:: Oh, OK, I'll fix that [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:: Oh, OK, I'll fix that [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
::: Thanks. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
::: Thanks. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::: Technically fixed, I suppose, in that the words changed. [[Special:Contributions/173.101.153.240|173.101.153.240]] ([[User talk:173.101.153.240|talk]]) 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns if you don't want to post.
Here about a BLP that's persistently getting vandalized and you want me to semi protect it? Leave a note below, (User:Lar/Liberal Semi is no longer in use) and I or one of my TPWs will get it.
Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active... Ping me if it's truly urgent, or find another admin.
Here about accountability? see my accountability page. Note: The apparent listification of the category (it's back but may go away again) does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way
Please read the two blue boxes :).
A Note on how things are done here:
Being a "grumpy old curmudgeon", I have certain principles governing this talk page which I expect you to adhere to if you post here. (This talk page is my "territory", (although I acknowledge it's not really mine, it's the community's) and I assume janitorial responsibility for it.)
I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. If I inadvertently change the meaning of anything, please let me know so I can fix it!
While I reserve the right to delete comments I find egregiously poor form, I am normally opposed to doing so and use monthly random archives instead. If you post here, your words will remain here and eventually in the archives, so please do not delete them, use strikeouts. In other words, think carefully about what you say rather than posting hastily or heatedly.
Edit warring here is particularly bad form. One of my WP:TPW's may well issue a short block, so don't do it.
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
That wasn't vandalism. That was Kanonkas properly removing the contributions of a banned editor, you. Cenarium removed your contribution here, as was right and proper per policy but I choose to restore it so that the answer I give makes sense. Your understanding of how wikis work seems to be getting worse with time rather than better. ++Lar: t/c21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say: The Kanonkas case is clear as a mountain lake, especially his deletions on commons. Conclusion for Mutter Erde: Kick out the vandals! I have started an interwiki poll about the question: Vandalism or not? I will try to present a summary of interwikipedians, asked by chance. Regards 92.227.140.159 (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, i have a little problem to count your vote. But it might be important for a little history of wikipedia/commons
I have no idea what you are talking about. However, since it seems to somehow be related to your removal from Commons: I see no evidence that you are changing the behavior that got you removed. ++Lar: t/c14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, I am preparing a little goldmine of difflinks for friends, critics or donors of wikipedia. Nothing spectacular. Name it: Adventures of a German encyclopedist. Chapter: Mutter Erde goes west. Including severe privacy problems mixed with curiosities as sweet little fifteen ABF and so on. My problems are, that I have too much to tell. I have to shorten my little gold/trashmine. Should I place my attempts to desysop Mattbuck because of File:No Israel.svg - currently on 89 pages (daily growing) - followed by the revenge of Kanonkas/Mattbuck/Shakatagai (see above)? Or should I prefer to describe poor old Susan, deleted by Kanonkas and a bunch of youngsters? I don't know at moment. But in any case: The facts should be 100 % correct. And so I have asked you above. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.78.239 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, you are involved :-), but not as much as others. What about to unblock my commons account so that I can start my announced desysop of mattbuck. I will canvass (or better: give a note) to the 650 wikipedia-projects, so that around 1000 users get a chance to prove the case. That would be a real vote, not the fake ban they ("they"= 7 noses) had done with Mutter Erde. I am a democrat. When they think, mattbuck's private undeletion of File:No Israel.svg was OK, I will accept it. After this I will start to desysop Kanonkas. That's easy, because he is obviously a vandal. Who will vote for such people?. Btw: Do you remember his first days on commons? Oppose Been here 5 weeks. I don't understand the rush of support for someone so new. Majorly talk 16:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC). Funny, how somebody is able to become a commons admin. Or do you remember Amicon, one of Kanonkas' buddies ? ....Impressed! Thanks for taking your time. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC) ff :-)
Um, you want me to unblock you so you can continue your disruption and widen it by canvassing on other projects? Oddly, I don't think I will be doing that any time soon, sorry. However I am glad you like the heading better. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what will happen there. Kanonkas removing the posting of a banned user is not vandalism. I am giving you far more latitude than most folk would give you, please be clear on that. ++Lar: t/c02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Lar. Just so you know (since voting should have just started), I have answered most of your questions for the ArbCom elections, but I'm still working my way through some of the last few. I'm hoping to have these finished within an hour or at most two, but if it should take longer I'll let you know. Sorry for the excessive delay, we'll have to make sure next year's election doesn't coincide with a major US holiday. :-) Hersfold(t/a/c)00:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I was looking at Cirt's already. I have to confess I'm not totally clear on the exact criteria (which is why I have put in so much detail on mine, maybe more than was needed). ++Lar: t/c18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP related vandalism, (as Scott said on Kendrick7's talk page) and as it's not the first instance of vandalism by this user, or the first block, the block was increased from previous ones. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't "vandalism" as far as I can tell, and I know Kendrick to have never "vandalized" a page. He is an exceptional editor. In this case it looks like he was simply casting a vote in an AFD discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with this user. I have collaborated with him on many articles. I don't understand your logic. Because of "Scott"'s objections, you unilaterally block Kendrick for one month without any discussion at AN? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the concern that User:Scott MacDonald raised at User_talk:Kendrick7#Daniel_Brandt, yes. Please note that taking a routine block to AN or AN/I in advance is not necessary. And unfortunately, BLP vandalism of this sort is all too routine here. Since you say you are "very familiar" with this user... What do you say about Kendrick's comment to Anthony? Or about Kendrick's block log in general? Seems like a problematic editor to me. Again, Kendrick's welcome to ask for a review of the block. I hope that helps address your concerns, and I note you haven't yet addressed mine. ++Lar: t/c23:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with constructive IP edits. I am aware that he occasionally edit wars, but it comes with the territory. If you blocked him based on his block log, I don't think it's a very good measure. It is lengthy both because of his long tenure here, and the fact that he has been unblocked numerous times. What it comes down to is seven blocks in four years, which isn't all that bad compared to some editors. The recent indef block was made because of a comment by Kendrick while drunk. He then decided to retire. The blocking admin even said that he would be unblocked if he decided to return. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing as an IP while blocked is block evasion. That you don't see anything wrong with it suggests that we may have somewhat different approaches. Edit warring is not acceptable, and taking it to the point of actually getting blocked is a sign of not being able to edit within our norms. That you don't see anything wrong with it ("comes with the territory") suggests that we may have someone different approaches. To clarify on the basis: I blocked him based on his making a potentially libelous comment about a living person, which I doubt very much he actually believed was true, especially after I reviewed his other Brandt related contributions. I chose the length of the block (note the difference) based on his previous block record. Was there anything else you wanted to raise that you don't feel I have addressed? ++Lar: t/c00:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not true and it causes harm. That you didn't already realise this suggests we may have somewhat different approaches. ++Lar: t/c00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it was not definitive. He said it was according to sources in San Antonio. I don't see how saying someone might have died will cause harm to the person, or can even be untrue. Do you know for fact that he did not receieve the information from a source? Was it proper to completely remove his !vote from the discussion? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)For what it's worth, I followed the same link from the AfD intending to block indef. This was a case of the worst kind of trolling, and we don't need or want this kind of editor. Kevin (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit that got him blocked was vandalism and/or trolling, not just according to me, but in the view of more folk than just myself. The project welcomes good/useful contributions and contributors, including Kendrick7, when he's making good/useful contributions. That edit wasn't one of them... This editor needs to not do edits like that one again. There really isn't much more to say here. ++Lar: t/c01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it doesn't matter if you're the Queen of Spain. If you're going to be saying someone died on a website that (a) is constantly worried about accidentally causing harm to living people and (b) has been publicly humiliated for incorrectly calling people dead, and you're not even going to link to a credible source, it's going to be taken very seriously and action is going to be taken. Considering all the past precedence, you can't just say "X is dead" without backing it up with some serious sources. You just don't do that. By the way, I just checked the Social Security Death Index and I have no reason to believe he is dead. @harej01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he's dead, somebody's highjacked his WR account, because he's still posting over there. In any event, I endorse the block too; it's not just falsely reporting that he was dead, it's goading somebody who's been abused by Wikipedia in the past (and who has since given back as good as he got, it must be said) and who would rather not be mentioned here at all. It's malicious trolling,, and a month is about right. Steve Smith (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. That user's history with Brandt means it's not acceptable. You've now had 5 different folk tell you it was unacceptable. We're done. The user can appeal their block if they like but there's nothing more to say here. Thank you for stopping by to voice your concerns, but we're done. ++Lar: t/c04:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I make, as a previously involved (and quoted, above) admin, no comment about the block or its length. But I will point out that this editor and William S. Saturn seem to have a long history of uncritical support, and the comment by WSS above about NOTVAND does not apply. --Anthony.bradbury"talk"16:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. I noticed the uncritical nature of support by WSS... every point answered results in a different tack, and with no acknowledgment of the underlying issues. It does make one wonder. Perhaps further scrutiny of both editors is warranted here. ++Lar: t/c16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kendrick is getting a bad rap here. He used to be much more focused; lately he seems to be burned out. Clearly he thinks there is some compromising of values going on with the whole Brandt thing, which isn't really a view I share, but I know he isn't the only one. He doesn't herd well, may have a bit of a quixotic streak, and seems to have a few EUIs. I think that's the extent of the problem. William Saturn is probably, like me, someone who used to appreciate Kendrick back when he was more active, as one of the more thoughtful and independent voices around. Mackan79 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that insight. If K understands what the issue is, and undertakes to edit more thoughtfully, I'd consider a reduction. But WSS coming in guns blazing in full "deny everything" mode ("My client loves his wife, and besides he doesn't own a gun and also he was out of town that week and did you consider that she had it coming?") doesn't help his case. I'm much more disposed to work with someone who can see the other side of things too than a pit bull. Appreciate your stopping by. ++Lar: t/c21:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see there's a request to ArbCom for clarification of motions as well. SlimVirgin appears to be trying to make the case that because she had something to do with an article years and years ago, you can't start afresh with a thorough, well researched scholarly effort now. I hope she gets properly smacked down for that view because it's poppycock. ++Lar: t/c15:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion would greatly be appreciated
Hi, this AFD close as keep. The problem I have is that it looks like the closing administrator closed with their own opinion and not that of those who commented. This article and that of her husband Tareq Salahi is a blp nightmare. The closer said BLP1 didn't cover the reasons for deletion so I guess all of those were discounted. I am finding that closing of BLP articles is done in such a scattered way that it's impossible to figure out the best way to explain one's opinions on an article. Any suggestions? I don't think this qualifies for reviewing. I am just sure that these two articles are going to continue to be a BLP problem esp. with the vandals. If you decide to take a look you will see that this one event is also discussed in 2009 White House gatecrash incident where at least I feel gives the best platform for this event. The two other articles duplicate each other way too much. The couple also apparently has had legal problems which I feel has been a problem adding to the articles in a neutral way. If you look at the histories of these articles I think you will see what I am trying to say since I'm not saying it that well, sorry for that. Thanks for you time, again if not interested feel free to say so with no hard feeling from me at all. I just find your opinions about BLP are pretty solid and I am trying to learn more. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to take this straight to DRV. The close seems to be little more than the closer's opinion and takes no account of consensus. The article is, in my opinion, unacceptable.--Scott Mac (Doc)13:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CrohnieGal: I think you're right, things are way too inconsistent... some stronger guidance would be helpful. Thanks for letting me know about this. I do think that at least a merge is in order.
Scott: I think a DRV is in order. This couple is right on the borderline of notability in my view but the discounting of BLP1E viewpoints seems to have made this AfD close irretrievably flawed. Please let me know if you do DRV this. ++Lar: t/c15:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. I'll be over to the review soon. Thanks Scott for setting it up. I've never done one. I am just now trying to learn more about how we handle BLP and the processes involved. Thanks for the help. --CrohnieGalTalk16:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to deletion since we no longer use album covers to illustrate bare discographies if there isn't critical commentary on the cover itself. ++Lar: t/c15:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.
Thanks for letting me know. I'll add that page to my watchlist but if there's something urgent feel free to ping me. However it looks like any admin can do this? ++Lar: t/c15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean that there might sometimes be a request for a steward to do this from other wikis directly, then? Color me a bit confused about the exact implications of this. WP:TPWs???? any ideas????? ++Lar: t/c16:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, can you pop over to the talk page of Talk:Monty Roberts? There is a minor storm over a decision that I made to merge one of Roberts' books into the main article and redirect the title. Dana put on the merge tag, and then I just merged it, but one editor is very unhappy about that decision, and for some reason is dragging the BLP issue into it because there are some links in the merged piece that may be critical of Roberts. This particular article has been touchy for having problem with people who want to edit it into a puff piece, but why there is blowback over merging a one-paragraph orphaned article, I don't know. (Though one of the editors who worked on the book article happens to have a user name that corresponds to that of a staff member of roberts' FWIW) Anyway, your level head and sense of what's going on is appreciated. Montanabw(talk)06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 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) 20:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, neither of us holds with banned editors contacting us via ip's but I would ask your indulgence in reviewing User talk:LessHeard vanU#False Sockpuppet Accusation on behalf of the account blocked, without checking, as a sock of a banned editor. The banned editor is the ip on my talkpage, and since the accused account was blocked in November I hope the trail is still fresh enough to make the check. If you decline to act I certainly understand. I would note that the ip has also made the request at Jimbo's talkpage, and possibly elsewhere, but since I was involved in the banned editors RfAR I feel inclined to make this request of my own volition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been raised on the functionaries list, actually, so it should get the appropriate attention, whether it's from me or from someone else. I may be a bit out of pocket for a while, as I'm traveling home this afternoon, it was a short week in DE this time. ++Lar: t/c14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't charge per CU request... This one is under control already. As for applying... um... dunno. Stand for election I think? ++Lar: t/c23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AOTR
Lar, can we chat about AOTR? I've been working on reinforcing the WP:RFC/U process. It seems that the main historical problem has been lack of visibility. After we placed links at the top of the main noticeboards, participation seems to have increased. One problem we have is the constant profusion of community desysopping proposals and ad hoc processes, such as CAT:AOTR. I think I'd prefer to clear out as much redundant process as possible and get people to focus on making one process work. It seems that WP:RFC/U is the best general purpose solution. If an admin is a problem an RFC can identify what's wrong and put all the evidence in one place, and generate community feedback. Then three thing can happen (1) the admin can make a productive response that addresses concerns, or they can agree to improve, (2) the admin can voluntarily resign, or (3) if the admin makes a poor response and refuses to resign, the matter can be taken to ArbCom for disposition. What do you think about consolidating? JehochmanMake my day14:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AOTR has 201 members. I'm not yet clear on what your proposal is yet. However, I'm not sure I see it as "redundant process" but I'm certainly interested to learn more about what you have in mind. AOTR isn't "mine" per se, of course... but perhaps I have some influence. How closely have you studied it? Many members specify an RfC or modified RfC as part of their recall process. Reading processes may be instructive, see Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. ++Lar: t/c15:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some sense the lessons learned at AOTR need to be applied to existing process, to wit RFC. We ought to have a common understanding about how to review, correct, or de-sysop admins. We clearly lack that common understanding as community desysop proposals keep coming up. There is dissatisfaction, and this has not been resolved despite years of discussion. I think the community is not well served by having a host of options. It would be better to form a consensus about how we do things. Every admin is subject to review at RFC, and every admin ought to have the good sense to resign if an RFC shows that their services are no longer trusted to be fair and accurate. The very few bad apples are the ones who won't listen to that feedback, and those can be dealt with by ArbCom. AOTR presents itself as a "light" process, but in reality it has been anything but light, because of the need to prevent gaming. AOTR is rarely lighter than our simple RFC process. I am asking whether it would be better to phase out AOTR in favor of a more effective version of RFC. Rather than asking RFA candidates to list themselves in AOTR (which is annoying, because a promise under those conditions is neither voluntary nor enforceable), we ought to ask them how they think admin conduct RFC should work, and then elect those who show clueful insights. JehochmanMake my day15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to asking candidates about willingness to be in CAT:AOTR. Also I'm not (yet) convinced that RfC/U is an acceptable replacement for, or equivalence to, a voluntarily entered into advance commitment to being recallable. In particular I have not seen RfC/U, absent that advance commitment, lead to anything useful in most cases (this one being an example of not much useful transpiring yet as a result, although he's not an admin)... So, I think you haven't made a case yet. Perhaps we could chat about it on IRC some time? ++Lar: t/c18:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be in the admin's code of conduct that we are expected to resign if an RfC shows us to have lost the trust of the community. There's no way to be an effective administrator without that trust; who would want to continue under that circumstance? I think all administrators should be held to same ethical standards, not just the ones who pledge to be open to recall. JehochmanMake my day19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. That's how it should be, indeed. And when Brenny and I first mooted this AOTR, we hoped that over time, almost everyone would want to show that level of commitment to ethical standards. But whether it's because AOTR isn't lightweight, or whatever, it's got a significant minority take-up, but not the "almost everyone" I would hope for. We didn't set the expectation of standards, so we have what we have now, and I don't see how to get to there from here. ++Lar: t/c23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way to accomplish what we both seem to want may be to set expectations that administrators should resign if an RfC shows that they have lost the faith of the community. By the way, I just added that to Wikipedia:Administrators and nobody objected yet.[2] The second step is to make sure that resignations happen when such a situation arises. We should also try to head off any lynch mobs that start at ANI and run to RFAR when an admin makes a mistake. Eventually it will become part of the culture, and ideal embodied by AOTR will be the default case. JehochmanMake my day14:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(out) I support that edit to WP:ADMIN. I'll try to keep an eye on the talk page but LMK if concerns are raised and I'll speak up. (WP:TPWs: please do the same... I know most of you care about good adminning standards, this is a good initiative.). Also to echo what you said and amplify a bit...
"AN/I -> howling mob -> ArbCom case"
== BAD outcome for the community
"AN/I -> AOTR request -> Calm/reasoned discussion via RfC or reconfirming RfA -> resignation or retention"
== GREAT outcome for the community (and the admin, who may well pass RfA again some time)
"AN/I -> AOTR request -> Calm/reasoned discussion via RfC or reconfirming RfA -> intransigence -> ArbCom case resulting in removal"
== GOOD (not as good as the one just above, but better than howling mobs) outcome for the community, but BAD for the admin, who probably won't pass RfA again (which is arguably a good thing!)
"AN/I -> RFC/U -> Calm/reasoned discussion via RfC -> resignation or retention"
== GREAT outcome for the community (and the admin, who may well pass RfA again some time)
"AN/I -> RFC/U -> Calm/reasoned discussion via RfC -> intransigence -> ArbCom case resulting in removal"
== GOOD outcome for the community (again, not as good as just above but better than howling mobs), but BAD for the admin, who probably won't pass RfA again (which, again, is arguably a good thing!)
So it's not that I am opposed to the RfC/U process getting taken up and being a vehicle, rather I think it's great!... I just don't see how to get there from here, and am not sure that tearing down AOTR without a replacement is a good idea. ++Lar: t/c15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky.
Let me know how I can help (add sources, etc.) to this article. It appears like these editors maybe attorneys, used to wikilawyering, so it maybe a difficult article to save despite the dozens of references. Ikip18:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ikip! The matter of the AfD seems to turn on whether the lawsuit had any lasting coverage other than at the time it happened, and whether it had any effect on anything else or has been cited in writings about how caselaw (or legislation) may have been influenced. ++Lar: t/c21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will look at the article more in depth over the week. Thank you for bringing these issues to community attention. Ikip12:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, although I think the initial allegations could have been a little less strong and more diplomatic, you were 100% right, you have been vindicated, and the nominator is now indefed and your allegations have been confirmed. Congratulations.
I hope we are able to work together in this capacity again. If there is ever an article you feel is at risk for deletion, please let me know, and I would be happy to help you.
As you may recall, I supported your case with Jack about Jack using copyright on a user page. Happily, that case also result in an indef block. Ikip18:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But I am not necessarily happy that the matter resulted in a block (in either case)... The article itself, I have to admit, I'm not as sure about any more. Cool Hand Luke makes some persuasive arguments. I've done some looking and I can't find anything about the case from after the settlement, so maybe it never did have any impact and those commenting in favor of deletion are right. I just don't know. ++Lar: t/c18:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an astoundingly good idea, given how the discussion went (i.e. ... south) after I said "draw a line and start over" :) I was about to ask for a close anyway. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c21:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feelings are escalating, and that's not nice. I maybe overreacted, but also did you by bluntly asking for threats when I am simply asking for explanation. If we can solve this by discussion instead that by flaming and use of force, it would be better for all of us. Thank you. --Cyclopiatalk16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I react badly when I sense that people aren't listening. This got splattered all over several pages when what was desired was to keep it as low key as possible. As I said elsewhere, I wasn't threatening... that was not my intent. It was to caution you to take this matter seriously. People with the best of intentions have gotten sanctioned before and I'd rather not see it happen again. If you're calmed down and not flaming about it any more, great. Contact me offline for the text if D67 hasn't gotten it to you already. ++Lar: t/c16:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. DRV withdrawn, and sorry for the hassle. It would have been that simple if JV or you just explained the seriousness of the thing from the start. That's not the first time we clash, but you maybe know that I am not unreasonable (at least, not that unreasonable!). If I can give you a little advice: People "listen" if given a reason. You can't expect people to just listen and obey. Explain as much as possible why you need to be listened, and you will be. If you just play the card "listen or we will make you shut up by force", you're basically bullying people, even if that's not your intention. --Cyclopiatalk16:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. Of course that isn't exactly how things went down, though. The starting point was that you were advised to contact ArbCom about the matter, weren't you? DID you contact ArbCom? And didn't you have a dialog with John via email first? I am not privy to what was said but I can't imagine that he didn't give you a similar amount of detail to what I did in the part you redacted... which should have been enough. ++Lar: t/c16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't contact ArbCom because I am not going to ArbCom without a reason. And yes, I talked with John via email, but he told me nothing. Like, nothing. You were very clear on the seriousness of what is at stake, JV was not at all: All I can say is that this particular person is "the most banned". -not that much, I'd say. Now I received explanations and I fully understand the concerns. I will also courtesy blank the thread on my talk page. --Cyclopiatalk16:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If thats ALL he said, it's rather sparse, isn't it. As for contacting ArbCom, next time, do feel free to do so when encouraged to. They have systems for handling the volume of mail. Sent the page text. ++Lar: t/c17:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, that's pretty all what JV told me, he just added that it's that important and such stuff. Now we can blank this discussion, and come back to catfight at the next AfD . --Cyclopiatalk18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you will act wisely and collapse the inappropriate discussion on Talk:Jimbo Wales as should have been done much sooner, given the givens. Meanwhile: Happy holidays. (All will be convivial as we work out the issues in this matter, I assure you.) Proofreader77(interact)22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
arbitration notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I want to apologize for getting kinda pissy at my talk page. I closed the discussion in good faith, as from my point of view, it was going nowhere constructive, and was getting quite personal. I attempted to provide a bit of sarcasm and levity to my closure statement, though, as I should have perhaps forseen, it was all taken poorly. I still should not have been mean to you about your reopening thereof, just as I closed it in good faith, I can only believe that you reopened it in the good faith that you believed it was working towards a positive resolution. I'm still not sure that reopening the discussion has shown any signs of the discussion moving in that direction, but it was wrong of me to snap at you for doing so. Please accept my humble apology for that. --Jayron3204:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've responded further at your talk, but let me say here that I'm absolutely certain of your good faith, and that I wasn't too bothered by your being snappish, rather it was quite understandable. I'm not sure, now, that my reopening did a whole lot of good to resolve the matter, either. Oh well. ++Lar: t/c
Am I to take it that you closed Nothughthomas' complaint against me when you blocked him? I ask because he's reopened it.[3] Grateful if you could clarify this. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's highly frivolous but I think we need another uninvolved person to pass judgment, once I blocked him I should recuse myself from closing it. If no one turns up shortly, I'll jump on IRC and see if I can find someone. ++Lar: t/c05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief... [4] You know, I think Nothughthomas and GoRight are deliberately trying to wreck this sanctions regime at the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need more admin eyes on this, getting on IRC now to see who's about. As I said, I have no horse in this race except wanting this to work. Any WP:TPW's about??? ++Lar: t/c05:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious to me that User:Nothughthomas is either the most unlucky new user in the history of the encyclopedia or yet another in the unending parade of agenda-driven editors (sock, meat, externally motivated, take your pick) that drive people to distraction on the various articles. I wonder if the discretionary sanctions permit an admin to just topic ban him from global warming for a month. If he's really just so unlucky as to have joined the encyclopedia, made a few edits then got sucked into the mess, wouldn't that topic ban save him from the standard flame-out? If he's just another sock, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the indef ban he'll eat in a few days when someone gets around to jumping through the hoops? If he's a meat puppet or angry blog reader, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the one year topic ban he'll eat as soon as someone figures it out? Hipocrite (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea, topic banning folk for their own good. If he keeps up what he was doing before the block I'd favor trying it in this case. I'd probably leave it to someone else to actually place it though. ++Lar: t/c06:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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) 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GoRight makes an unfounded allegation of involvement
I'm just tidying up some loose ends and not trying to be pointy here, but please be aware that this means that you are no longer an uninvolved admin with respect to myself and any use of your administrative tools against me would likely be considered an abuse thereof. If you ever have occasion to believe that administrative actions against me are required please seek out an uninvolved administrator to perform them. Have a nice day. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct. I remain as uninvolved as ever. You may not game the system this way to "knock out" uninvolved administrators. Have a nice day. ++Lar: t/c05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that would be for others to decide should such a decision ever be necessary. If my notice is meaningless then no harm done. --GoRight (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're continuing the same pattern of vexatious rules lawyering I warned you about, GoRight. You are unfit to lecture anybody else about policy as you seem to have a very poor understanding of it yourself. Please stop before external restrictions are applied to your account. You filing an "appeal" does not disqualify any admins appealed against from taking further actions. JehochmanBrrr05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. As I said. I am only tidying up loose ends, not being pointy. I just wanted to record a notification. Moving on ... --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that you think you're not being pointy. However, that view doesn't seem to be widely shared. Your notification is spurious, and I've changed the section heading accordingly. You really need to internalize the advice you've been given to "up your game". A lot. ++Lar: t/c05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, since you're a steward, I tghought you'd be able to take this request. Would you be able to delete the cricket article and then restore it minus the first two edits from 2001? I accidentally imported them into the wrong place. The article is *just* over the 5,000-edit limit for deletion, so deleting it won't cause too much disruption. Deleting these edits won't be a good use of the revision deletion tool since it leaves a visible trace of the edits. Thanks. Graham8707:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think perhaps a developer is needed, as something seems munged up, when I walk those diffs it jumps from those right to the very last revision, skipping the 5000some in the middle. ++Lar: t/c12:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything is restored. I leave it to you to move the two edits (on the page I created) to where they need to go. Please advise if there are other issues or concerns. ++Lar: t/c17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fairly easy to see why the header I've used above would be objectionable. But I find it harder to see what you're objecting to on my side. If you'd care to point it out, I'll give careful consideration to striking the objectionable parts William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Back off, or its the enforecement page for you." was what jumped out at me. As I said on the enforcement page, sharp elbows is the level of discord. Not knives at the jugulars. So merely an observation. But it does make it harder to get the sense of what's really going on. ++Lar: t/c19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the issue might get closed any moment, and since I added my comment in the middle of everything I'm worried no one might've read it. Did I go out on a limb or is my comment with regards to one of the editors in question seemingly relevant? I'm not an admin here and I feel I have too little knowledge on how everything works sometimes, but I've admined more Internet-activities since the early 90's than I'd really want to admit to and the appearance in question struck me as really odd. Troed (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it got looked at very hard. I didn't. Will the 1RR restriction sort it do you think? Who is that editor? You could always open a new request if you think the editor is problematic, I dunno. I think these requests should be clearly actionable though, rather than "this seems odd to me" sorts as I'm not sure what we do with those. Just my theory. Best. ++Lar: t/c20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editor in question has as far as I can see in the history never contributed at either the talk page or the article itself, yet appears immideately after the article has been opened for editing and deletes a complete paragraph. After having seen various accusations thrown around at other venues, the closest I could describe this as would be either an incredible coincidence or "meatpuppery" I'd guess. It did strike me as something that should also have been looked at when bringing the issue of reverts up. Sorry if you feel I'm rambling at the wrong place, I guess I just wanted to know someone had read my comment. Troed (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After writing the last bit, above, I did go look at the contribs and I agree, it does seem odd. But what happened next? If that removal didn't stand without discussion, that may be the best we can hope for. I'm not sure we can afford pages of analysis of each edit... I just don't know what to suggest. Sorry if that's not helpful. And yes, maybe this needs raising somewhere more public. I have 300 WP:TPWs but still. ++Lar: t/c21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sharp elbows"
Why is what Connolley does called "sharp elbows", while when others make similar troll remarks, it's called "incivility" or "trolling", and they're warned and/or blocked for it? UnitAnode20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my point was clear, but perhaps not. You used the phrase "sharp elbows" for behavior similar to that which has resulted in warning and blocks (though not by you) of people on the other side of the discussion. Why do you call it "sharp elbows" instead of calling it what it is: in some cases, trolling, in others, gross incivility. UnitAnode20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was clear. And I agree, to a point. But I try to be mild in my wording. Perhaps I was too mild. But I'd rather err on the side of mildness. And I'd rather that a mild thing stick than a precise thing fail. If you're referring to GoRight, I'm afraid while I may not have blocked him indefinitely, I do think he has went way too far. Not sure that helps. Really, I want this to work... ++Lar: t/c21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at GR's talkpage to that effect as well. Honestly, I find myself in a position that seems surreal. I'm a fairly liberal Democrat, yet I have found myself growing more and more frustrated with the leftward-tilt of our political and GW articles. Frankly, it's something that I think makes the project look incredibly bad, but I really don't know how to approach the problem. UnitAnode21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhere read that "one side is edit warring to introduce POV, and the other side is edit warring to maintain OWNership" which... sucks. I want to not remind people of exactly what my views are about AGW... I'm trying to stay out of the content itself completely. ++Lar: t/c21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then. My question was intended to be more Meta in nature, in that the perception of the project takes a big hit when this type of thing goes on, but I can understand your reluctance to proffer any type of firm view on the subject. Regards, UnitAnode21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Without taking any sides about content, yes. The projdct DOES take a big hit when the types of things that have went on in this area go on. Maybe I'm wasting my time. I don't know. Maybe we all are. I hope not. At least we're trying something, unlike, say, BLP and flagged revisions, which seem hopelessly mired. Maybe I'll get bored with all the fighting in a week and go back to doing something else. Who knows. 173.101.153.240 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counting TPWs
I noticed above that you said you have over 300 TPWs. How does one go about figuring that type of thing out? I've had some ... "interesting" posts to my talkpage (and "other" places as well), and I have been growing quite curious as to how many people actually are watching my talkpage. UnitAnode21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
