions they are relative and show a clear consensus for my actions. β^_command 05:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question BC - what if a vast majority of a list is free images but there are a few exceptions where free images cannot be found? Is a couple of fair-use in a list ok or not? What is the threshold? Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

there is no concrete numbers that can be given. Instead look at the content, 99.9% of these list of.. pages contain about a paragraph on each character that gives a brief over view of the character. The issue is that the characters are not significant enough for their own article, and thus not significant enough for a non-free image. That being set aside I have seen list pages that go into great depth and have external sources for specific incidents related to one appearance. that is covered and the event that is in the picture is significant and should have a photo. List of Sunset Beach characters is a perfect example of a List of.. page. yeah it has only a paragraph on each character, but it has numerious paragraphs supporting the single non-free image, the single image covers everything individual photos can, is minimal use, and is significant to the article. β^_command 05:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus that, say, a list of major characters of (game X) couldn't have a non-free image for each character, if ensemble/montage images cannot be obtained; whether the number of characters is 2 or 10, or possibly more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please dont waste my time if you dont want to read everything that linked to. those clearly show that NFC in list of pages dont meet policy. Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists is a proposal to allow images, it failed. or even the signpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use please stop commenting on things that you dont want to take the time to research. β^_command 12:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That proposal was to clarify NFCC#3c and #8 to limit the number of images per (list) article. It failed. The consensus interpretation seems to be that one image per copyrighted object (episode) is the minimum allowable. It's not relevant to "list of character" articles, but clearly indicates that "list of episodes" articles can be illustrated with one image per episode. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet again you completely FAILED to read what I linked, please just stop commenting if you dont know what your talking about or care to research. β^_command 13:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You have apparently failed to read the discussion. As for the Signpost article, it clearly indicates consensus that the images will be removed, not that they should be removed. It should also be noted, in regard List of Sunset Beach characters, that a non-free image of an actor to illustrate the article on the character is inappropriate. I'm not sure how a cast photo can support a list of "characters", there being no claim on the caption that those actors are in character. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you obviously choose not to read what I linked to WP:FUEXPLAIN this discussion is over since you fail to do your research. Since what ever I link to you wont read stop attempting to disrupt. good by and have a nice cup of tea somewhere else. β^_command 13:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is incivility?

The only freedom you are defending in this case is the freedom of corporations to use certain images on this site. You're taking away freedom from the vast majority of readers. My guess is that you're a Stallman fanboy, right? It's either that, or you work for the copyright lobby. But it's not just freedom you hate, you also hate our policies on consensus, disruption, and vandalism. You pretend like you own Wikipedia, even though you haven't done a single thing for the site. I think the passages you link to should be removed. Perhaps that would throw an exception in your machine-level logic. Just stick to programming. Philosophy is far more complex than writing a program.--69.39.89.95 (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to make this clear to all passers-by that Betacommand was blocked by Arthur Rubin for calling the person who posted this a troll. I say that Arthur Rubin needs to take his troll-dar in for service, and should perhaps stay away from the block button in the meantime. BC, please feel free to remove this if the troll's comment is that offensive to you, but I think it's important for other to see this block exactly for what it is. HiDrNick! 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

fwiw: I warned the IP in question for making personal attacks shortly before Beta was blocked. Last I looked - removing personal attacks from one's talk page doesn't qualify as 'incivility'. --Versageek 16:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for WP:CIVIL violations, and removal of images without consensus as to your interpretation of WP:NFCC.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I have not violated CIVIL, nor have I violated 3RR. Since you obviously have a COI you need to revert your block. β^_command 13:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That you cannot get away with. I doubt there is more than one or two admins who do not have a COI, which does not make you exempt from blocks. The previous blocking admin had been involved in a content (and policy) dispute with you. I had been in a content dispute with you (last year, I believe), but now have only been arguing policy. (And, as you know WP:3RR includes edit warring. I've been having trouble with my edit summaries being cut off, so I'm using some Wikipedia shorthand. Probably a bad habit.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The incivility in question is not toward me, but toward the anon commentator. You can remove comments from your talk page, but "revert troll" is clearly a civility violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry for asking that the "anon troll" use is actual account instead of posting autonomously. Also go back and read WP:NFC

Images that are used primarily to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus. In general, using zero, one, or two images of major characters is likely acceptable, while using more than five is likely unacceptable. Editors must also recall that every image must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria and no images that fail any of these criteria should be used.

β^_command 14:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'll unblock on the condition that you stop removing the images, for the moment. I'm sure there are others who share your opinion. (I think that the addition of the numbers to WP:NFC probably didn't have consensus, if I read the article history correctly. But I'm willing to agree to the current phrasing, noting the word "likely".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

you need to realize that it has been enforced this way for a year, you need to reverse yout Obvious bad faith, out of order, and COI block immediately. I will not agree to ignore policy, if you actually took the several hours required to research this issue you would understand that my position is correct. as for the "breach of CIVIL" I called a troll what it was, if you dont think that is trolling you need to go review the definition of trolling. I expect that you will reverse this block ASAP and apologize for your error. β^_command 14:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To clarify, I meant that it won't hurt Wikipedia for the images to remain a little while longer, until another knowledgable editor who agrees with your interpretation of WP:NFC removes them. This is about you; the images are about Wikipedia. I think it would be better for Wikipedia if, in general, you contributed to the discussions, rather than taking action on them. In regard policy, most people provide their best arguments first. Your first arguments do not support your contentions as to policy; in fact the RfC actually supports inclusion of more images. It may be your interpretation is correct, or it may be that your interpretation would have consensus if it were discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IT HAS BE DISCUSSED AT GREAT LENGTH CONSENSUS IS THAT NFC IN LISTS DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS PLEASE READ WP:FUEXPLAIN#FAQ and frequent defenses. β^_command 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Incredible. No wonder wikipedia is destroying itself when such incredibly ignorant and stupid blocks are put in place. Timeshift (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

seaQuest Recurring Characters

Can you show me where in the policy it says it says "Lists can't use pictures"? If you can THEN post it. Don't make threats because you don't agree. Removal of images without consensus or discussions could also lead to a block for you. Vague references and threats of blocks without backing up your claims as to WHY it's a violation won't cut it. Dr. Stantz (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

see WP:FUEXPLAIN and WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, β^_command 16:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Block

Betacommand, I note you have now begun edit-warring on the NFC page you are quoting ([2], [3]) to re-insert your disputed interpretation of the NFCC, whilst continuing to revert quoting your version of the policy. [4] [5] [6] [7].

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Remedies, you were told to refrain from further instances of untoward conduct. This edit-warring is clearly untoward. Saying "I am following policy" is not an excuse when the policy is disputed, and you have been given some very clear suggestions (previous warnings and blocks) to slow down.

Per the Arbcom remedy, and considering the other blocks logged in your block log, I have blocked you for 48 hours. I will log the block on the Arbcom case. Neıl 龱 16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again.... I thought this very thing had been discussed on ANI already, say in the last 12 hours... It should also be noted, that there are a number of other users restoring that NFC page, to the version supportive of what beta's doing. Additionally, you have listed four different reverts to four different pages, was that in error? SQL^{Query me!} 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No. If you want a discussion with me, SQL, can we take this to my talk page, please, rather than on someone else's. I know I hate getting orange bars when the messages aren't even for me. Neıl 龱 16:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, here makes sense, the only place left that Betacommand can now participate as well. Since it's a discussion about him, it's only fair that he be allowed to participate. Anyhow, I know how these things usually go down, and, I really don't want any further part of it, just had a general question, and, a comment. I'm going to go find something more productive to do with my time now. SQL^{Query me!} 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil, you disgust me. [8] is following EXACT policy, why dont you take time and review policy before you put your foot in your mouth.

An album cover as part of a discography, as per the above.

IS policy and has been for years. that is a discography if they exist. I was reverting blind stalking reverts against policy. you obviously dont read WP:NFC so you have no idea what policy is, you might want to review that. [9] was yet another reversion by the same editor who blindly reverted against policy. you need to review your policy and the actions of all involved prior to making a block. β^_command 02:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

or [10] the blind re-insertion of 61 non-free images. β^_command 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

or re-inserting 31 images on [11] β^_command 02:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

and another 28 images added to a discography [12]. β^_command 02:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably not a good idea to tell the blocking administrator that he "disgusts" you. That simply further violates your civility parole. S. Dean Jameson 03:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Im sorry if you think that is a CIV violation, you need to get a thicker skin and get over it, as its a honest statement of my position and the fact that you violated policy numerious times. β^_command 03:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't just think that, it was a WP:CIV violation. And telling me to "grow a thicker skin" doesn't address your incivility to the blocking admin at all. I'm not angry, I'm just saying it's kind of unwise to blow up at the blocking admin like that. S. Dean Jameson 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Im just pointing out where the blocking admin made errors against policy. you need to review CIV and understand that expressing a position that is accurate is not a violation of policy. β^_command 03:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Regarding civility, technically you're right. If you say the blocking admin is a crazy pig, that's uncivil. But if you say the blocking admin disgusts you, that's an accurate statement. Hope this helps. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
          • He's not right about WP:CIV, though, when he claims it can't be uncivil if it's true. WP:CIV says no such thing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. The wording that Betacommand was restoring had been in there for months. An editor who disagreed with the removal of the images went to edit the guideline pages to protect those images, and Beta reverted him. Beta may or may not be right about the individual list article disputes, but he acted appropriately on WP:NFC. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, the section he re-added is a section I added this morning (being BOLD from the discussion on WT:NFC and the fact that Beta was being talked about heavily) about 0-2/5 images. That section was removed and readded a couple times (once by Beta). Mind you , that isn't edit warring, but that portion of that text didn't exist until <24 hrs ago. --MASEM 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed those edits. I thought they were just related to another section [13]. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, I'm sorry for disgusting you. I have asked that your block not be extended for that, as it's not particularly bothersome. A few notes:

Note WP:NFC is a guideline, not a policy. Note that the guideline (not policy) is only being violated under your interpretation of it. Note that you were edit warring to reinsert a specific interpretation of that guideline, and reverting based on that interpretation. Note I am perfectly familiar with NFC, although I really didn't need to be to act here - your actions spoke for themselves.

You cannot edit war on a guideline to enforce your opinion and revert people based on that. Ruling 1 of your second RFArb was quite specific about untoward behaviour. Neıl 龱 08:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet I made two edits to that page, one a driveby revert, and another that looked like an edit conflict given the summery had no note about that section. the other reverts are backed by policy see WP:NFCC β^_command 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC doesn't specify whether or not non-free images can be used in "List of..." pages; it is fuzzy on that at present, and open to interpretation. It is a contentious issue that has yet to be resolved. You know this as well as I do. Removing images based on this interpretation of WP:NFCC is something you had previously been asked to stop (it's why the first block happened, I believe). Editing WP:NFC to restore your version of how the criteria should work compounded this. I should warn you that when your block expires, should you return to edit warring based on this interpretation of the non-free content criteria before it is resolved on WP:NFC, I will block you again for a longer period. Neıl 龱 10:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Again you FAILED to read what I posted. those that I reverted after the last unblock where clear cut violations of the non-free content policy please read a few posts up. All that I had reverted was a blind reversion of my edits. NFC is crystal clear and has been regarding discographies. yet that was one of the links you cited when blocking me. those where not my interpretation of policy. policy explicitly does not allow those. β^_command 12:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Automated licence check

Your edit [14] resulted in the removal of one free image, is there anyway to modify your script to check licences. On the whole I think you do a great job, too many people WP:OWN articles, and dont look at the big picture Fasach Nua (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

im sorry about that, I missed that it was a free image during the manual check. Ill take more care next time. β^_command 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are doing it manually, given the number of images you remove, I would expect it to be higher. Dont get put off by the barrage of attacks above, you are doing a much needed job Fasach Nua (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks. β^_command 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

About Image:Gurps4e.jpg

Hi. I have addressed the concern you have drawn my attention about. I have explained in the fair use rationale why the image Image:Gurps4e.jpg is useful in the context of the article in which it appears: role-palying games have a mixed status between boardgames (with a box, a board, counters etc.) and actual books. This has raised misunderstandings in the past, also within WP (wrong categories for AfDs etc.). So it is useful to show an example of actual cover of one of these rulebooks, also to show their distinct look (as opposed to other kind of books, to those of the 3rd edition of the same game etc.). Why do you believe that this image still fail WP:NFCC#8? Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

the image usage in relation to the article fails WP:NFCC#8 a key part of our non-free policy. "useful" is not enough under our non-free content policy. β^_command 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I read the policy we are talking about, "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", as a definition of "usefulness": for instance, "a spoon is useful to eat soup" is a more concise way of saying "a soup significantly increases eaters' capability of eating soups". Sorry for the stupid example, but I'd really like to understand the limits of the policy, also to avoid future mistakes. Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

lets keep going with the soup example. useful is crackers with the tomato soup. you dont have to have it, but it makes it better, on the other hand you need a spoon to eat the soup. (yes you could eat it without a spoon but that a different story). or another example is that a car needs wheels, it doesnt need a CD player or air conditioner, both make the trip nicer but you dont have to have them. CD players are useful but wheels are significant for the operation of the vehicle. β^_command 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Beta, I think you are disregarding the fact that book covers are usually admitted as fair-use images and rightly or wrongly are considered as spoons, not crackers. See Category:Book covers. You need to make a much stronger argument as to why this particular book cover should be considered differently than, say, the cover of The Human Stain. As such, I have removed the di template from the image. Of course, all of it goes back to perpetual disagreements about NFCC8 but you do have to take into account that this interpretation is disputed and has been for some time. Until there's a policy that resolves the issue decisively and doesn't leave as much room for interpretation as the current one, these images should at the very least be sent to IFD. (as an aside though, that particular image (Image:Gurps4e.jpg)should in fact be deleted and replaced by the lower resolution duplicate Image:GURPS Characters.jpg which is used in GURPS 4e Basic Set. But of course, I suppose you would di that one as well...) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Book covers are allowed in the article about the book. they are not allowed in lists, same thing with discographies. had this been a book cover in an article about the book I would not be bringing this up. β^_command

note that GURPS 4e Basic Set is about a specific book and not a list of books like List of GURPS books. that is a major difference in usage. β^_command 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but note that (a) it would have been wise of you to explain this to Goochelaar rather than saying the image is a cracker for the soup and (b) the interpretation that list = no image is a rather simplistic interpretation of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. In particular, if the book had no corresponding article then it would definitely be well within policy to include one book cover in the list. I also find it pretty astounding that you would not only edit war about the di tag but event tag it with a self-made speedy deletion template which you know full well is not in accordance with the speedy deletion criteria. (Please read item 7 of Wikipedia:CSD#Images_and_media if you need to refresh your memory about the procedure. Though I'd expect you'll just say "oh but I'd already notified the uploader some days ago" but as I'm sure you realize, the inappropriateness was debated only today.) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Side note: I've also restored your original di tag on Image:Thehitcher2.jpg which you'd once again replaced by an inappropriate self-made speedy deletion template: you can't pretend that you don't know what the deletion process is. And as much as I hate to point it out to you, you have been told time and again to avoid edit summaries like this. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Pascal Tesson for clarifying further the matter. Indeed, List of GURPS books has a complex history: in particular, it partially doubles as a kind of multiple stub for the books who have not yet, or no more, their own articles. Goochelaar (talk)

FYI Beta, I started an ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cbsite.2C_BetaCommand_and_NFCC._Block_review.2Fblock_request. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be a spoil-sport but this is just a larger version of Image:GURPS Characters.jpg, so I listed it at IFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Betacommand, I have blocked you for one week for continuing to edit-war over NFC images. You have just come off a 48-hour block for disruptive editing over NFC images, and are subject to an arbitration remedy (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Remedies). Failing fair use criteria 8 is not grounds for speedy deletion ([15] [16] [17] etc); you know this. You are also again edit-warring over NFC images ([18] [19]). I warned you not to do so again, and you continued. Neıl ☄ 00:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Invalid block

{{unblock}}I was blocked for invalid reasons Neil needs to read WP:CSD # Non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criterion 1) I was doing that. β^_command 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You are misquoting CSD. It says # Non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criteria 1 or 8). You were nominating them based on Criterion 8. Neıl ☄ 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please check your facts that was just added in the last 20 minutes without consensus [20]. β^_command 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Beta, you are correct. Nevertheless, you were edit-warring, as the diffs show, about NFC images, as the diffs show, which is something you were warned not to do. As the speedy tagging was okay in itself (although the edit warring over it was not), I have reduced your block to 72 hours. Neıl ☄ 00:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil, you've been previously involved with Betacommand. That, coupled with the fact that Beta stopped editing quite a few hours ago (thus alleviating the dispute) makes me strongly want to unblock. (ec) And the CSD criteria were changed literally minutes ago. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a clear axe grinding. β^_command 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

MZM, if yuou wish to overturn a block based on an arbitration committee sanction, I suggest you get a good consensus first. I am not "involved". Neıl ☄ 00:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It was me who added that exception. I explained it fully in my two edit summaries, and I didn't anticipate a block of Beta when I added it. To Beta, you were blocked only last week. It doesn't make you look good. NFCC#8 is subjective enough that it's useless as a speedy criterion - as I said, opinions within the admin community alone range from images on only vital articles such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima to more liberal usage. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

which is why I was filing IFD requests. β^_command 00:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful to explain why exactly they fail NFCC#8, instead of saying "oh, they just do" - remember, subjective rule. People will want an explanation why. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I started to expand the IfD reasoning but was blocked at the time. β^_command 00:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride: I started the ANI thread and although I consider myself invovled today, I haven't been in any serious conflict with Betacommand. I urge you to consider the details explained in the ANI thread. The fact that Beta stopped editing hours ago is completely irrelevant. There has been a strong agreement to put Beta on a very, very short leash in regards to edit-warring, civility, unresponsiveness to complaints or challenges of his image tagging. The block is not intended to stop Beta's current edits of the day. It is intended to stop Beta's recurring behaviour problems. No unblock should occur without proper discussion on the ANI thread. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I get blocked for enforcing policy? what next we give +sysop to vandals? just go ahead and try enforcing NFC policy and see what it takes to get things done. I clearly tagged images for ifd yet am reverted without reason, or deletion templates are removed without addressing the issue. its like tagging an article as a copyvio and having someone wikify it and remove the db-copyvio. its still a copyvio. β^_command 00:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not being blocked for enforcing policy. You're blocked for edit-warring, incivility and unresponsiveness to complaints. Enforcing policy does not give you a free pass as has been pointed out to you in the past. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the William M. Connolley case (that's currently ongoing) about subsequent blocks by the same admin, versus having an uninvolved admin step in? Neil has previously blocked Beta for this exact dispute; we have 1000 active admins. Is there some sort of shortage I'm unaware of? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

MZM, you're comparing two blocks based on an arbitration enforcement, 10 days apart, to a 54-minute wheel war. These are certainly not the same thing, nor are they even close. The prior block of Betacommand was judged wholly appropriate; I don't see why my judgment, which was purportedly fine 10 days ago, would now be faulty. Neıl ☄ 00:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

your block has zero ground, and you are involved, in past discussions you have made clear that you do no agree with me or my positions and that you dislike me. its not rocket science that you will take any ability that you get to block and harass me. β^_command 00:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm commenting on your neutrality on the issue. Beta started one (or more?) IfDs; that sounds like a step in the right direction, no? What more are you after? What do you hope to accomplish with this block? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

he wants to harass me, and force me off the project. β^_command 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The same as any block - a block prevents a disruptive user from further disrupting Wikipedia. Betacommand's edit-warring over non-free images is disruptive. He knows it. A 48 hour block did not prevent him continuing to disrupt on his return. A 72 hour block may or may not; if it does not, then a longer-again block will be necessary. Neıl ☄ 01:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

how about you stop harassing me and actually block the users who cannot follow the NFC policy, Oh wait, you like harassing me. β^_command 01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop bandying around the word "harass". It's really a word that you should refrain from using (from common sense alone tells you why) Sceptre ^(talk) 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Neil: Using the appropriate forum for discussion (i.e., IfD) is disruptive? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Review the diffs given above; these were not attempts to use IFD. [21] [22]. Neıl ☄ 01:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Err what? Beta went to use an appropriate forum and was blindly reverted for doing so. I see no real benefit to this block. If you would like to see Beta banned, this isn't the appropriate way to do so. I'm strongly inclined to lift this block within the hour. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

MZM, in the interests of minimising drama, please get a consensus to unblock. We don't want another Geogre-WMC. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've held off unblocking and I'm attempting to discuss this with the blocking admin (Neil). But at the end of the day, a bad block is a bad block. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All the same, the Geogre-WMC thing can be directly translated to this current situation. I'm just wanting to reduce the drama. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride: you are clearly choosing to look at the edits of Betacommand that are coherent with your interpretation of the situation. Again, I invite you to visit the ANI thread in which I've provided the relevant diffs. You also seem to be unaware of the strict editing restrictions agreed upon in the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive146#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand and unaware of the two blocks following this, both of which resulted in quite a bit of drama. (e.g., this discussion in which I did not participate but ended up closing as it was quickly deteriorating [23]). Again, I urge you to take the discussion about a possible unblock to ANI: you seem to be tempted to consider the events of the past 48 hours in isolation. To put it bluntly, this is a mistake and it is contrary to the community consensus on how to stop incidents involving Betacommand. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Neil claims his 6 July 2008 block was "wholly appropriate". This is incorrect. I noted this at Neil's talk page, explaining in considerable detail why it was inappropriate (see [24]). Neil removed my message with edit summary "Don't tempt me, troll" [25]. Then when I asked him not to refer to me like that, and explained my reason for posting to him [26], he reverted me like a vandal [27]. Neil's behavior in this dispute has been grossly inappropriate. Kylu is right. In the very least, Neil should recuse himself from any further administrative action with regards to Betacommand. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And so it goes. Again. Who's going to keep BC under control? Wiggy! (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are 1576 admins. Neil doesn't need to be involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's really disturbing. I would have expected far better of that user. :/ SQL^{Query me!} 15:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And anybody who wades in to square him away just ends up being tagged as "involved" and gets buried in his nonsense. Wiggy! (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop piling on, all of you. Admins have let the block stand, and no further discussion is required; talk page taunts and arguments do not help anything. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

FYI, I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Betacommand. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ill gladly tell you what happened, I was editing from different PCs. they are about 30 miles apart. other than that I am not going to give out personal data. those where autoblocks on the IPs that I use, they are not other accounts. If I wanted to bypass the block I would first re-set my router to change my IP so that it would not be traced. β^_command 04:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a key point in these absurd accusations of sockpuppetry, Beta's smart enough to evade a block if he actually wanted to. Give the guy some credit here. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware with the whole story but I concur with what Ned Scott says -- Tinu Cherian - 06:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage abuse

I'd encourage admins visiting this page (and the talkpages of other users blocked for good faith work, if not quite aligned to the expectations of the community) to block accounts and IPs performing taunting edits. Abuse from a suspected bad-hand user should be turned over to checkusers for their opinion on follow-up action. Thank you. Kylu (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand should maybe ask for his talk page to be re-protected. Then he could sit back and watch the pie-fight going on amongst a group of admins over the Tony Sidaway blocking issue. What is going on with this place? Has anarchy broken out? With that unseemly behavior going on among the so-called leaders, I start to think I owe Betacommand an apology. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bundled nominations?

Hi Betacommand,

I just noticed that you nominated Image:Supermariogalaxydemo1.JPG for deletion under criteria 8 of WP:NFCC. When I went to check out the article it's used in now (I originally uploaded it for use in Super Mario Galaxy), I noticed that you nominated every other image on that article with the exception of Image:Mario.jpg under the same rationale.

My thoughts on whether or not these images should be kept aside, I just wanted to stop by and suggest that you bundle nominations like this in the future. As it is, you're splitting what is essentially a single issue (the question of whether Mario (series) requires fair-use images) into half a dozen different discussions, which makes it difficult to track and participate in the decision-making process. While I'm not asking that you go back and consolidate these nominations, it would be helpful in the future. Thanks! --jonny-mt 05:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

the individual noms where for a reason, I was targeting improper usage of non-free content, you cannot easily address that completely on a bundled nom as every image needs addressed separately. β^_command 05:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Human.svg

Hi Betacommand, can you give me your thoughts as to whether Image:Human.svg is a free image or not? In favor of it being free, it's a copy of a work made by the US government. On the other hand, there is a copyright claim on this particular image ("SVG Copyrighted 2005 by Gregory Maxwell.") What do you think about this one? Thanks, Antelan 17:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, freeness is not really at issue, it's just a choice between public domain and GFDL. If one were to argue that Gmaxwell's SVG adaptation is an unoriginal derivation (like a photograph under {pd-art}), then it's public domain as a NASA work; if we accept that Maxwell has copyright on his version, it's GFDL as he stated when uploading it. (see the edit summary of the uploads.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Thanks for the heads up. Antelan 03:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

AN thread

I'm sure you were probably following the thread on WP:AN, but I wanted to leave a note saying I closed it. Please let me know if you think my summary doesn't agree with the comments left by others. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

just to avoid the obvious issues with LC have never been started by me, I dont watch him, but he seems to stalk me. hopefully this will end that. β^_command 03:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit comparison

Would you be willing to run one of these for Lar and Kelly? Thanks. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst anyone can run them, I'm not sure there's much point here. There's one clear difference in those two - one of them has clue, the other doesn't have much at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify, anybody who has access can run them, which is not anybody. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have access, and seeing as it will only use publically available info, I've gone ahead and run it, I'll be uploading it to my userspace in a minute. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The results are here. MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi! I've been waiting for VandalProof approval for almost two month now, and I'm starting to get tired of waiting and wants to know when this is going to be adressed by the moderators. Thank you for your answer. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)