I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns if you don't want to post.
Here about a BLP that's persistently getting vandalized and you want me to semi protect it? Leave a note below, (User:Lar/Liberal Semi is no longer in use) and I or one of my TPWs will get it.
Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active... Ping me if it's truly urgent, or find another admin.
Here about accountability? see my accountability page. Note: The apparent listification of the category (it's back but may go away again) does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way
Please read the two blue boxes :).
A Note on how things are done here:
Being a "grumpy old curmudgeon", I have certain principles governing this talk page which I expect you to adhere to if you post here. (This talk page is my "territory", (although I acknowledge it's not really mine, it's the community's) and I assume janitorial responsibility for it.)
I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. If I inadvertently change the meaning of anything, please let me know so I can fix it!
While I reserve the right to delete comments I find egregiously poor form, I am normally opposed to doing so and use monthly random archives instead. If you post here, your words will remain here and eventually in the archives, so please do not delete them, use strikeouts. In other words, think carefully about what you say rather than posting hastily or heatedly.
Edit warring here is particularly bad form. One of my WP:TPW's may well issue a short block, so don't do it.
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.
please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy
You directed some heated comments at me in reaction to some things I said. I think you misunderstood me. I've replied just now at two spots that you can see in this diff. [1] I also have a slightly longer response on my talk page. Why don't you look over what we both said, and perhaps you won't be as offended. If there was something else I said in that DRV or AfD that really offended you, I'm willing to discuss it with you calmly on my talk page or yours or at the DRV page or that talk page.
Noroton: I have reviewed the discussion threads as you requested. I would not characterize my view as "offended", merely concerned that you were repeatedly making inappropriate comments. I stand by my assessment of your commentary in that discussion as unhelpful in a number of ways, including being unnecessarily belligerent, threatening, and even disruptive.
As for the check that was run, my review of your contributions, especially the recent ones, suggested a user who was using an alternate account purely to participate in contenious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively, which is a violation of the spirit of WP:SOCK (and has always been), and after the early October edits, of the letter as well. Given the amount of interaction with this sock account I'd had, I felt it best to request an uninvolved CU run the check, which I did, and they confirmed my suspicions (although I confess I was surprised it was you, I thought you knew better). Versageek knows policy well and drew their own conclusions without prompting from me. Your attacks on them (in the unblock request at User_talk:Noroton, for example, and then at AN/I) are completely without merit and reflect badly on you.
For my information, Which of the 7(??) account(s) you were disruptively using have now been unblocked? Do you plan to continue using more than one? Are they all appropriately crosslinked? ++Lar: t/c03:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't decided. I thought the blocks were indefinite on all but Noroton, which would last a week. I'd originally said I'd drop them all, but the idea of continuing with them, simply identified publicly, didn't occur to me and I need to think about it for a day or two. It might be less confusing for others if I simply kept the Reconsideration and CountryDoctor accounts, especially with the various User pages and links. I certainly wouldn't edit with them without sticking an alternate-account notice on them. I have no intention of keeping the Noroton one. My main priority right now is understanding how this block came to be.
When you looked into it and then handed the investigation over to Versageek, did you say something to Versageek about my comments on the AfD or DVR page? Do you know if other checkusers were involved in this? If so, who? I'd like to understand who was involved and how.
You say after the early October edits, of the letter as well. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this. I take it you're referring to when the wording at WP:SOCK changed to make it explicit that only the main account should edit deletion debates (Oct. 3). Before that, the wording seemed to say that two different accounts shouldn't edit the same deletion debate. I take it it wasn't Noroton resigning that made a difference (Oct. 5), so you're hanging this on the wording change four weeks back and the "spirit" of the policy. Correct?
This is what I don't get: Only Versageek and you think I was editing disruptively on the DRV. I still don't understand how. Could you explain how my actual edits were disruptive? With respect, I don't believe they were any more "disruptive" than yours on that page -- and I don't think either of us were disruptive. We could put your comments side by side with mine and I don't think you'd find one was any closer to disruption than the other.
Criticizing the editor who blocked me is different from attacking the editor who blocked me. To say an action is wrong is not an attack. Please point out where I attacked rather than criticized Versageek. It's not that long an unblock statement, and the distinction is pretty obvious. If I see I've attacked someone, I'll immediately go apologize -- OK? It's not like I don't change my mind when new facts come in or admit when I'm wrong, is it?
There's a similar distinction between sharp criticism and even argumentation on the one hand and incivility and disruptiveness on the other. DRVs are all about criticizing actions of the closing admin (in almost every case). Jake's conduct looked so egregious that many, many participating editors have called it "bad faith". I specifically amended my position to say it looked indistinguishable to me from acts that would be committed in bad faith, but I don't know his motivation, and his motivation is, ultimately, irrelevant to the DRV.
Which of the 7(??) account(s) you were disruptively using [...] Now, see, that kind of statement sounds a bit "offended", more than merely concerned because you must be experienced with sock accounts and must know the distinction between accounts that simply edited the encyclopedia constructively and the kind of nefarious socking that harms the encyclopedia. And yet you conflate the two. It seems like an emotional reaction. Doesn't it bother you that the only "disruptive editing" that you've specified to any degree deals with a difference of opinion I have with you over the deletion of that article? If you've got reason to say I was "disruptively using" those other accounts, you should be able to specify how. But you can't. Because I didn't. Because I was acting in good faith and no actual disruption took place.
One other question: Do you still think I was threatening you? I really didn't mean to, and I hope you'll see that.
We as a community do not support socking in order to hide who you are when participating in internal debates. Socking is intended only to allow you to work on difficult topic areas, ones that might be problematic if it was discovered that your real person was editing in those areas. And even then the edits need to not be contentious. It's not intended to allow you to hide, to goodhand/badhand. I don't use undisclosed socks, and I've had my real name tied to my online identity since forever (over 25 years now and counting), so I always stand behind everything I say. I'm not sure there's much more useful I can add at this point, other than to restate what I already said, that I feel your contributions were unhelpful in that they went well beyond strongly worded views. And I'm disappointed in that, as I had some regard for you based on your participation here and at WR prior to this. I would have given your words much more leeway (and credence) if they were said by Noroton than if they were said by a sock with undisclosed connections. But if you choose to sock all bets are off. I do not support the broad interpretation of WP:CLEANSTART that you're reading into it. ++Lar: t/c17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, here's a link to a history page from Oct. 28 [2] when the block took place because WP:SOCK language continues to change daily. Either it does or does not -- or rather, did or did not -- mean what it says said it means (boldface added):
*Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. That is, you should not turn up on a page User:A used to edit to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, while denying any connection to User:A, particularly if the edits are contentious.
Discontinuing the old account means that it will not be used again. When an account is discontinued, it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet.
It does not require an interpretation to understand that ending Noroton and using JohnWBarber allows me to edit nondisruptively in a DRV discussion. It proscribes "active deception", which I followed; it does not insist that I disclose anything. That section is supposed to let you edit under another account name unconnected to the old one. You used your CU powers to investigate me, encouraged another checkuser to violate WP:CLEANSTART and did so while you were in a conflict with me that clearly got under your skin. You haven't shown that I was disruptive in any way. There was not even a conflict with David Shankbone that you can hang your hat on, since my comments had nothing to do directly with Shankbone but with upholding WP deletion standards and what I view as the misuse of closing admin powers. You don't get to hold me to a higher standard because you used your CU powers to find out that someone you were angry at -- and involved in a conflict with -- had exercised his rights and upheld his responsibilities under WP:CLEANSTART. Everyone knows that when an admin is angry and involved his judgment can be impaired and it should not be driving any admin action. By checkusering me and sending the results to Versageek, how did you influence his judgment?
We as a community do not support socking in order to hide who you are when participating in internal debates. That statement is simply false if you're talking about the Noroton account (since socking must be simultaneous) and it simply did not apply to the state of WP:SOCK policy when I started the accounts. If you're talking about the Reconsideration and CountryDoctor accounts in connection with the JohnWBarber account, then it's only true in a technical, wikilawyering sense, since the violation could not possibly have blocked insight into my history (those other accounts basically only edited content in obscure corners of the wiki), and the interleaving of Reconsideration and JohnWBarber participation in (different) AfDs was a classic de minimus, trivial violation -- as is using JWB for AfDs when Reconsideration became my main account. It's simply obvious that I meant no harm and committed no harm, and it's over the top to believe I had any nefarious intent. You're a checkuser and an admin and others should be able to expect of you that you understand the difference between editors trying to follow policy and actually editing constructively and editors trying to cause or actually causing harm. That really is a serious problem, something far more serious to the encyclopedia than anything I did.
You did separate yourself from the actual blocking of me, but since your communication with Versageek was private, I don't know how much. Please post the entire communication (minus only information, if it is in there, that might disclose CU methods that shouldn't be public), and then I'll be able to see just how much you separated yourself from that block and just what to think of your actions vs. that of Versageek.
I've been asking you questions about your official actions and why you took them and about how you read policy. These are legitimate questions, and I've tried to be courteous as well as civil in asking them. I've also asked you questions and explained myself to try to resolve this anger that you deny but which, it seems to me, you're still showing. Please be responsive and open. I had some regard for you based on your participation here and at WR prior to this. The feeling's mutual, but it's certainly been dissipated. Why don't you ask someone you trust, in private, to look over my comments at the DRV, Wartenberg's talk page and the AfD and see what that person says about how "disruptive" I was in a contentious discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is your main account? Even now you seem to be saying it's not JohnWBarber. (above: "when Reconsideration became my main account") Further, JohnWBarber appears not to be an account that was started after Noroton was retired (if Noroton even was, you seem to still be editing with it from time to time). So I'm not sure it is really a CLEANSTART to jump over to JohnWBarber now. Cleanstart means starting with no reputation at all, not one that goes back to Nov 2008. My advice to you is if you really want a clean start, abandon all of these accounts and start over, completely, with zero reputation. Your current actions don't fit that.
In response to your questions about my actions, I did not use my CU powers to investigate your JohnWBarber sock, or any of your other IDs, unless you count reviewing your contributions by following Special:Contributions as "using CU powers", which I do not. I do not feel I, or Versageek, violated any policies, in letter or in spirit. Please feel free to keep asking questsions but if you have a concern that you feel I have not answered, you can refer it to the WP:AUSC. ++Lar: t/c22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you didn't use checkuser powers on this, because it was a big concern of mine. Thank you for telling me that.
These are the questions you've left unanswered, plus some others. If you feel that AUSC is the appropriate place for me to ask them, you can direct me there for that, but they all seem to fall outside AUSC's purview (quotes in italics):
You did separate yourself from the actual blocking of me, but since your communication with Versageek was private, I don't know how much. Please post the entire communication (minus only information, if it is in there, that might disclose CU methods that shouldn't be public), and then I'll be able to see just how much you separated yourself from that block and just what to think of your actions vs. that of Versageek.
What specificlly did I say that you think was worth a block under WP:SOCK? Or under any other policy? You said above that you're concerned that you were repeatedly making inappropriate comments. I stand by my assessment of your commentary in that discussion as unhelpful in a number of ways, including being unnecessarily belligerent, threatening, and even disruptive. Quotes, diffs or simply your memory of specific comments, please.
If you post the message, then never mind this question: When you looked into it and then handed the investigation over to Versageek, did you say something to Versageek about my comments on the AfD or DVR page?
suggested a user who was using an alternate account purely to participate in contenious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively No, you'll find a large majority of my contributions under JohnWBarber were not contentious: They were either content edits or rather routine AfD !votes. And what do you call "contentious"? Simply participating in an AfD? Is this [3] or this [4] "contentious"?
Participating in "contentious" discussions is not a violation of SOCK unless those discussions are on a page edited before by another account (see "Misusing a clean start" here [5]). And don't give me an "it's-in-the-spirit" argument on that -- AfDs are new subjects and other parts of WP:SOCK deal with them specifically, along with other project discussions. Disruptive editing is a legitimate objection, if it happened, not participating in "contentious" discussions on new pages. Your point really relates to "Good hand/bad hand" accounts in which "disruption" is the problem (see the last link for the passage on that). In order for the alleged belligerence, aggressiveness, contentiousness of my comments to violate WP:SOCK, they had to rise to the level of disruption. (A) Do you agree? (B) And any violation would have also necessarily violated WP:DISRUPT, do you agree?
Do you still think I was threatening you? If so, how? (You might want to reread your own comments in that part of the DRV thread before answering.)
If you've got reason to say I was "disruptively using" those other accounts, you should be able to specify how.
To say an action is wrong is not an attack. Please point out where I attacked rather than criticized Versageek.
You say "after the early October edits, of the letter as well." [...] so you're hanging this on the wording change four weeks back and the "spirit" of the policy. Correct?
10 - 12. I'll listen to your advice to me about alternate accounts and new accounts when we're done discussing our differences and I know it isn't an argument point. Reconsideration was the account with the most edits, so WP:SOCK says (somewhere -- at this rate, perhaps somewhere in the past) that technically Reconsideration was the main account. You're the CU, you look it up. I stated what my "main" account (only account) now is at least twice on the talk page of JohnWBarber in my unblock discussion. Your harping on minor technical violations done in good faith and already apologized for on more than one page is not exactly getting the point -- unless those were specifically what you pointed out to Versageek. (10) Or is it something other than a minor, technical violation that JohnWBarber overlapped with Noroton for a year? If so, why? Were you paying attention when I said -- on multiple pages -- that when I started the accounts they were not prohibited and that I was unaware that the policy had changed as drastically as it did, particularly in the last month? (11) If I thought JohnWBarber and the rest were allowed anyway, why start yet another account? What's the point? I wasn't looking closely at WP:SOCK (I've admitted that was a mistake) because, not meaning to do any wrong, I didn't think I was in danger of being blocked without warning. Why would you think I would remember, or should be blocked for, such a minor detail as whether to do CLEANSTART with a new vs. an overlapping account? (12) What "reputation" for JohnWBarber before Oct. 5 would matter to anyone? None of those are rhetorical questions (other than the "Were you paying attention ..." one, which is unnumbered).
You say, I do not feel I, or Versageek, violated any policies, in letter or in spirit. If I wasn't disruptive, you did. Please post your message to Versageek and show me there wasn't anything wrong there. I think that and your telling me exactly what you found disruptive -- and please tie it to specific comments -- would cover most of my concerns. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I answer you I get a longer reply than last time. I'm not seeing this as a good use of my time. I'll seek input from other uninvolved folk. But you should listen to my advice now, because it's good advice. If you really want a clean start, abandon this account too, it's tainted. (presumably once this matter is resolved) ++Lar: t/c03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count the same question asked 2 or 3 or 4 different ways, more than once. One theme: "Disruption" is a judgment call. In my view, your participation in the AfD, the DRV, and the policy discussion was belligerent enough to be disruptive. It certainly is possible that other folk, in good faith, have other views. But if my view was reasonable, then the sock investigation was merited. Another theme: In my view you're rules lawyering about the sock policy. You've maintained a number of accounts, they overlap and intertwine, and you participated in policy discussions in a way that was, in my view (after learning about the accounts), deceptive. You can quibble about wording as much as you like but that's my view. I don't sock and my real identity has been out there all along. A third theme: I've given this to AUSC so I'm not going to be sharing private conversations with you on your say so. Really, that addresses all of the questions as far as I can see. ++Lar: t/c05:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I simply do not see a role for the audit subcommittee with respect to Lar, since he did not run any checks, only suggested it to someone else. The use of checkuser and oversight (like any other restricted privilege including rollback, deletion, and blocking) is subject to the discretion and judgement of the individual using the tool. Thatcher15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Lar -- But it doesn't answer them, and answering them would actually move this from the realm of vague personal opinion difficult to assess to an area where the specifics would reveal how wrong you've been. Once you state specifically what was disruptive in my statements, I'll show you statements you and others made that are closer to being disruptive. None of these statements will actually come close to what people are blocked for for violating WP:DISRUPT. And that will be plain as day. You've accused me of being disruptive. That's a serious, blockable charge, and, in fact, I was blocked for it, had my clean start taken away and as a direct, predictable result, was treated viciously in comments at the DRV and at ANI. Having started all this, you owe me an answer to a simple, striaightforward question that I have asked multiple times: If you say I was disruptive, what specific disruptive statements or actions are you referring to. This thread shows you are evading or refusing to answer this question. I wanted to give you the opportunity of answering it and resolving our differences here. You've proposed a forum which is normally private. But this deserves a public response, so if it's going to go to another forum, I'll take it directly to ArbCom and let them decide whether or not to open a case. I think I've got a pretty solid one and if you took my advice and asked someone you trust to look into it, I think that person would tell you what I've told you. If I have been disruptive, that will be shown or not shown in specific diffs.
I've also repeatedly asked you to make public the message you sent to Versageek. This is why: Normally, the responsibility for the bad block would rest entirely on the shoulders of the admin who did it. This case is different in that both you and Versageek are checkusers and this block depended on the use of checkuser and the judgment related to that. You aren't just some editor who asked for help, you're a senior checkuser asking for help -- therefore, Versageek may well have relied on your judgment as a CU, despite your involvement. Lar, you are known for the mildness of your language, which easily gives the impression of a calm temperament. If I were a checkuser like Versageek and was given a request from a senior CU who I normally respected, and one who gives the impression of a calm temperament, I'd let down my guard a bit too and might well be a bit imprudent in my reaction. He probably credited your complaint far more than he would just about anyone else; he says he never consulted with another checkuser -- and I can see why: he already had a senior checkuser telling him "disruption" took place. As a senior checkuser you have a responsibility to be careful in what you say when you're asking other checkusers to check out a sock. I already know your thinking wasn't careful; now I want to see how careful your communicating was. Your justification for the sock, when we remove all the minor points, basically boils down to whether or not I was disruptive. That happens to be Versageek's only justification for the sock. That's why I came to your talk page to ask you about this and got the confirmation I expected.
Versageek has admitted that contacting me and discussing the matter would have been a better option than blocking me. (My only other major difference with him is that he hasn't re-evaluated whether or not I was disruptive. Just as with you and me, he and I can only discuss this accusation of disruption with any hope of coming to a resolution if we talk specifics.) Versageek still has primary responsibility for the block, but neither I nor anybody else can figure out how much blame for this bad decision is shared by you until you make your message public. You and he were elected as checkusers. You owe it to every editor to be open about this communication. Did you misapply WP:SOCK in that message the way you've misapplied it in this thread? Was the tone derogatory to me in ways you normally aren't on-wiki? Did it reflect an arrogant attitude? Did you misuse your position as checkuser in this private communication in some other way? It's worth knowing when a bad block has happened.
My arguments at DRV or AfD did not depend on people needing to know my edit history as Noroton, and when it became known, not even Shankbone himself thought my motives were wrong. Once the initial shock passed (and people stopped thinking I must have been actively deceptive and badly motivated) even my old antagonist Wikidemon acted like a gentleman and withdrew his worst initial comments. When you argue by directly citing policy and the facts and try to show the reasonable nature of your opinion, it's the opposite of trying to influence people by some show of personal purity or authority. People could have thought I was a jerk and still appreciated my arguments. And after the Sock Drama, it appears not one vote was affected and support for Overturn has been running 4:1 in the more recent !votes. What's that tell you about how important my so-called "deception" was? (A passive "deception" necessarily part of WP:CLEANSTART if clean-start is supposed to mean anything at all.)
Lar, I haven't quibbled and I'm not "rules mongering". De minimus technical violations done by a user who was clearly not trying to harm the encyclopedia and in fact not harming it can be distinguished pretty well from clearly abusive socking. Participatin in that AfD and DRV were not even in a gray area under the language of WP:SOCK as late as the date of the block. Immediate, no-warning blocks are for clear abuse. Versageek admits it; why can't you? Although you've read what I've written about this, you ignore the fact that I've admitted and apologized for every one of those violations.
Whether or not you admit it, it's pretty obvious that it was a bad block. If I need to go to Arbcom to counteract this smear on me, I will. What I won't do is slink away and let this be a mark on my block record or let this episode go on the record for every future Wikidemon or Tarc or other nasty editor to say in some unrelated thread in the future, "Oh, weren't you the guy blocked for socking? And weren't you disruptive and blocked for it?" As if I socked abusively. I'm going to get either you and Versageek or some higher authority to say I did not sock abusively (in anything but the most technical, trivial sense) and I did not act so disruptively as to deserve a block. That needs to be stated authoritatively. Then I can go back to editing 1842 in poetry and the like and occasionally participating in AfDs and policy discussions without worrying that your smear will follow me. Quit obfuscating: I'm going to nail down the facts one way or the other. Versageek has actually impressed me by admitting one area where he was wrong, and if he admits the other error (thinking I was disruptive), I can chalk it up to a mistake rather than an exhibition of incredibly poor judgment. I'd prefer to do the same with you, but I've got to protect myself from future smearing connected to this and you're not letting me. JohnWBarber (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your spin is breathtaking in its scope. I'm not going to be drawn into it though. My considered judgment of your contributions in those discussion, taken as a whole, is that you were being disruptive. You can take that or leave it but it remains my judgment. My considered judgment of the use of this sock, taken as a whole, was that it was deceptive. Really, there's not more to say here. ++Lar: t/c17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you're good :-) - We've spoken about this sort of thing previously, so I thought I'd point it out to you. Thas'all :-) (there's a bit of background discussion on this wiki about this one too - let me know if you'd like to know any more....) Privatemusings (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, asking you a small favour if I may. This image was moved to commons from en.wiki in 2007, and subsequently deleted here. Now it is in danger of being deleted for lacking source at Commons... Could you check if the original file at en: had any information that got lost during transfer, and if so - either update the info on the Commonsfile or temporalily restore the local version here so that I may copy relevant info. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Sorry I missed this. There isn't much on the en:wp version, the uploader (Geoff NoNick on 18 Jan 2007) merely said
The creator of this image of Abraham Gesner died over 100 years ago so it is in the public domain.
and used {{PD-art}} for the license. Sorry, that doesn't seem like much help. I can undelete the whole thing for you though, just LMK. ++Lar: t/c21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mercy11 and his puppets
Hey man, I have been dealing with a persistent puppeteer during the last few days. After I uncovered the "good hand/bad hand" modus operandi, the puppeteer admitted being the owner of several puppets by himself. However, just today he continued the mass creation of more puppets, not even trying to hide their identity. Should we run a checkuser to block all the ones that are lurking undiscovered? - Caribbean~H.Q.00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly. The diff you give isn't much to go on, do you have more such as the creation of additional accounts, or statements by the user? Have you considered a formal request at WP:SPI ? ++Lar: t/c11:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, somewhere around the insults in his response, the user admits being the owner of a few more accounts. Then, yesterday this account began editing the exact same articles, following the exact same pattern and using the same manner of edit summary. The fact that the pattern is obvious is the reason that I have not filed a SPI report yet, but my biggest concern are sleeper accounts. - Caribbean~H.Q.18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the help. Its kind of odd that an account appeared a day after the initial block and edited Mercy's articles, but I have unblocked and will see how it behaves for the time being. - Caribbean~H.Q.05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TransporterMan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Eh? I now think that clarification is a good one, I'd leave it. But in any case, no worries, the article's better now than it was thanks to the work done on it due to this attention paid it. ++Lar: t/c18:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It looks likeThe_ed17took it away about a month ago, citing an edit they found problematic. You were subsequently blocked and apparently banned from ArbCom related pages, although I don't know the full details. I'm not sure I have the context to make an informed judgment about your request, and certainly not all by myself. I suggest you ask on the WP:RFR page so a larger consensus can be gathered. Does that seem reasonable? I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c13:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you because the removal was related to the reporting mark discussion you were later involved in. The ArbCom thing was completely unrelated, and should have no bearing on rollback, since I didn't do any reverting there (in fact I was blocked/banned because I wouldn't revert my own edits :)). --NE216:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to leave you hanging but I've not had time to examine this closely enough to be comfortable granting it. (I tend not to grant it much) I won't object if someone else chooses to. My apologies for any inconvenience caused. ++Lar: t/c17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
Since there's a shortage of candidates this year and you're more than qualified for the job per my criteria I was wondering if I could convince you to run so I can support you? I'm quite certain your candidacy would attract a substantial amount of support. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should do this, Lar. From what I've seen of you here, you're very solid, and we could use more of those on the arbcom. UA01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the compliment, really I do, but it's a very big commitment and I have a lot on my plate already... go convince Mackenson to run instead :) ++Lar: t/c02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mackenson I don't know. You, I do. I can understand about your having a lot on your plate, though. I only hope you reconsider -- you'd be good, even if only as a 1/2 or 2/3-time arb -- before nominations close. UA02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked: "What is the appropriate role of outside criticism: a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?"
Wikipedia contributors obviously have no control whatsoever about whether and how outsiders criticize Wikipedia, and what Wikipedians think of outside criticism by non-Wikipedians of course matters exactly squat. I wonder if you really meant to ask to what extent participating in outside criticism is compatible with being an active WP contributor, or something like that. If so, maybe you could modify your question for clarity. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're partly correct. While it is true that Wikipedia, or individual Wikipedians, cannot have direct control over what folk do elsewhere, there is a possibility of influence in behavior. That can have a very strong effect in some cases. I ask the question (as I did last year) as a way to judge viewpoints, and it seems to be working fairly well. ++Lar: t/c02:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked over some of the answers that question received from successful candidates in 2008, and most either gave about the same answer I did, or else used the alternate interpretation I mentioned and answered that instead. None that I examined mentioned the possibility of influencing outsiders. Anyway, whether it's possible to influence a critic has nothing at all to do with whether an outsider's criticism is acceptable. Of course it better be acceptable, in the sense that we better understand that we can't prevent it. So, I think the question would receive more useful answers if it were written differently.
Some other of your questions basically ask "what would you do about X or Y if you were king of Wikipedia". Those questions might be interesting to ask in an anonymous survey, but can only get pandering answers in the context of an arb election. We all have views or desires about one thing or another that go completely against WP practice, so we just live with the idea of editing in an imperfect world. While a non-politico or an anonymous respondent might be willing to express some of those views, an arb candidate hoping to actually get elected would probably keep them private. (An extreme example: there is a guy (not me) who makes a reasoned argument that Wikipedia should solve its BLP problems by deleting literally all of its BLP's and forbidding the creation of new ones). So I think the answers you received probably didn't reveal as much as you might have hoped. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'm not trying to be unconstructively critical. I thought the actual content of your questions was quite interesting and I spent a fair amount of time thinking about how I'd answer them myself. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The same answer I did"? Sorry, you have the advantage of me, sir, I do not know who you are. Which candidate were you? As to pandering, there certainly is such a risk but I think our voters are fairly good at spotting same. Many candidates spoke frankly rather than giving the answers they may have expected I wanted to hear. ++Lar: t/c12:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant they said more or less the same thing in their answers that I wrote at the top of this thread. I did notice that unlike RFA, there doesn't seem to be any requirement in "criteria for running" that arb candidates have accounts. But I thought the better of running. ;-) 69.228.171.150 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request to reduce volume/number of questions
Dear Lar, you appear to be asking separate 29 questions, taking 1460 words in display mode. Given that users were restricted to one question in the general questions, can you explain why you are not flouting the spirit of the distinction between general and individual questions. There are already 13 candidates; given a likely 20 candidates and a combined text/responses total of possibly 4000 words for each candidate, presuming a serious attempt is made to respond, your questions alone could add 80,000 words for voters to read.
These are important questions, just as they were last year. I don't think it would be fair to the candidates who have already answered these, in some cases in considerable depth and with considerable thought, to make it easier for candidates who come later. ArbCom is an important part of en:wp, and we need thoughtful and articulate candidates. I suggest you review last year's questions and answers, as well as the number of voters who cited my questions last year as part of their decision making process. Further, my questions last year, and the individual answers by candidates, were analyzed in detail, and I don't think any other set of questions/answers got that level of scrutiny or publicity. Given those factors I don't think your request is at all reasonable. Thanks for sharing your concern, though. ++Lar: t/c11:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your statement lacks a clear antecedent... what's discussed at the bottom of which page? I don't see any discussion of question length at the bottom of the WR page I referenced (the most recent possible antecedent for your reply), the last post is by Kato, analyzing John Vandenberg's replies. ++Lar: t/c12:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...in your steward role by Ottava Rima [6]. I am curious whether you consider the quotation accurate. (If you are puzzled by this question, see [7] for background.) HansAdler16:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the most accurate representation of what was going on there. I wasn't acting as a Steward, merely a concerned editor. I was treading gently because my previous attempts to give Ottava guidance or advice or admonishment went poorly. ++Lar: t/c18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ottava was trying to use your authority as a steward during an ongoing Arbcom case, as a kind of absolution from his attack on John Kenney, I think this diff should be introduced into the case as part of Abecedare's list (see 2nd link above). It's particularly relevant since the incident happened well after Abecedare started the list. It appears to show that Ottava is acting in good faith and has no control over this inappropriate behaviour. If you have no strong objections, I will propose this to Abecedare. HansAdler18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. I've chosen not to participate directly but I do think I was misquoted there and you're welcome to introduce that. ++Lar: t/c04:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Best of luck in the discussion itself, I think you're right about the need for there to be more than just a Dab at Persian Empire." Was what you said at 20:35, 24 August 2009. If that is not the same as "the page shouldn't be removed", then I apologize. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The big issue is that your phrasing "a Steward handling it" is completely inappropriate as it was not in any way a Steward matter. You know, if you would take input better, perhaps you wouldn't be in such hot water right now. I was on your page primarily to point out how inappropriate your remarks to John Kenney were. NOT primarily to get involved in the Persian Empire matter, that was a remark in passing. The cite in Abecedare's evidence is one of 20 (with many more available) that show how you twist or misuse what others say while apparently wilfully ignoring what they actually do mean. You need to stop that. ++Lar: t/c19:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, stewards handle "outing" problems. Are you an Oversighter independently? I have not checked. If that is a passing mention, you still mentioned it. I don't really see how I misquoted you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I hope I am misreading this. It sounds as if you really meant to say that Lar okayed your attack against John Kenney, according to the principle: It wasn't oversighted and I wasn't blocked, so everything was correct. HansAdler19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think the problem is that you mentioned Lar's support in a completely inappropriate context:
Your harassment of John Kenney was of a quality that is never excusable, whether you were right in the underlying conflict or not. If you have killed your brother in a dispute over a bottle of wine you are not supposed to argue that it was really yours when you find yourself in court.
The position of a steward has nothing whatsoever to do with a content decision about whether or not there should be an article or a disambiguation page under Persian Empire.
Therefore, if you mention that the steward agreed with you over the content decision ("the policeman agreed that the wine was actually mine") in this particular section it looks like an attempt to imply something like the following: Even a steward who noticed the harassment felt it wasn't so bad after all, as proved by the fact that he agreed with you about an unrelated question. HansAdler19:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harassment is posting personal information. At no time did I post it. He made a claim about his education and I made a jock that his school did not teach history properly if he was going to base his education as a reason for why his statements were correct. I also reverted it before anyone even noticed. Please use definitions as appropriate. Could it be construed as a personal attack? Sure. Harassment or outing? No. As a personal attack, it was redacted by myself as appropriate to NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a threat to harass by making undesired personal contact. It may not have been intended as a serious threat, but it was nevertheless a threat to harass. If I hadn't been walking on eggshells because I tire of how much drama is engendered in talking to you, I would have spoken more directly: It was an inappropriate thing to post. ++Lar: t/c19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personal? No. Finding out if his school actually teaches history in the manner he suggests? Yes. And Lar, I redacted it long before you pointed out it was inappropriate. But back to the point - since you see it as potentially harassing, do you deny that you then filled in your role as Steward as you have in every single experience we've had together, especially since Stewards are tasked with oversighting matters and dealing with outings (especially stating such at the #wikimedia-stewards channel) ? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to call someone's place of employment is a threat of harassment by making undesired personal contact. Regardless of how you slice it. As for the rest, "filled in your role as Steward" doesn't parse for me. Please restate the question. ++Lar: t/c20:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Hans, at no time did I say that a steward said my actions were acceptable, and the parenthetical statement denotes that there is no connection between the two. However, Lar did make the comments together, which was pointed out. Your comparison to murder is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it an apt analogy with significant descriptive power. There is a difference between a comparision and an analogy. ++Lar: t/c19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, burn. You have murdered my reputation with your sharp tongue. Touche, sir, touche. But anyway, you know, you still haven't asked me to actually change any of the wording, which is a strange thing. I do redact and fix things per suggestions. Odd how rarely people actually bother. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hans Adler's suggestion I have added this to my Evidence (it's #20 on the list). Can you please review it, and let me know if anything needs to be expanded or changed ? It wouldn't do for me to misrepresent or miscite you as an "authority", while presenting evidence that Ottava does so. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can make it more surreal by admitting that I would still vote to reconfirm Lar as a Steward if it ever came up, even though I find his interactions with me to be unpleasant. :) He isn't actually a bad fellow, especially with practical use of the ops (except for the occasional commons dust up, but they are always rather random). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You may have noticed that I was rather irritated about you last time around. This does a lot to forget that feeling again. Fram (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I wasn't very pleased with you either. I'm hopeful that you will consider trying to get to know Jack a bit better so you see where he's coming from. He really means well, I am convinced of it. Best. ++Lar: t/c19:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I had anything to do with that. Do you know why you think I did? And where is it being discussed in there, I didn't spot it. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I still don't see which topic on Class mask this is being discussed in, it would be nice to find it. No worries though. Second, I'm sorry, that creation was in 2006. I'm afraid I have no idea why it was created any more. (it may have been Kingboyk telling me to do it, or some other reason, rather than my own idea).... It does seem to be used for things, consider for example Talk:Cry_of_the_Spirit ... an album article that got merged to the band article. Perhaps the album was in the 1.0 list or something and just leaving a redirect behind was not considered appropriate? Sorry I'm not more help. I have no strong opinion about whether it should be sunsetted or not, and certainly no objection if it is. ++Lar: t/c23:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't vandalism. That was Kanonkas properly removing the contributions of a banned editor, you. Cenarium removed your contribution here, as was right and proper per policy but I choose to restore it so that the answer I give makes sense. Your understanding of how wikis work seems to be getting worse with time rather than better. ++Lar: t/c21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say: The Kanonkas case is clear as a mountain lake, especially his deletions on commons. Conclusion for Mutter Erde: Kick out the vandals! I have started an interwiki poll about the question: Vandalism or not? I will try to present a summary of interwikipedians, asked by chance. Regards 92.227.140.159 (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, i have a little problem to count your vote. But it might be important for a little history of wikipedia/commons
I have no idea what you are talking about. However, since it seems to somehow be related to your removal from Commons: I see no evidence that you are changing the behavior that got you removed. ++Lar: t/c14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, I am preparing a little goldmine of difflinks for friends, critics or donors of wikipedia. Nothing spectacular. Name it: Adventures of a German encyclopedist. Chapter: Mutter Erde goes west. Including severe privacy problems mixed with curiosities as sweet little fifteen ABF and so on. My problems are, that I have too much to tell. I have to shorten my little gold/trashmine. Should I place my attempts to desysop Mattbuck because of File:No Israel.svg - currently on 89 pages (daily growing) - followed by the revenge of Kanonkas/Mattbuck/Shakatagai (see above)? Or should I prefer to describe poor old Susan, deleted by Kanonkas and a bunch of youngsters? I don't know at moment. But in any case: The facts should be 100 % correct. And so I have asked you above. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.78.239 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Lar. You have new messages at User talk:Lar/ACE2009. Message added 20:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
