User talk:Lar: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:07, 16 October 2008

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 them 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!

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

[1] 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 [2] 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.[3] 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]

Sorry this is taking me a while but I am working it. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 28 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]

Lar, have you had a chance to look at this? On SilkTork's Talk page you mention you needed more time to review his answers. There's no real urgency, but I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 16:45, 30 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 [4]! 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 [5] and Takao [6] 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 [7] 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 [8] for 48 hours and let off for another disruption [9] 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]

Allegations of socking

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]

I apologize for not expressing myself as clearly as I should, but I'm incredibly confused. Hobartimus has changed my wife's user page from "retired" to say she's my sockpuppet. She cannot modify it herself back to say she's my wife because she's been blocked. Now I can modify it to say she's my wife, but I don't want to get in yet another edit war with Hobartimus who often undoes everything I do. And since my wife can't edit anymore and doesn't want to edit anymore, what's the point of her having a user page anyway? Can't we just delete her page and let her vanish? And if we can't, can you remove the block so she can edit her own talk page to say who she is?GreekParadise (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change that page, and yours, to show the crosslinking I advocate you have in place. If the third one is also uneditable by you, I will change it as well. I'll have a word with Hobartimus about leaving things that way if needed. Note that the sock tagging that is there now is within policy given the outcome of the check. I may not have time to change it right away but I will. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are editable by me, just not by their original users, who also can't talk to you because they are blocked. I have modified them. Feel free to modify further if you don't like how I did it. Is it OK with you if I request their deletion since the two of them can't request it themselves? If you don't want to delete them, will they be unblocked?GreekParadise (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock for True 12345?

Hello. I am the wife of GreekParadise. I have to use my husband's account to talk to you because you indefinitely blocked my account. You even blocked my editing my very own user page which wikipedia says usually isn't done. There's no point in maintaining a useless account. Please either delete my account True 12345 or unblock my user page so I can request deletion. I am sick of wikipedia and want to vanish.GreekParadise (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The True 12345 user talk page is not protected (this is the page that is left for a blocked user to edit, unless it is protected... not the user page) and you are free to edit it under the User:True 12345 account. Accounts themselves cannot be deleted. Doing so would be a violation of GFDL, as attribution would be lost. If you no longer wish to use WP, there is no need to do anything further, everything is as it should be. (since there is no personally identifying information on the account, there is no negative impact from it being crosslinked to GreekParadise) However I am willing to entertain an unblock request if placed on the user talk page, in hopes that productive editing might be of interest in future. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. True 12345 here again on my husband's account. For some reason, I cannot edit either my own user page or my own talk page under my own account. If I can't be deleted, then please unblock me.GreekParadise (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the True 12345 account, subject to the understanding that if you edit, you do so in a way that is separate from GreekParadise... similar to other accounts alleged to be husband and wife that I have unblocked in the past. I advise you to find other areas to edit, and keep the crosslink notice in place, should you choose to resume editing. Advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On GFDL, attributing editors, and where to discuss it

Lar, regarding your GFDL argument: no. An editor does not have any attribution rights under GFDL (and note that if they did, a vanishing request would include waving such rights). Editors are not authors. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. And if it is, which I dispute, it is prudent to act as if it is not. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not prudent. An editor's wish to vanish always comes first. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your purpose in arguing this with me, exactly? However, GFDL requires attribution. It allows pseudonymous attribution. It even allows renaming who it's attributed to, but the various contributions have to be attributed to some identity. That does not interfere with Right to Vanish. Hope that clarifies matters. If it does not I suggest you take this up elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your purpose in providing incorrect information? The GFDL demands attribution for authors. But again: editors are not authors. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should argue this elsewhere, not here, this is the wrong venue. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If incorrect info is given, the right venue to tell so is at the place where the incorrect info is given, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You assert it's incorrect but you offer no proof. Further, that attribution is required for every edit under GFDL is a widely held view here, not just one held by me. So you need to find the source of that view and argue your case there not here. Here... all you're doing is being tendentious and trying to exhaust my patience. I'm not sure that's a productive use of my time, or yours. By the way, what brought you here in the first place, anyway? ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. There may be plenty of widely held views on Wikipedia that are dead wrong. Just read the GFDL, that should suffice. Not a word about editors in there. Nor could there be; a license cannot add attribution. Meanwhile, please stay civil. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the GFDL. I don't draw the conclusion you do. Again, this is the wrong forum to argue whatever point you are trying to make. Stop tendentiously arguing this, please. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 'trying to make a point'. I am correcting the false info that you gave these users. If you prefer not to learn but to be obnoxious and hostile instead: fine, I'll respond no further. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This being my talk page, I get the last word if I so choose, that's the way it works. You have mischaracterised me, I am always open to learning. Always. But everything has a place. Arguing what the GFDL means, at length, is not appropriate for this particular place when there are better places for it. That does not make me obnoxious and rude, it makes me in tune with how things are done. Your insisting on arguing this here... some would characterise THAT as the actions of someone who "prefer"(s) "not to learn but to be obnoxious and rude". Is this your typical approach in discussing things? I have found that stating a disagreement as "I think that you may want to consider that X is A rather than B" to be far more productive than saying "You are wrong about X being B". Especially when one has lurked into a conversation with no previous interaction whatever. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 3 October 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]

Thanks

You said something amusing a day or two ago on another website which made me chuckle. I won't link to it here, but thanks for making me laugh. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email

I've sent you an email about a private matter. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadford, County Limerick

Hi Lar, may I ask you to take a look at this deletion request filed by me? I came across this article while hunting down the edits of an IP which vandalized another article on my watchlist. This article turned out to be most-vandalized article I ever saw. In fact, I was unable to find any revisions without vandalisms except for its very beginning when it curiously described the town of Broadford on the isle of Skye. Since then this article was misused as an attack page against the inhabitants of this village. You'll find a summary of the revision history here. At the end I did not find any useful revision I could revert to and I thought it would be straightforward to get this article deleted and to start from scratch. In particular, I think it would be appropriate to get rid of edits like this one or that one. (There are more of this kind embedded in the revision history.) Since I opened this deletion request, apparently nobody understood my concerns. Most were simply arguing that this village is notable and that just some cleanup is required. Some even tried to save this article by removing all apparent vandalisms. The problem I see, however, is the remaining revision history as it includes insults against inhabitants of that village. In addition, I think, that such a long history of edits is a burden for anyone working on this article. Therefore I suggest to get at least rid of the revision history until my deletion request. Or to delete the entire article and start from scratch as I suggested on the deletion request. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and share your insights how this is best handled. Thanks for your support and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, AFBorchert, there actually is a Broadway on the Isle of Skye. I checked, so that's just a good-faith error. If you have issues where there may be defamation of real people, point the diffs out and I will personally evaluate them and oversight them. Honestly, we dont' nuke articles that are good and encyclopedic. Right now, it's actually just fine - Alison ^❤ 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a town named Broadford on the isle of Skye. This is also one of the very few good faith edits of this article but it is pretty useless now as that article was hijacked to become the article of Broadford in County Limerick. Since then you will find just vandalism and good-faith articles spellchecking the vandalism etc. And I do not think that the entire article including its long revision history of vandalisms and insults of living people is anything close to "fine". --AFBorchert (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think it's "fine", then fix it. Honestly, the average article has a metric ton of vandalism in its edit history. We don't have the time to go redacting every instance of vandalism when reversion does the job just as well. What matters is the current revision - Alison ^❤ 08:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The maintenance of the current revision is not always sufficient. There are copyvios, privacy violations, and defamations which in some cases even ask not just merely deleted (out of sight of regular editors) but even oversighted. This article was simply a series of edits inserting defamatory stuff that included insults directed against supposedly living people from that village. As there was no useful contents or any useful revisions during its long history it appeared to me the best approach to get this article deleted and to start from scratch. This case is different from other articles that have useful content but get occasionally vandalized. Nobody took care of this article which allowed this article for years to become game of vandals, each of them trying to add more insulting stuff. Did you actually went through the entire history of that article like I did, Alison? When this extreme case gets preserved, anyone can continue to harass the inhabitants of this village by just providing permanent links to it. And this case is not just extreme but also quite simple as there is nothing that ought to be preserved from the edits before I filed my deletion request. And sorry no, I will not contribute any edits to an article with such a long history of harassments. I know exactly how harassments feel from personal experience and will not ignore such issues just because this stuff is no longer present at the front door. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ufff. Without getting into a fight over who's-harassment-was-worse, I do know about oversight, being one of a handful of oversighters here on enwiki.[10] I've already asked once; please provide diffs of edits you consider defamatory and I'll evaluate them for oversight. It's as simple as that. When I went through the entire history of the article (yes, I did), I didn't see anything worthy of deletion, let alone oversight and this is something I get to deal with on a daily basis here, being one of the more active oversighters on the project (nobody beats Fred :) ). Honestly, this is a waste of time now. We should both be doing constructive work instead of arguing over this - Alison ^❤ 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (sorry, Lar, for taking over your talkpage)[reply]

I've provided these diffs already (at the deletion request and in my initial notice to Lar). They survived for quite some time and got even updated. To me they are bad enough and they are likely, given the whole context of this game, to raise interest even if they are no longer part of the current revision. Sorry Lar that you received such a long thread by now on your talk page. This was not my intention. Alison, if you have anything to add, please do it at the deletion request or at my talk page. Thank you. AFBorchert (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have Oversight on en:wp, sorry. You might speak to ArbCom about that, I've asked for it and had it declined. I can take a look at this article but my queue is rather long right now. Is there a specific action item here for me? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that is was declined. I do not know many senior admins at the English wikipedia, so I contacted you because I know you from Commons. But I do not want to bother you with this any further if you are that busy with other issues. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help, I just can't tell what help it is you need :( ... ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the revision history of Broadford, County Limerick ought to be deleted at least to the point when I filed it for deletion. I have two reasons for it: Firstly, in my opinion this page was mainly used as an attack page against the inhabitants of that village which included defamatory edits like this one or that one. Secondly, as there was practically no useful content at all and no unvandalized revisions such a history is a burden for anyone taking care of that article in the future and it is also embarrassing for the Wikipedia and, of course, for that village. From my point of view, a simple deletion of this revisions would suffice, i.e. I do not think that they need to be oversighted. I do not see any value or necessity in keeping that revision history; in particular I do not see a violation of the GFDL when it gets deleted. Unfortunately this is an unusually extreme case (i.e. an article which more or less consisted of vandalisms only) and to understand the problem it is necessary to go through the long history of that article. In summary, I simply wanted your advise in how to proceed best in such a case as I am not very familiar with the procedures of this project. Thanks and regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup

Hi Lar, I am sorry to bother you again with this issue but this will be the very last time. This deletion request was closed early, i.e. before running for five days, by a non-admin. I do not think that this closure is in conformance with this policy but I do not intend to follow this point any further. It worries me, however, that a long series of revisions with defamatory stuff (see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]) was kept in this article despite this policy which explicitly requires such material to be deleted and not just reverted. Given that multiple editors started to save the article by rewriting it from scratch after I filed it for deletion, the deletion of the entire article seems no longer be appropriate. Perhaps a selective deletion is the way to go. I saw it as my responsibility as a mere editor to draw the attention of admins to this amount of libel in this article and I got somewhat frustrated as apparently nobody followed to see a problem with that. I am not really familiar with the English wikipedia and its procedures. Perhaps this contributes to the problem that I apparently fail to make myself clear. This notice to you is my very last attempt to draw any attention to it. Thanks for your offer to help and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those edits - requires oversight. I'm not seeing the defamation there at all - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, AFBorchert is a well respected user on many wikis, I've found his previous reports sound and his counsel wise, (heck, he voted against my candidacy once so he's no dummy! :) ) so I think the concerns should be taken seriously. I have had other matters that took my attention. If Ally says they're not oversightable, they're not, I trust her judgement. But that doesn't mean there isn't something to look into here. Talk Page Watchers.... can you help me out here? Take a look at some of the edits AFB gives diffs for and evaluate them not on oversightability, but on whether they are or are not problematic? Thanks! I spot checked a couple, and what I saw was garden variety vandalism... saying that the place is somewhere to go to die of leprosy and other foolishness... not something that rises to the level of defamation, just something to give an IP a stern warning or short block over... I may have missed some though, but as Allie says, "the average article has a metric ton of vandalism in its edit history" ... sad but true. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the IP involved in many bad edits to the subject article a warning. Not for those edits, which are too old to warn an IP about, but for recent edits. For the record: 84.203.146.56 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was warnded for a Newcastle West edit. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it, Lar, and for your kind words. I cannot claim that I have significant experience in hunting down vandalism and hence I wasn't sure how this is handled best. And, yes, I felt somewhat uncomfortable if all this is left in the history (in particular this and that raised my attention as this associates a named person with defamatory remarks). The other defamations go against one of the local pubs which is declared to be rat-infested and the village in general. (But the story about the quarantine sounded for some readers realistic enough to ask a question on the talk page or to add a dubious tag to it.) I concur with Alison that this does not require oversight. If you think that it also does not require selective deletion then I will trust your judgement. Alison, I thank you as well for looking into this matter. Please understand, however, that I didn't met you before and I just wanted to have a second opinion. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting revisions can be done with less fuss than oversighting them. If you have particular ones to delete, prepare a list, and I'll take a look. You can use the contact me feature if you don't want to post them... ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you my suggestion. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered via mail. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page lurker

I need help with an essay. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What essay? I'm not the best at reading minds and people get jumpy when I scan their contribs :) ... (not that that stops me) ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (PS, take a number! :) ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>>>>Wikipedia:Talk page lurker<<<<<<<<<< Jehochman ^Talk 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, THAT one. Asked and answered. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You prefer watcher? Watcher seems more lurid! I think a lurker is more slothlike. Jehochman ^Talk 23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lurking is what people do in dark alleys or smoky bars. I just like to watch, myself. Risker (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowt wrong with The Lurkers! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever check Hobartimus and Collect?

They routinely agree with each other and even follow each other on to noticeboards to agree with each other. They always support each other's changes and both help to revert back each other's changes. They may indeed be different people, but I assure you, H and C have far more similar actions and back-ups (I could show you over 100 if you cared to see them all), then the editors Kelly charged me with being related to who appeared once and disappeared. I'm not asking for a formal request, but if you could check just to reassure yourself and me, I'd appreciate it.GreekParadise (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. See User_talk:Lar#Allegations_of_socking, first paragraph. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Admin Coaching

Dear Lar,

I was thinking of requesting adminship in the near future, as many of my recent edits have been in areas where I could help more easily if I was an administrator. However, I recognize that I am probably too inexperienced with Wikipedia and possibly too ignorant of some policies. So I was wondering if you would consider admin coaching me.

Thank you,NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accepting any coachees at this time as I don't think I can devote the necessary time to do a good job and would rather not do a slipshod one. Sorry. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks for reading this though :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 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) 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LEGO

I found the Halsam patents on wooden bricks and added it to the LEGO article. I don't know if you follow the article, but I noted your interest in LEGOs. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His interest! Lar is a LEGO nut. He eats bricks for breakfast. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. That's bad for you. I've had LEGO candy and LEGO waffles though. ++Lar: t/c 05:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnng

Rapid-response you your email, sir. Iet's sort this out quickly - Alison ^❤ 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		You get this star for best edit summary ever. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um thanks, but I can't really take credit for that one. (check the caption of the picture on the essay page)... besides that's not even MY best ever... I do pride myself on them though, so keep watching. ++Lar: t/c 11:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocking!

This video rocks. I'm a fan of both SpaceX and Crystal Method so it's doubly good. High Roller indeed is a great choice for an accompaniment! ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MFD closed

Hi Lar, I've closed this discussion which seemed to be becoming rather bitter, and tried to focus attention on how things might be improved. I hope my rationale makes sense and is something people can get behind. It occurs to me that in blanking the RfCU request beyond your earlier redactions, I have rather exceeded the authority of a non-checkuser in this area. For that I apologise. If you feel that my further blanking hampers the ability of checkusers to keep a check on misconduct by SA, I of course defer to you and accept your right to revert me. I think however that this course reflects the consensus of the discussion and is the best way for everyone to move on positively. WJBscribe (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks for taking this particular bull by the horns. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babysitting request??

Can you watchlist Talk:Fiador (tack) and its associated article? The last time this article was subject to a round of editing, I was the recipient of a wikiquette alert. The same OR and photos have been reinserted again, I have commented on the talk page, I am going to be making some structural edits and tagging some materials in the article, and this issue needs to be resolved once and for all. I'm sick of fighting over it. Montanabw^(talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a bit more about what I need to watch for? I don't know anything about the topic. Even E, who knows way more about horses than I do, doesn't know much, but she's trying to come up to speed, and just leaned over and said she'd talk to our trainer about it. However she unfortunately has returned to work and has a bit less time. That said, I've watchlisted it and I'd encourage all my TPWs to do so as well... ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stable diff to my version: [29] . Essentially, though there are other side issues, the short version is that the fiador, as understood in the USA, is seen in western riding, as part of some hackamores used as a type of throatlatch to stabilize a bosal on a young, green-broke horse. It's the thingy of white cord tied to the back of the hackamore shown here. The issue is that Una keeps adding material on Australian neck collars and Australian bardoo bridles to this article, and these neck collars are NOT fiadors. The critical difference here is that these neck collars are used to tie up a horse, while a fiador is placed on equipment that should NEVER be used to tie a horse. It's a safety issue, which is why I'm being a bit stubborn about this. I took all the questionable material out and parked it on the talk page until we can reach a resolution. She also says that the word fiador, as used in Spanish-speaking countries, describes something like a neck collar, and I have fact tagged some of this material - She may be correct, I don't speak Spanish, so I don't know. There may be a place to discuss neck ropes too, but not necessarily in this article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my e-mail

(redacted)

I don't mind giving it out, certainly not to you. I do not make it automatically available because a now-banned user once used it to harass me, that's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User RfC - Kay Sieverding

Dear Lar: At Arthur Rubin's suggestion, I have started a User RfC for Kay Sieverding, who is continuing to do exactly what she did before Risker's block. Please feel free to participate here Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hi Lar, hope is well. Popped back into Wikipedia today after a long break, and found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, under Topic ban needed for two edit warriors. I personally think it is more wasteful arguing, where all they had to do is come up with a shared-name in the filename and include all terms in the image, and everyone is jumping up and down happy. Anyway, I always enjoy your comments on situations, so if you have time, drop by. I think it is just childish to have topic bans, blocks, etc. in this case. They just need to agree on a shared solution and be done with it. On the side, I'd actually like to see if you would be willing to be the unofficial mediator for this topic area if any future issues come up with naming. You've always been good at seeing through the babbling and just getting a compromise. :) Icsunonove (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought we were friends? Geesh. OK, I went there and said something. We shall see. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on now...

Can you see if there are any more? Thanks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

didn't spot any. ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Beat ya :) - Alison ^❤ 04:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) All

sorted. Found another one or two - Alison ^❤ 04:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing one of us was paying attention. Me, I just wrote an article ... felt good! Julia Morton. One edit. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice indeed. I'm jealous :) - Alison ^❤ 04:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) (wants to get back to decent article creation)[reply]

(like a thousand e/c's...) O_O I get two checkusers working on my request? Wow. Now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D (BTW, thanks...) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me you asked both of us and didn't tell us? ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no. Normally, I bug Alison, but apparently (ummm, allegedly...........) she is on wikibreak. So I just looked at Special:ListUsers/checkuser and chose the one who had last edited. Which was you.

While I'm here, I may as well ask: Are phone number oversightable? Or should I just delete them? Or should I just revert and ignore? (I've sent a couple to Special:EmailUser/Oversight]], but I don't know if they were done or not. I've deleted a couple, but the other day I deleted a freeking huge page, (read: >3000 revisions) and it really slowed Wikipedia down. So now I don't know what to do. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I view them as PII (personally identifiable information) and if not voluntarily disclosed, oversightable. Voluntary disclosure requires "proof" taht the number belongs to the discloser.. that is I can't voluntarily disclose YOUR number. Even if I claim it's mine. It has to really BE mine. Which is hard to prove, so I just delete them usually. But ask Allie. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to oversight phone numbers, yes. Pmail me the links - Alison ^❤ 05:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 05:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who does? Geez, you're notifying HER on MY page? :) ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CC made bad faith 3RR report

FWIW, Cumulus has made a bad faith 3RR report on me, which was, thankfully, promptly dismissed. However, a sudden new account, "Arizona Biltmore" has suddenly appeared, interested in making the exact reversions CC has made, and also leaving, at best, strange Talk page entries. He does not seem to accept that unsourced material in a bio can be removed, although CC did it often in the past. Can you see if there is a chance that AB is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of Cumulus Clouds? Merci! Collect (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is always helpful to leave a link when you come to the page of a relatively busy admin... either a regular one for a slow moving page (for example Wikipedia:AN3#User:Collect_reported_by_Cumulus_Clouds_.28talk.29_.28Result:_Decline.2C_diffs_are_BLP_exempt.29 ) or if it's likely to get archived even before the admin can get to it, a history link (for example [30] ) When making suggestions that two users are related and requesting a check, even informally, it's helpful to give some diffs of specific edits that suggest a connection (because the edits are similar, or are both reverting the same thing, or one user is speaking as the other, or whatever) ... hope those tips help. I will take a look at this as soon as I get a chance. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. I know, after decades as a wizop, that being an admin is not fun. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245578210 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245286485 compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245334567 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245018772 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245004735 specifically noting the interest in maintaining the unsourced comments about Keating's family and implying they acted illegally or improperly. Again, apologies for sure. The only two article edits ever done by AB were the two reverts. Collect (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the diffs you've presented do show a possible social correlation between these two editors, sufficient to merit a check. Thanks for documenting them. So, I've carried one out and I do not find technical evidence of a correlation. It's possible that these edits are entirely innocent or coincidental, the behaviour does not rule that out. It is also possible that these two IDs represent two editors that know each other, with AB being a newly recruited meatpuppet as it were, and the behaviour does support that. It is also possible (although I suspect unlikely) that CC is a puppeteer clever enough to evade detection. But there's nothing I could say further technically, other than

Unrelated or at best

Unlikely, because unfortunately,

CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Remember that no correlation is not proof of innocence just as correlation is not proof of guilt. If this hasn't been brought to the WP:BLP noticeboard (WP:BLP/N) to get more admin eyes on it, it probably should be. Sorry I wasn't more help in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking it out. If I see more, I shall certainly blurt it out. CC, by the way, seems in the past to have prided himself on identifying socks, though his later adventures seem more confrontational than anything else. Collect (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Did you check to see if Arizona Biltmore has any correlation to Collect? I believe that Collect has set up several sockpuppet accounts in order to bait me into situations like this one. User:Honey And Thyme is a good example, since that account filed an AFD report minutes after User:Jclemens pointed Collect towards an RFC filed against me, in which my dispute with User:MichaelQSchmidt was discussed. Collect than posted to MQSchmidt's talk page, attempting to draw that user into our conflict and, when MQSchmidt removed those comments, Honey&Thyme appeared to nominate MQS's article for deletion. After I posted my comment in that AFD, Collect immediately followed me with a keep vote. Later, he backtracked and concurred that it was indeed suspicious that a new account would nominate the article for deletion.

I believe Collect himself is a sockpuppet account, though I haven't yet been able to figure out who. He appeared back in May of this year after a 6 month hiatus, and his few edits in 2007 had been themselves preceded by another 6 month hiatus. Collect is a dangeous and manipulative user who is attempting to game the system with these fraudulent reports and I strongly condemn them. I am in good standing and have never been suspected of sockpuppetry. My integrity here has been absolutely unimpeachable, and even users with whom I've engaged in former disputes can vouch for my unequivocal hatred of sockpuppetry. I would ask that this report and this discussion be closed immediately. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going to point out that once the BLP exceptions were explained in the 3RR report, I first checked for sources on those issues (there are none in Google) and then abandoned all edits to Charles Keating. I had been continually reverting Collect on that article, as I had been on Dino Rossi and others, because his edits are almost entirely partisan, with little concern for accuracy or neutrality. I believe that this discussion represents another attempt for that user to abuse administrative process to prevent me from correcting any of the bias Collect continues to insert into those articles. This is also why I believe they have gone to great lengths (including registering User:Arizona Biltmore and User:Honey And Thyme) to have me blocked. This user has left messages with User:Gwen Gale and others complaining about this same issue but each have, in turn, rejected him. I'm going to point out that I hadn't even heard of the issue concerning Keating's son and the Arizona Biltmore properties until I began editing that article and I didn't even bother to check the facts until after the 3RR report was rejected as a BLP violation. The article is unsubstantiated and there are no sources, and I absolutely do not support its inclusion in that article. If I see Arizona Biltmore or anyone attempt to reinsert I will revert them myself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And last, if you read what Arizona Biltmore wrote on the talk page, they're glaringly similar to Collect's previous postings at Talk:Sarah Palin and Talk:Dino Rossi. He's cherry picked a few select words (like "whitewashed") out of my posts and inserted them in an obvious attempt to clone my vocabulary, but it's pretty clear that it's Collect's attempt at baiting me and trying to manipulate you into running this report. I also want to point out that Arizona Biltmore wasn't registered until after I filed the 3RR report (or so close that it's negligible) and that I didn't even see those edits until after I had filed it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing: Collect doesn't even appear to know that he was requesting a Checkuser report. He asked about meatpuppets and sockpuppets -both words he picked up from the RFC- and then asked you to look into it. He probably didn't count on your ability to trace IPs to individual user accounts and so didn't see that as possible evidence against his claim. Again, that's another obvious indicator that Collect was trying to manipulate the system here by registering Arizona Biltmore as his sockpuppet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neat -- I think you forgot I have been around for over two years now, and online for over 26 years. My job, in fact, included the equivalent of "checkuser" and "sockpuppet" checks. And you seem to ignore that I have informed Lar about who I am in some detail. The GP charge is just a little bit higher on this very page, by the way. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- you should know that GreekParadise made the same charge of me being a "sockpuppet", eating up lots of admin time. I have given Lar sufficient information for him to state conclusively that I am a specific single person, and where I am located. He can also subtract, and realize that if my post on the schmidt page was made at 21:09 on 14 Oct, that I would not then after that have been able to create H&T 10 hours EARLIER ROFL! . And since you were the one who reinserted the claims in Keating once before, I am glad you now recognize they are unsourced. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it was over 24 hours after Jclemens posted the link to the RFC, from which you sorted through and determined the root cause of the earlier conflict between MQS and myself and then tried to exacerbate that conflict both through your posts to MQS' talk page and then, after those failed, with the filing of the AFD. I have no doubt now that this person is you and I would ask that Lar run a checkuser on you and Honey And Thyme to determine if there is any technical evidence linking those accounts. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes, thats rather a lot to read... Cumulus Clouds: When making suggestions that two users are related and requesting a check, even informally, it's helpful to give some diffs of specific edits that suggest a connection (because the edits are similar, or are both reverting the same thing, or one user is speaking as the other, or whatever) ... hope those tips help. (But I repeat myself) Please present specific diffs that justify a check. Thanks. Also, this may not be the best place to resolve disputes. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, here goes:

User:Collect posts tirade on talk page of User:Jclemens. Jclemens directs Collect to a defunct RFC to make a point. Collect reads RFC and registers User Honey and Thyme in advance of AFD. Collect posts message to talk page of User:MichaelQSchmidt to engage user in dispute. MichaelQSchmidt rejects message and removes it from his talk page. Shortly afterwards, Honey and Thyme posts AFD. I comment on AFD (article is on my watchlist). 90 minutes later Collect posts a keep vote. A day later, Collect posts again to AFD claiming to support conclusion that Honey And Thyme is a possible sock.

Arizona Biltmore was registered on 15:51 3 December 2007. 10 months later, they edit the talk page of Charles Keating and begin engaging in the debate with no prior edits to that article or any other. They exhibit typical sockpuppet behavior and know far more about process than is typical of new accounts. At 12:50 on 14 October, Arizona Biltmore makes first revert to Charles Keating, exactly three hours after Collect's last revert. Collect reverts Arizona Biltmore exactly one hour later. Collect ceases editing at 12:25 14 October. Resumes editing at 13:40 14 October. Arizona Biltmore makes no futher edits that day.

I post the 3RR notice, check Charles Keating and note that a new account has now engaged in edits. Over an hour later, I add a new diff for Arizona Biltmore's revert at 18:26 14 October. Arizona Biltmore logs in 24 minutes later and posts to the talk page of Charles Keating. One minute later, they revert Collect's edit. Collect responds on the talk page and reverts Arizona Biltmore's edit 4 hours later. Collect remained logged out of their account between 0901 15 October 2008 and 0236 16 October 2008, when they logged in to respond to Arizona Biltmore and revert their edits. I am convinced there is a third account to fill in the gaps.

Oh, right, it's Honey And Thyme. Those edits fill in substantial portions of the gaps that day. There may also be a fourth account to fill in the rest. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no overlaps in editing times between Arizona Biltmore, Honey And Thyme and Collect. Both Arizona Biltmore and Honey And Thyme know far more about process than is typical of new registrations. Both accounts have been used in a concerted effort to appear as if they were me. Had I not posted the comment to the AFD, I am certain that Collect would be asking you to perform checks on me for that one as well. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You are now into palpable libel. Not just asking questions, but making false and despicable assertions. You should also tell Lar that you have now tried to get an article in my personal workspace deleted, even though it makes no mention of anyone at all, and is linked to WP:GAMING. Collect (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Dear Lar, you have a query regarding your recent Did you know nomination. Please respond here. Thank you. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you some ideas... see what you think! ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

age of consent at DYK

Thanks for your suggestion. I changed the hook. I will try to work on those grammatical formulations as well. Thanks again. Docku:“what up?” 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, I'll take another look if it didn't already get taken up for DYK. Thanks for your contributions to the project. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 555: / Line 555: @@
 There are no overlaps in editing times between Arizona Biltmore, Honey And Thyme and Collect. Both Arizona Biltmore and Honey And Thyme know far more about process than is typical of new registrations. Both accounts have been used in a concerted effort to appear as if they were me. Had I not posted the comment to the AFD, I am certain that Collect would be asking you to perform checks on me for that one as well. [[User:Cumulus Clouds|Cumulus Clouds]] ([[User talk:Cumulus Clouds|talk]]) 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
+:Congratulations. You are now into palpable libel. Not just asking questions, but making false and despicable assertions. You should also tell Lar that you have now tried to get an article in my personal workspace deleted, even though it makes no mention of anyone at all, and is linked to [[WP:GAMING]]. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 == DYK ==