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
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 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) 00:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History and conflation
I think you are mis-reading what Durova is trying to say. She is saying that the Watergate questioning by a Republican, which included "what did the president know, and when did he know it" was one of his finest moments. She is right. It was a very difficult and highly ethical stance that gentleman took, and he is universally admired for his high standards and exemplary ethical behavior. Witch hunts are HUAC McCarthy era hearings, and were one of the lowest moments in America history. The question then was "Are you now, or have you ever been..." (a member of the Communist party is the rest, but that's the bit that is used to characterize witch hunts in modern rhetoric). You are quoting Howard Baker, but talking about Joe McCarthy. Its an easy mistake to make, if modern American history is not your strong suit. However, I must agree with Durova that it is a highly regrettable conflation to make, and you owe her thanks for alerting you to your error, which I am sure was made in all innocence, yet does confuse one of the finest men of our times with one of the lowest. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hi KC, welcome. Witchhunts started well before HUAC and the context is far broader than just those hearings.
I remember Watergate well. We watched portions of the hearings live in History class. The question "what did you know and when did you know it" can be, and is, used in far broader contexts than just the Watergate hearings. I have no desire to slight Howard Baker. But then I'm not the one conflating matters here, and further, I think raising Watergate may well be seen by some as trying to give the behaviors of some in this matter as more honorable than they actually are. I stand by my characterization of the use of questions of that form, in this context, as part of what makes this seem like a witchhunt, at least in part, to me. I am surprised that you, after having your friend the subject of a previous witchhunt, don't see that this too has the witchhunt-nature. As do many things in our little mobocracy. If you have a suggestion for a rephrasing of the question being asked that retains my concern with the question but doesn't give others the chance to conflate inappropriately, I'm open to suggestion. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) I owe Durova no thanks. I am tempted to trout her for inappropriate use of rhetoric. She's conflating, not me. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is she supposedly conflating? Lar, you quoted Howard Baker and basically said he was Joe McCarthy. That's conflation. I am completely flummoxed that you're arguing this point. You confused two very different men and situations. Baker/Watergate and McCarthy/Witch-hunt. That's conflation. I fail to see why you don't just say "Oops, my error, fix that" and move on. If you want to be churlish and not thank the person who kindly pointed out your error, fine - but your bizarre assertion that she's doing the conflating makes no sense. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not quote Howard Baker. Durova did. I draw no parallels to either Watergate OR McCarthy. I'm sorry, but I do not find it churlish to not thank someone for inappropriately conflating things in their rhetoric which apparently is trying to cast aspersions on me. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're simply ignorant of who you're quoting. Google "what did you know and when did you know it" and you'll get Baker/Watergate, event though that's a paraphrase. There is no other source for that. All other instances are post-Watergate, and derivatives of that famous question. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your view of my erudition. I'm glad you've conceded it's a paraphrase, anyway. We are making some slight progress. I think I'll go plagiarize Obama now, as I want to go tell my son to clean up his room. If we're done, you can go back to ignoring the substantive issue, which is that there are people that consider this little exercise in mobocracy a witch hunt, but if not, I'll be back in a while. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conceded? I never stated otherwise, it seemed fairly obvious to everyone concerned, and I believe it was explicitly stated, that it was a paraphrase. Of Baker, who never was involved in anything remotely witch-hunt like. You have now conceded you have conflated, good for you. I am done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stopping by. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What friend did I supposedly have who was subject of a witch hunt? You lost me there. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre. Perhaps wiki-friend is more appropriate. "subject of a witchhunt" might not be completely accurate, Perhaps "a witchhunt was kicked off by revelations about his alternate account". ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre screwed up and got de-sysopped for it. I wasn't involved. I presume you will next drag in another completely unrelated issue with which I had nothing to do, in order to prove some point which is clear only to you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not Geogre's friend? I thought you were. As to what I was referring to, see "We certainly see the usual witchhunt for Geogre here" and your response "concur with Bishonen here". I agree with both of you. There has been witch hunting around the Geogre incident... of Geogre, of others under "who knew what? and when did they know it?" sorts of questioning, and so forth. My point is that you spoke out against that sort of witch hunting, and rightly so. Because witch hunting isn't what's needed in these situations. Reasonable, sober investigation is what is needed, driven by calm and rational analysis, not pitchforks and torches. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is any doubt, I do not consider the Watergate hearings to have been a witch hunt. Nor do I think there is any equivalence between Howard Baker and Joseph McCarthy. I did not think I needed to say that, but some people are (at best) very confused here. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, what you posted and equated to witch hunting was a very close paraphrase of Senator Baker's words. Inquiries come in two kinds: the right kind and the wrong kind. During the height of the McCarthy red scare the lone Republican--and for that matter the only senator--who expressed public misgivings about his actions was Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. She published a "Statement of Conscience" about the right to hold minority views even after four cosigners had withdrawn (McCarthy's political star was still flying high at that point). I have two portraits in Photoshop right now. One is of Senator Smith being sworn into office in 1940 after the death of her husband, and the other is of Louis Armstrong. Armstrong once said "There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." Either Senator Smith or Mr. Armstrong will be my next featured picture candidate. The difference is up to you. Durova320 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware of history and while I appreciate giving you a chance to show off your learning, it's not needed for my benefit. I made no mention of Watergate or of Baker, that would be you guys. I had no intent to make a paraphrase close enough to raise any confusion. I had thought the readership were smarter. YOU are conflating things, not me. I wish you'd stop. As to what your next choice of work might be... that's for you to decide, I have no opinion. Further, I don't really think "I'll do this picture/restoration/whatever if you do Y" is a useful approach with non children. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...and while I appreciate giving you a chance to show off your learning..." Armstrong it is. Thank you; 12 megabytes is much less work than Senator Smith's 154 megabytes. Better composition, too. Durova320 19:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a pleasant restoration in any case, then. But please do realise that I'm not at all influenced by "which should I do" questions. ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Receptiveness to feedback (or lack thereof) is integral to the selection. ;) Durova320 19:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does your own receptiveness to feedback factor in at all? You're running close to nil on that score here. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Puppy, would you lick his face or something? Louis Armstrong has been marred by scanner streaks and it's more work than I supposed. Feedback is distinct from Spin, my dear Lar. Durova320 19:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And feedback is also distinct from deflective tactics, my dear Durova. UnitAnode 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one that finds it odd that people think that just because it is a Republican criticizing another Republican that it can't be a witch hunt or inappropriate? Just because a traitor joins your side does not make the individual correct. Is it too much to look at history in a neutral manner without any kind of bias and acknowledge the universal action as what it was instead of trying to pretend that Lar is wrong because the guy agreed with you? By the way, since when did a witch hunt become a way to demonize an actual investigation? Unlike actual witches, we have proof of these people's existence, just as we knew communists existed and Nixon screwed up. A prejorative is inappropriate when pretending towards honest discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that second part was directed to Lar (the first to Durova). Lar, it was quite obvious that Geogre cursed my land and made my cows produce soured milk. Regardless if he is a witch or not, he acted like a witch and deserved to be burned as one. Those who aided him acted in the same manner and deserved the same fate. Although it is an analogy, I don't mean it in jest. You spend your life harming others and you need to be put down. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not 'just because'. We've had more than a third of a century of history to reevaluate that choice. Pretty much everybody agrees that Senator Baker's words were a fine act of statesmanship. Except Lar, that is. Durova320 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, actually. As I already said. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make this for you. I didn't intend to be quoting or paraphrasing Howard Baker. I didn't intend to make a connection to the Watergate hearings. I think Baker's actions were goodness, not witch hunting. And yet, I still think questions of the form "what did you know and when did you know it", repeated over and over, CAN be characteristic of witch hunts. Get it?
Secondly: I have to ask... is this the "trolling a steward" you were referring to on WR? If so, go troll someone else, please. Your rhetoric is out of line. ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cough - two people who I consider as liberals stating everyone feels a sort of way about a Republican. Now that is definitely trolling. :P I hope my point is rather clear on the matter. But Lar - I was serious about my point that if people are doing the effects that are common to witches they should be treated as witches regardless of their actuality. Their metaphysical "witchness" matters little to me. The prohibition is against people acting in such ways that were deemed harmful with an encompassing term put to characterize them instead of laws set to go after a vague term that could mean anything. The people used a sock, used their admin ops, and protected their friend for a year while inflicting severe harm, and continue to inflict harm while simultaneously attempting to pretend that they and their friend did nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you're going. Are we talking about Howard Baker? I think it took courage to speak out the way he did, he was going against his own party. It's easy to do that when it's the other party, it's just politics. But when it's your party it's a career limiting move, unless you're vindicated, and most of the time, even then. Or are we talking about your belief that Geogre is a witch? I'm not sure what to do with that. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share Lar's confusion. SFAIK, Baker is universally admired. If you look at his article, the intro has the following: A story is sometimes told of a reporter telling a senior Democratic senator that privately, a plurality of his Democratic colleagues would vote for Baker for President of the United States. The senator is reported to have replied, "You're wrong. He'd win a majority." - and that's been my experience. I know of no one who does not think highly of Baker. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that the people I know don't admire Baker, and most independents or conservatives see him as a traitourous hack that did nothing more than Arlen Spectre did - bail out on his own side for a cheap political gain that did not work out as expected. Every group has its traitors that are worshipped by the other side as some kind of wonderous mythical hero. I, and many others, see traitoring for political gain as one of the worse things you can do, and it is no wonder that two of such people are being chewed by Satan in Dante's hell. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you bothered to read the article, you would see that he was a great compromiser. You don't win compromises in Congress without selling your soul away. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add some further confusion for you Lar - Fred Thompson, who I loved on Law and Order) later said that the question was intended to help defend Nixon as allowing him the chance to point out that there was a significant gap that would protect him and others legally. I believe this was sometime during the late 80s. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responded. May I suggest that you should link it at the place you determined I was requesting a link, too? (if you haven't already) ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP/Ahmadinejad
Lar -- given your strict approach to BLPs, I wonder whether you'd be interested in giving input here. regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responded. Mr. Ahmadinejad is not the kind of BLP I worry about nearly as much as Joe Random Author who has 3 people who ever edited his page and someone out to get him. My view, succinctly: "teach the controversy" ++Lar: t/c 10:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing obvious jumped out at me. ++Lar: t/c 10:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral view request
Any chance you can take a look at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Reporting marks? I have little taste for continuing to be dragged into this conflict between an editor with >140K edits (NE2 (talk·contribs)) and another with over 31K (Wuhwuzdat (talk·contribs)). Now I am being called a meatpuppet and "bucko", a bit much for a minor content dispute. What I think is worthy of attention is the COI that started it all. I only have my 34 months and 3,795 edits at this one to boast of, but I do agree with NE2 on his point. Maybe you can weigh in and cool things down. They need to get this worked out, 3RRs and such are getting very old. Sswonk (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots to read there. Oddly, I know a fair bit about reporting marks, I've been a railfan since I was 3. But it may be just enough to be dangerous? What's the COI that started it all? How do I come up to speed without wading through the whole thing? ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the bottom of the thread, where I bulleted "No consensus" and the next few remarks, courtesy WuhWuzDat, flinging a meatpuppet accusation in my direction (?!). Wuh is a volunteer employee at the IRM, the article where he re-added a spurious (per NE2 and the article on the term) reporting mark to the infobox after NE2 caught it and removed it here. It had been introduced along with the infobox and was like that for almost three years. We could say Hicksco2 actually "started it" but the warring started when Wuh, the longtime volunteer diesel mechanic at the place, put it back in. For other context, see this COI report I made earlier in the course of the warring, where Atama took notice and thought a topic ban might be in order down the road. See the link in my anti-meatpuppet defense at the content discussion to confirm Wuh's status. I have never been called a meatpuppet, and I could list you, Mazca, Durova, Denimadept, Wetman, and several others as people I have "interacted in many forums before" with, but somehow Wuh sees this as sinister and labels NE2 "your (admitted) acquaintance", as if there is something to hide? I don't know, I just want to keep away from shouting matches.
Besides your trusting my defending that, I must also ask you trust that I had no idea of your life as a railfan, although I might have remembered subconsciously your bio where it states you like trains. Wuh has added the mark back, citing "consensus" again, where I just don't see it on this issue. Really, I asked you to look in to see if you could calm it down, not to verify either claim. But, whatever happens I don't need anything to happen to Wuh, he is just really whipped up about this. However, COI is COI. Or is it? When it gets into warring, ... neutral is needed. Sswonk (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me sleep on it. If it hasn't sorted out by then, and if you haven't found someone neutral with less of a hint of COI than I ... I will see if there is something I can say that would be useful. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, although they still believe it to be a reporting mark, and want to put that in, they've "compromised" for now on "railroad code", which is a rather irrelevant abbreviation used only in FRA accident reports. --NE2 06:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify (Myself being one of "Them"), the "railroad code" is used outside of the FRA accident reports, however, the listing in the accident report guide is the most convenient reference to this code. It may be found in almost every petition filed with the FRA, please see the discussion at WP:CNB. I do not feel that your being a long term railfan would be a COI in this situation, it would simply mean that you may be in possession of relevant knowledge. I welcome your input on the situation. I have been asking NE2 to seek mediation for his POV edits for quite some time, and while this may not have been the conventional path to that end, it does seem to have served the same purpose. I just wish this situation was as easy to settle as the smaller, but related issue recently discussed at Talk:Monticello Railway Museum, which may serve as a convenient summary for the larger situation. WuhWuzDat 15:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented at the Content Noticeboard. I expect no one will like my comment since I do not agree completely with any of you. :) Wuhwuzdat: I have a specific caution for you. While other people may have been snarky, your tone with NE2 and Sswonk is unacceptably combative. You need to tone it down a LOT, ASAP. You're verging on disruptive in some of your comments. If you come back with "no it wasn't" and I have to go dig up diffs (of which there are lots) you won't like it, at all. ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't disagree that my tone was combative, after a full month of "combat" on this discussion, I was a more than a bit frustrated with a certain editors tone and stubbornness, and his recruitment of an acquaintance to reinforce his position, instead of seeking 3rd party mediation as suggested, was almost the last straw. My previous experience with Sswonk, when he was holding a good faith discussion with me with one hand, and reporting me for COI with the other hand, certainly left a bad taste in my mouth. As for "no one liking your comment", I do believe that is the nature of mediation. While your comments on my out of line behavior may not have been to my liking, your comments on the content were on target. Thank you for your time. WuhWuzDat 17:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK good. I hope I was some help. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the COI report came first, then your response on my talk page. I don't recall and can't find any good faith discussion before that, just my initial observations at NE2's talk page in which I mentioned you, but you did not respond. If it is true, please provide diffs to explain your "bad taste" comment, I can't find any such simultaneous action on my part. Sswonk (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for which came first, the chicken or the egg, the end result was 2 simultaneous discussions, one of which I was unaware of. When I became aware of your COI discussion, I ceased participation in the other discussion. Regardless, this is in the past, and is not worth arguing about. WuhWuzDat 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in the past, but if you look at it I started the COI, notified you on your talk, then we had the conversation. So you were aware of the COI from the beginning. Don't worry, there was a lot going on. Atama even thought it was OK for you to gnome the IRM article as long as you weren't warring. I don't have a problem with that either. Sswonk (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your COI warning was simply a standard template, with no mention of any discussion being held elsewhere. You actually started the COI discussion as your next edit after this templating, and never notified me of this discussion. I only discovered the COI discussion when I looked at your recent contributions. Can you see why I may not have been pleased when I made this discovery? WuhWuzDat 18:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it, I should have made the notice explicitly point to the COI noticeboard entry. Won't make that mistake again. Sswonk (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who started it. Or why. Or who provoked whom. Ad nauseum. What I see is the level of issue at hand and while I think fault can be found with more than one party as far as their collegiality, the party who most lacked collegiality is Wuhwuzdat. If the pattern continues after this warning, it won't be a good thing. Don't make me stop this car and turn around :)... instead, turn the other cheek. Compete to be more collegial than the next fellow and keep your biting remarks to yourself. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, and more for your own interest than anything, there are two good sources I've found for reporting marks. [1] is the AAR's official database of current marks. [2] is an unofficial compilation of reporting marks (other than U and Z marks) from the Official Railway Equipment Registers; it's probably not itself fully reliable by our rules but is still a good reference. --NE2 22:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was aware of the railinc.com site although I've had trouble finding my way in, so much AAR content is behind members only walls. Wasn't aware of the other. I'd say Railinc is pretty reliable since it is an AAR site and the AAR is the authoritative source, isn't it? ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Railinc is an AAR subsidiary that is apparently directly responsible for assigning reporting marks. There's a "chain of custody" from the description of reporting marks to this search ("FindUs.Rail" on the left). --NE2 03:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I gathered that. The question seems to turn on what to do with reporting marks that aren't in there. Since we know that sometimes people/organizations/whoever informally use them, why cannot we resolve this by noting that the mark is "not currently in there" and providing reliably sourced evidence that the person/organization/whatever used the mark at some point, and be done? I must be missing what the issue is here, this seems simple enough. If, for example, IRM can show they used IRYM, (a photo of a piece of equipment that can be reliably sourced as belonging to IRM, wearing IRYM reporting marks, would suffice) let it be displayed in the infobox as an "unverified mark" or whatever. That makes the whole Railroad Code thing go away. Why doesn't that work? ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have read your mind, since I already refuted this at the content noticeboard --NE2 04:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have. Probably best to continue there rather than discuss in two places. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Thank you for stepping up at the discussion. I think at least the tone has become more collegial, which is important. Your input is what I had hoped it would be, even if it isn't saying exactly what I would say. As WWD says, it's the nature of mediation. Sswonk (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Lar's suggestion at WP:CNB, I am acknowledgeing that I have been warned about my tone and "snarkyness", and understand this warning. I hope that everyone has found my tone more acceptable recently. Regarding Sswonks comment on my tone here, I note that my last comment on that situation, came roughly 15 minutes before Lars first warning on the subject. WuhWuzDat 15:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, with thanks. And yes, I think there's been a marked improvement. ++Lar: t/c 02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The slur was the ip's only edit, and a brief review does not indicate a pattern of "outing". It was too slow being picked up, but how long a sprotect is justified to stop such vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No previous protection. 4 days without reversion of a slanderous remark against a living person? 3 months semi protection. See User:Lar/Liberal Semi... defunct process but the thinking there is as valid as ever. BLPs should get liberal semi.... ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lar. Lara 06:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha!
"What I find most annoying about some people is how they go on and on about their prolific content contributions as if it somehow makes them "better" than other people."
It isn't my content contribution that makes me better than you. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, where'd you see that? And what makes you think I was talking about you? ... :) As for the last part... we all have our fantasies, don't we? ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[3] - I was the only one mentioned in the context. :P By the way, I find it annoying that my work at Ode on Indolence was bashed, even though all seven pages related to the 1819 odes were worked on together by Mrathel and I, from the same sources, with the work divided up between us. The GAN contained a lot of rewriting and expanding from myself (as per I had more of the sources on criticism and Mrathel was lacking on biography that I had). Our AIM discussions were quite interesting on the subject. As per my DYKs, should I remind people that these are the ones I built from scratch and put at DYK - 14.5k, 18.5k, 19.5k, 22k, 19k, a 5 part hook set mind you. How many others put up a DYK of about 100k that is scratched built? Not really as easy as "as easy as catching a cold on a damp day." Then there was my 40k DYK on the second most important book in Shakespeare criticism. All of these are part of the DYKs I claimed for the time period which Horse would have seen listed. Definitely not easy. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I find it odd that Mattsci complains about overlap between two poems that were published together as a set and contain the same history of creation. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I have over 35 DYKs, 4 GAs and an FA, as well as a QI on commons. I also happen to hold a fair number of permissions, and the work around that takes up a lot of my time. But I don't make a big deal about it. I think content creation (at least some) is important, a vital background to have so one knows what the issues and concerns are, as it's the main focus of the project, and we should never lose sight of it. But we don't expect the engineers and janitors at Ford to work on the assembly line every day, and we don't claim that the assembly line workers are better or worse than the janitors. Just different.
I don't proxy for banned users on WR, you should be posting all this there instead of telling me. :) I actually don't think you are banned are you? ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never asked you to proxy for me. :P And yes, I've been banned from there since... September? October? I don't remember. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - "Having said that, none of this applies to Ottava: He's a classic example of someone who pretends to be a "productive contributor" within relatively innocuous topic areas (i.e., poetry) in his attempts to rise in the hierarchy, so as to deflect attention away from his alarmingly ultra-conservative religious-zealot agenda." - I guess having a GLBT FA is part of my evil plot, and that whole not touching any Catholic based pages because of declared CoI is merely a ruse! I am surely devious. Mwah ha ha ha. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just noticed that you created Poughkeepsie Bridge and said on the talk page of that article that you lived in the area for a while, so would you like to join the Hudson Valley WikiProject? It's been a bit inactive as of late, and we could use more active members. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I probably shouldn't commit to any more Wikiprojects... but thanks for the invite! ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for the quick response. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You had a previous involvement in the events leading up to this and continuing here. I am saddened by this episode. Do you have any words of wisdom to offer? If not - and if it is not, for you, an all-too-familiar scenario - please just give it a little infra-conscious head time. Globbet (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I've read those two links and I'm not sure what it is exactly you're seeking from me. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I. Oh well, forget it. Globbet (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But I will say this. It's unfortunate that Andy, who has a lot to contribute, can't find a way to work more collaboratively with others. ++Lar: t/c 10:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive413#IP sockpuppetry, edit warring, religious categories and BLP for something you were involved in over a year ago. The editor concerned is still using bad hand IP sockpuppets to violate BLP across a wide variety of articles. However before I go to the effort of making a report for AN, is there much that can actually be done regarding the original editor? I realise you may be hampered by the privacy policy, but unless there's any chance of an outcome that has some effect (whether known publicly or not), I don't see the effort in making the report. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 13:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I remember this case. What's the urgency on this? I may not be able to get to it right away. But I will take a look with a view to answering your questions as best as I am able within the limits of policy. Best. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me some examples of problematic edits so I have somewhere to start digging? Thx. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing particularly urgent about it, but the disruption caused by this editor seems to be ongoing. On a quick check on the known articles and categories I found a mini-edit war on Abdou Razack Traoré, and contributions from these IPs over the course of a week in August/September (there's plenty of older ones too and I'm sure there's more recent also):
I'm sure there's probably more recent ones too, and I know for a fact there's been plenty of older ones since the original ANI post.
The basic problem is that I don't know the best course of action without knowing whether a checkuser will be willing to identify the sockmaster, as any action taken against them by the community (there's always the possibility the AC can handle things privately if presented with the evidence) is rather dependent on the community knowing who is responsible. So if you can't "out" an editor's IP, I'll be happy to contact the AC and let them deal with it? 2 lines of K303 11:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, that is helpful. Let me dig around a bit and see what I come up with. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need more IPs if you have them. So far I'm not finding a user behind this. But there are 3 ranges here to check out of the 4 IPs so some more data to narrow things would help. (I would not be surprised to learn that the user that was behind this has went to ground and is using IPs only now) Best. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some digging, might take me a day or two though. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 13:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Running into a few difficulties, will email you later about a possible solution if that's ok? Don't want to say too much on Wiki, as will become apparent. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 14:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. If I archive this by mistake you can just reference it. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kanonkas Nr 5
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/2930/ip78oct19.jpg Hi, as far as I can see there is not one correct phase in this template (except that the IP is blocked). Somebody should tell Kanonkas, that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not his private playground. Thank you. Mutter Erde 78.55.242.12 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(restored per User:Lar/Eeyore Policy, please don't do that again Kanonkas, thanks ) Dear IP claiming to be Mutter Erde: if you want to contest your block on Commons, you should place a template asking for a review on your talk page there. Here is not the place. I am not directly familiar with this particular block but you've been counseled before about your approach. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the long run, Mr. Wales will have some problems to acqire fresh donations for this encyclopedia, because people will ask: Why should I give money for these kiddies with bad manners and these hardcore antisemits? They have banned the hardest worker of all. This is a broad hint, that this apple is rotten. Mutter Erde 78.55.69.145 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking me. The phrasing "Would you treat one simple dime" doesn't make sense. Sorry. As for contesting your block on Commons... I see now that your named account and this IP are both unable to edit their talk pages. Typically that's done when there has been serious or systematic abuse of editing one's own talk page. Commons does not have a mail based appeal process that I am aware of. If you don't see why you were blocked, and don't want to commit to change your approach I am not seeing a lot that can be done. Casting aspersions on others isn't the way forward, though. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
treat == 'donate' - your friendly babel fish, Privatemusings (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PM. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mutter: I just spent some time reviewing that whole thread again. There is no doubt you are a valuable contributor. But you eventually just could not get along with others in the highly collaborative environment of Commons. That's unfortunate, but there it is. As long as you lash out at everyone else, I see no reason to revisit anything. Disparaging Abigor, Kanonkas, et al... doesn't convince me you've changed. As to whether you or I would or would not donate time, money, Intellectual Property or what have you, that's your call for you and my call for me. You do what you think is right. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am 55 years old. You can't change a hardcore encylopedian. That' my instinct, sorry :-). But you can help me to kick out the fakers from commons. If you are not strong enough, I will ask Jimbo for a little help. And I will ask him 2, 3...times period. Some day Kanonkas and his crowd is gone. OK, it might last. But if a problem could be solved in short time, it would be not a problem, right? Thanks to Privatemusings for the little translation, I am no native English speaker. Regards, messieurs. Mutter Erde78.55.242.206 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 50 so I hear you about changing spots. :) But what is it you see as the issue with these other users exactly? why are they "fakers" ? That is, what is it they are faking? ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In wp.de the whole community has to vote about blocking a user. This might mean around 300+ votes. You can watch this spectacle in the next days, when you are interested (means now unblocking de:Mutter Erde, of course). All is open, everybody can watch what will happen (or not), not like this fake event on commons. And b.t.w.: Look again at the votes for and against Mutter Erde on commons. Kanonkas/mattbuck/Shakatagai/Mike Lifeguard/Herbythyme are a shame for wikipedia. Mutter Erde 78.55.242.206 (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I never distributed mail to anyone. Anyone who knows me will know enough about me to understand that. The playful idiocy of these projects beggars belief at times. And I am older than both of you!
I actually have no objection to ME being unblocked and have said so publicly & privately. He was a positively contributor to Commons and I dislike it when such people are blocked. However based on his behaviour here and the unpleasant mail I had from him a while back when attempting to mediate I think the concept of "collaborative working" eludes him. --Herbytalk thyme 07:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry, you have not distributed my private email, but you have used this illegal stuff against me. This disqualifies you. (Later I have published it on my commons talk site. I have nothing to hide)
You do seem to delight in antagonising anyone you can Mutter, even those who are not "against" you. I have said I think it would be better if you were unblocked but you always take such an aggressive stance. The work you did on Commons was of high value - I would prefer to see you still working there. However you simply seem unable to work collaboratively.
I am not aware I have ever used anything illegal on Foundation sites. Sadly de is not a language I have any real skill in despite my attempts to improve it :(. --Herbytalk thyme 10:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mutter Erde: If you now get a second chance at Wikipedia in German (seems likely based on the poll so far), and if you then manage to function well within the dewiki community for some time and if you are prepared to cooperate in good faith even with editors at Commons that you distrust and consider "fakers" - then it might be worth while looking for way to lift you ban at Commons. The first if is for the dewiki community to decide & the second is then for you and the dewiki community together. The third if however is something you can start doing something about right now. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(out dent) : Mutter Erde: Finn gives you very sage advice. You should heed it. As a note, if you lash out at Herby, you're lashing out at me. I don't know of anyone I trust in the wiki context more than Herby. Your allegations against him are without merit, and reduce your standing in my eyes. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't believe that he stopped: [5]. I'm willing to translate it, or to make it short: it is full of rants against Kanonkas, Diti and Herby. The words illegal, obnoxious, rapscallion and Fakers are commonly used. The 'pfui deibel' at the end (against Herby) is dialect. 'Deibel' means 'devil'. You could translate it like 'Double yuck' or 'very disgusting'.
The German community has to decide about a four year old ban, not a one year old one. Most of the users who are active now where not back than. The comments for unblocking him are going in the direction of the hope that he has maybe changed in 4 years (which on Commons we know he hasn't) and earns a second change and that he does edit anyway. At least with account they would know that it is him. And that they then can block him again if he trolls.
I would suggest that even if he gets unblocked again we wait and see how long it will stay that way. Because I don't believe that this will last long. -- Cecil (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an impressing open "Benutzer-Sperrung": de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Mutter Erde, not the fake stuff as in commons. (Currently 100 voters) See also its talk page. Learn from the Germans - Diti, Herby, Kanonkas, Mattbuck, Amicon and so on. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.13.136 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself more in agreement with Cecil than with you. Sure, see what happens on de: (where you have a fairly large contingent of people who weren't there when you were blocked, and where the theme is "give him another chance", rather than "remember what happened before") and how you do there should your block be lifted. After some time, maybe on Commons. But to me, without some acknowlegement that you yourself have some responsibility, that your approach needs to be more collegial, I see no reason for a change in status. Your use of the term "fake stuff" suggests you haven't yet decided to change. Now, since this is my talk page I think I'll draw a line here and call this done. If you don't have anything NEW to say you probably needn't reply. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is new and interesting. means: In German wikipedia (server located in Munich) Diti would be blocked (as a distributor of a private email). But it is currently unclear, what that means on the commons servers, located in Florida. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.102.86 (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should focus on your own behavior, rather than that of others. ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final result at German Wikipedia: of 236 voters (without those 10 who abstained) only 20,76 % (49 people) voted for unblocking Mutter Erde, so he will stay blocked. -- Cecil (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I can't say I'm all that surprised. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bryanbot used to watch this for you but I don't know if it still works. See the top of Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Change_records (for the hidden text that makes it work). Hasn't been updated since July 2008 though so no, it doesn't still work. Best. (I'm off to follow those links) ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks pretty not working from that. Take it easy, HidingT 21:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall you having done this before, but I've just clicked through I don't even know how many AFDs for about a half dozen admins... eyes are getting blurry. Do you recall whether or not you have and, if so, which ones? Or about when? Lara 02:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answered via email, I gave a list of some of mine. ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Your Kari page
Hi, are you planning to do anything with this page? It is a version of a page that has been deleted again, and I have serious policy concerns about the page. I suggest that if you have no plans to do anything with it that you ask that it be deleted. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're asking about Kari Farrell aka the Hipster Grifter? I don't think I ever started the page, just added to it. Why was it deleted again? This person is notable. Faethon Ghost (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was talking about User:Faethon_Ghost/Kari_Ferrell... it was mentioned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_21 which in turn is reviewing the deletion of the article. If you have no plans to do anything with it, there's no need to keep it around... either the DRV will affirm the deletion, in which case it's a BLP issue as a page that's a copy of a deleted article, or the DRV will overturn the deletion, in which case it's an obsolete version of a page that will come back with more information. Only if the DRV is sustained, and you have actual plans to do something with the page (which you haven't yet) would it be reasonable to keep. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may have seen this already, but I saw this and thought of you. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The youtube vid referenced from that page has been making the rounds in the LEGO community and we're all agog, believe me. Japan is the source for some of the coolest LEGO creations out there, for some reason. This one is an amazing piece of engineering, and a beautiful piece of art, all in one. Thanks for the heads up, just the same... I did not have the link to Kinkaku-ji (I just thought it was some random temple or another, not that it was so famous and with a history of being constructed more than once...) prior to your stopping by. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion please
I am trying to get background on the NC default to delete on BLP. I don't have a lot of knowledge on this except for the latest spurt of activity going on about this which I've been following and reading. This article went to be deleted and it came down to keep I believe, it's been a long time sorry going on memory which isn't that good. I thought it should be deleted that it wasn't really notable but I kept being told that he was notable. The RS's were old newspaper articles that the subject had posted to his face page. I was told repeatedly, mostly from administrators that this article met the standards of notability. The fact the RS's were unavailable on the internet didn't matter I was told. The subject of the article mailed an administrator copies of the newspaper clippings. The article is supposed to be repaired by this administrator but he hasn't gotten to it yet. What I would like to know is since you actually do the no consensus-delete what would you do with an article like this if it went to AFD again. Don't worry I'm not planning on doing this, I am just trying to get an idea how this would be handled compared to what I've now seen done with other articles. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave this article a quick scan. I didn't look into it really closely and I'd probably do that if I were actually contemplating nominating it for deletion but on the face of it, I'm not seeing this BLP as being sufficiently notable to be a keep. But I could be wrong. I also am concerned at what seems like a high level of participation by the subject. Don't know if that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Yes it does help and I appreciate your taking the time to take a look to respond. The editor the article is about has agreed to not edit the article directly anymore so he uses the talk page, a lot but harmlessly. I really don't think the User:DoDaCanaDa is a problem for the article. I just noticed that the article has a template for the article to be deleted so I might be wrong. Thank you again for taking the time to respond to me. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. So are you thinking of nominating it again then or? ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, hehe, read too fast... you said it was. It just happened, I think the Hipster (see below, he came here to ask me a question) spotted it and came to the same conclusion I did. :) It happens... Best. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ping
Clairifing question on your recall page. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answered there (For my TPW's who somehow didn't already know this... :) ... H is referring to this section of User:Lar/Accountability's talk page) ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. [6] 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.
I'd also like to know if you asked Versageek to investigate me and whether you suggested he block me. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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/c 03:55, 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/c 17:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, here's a link to a history page from Oct. 28 [7] 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/c 22:55, 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 [8] or this [9] "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 [10]). 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/c 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to throw this in the AUSC's lap and have made a formal request for review. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It got longer because I repeated the questions you didn't answer. (Your previous post invited me to ask them.) JohnWBarber (talk) 04:38, 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/c 05:32, 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. Thatcher 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Thatcher -- I agree. And that discretion and judgment are subject to review. Which in this case should be public. JohnWBarber (talk) 16:03, 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/c 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input into the AfD for Bose stereo speakers et. al. As you may have seen, the result was No Consensus. I have started a discussion to find consensus on merging all of these articles together. Feel free to contribute your opinions here. Thanks! SnottyWongtalk 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Lar
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]
I'd appreciate a pointer to the en:wp discussion if you know of it. Or add it there? ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Largely here (already linked to from commons), it was pointed out to me here. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
commented on the RfD, thanks for the pointer. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 5 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/c 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to undelete then, thanks for your help anyway :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Recall
Yeah, totally should have closed that earlier. Been busy with school. Thanks for poking me, though! Master of Puppets 17:23, 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/c 11:25, 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]
so I am not sure I support the block at this time. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 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]
Thank you for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor problem
Can you watchlist Talk:Arabian horse? We have a little newbie with an attitude over there. May go away soon, may stay to cause trouble. Just want a neutral eye over there because my seasonal affective disorder is kicking in and my patience is heading toward zero...(grin) Montanabw(talk) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but my watchlist is too big to be much use. I've not spotted anything too far off the mark. ++Lar: t/c 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been a drive-by. Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elimination of Chicago Sky Ride as transporter bridge
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}}!
You're welcome. Commented further there. BTW, David B. Steinman was a boyhood hero of mine perhaps because I grew up 35 miles south of the Big Mac. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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/c 18:17, 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/c 13:19, 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 :)). --NE2 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was? Well let me look at it some more. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 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/c 17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar on ArbCom?
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 am flattered, but I don't think so. Last year I wrote why I chose not to run for arbcom this year and a fair bit has changed, and for the better. I really appreciate the thought though. ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't; I'd feel obliged to vote against you for your own good. Mackensen(talk) 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. I should call your bluff. ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 17 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. UA 01:58, 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/c 02:03, 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. UA 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks no, I'm liking it just fine on the outside. Mackensen(talk) 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two times in the barrel was enough? ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arb question
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]
