User talk:Lar/Archive 61
|
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.
This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 December 2009 through about 1 January 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mutter Erde characterises Kanonkas as a vandal
editHi Lar, I have caught Kanonkas sometimes as a vandal as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=328396162&oldid=328395067 (only one example). Perhaps you are interested to present this link to Jimbo, so that he gets an impression of this vandal. btw: In Jimbo's talk history you will find more vandalisms by Kanonkas. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.65.160 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- 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/c 21:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Lar, here's the official version of vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism , on commons Kanonkas is busy to create an own version, based on en.
- 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)
- Hi Lar, i have a little problem to count your vote. But it might be important for a little history of wikipedia/commons
- Should I count your vote as above or should I write "Result: 8 (of 19 + Lar + Peter Kuiper (unclear))". Regards Mutter Erde 92.226.228.77 (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
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/c 14:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Still have no idea what exactly you're asking me. And not sure I care to get involved in your crusades. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Lar, you are involved :-), but not as much as others. What about to unblock my commons account so that I can start my announced desysop of mattbuck. I will canvass (or better: give a note) to the 650 wikipedia-projects, so that around 1000 users get a chance to prove the case. That would be a real vote, not the fake ban they ("they"= 7 noses) had done with Mutter Erde. I am a democrat. When they think, mattbuck's private undeletion of File:No Israel.svg was OK, I will accept it. After this I will start to desysop Kanonkas. That's easy, because he is obviously a vandal. Who will vote for such people?. Btw: Do you remember his first days on commons? Oppose Been here 5 weeks. I don't understand the rush of support for someone so new. Majorly talk 16:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC). Funny, how somebody is able to become a commons admin. Or do you remember Amicon, one of Kanonkas' buddies ? ....Impressed! Thanks for taking your time. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC) ff :-)
- btw: Nice new headline! All is clear now. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.99.36 (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Um, you want me to unblock you so you can continue your disruption and widen it by canvassing on other projects? Oddly, I don't think I will be doing that any time soon, sorry. However I am glad you like the heading better. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. My best wishes also for you. btw: Will Angela revert Kanonkas's vandalism on her talk page? What do you think? Greetings from Berlin. ME 78.55.253.174 (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- No idea what will happen there. Kanonkas removing the posting of a banned user is not vandalism. I am giving you far more latitude than most folk would give you, please be clear on that. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- emm, what's this? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Kanonkas Looks like Kanonkas has lost most of his buddies. Why do you hesitate to unblock me? Do you think, that someone will miss the admin/bureaucrat Kanonkas (except Jimbo)? Not really, or? Let's do it. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.203.253 (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- emm, what's this? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Kanonkas Looks like Kanonkas has lost most of his buddies. Why do you hesitate to unblock me? Do you think, that someone will miss the admin/bureaucrat Kanonkas (except Jimbo)? Not really, or? Let's do it. Regards Mutter Erde 78.55.203.253 (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- No idea what will happen there. Kanonkas removing the posting of a banned user is not vandalism. I am giving you far more latitude than most folk would give you, please be clear on that. ++Lar: t/c 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. My best wishes also for you. btw: Will Angela revert Kanonkas's vandalism on her talk page? What do you think? Greetings from Berlin. ME 78.55.253.174 (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um, you want me to unblock you so you can continue your disruption and widen it by canvassing on other projects? Oddly, I don't think I will be doing that any time soon, sorry. However I am glad you like the heading better. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Still have no idea what exactly you're asking me. And not sure I care to get involved in your crusades. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Questions being answered...
editHey, Lar. Just so you know (since voting should have just started), I have answered most of your questions for the ArbCom elections, but I'm still working my way through some of the last few. I'm hoping to have these finished within an hour or at most two, but if it should take longer I'll let you know. Sorry for the excessive delay, we'll have to make sure next year's election doesn't coincide with a major US holiday. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:FOUR
editAt WP:FOUR, we attempt to keep the queue down by asking nominators to review one nomination for each one that they make. If you have time, please come by and help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. I was looking at Cirt's already. I have to confess I'm not totally clear on the exact criteria (which is why I have put in so much detail on mine, maybe more than was needed). ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Kendrick
edit(for reference: Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log))
What exactly was the major offense committed by Kendrick with this edit that warranted a month-long block? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- BLP related vandalism, (as Scott said on Kendrick7's talk page) and as it's not the first instance of vandalism by this user, or the first block, the block was increased from previous ones. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't "vandalism" as far as I can tell, and I know Kendrick to have never "vandalized" a page. He is an exceptional editor. In this case it looks like he was simply casting a vote in an AFD discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Our opinions may differ on the exact nature of Kendrick's exceptionalism. You may want to review User_talk:Anthony.bradbury#Have_I_been_editing_as_an_IP_while_blocked.3F, for example. Kendrick is welcome to appeal the block using our processes, but I'm not sure that claiming someone is dead is "simply casting a vote". Scott certainly didn't think so. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with this user. I have collaborated with him on many articles. I don't understand your logic. Because of "Scott"'s objections, you unilaterally block Kendrick for one month without any discussion at AN? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because of the concern that User:Scott MacDonald raised at User_talk:Kendrick7#Daniel_Brandt, yes. Please note that taking a routine block to AN or AN/I in advance is not necessary. And unfortunately, BLP vandalism of this sort is all too routine here. Since you say you are "very familiar" with this user... What do you say about Kendrick's comment to Anthony? Or about Kendrick's block log in general? Seems like a problematic editor to me. Again, Kendrick's welcome to ask for a review of the block. I hope that helps address your concerns, and I note you haven't yet addressed mine. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with constructive IP edits. I am aware that he occasionally edit wars, but it comes with the territory. If you blocked him based on his block log, I don't think it's a very good measure. It is lengthy both because of his long tenure here, and the fact that he has been unblocked numerous times. What it comes down to is seven blocks in four years, which isn't all that bad compared to some editors. The recent indef block was made because of a comment by Kendrick while drunk. He then decided to retire. The blocking admin even said that he would be unblocked if he decided to return. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Editing as an IP while blocked is block evasion. That you don't see anything wrong with it suggests that we may have somewhat different approaches. Edit warring is not acceptable, and taking it to the point of actually getting blocked is a sign of not being able to edit within our norms. That you don't see anything wrong with it ("comes with the territory") suggests that we may have someone different approaches. To clarify on the basis: I blocked him based on his making a potentially libelous comment about a living person, which I doubt very much he actually believed was true, especially after I reviewed his other Brandt related contributions. I chose the length of the block (note the difference) based on his previous block record. Was there anything else you wanted to raise that you don't feel I have addressed? ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- How is libellous to say someone might have died? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not true and it causes harm. That you didn't already realise this suggests we may have somewhat different approaches. ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- But it was not definitive. He said it was according to sources in San Antonio. I don't see how saying someone might have died will cause harm to the person, or can even be untrue. Do you know for fact that he did not receieve the information from a source? Was it proper to completely remove his !vote from the discussion? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)For what it's worth, I followed the same link from the AfD intending to block indef. This was a case of the worst kind of trolling, and we don't need or want this kind of editor. Kevin (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not true and it causes harm. That you didn't already realise this suggests we may have somewhat different approaches. ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- How is libellous to say someone might have died? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Editing as an IP while blocked is block evasion. That you don't see anything wrong with it suggests that we may have somewhat different approaches. Edit warring is not acceptable, and taking it to the point of actually getting blocked is a sign of not being able to edit within our norms. That you don't see anything wrong with it ("comes with the territory") suggests that we may have someone different approaches. To clarify on the basis: I blocked him based on his making a potentially libelous comment about a living person, which I doubt very much he actually believed was true, especially after I reviewed his other Brandt related contributions. I chose the length of the block (note the difference) based on his previous block record. Was there anything else you wanted to raise that you don't feel I have addressed? ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with constructive IP edits. I am aware that he occasionally edit wars, but it comes with the territory. If you blocked him based on his block log, I don't think it's a very good measure. It is lengthy both because of his long tenure here, and the fact that he has been unblocked numerous times. What it comes down to is seven blocks in four years, which isn't all that bad compared to some editors. The recent indef block was made because of a comment by Kendrick while drunk. He then decided to retire. The blocking admin even said that he would be unblocked if he decided to return. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Because of the concern that User:Scott MacDonald raised at User_talk:Kendrick7#Daniel_Brandt, yes. Please note that taking a routine block to AN or AN/I in advance is not necessary. And unfortunately, BLP vandalism of this sort is all too routine here. Since you say you are "very familiar" with this user... What do you say about Kendrick's comment to Anthony? Or about Kendrick's block log in general? Seems like a problematic editor to me. Again, Kendrick's welcome to ask for a review of the block. I hope that helps address your concerns, and I note you haven't yet addressed mine. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with this user. I have collaborated with him on many articles. I don't understand your logic. Because of "Scott"'s objections, you unilaterally block Kendrick for one month without any discussion at AN? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Our opinions may differ on the exact nature of Kendrick's exceptionalism. You may want to review User_talk:Anthony.bradbury#Have_I_been_editing_as_an_IP_while_blocked.3F, for example. Kendrick is welcome to appeal the block using our processes, but I'm not sure that claiming someone is dead is "simply casting a vote". Scott certainly didn't think so. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't "vandalism" as far as I can tell, and I know Kendrick to have never "vandalized" a page. He is an exceptional editor. In this case it looks like he was simply casting a vote in an AFD discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Along with numerous WP pages, Kendrick has authored countless articles with his account alone. I am not aware of the extent of his IP editing. The user is not a "vandal" or "troll." --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The edit that got him blocked was vandalism and/or trolling, not just according to me, but in the view of more folk than just myself. The project welcomes good/useful contributions and contributors, including Kendrick7, when he's making good/useful contributions. That edit wasn't one of them... This editor needs to not do edits like that one again. There really isn't much more to say here. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Look, it doesn't matter if you're the Queen of Spain. If you're going to be saying someone died on a website that (a) is constantly worried about accidentally causing harm to living people and (b) has been publicly humiliated for incorrectly calling people dead, and you're not even going to link to a credible source, it's going to be taken very seriously and action is going to be taken. Considering all the past precedence, you can't just say "X is dead" without backing it up with some serious sources. You just don't do that. By the way, I just checked the Social Security Death Index and I have no reason to believe he is dead. @harej 01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- If he's dead, somebody's highjacked his WR account, because he's still posting over there. In any event, I endorse the block too; it's not just falsely reporting that he was dead, it's goading somebody who's been abused by Wikipedia in the past (and who has since given back as good as he got, it must be said) and who would rather not be mentioned here at all. It's malicious trolling,, and a month is about right. Steve Smith (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it was intended as a joke.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. That user's history with Brandt means it's not acceptable. You've now had 5 different folk tell you it was unacceptable. We're done. The user can appeal their block if they like but there's nothing more to say here. Thank you for stopping by to voice your concerns, but we're done. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was surprised he only got a month. He was previously indef'd and was then unblocked based on "assuming good faith". How's his good faith quota holding out by now? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. That user's history with Brandt means it's not acceptable. You've now had 5 different folk tell you it was unacceptable. We're done. The user can appeal their block if they like but there's nothing more to say here. Thank you for stopping by to voice your concerns, but we're done. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it was intended as a joke.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I make, as a previously involved (and quoted, above) admin, no comment about the block or its length. But I will point out that this editor and William S. Saturn seem to have a long history of uncritical support, and the comment by WSS above about NOTVAND does not apply. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nod. I noticed the uncritical nature of support by WSS... every point answered results in a different tack, and with no acknowledgment of the underlying issues. It does make one wonder. Perhaps further scrutiny of both editors is warranted here. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding, which is reasonably complete, is that checkuser involvement is not appropriate here. But one cannot help wondering......--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wasn't referring to CU so much as just a general examination of what these editors have been up to... ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding, which is reasonably complete, is that checkuser involvement is not appropriate here. But one cannot help wondering......--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think Kendrick is getting a bad rap here. He used to be much more focused; lately he seems to be burned out. Clearly he thinks there is some compromising of values going on with the whole Brandt thing, which isn't really a view I share, but I know he isn't the only one. He doesn't herd well, may have a bit of a quixotic streak, and seems to have a few EUIs. I think that's the extent of the problem. William Saturn is probably, like me, someone who used to appreciate Kendrick back when he was more active, as one of the more thoughtful and independent voices around. Mackan79 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that insight. If K understands what the issue is, and undertakes to edit more thoughtfully, I'd consider a reduction. But WSS coming in guns blazing in full "deny everything" mode ("My client loves his wife, and besides he doesn't own a gun and also he was out of town that week and did you consider that she had it coming?") doesn't help his case. I'm much more disposed to work with someone who can see the other side of things too than a pit bull. Appreciate your stopping by. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Eurasian Land Bridge and LaRouche
editA content RfC has been opened on this topic if you would like to comment. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see there's a request to ArbCom for clarification of motions as well. SlimVirgin appears to be trying to make the case that because she had something to do with an article years and years ago, you can't start afresh with a thorough, well researched scholarly effort now. I hope she gets properly smacked down for that view because it's poppycock. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion would greatly be appreciated
editHi, this AFD close as keep. The problem I have is that it looks like the closing administrator closed with their own opinion and not that of those who commented. This article and that of her husband Tareq Salahi is a blp nightmare. The closer said BLP1 didn't cover the reasons for deletion so I guess all of those were discounted. I am finding that closing of BLP articles is done in such a scattered way that it's impossible to figure out the best way to explain one's opinions on an article. Any suggestions? I don't think this qualifies for reviewing. I am just sure that these two articles are going to continue to be a BLP problem esp. with the vandals. If you decide to take a look you will see that this one event is also discussed in 2009 White House gatecrash incident where at least I feel gives the best platform for this event. The two other articles duplicate each other way too much. The couple also apparently has had legal problems which I feel has been a problem adding to the articles in a neutral way. If you look at the histories of these articles I think you will see what I am trying to say since I'm not saying it that well, sorry for that. Thanks for you time, again if not interested feel free to say so with no hard feeling from me at all. I just find your opinions about BLP are pretty solid and I am trying to learn more. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to take this straight to DRV. The close seems to be little more than the closer's opinion and takes no account of consensus. The article is, in my opinion, unacceptable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- CrohnieGal: I think you're right, things are way too inconsistent... some stronger guidance would be helpful. Thanks for letting me know about this. I do think that at least a merge is in order.
- Scott: I think a DRV is in order. This couple is right on the borderline of notability in my view but the discounting of BLP1E viewpoints seems to have made this AfD close irretrievably flawed. Please let me know if you do DRV this. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Michaele_Salahi--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. I'll be over to the review soon. Thanks Scott for setting it up. I've never done one. I am just now trying to learn more about how we handle BLP and the processes involved. Thanks for the help. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- No objections to deletion since we no longer use album covers to illustrate bare discographies if there isn't critical commentary on the cover itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9
edit- You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
- Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.
Importing
editOnce mentioned stewards shouldn't do imports since we had decided not to use that feature, but I just wanted to let you know we enabled that function today, so it is perfectly ok to do interwiki attribution via imports at Wikipedia:Requests for page importation. MBisanz talk 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I'll add that page to my watchlist but if there's something urgent feel free to ping me. However it looks like any admin can do this? ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Admins can only import directly from Meta and the Nostalgia Wikipedia, at the moment. Graham87 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- So does that mean that there might sometimes be a request for a steward to do this from other wikis directly, then? Color me a bit confused about the exact implications of this. WP:TPWs???? any ideas????? ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Admins can only import directly from Meta and the Nostalgia Wikipedia, at the moment. Graham87 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
GA Reassessment of Teresa Bagioli Sickles
editHi there. As you seem to be the main contributor to Teresa Bagioli Sickles I wanted to be sure you were aware that Teresa Bagioli Sickles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. I've put the review on hold, and you can find my concerns here. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Replied there, thanks for the heads up! ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
An account to keep an eye on
edit[1] I'm notifying SirFozzie and Cool Hand Luke also. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nod. My eyebrows went up about a week ago. Thanks for the reminder. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Spread the word
editWikipedia:Flagged revisions petition ... 'nuff said. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also... Wikipedia:BLP semiprotection petition... I've been in favor of both since at least 11 March 2009 :) ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
BLP question
editLar, can you pop over to the talk page of Talk:Monty Roberts? There is a minor storm over a decision that I made to merge one of Roberts' books into the main article and redirect the title. Dana put on the merge tag, and then I just merged it, but one editor is very unhappy about that decision, and for some reason is dragging the BLP issue into it because there are some links in the merged piece that may be critical of Roberts. This particular article has been touchy for having problem with people who want to edit it into a puff piece, but why there is blowback over merging a one-paragraph orphaned article, I don't know. (Though one of the editors who worked on the book article happens to have a user name that corresponds to that of a staff member of roberts' FWIW) Anyway, your level head and sense of what's going on is appreciated. Montanabw(talk) 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looked. Came away confused. Asked for a precis. Hope that helps. Will watch. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
editThe November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Faethon Ghost/Kari Ferrell nominated for deletion
editPer your comments at User talk:Faethon Ghost#Your Kari page I've nominated User:Faethon Ghost/Kari Ferrell for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Faethon Ghost/Kari Ferrell. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was contemplating just such an action. Thanks!! Commented there. ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
A request you may wish to decline
editLar, neither of us holds with banned editors contacting us via ip's but I would ask your indulgence in reviewing User talk:LessHeard vanU#False Sockpuppet Accusation on behalf of the account blocked, without checking, as a sock of a banned editor. The banned editor is the ip on my talkpage, and since the accused account was blocked in November I hope the trail is still fresh enough to make the check. If you decline to act I certainly understand. I would note that the ip has also made the request at Jimbo's talkpage, and possibly elsewhere, but since I was involved in the banned editors RfAR I feel inclined to make this request of my own volition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- This has been raised on the functionaries list, actually, so it should get the appropriate attention, whether it's from me or from someone else. I may be a bit out of pocket for a while, as I'm traveling home this afternoon, it was a short week in DE this time. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- You charge per CU request? How do I apply for the flag? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't charge per CU request... This one is under control already. As for applying... um... dunno. Stand for election I think? ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- You charge per CU request? How do I apply for the flag? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
AOTR
editLar, can we chat about AOTR? I've been working on reinforcing the WP:RFC/U process. It seems that the main historical problem has been lack of visibility. After we placed links at the top of the main noticeboards, participation seems to have increased. One problem we have is the constant profusion of community desysopping proposals and ad hoc processes, such as CAT:AOTR. I think I'd prefer to clear out as much redundant process as possible and get people to focus on making one process work. It seems that WP:RFC/U is the best general purpose solution. If an admin is a problem an RFC can identify what's wrong and put all the evidence in one place, and generate community feedback. Then three thing can happen (1) the admin can make a productive response that addresses concerns, or they can agree to improve, (2) the admin can voluntarily resign, or (3) if the admin makes a poor response and refuses to resign, the matter can be taken to ArbCom for disposition. What do you think about consolidating? Jehochman Make my day 14:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- AOTR has 201 members. I'm not yet clear on what your proposal is yet. However, I'm not sure I see it as "redundant process" but I'm certainly interested to learn more about what you have in mind. AOTR isn't "mine" per se, of course... but perhaps I have some influence. How closely have you studied it? Many members specify an RfC or modified RfC as part of their recall process. Reading processes may be instructive, see Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- In some sense the lessons learned at AOTR need to be applied to existing process, to wit RFC. We ought to have a common understanding about how to review, correct, or de-sysop admins. We clearly lack that common understanding as community desysop proposals keep coming up. There is dissatisfaction, and this has not been resolved despite years of discussion. I think the community is not well served by having a host of options. It would be better to form a consensus about how we do things. Every admin is subject to review at RFC, and every admin ought to have the good sense to resign if an RFC shows that their services are no longer trusted to be fair and accurate. The very few bad apples are the ones who won't listen to that feedback, and those can be dealt with by ArbCom. AOTR presents itself as a "light" process, but in reality it has been anything but light, because of the need to prevent gaming. AOTR is rarely lighter than our simple RFC process. I am asking whether it would be better to phase out AOTR in favor of a more effective version of RFC. Rather than asking RFA candidates to list themselves in AOTR (which is annoying, because a promise under those conditions is neither voluntary nor enforceable), we ought to ask them how they think admin conduct RFC should work, and then elect those who show clueful insights. Jehochman Make my day 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to asking candidates about willingness to be in CAT:AOTR. Also I'm not (yet) convinced that RfC/U is an acceptable replacement for, or equivalence to, a voluntarily entered into advance commitment to being recallable. In particular I have not seen RfC/U, absent that advance commitment, lead to anything useful in most cases (this one being an example of not much useful transpiring yet as a result, although he's not an admin)... So, I think you haven't made a case yet. Perhaps we could chat about it on IRC some time? ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be in the admin's code of conduct that we are expected to resign if an RfC shows us to have lost the trust of the community. There's no way to be an effective administrator without that trust; who would want to continue under that circumstance? I think all administrators should be held to same ethical standards, not just the ones who pledge to be open to recall. Jehochman Make my day 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. That's how it should be, indeed. And when Brenny and I first mooted this AOTR, we hoped that over time, almost everyone would want to show that level of commitment to ethical standards. But whether it's because AOTR isn't lightweight, or whatever, it's got a significant minority take-up, but not the "almost everyone" I would hope for. We didn't set the expectation of standards, so we have what we have now, and I don't see how to get to there from here. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The way to accomplish what we both seem to want may be to set expectations that administrators should resign if an RfC shows that they have lost the faith of the community. By the way, I just added that to Wikipedia:Administrators and nobody objected yet.[2] The second step is to make sure that resignations happen when such a situation arises. We should also try to head off any lynch mobs that start at ANI and run to RFAR when an admin makes a mistake. Eventually it will become part of the culture, and ideal embodied by AOTR will be the default case. Jehochman Make my day 14:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. That's how it should be, indeed. And when Brenny and I first mooted this AOTR, we hoped that over time, almost everyone would want to show that level of commitment to ethical standards. But whether it's because AOTR isn't lightweight, or whatever, it's got a significant minority take-up, but not the "almost everyone" I would hope for. We didn't set the expectation of standards, so we have what we have now, and I don't see how to get to there from here. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it should be in the admin's code of conduct that we are expected to resign if an RfC shows us to have lost the trust of the community. There's no way to be an effective administrator without that trust; who would want to continue under that circumstance? I think all administrators should be held to same ethical standards, not just the ones who pledge to be open to recall. Jehochman Make my day 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to asking candidates about willingness to be in CAT:AOTR. Also I'm not (yet) convinced that RfC/U is an acceptable replacement for, or equivalence to, a voluntarily entered into advance commitment to being recallable. In particular I have not seen RfC/U, absent that advance commitment, lead to anything useful in most cases (this one being an example of not much useful transpiring yet as a result, although he's not an admin)... So, I think you haven't made a case yet. Perhaps we could chat about it on IRC some time? ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- In some sense the lessons learned at AOTR need to be applied to existing process, to wit RFC. We ought to have a common understanding about how to review, correct, or de-sysop admins. We clearly lack that common understanding as community desysop proposals keep coming up. There is dissatisfaction, and this has not been resolved despite years of discussion. I think the community is not well served by having a host of options. It would be better to form a consensus about how we do things. Every admin is subject to review at RFC, and every admin ought to have the good sense to resign if an RFC shows that their services are no longer trusted to be fair and accurate. The very few bad apples are the ones who won't listen to that feedback, and those can be dealt with by ArbCom. AOTR presents itself as a "light" process, but in reality it has been anything but light, because of the need to prevent gaming. AOTR is rarely lighter than our simple RFC process. I am asking whether it would be better to phase out AOTR in favor of a more effective version of RFC. Rather than asking RFA candidates to list themselves in AOTR (which is annoying, because a promise under those conditions is neither voluntary nor enforceable), we ought to ask them how they think admin conduct RFC should work, and then elect those who show clueful insights. Jehochman Make my day 15:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(out) I support that edit to WP:ADMIN. I'll try to keep an eye on the talk page but LMK if concerns are raised and I'll speak up. (WP:TPWs: please do the same... I know most of you care about good adminning standards, this is a good initiative.). Also to echo what you said and amplify a bit...
- "AN/I -> howling mob -> ArbCom case"
- == BAD outcome for the community
- "AN/I -> AOTR request -> Calm/reasoned discussion via RfC or reconfirming RfA -> resignation or retention"
- == GREAT outcome for the community (and the admin, who may well pass RfA again some time)
- "AN/I -> AOTR request -> Calm/reasoned discussion via RfC or reconfirming RfA -> intransigence -> ArbCom case resulting in removal"
- == GOOD (not as good as the one just above, but better than howling mobs) outcome for the community, but BAD for the admin, who probably won't pass RfA again (which is arguably a good thing!)
- "AN/I -> RFC/U -> Calm/reasoned discussion via RfC -> resignation or retention"
- == GREAT outcome for the community (and the admin, who may well pass RfA again some time)
- "AN/I -> RFC/U -> Calm/reasoned discussion via RfC -> intransigence -> ArbCom case resulting in removal"
- == GOOD outcome for the community (again, not as good as just above but better than howling mobs), but BAD for the admin, who probably won't pass RfA again (which, again, is arguably a good thing!)
So it's not that I am opposed to the RfC/U process getting taken up and being a vehicle, rather I think it's great!... I just don't see how to get there from here, and am not sure that tearing down AOTR without a replacement is a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. We need to get the default process working at least as well as AOTR, before we consider AOTR as redundant. Jehochman Make my day 15:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a signal-rich conversation going on at Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC#Streamlining_proposal that may interest you. Jehochman Make my day 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The debate continues.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Four Award
edit
|
Four Award | |
| Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on SS Christopher Columbus. |
Season's greetings
edit
|
Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours.
|
|
Twinkle
editMan are you right, you vandal! Sorry about that. I made two Twinkle-atrocities in the space of five minutes. MajorStovall (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me know how I can help (add sources, etc.) to this article. It appears like these editors maybe attorneys, used to wikilawyering, so it maybe a difficult article to save despite the dozens of references. Ikip 18:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Ikip! The matter of the AfD seems to turn on whether the lawsuit had any lasting coverage other than at the time it happened, and whether it had any effect on anything else or has been cited in writings about how caselaw (or legislation) may have been influenced. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I will look at the article more in depth over the week. Thank you for bringing these issues to community attention. Ikip 12:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations, although I think the initial allegations could have been a little less strong and more diplomatic, you were 100% right, you have been vindicated, and the nominator is now indefed and your allegations have been confirmed. Congratulations.
- I hope we are able to work together in this capacity again. If there is ever an article you feel is at risk for deletion, please let me know, and I would be happy to help you.
- As you may recall, I supported your case with Jack about Jack using copyright on a user page. Happily, that case also result in an indef block. Ikip 18:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. But I am not necessarily happy that the matter resulted in a block (in either case)... The article itself, I have to admit, I'm not as sure about any more. Cool Hand Luke makes some persuasive arguments. I've done some looking and I can't find anything about the case from after the settlement, so maybe it never did have any impact and those commenting in favor of deletion are right. I just don't know. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I will look at the article more in depth over the week. Thank you for bringing these issues to community attention. Ikip 12:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie SPI case
editI hope you don't mind, but I prematurely closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie and full protected it for a short period of time. As you were the checkuser that handled the case, I thought I would let you know. Best regards, NW (Talk) 18:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's an astoundingly good idea, given how the discussion went (i.e. ... south) after I said "draw a line and start over" :) I was about to ask for a close anyway. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I've sent you email. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Replied. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Can we both cool down on this?
editFeelings are escalating, and that's not nice. I maybe overreacted, but also did you by bluntly asking for threats when I am simply asking for explanation. If we can solve this by discussion instead that by flaming and use of force, it would be better for all of us. Thank you. --Cyclopiatalk 16:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I react badly when I sense that people aren't listening. This got splattered all over several pages when what was desired was to keep it as low key as possible. As I said elsewhere, I wasn't threatening... that was not my intent. It was to caution you to take this matter seriously. People with the best of intentions have gotten sanctioned before and I'd rather not see it happen again. If you're calmed down and not flaming about it any more, great. Contact me offline for the text if D67 hasn't gotten it to you already. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. DRV withdrawn, and sorry for the hassle. It would have been that simple if JV or you just explained the seriousness of the thing from the start. That's not the first time we clash, but you maybe know that I am not unreasonable (at least, not that unreasonable!). If I can give you a little advice: People "listen" if given a reason. You can't expect people to just listen and obey. Explain as much as possible why you need to be listened, and you will be. If you just play the card "listen or we will make you shut up by force", you're basically bullying people, even if that's not your intention. --Cyclopiatalk 16:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nod. Of course that isn't exactly how things went down, though. The starting point was that you were advised to contact ArbCom about the matter, weren't you? DID you contact ArbCom? And didn't you have a dialog with John via email first? I am not privy to what was said but I can't imagine that he didn't give you a similar amount of detail to what I did in the part you redacted... which should have been enough. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't contact ArbCom because I am not going to ArbCom without a reason. And yes, I talked with John via email, but he told me nothing. Like, nothing. You were very clear on the seriousness of what is at stake, JV was not at all: All I can say is that this particular person is "the most banned". -not that much, I'd say. Now I received explanations and I fully understand the concerns. I will also courtesy blank the thread on my talk page. --Cyclopiatalk 16:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- If thats ALL he said, it's rather sparse, isn't it. As for contacting ArbCom, next time, do feel free to do so when encouraged to. They have systems for handling the volume of mail. Sent the page text. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, that's pretty all what JV told me, he just added that it's that important and such stuff. Now we can blank this discussion, and come back to catfight at the next AfD
. --Cyclopiatalk 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I tend not to blank stuff, but sure, I'll see you at the next AfD. En Garde! hail fellow, well met. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, that's pretty all what JV told me, he just added that it's that important and such stuff. Now we can blank this discussion, and come back to catfight at the next AfD
- If thats ALL he said, it's rather sparse, isn't it. As for contacting ArbCom, next time, do feel free to do so when encouraged to. They have systems for handling the volume of mail. Sent the page text. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't contact ArbCom because I am not going to ArbCom without a reason. And yes, I talked with John via email, but he told me nothing. Like, nothing. You were very clear on the seriousness of what is at stake, JV was not at all: All I can say is that this particular person is "the most banned". -not that much, I'd say. Now I received explanations and I fully understand the concerns. I will also courtesy blank the thread on my talk page. --Cyclopiatalk 16:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nod. Of course that isn't exactly how things went down, though. The starting point was that you were advised to contact ArbCom about the matter, weren't you? DID you contact ArbCom? And didn't you have a dialog with John via email first? I am not privy to what was said but I can't imagine that he didn't give you a similar amount of detail to what I did in the part you redacted... which should have been enough. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. DRV withdrawn, and sorry for the hassle. It would have been that simple if JV or you just explained the seriousness of the thing from the start. That's not the first time we clash, but you maybe know that I am not unreasonable (at least, not that unreasonable!). If I can give you a little advice: People "listen" if given a reason. You can't expect people to just listen and obey. Explain as much as possible why you need to be listened, and you will be. If you just play the card "listen or we will make you shut up by force", you're basically bullying people, even if that's not your intention. --Cyclopiatalk 16:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Wise action
editPerhaps you will act wisely and collapse the inappropriate discussion on Talk:Jimbo Wales as should have been done much sooner, given the givens. Meanwhile: Happy holidays. (All will be convivial as we work out the issues in this matter, I assure you.) Proofreader77 (interact) 22:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
arbitration notification
editYou are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Apology
editI want to apologize for getting kinda pissy at my talk page. I closed the discussion in good faith, as from my point of view, it was going nowhere constructive, and was getting quite personal. I attempted to provide a bit of sarcasm and levity to my closure statement, though, as I should have perhaps forseen, it was all taken poorly. I still should not have been mean to you about your reopening thereof, just as I closed it in good faith, I can only believe that you reopened it in the good faith that you believed it was working towards a positive resolution. I'm still not sure that reopening the discussion has shown any signs of the discussion moving in that direction, but it was wrong of me to snap at you for doing so. Please accept my humble apology for that. --Jayron32 04:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've responded further at your talk, but let me say here that I'm absolutely certain of your good faith, and that I wasn't too bothered by your being snappish, rather it was quite understandable. I'm not sure, now, that my reopening did a whole lot of good to resolve the matter, either. Oh well. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)