I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
Here about accountability? see my accountability page. Note: The apparent listification of the category does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way
Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active... (my status is believed to be: Template:Ustatus)
This is Lar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
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
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!
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date
I suspect that the editor "Axiomatica" may be Amorrow
Hello –
I've seen you raise concerns about banned User:Amorrow and I'm contacting you because I suspect that an editor that I've been having a serious dispute with over the last 6 months may be Amorrow. The editor in question is User:Axiomatica and the dispute is over the article Melissa Farley. The talk page of the article and the archives detail what has been going on.
So what has me so strongly suspecting that "Axiomatica" is possibly Amorrow? Several things – in several cases, "Axiomatica" has accidentally posted as an IP user, before logging in and re-signing his/her comments under the name Axiomatica or otherwise mentioning that the comments by that IP user were from Axiomatica. This has allowed me to compile a list of IP addresses associated with Axiomatica:
When I began searching for similar IPs that have edited articles on like topics, I quickly came across a number that were associated with Amorow. This list of IPs associated with "Pinktulip", another one of Amorrow's names, shows a number of IPs similar to the above: [1]
What really has me convinced that it may be him is the above in combination with the fact that the Melissa Farley article was first added to Wikipedia by User:OlympiaDiego, who happens to be another sock puppet of Amorrow.
At first it seems unusual that Axiomatica, who is basically pushing the POV of a feminist writer, may be Amorrow, considering Amorrow's anti-woman history on Wikipedia. However, Amorrow has in several places spoken of an admiration of radical feminist writers like Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Nikki Craft, and Melissa Farley ([2][3]), and I believe has inserted himself into controversies around User:Nikkicraft on a number of occasions. This is telling, because the first time there was an argument over article content, it involved Nikkicraft, and its very telling that "Axiomatica" popped up some months later making basically the same complaints that Nikkicraft did.
Several other things fit the pattern – Amorrow and Axiomatica's fixation on the biographies of living women and the extremely abusive manner in which both conduct themselves toward other editors they target.
I dug in somewhat, and I sense there may be more here than you are telling me, was there an arbitration case involving you and this user at some point? Can you give me additional background? ++Lar: t/c04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was an arbitration case between the two of us, and several attempts at mediation as well (not completed because Axiomatica simply walked away from the process). At the time of these cases, I was not aware of the possibility that this user might be a sock puppet of an earlier banned user, and if that is the case, that changes a lot of things about this editor's claims. In spite of this editor's often abusive behavior, I have been willing to try and attempt normal dispute resolution is this is just simply somebody who has come to Wikipedia over a genuine concern on their part. However, if it turns out that Axiomatica is simply Amorrow reappearing to continue abusive behavior, I see no reason to pursue dispute resolution at all. (Axiomatica has not been active for several weeks, but may be active in the future, as it is this editor's pattern to disappear for weeks or months at a time and return.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly well sourced already, I did a lot of searching at the time it was up for GA. I think mostly what it needs is a different pair of eyes to copyedit and tighten it up... but what else do you think it needs? ++Lar: t/c19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it absolutely could be expanded... I just don't think there are very many online sources I am not already aware of (not already in the article). One direction to go in perhaps, is more on the significance of the dam to electric generation/transmission technology and to the Foote's efforts to build a big company. I actually think some of the latter belongs in the Consumers Energy article, which is rather thin on history, or was last I checked. Or even in an article on the Foote brothers.... ++Lar: t/c11:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refactored back, since Ncmvocalist "binned" it with the edit summmary "Recusal request.: moving along; binned waste of time, effort and space". I tend not to archive things quite so vigorously, so I'm preserving the conversation here. The diff just before the one given above will show the original.
Original convo
Regarding this removal [4] I think you may have done matters a disservice. Arbitrators have in the past said they would be out, inactive, whatever, and then returned and participated, as is their perogative. I think the request for recusal is perfectly valid, especially given some of the diffs and talk page messages that were presented... and you should not have used terms like "move along". Way too snippy, in my view. ++Lar: t/c02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) Look at the diff more carefully, particularly, all of the comments I have made rather than my first alone. You'd observe I lost my patience at first, and I made a "suggestion" it can be removed "for now", particularly given FloNight is unavailable (it was thoughtless to make a request while she is for quite some time!) If FloNight possibly returns before the case is closed, and/or possibly shows an indication of voting, the request can be made again - but I seriously doubt that will be necessary here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the request is justified. Arbs sometimes come back quite abruptly, at the very end of the case. The request should be left in the record so she is aware of it, and I have encouraged Cla to undo his strike and delete. ++Lar: t/c03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a matter of being justified or unjustified - actually, scratch that - there's no point trying to explain to someone who refuses to get the point. Little wonder these pages turn into such a mess. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"refuses to get the point" Eh? That's snippy too, I think. But no matter. Let me try to state your point to see if I get it. You think the request is not needed because the arbitrator that it is made to has marked themself as inactive, and that it only should be made if and when that arbitrator returns. Is that correct? If not, how so? I think I absolutely get your point. I just don't agree with it. My counter is that because arbitrators come back, sometimes late, it's not a bad thing to get into the record, in case this one comes back with insufficient time for the request to be made again. Better that a superfluous request be made needlessly then that a request that should have been made is missed because of tight timelines at the very end of the case. ++Lar: t/c03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a party wants an assurance that an arbitrator will not vote on a case, that's fine - but making a request for an arbitrator when she's clearly stated she will be unavailable for an extended period of time is unnecessary and causing the page to clog up with an unnecessary mess of more responses (which you clearly wanted to contribute to). As you should know (as it has been indicated even in a message you left for one of the arbitrators on their talk page), there is no intention whatsoever for this case to be rushed or quickly decided in tight timelines - rather the opposite. Given this fact, and given that arbitrators still respond to questions even before the case is formally closed, your claim that there is insufficient time to make a request again is not valid. There is also no obligation to formally say "I recuse" - they just shouldn't vote, and there's no indication whatsoever that she has an intention of voting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A case can close (and some have in the past closed, IIRC) within 25 hours after it looked like there was no motion in it and it might stagnate for quite a while. People have lives and could miss that... I think the question is valid. I think the community is justified in raising the issue. I think there is a significant issue there to be concerned about. You may not agree, which is fine. But I'd rather not see the matter not presented. I think we should at this point agree to disagree, I think we both understand the other's position but don't find the arguments compelling. Best wishes in any case. ++Lar: t/c04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, "I think we should at this point agree to disagree, I think we both understand the other's position but don't find the arguments compelling. Best wishes in any case." Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
after "binning" follow up
waste?
[5] ... It is never a waste to try to understand the issues or reach an agreement on them, even if the agreement is to disagree. Your edit summary was "a waste of time, effort, and space" although the discussion wasn't. You need to work on your collegiality. Good day to you, sir. ++Lar: t/c11:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it not always (if at all) "a waste to try to understand the issues or reach an agreement on them, even if the agreement is to disagree." But it can, in my view, be a waste when one has clearly missed the point but insists he gets it. In such circumstances, there are 2 alternatives; to continue trying to make the other understand, or to stop and let the other believe what he wishes. I opted (and opt) for the latter given the lack of progress and the level of importance I personally put on this particular discussion. And as a hint, modifying your approach to be less of an annoyance might be more beneficial in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA - indented and then unindented vote
[6] This is further to your comment here. If you believe you have identified the principal account, I urge you to consider notifying that editor of this policy. I am somewhat flabbergasted that someone feels the need to use a sock to vote in an RfA - what are we coming to? Risker (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you remember the old discussion
Lar, maybe you have a recollection of the old discussion somewhere in the Wikipedia project-space I cannot find. It could have been ANI but I can't tell now for sure. This is in connection with the conversation I am currently having with Keeper76 in the bottom thread of my talk.
There was something I said about creating the most comfortable environment for the content writers being the foremost task of admins. Sure enough, this very blasphemous idea of myself prompted a lot of ridicule from... non-writing admins and some even inquired whether I meant also foot massages or such other stuff. If I remember correctly, you were part of this discussion but I don't remember what was your position anyway. In any case, what I am looking for is the discussion itself since someone asked. Can you help me find it? If not, no biggy.
That piqued my interest enough to go search. here I think, is what you were referring to. The MW search has gotten a lot better recently, I found it with this search: [7] Hope that helps.
Note: I'm not sure I completely agree with everything I said in that discussion any more. Subsequent events lead me to think the real situation is a bit more nuanced. (Free foot massages? maybe not. Freedom from fear of intimidation? yes.) Consider, for example the current Cla68 case... ++Lar: t/c17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding it. I honestly did not remember what position you took back then. I simply remembered that you were part of that conversation but not what points you argued. I am glad you reconsidered your position. From more recent events, I knew that anyway. Actually, the editor who formulated this being the main task of admins was not me. I stole this idea from Alex Bakharev who described this way how he sees his duty wrt to user:Halibutt, quite an opinionated but very prolific and, IMO, honest editor who frequently clashed with others, including Alex' friends. I had my own share of conflicts with Hali as well. Anyway, freedom from intimidation is not the only thing the content editors are entitled to here, but certainly not free drinks and foot massages, you and I agree on that. Regards, --Irpen20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, glad to have found it. Alex says some pretty profound things sometimes. And if you learn of a project that does come with free drinks and foot massages, please let me know, will you? My feet will thank you. :) ++Lar: t/c21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 100% sure, but those making it to the Board of Trustees may actually get expense accounts. So, there is a way to get it all and stay in this project. Just a suggestion. --Irpen22:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here the election just started. Guess I missed my chance, drat. So we should choose our board candidates based on who we most think deserves foot massages? Just want to be clear that's what you're saying... because I heard somewhere that massages, or rumors of them anyway, got some board member or another into some sort of trouble. The details are very hazy. ++Lar: t/c22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess as long as I don't have to give any foot massages, I'm not in any worse position than I was a month ago. I think I'll skip that whole expense account thing, though. Someone might actually expect me to do something then. Risker (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I believe you. You seem to have turned up here at my talk rather unexpectedly, Risker. Perhaps rumors of such things draw you? ++Lar: t/c22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much simpler explanation...I keep forgetting to clear my watchlist, and there was this really fascinating edit summary.... Risker (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suuure it was. That's what they all say. Really, don't you have some articles to write? Vandals to block? or something? Shoo. ++Lar: t/c23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the question above, that kind of "trouble" some board member got into due to massages was all bullshit, if you ask me. And I was not alone thinking that way ("no story" post by someone with more fame than myself said it all.) I would prefer that the board members are both trusted and able to decide what they need for themselves to serve the foundation in a better way and if a massage or a laptop with a German keyboard helps them being more effective in the next fund raiser, I say go for it. This sort of expense would benefit the project in a much greater way than a donation to Freenode. I can see that the board member massage for the donation of schoolgirl's launch money does not look good but this is only because schoolchildren should have no business donating money to the foundation of the WMF statue and these solicitations on the top of the mainpage are very outdated. Personally, I stopped donating directly ever since I learned of the freenode transfer. But corporate money is a very soft cushion. Massage or a fancy bottle of Collector's wine, be their guest for what I care. --Irpen23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to go back to being serious. :) Your points (about relative seriousness) are well taken. I think US media make more of this sort of thing than European ones do, perhaps. But it's important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And that's as far as I want to go in seriously commenting. I avoided it during the outbreaks for the most part and would like to continue. ++Lar: t/c23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of "appearance of impropriety", the Freenode transfer "appears" much more improper to many of us with the stake in the project unlike the side observers. But, getting back to an only ha-ha serious tone, the massage parlors in Moscow are just what they are elsewhere. You do go there for massages and there is nothing about their being in Moscow that makes them more susceptible to fronting for different kinds of institutions. Sure, there are those parlors there too. Just the same way as there are in Berlin or London. But the massage stuff seemed to have been made look such that the board member went to that kind of a parlor (not that I care.) Anyway, most importantly, we seem to all agree that creating a comfortable editing environment should be everyone's first priority. I will try to do some editing now, and enjoy that comfort. --Irpen23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument advanced,IIRC re IRC, was that the projects use the facilities Freenode provides rather extensively and that the dollar amount was a standin for the utility received. (I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and hazard a guess that you think the net value is negative rather than positive :) ) But even if it was positive, it's not necessarily on-mission to transfer donations that way, I think those questioning it had a legitimate concern... Better if Freenode just put something in the banners or whatever pointing out they could use some cash and let the IRC users donate directly, perhaps. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c00:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha, Lar. I had a quick request for Commons. Would you mind creating my account for me? I tried to register, but got the dreaded error message: Login error:The name "Ali'i" is very similar to the existing account "Ali 1" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard|request an administrator]] to create this account for you. (which by the way has a couple of formatting/linking errors). You can email me using the email this user function with a password or whatever (or do you need my email address to create the account?). Either way, please let me know. Mahalo, Larry. --Ali'i14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans, thanks! So ... think it's anywhere near FA yet? I need to write Hardy and Rogers soon, I suppose... I have the pics for them. ++Lar: t/c03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I think its a bit short? I'm not exactly an expert (yet ;) ). I just crammed as much good info as I could into my FAC and then started hammering it into what seemed best. I was reading Giano's essay and looking at all the recent FAs. I think someone'll complain about swaths of unsourced text, but I'll see what I can do. Most of the recent ones seem to be cited on each sentence. It may take a while, but I'm game to help take it all the way. rootology (T) 03:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am mistaking but because of his demand: "Merge with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff" in my thinking he has not looked for connection between this user and Velebit (I do not believe that he is having old Velebit data). Can you please look for that ?
In the end I will ask for block on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets because of WP:DUCK rule. We are having editor which is using Verizon IP [9] like user Velebit (edits from IP), which is writing article of user Velebit and which is writing on talk pages like user Velebit, but it is much easier to block him with checkuser find --Rjecina (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Neil not to discuss me personally on Wikipedia Review. I don't think this request is out of line - I find that wikipedians I respect engaging in an examination of my character at that site is very difficult for me to deal with directly - it makes it extremely difficult or me to continue to operate in a calm and reasonable matter. What are your thoughts? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WR should be used as a substitute for calm and reasoned dialog, warnings, dispute resolution, etc. here. That's what I think. It may not be a universally held view. ++Lar: t/c18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why thanks! I don't mind at all. Very thoughtful. I keep forgetting to keep that page sorted. (it's all over the map as far as commons and meta go ;) ) ++Lar: t/c14:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was there something substantive you wanted to say? I'm always serious, except when I'm joshing around with my friends. This is no joking matter. I think it is possible that Moulton did not know what he was doing. It's also possible he did. What I see here is a rush to judgement, almost gleeful. That's not funny at all. The question really is, are YOU serious? ++Lar: t/c21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that he did not know what he did. I'm not well acquainted with "misenpedian". Nor is Google. What does it mean? As I've counseled you before, you would be well served not to be so obscure that your meaning isn't plain. ++Lar: t/c04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the edit summaries. Consider what " and Mussolini made the trains run on time" is trying to say... Further, I find starting a thread out "are you serious?" to be rather non collegial, rather lacking in the assumption of good faith, in fact rather presumptive and abrasive. Taken as a whole I find it to be seriously deficient in approach. Whether you find it offensive or not, I could not say... you may well find it perfectly acceptable, since you use terms like "oh brother" and worse with hardly a blink of an eye when you are apparently disparaging others. ++Lar: t/c15:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Pot, meet kettle." ?? I think you're confused. But as far a comparision being telling? It might at that. Like I said, our standards differ. ++Lar: t/c16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so as well. I'd note that there has already been effort to resolve issues around your behavior which you might want to take some cognizance of before you get too concerned about others. ++Lar: t/c16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiiiiight. I am well known as a terrible ogre. And never apologize. And never care if I offend anyone. Yep. Awful jerk. --Filll (talk | wpc) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're that bad, and certainly not irredeemable, don't be so hard on yourself. We are none of us perfect after all. ++Lar: t/c01:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"But ArbCom has made this remedy. We must try our best to make it work."
Lar;
It's a historic day! We disagree!! ^_^
My take on this would be "ArbCom has made this remedy. We individually are under no obligation to listen to it, if we think it stinks. While we're morally obligated to talk about it, Gandhi-esque protest is emminantly reasonable."
The ArbCom can tell us what to, it cannot make us.
I am now officially nominating you for the next ArbCom spot, they ha' lost thier way. I'm nominating myself to, as soon as I think more about what a functional Commitee would look like...
Brenny: You are right, no one can be forced to enforce this. I gave a rather thorough analysis of why it is likely it would be enforced though... it would take tumultuous upheaval for it not to be. But while you can choose not to help, you can't choose to hinder it, for that way lies losing your bit. That's the mechanical part. As for the "we must try our best to make it work"... what I mean there is that we shouldn't just kvetch. We should try to, within what we've been given, make it work, even if we don't necessarily agree. That's what we signed up for, after all. As for history... we've disagreed before. Finally, you better not nom me for arbcom...
Yes, I saw that. Well, I can sleep on it for a night or two. Or pretend I didn't see it. Or something. Maybe Mack is turning into an agent provocateur, he !voted for me too... Risker (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Risker - that notice at the top of my watchlist is tough to ignore, but I don't know enough to go beyond irreverent quips ;). Seriously though, I gave it a scan and it didn't seem like a big deal, post-BDJ. BLP enforcement is certainly trending in that direction.
Dangerously for me, I may actually make a substantive comment here. If I'm reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement properly, it's the logical progression of BLP enforcement, starting with the Siegenthaler business and continuing on through the various wheel-war cases and BDJ. We can boil it down to a few points:
BLPs are a special category of articles to which we apply the very highest editorial standards
Administrators are granted the extreme benefit of the doubt in enforcing these standards
This has been the case previously methinks, but the sword of Damocles never looked quite so sharp. I'm not familiar with the specifies of the current Arbitration case which provoked the ruling (nor, that matter, for any other recent case), so I can't comment on whether justification for it exists in the case, but the outcome doesn't strike me as all that revolutionary. Mackensen(talk)01:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why "dangerously"? :) Yes, I agree. I too think this is further evolution of something that has been around for a while. Oddly, that's the point Ant/Tony is making as well... ++Lar: t/c02:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a segment of the community which has never accepted the outcome of BDJ, and for that matter never grasped (or chose to ignore) the implications of the BLP policy. BLP is nothing without special enforcement provisions. That being said I'm sure there will be the usual jeremiads against the "Arbitrary Committee," or whatever the term of abuse is these days. Love to see the peanut gallery shoulder that kind of responsibility.Mackensen(talk)02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the remedy causes me no concern,nor did the BDJ decision. Blocks, page protections, revision and deletion are all standard equipment in the admin toolbox, and I am all in favour of using them. You might remember that I was recently being (gently) hammered for being too deletionist :-). What worries me is the idea that one administrator can impose a sanction, even if the edits involved were accurate, referenced and made in good faith, and the editor involved has to somehow motivate either Arbcom or the community to come to his or her defense in large enough numbers to gain "consensus". It's easy to forget that about 80% of our editors never go near the administrative end of the encyclopedia, and have no idea how to conduct themselves there; they are more likely to just fold up their tents. I am worried that the editors who've been willing to work on contentious BLPs will show up at articles and see editing restrictions like this, and then be treated like this when they comment on the article and/or the restrictions. We cannot afford to alienate the writers this way, and it is already happening. There is no reason why sanctions on an individual editor can't be discussed within the community before they are imposed; if the problem is severe, then keep them blocked while the discussion goes on, but have the community input upfront rather than having to come afterward. That gives the transparency needed, and the sanity/power check to the admin involved. Problem admins will be identified more quickly, before they drive good editors from the project. Giving this degree of power to individual admins...well, even before they had that power, there have been plenty of admins scaring people away from BLPs and other pages. And I bet you know their names as well as I do. Risker (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be circulated among the Committee - and kept well away from the BLP discussion pages - as a very accurate depiction of the likely pitfalls for both non-aligned (and I do not need to spell out where the lines are drawn) admins and unwary editors. I like to think of myself as fairly robust in the handling of my sysop bit, but I have never felt the desire to involve myself in the bearpit that is BLP. With the apparent autonomy and increased individual perception of what may be a violation and how to handle it that appears to be now sanctioned there is even less chance that I am going to involve myself in such matters. I haven't followed the discussion too closely, and I certainly am unaware of any increased checks and balances to go with the increased permissions of sysop tool use. I hope that I have missed them, but fear that there were none to be missed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Mackensen) Can I nominate you for un-resigned-ship while I'm handing them out? If we'd had those two succinct points as a finding, we'd be apples. Instead we've been handed down a by any means necessary style edict, which is badly out of touch with the actual state of affairs.
(Risker) You've got the bit now? Woe is me! ;)
(General) Looking at the revision history of the BLP noticeboard is good start at understanding the problem: Only two arbs have edited it since 7 April, and one of those was just placing a notice. Bunfights over what is and isn't a BLP issue are commonplace across wikipedia, and complying with "the letter and spirit" appears more theory than practice to those who are imposing this.
In short, this solution does very little to solve the actual problem and goes a long ways towards creating or entrenching other problems. To list a few:
It's concerning that the Committee chose to forge this in a backwater decision,
It's concerning that the Committee chose to push forward when there was ongoing discussion on the talk page,
It's concerning that the enforcement/log page was created before the case was closed, and
It's concerning that I've received feedback that (some) stewards are acting as rubber-stamps.
To ask a leading question: What was the emergancy that these changes had to be pushed through by ArbCom as opposed to having them discussed in the normal way? brenneman02:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Running late so, more later... but briefly, which stewards are acting as rubber stamps? Stewards are not to decide matters for themselves, yes. But when a duly constituted arbcom (or representative thereof) asks a steward to do something, that's legitimate... it is one of the ways (the other being a clear consensus in the community) to identify an action that a steward "should" (is approved to) carry out. If a steward chooses to honor the request, that steward is hardly rubber stamping anything (as I said before, a particular steward may "take a pass" and leave it for someone else to do, but should not ever act in contravention/opposition to the request)... Or am I missing what you are talking about? ++Lar: t/c11:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outdenting here; I think we can all follow the flow well enough. Risker rightly brings up the perennial issue: not all administrators are sane (for given values of sane), and we don't have a good low-level review mechanism. RFC is ineffectual and Arbcom is ponderous. Moreover, I think we can all agree (at least, in the relative quietude of Lar's talk page) that the tremendous community attention which gets focused on these processes does not aid the overall cause of justice. Any administrator haled before Arbcom can attest that; I've presided over several such blood-lettings. Maybe a rotating panel of administrators to review a situation, with the power to ask an administrator to dis-engage or something. Mackensen(talk)11:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. There are, to me, two different areas where something special (beyond what we have now) might be needed... the content related questions along the lines of what is the correct application of the BLP policy in this case, what needs to go, what stays, what needs rebalancing, should the article live at all? and the like, and the procedural related ones along the lines of was this administrator correct in this action? could it have been done differently? should it have been? and the like. ArbCom has already introduced (in the Homey case) the notion of a special master board to deal with content related questions. FT2 and others and I were talking in IRC two evenings ago and perhaps for the first class of matters, if there is not a clear consensus, or if consensus apparently got to the wrong answer and an appeal is launched, that there be a binding arbitration mechanism to sort the content question... You're proposing something similar for procedure. It all makes sense when you put it this way but we also have to watch out for expanding powers, new satrapys, fiefdoms, and the like if we construct things like this. ++Lar: t/c12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a choice: I think these fiefdoms will develop regardless, the question is whether we create our own, resting on policy with oversight and control mechanisms, or we accommodate ourselves to whatever groups come out on top. Having spent plenty of time dealing with administration by clique, I would favor a formal mechanism. Mackensen(talk)13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have fiefdoms, we already have chilling effect from admins who OWN articles, admins skilled at using BLP to bludgeon their POV in, and so forth (see some current arbcom cases if you don't believe it, although I am sure I don't need to remind you). If this new thing breaks the power of those fiefdoms, which operate via clique power, and replaces them with things more like the "rule of law" (yes yes, I know, we're not a legal system, 'tis an analogy), that will be goodness. If this new things entrenches those fiefdoms further (because they figure out how to play the game faster and better than those who want good government) that will be badness. How it comes out is up in the air. But if those of good character wash their hands of this because they are convinced it cannot work, then those not of good character will win. Hence my belief that we MUST try to make this work. Or else let it be subverted, because it surely will be. One cannot leave a tool this powerful lying around, or it will be siezed. That's a harsh black/white assessment. The truth is grayer of course. But I am reminded of what happened in Russia in the early nineties. The forms of government were subverted by oligarchs. ++Lar: t/c14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the feeling is that this action is the action in support of one of the fiefdoms: the one which will call the BLP Maximalists. Perhaps it's more of an attempted fiefdom than a fiefdom, as many of the Maximalist proposals have been defeated by the community--this seems like an attempt to reverse via arbcom what it failed to attain in an open discussion. The arbcom decision means reversing the position of the community, by titling the playingfield towards removal of material any administration finds objectionable, by increasing the barriers to overturning that decision--requiring in effect a super-consensus of administrators. DGG (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<- two quickies in this illustrious company - firstly, you may be interested to hear a few wikipedians chat about this, amongst other topics over at 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' this week. Secondly - I noticed you mention that you and FT2 and few others were chatting on IRC about related issues.... I wonder if you guys would consider public logging next time maybe? - I think openness and the chance to see what currents are flowing around the place could go a long way. Your 'buy two get one free' extra thought which you didn't ask for, and are getting regardless is that this is a bad idea. I believe injecting more 'power' into this system (wiki culture, I guess) at this stage will have unintended consequences which could well be fairly extreme. I share your hope that they'll be extremely good, but I'm not so sure... I the the net result will be harmful destabalisation. Now, immediate semi-protection for all BLPs and an optout for non public figures..... that would be a good thing! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask FT2 about logs, he was the inviter. He was seeking feedback on a draft that was not publicly ready, so making the log public may not be necessarily desirable. But I have no objections. On 2+1, I really hope you're wrong. You may not be. But I think we need to try this. you and I both know there is a BLP problem. ++Lar: t/c11:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some people take the internets too seriously, that is why there is this perceived problem. Here are some ideas on how to deal with BLP and the nonsense that sometimes accompanies it:
WP:PANIC needs to be cited more, because it seems every time there is an article found with BLP issues, everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Wikipedia is a good resource, but people need to get some perspective. Inaccuracies in wikis are not equivalent to inaccuracies in print publishing. It doesn't matter how much googlejuice we get, it can be fixed easily. I'm tempted to start using lolcat templates in some of these discussion, because the end-of-the-world hysterics surrounding it are out of control. It only serves to feed the trolls and critics to elevate the seriousness beyond actual reality.
While I respect PM, I think WP:BOO is a patent violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The more we entertain requests for special treatment from subjects of biographies, the more we will slip away from WP:NPOV. I think it is better if we ask people who object to their biography to provide their side of the story. What we need not do is delete it because they don't like it. Perhaps we can amend WP:OR and/or WP:V to allow for this?
We need to stop letting OTRS force us to bend over backwards to please everyone, because that will never happen no matter what we do. Somebody needs to draw a line in the sand and basically tell frivolous OTRS complainants politely to get lost (like that idiot who wanted his role in a movie removed from his biography). If that means setting up a legal fund to defend our right to publish accurate, verifiable information, I'm ready to open my checkbook.
WP:BLP has become a coat-rack for all sorts of goody-goody nonsense by people who wring their hands too much. Why do people forget that it isn't our job to be taking sides in biographical subjects' lives? We're supposed to be the impartial observer, like a camera man who films a fox catching and devouring a mouse. It's rather childish to say otherwise. Ironically enough, the essay WP:HARM is doing more harm than good, not to mention is in direct contravention of WP:NPOV since it core principles amount to establishment of a Sympathetic Point Of View (SPOV). If people want SPOV, Fred Bauder's wikinfo is ready and waiting for your contributions. I say this this because those two POVs are, at their very basic core, mutually exclusive. If we are going to stand for WP:NPOV, then we should stand for it. But let's cut out the slow undermining of it by people who don't understand or don't like it. If people want to change to SPOV, I imagine that will take an awful lot of community and foundation consensus.
We could probably drastically reduce the hysterics surrounding WP:BLP by assimilating the core, vital portions of WP:BLP into the existing WP:FIVE policies so that WP:BLP could become a disambiguation page. By doing this, we can end the unhelpful paranoia that Doc Glasgow and others helped to perpetuate by continuing to overstate the actual seriousness of the problem. It would take the blinders off some and allow people to see the bigger picture, or the forest for the trees. It would also ensure that policies for biographies are consistent with non-negotiable foundation principles.
Lastly, people who do significant OTRS work should not be directly editing our policy pages. What I've observed is a kind of reverse Stockholm Syndrome in these folks. They are much too emotionally involved with the complainant to be able to rationally modify our policies in a careful, thoughtful way. They tend to be highly aggressive and seem to be very unwilling to listen to other editors' points, even if they are totally valid. This may be unpopular, but for drama reduction I think it would be useful to consider.
Wow, really cool, Neil! Now all I have to do is decide if I should be excited or concerned that my username has a place of honour in the wordcloud... Risker (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Neil: Thanks!!!! I'm glad you picked up my hint.
@Risker: You came out bigger than "please"... that's scary. You need to stop hanging out here, it's a bad influence, or so I am told! And I came out "bigger than Jesus" :)
I think it's nifty that "think" is the biggest word other than a username... except, is it because there's a lot of actual thinking going on here (good) or because I say "I think" a lot (wishywashy)? :) ++Lar: t/c12:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify...is it this *page* that is the bad influence, or is it *me* who is the bad influence? Risker (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Hopes he says it's me, I've always wanted to be the bad inflence...[reply]
You. Mos def. especially your influence on spelling norms. :) NOTHING bad ever happens at this page and NO ONE ever causes any problems, and NO ONE is ever corrupted by things that happen HERE. Glad I could clear that up for you. ++Lar: t/c21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted to scare people... I would have a picture of me smiling. It might be amusing, if someone were to wordle my talkpage, to transpose the word cloud onto the above image. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh Kim, you're getting behind the times! head over to wordle.net (you have to make one, and do a screen cap.) - it's the latest wiki craze! ps. both your, and Lar's, opinions would be most welcome on this completely unrelated question... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the upper limit on text is. I've a mind to feed it my entire talk page archive. :) Oh, and... Answered there. ++Lar: t/c01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*cough* - I can't make the word cloud thing work at all on the horrible connection I'm currently on - but look forward to playing with it when I'm back in the office... ps. how much do you (or anyone here really) charge for mentoring? - Privatemusings (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) (with myself!) You're heaps of trouble, I hear, so triple my usual rate!!! (let me see, what is 3 times zero???... um... can I get back to you on that?) Don't feel bad about the cloud thing, it doesn't work for me either, I have the wrong JVM and I do not want to change it, as I have a product dependency... ++Lar: t/c03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmm.. if my 'cough' didn't make much sense, it's because it should have pointed here - I'm a bit bummed that this got archived, or maybe just a bit bummed in general.... advice or thoughts from any direction most welcome. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I commented on the other place, it seemed to make sense. I don't always agree with Ryan but he's right. Your time will come. And I meant what I said about being remarkably impressed with your contributions and resiliency and general good cheer... be of good cheer, for I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed. These things take time, the wiki institutional memory can be remarkably long I think. ++Lar: t/c02:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what you think needs mentoring, if anything. Voluntary mentorships would need a careful outlining of what issues needed addressing, and how, as well as agreement on the approach and acceptance by both parties. And trust in both directions. Involuntary mentorships are rather different. There is still a need of outlining and clarity of intent and approach, but less need for agreement, and less need for bidirectional trust. The mentoree is typically in a take it or leave it situation. ++Lar: t/c17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I sometimes state my case in a manner that individuals find offputting. I'd like to fix that. I leave the approach up to you, since I can always just declare said mentorship unhelpful and ignore it. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We'd need to work out how best to approach this. I don't enter into mentorships lightly, especially not voluntary ones, and if I wasn't convinced that we had a basis to make progress, it would be a waste of my time and yours. I especially would not want to dump effort into something that was "declared unhelpful and ignored". Once we agreed on the approach, I'd want it to be somewhat binding. So if you're serious, let's work through this... if not, no worries. Best. ++Lar: t/c17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Define "binding." What would I be bound by? What would you be bound by? What are the benefits to you? What are the benefits to me? I am perfectly serious, but I am loathe to enter into binding agreements without a bona-fide exchange of value. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to why I bring this up - while I initially believed your offer an AN was there to score points, I believe that it was not such, and am interested to find out what exactly you propose. I do not intend to waste either of our times lightly. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well with an involuntary, "binding" comes from the "or else" part... if you don't good faith try, you get blocked (again?). That of course doesn't apply with voluntaries. After I wrote "binding" I realised I didn't quite know what I meant either!!! ... and mulled a bit. I'm thinking "loss of reputation" perhaps, in the sense that there is a statement somewhere (once principles are agreed to) of what the principles and mechanics are, and if either party reneges (according to the other) throw it back out there to the public record, attached to the statement and let the record be there for those who later are interested. It could be a significant loss of reputation if the evidence of bad faith were damning. Or not much, if it was a mutual genuine good faith inability to make it work. Musing out loud but there you go. BTW full marks for perceiving there might be an issue. That's always the first part of the work, and the hardest. We are all of us not perfect. Including myself. Heck maybe there is a Mentorship Cabal in the making here? dunno. need to do some research.++Lar: t/c17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well "threat" is not the best word... it is more of a mutual thing, if I didn't in good faith try to help that ought to be exposed as well... ++Lar: t/c18:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that it's not. I didn't quite know how to phrase it, but whatever. Since I have no question that you are, and will continue to act in good faith, I feel no need to comment on the implied mutuality. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me try to restate this, correct me if I'm wrong. (a bit of a ramble follows) You said "I sometimes state my case in a manner that some find offputting" and are requesting mentorship for what? To address that narrow communication issue? Wider issues but restricted to communication only? I'm assuming relatively narrow. If that's it ("offputtingness") I may not actually be the best mentor because it is a problem I have myself, at least to some degree. Communication is a very wide topic really, no matter how narrowly you try to scope it.
Why do you think you're offputting? Maybe analysis of some of the situations where you felt you were, and where they went into the weeds might bound this better? ++Lar: t/c19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we start with as broad a scope as you want, and I will preemptively narrow it if I think that it's unproductive. Probably better than starting with your excellent questions which will require more reflection than I have the time or mental capacity for right now is for me to state my goals, which will also take me time to enunciate. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Fair warning, I am not "fast". Ask some of my coachees. :) So you have all the time you need. :) ++Lar: t/c19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may be aware, Lawrence Cohen retired from Wikipedia today. His parting request was for the RFC that had been in his user space since March to be moved into Wikipedia namespace and brought live. The underlying work had been in preparation for several months.
It was partly at my request that the RFC didn't go live long before today. Also at my request, it went live about two hours later than it otherwise would have. I offered to do the move myself in the hope of giving it an appropriate tone: by setting aside any personal grievance and focusing on process level matters, I aimed to set an example that would discourage others from exploiting the page as a soapbox to rehear their own cases or to settle scores.
If it had been entirely my discretion I would not have opened RFC today, although I probably would have supported it soon. Lawrence's request was going to be honored; the only question was how. When ArbCom was established in early 2004 Wikipedia was a much smaller site. Things are very different now and the Committee faces challenges that could not have been anticipated when its mandate was originally created. The strains of those changes have been showing for months. Now we have an opportunity to reassess the Committee's role, and to clarify and improve the situation. I ask that we move forward in a collaborative spirit toward improving a situation that has been stressful for a lot of the site's most dedicated editors. Respectfully, DurovaCharge!05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And multiply that "thank you" by the number of arbitrators that you are "hounding" (to use your words) to clean this issue up posthaste. Regards, Antelantalk15:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was all set to add this to my statement, but then decided I actually don't want to get more involved with that page. Still, so it doesn't go to waste, I'm putting it here, because I am curious about your response; I just don't think it will affect whether the case is accepted, so won't clutter the RFAR up more than it's already going to be.
What I was about to comment there is:
Comment to/re Lar:
I wouldn't say I'm asking for dismissal on "procedural grounds"; I'm asking for dismissal on anti-procedural grounds: WP:IAR. It would be in the best interests of everyone if this was not taken up; therefore we shouldn't take it up, regardless of normal "procedure". I would have supported bringing this up "the normal way". But suggesting dismissal now is not suggesting dismissal "based on a technicality"; it's suggesting dismissal based on new facts and new occurances. --barneca (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mmm... Except that I think there still is basis for OM's behaviour to be looked into. Maybe the ID RfC should run its course? Maybe there should be a specific RfC for OM? I dunno. But just forgetting the whole thing I think leave something that will be worse to sort out later. ++Lar: t/c19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, I think an RFC (or adding to the ID RFC) is much more appropriate. Yes, forgetting the whole thing may, indeed, leave something worse to sort out later, but taking it up as an RFAR at this point will definitely create something worse to sort out later. IMHO, anyway. Thanks for the reply. Good luck to you all; I'm winding down participation for 3 weeks, so probablyhopefullymaybe there's a slight possibility that this will be resolved by the time I return. --barneca (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, looking into OM's behaviour, objectvely is fine. However the real issue here is the required sanctioning of FT2, who, by his actions, was far more uncivil than OM has ever been by a power of ten. You and OM don't get along. So what? Focus on the real issue. •Jim62sch•dissera!19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FT2's actions in this matter? a red herring. Or at least a different issue. I "don't get along" with a fair few people (although a far shorter list than yours, I expect)... The basis for DR here is that OM acts in ways that are beyond not getting along. I suspect that many will feel that there is basis for this case, whether you and the rest of those popularly referred to as the "ID Cabal" think so or not. Just as there was a basis for the case against you previously. You've improved your behaviour somewhat... perhaps OM will too. Or perhaps not. ++Lar: t/c19:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You think that FT2's behaviour and gross misconduct is a red herring? Incredible.
I was just wondering if you were going to turn up again (to the point of being about to ping your talk to see if you wanted to say more) and here you are. Thanks! I think there are serious issues around FT2, other Arbitrators, ArbCom in general, BLPs, civil POV pushers, interminable consensus discussions, community sanctions, how policy gets made and changed, and a raft other large topics... I don't think that's any secret. But in the case of OM... in that narrow issue? They all are red herrings. Even the matter of FT2 and how this went down. They divert from the issue of OM's approach and behaviour. OM has acknowledged the issue, and endeavoured to try to change, and I've applauded that, in more than one place, and offered in good faith to be of assistance if I could. I still think there is need for a case, and I explained why on the case request page. But all those things are red herrings. Does that mean they should not be looked into? Not in the slightest. They all should be. But separately. I'd reference GRBerry's comment on the case page: [13]... Take a look at it, in good faith and with an open mind and see if you don't agree. See... I do think the way the OM case started has issues. I said so from the start, I did not care for in-camera, even before we learnt that maybe it wasn't really unanimously decided... I do think those issues need looking into. But not conflated with the OM case. There is too much conflation of cases as it is.
As for my comment that you found snarky, if you have an issue with any of my comments, let's discuss it... which commment did you have in mind? ++Lar: t/c23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the....
Seriously Lar - you want to put me on a community restriction? I haven't spent the last 6 months commenting on Peter on WR - I highlighted a concern, that's it. I'm shocked, I'm tempted to walk now, I really am - if this goes through, or even nearly goes through I'm out of here. I haven't called anyone dog lovers of threatened to call animal welfare organisations about other editors, yet I suddenly turn into the criminal. Not impressed, not impressed at all. Ryan Postlethwaite22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps an enforced community restriction is too harsh a term... if so, sorry! Can you suggest another that conveys you should just walk away and leave this to others?
Because... I think you have a blind spot there. There are how many other admins, again? People suggest to me I have blind spots and I don't typically threaten to stalk off in a huff. Maybe I'm wrong. But if you call for an indef because of something going down offsite, that's a blind spot. (not a "criminal" just a blind spot"...) Now, this editor is fulminating over there about some sort of plot to subtly vandalise... if he follows that up with vandalising here, block him and throw away the key. But over there? Let him fume. For now, he has NOT done stuff here to deserve an indef. ++Lar: t/c22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to lift the block, on the understanding that he agrees not to interact with, or mention FT2 here or on WR. Then I'll walk away and never look back - but for that to work, he can't comment on me either. I'll lift the bloody block myself, no questions asked. The way you worded it wasn't that I had a blind spot - I'll admit that the indef wasn't the best course of action, but that doesn't suddenly mean I need a "topic ban". I've worked my socks off for this project and when someone starts suggesting restrictions on my editing, I suddenly turn into a disruptive user so apologies if you think I've gone off in a huff. Ryan Postlethwaite22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you really need to reconsidier you proposal to sanction Ryan. I think the block was well deserved, Peter's shit is still smeared all over FT2's talk page. This guy is a real TE, especially when it comes to pedophilia, FT2, and NLP. I think we should topic ban him in all three for at least 6 months to see if he can actually contribute productively without being a wikiwarrior. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I think this is why people don't understand, they are looking for edits by PD not this other account. Notice the account name that Geogre uses in the original post. You should clarify. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user pages of each account identify the other as alternate accounts and identify which areas each edits in. Risker (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't his parole terms per se, it's his understanding that when some arbcom members agreed to the unblock of his new account, he was told to stay clear of FT2. Ryan Postlethwaite01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<--(unindent)Thanks for clarifying, Ryan. I could not recall or locate any parole terms, and Thatcher (the unblocking admin) said that he was unaware of any. I'm hesitant to take it as gospel that PD was told anything, even though it is possible that WJBScribe may have been, erm...told that PD had been told...given recent evidence of communication difficulties. Risker (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and this is a concern that I have as well. The unblock reason was something along the lines of "per discussion with arbcom". I'm not sure it was even this - From what I can gather (and don't hold me on this) from thatchers comments on the situation, there was just discussion with a couple of arbs on IRC - certainly not a collective decision, and that increases the probability that PD was told to stay away from FT2. That's why I would certainly unblock with an explicit ban on commenting on FT2 both here or on WR, likewise probably commenting on me now as well. Ryan Postlethwaite01:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying and sorry for intruding, this has gotten a bit too convoluted for me. And here I thought Tony's use of socks was annoying...--Dragon695 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I depart, I would urge Ryan not to go down the WP:BADSITES route. It really did not go well for SlimVirgin and you'll only be attracting more attention by fighting it. It'd be best to just deal with on-wiki harassment ad let PD troll over at WR. I assure you, I'm not the only one who's got him in their ignore list there. Just a thought. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use socks. I just changed my username because somebody said my old one was too long and I agreed. --Jenny04:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I (think) I getcha....
when you refer to problems with 'due process' - I think you make a valid point, and one which I agree with, but I also see many using 'due process' in a sense that renders it synonymous with 'fairness' (is this a US thing? dunno....) - by conflating things in this way, folk may well be muddying the waters, but unfortunately your point can't really get through without an interpreter being willing to make the separation... it's a wiki trait (that I've noticed) to be either unwilling or unable to do so, and I reckon it's handy to understand that when evaluating our own communications.
Just sayin' is all... Privatemusings (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
ps. per the advice I've had to "to seek a mentor, someone who does gravitas, measuredness and "clue" well." - if you can think of anyone, let me know ;-) I'll be here all week, thanks for coming, try the veal.....[reply]
sure there is! (be of good cheer! :-) ) - besides I need a mentor in order to convince a recalcitrant arbcom to eventually lift my rather silly blp restriction to better myself as an editor, learning how to apply moderation and balance to my approach in order to contribute as best I can to this project....
actually I mean this in all seriousness - I respect you greatly, and would be very happy if you'd be prepared to offer advice or guidance in any way - I've no idea what being a 'mentoree' may involve - but I certainly am up for it! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd be willing. For what it entails, see just above. However please note that I apparently have rather an abysmal record at this. If you note WHO the last person was, you'll also note that PoT was recently blocked (for unrelated reasons, but still). Most of my other mentorees also end up indef blocked... fair warning. So what exactly do you think needs mentoring? That's a place to start I think. ++Lar: t/c12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well to be honest I'd see the start of such a relationship as being a sort of agreement to discuss aspects of my wiki behaviour in a bid to improve the net result for the project - things I do poorly, things I do well, things that I may do well but which don't help, things that I may do poorly (or mighn't want to do) but which do help etc. etc. - That may or may not include chatting about past behaviour, stuff like what motivates me to be here, or even the nitty gritty about how I decide what to post, and where - starting points could range from the concrete - ie. examining a particular issue (or even page?) to the more abstract - ie. a bit of wiki-philosphy... I guess that's up to us, and I'm open to your advice on that too! (these two approaches aren't exclusive, of course!).
talking with someone a (little bit ;-)) older, and certainly smarter, has got to be a good thing - and I'm really pleased you're willing - I'm really just here to learn. One small thing is that I'd actually prefer to keep as much as possible 'on-wiki' - really just because it feels like that's where it should largely be... on the other hand, I'm certainly up for hearing your thoughts on that too! - I'm off for the weekend now, so happy 4th July to you! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So you want my advice then nevertheless? OK. Probably should do this on a subpage somewhere. Perhaps in your user space. Let's try to structure things a bit, eh? And make sure I don't have to do a lot of homework but can just blather on and look profound ok? Let me know where and I'll turn up. :)
If you get the chance - could you take a look here? - I'm very pleased that three current arb.s have signed up, and I really do think it could be a fantastically useful page - I've got a few questions I'd like to submit - but also thought that you might be a really good person to come to, to help get everything that should be out in the open clearly communicated... thoughts / advice most welcome.. Privatemusings (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)response to the mentor thing is forthcoming... I'm a slowcoach too![reply]
I am not exactly sure what you mean... can you elaborate? It sounds like not just asking questions but something else? I might ask a question or two... ++Lar: t/c01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - as we do the mentor thing you'll unfortunately come to realise that I'm rubbish at saying simple things simply - I just meant that I think the quality of questions you would ask would be high - and that this could help! sorry for being verbose (and a bit inarticulate!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about splitting the workshop page into unusably small per-editor sections occured at this location. like so many other things, it now appears that a random "theoretical" change now has the full weight of The Fez behind it. No room for thinking, it appears. Colour me unsuprised. - brenneman07:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Far out I was being a nasty-pasty (which rhymes in Australian, by the way) wasn't I?
I've just left a comment (hopefully a nicer one) at D's talk page about the level of judgement I had thought that clerks were to use. It's quite similar to the decent discussion I had with you about stewards, in fact: Serve as checks and balances or just do as told, etc.
While I'm a big beleiver in "process creates stability which makes adding content easier" I feel like there's a trend toward beauracracy underneath all this that (in the long run) will probably stifle content-adding.
Anyway, I'd appreciate if you could look over what I've said and provide some input.
Your recent statements here appear to me unnecessarily personal, and frankly a little venomous. I've taken your misstatement of my views in good part, and corrected them. Why are you acting so belligerently? In particular I'm worried by your accusation of "manipulation", which you must know to be completely false. --Jenny04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No personal slight intended, and certainly no venom. I apologise if you took it that way. But really, Tony, I just don't see your participation helpful. You are so far out of the main stream of consensus and so insistent. Do not confuse not being helpful with not being allowed to participate. You have not, yet, reached that point... continue to participate, continue to make your voice heard, just do not be dismayed when others call "poppycock" on you. I'm not the only one to have done so.
As to manipulation... As I told Filll in another matter, I calls them like I sees them, and WP:DUCK does not only apply to socks, it can apply to cabals, discussions, whatever. In particular, "manipulation" can be done by what is said, how, and by whom, without use of any tools. Just like poisoning wells can be. That discussion was indeed manipulated by a minority belligerently insisting they would wheel war to keep MM unblocked, and rather than coutenance that, the majority conceded that there was, at that time, no consensus to block despite it being the majority view (majority != consensus, the minority needs to be far smaller than 49% or even 33% (which is my estimate of what it was then) for consensus to be clear) and let it be rather than start a war. ++Lar: t/c04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, you know WP:DUCK's an essay, right? Moreover your description of how the minority's dissent ended in the failure of the proposal is somewhat slanted--you speak in terms of wheel warring and the like. If a sizeable minority of the community dissents, that's what we call "no consensus", and of course action in the event of no consensus could have led to inappropriate action, which is why we discuss these things instead. The consensus requirement in the case of a community ban is particularly stringent, as I've noted above. Those opposing the ban were members of no cabal. Sam Korn, for instance, had been away from Wikipedia for about a year. Does this cabal include DmcDevit? Theresa knott? Zocky? WJBScribe?
I've no problem with my points being dismissed as "poppycock" by other editors. You went a bit further than that when you made accusations of manipulation. --Jenny05:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're conflating... let's let the poppycock slide. IIRC there were definite statements made by several people that they would repeatedly unblock. That's wheeling, or threatening to do so. I can dig up the diffs if you like. To the recitation of names of some that opposed the sanction at that time: I did not say that every single person who felt the block was unwarranted manipulated that discussion. Merely that it was manipulated. I will say this. I think it is an exceedingly good thing that consensus is not "bare majority" but instead requires subsantial concurrence. For every time when a discussion is manipulated to thwart a large majority and make a minority bigger, there are 23 times when the requirement for a very small minority prevents some sort of bad thing from happening. Hence, consensus, not majority, rule is the better choice. ++Lar: t/c05:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should, as you have suggested, dig up the diffs. Our memories diverge considerably on this, and you're making a rather serious claim. --Jenny05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I shall regret entering into this particular fray, but why should I learn from experiance!
Forgive me for being dense, but Tony can you be specific on what exactly is it the "rather serious claim" being discussed here? - brenneman06:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are two, but I'm concentrating on the most recent one for now: that during the community ban discussion concerning Mantanmoreland "there were definite statements made by several people that they would repeatedly unblock." We'll talk about that first and then I'll move on to the earlier statement. --Jenny06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, if you've done a search now I think you know what I, having done a similar search, also know: that your memory was in error when you spoke of administrators threatening to repeatedly unblock Mantanmoreland. It was a preposterous claim on the face of it, but I wanted to give you time to certify that for yourself.
I want to move on to your other claim, which you've only made in the vaguest terms up to now, but which is somewhat more personal because it is an attack on my honesty. In recent comments, you have directly claimed that I acted manipulatively. Here, addressing me, you say "That you and others were able to manipulate the discussion on a community ban to prevent the proper outcome until more time was wasted... well, I won't say you SHOULD be ashamed, although I could." Here you repeated the charge of manipulation in less personal terms "As I said on my talk, conversations can be manipulated in many ways. There was a failure to reach consensus, but that does not mean that the process was not somehow manipulated."
Now your accusation that I, personally, had somehow been involved in manipulation of the community ban discussion really worries me, because I don't know how you could have got that idea at all. Why do you make that claim? --Jenny23:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment on the arbitration page where you equated making lots of comments on a discussion to manipulation. I think that's a ridiculous suggestion but as I've seen several people comment on my tendency to make lots of comments on a subject of interest to me I'm adopting this rule. It applies, as far as I'm concerned, to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk (community space). I have absolutely no intention of ever manipulating any discussion on Wikipedia. The idea is repugnant to me and I will not allow even the suspicion of such manipulation to fall on me. --Jenny23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I carried out a review of the discussions relating to the proposed indefinite blocking of MM and SH, which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion/Part 2. What I found was disturbing and depressing. I was concerned about the tone and form of that discussion at the time, but at three months remove, if anything, I think it's worse than I remember. While my specific memory of "administrators threatening to repeatedly unblock Mantanmoreland" was incorrect, I did find administrators who did "threaten to unblock Mantanmoreland" repeatedly, meaning that they said more than one time that if MM was blocked, they would unblock. In more than one case, that statement was made not in the form of "I do not support a block" or "I do not feel there is consensus" (things that I say myself) but rather in a way that left the implication that they would unblock even if there was a consensus for the block. Exactly what a "community ban" is has underwent some considerable morphing... and I'm not sure I know exactly. At one point it apparently was that not a single admin was willing to unblock. At another point it was that there was not broad consensus. So arguably saying that one would unblock in the face of a consensus is a form of wheel warring, potentially (at least it is under some interpretations of matters... for example Geogre is being currently charged with wheel warring for just such an action). Later, after the block was actually implemented, there was an unblock, and arguably that too was a minority action, although the margins had drifted downward by then. (not that we vote).
Worse than that, there was a significant amount of edit warring over tags and the like that went on during the episode. Again, in large part, this edit warring was done by the minority (numerically), but by folk that perhaps have some considerable power, or influence, either overtly or behind the scenes. The examples set were not good. I would say that seeing powerful people working to contravene what was at that time a consensus or a large majority has a chilling effect on the further discussion. That is, to me, a kind of manipulation.
Finally, to your role: I think you too influenced the discussion, and not just by the strength of your argument. You did so not by overtly underhanded techniques, but rather by repeating the same things, even in the face of refutation, a considerable number of times, and by using pejorative terms similar to "lynch mob" and "witch hunt" (you were not the only person to use pejorative terms, on either side, to be sure). I think having 20% of the total contributions has a somewhat dominating effect on the discussion. A manipulate effect, if you like. Now, do I ascribe bad faith to you? No. I think you truly do not realize that you sometimes do have that dominating effect, and that it's a bad thing. Or at least you did not. But I see you've instituted a new self check, of only commenting once per day on any given project space discussion, and confining further remarks to your own talk page (or presumably the talk pages of others). I think that's a good idea but perhaps going a bit too far the other way. It's not an almost complete muzzle of you that the community would benefit from... rather it is a moderation of your input to the point where your ideas come across, your points are made, but you do not take up a disproportionate share of the discussion. If there are dozens of participants on a sustained basis, your contribution should not be 20% of the total. I would stipulate that this is an issue that I am not completely immune to either, I do tend to sometimes get overly involved.
The takeaway from all of that analysis is this: As a community we do seem to have trouble handling contentious cases and their aftermath. Our norms do not always hold. Our presumptions of good faith sometimes break down. You knew this already, and have stated it. I knew this already, and have stated it, but to reread the historic record of that affair reinforces it. Surely in rereading it you became just as dismayed and depressed as I did?
I hope this is a satisfactory clarification. If not, let's discuss further. I will update the project space discussion in due course but wanted to reach concordance or agreement to disagree here first. ++Lar: t/c19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple apology would have been better than this attempt to salvage your false accusations with further false accusations. We're at the point of diminishing returns, here. I'm finished with this. --Jenny00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you feel that way. I admitted I erred and am prepared to clarify that on the case page as well. But I stand behind the rest of my analysis. If I was remiss in not apologising to your satisfaction, I apologise for that too. ++Lar: t/c02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony's contributions to discussions: frequency analysis
I have to admit, I was taking this seriously at first. I got as far as having looking through "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion" parts one and two. Then I noticed that over 20% oof the contributions to those pages were yours. At least thirty people took part in that discussion, but you made twice as many comments as the second highest contributor.
I'm going to repeat myself, in bold and italics with underline: You made twice as many comments as the second highest contributor.
I forgot for a moment that the weight that should be placed upon high volume/low fact contributions is equal to the smartest comment made divided by the total number of times it's repeated. That you've chosen to draw out this petty sniping contest in this manner serves mostly to illustrate my point. I'm withdrawing from this conversation before it wastes any more of my time.
I popped this into a thread by itself. I'll transfer it to my talk page if Lar wants, as it seems to have nothing to do with the current discussion. --Jenny08:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 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) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still willing if he is, and if the community decides that is an appropriate course of action. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I accept your offer. I will edit nicely. I will not be abusive to others. I will only use one account, this one. Upon agreeing to mentor me, I will log in to my other accounts to declare them close. I can't do this before then because then it would be a ploy to get me to do this and then refuse to mentor me. I'm excited about coming back to Wikipedia and doing good! GoodWikian (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realise please, that the terms will have been changed by events a bit. This would no longer a voluntary mentorship, subject to negotiation about what behaviours were subject to review. You'd have to be OK with my being a bit more firm about what was and wasn't on the table. (subject to the community's will, not merely mine, of course, but less so yours...). But yes, under those provisions, I'm fine to go ahead. Needs to be blessed by the community first and foremost though. ++Lar: t/c17:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With your willing to go ahead, I am willing to present full disclosure. I will release the names of approximately 150 socks upon being allowed to edit (referring to your mention of the community's will). (Incidentally, some of sock accusations are wrong but I won't argue about that point) I will also log in to the blocked accounts to declare them retired and this will prove that I am a former sockmaster and not someone else. I will state that I will edit well and for the benefit of Wikipedia from this point forward.
Usually the community bans, they don't say "you are ok". So do we let this sit for 3-4 days and if there is no community ban, then I will begin mentorship? GoodWikian (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm willing and maybe this will be the one to break the jinx? ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reproduced from ANI
I promise you that I will break jinx. I will edit nicely. I will not throw egg on your face - I am a nice person and I will prove the naysayers wrong and do nothing to embarass you. GoodWikian (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. There are two things that are needed. You need to establish that you are indeed PouponOnToast. Please edit on that talk page as PoT to say GoodWikian is you. The other is that the community needs to agree, which they have not, yet, last I checked. ++Lar: t/c21:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait on the community. So when the community finally allows you to mentor, then I will confirm my identity on the Poupon socks page. I am not Poupon but I AM a confirmed Poupon sock. (You see that's the trouble with sock accusations, checkusers and accusers hurt innocent people. I have been called a Poupon sock and I agree to mentoring and to retire the real socks but I cannot control the one main Poupon account because I am not that account. Still, this helps WP because you will be able to end a feud and get part of Poupon socks to start editing constructively). So let's hope the community will agree to mentoring and I will present you 150 Poupon socks - I guarantee it. In other words, I am willing/I want your mentoring and will take your mentoring on the condition that I expose approximately 150 Poupon socks under my control (some caught, some not caught - I'll mark them retired and let you know once mentoring is started). GoodWikian (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mild trepedation......
^ I see you weren't kidding about the 'Lar effect' on folk you mentor! (although I did also see that the chap above turned out to not be who he said he was?) - anywhoo... here we go... - I wouldn't blame you one bit if your first advice were to be a recommendation for a page rename!
Lots of interesting questions and musings there but my issue is that I'm not sure exactly what to comment on, advise, interrogate, etc... ++Lar: t/c16:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a bit more concrete down, Lar - and hope that helps... equally - if you fancy just asking any sort of questions on the talk page, go ahead - I'm sure we'll find the ways in, and there's no rush.... cheers Privatemusings (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New user award
Home-Made Barnstar
Hey Lar, it's time you had one of these for your intelligence, integrity, and good common sense. Here's to you, and keep up the good work. John (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you... not sure what I've done lately to deserve a star but this is a nifty one indeed! ++Lar: t/c16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing exactly that, off wiki, for the last month. "What I would have done was..." I'm going to write them on-wiki from now on (with datastamps) and when election time comes around I'll be ready... - brenneman01:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm copying my notes to User:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV but find them more shot-gun than I had supposed. While this is intended as an eventual supporting document for my run at ArbCom (did I just say that out loud?) I'd appreciate any input. I'm trying to really break apart what happens in arbitration, and look for not just how I'd do it better, but how the community can do better as well. Your input as always is appreciated. - brenneman05:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are being serious about this. You'd make a great arbitrator. The lack of clue shown by them, in light of Sam's can't we all get along motion, has been stunning. We so need someone of your caliber on the committee. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this product or service. I think Brenny would make a good arbitrator as well. Brenny, you'd have my vote. I read your analysis. Needs more cowbell, but other than that seems a good start. Please continue for other cases. Maybe I should do the same.... ++Lar: t/c11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand what Sam is thinking. This is outrageous. I'm going to go back to do more move to commons work, this is really just disgraceful. >_< --Dragon695 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it's just one arbitrator. If in a weeks time we've got a collective failure by the committee and the motion gets accepted, we can look at things again. Ryan Postlethwaite14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@D:I undestand where he's coming from, I think. I just don't think he's right (as of when I last checked, anyway, perhaps more has been added). I won't go so far as to say it's disgraceful, but it's disappointing. There are endemic problems that a forceful resolution of this case would help resolve by setting some precedent and principles.
Participation elsewhere
@R: Nice of you to pop in... while you're here I have a few bones to pick with you :) (start by carefully reading this and internalising what NYB is saying ... ++Lar: t/c14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I read it, and I think I understand the point you're making - before you go further, I seriously think me and you are going to have to agree to disagree on this one :-S Ryan Postlethwaite14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have read it, but did you understand it? Sometimes agreeing to disagree is a good approach, and sometimes it is not. In this case, I'd rather you saw the light, actually, because I see some of your actions in this area as seriously counterproductive and/ or damaging to this project.++Lar: t/c15:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and I'd like someone with access to sensitive information not to be posting to such a site and discussing things with people that are solely there to harass members of our project (not all of them are there for that of course, but there are some serious bad apples), but that's not going to happen. But please don't worry - I've decided to stay well away from anything related to WR or any other "attack site" for that matter. I think you gave good advice last week when you said there's plenty of admins here and if something needs doing, it'll get done by someone else - I no longer think I should get involved because I have clouded judgement when it comes to things related with that site. Strong views on a subject means that you can't honestly make rational and neutral decisions and actions. Ryan Postlethwaite16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eminently wise, prudent and sensible. Knowing where your blind spots are is one of the very best kinds of vision to have. (I'm certainly not perfect at it, but then who is?) In view of that, I do think that agreeing to disagree will work out. (but mind you, I don't disagree with you as much as you might think I do...) Best of luck, it's not easy to stick to the advice you've just given yourself, and I wish you every success. Please don't hesitate to ask if there is anything I can be of assistance with, regardless of whether it's related to this or not. ++Lar: t/c16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and I'd like someone with access to sensitive information not to be posting to such a site and discussing things with people that are solely there to harass members of our project" - pardon my paranoia, Ryan, but I hope that's not directed at myself here - Alison❤00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or at me. But I can't really think who it's directed at if not you and I among others... This sort of innuendo is far from collegial, and far from acceptable. I chose to overlook it if it was directed at me alone, but since it has given offence to another, I think a retraction and apology are in order, Ryan. ++Lar: t/c00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. To be honest, Lar, I'm not so much looking for an apology as a clarification. There is a strong insinuation that I (I can only speak for me), by posting to "such a site" and discussing things, am somehow divulging confidential and trusted information. That is absolutely not the case, and I seriously resent the implication. We've had arbitrators (Newyorkbrad, Deskana, UninvitedCompany) posting over there without privacy nor confidentiality issues, and indeed, since I've been a regular contributor there, have been entrusted with oversight privileges by ArbCom. It's obvious that they don't see it as being a problem. I don't like being painted with the big wide Dishonesty Brush, Ryan. You have no justification whatsoever in making that insinuation here - absolutely none. I discuss privacy matters with nobody', Ryan, so please stop banging that drum here - Alison❤01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I hate to butt in, but I was just reviewing the disgraceful thread that led to Everyking loosing his administrator bit. It's breathtaking to see how far we've come, yet some resentment still remains. As I recall, both MONGO and SlimVirgin were none to pleased when you got CheckUser and Oversight. Still, I have to say that Alison and Lar both do wonderful things by at least trying to dialog with aggrevied users there. It's also nice to be able to chat in a manner that isn't as discombobulated as wiki talk pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yayy!! Someone who actually 'gets it'. Being an admin here mandates that we deal with all sorts of people and not all of them are happy with what has happened. It's vital to listen to everyone and not just those we deem "acceptable". Posting on WR is posting on their turf, and listening to banned editors opining on what's wrong with Wikipedia. I consider that useful Thank you, Dragon695, for saying what you did - Alison❤01:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone has to, otherwise they stew and fester until they start taking it out on the project using vandalism and socks. Now that isn't to say that all can be reasoned with, there are some incorrigible types, but I've seen some useful dialog. Also, for better or for worse, they are a pretty good early warning system for potential problems. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm being perfectly honest, it does upset me when I see two well respected Wikipedians posting at the site, and getting involved in the general banter there. Given that you both have CU access, it does get to me somewhat. I don't think it's right one bit if I'm being honest with you. My snide remark was out of order, so I apologise for that. One of the things that get to me is this principle from the MONGO RfArb - "Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored." How do you honestly expect the average user know what's going on? We haven't got access to CU logs. Fair enough, I'm 99.9% sure you guys won't have done anything wrong, but we don't know that and it's bloody tough for the majority of the community to moniter activities on the site when we don't have access to any of the logs. I've already said I don't wish to talk about WR here again - I've stated my opinion of it, probably used my admin bit inappropriately over it and that's the end of it for me. Please don't force me into discussion about this - you'll obviously disagree with me, but I want to leave WR well behind me here. Ryan Postlethwaite01:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec on my own talk page!)You've said something that I think is worth refuting. I'm sorry if you don't want to talk about it, but it's in the very recent past. Once we've worked through this then that's fine but I think you need to either make an explicit allegation that some specific person (you can choose from Raul, me, Flo, Uninvited Company, NYB, Allison, and I don't recall exactly how many more, but it's rather a considerable list, just of people who have CU on en:wp) has in some way violated the trust the community placed in them in some way related to WR, or explicitly retract that statement of yours and apologise for it. "99.9% sure" isn't good enough. As for the MONGO RfAr, that whole thing is discredited in my view. You're welcome to closely monitor my activities as much as you like (as I am of yours, and you certainly have some activities that do raise some eyebrows, you know) but do drop the insinuations. Review this again, please, and really think about it. Nothing has changed my fundamental view that burying one's head in the sand about criticism is a flawed approach to improving something. ++Lar: t/c01:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I've been ignoring you all day, keeping out from under your feet after yesterday's debacle yet here I find you banging on about it again? What am I supposed to think at this stage? "I'm 99.9% sure you guys won't have done anything wrong, but we don't know that" - do you know how nasty that sounds? As regards the MONGO rfarb, trust me in that I'm one of the most scrutnised admins on the site; not just because I have cu/os, but because I post on WR. Did it even occur to you that this set of circumstances means that I have to be impeccable in everything I do, given that there are an entire army on both sides of this inane situation who'd be only too happy to see my head on a platter?? Thus, your nasty comments are all the more hurtful, and you remain unapologetic throughout. Ryan, I have lost a serious amount of respect I had for you over the last 24 hours - you have no idea.
And in conclusion, if you have any issues with me and cu/os, or anything you can find that I've done wrong, bring them out into the sunlight now. Or stop the smear campaign. Better still, bring it to ArbCom, but just don't pretend that you represent the community at large, because you do not - Alison❤01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all - it's an ethical concern and that's it. My personal opinion is that I don't think it's right, that's all. Not for one second trying to suggest it's a community opinion. No smear campaign intended for one second. Ryan Postlethwaite01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Alison and Lar are being coy of course, Ryan - both will run a checkuser for 50p and a packet of crisps - and I heard Lar will make you an admin for a bottle of cider..... you obviously have strong issues with WR, and in my view the irony is that it's the power of these feelings (the enemy within type stuff) that, whilst understandable, actually causes the most trouble... even WR love their children too, you know!
I'd encourage you to join Alison and Lar in shining little lights here and there over at WR, but totally understand that you don't want to. What you do have to do however, is resolve some of the anger / fear / annoyance you feel to the point where you don't lash out 'on-wiki' at all.... not engaging in any conversation about it is probably a great start (though easier to say, than do...) - and with that, I return to sitting on my hands! cheers, :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a thesis to do on Aspergillus niger and it's prevelance on ancient Egyptian remains and I'll ace it. Put me in a situation like this, and I'll goof it every time. I've re-read everything I've said in this thread and it's just wrong. It sounds like I'm suggesting that you've used CU or oversight against policy, or that I even think that. I don't for one minute. Yeah - I'm crap with words, I really am. I've made so many insinuations without even meaning to imply them. I do admit, I it does bother me any user in good standing posting there, but that's slightly hypercritical given I do as well. I apologise to you both - my stance has come across in completely the wrong way I intended. In a nutshell - Do I think you've abused any powers? Nope, not for one second - I know you both too well. Seriously guys, I'm sorry if I implied that. Ryan Postlethwaite01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Say no more about it then, we're square. Just please do be careful about the effect words can have, eh? Best. ++Lar: t/c01:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put the last couple of days down to a huge learning experience - I've certainly learnt a lot here. I am honestly sorry from my heart - I didn't mean to upset two good guys. You work your arses off and you didn't need any crap from me. Just carry on doing what you do best! Ryan Postlethwaite01:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, definitely, off-topic
"...and I heard Lar will make you an admin for a bottle of cider....."
Despite the seriousness of the discussion, I just have to admit that that made me laugh : )
(And, sigh, looks like I better go find someone to nominate for adminship, since, admin or not, cider sounds rather good atm : ) - jc3701:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way am I paying for anything - I'm a student, so I expect a crate of White Lightning on my door step ASAP! Let's celebrate that we're all Wikipedians! Ryan Postlethwaite01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone got a can opener for this tin of worms?
I dunno... should I be more upset that someone thinks that I shouldn't be engaging (I can't help it, it is genetics) over at WR, or that no-one cares because my standing at WP is pretty abysmal...? Talk to me, people, because this question taunts and haunts me for several seconds every day... or so. Eh? Sorry? What was I wittering on about? (/joking) LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just between us, Lar...given how a certain administrator responded when being called a stalker by a certain editor who wound up blocked, and the hypothetical reason for that reaction - I wonder if you might rethink? Mind you, I could envision a really good userbox for talk page "watchers"...eyes to binoculars or something like that... Risker (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I was thinking similar things about the essay myself, earlier. "Ruthless talk page editors" is closer, I suppose, but has its own issues. "Lurker" doesn't describe the act of editing, just of watching. So I dunno. Something related to m:Metapedianism, I guess. - jc3702:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a talk page stalker refers to a specific type of person- people such as me lol:) I'd rather keep my cider than be an admin though. StickyParkin02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "lurker" sounds nicer. The term always was somewhat of an oxymoron; even in the bad old days of Web 1.0, a true lurker, by definition, would leave no trace. As soon as you post, you are no longer strictly lurking. Nevertheless, I think someone who watches others' user pages and occasionally comments, is more of a lurker than a stalker, which to me implies some sort of malevolent or obsessive quality. Sorry, I'll get back to my lurking now... --John (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New and improved;
Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page watchers. With long range binoculars, in case Lar doesn't archive!
A) Yes I need to archive this page. I got lazy. At around 250K or so... at least it's shorter than your
average ArbCom case. So sue me.
B) I like how people come by here. Lots of interesting convos... It's the cool place to hang out (after Giano's)... call them watchers or stalkers or lurkers, as you like. But ya, Risker has a point.
I may be able to meet that standard - there is a whole lot of LEGO hidden away at my house. Not that there's anything I really want, but it's handy to keep in mind. I have made a little modification to Giggy's new and improved userbox and have now applied it to my own talk page. (Thanks Giggy!) It will explain some of the odd things that happen there. Risker (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A) Viewing diffs can be deadly. And yeah, it's over 250K I believe. They have bots for a reason! (I would sue but I might get blocked :-(.)
A) When someone makes a bot that archives on perfect one month boundaries, but with tweaking so that the newly archived page starts with a "nifty-ish" convo, I'll think about it. Till then, by hand
B) Seen it? I stalk there mysekf! SRSLY. Ok, not really.
I haven't been watching it really closely in the last day but when I last checked it was an amazing piece of work. Someone ought to spend the effort to go through it item by item and do a thorough analysis. ++Lar: t/c13:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar! Sorry for the delay in replying to your message - it's been like Four Weddings and a Funeral here in the last two weeks, except with some comedy. But now, with a broken foot and off my face on painkillers, the promised reply.
The issue with Commons is something I've noticed over the past three years. At first it was a fun place to upload to, somewhere where people who enjoy categorizing and creating lateral links could meet with people (like me) who don't enjoy such things and aren't any good at them. The two types of editor worked well together in a collaborative environment. But then something started to change. I'm not sure exactly when it happened - it was subtle at first - but the "atmosphere" at Commons started to sour. Instead of encouraging new uploads and trying to seek out new talent in both categorizing and imagemaking, it felt like the categorizers were suddenly in control. The purpose of Commons shifted, from building a repository of free media into cataloging a repository of free media - not the same thing at all.
Well, that's fine. Our projects can and should keep their processes and purpose under review and are free to change emphasis. Those who don't like it can try to change it back or leave. I chose to leave - switching to uploading run-of-the-mill encyclopedic images directly to Wikipedia (via this account) and stopping altogether uploading my more whimsical or artistic ex-commercial images (via another account in my real name). Now, this is fine. We don't force people to upload to Commons, although we encourage it. But then the categorizers started spreading from Commons onto Wikipedia. They brought with them the new Commons culture - people upload on sufferance, by permission, should be grateful for the opportunity and should do it right first time.
This crept into Wikipedia's processes slowly. I used to clear the {{nowcommonsthis}} backlog. I went to do it one day and the rules had been subtly changed. You can't now just check all is correct and delete: now you must go to Commons and not just check all is right, but find the correct category at the correct level in the hierarchy and add that before you do anything here. But I'm no good at that and don't want to learn (I'm entitled to be both rubbish at and willfully ignorant of the system on a different project if I want) so I stopped doing that - previous experience shows that categorizing is not only beyond me but also beyond most people - look at my Commons uploads as Redvers and see them being shunted endlessly from one category to another (not my problem, and no, I didn't have email-reports enabled, as I don't care). And I know that if you get categories wrong, people are direct and vocal that you're not doing a good enough job (item 1 for "things to change about Commons", if you're interested). Stopping clearing the NCT backlog wasn't a hardship - I enjoyed it, but the world didn't end in not doing it. But the culture clash with Commons continued to spread across Wikipedia, aided it seems by SUL.
Commons users and Commons admins - those who primarily edit at Commons - started to come across to Wikipedia, declaring that they could deal with Commons' problems 'at source'. I watched as clashes happened across the 'pedia, as people with good uploads, well enough done by Wikipedia standards, started to get into scrapes with Commons people enforcing Commons policy on Wikipedia images and Wikipedia editors. I'm sure you can think of one in particular that I'm thinking of, but there were others. These Commons editors, aided and abetted by the more authoritarian Wikipedia editors who just like the opportunity to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules (a Wiki disease, rather than a 'pedia or Commons one), were bombarding people with multiple talk page messages and templating people who had been here since the 'pedia started - because Commons has no tradition of not templating regulars... because categorizers love nothing more than a good template!
None of this really affected me - I continued to upload to Wikipedia rather than Commons, as is my right and my choice, generally stayed away from the Commons-derived rows mentioned above and got on with editing Wikipedia. Then, one day, this arrived. Ouch. Assuming Good Faith was difficult, given what had come before and the fact that, typical of Commons (in my experience), the message didn't even bother to say "thank you" or anything - just the Commons-style demand that I use Commons. Now, I over-reacted to this, I know. It just really pressed my buttons. But there we are. I gave a foul-tempered reply. I got silence in return. I deserved nothing less. But then it became obvious why I had got silence. I'd been given a template, not a talk message. The template had been left and, confident of the righteousness of their actions, the leaver had moved on and instantly forgotten me. How very Commons, I though. So I put a little notice up. It's the type of childish thing that amuses me, purges superfluous annoyance and lets me get on.
People started to appear asking what the issue was [16][17] and I explained. Some people had noted similar issues. But it was all a bit nothing really. And then my little banner came to the attention of Commons editors. Now, this is where it gets really interesting and, to my mind, starts to prove my point that Commons editors operating on Wikipedia operate like jerks. For instance, seeing my opinions, one Commons editor says s/he will stalk my contributions and immediately transfer Wikipedia uploads to Commons. That's not really helping matters at all. So, childishly but deliberately, I promoted the reply to a userspace essay. There are thousands of these things on Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors rarely pay them any attention: even when they are racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic. But Commons editors (and, as mentioned before, the rules-lovers already on Wikipedia) don't like it up 'em. So along people come [18] saying that it must been deleted. Some Commons people, like yourself, seek to work with me. Some, however, seek to work with me, but then immediately revert to type, playing to the stereotype I've already got for Commons editors in my head. Watch how an offer to work with me on the Commons issue quickly turns into a WP:POINT crap-flood of my talk page: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. I express displeasure, but offer to work with you as soon as my life (which had, at that point, started to go all John Cleese on me) calmed down. The result? The Commons-treatment again - a further, targeted crap-flood: [29][30][31][32]
That having failed in whatever its objective was, Common-treatment goes to individual images: for instance with a pointless and sharp debate that again proves the point: Commons editors throwing their weight around, but not actually understanding the issue they're dealing with (the "it should've been uploaded to Commons in the first place, so it doesn't matter about the treatment of it now" idea that is common in Commons-led debates). Then a bot is pointed at some of my images, transferring them to Commons and marking them for deletion. Again, really helpful. By this time, I'm not editing due to the aforesaid Four Weddings and a Funeral scenario (actually two weddings, one funeral, a moved-up deadline at work and a broken foot). So my essay, one among thousands, one that is quite mild compared to many, is sent to MfD. That helps. A debate finally breaks out at Commons [33] - thanks for being a (somewhat lonely) sane voice there, by the way - where my motives are debated and I'm accused of probably not understanding copyright (good accusation, but very wrong and completely unrelated to the matter at hand, but throw enough mud...) but few people - yourself excluded - look at the substantive point: is Commons working properly with Wikipedia? And those that do address this point take the view that Commons works well with Wikipedia, but Wikipedia doesn't work well with Commons... which is roughly were I started this essay and the crux of the problem.
The MfD is, of course, very properly speedy closed as a keep. The Commons response? Renominate it!. Oh yeah. Helpful again. In the meantime, there is discussion of the essay... some of it oddly taking place on the essay itself, rather than the talk page, with Commons editors complaining when comments are moved to the talk page. Commons usage of talk pages must be different to Wikipedia's: but Commons editors must edit Wikipedia as Wikipedia is edited rather than extending Commons practice to Wikipedia. Honestly, this is just commonsense. But the discussion on the talk page doesn't get very far either: "rubbish", says one Commons editor (helpful again). Without full possession of the facts, Commons editors opine that I have nothing to base my essay on and should leave Wikipedia if I'm unhappy. I'm not unhappy with Wikipedia, but there we go. More debate of my motives carries on on the page, but again, nobody except you is willing to work on this: the Commons wants me to shut up, withdraw the essay and give in quietly to the extension of Commons attitudes to Wikipedia's pages. And I remain mystified as to what this was meant to mean, but perhaps it's just that the intellectual depth of the comment is beyond me.
So, to summarize, if you're still with me: Commons' way of working is different to Wikipedia's way of working. The attempt to impose Commons' officious-sounding, template-driven, Asperger's-style communication and categorisation methods to Wikipedia is causing trouble on Wikipedia. It probably should stop, as Wikipedia editors are being made unhappy and even admins have recently left because of it and related issues. Uploading to Commons is something to encourage, but not something to demand or require, especially when the system on Commons requires extra steps - like categories - that Wikipedia does not, and whilst Commons templates people and niggles over categorization. Putting ones own house in order before setting about righting another's is much recommended. Wikipedia has upload facilities and people are entitled to use them and Commons editors should accept that. There is a difference of culture between Commons and Wikipedia. Because of that difference, I choose not to contribute to Commons. Commons should respect that choice and, especially over my essay, cease the hounding and the complaints about my motives and instead look at the points I'm making rather than trying to find the super-secret reason I'm making them. Cheers. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 16:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}