User talk:Lar

About me

Essays

Trinkets

Trivia

Visited

Talk

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.

Here about accountability? see my accountability page.
Note: The apparent listification of the category does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way

Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active... (my status is believed to be: Template:Ustatus)

This is Lar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83

A Note on threading:

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

(From User:Lar/Pooh Policy)

My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns. I will archive this page if/when there is a need but will not delete comments. I reserve the right to refactor by moving comments under headings, adding headings, and so forth but will never change comment order in a way that changes meaning.

Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li wikisource

What's going on here? Could you please tell us something about it on that page? (because here I won't see it) Thanks. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my talk page watchers, I did answer there... and I didn't use any umlauts. :) ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's ok. And yes I've seen that too :D --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall clarification

There is a situation you should look on User talk:Elonka. The question is whether the default recall criteria is six editors, or net six editors. Jehochman ^Talk 20:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the question is whether Elonka's criteria is six editors or six net editors. Participation in recall is voluntary, not binding, and interpretation of criteria has to come from the horse's mouth so to speak. Avruch^T 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Avruch, it's Elonka's criteria. However if Elonka said "I use the default" then ya, it might be "what does the default say". I am probably not a good authority on the default, because I wasn't in on creating them.... per CAT:AOTR the list of who uses what criteria is here: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria and Elonka appears not to be in that list. So what criteria she uses is also not clear. I do seem to recall encouraging Elonka to set up criteria, when I pinged everyone then in the category. But I may be misremembering. If SHE says she's using the default criteria (somewhere??? not sure where) , my interpretation of default criteria is that there is no "net"... only those in favour of recall are counted. This is similar to my own criteria. I hope that helps. Elonka should feel free to contact me if needed. ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my criteria to the second page. This conversation has been productive in some way. Jehochman ^Talk 23:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the most "loosey goosey" criteria I've seen yet. I never want to see someone recalled. But maybe I'll make an exception in your case just because I want to see if they work out! :) ++Lar: t/c 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're an ok bloke too :-)

...thanks for your words at AN... an amusing retort came to mind (idle speculation about how many of the adjectives applied to me may apply elsewhere in due course....) - but I think it's best unsaid. Kinda.

Anywhoo... various people have been helping me along at my mentoring pages, and as you'll note if you make it to the bottom, I struck while the iron was reasonably warm and made a request of the arbs. Thoughts most welcome anywhere (even if they're of the 'geez... no way!' variety :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to do a better job of following that garden walk ... really you need a better mentor than me, mate. As for your request to ArbCom, Sam's right, you keep blowing up your chances there with the stunts you pull. I don't think anyone can fault you for wanting to do what's good for the project. Plus I LOLed. But if you're trying to convince the arbcom you're sober/responsibile/respectable, etc, tweaking their noses may not be the best approach. But ya I think it's time to lift the restriction. ++Lar: t/c 10:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well I guess the reaction to nose tweaking was predictable, and it shouldn't be a great surprise.. but I will say this.. notwithstanding the fact that I clearly agree with you that it's time to lift the restriction.. I also feel that the way in which you go about examining situations, and evaluating what to do, is very strong. Some arb.s clearly disagree with your conclusion.... at the end of the day the fate of little 'ol me is essentially in my hands (toe the line and it'll all be ok seems to be the message) - but looking at the differences in how you, and some arbs, come to your respective conclusions may be of interest.. and maybe both useful and revealing? hmmm... I've noticed a few 'colour me' type comments around recently... so today, you can colour me a darkish mauve..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)ps. the whole 'group mentoring' thing works quite well from my perspective... the only extra benefit of having an 'official' hat is that I kind of promise to listen to you....![reply]

deleted article request

Hello, could you email me an copy of deleted article Terry Heartsfield? even though it was called vandalism, I did not intend it to be. Thanks --Arsenalfan101 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look and get back to you here. Please watch here. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted as an "Obvious hoax". can you provide a way to corroborate that Terry actually is on the Arsenal_F.C._Academy team or was in the 2007 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship ?? If you can I'll be happy to userify it... but if not I think I would decline. Who called it "vandalism"??? Please give me a diff if you can. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like, according to his userpage, he agrees that its not true (mockautobiography, he calls it) - but at the time of posting, he thought it was. He asked to e-mail it, not userfy it, not sure if that makes a difference or not but I thought I'd point it out ;-) Avruch^T 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka

Lar, I have been subjected to an intense on and off wiki smear campaign that accuses me of "obsession", "harassment" and "stalking". As a result, I had to make clear why I had been investigating Elonka, and get the community to confirm that there are problems with her administrating. Elonka's habit is to edit Wikipedia every day. She has been offline for two days, not responding to the recall on her talk page. This matter is creating an unusual amount of stress around the wiki, touching off side disputes (retaliation by Elonka's supporters) at places such as User talk:Bishonen. This matter need to be clarified urgently. I am hoping you can help in some way. Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that there is no response at all to the concerns raised. I said something on her talk. I then tried mailing Elonka and got nothing back. I don't think that not dealing with problems is the way to make them go away. I'm not sure what exactly can be done by me though. I'm open to suggestions if you have some, feel free to contact me via email, or here, or however... whatever makes sense for you. BTW where else are the side disputes? Hey talk page watchers... *yes I am talking to YOU!* go see if you can pour some calming oils? ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I archived my talk page, which seems to have had a calming effect there. There was edit warring at WP:RFC/U when User:Sceptre tried to get that page deleted. A WP:AE request against Giano set off a brush fire on that page. Unfortunately FT2 showed up, and received much abuse. Yes, lurkers, do help if you can. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We talk page stalkers may well weave our magic in subtle ways that are not apparent to the naked eye. I'll confess to being extraordinarily time-constrained at present, however; this will ease up after the weekend. Having said that: Jehochman, my first suggestion would be to ease up on the rhetoric just a bit, please. A philosophy I have found serves me well in situations like this: if there is a conflict between myself and another editor (or group of editors), and where I find that there is unlikely to be a point where we can agree, my tendency is to withdraw; if my point is valid, others are likely to pick it up, and if I am off-base, then it's time for me to stop talking. YMMV, but I think you can honestly say that others have picked up your point in this case. Best, Risker (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That they have. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka replied to me via email within the last hour or two (I had a call I had to do right then). She indicated she is very busy right now, but is aware of the need to respond. I got the sense that she will respond but that it might be after the weekend. I think that's reasonable, myself and I propose to go state something to that effect on her talk page, asking for some forbearance. She also addressed a number of points but I'm not at liberty to speak to what she said. ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping you a line here because I hope this is less watched, and therefore I hope to stir up less drama than this otherwise might on Elonka's talkpage. Basically, my feeling is this: notes saying "this editor has been in touch with me, so I ask you to calm down for awhile and wait quietly" rarely achieve their intended outcome. This is because the subtext of the notes can be read as "this editor had time enough to not only respond to my email, but also to address substantive points in her reply to me. The rest of the community doesn't get to hear what she said until later." The reason that I don't want to draw attention to my post here is that I understand that Elonka may want time to compose herself to make a statement. The reason that I want to drop you a line about this is that I think that, while clearly well-meaning, this approach usually amplifies the volume from opponents (cue dozens of messages like "she has time to reply to you but not to the hundreds of us?") and supporters (cue dozens of messages like "see? she heard you. now sit quietly until she responds"). I'm not sure that this effectively expresses what I'm trying to get across, but I wanted to try, anyways. Regards, Antelan 21:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised how watched this page is, actually. I think you raise some good points. The thought did cross my mind that it might not work out perfectly. And I note I'm getting slagged about it on WR too. So I dunno. Too late now, as it has replies. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, well then I (1) failed to get to you before there were already replies, and (2) failed to find a quieter place to express my thoughts to you. Sorry about that. Antelan 21:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no worries. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to think of this as meaning that the person involved needs some time for an adequate response. WP moves faster than the rest of the world. DGG (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall criteria

Hi, Lar, I am still working on my own criteria, User:Jehochman/Dispute resolution. Last time you looked, you said my criteria was not specific enough and too easily gamed. I really want to keep it simple. Do you think the current version is reasonable? Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems somewhat clearer now, yes. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABN AMRO

Hello again. It looks as if the ABN AMRO is unlocked now. At the writing, the only new edits are positive ones in which the last remaining mentions of "ABN Amro" were corrected to ABN AMRO. So we should watch the article closely to avoid more edit and renaming wars. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall

Lar, if I could just interject into the general recall discussion, at User:MBisanz/Recall I take control of certifying the recall out of my biased little hands and shove it at someone who in theory I rarely cross paths with. Eliminates a lot of the potential lawyering as to what is or is not a valid recall. Also, I think my terms are slightly more defined than most peoples. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prespecifying the clerk is an interesting twist. Another twist might be to specify 4 or 5 and let the initial filer pick (Myself I just say I'm going to pick someone of my own choosing and tough noogies :) ). Can I encourage you to take this discussion to a more central place, somewhere related to CAT:AOR ??? ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but I thought CATT:AOR redirected here :) MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh no. But lately I've been thinking of redirecting HERE to THERE... ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

(on WQ:AN) I went and checked Meta:Special:CentralAuth to see the status of this account... Crum375 is a unified (SUL) account and is present and attached on 11 wikis. - Is there any interface by which non-stewards can view the status of unified accounts? If not, is there a reason this information is not available? --Random832 (contribs) 08:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. (I've seen arguments as to why it shouldn't be available, but it is, I'm not sure I was convinced by those) As you noted when you reverted the above someone noted how to tell there. (for my talk page watchers (HI!) it is [1] and then enter the ID you're interested in...) I've unreverted you because I leave everything... unless highly abusive, I prefer to have a complete historical record, I'm not one of these users that removes everything as soon as it hits, my archives are complete. Even the egregious slurs I leave a diff link behind in almost every case. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

Hi Lar, it wasn't my intention to step on your toes with that proposal. Had I known your involvement was that serious, I certainly would have consulted you before putting it forward formally. It was more my sense at the time that someone needed to step up to the plate, and since I was suggesting the compromise I considered myself obligated to walk the walk. It would actually be somewhat easier for me not to be PM's mentor. He's charming and a joy to work with; it's more a question of pushing a couple of things onto the back burner to make the time. Dual mentorship might be ideal, if you're amenable. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, could work... maybe find a third to break ties... preferably someone from that relative timezone as we're both almost half a day out of synch from him. I have someone in mind, let me reach out to them and see... ++Lar: t/c 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They agreed. In fact, they've been mentoring all along too, see [2] ... I'll update with a comment. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments at RFAR, there are sides to my track record you may not have seen. As long as all parties are willing, though, I'd be glad to work with three. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, there may be sides I have not seen. But we can only judge by what we are aware of. I think all parties are willing, we just need to get ArbCom itself to bless this arrangment. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO

According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (SS Christopher Columbus) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion.

I COMPLETELY understand where you're coming from, re DS, but I think all sides had disengaged at this point, it's over, man, let's not reignite things (especially because I have to get up for work in less then five hours :P) SirFozzie (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed to be burbling along madly to me last I checked. Thanks though! ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive trolling

I would like both User: Frostie Jack and User: Lord Charles checkuserd for disruptive trolling and baiting. Thank you. Giano (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Frostie Jack. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano: already done, Risker's on the case. Jehochman: Commented there. Also liasing with Sam Korn about the findings. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email en route to you now, Lar. Risker (talk)

Received and responded. Please forward the file for context as suggested, as I responded to more people than you did. :) And honestly, I read my mail a lot. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the participants of this and this are being considered. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Simple-en when I was accused of being Grawp: ...I have no objection to my account being checkusered and any alternate accounts publically disclosed. Cheers. MBisanz (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC). MBisanz ^talk 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is becoming surreal. I have no idea how all these things are connected. Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They might not be in fairness Jehochman, but Giano's userspace article had a non-free image relating to "Savementmore" which would probably be ok in mainspace - so when 2 different users then try and move the entire article into mainspace against the author's wishes, it rather looks like there may be a connection. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have any non-free pictures in the article draft to just be a link (that way Giano can change it from a link to a picture and back again while trying to sort out correct sizing for the image), and then turned from a link to a picture when moving the article. That would mean that while the article is a draft, that the image isn't being used at all, and it would have to be fiercely guarded against those who delete orphaned non-free image. But an "exception" template should be easy to rustle up. It is also possibly to just let it be deleted, and to then undelete when the article is ready, but that is silly. Personally, I'd just keep a local copy and use a placeholder in the draft, and then reupload. It does seem silly, but it is better to do that then be driven insane by trying to adhere to process for non-free images... Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image involved is indeed in another article right now, Mentmore Towers, but the complaint is that it isn't being used well enough there. Just in case it does get deleted, I've uploaded it to my computer, but let's hope this nonsense doesn't continue. Risker (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an action item here for me, dear TPWs? ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lar, you were out so we made ourselves at home. Sorry for the footprints on the coffee table. And, um...that spill on the sofa was *not* me. Risker (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TPW? Surely not the one about top posting? :-) Send me the sofa cleaning bill. Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, Carcharoth, certainly not. :-) TPW = talk page watcher. I suspect you have a fair number yourself. Risker (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm down with parties!!! ...and don't worry about the sofa. I'm just miffed that no one invited ME. :) Oh, and who put Verdi and Vivaldi on the stereo? I commented on one of those image deletions by the way. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not participate in either of the IFDs. And I must say I feel somewhat slighted by any suggestion that I might be MBisanz – unlike Matthew, I know how to wear a suit. I merely spotted Giano in dispute with a bot – a less than profitable activity, given that it's merely carrying out its function – and then solved that dispute (I mean, that back and forth between automaton and man, allied with the hilarious edit summaries, was a bit like watching a chap stab himself repeatedly in the leg with a fork, while complaining about the sharp things that the manufacturer was putting on the end). Really, he should've thanked me.

(BTW, Lar: excellent blog. Seriously, it's one of the few good Wikpedia-related ones, right up there with Andrew Lih's. Stepwell (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also like Lar's blog, would you like to point me to your main account's talk page so we can continue to discuss Lar's ideas? MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that particular sock will be able to answer you straightaway. Or ever. Not here anyway. Drat, down to one fan. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the happy banter, I want them checkusered, and I want the name of main account, and I want that blocked too. I shall not give up on this. Giano (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. There is an investigation underway. People are looking into it. It's not my policy to comment on ongoing investigations but believe me who the main account is... is a matter of considerable interest. Feel free to give any evidence you think might help find the main account over at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Frostie Jack any info would be helpful. Seriously. ‎ ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another example

People jumped down my throat when I proposed we do away with the no fair use in user namespace point of WP:NFCC. It was precisely to allow editors, like Giano, the freedom to format and construct articles that I made this proposal. That others would use fair use to decorate their user pages seems irrelevant, it is the point that there is legit purposes to transclude fair use that trumps the unncessary hand-wringing by freedom extremists. Again, in the eyes of the court, there is no fundamental difference between main namespace and user namespace, Wikipedia is always taken as a whole. If some copyright holder complains, then we can adress it at that time, but preemtive action seems absurd. Can we just nuke this silly restriction now and shutdown the dumb bot? --Dragon695 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall recall

Seeing as you are the patriarch of recall, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#The_admin_recall_process_is_dead might be of interest. MBisanz ^talk 10:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the patriarch. But thanks for the pointer. Discussion is in the wrong place though. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depersonalization disorder

Lar, I see input from you at User talk:Ecrone. Can you review this in light of recent tag removal and repeat FAC submissions from a dynamic IP: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Or should I submit a Checkuser? I believe it's the same dynamic IP mentioned at that user's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably submit a RFCU. I'll take a look when I get done with the one I'm on now. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecrone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and QualityBadge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) plus the dynamic IPs; I'll submit if you say so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on the last one. If it's urgent then yes, if not, I'll try to get to it yet tonite. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all urgent. Several admins are watching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been from yesterday so it's rather late to place a preventative block on that IP. It's not the same one as the one that got the autoblock back in July. Block on behaviour I'd say, there's nothing to CU, really. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lar ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ecrone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there. It seems the IPs are too dynamic and there would be too much collateral damage. I suggest DQing the article and the nominator from further participation at FA for a while maybe? ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's less about FAC disruption and more about article disruption. Since I don't understand the ins and outs of Checkuser and range blocks (and I suspect Sam Korn is tiring of my checkuser requests :-), I'm unsure how to handle it. I thought semi-protecting the article would solve IP disruption, while Ecrone can be blocked for behavior if the issues continue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right to me, yes. And further, as I said, if the behaviour by Ecrone at FA gets disruptive again, maybe a topic ban. In your view is the behaviour such that a block of Ecrone is needed right now to stop the disruption, or would a warning suffice, or were they already warned? ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I issued a warning about the article disruption this morning; Ecrone didn't start up until the article was semi-protected, which shut down the IPs. If he continues, can I drop you a note? I spent the better part of the last 24 hours looking for admins to deal with several vandal/sock/troll situations. It was just my day, I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. You know my email too. There are other admins that would gladly help as well. This is where IRC is helpful, to get a fast response to an already established and understood issue that needs quick action. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no chance I'm ever going to invest time and energy into figuring out what or where IRC is. Old dog, new tricks, Giano ArbCom trauma, too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Well maybe just have the emails of a few of us handy to ping, in case the first one doesn't get right back to you? ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings restriction lifted and placed under mentorship

Per ruling of arbcom, User:Privatemusings' restriction is lifted. Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova. If no issues arise, the mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion. See full motion and remedies here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the activity related to this can be seen at User:Privatemusings/A_walk_on_a_path_in_a_garden ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My user space

Hi Lar. I've got that page in my user space for a reason. I don't want to get all prissy, but I'm reverting your edits for the time being whilst I think about them. For me the whole point of the page is to ignore the fact that there may be some other process, regardless of whether it works or not. I can see where you are coming from, but I don't really want to mention a process I appear to disagree with at the minute. I apologise, and I hope you understand. Hiding T 15:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't redirect to it from project space, then, please. Delete that redirect and I'll let your reversion stand. If you don't, then the essay itself needs to move to project space, at which point the edit is a good one subject to community process. Note I added a pointer to the essay at the reference materials section. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go to work now so I don't have time to get into this right now. I don't agree that the redirect has to go, that's a new one on me, but you could quite possibly be right. I;d appreciate a link to wherever that's stated in policy. I'll revert to your preferred version until we work this out if that's okay? Hiding T 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. I'd actually prefer this be placed in project space, as I think you make some important and valuable points. I'll try to dig up a ref for you but I've always taken it as generally accepted practice ... no shortcut/redirect links from article space to user or project space, and no shortcut/redirect links from project space to user space. I might be wrong though! It can wait for now. I think the redirect is only used in two places (one by you, one by me) so it's easy enough to fix that. While I don't agree with everything you're saying, involuntary voluntary really disturbs me, I went and commented on the three current RfAs that mention it. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to my TPWs... this discussion continues at User talk:Hiding/Recall ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Camaron/Adminship recall/Policy

Thanks for your feedback. I have made a few further changes if you are interested. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PM

I sent a PM via WR. If you would like to discuss my actions, please respond there. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optimistic

I've been on semi-vacation, so it was quite pleasing to see that NYB is back and taking on the tough case. I think my faith in the process has been somewhat restored. I just hope that a decision which honors the exceptional hard work of both Sandy and Cla68 will be reached. As we've seen in past weeks, the collective wiki-reputation of their detractors has fallen sharply. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us remain hopeful... Paul leaving is not a good thing, of course. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a considerable understatement—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joopercoopers (talk • contribs) 23 August 2008

Thinking outside the infobox

Well not really. Citizendium have taken a different tack relating to the way their articles are organised. Essentially the article proper is conceived as a sun around which supplemental satellites revolve. By way of example, I've had a go here. I'm personally of the opinion that there's a great deal of 'extra value' (horrible phrase) we could give to readers with such an approach and the interminable arguments, jockeying for position in article space might subside. Any thoughts? I'm also here to thank you for your talkpage tabcode which I've shamelessly pinched because I rather like it's elegance.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I've lost the context of wherever it was that I was referring to Citizendium. Can you remind me? (Also ... :) Make sure you haven't confused me with my wife, we're rather on the opposite sides of this issue as I do generally like infoboxes, with some exceptions...) I like your idea of creating a "tabbed article" though, it seems to have a great deal to recommend it. The tab metaphor is fairly common in user interfaces now, and should be well understood by most. However, I think there's something not quite right with how you've set the tabs up, because the "current" tab isn't showing up without the bottom line and in the "darker" color, as you can see here on my tabs... ("Talk" has a different tab appearance than the rest)... I could try to fix that if you wanted me to give it a go. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We, amongst others, were discussing infoboxes in general at Talk:Buckingham Palace a few weeks ago I think, which spurred this effort. I can't claim credit for the idea as this is just what they do at CZ, hence my reference to it. (I've no idea where you might have been talking about it:-). Please make any fixes you like, if it takes off we'll have to get some standards in place - would you need a separate "/supplement" template for each article or could one standard one be crafted that used fields to create the links? eg. {{supplement|Statistics|Gallery|Maps}}. Any thoughts on where to propose this? Any downsides? I'd like to get a few people on board to consider some of the issues before 'going public' at maybe Village Pump? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this takes off we want a generic template that we can invoke which we pass in the section names, and it does the individual tab #if -ing and invokes generic ActiveTab/OtherTab templates... let me hack on your User:Joopercoopers/Supplement real quicklike and see if I can sort this. I can make the generic if and when. And I agree VP is the place, if and when. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that thing. (except for the lead tab which since it's in your userspace isn't the "right name" and thus doesn't work). I will try to remember if someone already templatized part of this (a lot of people have used my tab scheme over the years) and find that, else I'll have a go at templatizing this further myself. I suggest getting a few more people to take a look informally, and then if this has the legs I think it does, let's take it to VP after that. My wife loves the idea already! Can you make the map narrower on the main page though, it looks crappy when the page has a scroll bar. I narrowed it on the maps page. Stylistically we may not want to keep the blue frames all the way around, and extra width, and stuff that I use on my talk, and ONLY have tabs on the top. have to think. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabbing

Well it seems my trick is used by a few other page sets. Mostly user pages but here's one notable one: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress ... I found these by doing this search: [8] (there may be better searches... ) I'm going to spend some time now to try to parameterize this. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, thanks Lar, it's working much better now - I've fixed the map width for the benefit of your wife:-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should buy her a bigger display. :) PS I dropped Markles a note. I'm about to get started on templatizing this. All in my user space at first. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try it now

I've changed User:Joopercoopers/Supplement to use my newer hopefully easier to use templates for doing the tabs. LMK what you think. ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. The only minor glitch I've spotted is the tabs seem to change width as one cycles through them. I see a village pump thread started a few days ago, which I wasn't aware of. I'm a bit peeved as I'd hoped to get a comprehensive 'pro' case together before taking it to the community, but I see you've done an admirable job of putting it. I'll respond at length and in depth tomorrow to the 'cons'. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR comment

This section is regarding Wikipedia:Rfar#Comment_by_Lar btw. (added for clarity) Kylu (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to clarify your comment. If the community were to decide in a discussion that an admin bit would be removed, I would expect any steward to execute that decision. That is what stewards do. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not what stewards do. Stewards implement policy and consensus. Absent a community consensus about recall that takes the force of policy, I find it exceedingly unlikely that stewards would remove the bit of an admin because of an apparent, local consensus ,which, absent policy change, is all that it would be. Apparent. Local. I am not alone in that view, I believe. I've asked my fellow stewards before, and I'd be happy to do so again, but that's the general consensus among stewards. Changing my comment to reflect something other than reality might not be the best approach. Given those precepts, what clarification if any do you think would be appropriate? ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The steward policy speaks of community decisions. I don't understand anywhere in that policy that a local policy has to exist. I see where it speaks of conforming to local policy, but if there is no policy to conform to, then they should execute the decision according to the steward policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with that policy, in fact I've helped edit it from time to time. The title of the section, I remind you, is "Don't decide". You are asking stewards to judge outcomes, to weigh arguments, to determine nuances. That is something that by and large, especially on wikis with large, active communities, that stewards do not do. I can raise the issue on the list again to check steward consensus, (do you wish me to?) but en:wp is a very large community. I think it is clear that any recall process outcome or decision arrived at on AN/I or whatever, would be considered a local consensus at best. Not one that the entire community was behind. That's why en:wp has policy. Policy is the codification of community decisions. Get policy changed to say that recall, once committed to, is binding, or that a vote of 50 users to remove someone is binding, or whatever, and then, yes, I suspect stewards would start considering it. We have had this discussion before. I am sorry that you do not find the answer satisfactory. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes better sense regarding the size of the community. This may need to be better clarified in the steward policy so this same misunderstanding does not occur. What did you mean by my not finding your answer unsatisfactory? I don't recall us having this discussion in the past, but of course, we may have. I just don't remember it, I'm sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a policy rewrite project active on Meta. You're welcome to give your opinion there, of course. One of the problems facing stewards lately is more and more demand to judge and decide, when stewards are specifically chosen to not do so. They're granted these tools with the understanding that they will only perform actions which are clearly uncontroversial. Considering that there's an arbitration case involved, it's obviously not uncontroversial enough for stewards to act upon it. Kylu (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so, Kylu, thanks. NVS, I could swear we've talked about something like this before. If not, I apologise for misapprehending you, but I know I've said this before to someone or another. ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things to any TPW that might be interested. 1) This topic has come up on the stewards mailing list and several stewards have just reiterated what I have said about current policy. 2) There appears to be a proposal currently being mooted to change current policy: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal:_Allow_stewards_to_deadmin_based_on_community_consensus ++Lar: t/c 11:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's definitely a perennial proposal... and it's being discussed now at WP:DeSysop too... Privatemusings (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)proud owner of a 'TPS' badge... W'ing is for wimps! :-)[reply]

A friendly metapedian may be required....

here - would you mind taking a quick look. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there's much that can be done, from Meta. Commented to that effect there. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dyk nom

On 24 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clara Fisher, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Hi! Victuallers (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU

Given the high density of TPS around, I was wondering if anyone had an update on the status and identity in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Frostie_Jack case? MBisanz ^talk 11:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TWP not TPS... Please AGF! I don't know that there's much more to say publicly at this point. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean TPW, right? As to the case, I continue to suggest removing the restriction on fair use in user space since it has been causing issues for good faith contributors. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant TPW, thanks! As to the case, I'm not sure I see the connection to Fair Use (can you explain?), but I do not support use of FU images on user pages, as they are not needed there for "criticism or commentary". I think the issue is rather with how FU repair/remediation gets implemented than with the concept of not allowing it. But that's a different topic. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano was having trouble with fair use, apparently, while constructing the article in his sandbox. Wasn't that the whole motivation behind the premature moving? --Dragon695 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. How soon we forget. ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a holding place for supposedly "orphaned" fair use images that someone has claimed would be OK. The only orphaned fair use images that should be deleted are those where no-one pops up and says "hang on, I want to use that in this article I'm writing". I know this will wreak havoc with the automated tools that search out orphaned fair use images, but they should be able to adjust their algorithms to accommodate this. Carcharoth (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that seems reasonable on the face of it. The details to be worked out are "where" (as in, do you tag it somehow, put it in a special sort of page, etc), "how long" (as in, it should not last "indefinitely" but it should last more than just a few days, people work on stuff for months or even years... but is years "ok"??) and "who" (Should you have some track record before this is ok?) Whether this passes muster with the Foundation legal team given the Foundation's statements and desired practices, I don't know (and is not my call) This would have to be coded into the en:wp fair use policy statement (the policy that every wiki is suposed to have) ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem

Email sent, answered and asked... Risker (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seriously, what IS it with you pinging me to tell me I have mail? As if. Thought we covered this??? Or were you just tipping off my TPWs????? In which case, carry on. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TPS noted. subject? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is only because I take great pleasure in annoying you, Lar. You know that. If the worst thing I do is leave you a message saying I've emailed you, consider yourself a lucky man. Risker (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'm sure the checkusers take great pleasure in checking who people have been sending e-mail to when they run checkusers. Or is that a separate checkuser action only intended to be used when there are allegations of e-mail abuse (no, not your e-mails, Risker!)? Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's for ferreting out e-mail abuse. Such as Risker's. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Well, now that you've commented, I can ask you what you think. (If you get tired of me asking your opinion about contentious RfAs, please let me know.)

I've also left comments on her talk page.

Thanks : ) - jc37 09:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been too mysterious of a request, I even went to your contribs to try to figure out what you are referring to. I think I know now but... PS, think of the poor TPW's... they may be even less clued than me. (in fact some would say hanging out here is a sign of cluelessness! :) Not me of course, but SOME would say that, yes) ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd comment that your guess is likely "right on the money", but the puns abound... - jc37 11:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your humor may be about, um... 3 levels above most of my TPWs humor grasping abilities. Just sayin'.

OK I'll go put my oar in there, maybe. But here, I'll say I don't think that having all the policies swotted is key. In fact even not knowing the right answers to every possible word problem is... (if you want that, get a perfectly prepared coachee). What is needed is clue, and willingness to admit error and learn from it. When I was a wee lad, just learning to drive a car (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and gas was under 50 cents a gallon), it wasn't necessary that I was a perfect driver before I was allowed behind the wheel the first time. Instead there was a graduated series of exercises, evaluations, tests, additional permissions, etc until I was a full fledged driver. And even then I made mistakes. What the drivers license process judged was not perfection, but a) good enough for the situation and b) willingness to get better. The RfA process is all or nothing, which is unfortunate. It would be better if there was a mentorship process, a learners permit, etc. But there isn't. So I don't require perfection from candidates I support. Just clue. This candidate has clue. And the right attitude. We don't need admins who are here just to be admins, so some article space contribution Gnoming, writing good stubs, fixing things, finding pictures, writing GAs, writing FAs, reviewing and fixing GA or FA candidates... whatever, I don't care... but something, not just ALL metaspace stuff) is key. This candidate has that. In spades. Hence my support. My suggestion, reevaluate in view of that and see what you think. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your feelings about adminship. (It's part of why I like to ask your thoughts, since yours tend to be rather "stable" : )

And I have been attempting to "rethink". After all, as you noted, there are quite a few editors whom I respect, who supported.

But then, as I mentioned to User:Horologium (when I asked him about it), the candidate says things like: [this (among other things), which makes me concerned that there is something other to this nom. There's just something that "feels" not quite kosher here. (Even perhaps a bit pointy.) And since this is all about trust...

But, of course, my thoughts are likely moot, as (with a currently fairly steady 81%) the candidate is likely to succeed. So I hope that the "trends" I am noting, and my "feeling" of concern turns out to be unnecessary.

I still would welcome your thougts, both on my previous comments (and "vote" at the RfA) , and the ones above. - jc37 01:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No easy answer there. RfA is a horrifically broken process in which there are many competing agendas, perspectives, and the like (at least one for each participant, if not more). The result is a gruesome gauntlet that candidates have to run. Given how hard it is to remove admins that have flubbed up against their will (stalwart and true members of CAT:AOR notwithstanding, and I aknowledge that it is likely that not every category member is there in good faith, although that's what I prefer to assume), there are many who are quite cautious in giving their approval. Unfortunately this seems to have set up conditions in which the candidates who are less than perfectly bland or have gotten their noses bloodied in the past cannot pass, even if they've learned from their mistakes. Personally, I'd prefer candidates who made some mistakes and learned, as long as they knew they did not have all the answers. I'd prefer candidates who are human and sometimes make flippant remarks to ones that are always 100% politically correct. Despite that diff, which I suspect is flippancy, I think this candidate has what it takes. Could she have a defter touch? Yes. So could we all. But she is not likely to blow up the wiki and she has a lot of clue, so my support remains firm. I am hopeful that she will take feedback on board regardless of passing or failing. Some of our best admins did not sail through at 100% or close to it. So keep raising your thoughtful concerns. But do keep your eye on the big picture... Adminship is unfortunately a big deal. Don't let imperfections in candidates lose us admins with clue while gaining us admins who regurgitate pat answers but screw up when they hit the reality of the daily bustle/grind/coalface. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(72 and sunny?)Avruch^T 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thought-filled response. (As usual) you make some valid points.

And I agree with the idea that "oops in the past; but I've shown in the months (years) since then that I've learned and will likely not do that again", means that I typically wouldn't oppose such a candidate. But if I felt that they were intentionally (almost pridefully) continuing such a pattern, I'd probably oppose, likely for that alone.

And despite what I've been accused of in the past, I don't realy only on the responses to question, nor to "regurgitating policy". As I've now seen quite a few varied resonses to my questions (as well as the classic/recurring ones), the way a candidate answers is sometimes more important than what they actually say. The "context". (Something that we Wikipedians often neglect with our single diffs.) And when combining that with the "context" of someone's comments when going through their edit history, it can often be enlightening to their character, and can (sometimes) indicate trends and tendencies. And one of my main concerns is "cluefulness", especially in their ability to read for content (as you already know from my criteria), and showing a lack thereof is concerning to me.

As for my thoughts as to how to "fix" RfA:

a.) Remove the ability to block/unblock from the default admin package. I think that that alone would diffuse the "adminship is/isn't a big deal debate. Of the "big three": block, delete, and protect, it seems to be the one that editors are likely to consider the most "personal" of attacks. Plus, unlike the others, it prevents an editor from editing any articles, not just the one deleted or protected. (Though, of course, cascading protection is something else altogether.)

b.) Remove the almost useless support section. This would end the RfA is a "vote" concept, for one thing. For another, it would allow for discussion. I think any candidate should be "adminship-worthy" unless/until proven otherwise". So anyone with concerns could note them, and the community could discuss. And at "closing time", the bureaucrat determines consensus, and that's that.

c.) (Yes, there's a minor third : ) - Make it easier for admins to be desysopped temporarily. Giving bureaucrats the ability to selectively block userrights, rather than blocking most of them (as is currently done by "blockuser"), would likely help resolve a lot of concerns.

What do you think? - jc37 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the end of the RfA ends the discussion as well? : ) - jc37 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I read it, nodded, said I need to respond, and then forgot, other stuff came up. As you can see, my page is rather busy. No slight intended.

I can't say I disagree with the principles you articulate for support, at least not in the main. We just came out to different results. Which is OK. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was mostly what I was asking your opinion on. Thank you. - jc37 09:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a) That's an interesting idea. Stewards now have the ability to create different packages of permissions at the global level. It might be something to see that extended to local (right now it takes a bug). The change would require consensus of course. The issue is that if that permission is removed, you have a NEW process needed to grant the permission to some folk (we can't not have blocking at all)... The problem is to get consensus for a change. b) I don't know. The current process is broken but there have been periodic suggestions of reform that never go anywhere. I was involved in one (WP:DFA and this) before I was even an admin. The problem is to get consensus for a change. c) seems like a good idea, the problem is to get consensus for a change. Hmmm... theme? ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And everytime I bring them up (in respective order):

"You're gonna try to take away my ability to block. Oppose!" (Which isn't the proposal, but considering how many people "disappear" only to quietly return under "other" names, perhaps they are more concerned about their future accounts. Anyway, it all seems to be about territorial control, or in other words that sense of "power" - IWANTMINE.)

"But I wanna vote for who I wanna vote for. This is democracy. This is America. I have my rights. etc." (Another case of IWANTMINE...)

No single quote, this "discussion" just devolved. For one thing, too many other things involving user-rights were going on, which were being "pushed" by forces beyond me : )

So yes, I'll probably bring them each up again, at one point or other. But until the admin user-right package is "broken up", I don't think that a or c will happen. Too much irrational fear and territorialism.

And the same pretty much goes for RfA changes.

But who knows. I've seen things change which I never thought would happen (both for good and ill). SO dunno. - jc37 09:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

!ping! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, my spam folder (where all your missives are directed by default) is empty. And what's this burning bag I spy by my door? ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are these character from the film Earth Girls Are Easy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to answer, this is veering away from G rated territory. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabbed articles

I've started setting out some of my thinking here‎. If you get a chance, your thoughts or questions would be gratefully received. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially

Hi. I'm sorry we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot.

So as not to clutter up the Talk:Ponte Vecchio#Cleanup thread: I care who is an admin, because admin status is a fairly reliable indicator that the user has a modicum of self-restraint, and a modicum of community trust. It occasionally indicates that they will know technical details about whatever they are discussing, and implies that they have more than a few months of experience.

Collapsible sections (like collapsible "References", which are continually suggested by people who consider the large blocks of citations to be annoyances/eyesores) have many immediate drawbacks.
The default page-view should be the best view for the most readers - it's as simple (and complex in details) as that.

That's the gist of my perspective. I'm not trying to be closed-minded to interface experiments, just to give the readers a good experience. Hope that helps make my stance clear. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your perspective. Best is a very nebulous term, and good enough is the enemy of better as they say. What is good is a shifting target as our wiki-technological capabilities advance. What can be done with templates and formatting depends on how clever people are in using the current software, which advances over time as people learn more, (for example the article classification templates are much more sophisticated and reliable now than they were back when Kingboyk and I first developed them in 2006) and in what the current MediaWiki software is capable of, which advances over time as bugs and enhancements get added to the codebase. We must be careful not to ossify. What we thought was true about what is "best" a year ago may no longer be true. Standards are good but sometimes imposing standards "too early" stifles innovation in a way that makes it hard to really improve. Analog television held back HD digital for 50 years, at least. I really think those saying "tabs are bad, show/hide infoboxes are bad, multiple pages are bad" and so forth, and those trying to impose central authority over local consensus are stifling innovation. Don't be part of that please. Let's not get ourselves convinced that we have to get everything good enough right away and stifle a chance for better later... there is no deadline.

Tangentially, I think it's false to rely too much on who is an admin and who isn't, in judging the level of clue. There are some deeply wise and profound non admins, and some terrifically inexperienced and clueless admins out there. Try not to stereotype. Keep your mind open. ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the balance between immediatism and eventualism is delicate. I usually side with eventualism. Except when the issue is over a situation that causes immediate and actual problems.

I don't "rely" at all on admin-status. I'm sorry that you choose that sentence to concentrate on, as it was basically irrelevant (as pointed out) to the subject at hand. What I was trying to get across, was that User:Shereth and User:LordAmeth and User:Mr.Z-man and User:Masem and User:Carnildo all agreed that hidden-infoboxes are bad, and that they all happen to be admins and have therefor been around a while and might know a thing or two. I was trying to prevent drawn-out quibbling over semantics, which these discussions so often devolve into. It backfired (as life so often does).

Again: The default page-view should be the best/optimal/most-useful/least-problematic view for the most readers. Do you think a hidden-infobox is ever the best default? (Given that many readers won't discover it at all, and that they do not print properly, and obscure any images within them, and etc etc?) (Perhaps better answered at the MOS thread..)

Thanks again for listening. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that old-timers may be recalling the days when Wikipedia had the spoiler collapsable section. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@quid Have you actually tried printing the page with hidden boxes? Go to the print page and click the 'show' on the box - it displays and can then be printed perfectly - so the reader may choose to include it in his print. Nifty huh? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. I went all the way to a printed sheet of dead-tree in my hand, that does not show the infobox (not even the "Facts at-a-Glance" heading). In the top-right is just the coordinates with an image underneath. It does not print. The print-preview shows it fine, but it does not print. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balls! Quiddity, please accept my apologies (and egg on face cheeky embarassment), you are quite right - so much for WYSIWYG! I'll strike my objections on that basis at MOSINFOBOXEN. peace. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other example, though somewhat extreme, is this recent/current Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/MindstormsKid design draft. That page demonstrates perfectly why large hidden-sections might be considered harmful.

(It also shows what sometimes happens in mainspace when per-article-consensus completely overrules "central-authority" wiki-wide-consensus.

See also, dubious navbox colour schemes, such as {{Cc brands}}. Some trends need to be discouraged... Bad code proliferation is one of them. (and small fonts everywhere, another thing I've been trying to get discussion going on recently))

OK. On the main page redesign, I'm not seeing the issue there at all. That design isn't my cup of tea but having the last section hidden by default seems an interesting approach to reducing clutter (the main page currently is dreadfully cluttered, especially at the bottom), and batting around ideas like that seems goodness to me. After all, ideas, even bad ones, sometimes lead to innovation. On the Coca Cola navbox color scheme I don't see the issue there at all, can you clarify? On the hidden text not printing issue... you're using a technical limitation as a counter argument here. I don't buy that. The answer to technical limitations is... (wait for it) Bugzilla. Have you searched for, or raised, a bug yet to ask for an enhancement which supports show hide functionality in a way that gives desired print control (always, sometimes, never? Ideally give the user a radio button popup (suppressable) to choose section by section, or some other approach, factoring in automation). If you haven't, you don't have standing to complain about technical limitations. The trend I'm seeing here is that you're giving examples of things that maybe don't work today as evidence that ... well I don't quite know what. That innovation is bad? Bad in some cases? ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)There are three hidden sections at that main page redesign, and you were looking for them but only saw the one! How far is someone going to get, if they are used to the old main page [or infobox style], or aren't naturally-curious-enough to click everything in sight? Yes, experiments are good, but this one just doesn't work.

The {{Cc brands}} color scheme is in the corporate branding of coca-cola red. Extrapolate that as a trend to every navbox. Now extrapolate to every infobox (see the regulated-beginnings at Template:Television colour).

A better example (which I just remembered) is the Wales infobox from earlier this year. Much edit-warring, much discussion of Rainbowpedia/Kaleidopedia. Small amounts of customization can be good (that Cc brands navbox is not critically bad, just subjectively/aesthetically "dubious", an eyebrow-raiser/eye-roller), but large amounts are quickly overwhelming (to some people, not all. (To misquote: "You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time...")).

Joopercoopers is intending to file a bugzilla report (see the end of the thread on my talkpage). Besides which, it's not my obligation to help along a proposal I disagree with, is it?

You seem to be stuck on the idea that I'm somehow "Campaigning Against Innovation" in the abstract. Could you try to re-conceptualize my actions in the frame of "Campaigning For Ease-of-use", please? A little good faith goes a long way :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I recently overhauled the Infobox Project's navbox, and I thought using the 2 cat-trees in there was fairly innovative... I'm pro-innovation, dangit! But I prefer it when it works well, and when it doesn't interfere with any of our readers' experience.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Show/hide isn't just some mysterious completely unguessable function, it's pretty intuitive. 2) I don't at all see the problem with using corporate color schemes in corporate infoboxes, so you've lost me there. 3) If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. How many bugzillas have you filed, overall, just out of curiosity? 4) I find that those who accuse others of lacking good faith are often actually the ones who lack it. On innovation, to me, some bumps along the way are acceptable. It's an OK cost to pay. Wikipedia need not be perfect every day in every way. Even some backsliding is OK with me. There is no deadline. ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps try reading it all again with a British accent? I have traces remaining... I'm saddened by how poorly we're agreeing on anything, given the huge overlap between your userboxes and my interests (I used to have more userpage categories..)

1) I've explained how a computer-mouse works too many times recently, to consider anything universally "intuitive". (and similar practicalities of computer use (copy and paste, the existence of "file explorer" (or equivalents) for "where should i save my files?", etc) The human race, in all its shapes and ages, is often surprisingly diverse.

2) What about the Wales example? Would you be happy to see each town in Wales (eg Cardiff) use the color from their local flag or coat-of-arms in their infoboxes?

3) That's awfully black and white! Were you paraphrasing anyone in particular?! (sorry, had to)

I've filed 1 (#11056) and commented or voted in a few. There is no preview or editing of old comments at bugzilla, and every time you press "commit" it emails one or more people. The help docs are appalling. I don't want to relearn everytime, and to get things wrong and waste people's time, so I generally submit problems to WP:VPT instead. I disliked bugzilla when wrestling with it to submit Mozilla bugreports waybackwhen, and I dislike it now. Make sense? (and, You haven't filed one either?)

We'll see what the developers think of this hiding solution. Hopefully they can explain things to everyone's satisfaction.

Again, sorry that we're not getting along better. I'll go back to reading Mason & Dixon, and stay out of the way of inhabited bridges. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm just following-up, and was wondering if you were intending on replying to this thread, or if I should take it off my watchlist? (As Risker just said below, it's busy around here!) No reply is needed, but I was hoping we could agree on something before the discussion ended, even if it's just a love of xkcd :) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it's all going to play out... the "experiment" has been running at Ponte Vecchio for what, 3 weeks or so now? Not sure how much forward progress actually was made after the initial flurry. However, a bug report about printing got filed, and answered (see a thread below) and I cross posted to the MediaWiki talk:print.css page and it looks like things are percolating. So who knows. As for a reply I wasn't sure exactly what to say... this IS a busy talk page :) ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benkenobi is a retardate

Please see the above page. Sorry for the long report, but I really want to get this off my back. As it says, I expected at least one of the suspected socks to go around editing while I file the report. User:Ausonia is doing just that. Please help if you can. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see/think you asked Jpgordon too? I'll take a look later when I have some time if he hasn't sorted it. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for giving out too many notices. I guess I wasn't aware if there was a checkuser who would deal with the issue ASAP (I was a little desperate at the time). Thanks for the good work on monitering those socks, though. ~ Troy (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it turned out I didn't do anything... all sorted now I think. As Jpg said, you should feel free to use RFCU next time if you need to. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOINDEX harmful?

I don't know when it goes into effect, but I am worried about the net negative impact that NOINDEX will have on the project. I have tested Wikipedia search for diff researching in a few cases I was following and it is nearly impossible to get the accuracy that you get with Google. Sometimes, it is just downright wrong or is missing crucial hits that Google would pick up. Now that was only a few cases, I wonder how it will affect those who often, even on a daily basis, have to research others' histories to find specific instances of inappropriate comments/actions. What about incidents/statements you vaguely remember, but have no idea where the hell you heard it? Have you tried going a day or a couple of days using only Wikipedia'a search to research diffs? I guess one really doesn't appreciate the power of Google until it is taken away. I think it potentially means dealing with problem editors will become 10x more difficult. Could Cla68 perform his very detailed and accurate evidence gathering without the aide of Google? I think this is also bad for policy discussions and debates, where finding previous statements is often needed to clarify positions. Over on WT:NFCC, I noticed that even an experienced editor like Carcharoth was expressing concern on how this may change the ability to locate an important quote that Mike Godwin had said in the past. I believe NOINDEX was an admirable idea but I feel the costs are too high for only a feel good benefit. I say feel good because I believe that is the only benefit that is gained, there is no real legal threat at play IMHO. The loss is detrimental, however. I think NOINDEX will be terrible for accountability and transparency on Wikipedia. Some may actually welcome this, since it obfuscates their past wrongdoing, but I doubt the majority of the community would want this. Any thoughts? TPW feel free to chime in, too. ^_^ --Dragon695 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note there is a more accurate version of the MediaWiki search function, however it is disable at -en for performance reasons, so either we need more money or more developers. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were promised better search. Heck I know we were!!! Keep opening those bugs at Bugzilla:Bugzilla reporting particular issues and they'll get fixed. Because I'm cool with losing some search func, temporarily, in exchange for the benefits of NOINDEX. As for researching stuff, I think you'll see more tools created like wikistalk and the commonality editing and etc. I have something myself that can look for regexes in someone's contribution history... it's not very done and not very ready for prime time but it works. Oh, TPWs... he didn't say TPW chime in FIRST. :) But whatev. Man this page got busy all of a sudden. What is this, son of ANI? ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the level of discourse on your talkpage seems to be a bit higher than AN, which is why I posted here. Besides, your opinion is valuable, too >_>. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flattery will get you anywhere. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to your concerns, Dragon695, let me link you to the evidence page I developed for a recent arbitration case. Over 100 diffs, more than 150 searches performed (some searches were to confirm that discussions had not taken place), and not one single Google search amongst them. An improved internal search might have made a difference, but to be honest I rather doubt Google would have shaved very much time off the preparation of this data. At present, the majority of page types proposed for NOINDEX are "personnel"-type pages. They're the kind of thing that will show up when prospective employers do a google search on a candidate for a position, a practice that is very common throughout North America, and often required for certain industries (high tech, those dealing with security issues, financial sector). Think about the potential for negative effects for an editor who has used his real name as a username, then been subjected to an RfC or been dragged to ANI for totally specious reasons. That editor has had his reputation besmirched, regardless of whether the community rallies in agreement with his actions and finds him non-culpable. Keep in mind, as well, that some employers and prospective employers will specifically ask where one spends time on the internet, and under what username, so editing under a pseudonym may not necessarily protect an editor as much as he or she thinks. See also my post at the talk page of the proposed NOINDEX policy/guideline, where I detail a very limited search to see what pops up and how it might affect the editors involved.

I want editors to clean up vandalism in Sex and Islam and Penis and Homosexuality and all the other heavily vandalised articles, but I don't want their good-faith clean-up work on Wikipedia to have adverse effects on their real lives. I'm happy to extend that to editors who came here and registered under their real names, only to discover they really didn't belong here for whatever reason. I hope that perhaps you can see this perspective. Risker (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck do you do differently? Is there some new feature in search I am not aware of? Does it now accept regular expressions? --Dragon695 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it does, directly. That's what I'm talking about tool developers being able to enhance things. (and why I did my own code... crappy as it is.) Further, I'd urge EVERYONE complaining about ANYTHING at all techie (hey, I think the infobox guys should pay attention here) to get a bugzilla account, and USE IT. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A what? A where? ok.... Joopercoopers (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quickie

Hey Lar,

hope you're keeping okay. The admin recall thing in my user page is getting added to Wikipedia:Administrators, or rather it has been added and is now being edited. That's just a heads up. At some point, once it is stabilised and appears to have consensus to stay there, I'll move the redirect over. Anyway, I came here to ask a question. What's the tool for watching what gets added to a category. I think you use it to watch the recall category. Any help? Ta, Hiding T 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. See CAT:AOTR and go down the list of "see also's" till you see the one that starts out "Automated". That page is maintained by Bryanbot. It's fairly self documenting how to set one of these up to watch whatever categories you like. However it only catches adds, not removes. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hiding T 09:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC infoboxes (again)

Quiddity, JohnInDC, Lar (Joopercoopers has commented already): I have added a revised version of a proposed statement against hiding infoboxes at MoS (infoboxes). Please take a look and add your valued input there, as the previous discussion has been archived. Sswonk (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the archiving of the previous discussion was done at the request of Joopercoopers, and in the request he asked me to post the the revised version.

Can your answer to the following be please be made by you acting in your capacity as steward:

Would the posting of generic statements similar the one above on the talk page of dozens of WikiProjects addressed to project members be considered spam? Sswonk (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require Steward standing to answer that, I don't think. Some would consider it spam. Some not spam but canvassing. And some would consider it a courtesy. For best results, if you decide to do something like this, word it neutrally, and select people based on a criteria that is not related to their likely opinions (for example, pick members of a project who have been active in the last X days, perhaps, rather than members who have voiced an opinion you agree with...) see WP:CANVASS for some guidance. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Be please be the the thanks?" I read my question a couple of times but then accidentally hit "Save page". Happens once in a blue moon. I am investigating WP:CANVASS, and appreciate the advice. Sswonk (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived the discussion at MoS. The experiment at Ponte Vecchio will continue and no further discussion about a blanket statement against hiding infoboxes appears necessary. The discourse bore fruit in that major concerns about functionality and innovation were aired and a cooperative atmosphere prevailed. Sswonk (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Frostie Jack

I have had a comment on my talkpage here from an ip purporting to be the above sock. I don't know if this is any help, as the case is closed, or I am being trolled for some reason. No need for response, just file if useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship in an wikipedia

Hi Lar, I'm a sysop in Aragonese Wikipedia (an:), and we just realized and were surprised to know that you were in the list of sysops of the aragonese wikipedia. It is not a problem that you are an admin, but we are a little bit puzzled about it, since your registration date in an.wp is 3rd august, and you have not any contributions yet. Anyway we had had no news about it. Could you explain what happened? Thank you! (I'd prefer if you can answer at an:User:Juanpabl)--Juanpabl (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems your name has just disappeared! I can't understand it but... never mind! --Juanpabl (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there, but briefly, there was a spate of vandalism on your wiki, and many others, and I was renaming users and looking up CU information to help fight it, in my role as a steward. I forgot to turn the permissions off. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that explains the confussion! Thank you for your assistance in fighting vandals! --Juanpabl (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

I'm sorry it got so heated. I know I can seem thick headed sometimes, I'm told that I have my head in the clouds by me closest. That my perception of ideals, cloud my best judgment at times. I enjoy collaborating with you, I want you to know that. Sorry for the arguments on AN. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Ideals are good. They're awesome, in fact. But we live in the real world. I wish people were smarter but the risk was too high. I enjoy collaborating with you and will again, I'm sure. I'm sorry if I got a little hot myself. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you tell me you were an SU alum?????

Grumble. :) Can we make peace over a slice of Varsity pizza? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wha'? Lar, you never told me that you are a Land Rover! LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Silly Brit. MY SUVs are 'murrican. Actually I'm a husky orangeman. And here, OM, I thought you were a Marlins fan or something... but I have to confess. I got my SU degree via IBM. They used to fly SU professors to Poughkeepsie to teach us IBMers under the Graduate Work Study program... (sweet deal, that). So I've never had Varsity pizza in Syracuse, because we didn't spend any time on campus. But I'm always amenable to pizza! (maybe that's why I'm husky?) ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, technically that makes you an SU alum, and that's cool. Yes, the "Orange" in my user name refers to Syracuse University. I got one of my numerous degrees there, paid for by the good folks at the United States Navy. Although I did not get my undergrad there, I did spend an inordinate amount of time at the Cuse, so it's the school I follow the most (although my undergrad school is a sports mecca too). Now, for Varsity pizza, it has the requisite amount of grease to make everyone happy--and it's served in slices, as all good pizza should. California has the worst freaking pizza ever. So, since you did this off campus, I guess we can't recount the good times on Marshall Street.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited...

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sceptre RFCU, et al

(Refactored to User_talk:David Fuchs per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature

Hi Lar, regarding your comment at AN at 13:46, I'm sure that you're trying to help, but I don't think it does. The problem is that the comment is too general; you're telling someone to go an examine everything they do. And that's a really general directive, which makes it really hard to follow. Try to be specific. I'm signing off till tomorrow. Stay sane, cheers, Ben Aveling 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being excellent to each other

[9] If you have something on your conscience, come clean in the appropriate forum, take your medicine, and do what you can to make amends. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty up to date on my confessionals and meds, but... Always good advice. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you mentioned me there. Although I understand what you're saying, it doesn't mean I'm not pissed off at what I'm reading. Comments like this one are patently unfair, uncivil, and immature. Why are you not impartial? You slap me down along with this paranoid fantasy of an "ID cabal" at every chance you can, but you won't reprimand your "friends"? You cannot use me for your purposes in that discussion, unless you are willing to stand up for what is right everywhere. I'm concerned that reaching out to you is a wasted exercise. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to all be editors here, not in camps and cabals and factions and alliances... and I need to be better at calling everyone on stuff, not letting those who happen to agree with me more "slide". It's not easy but it's needful. I was trying to do what I could to move away from where we've been. If I haven't done that or if I've given offense I'm sorry. But believe me, impartiality is not at all easy. It is what we all need to do, to uphold NPOV, but I think we all could improve. Some more than others but I do not except myself from that assessment. ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My formula for giving this sort of advice:

assume that everyone is well intentioned and that at least one party has missed a vital clue somewhere. That usually turns out to be true.
look for the core disagreement, which can be obvious but isn't always.
focus on specific examples.

You around at the moment? Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about to go out to dinner. What did you have in mind? You and I are both old timers. I stalked your writings on KC's (and JV's) pages and you're on to something... what's needed is a way to get beyond the labels, the old animosities, and get behavioural change. Kelly WAS out of line. But KC wasn't the person to point it out, at least not yet, there would be some bridge building needed first. Complement your adversaries, counsel your friends. (or as I've said before, block your allies, unblock your enemies) ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I'm just trying to splash cold water around, and I was thinking of asking you to help. And I was curious to see your reaction to what I wrote above. :-) Enjoy dinner, catch you later. Ben Aveling 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, you are high on the chain of command around here (and yes, there are elements of command and control running about this place). I would contend you have lost the right to choose sides, you have got to be absolutely consistent in fairness. And frankly, you're not even close. I'm not going to spend the time to dig up comments you made during the FT2 drama, because that's water under the bridge. But I still have yet to see you deal with your friends in any way close to how you dealt with me. Cla68 should have a 24 hour block, pure and simple. Since you lack the temerity to do that, and everyone else is chickenshit of being labelled part of the ID cabal if they did it, he gets away with unacceptable behavior patterns. And you enable it, because his friends aren't going do anything about it, which includes you. So every time I see you post something that deals with this destructive and anti-social name-calling from your buddies, I tune you out, because I know you default to their position. If I could see that you were truly fair, then MY default position would be that you're trying to solve the problem. Believe it or not, I am far more respectful of what you say than you might assume. That respect is tainted by your fundamental lack of true fairness to all editors who are completely devoted to this project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does Cla require a block for? Viridae ^Talk 23:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the near the beginning of this thread. Not relevant now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, and for the TPW's that might be here, it looks to me like SirFozzie had a word with Cla68 suggesting that phrasing wasn't the best. Hopefully that will do the trick. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out)... I want to build on what you did by reaching out to me, and by my reaching back. It may be a slender strand but it is something worth nurturing. I said above I am not perfect, and we all could stand to be more even handed. If you point me to something recent that needs attention, regardless of who said it or did it, I'll take a look. If a word is needed in my view, I'll give it. I won't commit to handing out blocks in advance though, that's not my style. Besides, civility blocks never work. I'd rather get beyond what happened in the past and focus on how to not have the same things happen in the future. I again say am sorry if I gave offense to you, it was not my intent. So how to move forward? How do we put bad memes behind us and focus on what we are here to do. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thread isn't that bare, but it's more like we're beginning a climb up Half Dome, and I'm checking out your nylon ropes. It's a bit dark, so I can't tell if they're frayed or perfect. How's that for beating up a metaphor!?!? At any rate, let's set aside Cla68's uncivil comments, because just by my stating you should block him in this thread, probably ends any hope of that happening. Basically, my reading of the whole AN commentary about the "ID cabal" is that you don't think it's that important. Well it is. You need to come down firmly that any labelling of people is wrong. I try to not label Alternative Medicine supports as "dumb ass POV nutjob losers", toning it back to...nothing. I just deal with their edits in a fair but very tough manner. The thought that I spend north of 12 nanoseconds thinking about Intelligent design is just plain weird on the part of, to create a label, the Anti-anti-ID cabal. See how stupid this is? As one of the big wheels around here, you need to set the standard. I don't care what you have said to me, that has passed under the bridge, gone out to sea, and now is part of global warming (LOL).OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a puzzler

Here's a real life situation. I'm curious. To Orangemarlin, or anyone else who would like to take a crack. Consider the contributions of Jim62sch in this section. Are they appropriate? Are they divisive? Are they something to just let slide? Nothing wrong at all with any of them? Or should something be done or said? Suppose you (anyone reading) were there at the time. Would you have done nothing? left a warning? Issued a block for disruption? Something else? (what?) How about now, half a day later? Another idea, would you ask a friend of his to have a word about it? I frankly considered a warning or even a block, but then I decided to do nothing, given the entanglements I've had with Jim2sch, I couldn't be sure that I wasn't overreacting/misreading/whatever. Was I wrong in thinking there was something a bit off there? ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, I'm retired User:Merzul. I'm writing you here, because I think you are trying very hard to be fair. I believe you should let this incident slip. There are people, who believe there are two schools of thought here on Wikipedia:

The Content-Oriented Science Club.
The Civility-Oriented Ethics Club.

Personally, I value the contribution of Jim and FM, in spite of their bully-ish behavior, about 20x higher than any number of obscure FAs in military history. If I were forced to pick a side, I would side with Jim62sch, any time...

The point though, Lar, is that your task is to show that the above is a false dichotomy, that it is possible to defend science articles while staying perfectly professional. But if you want to have some credibility as a neutral editor in all this, you should try to not be seen as an indoctrinated member of the Civility-Oriented Ethics Club.

Also, the nature of the schism between the content-justifies-the-means and the professionalism-first approaches to the encyclopaedia is worth exploring. Anyway, thanks for trying to be fair, 77.4.117.209 (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you saying that it is not possible to be civil, professional, and respectful of others when being a mainstream science first editor? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda wondering that myself. Further, I think a well rounded wikipedian needs to care about both content AND collegiality. Both are important. So it IS a false dichotomy. Maybe I'm missing something :) ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is possible to be professional and pro-science; but the question is whether you can realistically maintain encyclopedic quality on an article like intelligent design or global warming, if all pro-science editors were kind and professional, never resorting to the kind of behavior we are complaining about. It is a fact that at least some intelligent and well-meaning editors behave in ways that I can only describe as bullying. Perhaps, they do so because they believe that defending the wiki from POV-pushers is not possible without the use of force. They believe that remaining polite and welcoming will inevitably lead to giving fringe views equal validity... 77.4.108.206 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that there are editors who think that, I think they are incorrect. There is no need for bullying. What is needed is more editors to help, perhaps. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, and I am certainly over-simplifying what other people believe, but the important thing is that you continue your efforts to understand their underlying concerns and gently steward them towards professionalism. If someone gets frustrated over the desysoping of FM, doesn't that make you wonder? There must be some reason people hold such wiki-warriors dearly. You were on the right track, trying to build bridges, so please do continue to hear people out rather than being quick to condemn. I really do appreciate your work and wish you all the best, 77.4.122.244 (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be "oversimplifying", perhaps, but thematically you couldn't be more right. Hearing people out, trying to see all sides, not rushing to judgement, trying to lead by example, these are all good things. "Seek first to understand" is awesome advice in just about any context. Thanks for your views, sincerely, whoever you are. Thanks for coming by and I wish you the best as well. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pox, truly

Is diff offensive? Non Curat Lex (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have to strain to see how, unless you had the context we do. I'm ready to kick back and wait to see what happens here. This editor has been fenced in, put on notice that we expect constructive editing, and surely knows that any new socks I find are going to be blocked as soon as I find them (the old ones he revealed, I intend to let slide, as long as they don't start editing, although they could be added to the SSP if you would be so kind). We can't force people not to make smartass remarks (nor should we, actually). We can't force people to "get" the wiki way... he doesn't get how consensus works yet, but so be it. Let him be a wiseacre, within reason, and let us otherwise abide. The real proof of the pudding is what article edits end up getting made and how good they are. That's my thinking. Maybe a third opinion is needed, we're pretty close in on this. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a third opinion would be called for before doing anything radical, but not at this time. I also agree with your approach, and with your interpretation. I will keep a continue to keep an eye on what I normally keep an eye on. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After we helped make sure he didn't get an unearned indef block, the guy earned himself a deserved indefinite block from an uninvolved admin. How's that for grattitude? Some people just can't keep their mouths shut. He is still trying to passive-aggressively wikilitigate it on his user page with ban-evading anon edits, but I think this chapter is closed. He won't seriously disrupt the mainspace anymore. Non Curat Lex (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be hoped. So you're down to just one annoyance then? :) Where do things stand there? ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Request for clarification - amendment Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a clarification on this, I don't think. We 4, (including PM) agreed to the terms of how this was going to be done. He went outside the terms. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It confuses alot of people, myself included. I don't think your actions were unreasonable, but you cited a remedy that did not apply. I'm more asking for a amendment than a clarification. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could have posted the email at the time. Maybe we will now. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK help (and not help updating)

Hi Lar! Odd situation occurred on DYK just now. Within fifteen minutes three "new" users created accounts, made their user talk and user pages as their first edits, and then found the T:DYK/N template and removed other people's hooks to add different hooks. Oddly the hooks they added came from T:TDYK and appear to be more or less okay for the template, although not yet approved by the normal process. The main issue is they just removed other hooks for no reason. If a single newish editor did this it wouldn't be that odd, but when three brand new editors (1, 2, and 3) show up in the course of 15 minutes... Normally we'd just ignore this sort of thing but we had a breaching experiment with sockpuppetry last week. I don't deal with this sort of thing and don't know any of the relevant processes, but I know that you'll be aware how best to approach such a situation. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last week's breach, I think, was from a well respected senior editor at another project who intended well. There was some controversy about the mechanics but I don't think it was malicious. This on the other hand, seems odd and I'm looking into it. I will report on the DYK talk page. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If creating sockpuppets to conduct uncontrolled (in the sense of scientific control) breaching experiments to put hoaxes on the Main Page of the project (and as it's uncontrolled it would actually test and prove nothing, even had it "succeeded") is well-intentioned then there's certainly no reason to assume that this venture here is any different. On the contrary, if this is sockpuppetry it's significantly more benign, and with multiple accounts more likely to be an actual experiment, than the hoax. --JayHenry (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think he meant well. However I don't think it came out that way... it may well cost him his 'cratship on the other project, not sure. In this case, I think blocking the socks but leaving the master unblocked, with a stern warning, is the right outcome. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for looking into this. I'm guessing the master isn't a new user who just happened to stumble across T:DYK/N this fine Saturday morning either, but I guess we'll never know. --JayHenry (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I don't think so either. :) Lots of hallmarks of a returning user, but I didn't suss out who. No worries, glad to help. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats

This summer I have recieved death threats (from UK)on Croatian wiki because of my edits on English wiki. I am interested to find who is behind threats. Croatian checkusers are having IP of this vandal and can you contact (or they will contact you ?) about this stuff ? It is important to notice that both of croatian checkusers are having user pages on english wiki.--Rjecina (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to hear that. Please let me know the Croatian CU's usernames (to save me looking it up, although I could) and encourage them to contact me, I'm often involved in cross-wiki work like this. Best. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Croatian wiki checkusers (user pages on english wiki):User:SpeedyGonsales and User:Ante Perkovic--Rjecina (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I've mailed both Speedy and Ante ... ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are continuing to investigate this, I don't have much to report though. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is not used on english wiki, or this threats are not interesting ?

checkuser Thatcher is going "crazy" with puppet problems in Balkan related articles. Because you are having data about 1 puppeteer (Thatcher is having about both) my intention is to write on your talk page suspected puppets of this second puppeteer. This suspected puppets will be writen by Balkan related users. My account Rjecina on english wiki is on wiki vaccation next 9 - 10 days (because of this problems). Your thinking ? --Rjecina (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, it's concerning, but I ran checks of the IP, and didn't find anything here. I'll reach out again and try to see what I can find additionally.... ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla

Hi Lar, I tried to take your advice above regarding registering a bugzilla account 2 weeks ago. 1 week ago I still hadn't received the confirmation email, so I contacted Brion Vibber - still no joy. Is there any other way of getting an account or prompting the developer? regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you went to [10] and filled it out? For me all I had to do was wait for the confirmation mail, which came right away, and I was in. I'd just try again if I were you, Brion is quite busy. I could be confused though, but I did not think developer intervention was required. Pretty much every CU and every steward has one AFAIK. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find whenever I email to a new WMF project and get back an email, it always ends up in my spam folder. In fact most WM related emails I get end up in my spam folder. I'd suggest checking that since when I registered at bugzilla, the process was automatic. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? Maybe the whole project is one big spam? ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm allowed to say the "s" word about WM on WM? MBisanz ^talk 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried again and there it was in the bullk email - cheers all. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great - logged as 15613. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Voted for. Go forth, TPWs, and do the right thing. (note that bugs don't get prioritized based on votes, but it's fun to vote, and it gets you on the mailing list for the bug which can be helpful if someone asks for clarification or more information) ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TPWs!!!! ... take a read of MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#MediaWiki:Print.css ... looks like the bug got scotched because maybe using .css is an easy enough fix. Someone better suited to hacking about with .css files maybe could try a private version of print.css and see if they can fix this? Or maybe the quick facts approach should not use a navbox but rather some different stylistic stuff? ++Lar: t/c 10:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin T. Babbitt

On 17 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin T. Babbitt, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stobblehouse

We have just deleted Eolake Stobblehouse as spam - in fact it was a copyvio from the guy's website. But he clearly is notable so if you felt inspired ... — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you must have noticed I had an article in my sandbox (for some years now, actually) ? ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible need for intervention

Lar: is this disruptive enough? Note that the anon and user:Kay Sieverding are one-in-the same. That makes over 50 edits in one day. My head is spinning. Non Curat Lex (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its irritating, certainly. I don't think it calls for a block, but perhaps a more creative remedy like convincing Kay to work on the article in her userspace and propose merges on the talkpage? Avruch^T 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - that's a very good idea. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar has a very eclectic group of talk page watchers, you never know quite who will show up either here or at the article with ideas and suggestions. ;-) Risker (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went and looked at the article history, it looks like some of my TPWs have gotten involved already. Is there still an action item for me? ++Lar: t/c 01:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It looked like the aggressive editor was willing to slowdown and listen to reason. Today disproved that. All of the diplomacy seems to be going over her head. Some enforcement may be necessary. However, as long as someone can do the heavy lifting, it does not need to be your problem. Thank you for keeping up on it though. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avruch and I have further cautioned Kay. I hope it helps. I'd really rather not have to be in a position to block an editor for wanting to contribute a lot(!!), but as I said, if the net balance is that Kay's contributions result in more cleanup work than they are worth, that's a net negative and Kay will be asked, and if that fails, forced, to stop. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Pro se

Dear Lar & Non Curat Lex

Self-Represented Litigation is a subject that I have collected references on and am familiar with. When I started contributing to this article it said 8/26/08 "there is no fundamental right to self-representation." No citation was given for that at all. I posted various quotations of the U.S. Supreme Court, which were deleted on the grounds that you can't quote the Supreme Court. However, another user has more recently quoted the Supreme Court in a different case and there has been no objection to that. I went to the U.W. law library, a 5 floor library, and used their computerized search on both "pro se" and "self-represented". There were only two books and I checked out both of them. One was on reserve. After posting my intention on the comments page, I spent all day Monday typing in the table quoting the various state constitutions, which Non Curat Lex "disagrees" with. That was from the AJS book that I checked out from the library reserve for 24 hours. I posted the American Jurisprudence Society quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, which was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I posted an ABA article I found on the Internet and that was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I am having problems finding the exact wording but on Wed night it was changed to something to the effect that there is a constitutional right to self-representation in a criminal proceeding but not in a civil matter. A 1964 S.C. case concerning the right to a government paid defense lawyer in a criminal prosecution was cited as a reference. I changed that to say that there is a constitutional right in both civl and criminal matters. I emailed to the ABA and asked them for their input and they emailed to me a location on their web site. I quoted that and it was deleted. Here is another ABA publication, which says that there is a "constitutional right".

"Constitution v Ethics There is little disagreement that individuals have a right, rooted in the U.S. Constitution, to represent themselves in a court of law. The exact source of that right has been debated and at various times attributed to the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, the First Amendment Right to petition the government for redress of grievances, the equal protection clause, and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments requiring a meaningful hearing. The Supreme Court, on many occasions, has found self-representation to be a constitutional right. It is, therefore, a long-held belief that the courthouse door should be open to everyone. The practical application, however, is not clear. Exactly how far must courts and judges and lawyers go to assure that access is truly equal? The problems with that issue lie in the ethical dilemnas faced by those charged with carrying out this mandate." Source: Patricia A. Garcia for the American Bar Association "Litigants Without Lawyers. Courts and Lawyers Meeting the Challenges of Self-Representation." 2002, p. 11. ISBN 1-59031-061-6

My quotations of the New York Times were also removed.

It seems to me that "Non Curat Lex" has a POV that the article should say that there is no right to represent oneself even though the ABA, the American Judicature Society, and other "legal authorities" disagree. I have absolutely no problem with anyone adding any references to the article but I am bothered by the idea that the article will again be incorrect and convey that there is no right to self-representation. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making the mistake of trying to have this article:

Advocate
Dispense legal advice
Be too US centric.

I think you need to revisit this approach, as it will not be effective. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Dutch Talk Page

Hi Lar^ry,

I changed the Dutch translation in your user talk page to a more human way if you don't mind.
Regards, Klaas aka Patio (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, no one's ever superscripted my name before! LOL and thanks! Second, thanks for that translation, I appreciate it. However that talk page (and the corresponding user page) is one of the first "crosswiki" pages I set up, and it's... non standard. For newer links I use the template at m:User:Lar/Generic ... in fact my Afrikaans one looks like this: af:Gebruiker:Lar... I wonder if I should try to move the nl user page to be more like the standard. What do you think? ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only non standard, even not really complete. It's a good thing to use the generic one. In my opinion that what Meta is all about... On the other hand of nostalgic reasons you can keep it like that. How about just a link to meta after you changed the Babel thingy to one more contemporary ;-) Patio (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one welcome our new robot overlords and I have hastened to comply. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU request

Hi Lar - I'm increasingly having a bad feeling about User:Janeyryan. This account has behaved very oddly ever since first posting, having headed straight for controversial articles (Naked short selling, Criticism of Wikipedia, Chip Berlet), and has edited almost exclusively in these areas, including participating remarkably knowledgeably on the talk pages of these articles and as well as that of Views of Lyndon LaRouche.[11] I've been keeping an eye for a while, mostly because I have kept an eye on the NSS page (where this account came to my attention), and have done my best to assume good faith, even ensuring that Janeyryan had a silver-plated opportunity to state upfront that s/he was meeting the editing requirements for articles covered under the Mantanmoreland remedy, and challenging a drive-by troll who accused Janeyryan of being a sock of Tony Sidaway. But there is still something not quite right here. Janeyryan continues to edit the NSS article as if none of the recent SEC rulings have occurred, and is getting crankier on the talk page of the article. Something is really not right here, and I am suspecting that somehow or other we are back to the Mantanmoreland creative-socking issue. Can you take a look please? Risker (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "getting cranky" is not normally a good reason, since CheckUser is not for fishing, as they say ... Do you have any reason to believe that the user is a returning editor, other than the article set that is being edited? I think I need more justification. In particular do you have a specific editor that you think might be a fit here? ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

On my way. Thatcher 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good advice! ++Lar: t/c 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Checkuser Needed

Hello Lar. I believe that it would be best if a global checkuser (steward) checked this case. The enwiki checkuser who took a look at confirming it, Thatcher, also noted that I should see someone else. I contacted him today (a few weeks late, I know) and he seems pretty sure about it. It looks like you're one of the more active stewards around here, but hopefully you're not too busy to take a look at it. I should warn you that it was a real underwear drawer for just the IPs/accounts on this project. Best, ~ Troy (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a look, I asked that the case be brought back to active. Which wikis do you think need the checking? There isn't a global CU function per se, we have to go turn on CU one wiki at a time. Has this been raised at Meta already? ++Lar: t/c 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thank you for reminding me about this. I have sent you an email as a response so that any further issues may be kept to a minimum. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to come to grips with what needs checking, I may have further questions for you. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I missed, but I'm confident that ptwiki, itwiki and ltwiki need to be checked first, respectively. But, if you do have any further questions, I will respond as swiftly as possible. ~ Troy (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, after checking those three large, dynamic ranges just now, I think I have found the first case of edits before I last reported the accounts which were blocked. May be it isn't him, but it sounds like the same person, especially since it was on Template:Holy Roman Emperors. ~ Troy (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)OK, so I'm here to notify you that I have updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/200.215.40.3 to include that second slate of IPs/aliases from this month. It looks like I've just found an immensely important clue to the puzzle, but the cross-wiki issues still need to be addressed, as I said before. Please take a look at it. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilkTork - RfA #2?

Lar, ten months ago (to the day!) you opposed the RfA of User:SilkTork, following an argument between the two of you regarding the checkuser process. SilkTork subsequently withdrew his request, but in a later discussion between the two of you, those differences seem to have been resolved amicably and to the satisfaction of both sides. However, following that experience, SilkTork has been reluctant to try his luck again with another self-nomination.

I have been working with SilkTork for a while, essentially carrying out the admin functions that he needs for his editing (housekeeping actions like deleting to make way for move, history merge, etc.). I was wondering if you'd be willing to co-nominate him with me for adminship, or at least support this second nomination. I believe SilkTork has the traits needed to be a great admin, and if you check his contribution history I am sure you'd find the same.

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 17:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the request under advisement. My record with co noms has been rather poor lately, I think, which may be a caution to you both. Let me look and I'll follow up in this thread (My WP:TPWs may also wish to comment, as is their wont... what do you guys think?) ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bots RFAR

I don't feel that it's really the arbcom's place to be setting policy, and that accepting that case would mean us setting policy. I'm not convinced that—aside from the hot-headed—we are yet at a place where a consensus cannot be achieved … do you feel otherwise? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not... As to setting policy, ArbCom has shied away from that in the past (for the most part perhaps excepting BLP) ... but I think at the very least, a nudge to the community is needed. This has floundered for too long and there has been entirely too much 'wink and a smirk' bot running going on around here. ArbCom has given these sorts of nudges to the community in the past, to be sure, and not always to good effect (but that's the community's fault, not ArbCom's, isn't it?), so there's precedent (not that ArbCom is bound by precedent).

A punitive desysop of Prodego is not the way to achieve this outcome, I don't think. It just looks vindictive and petty, lashing out at the proximate cause instead of addressing the underlying problem. I think the finding ought to be:

Community: get off your duff before another admin does something stupid because of inconsistent policy in this area, and don't make US make policy, you won't like it...
Prodego: don't do that again please

and that ought to be that. A 14 day desysop? That's punitive. Way disproportionate I think. Unless you're prepared to start handing out same for actual grievous misuses of power? Which we have a lot of. Prodego is a decent fellow, with not a whiff of previous scandal or issue, a diligent toiler in unglamourous areas such as unblock-el-l, who was sincerely trying to do the right thing, and got caught in an inconsistency. Which we have a lot of too. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, for the record, I applaud your oppose vote on the motion. Pity that the other arbs voting so far (except maybe FT2?? His abstain reads like an oppose to me) don't see it that way) ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude!

I thought of you [12]! MBisanz ^talk 22:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fairly impressive. Ok ... very impressive. But I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the work of "LFB", which included models of the Friedrich der Grosse [13] and Takao [14] Not NEARLY as big... that model you found is HUGE. But these models were done by a poor college student back before LEGO sold bulk the way they do now... bit harder to do back then. Do you have a better link to the model you found? Thanks for sharing. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Revised reply inbound (I answered the wrong query last time it seems). Thatcher 00:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have not BARNSTARRED you yet.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		In recognition of pure, unadulterated, and unflinching committment to making wikipedia a quality source of knowledge, I present this barnstar to you, Lar. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! You're no slouch in that department yourself! ++Lar: t/c 12:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU status Coberloco

There is a real concern they are a sock-puppet and they are trying to bypass at least 3 blocks. So far, Jehochman has now unblocked the user, who is most likely going to use this to run amock. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP_check - Jehochman is now asking completely independently whether they are the same editor. They have provided the diffs you asked for.

I should note that I'm not in the habit of accusing others of using sock-puppets to evade blocks lightly. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ta Bu, good to see you again! I'm afraid you're a little behind the curve. Please see the results section of that query. I ran a check after seeing Jehochman's diffs. There is no technical correlation between Coberloco and the IPs, as I explained there. As I usually say, if there's reason for it, block on behaviour. I've cautioned Coberloco myself, hope it does some good, because I agree there's a problem there. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've given them enough rope to, well, I won't say it. If they are a good user, nothing will happen. If they are a bad user, they will prove it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I guess I'll go apologise to them then. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you were at all unreasonable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me either, you were fine, Ta. The edits supported the check. The check returned no technical correlation. That doesn't mean they AREN'T correlated, just that it's not demonstrated using CU tools, which are imperfect. What really matters is behaviour, more than anything else. Being belligerent to Gwen the way they were isn't exactly scoring any points for them in my book. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... but you see, I made a promise, and really it's only fair. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong :-) And I might not be wrong, but there's no way to be certain, so I'm going to assume good faith on their part and bad faith on mine. Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Just asking, is [this] an example of "asking the other parent?" Particularly when coupled with this? I did reply to the comments made this time, but would prefer to just stay out of this if possible? Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it struck me, yes. Per DefendEachOther you should leave defending yourself to others, you have lots of people who will vouch for the extensive good work you do. I put a word in at the GAN page. ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But help from others (grin)? It's a wonderful thing, (smile) but new to me, for a long time others were very hesitant to be directly involved and I felt pretty alone out there. They probably figured that I was tough enough to fly solo. Sorry if I got a little twitchy this time. I'm still getting used to the feeling of having supporters willing to step forward. It's been very nice. Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Fishing Expeditions

I don't believe in using "checkuser" for fishing expeditions. But Kelly appears to and seems to have asked you to do so against me. I have never used wiki-procedures and admit to not knowing this arcane area of "law", but I suppose (sigh) what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Often in the Palin article, Kelly claims to develop "consensus" with Hobartimus and Collect that their own research trumps verified sources in the Palin article, even when several editors strongly disagree. Kelly has also admitted to giving $2000 (wow!) to John McCain and therefore seems to me to have a conflict of interest. (I have given to neither campaign.)

At any rate, I feel like you should check whether Kelly, Hobartimus, and/or Collect are sock puppets of each other or somehow connected with the McCain campaign. Unlike Kelly, I admit this is a fishing expedition, but I have substantially more evidence than Kelly had against me in that these three editors always appear to act in complete concert and do not respect basic wiki-rules like WP:OR. And since you checked my account (and Lambchop and Dstern, etc.), I ask that you check theirs. K, H, and C all work to excise accurate statements critical of Palin, usually without comment on the talk page. Then, when challenged, they back each other up, tag-teaming as it were, particularly when the source is unimpeachable. Kelly, Hobartimus, and Collect, for example, all insisted their WP:OR trumped a fact on the Knik Arm bridge (link to Wasilla) stated by the Associated Press, the Anchorage Daily News, the Washington Times, the Boston Herald, Congressional Quarterly, several Alaska dailies, and even the current Republican Wasilla mayor! There are at least 30 verified sources to the same fact, but K/H/C insist they "know better." And even when many more wikipedians think the published sources should trump the "say-so" of K, H, and C, we get out-bullied and out-reverted. H, in particular, tends to revert every edit I do, usually without any discussion on the talk page, even when it means that the information in the source bears no reference whatsoever to what it claims to be sourcing.

I hate to file a formal request, because I want to let it go. I find this whole thing extremely petty. And I find Kelly's determination to "get me" to be pathetic. Unfortunately, Kelly will not let it go. This is the second attempt in a week. Kelly even filed a 3RR request against me despite Kelly being guilty of 34 edits in 3 consecutive days. Now that's the pot calling the kettle black. (I let that one go, on Doug's advice, but now I learn Kelly has formally attacked me again (and, see below, my wife too!) I know there are a large number of wiki-editors who have had trouble with Kelly too, not just me. I've seen several complaints of Kelly's repeated incivility, edit warring, bullying, and abusive wiki-lawyering.

I'm just a guy who sometimes edits Wikipedia, but Kelly has apparently declared war on me to try to get me to leave. He/she may succeed. I haven't decided yet. It's not just Kelly's severe incivility and bullying. It's the fact that he/she insists that verified sources be trashed if they can be construed in any way as criticism of Palin. I want to show both sides. Kelly wants to show just one side and is willing to file all manner of wiki-lawsuits and appeals and personal attacks to get what he/she wants.

But there are victims in Kelly's game. I don't care about "TruthJusticetheAmericanWay." That was a house guest of mine, long gone. But True 12345 is my wife. At any rate, I've retired her account, since she was blocked from editing her own user page. She's had it with wikipedia and suggests I quit as well.

At any rate, I do want to ask, in fairness, that K, H, and C be checked for sockpuppetry. I have no idea if it's true, but since you took the complaint against me based on very little evidence, I think it's only fair you check them out as well. And then, hopefully, we can all move on and leave these petty grievances aside. Let me know if you think I should file a formal complaint. I'm willing to let it go, if you think I should, though I suspect Kelly will file a third administrative action against me very soon. I admit I'm at a loss. But I suspect I'm just out wiki-lawyered by determined operatives of the McCain campaign.

OK. Rant over. I apologize for taking so much of your talk page, but I wanted you to hear my side. I had no idea Kelly had even formally attacked me again until the whole thing was all over. I will now go out and enjoy the day.GreekParadise (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots to read. Let me think about it all. One point though... I have a wife, she edits here too, (it's openly disclosed on my user page). I have in the past been involved in lifting the block on accounts that were claimed to be husband/wife, if they would undertake to not edit the same areas or vote the same way... at least until both had built up solid edit histories. I am willing to assume good faith and do the same thing in your case, if I'm satisfied that the other account is your wife. Let me know if you want to pursue that further, and we can talk about it further. On the rest, as I say, let me read and ponder... if you have some specific diffs on K H and C to share (the SP edit history is immense) that would be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke to my wife. For the moment, to be honest with you, she's sick of wikipedia and doesn't want to be "wasting time" on it anymore. (She really doesn't want me here either, lol, but that's another thing. I think this whole episode soured her.) Anyway, I think we should just retire her account, as I think it's unlikely she's coming back any time in the near future.GreekParadise (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some specific diffs on this disruptive editor, sockpupeteer and extreme SPA focused entirely on the bridge section of the Palin article "It's really the only section of the article I read.", makes extreme personal attacks [15] against fellow editors, and generally violates with his editing more policies and guidelines that I care to mention. In his short time of actual editing on wikipedia (active editing since 2 September 2008) he was already blocked for disrupting the Palin article [16] for 48 hours and let off for another disruption [17] with the comment " Also warned user that an extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban would be recommended if user violates again." In my opinion with him removing the sockpuppet templates and constant personal attacks against established fellow editors, the time is now to take action to stop the editing abuse. In light of the above I'd like to ask that if his self-admitted fishing proves to be incorrect and it turns out that I'm neither Kelly or Collect, that he be blocked in accordance with the previous admin warning for an "extended block or an ANI referral for possible topic ban". Thanks for reading. Hobartimus (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, Hobartimus is the one that has several times revoked my edits completely without even discussing them on the talk page. He insists on relentlessly pro-Palin statements and no doubt wants any fair statements removed. He is so one-sided that I strongly suspect he works for the McCain/Palin campaign. At any rate, Hobartimus' animosity towards me is legendary. I can give you examples if you want. But I'd simply ask that you check to make sure he is not a sockpuppet of Kelly or Collect, and if he's not--and there's no way to check if he's a political operative--I'd let it go.GreekParadise (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First... allegations have been tossed around here that Kelly, Hobartimus, and/or Collect are somehow related. With Kelly's explicit permission, (not that I needed it, if the allegations were sound) I carried out an investigation and I found nothing to suggest that is even remotely likely. So let's drop that allegation, please. Second, whether any of them are "campaign operatives" I cannot say, but I found no evidence of that either, based on examining IP's used. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, mind you). I think that too is an allegation to drop. Judge on behaviour not on suspected connections. So GP, let it go. Hobartimus, I don't think asking for a check is reason for a block, even if the check comes out negative, but let that be the end of that line of discussion.

Third, I want those sock templates, or some public acknowledgment of the account connections, to be present on all of GreekParadise's 3 accounts. That needs fixing. GP, I want you to fix it, if it isn't already (I didn't go check).

Finally, this is not a dispute resolution page. I see here evidence of users that have issues getting along. I am not going to pass judgement on who or what, but GP, I think you're getting a bit excessive about Kelly. I don't think your hands are clean at all. Hobartimus I would say to you, perhaps if you can, take things to the talk page when it makes sense to do so. If GP is editing against clear consensus that is one thing, but if it's just an honest difference, let's not have edit warring. That applies to GP, to Kelly, to everyone involved.

I hope this is helpful. Thanks for stopping by. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what else you want me to do. The accounts are retired, and I have put the connection to me in their history. The other two will not be used again--I've even called my old houseguest who promises me he won't--and I will not knowingly allow anyone in my home to create a wikipedia account again unless it is somehow acknowledged on my user page. If you want to delete the two defunct accounts--or tell me how to do it myself--feel free. I assumed K had no sock-puppets which is why she/he invited you to check. If you are stating that you've checked Hobartimus and Collect as well, and neither of them have no sock-puppets either -- then yes, I'll be happy to let it all drop. Frankly, I would never have even suggested a check if the three of them had not been so active wiki-lawyers trying to shut me down.

I don't think I've been excessive given Kelly's extreme behavior toward me and so many many others, but that said, I would never have even brought Kelly to your attention if she, H, and C had not been so determined to shut me down. There is a long history here, but since I'm letting it go, I won't go into it further at this time. I'm hoping that Kelly can let it go as well, and frankly, I was surprised Kelly had done this fishing expedition (which I would not even have known about if someone had not warned me on my talk page). (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I reordered your comments so they weren't interspersed with mine, and moved the sig around to be on the second para, which wasn't signed, but did not change any of the words of the comments themselves) Regarding tagging, your user page should acknowledge the two other accounts. It does not have to be with a formal sockmaster tag, just a statement, such as "I acknowledge User:True_12345 as my wife"... and she should on her page put "I acknowledge User:GreekParadise as my husband" or similar. Take a look at User:Doctorfluffy. In that case the formal sockpuppet tagging on those can be removed, as long as they are crosslinked.

Regarding excessiveness. There's a lot of that going around. If it was just you and Kelly, I'd be concerned, yes, but you've dragged other people into it. "drop it" does not getting one last dig in at others while saying "I won't go into it further"... it means dropping it. I'm being very lenient with you. Other admins would have just blocked and moved on. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Thread in regards to edit warring

Hello Lar. Could you please look at this thread? I need to find a way to avoid breaking the 3rr again, and more importantly, resolve that ridiculous dispute. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Sorry about the mishap. ~ Troy (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]