User talk:Lar/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 42

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 May 2008 through about 1 June 2008. 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.

Talk Page Archives
My post 2012 archived talk
Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013
Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016
Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018
Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021
Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023
Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ??
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date


Gary Lynch deletion[edit]

I am absolutely appalled by the poor judgment and carelessness shown in your actions with regard to this article. Lynch is one of the most prominent, highest-profile attorneys in the United States. He was, undeniably, chief of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the most important (if least glamorous) regulatory jobs in the US government. The person who currently holds that position, Linda Chatman Thomsen, is the subject of a Wikipedia whose notability is unquestioned. Despite your comment that the news articles cited refer to Lynch only "in passing," he is the central subject of no small number of them, often mentioned in the headline in major publications like the New York Times [1], the Wall Street Journal [2], and the Los Angeles Times [3]. He is also a central figure in the very-well-known book "Den Of Thieves," by Pulitzer Prize winning author James B. Stewart. [4] [5] I think that being well-known for leading the civil prosecution of notorious miscreants like Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken would certainly provide "prospect for future expansion," but you rather summarily dismiss this possibility. It is extraordinarily difficult to believe that anyone could review the articles in the Times listings or the general Google news listings and not recognize these points. (Forgive me if I sound harsh, but Lynch is a figure of exceptional stature in both the American legal and business worlds, quite well-known and almost universally held in high regard.) I also, quite frankly, think the standards you applied -- requiring that an individual be the subject of a book-length biography or "multiple substantial" biographical articles -- do not accord with Wikipedia policy. Most of the more than 270,000 articles in the "living persons" category would fail that test, and I believe that the simple fact that more than 99% of those articles would fail your test demonstrates that Wikipedia policy is not what you believe it is. Finally, I take offense with your use of the word "deceptive" to describe my comment regarding news articles regarding Lynch. I reviewed the search results before making my statement; on my spot check, for the focused search I cited alone, on most of the search pages at least half the references were to the appropriate Gary Lynch, often many more; and the listing of articles on "Gary Lynch" with the SEC acronym excluded, while not so focused, still yields several hundred additional hits. I wish you had had the courtesy to at least ask me to expand on my comments, rather than being so curtly dismissive, making a deprecatory reference, and implying a lack of skill in evaluating web sources. If not strictly uncivil, it was certainly unpleasant. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of the close. I'm sorry you feel that way, but in my view the article did not contain anything to establish the notability of Mr. Lynch. (certainly none of the points you make here were made in the article) It had been at Articles for Deletion for some time, so you had a chance to add the sources that you refer to that establish notability, and enhance the article to elaborate on the events of his career that were significant. You still could, if you want, I'll be happy to undelete and userify the article for you to work on. But if that is not satisfactory, probably the best thing would be to take the article to deletion review and make the case there that my evaluation of the arguments presented was incorrect, if you feel strongly about it and aren't prepared to enhance it yourself as I suggest. As for the argument that other articles are similarly non notable that there is an issue with A is typically not justification for keeping B. If you're not sure how to raise the matter at DRV let me know and I'll try to help you do it, should you decide that's the approach you wish to pursue. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. First, the article stated "From 1985 to 1989, Lynch served as the Chief of the Enforcement Division of the Securities Exchange Commission." That is, simply put, sufficient to establish his notability. That is a position of exceptional importance in business regulation in the United States; that you did not recognize this (despite the hundreds of references I provided in the AFD discussion, is utterly baffling. Second, I notice that you do not dispute that you were in error in evaluating the many news references I pointed out. Fourth, I see that you are unwilling to apologize for your unpleasant if not uncivil description of my comments as "deceptive." Finally, I believe your reference to other articles are similarly non notable simply evades my point. If 99.99% of the articles in Wikipedia in a given class fail the test you choose to apply, it is clear that what you are doing is defying policy, not implementing it. The notability policy, phrased simply, states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." There can be no doubt that Lynch meets this criterion. No book-length biography is required (even though, as I noted, Lynch has been profiled in a major book with a Wikipedia entry). Finally, I note that no substantive arguments for deleting the subject were made in the AFD discussion, only insubstantial, unsupported (and objectively false) statements that the subject was "not notable." I made a reasoned argument, and provided sources. I think you should take responsibility for your own errors, and failure to properly evaluate the claims involved rather than post deprecatory comments about me, as you did here. That simply repeats your earlier incivility. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references need to be in the article, not the discussion, which is why time is given from the nomination until the decision is taken... so that interested parties in favour of retention have time to add them. Please consider reviewing the guide to deletion for more on that. I believe the deletion was sound, this is not my first AfD close by any stretch of the imagination. If you do not, you should take the matter to deletion review as I suggested, that's why the process exists. Or, alternatively, take me up on my offer to userify the article to your user space... you can then work on it at your leisure, adding the appropriate supporting material and references, and then move it back to articlespace once you have done so. A note: Trying to impugn my integrity and reasoning on my talk page is not likely to be an effective approach, and that I did not rebut you point by point does not necessarily mean I concede any of them. The considerable energy you have expended on making your argument now would have been better spent improving the article when it was up for nomination. But again, ask me to userify it, and I shall, and you can expend the energy improving it, instead of casting aspersions... if it then, after you're done, is clearly notable, I'll move it back to article space myself, and gladly. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: your argument for keep said "One of the most prominent lawyers in the USA. Dozens of articles in the New York Times [1] . Over a thousand Google news hits [2]. How can there be a question here?". It provided none of the references you cite in your discussion here, and made none of the points you have made. Again, the closer goes on what the article has, and on what is said in the deletion discussion... the closer cannot read minds of the supporters (or deletion advocates) and should not be expected to do more than a few minutes of checking. Please give that some consideration and try to be more collegiate in your discussion and approach. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by your actions my wife is quite right. You falsely personally attacked me as "deceptive," based on gross factual errors (at best) in considering the underlying matter. Someone who makes unfounded accusations like that has no business lecturing anyone else about civility or collegiality. Saying that I should not "impugn" your reasoning is entirely inconsistent with your comments about collegial discussion; your notion that pointing out the defects in a poorly reasoned argument is somehow inappropriate behavior is completely inconsistent with the Wikipedian ideal of reaching consensus by discussing issues. You have made it clear that you have no intention of apologizing or retracting your false personal attack on me, and that on its face does more to impugn your integrity than anything I have said, and most likely could say. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you like. I take it that taking personal umbrage for perceived slights is more important to you than working to resolve the notability issues with the article, then? In that case, I'll consider this matter closed. However, my offer to userify the article to your user space so you can work on it still stands. As does my offer to assist you in raising the matter at DRV, if you like. Just let me know. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minos, you silly fellow, you are arguing substance with a middle-aged man who plays with Legos and shows no interest in substance. You should realize that shortly he hand his friends will target you, repeat his canards, and do their best to make you an object of ridicule, for your effrontery in insistenting on grounding in the real world. Wikipedia has little to do with the real world, and is not an encyclopedia; all yoiu can hope to do here is to prevent the more venal users from using it to harm their randomly chosen real-world targets. I told you when you started this would come to no good. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. But not very enchanting, I'm afraid. I gave Minos serious advice... what he chooses to do with it is his affair. As for my substance or lack thereof, I do have an featured article under my belt, if that counts for anything. Oh, and it's "plays with LEGO brand building elements", thanks. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a deletion review for this article seeing as a mailing list discussion has started. Catchpole (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming here to warn you that I am being critical of you off-wiki :) --Relata refero (disp.) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I've commented on the DRV. I'll have to decide if it's worth the bother on wikien-l... others seem to have addressed most of the points I would have made. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little debate to start the week off. Relata and I may have to agree to disagree. Are there other AfDs besides this one where some admins have taken the opinion that the WT:BLP default debate came to consensus for change? I've proposed a few AfDs on the basis of marginal notability and no good references, but wasn't aware until now that anyone was interpreting this sort of discussion with a new default. Avruch T 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe there are quite a few closed that way, lately, and not just by me. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been bold and done the history merge and restored the article in mainspace, hope you don't mind!. I shall close the deletion review in a minute without saying anything either way on endorsing or overturning. I still feel the best thing to on the AFD would have been to relist the discussion so others could comment on whether sources really were available or not. However its just a process matter, the article has been sorted now so see no need to drag it out any further. Also the NYT article Fred pointed to is in the article (its source number 3). Anyway thanks for the message and glad it should be resolved now. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the recreate is fine, awesome actually, and thanks for doing the merge, but I'm not so keen on the close. I'd have preferred to have a clear outcome (either be endorsed, or if not, have a clear consensus about what was wrong with the close). ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want I am fine about reverting my closure of the deletion review if you would like more people to comment on the close there. If anyone wants to revert my close I don't mind in the slightest. My thought was just that as the article was back the deletion review did not need to continue but if you feel a clear outcome is better then that's fine by me. Davewild (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! I've reverted the close but put your closing remark at the bottom, as a comment. I stated there that i wish more input on the matter, it would be good to see if there is a consensus about whether the AfD was proper or not... if you didn't like my moving your closing remark to be a comment please feel free to refactor as needed. Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How you have done it looks fine for me, thanks. Davewild (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this comment in the DRV and then ran into an edit conflict with the closure. I'm placing my comment here where I hope it may be of benefit to Lars, who, in my opinion, did make some mistakes here and who would become a better administrator if he can recognize them and stop defending himself. He's not on trial, and one of the most powerful things one can do to defuse arguments is to admit mistakes. Sure, one should never admit a mistake that one did not make, but, even then, one can stop arguing. If someone believes you made a mistake, it's not the end of the world. But if you keep arguing with the person, things can, in fact, get quite nasty. It's one of the biggest mistakes that spouses make, actually, bigger, by far, than the original small mistakes....

(original comment from DRV:) This is not the place to defend or attack administrative actions, rather, the subject of this process is whether or not to sustain or overturn an XfD. Inherently, then we must allow that an administrator made a mistake as a possibility, and administrators should not face serious criticism for occasional mistakes. Even if there were no mistake, subsequent evidence could arise or become better known that would change the outcome. Nevertheless, the closure of the AfD as Delete was problematic, and I'm concerned that the closer continues to defend the decision. The closer stated specifically that "For a marginally notable BLP, with few or no sources, and no prospect of further expansion, the default outcome failing consensus (we had 3 commenters) should be delete." It is news to me that the default has become delete! The only situation I've seen where that might be the case is when some continuing harm is alleged, as with a BLP that the subject wants deleted, which was not the case here. The closing admin is assuming "marginally notable," "few or no sources," as well as "no prospect of further expansion," all of which were contradicted, at least to some degree, by the only evidence presented by commentors, excepting the closing admin himself. And that the closing admin essentially presented a new, independent argument, contradicting argument presented in the AfD, but closing off the possibility of rebuttal within the AfD by closing it, my conclusion is that the closure was improper for several reasons, but this may well not be the place to discuss it. While it's a good thing that a closing admin presents his reasons, if those reasons were not presented by others, the closer is, in fact, involved, and should instead simply comment based on the evidence -- or lack of evidence -- he found.

Yes, the admin made an offer to userfy the article, showing good faith, and that would have been a more efficient way of dealing with our goal, which is a decent encyclopedia, not perfect administrators. However, one point should stand out: when one makes a mistake that offends someone, if one tendentiously argues that it wasn't a mistake, a common human tendency is to insist on personal freedom from error. We are well-advised to avoid that, and, in fact, quite a few admins have been desysopped because they made a (more serious) mistake and then stubbornly defended the error, which quite naturally gives rise to a fear that they will repeat it. Given the differing levels of experience among the parties, and that I expect more from admins than from non-admins in terms of ability to defuse arguments, I'm suggesting to Lars that he might have simply made the offer to userfy with no personal defense at all, no claim that his action was correct. Or, once it was plain that there *were* reliable sources establishing notability, he could have reopened the AfD and then let someone else close it. Deleting articles in order to motivate people to properly source them is poor policy; hence the tradition in AfDs is to keep articles based on evidence that the article *could* become notable, and, if necessary, one can always quickly stub an article so that what is stated is clearly sourced and without problem. And this sets up much less wikifuss, it's far more efficient than what we get through an delete AfD and DRV and the rest, and it is closer to original wiki practice, where many articles were started as unsourced stubs. I'd suggest not arguing with inexperienced editors unless one expects results to improve as a product of it. Just be helpful! "Want the article back? The only problem for me was that notability wasn't shown in the article. Here, I've placed a copy in your user space. Fix it and I'll look at it and presumably, then, won't object to simply moving it back to article space." And then if the editor continued to insist that the closure was incorrect, simply apologize and do nothing. Don't try to force the point of having been correct. It almost never does any good. (You will *really* need to learn this if you are married!) The "aspersions" cast were mostly claims that the closing was deficient, pressed, to be sure, beyond necessity, and, I must say, I agree with the original opinion (improper closure) but not with the fuss made. It's much simpler to fix the problem than to argue over it. We are not here to grade administrators on their actions, we are here to build the project. --Abd (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I make mistakes all the time and I think I'm pretty good at admitting it when I do. So, I'll admit I didn't think of just actually userifying the article to Minos's space when he first turned up here, instead of merely offering to do so (and saying I was "sorry you feel that way" in my first message). That's a pretty good idea and one I'll remember in future, thanks for the suggestion. But I don't agree that it was a bad close, sorry. Belabouring the point, though? maybe. As for mistakes made by others, you may want to consider that 1) my userid and nickname is Lar (short for Larry), not "Lars" and 2) I've been married longer than probably half the admins here have been alive so giving me advice about marriage may not be very helpful, if I haven't got the hang of it by now, I probably never will. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might forgive me if I tend to assume that Wikipedia editors are young. Many admins are well under half my age. The comment was really general about how people work, and marriage is just one application. If someone criticizes me, and I argue with it, it's extraordinarily common that they try to set the nail with a hammer, after all, I'm obviously not getting it. If I listen to them, acknowledge what I can, and remain silent about the rest, they often go away satisfied. So ... what can you tell us from your marriage, which must have lasted at least ten years or so to qualify as you describe, about this listening to criticism thing? Or do you have a wife who doesn't criticize, and, please tell me, does she have an unmarried sister? By the way, I've been married, on paper, three times, the last one is ending, having lasted fifteen years -- and we did some fantastic things together. My first marriage lasted ten and produced five children and as many grandchildren, so far. And if we count marriages by declaration that weren't ever registered with the state, add three more that lasted about three years each. Ah, beautiful women, each in their own way, and that's where they decided to go. Most of the mistakes it's possible to make, I've made. I don't like to make the same mistake twice, though, I keep inventing new ones I'd never dreamed of before. --Abd (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say basically, you haven't done the necessary research about me and how I do things that would give you the basis for this feedback of yours. Go review my edit history, my admin candidacy, my barnstars and why I got them, and my WikiMatrix and how I got the roles elsewhere thatin I have. Then, perhaps, you can lecture me about my approach, or perhaps instead you will realize that you've made an incorrect snap judgment. But barring that, I'll reiterate, while I'm imperfect, as are we all, I think I do a pretty fair job of listening, accepting feedback, compromising, building consensus, checking with others, and all the rest of the skills needed to operate collegially here (as well as stay happily married to the same person for over a quarter century). One skill that I think you may want to work on is the tendency to lecture others, perusing your talk page suggests you've received such feedback in the past from others as well and haven't yet internalised it. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may think that if you like. I simply say what I think, I have no presumption that I'm right, though I may be right more often than some think. When I'm wrong, I get to learn. What you call "lecturing" is, for me, exploring a topic, which, in some cases, involves what I see -- or imagine I see -- in the behavior of others. Let me put it this way: frequently, those who have lectured me about my lecturing of them don't tend to look very good when I come back years later and read the material, which I do. If you look at who attacks me, you might start to suspect that I'm in some way on the right track. I don't see you as attacking me, by the way, just as defending yourself unnecessarily and in a way that I saw, when it happened with that user, caused unnecessary flap. Take it or leave it, and I have no opinion on whether or not it was even wise for me to respond here. But you notified me of this, so.... response was invited and I have a certain level of obligation to accept invitations. --Abd (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the default to delete, Abd - you apparently missed the huge discussion WT:BLP regarding a proposal to make that specific change. It achieved a majority, but whether there is a consensus was the subject of dispute. I don't think Lar was really continuing an argument - he presented the options, and made his argument basically once here and once in the DRV. That is more than acceptable for me - expected, in fact. Avruch T 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The situations which I was aware of, on this point, had to do with articles where the subject wanted the article deleted, which was not the case here. But there may be more that I didn't see, for sure. --Abd (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and where might they be? I looked, and I don't see any sign of a change from "no consensus, no delete," though it was proposed, in fact, that where there was possibility of harm to the subject this might be done (and I agree that such is within a closer's discretion, which can disregard apparent consensus in any case, based on cogency of arguments). And that's what I said, essentially. As i recall, in the case before us, it was basically, No consensus that subject is notable, therefore Delete. No suspicion of harm was raised, therefore no deference was in order to BLP special policy. But perhaps I've forgotten something. --Abd (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)[edit]

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Rollback[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:Anonymous Dissident per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful post![edit]

Oh! Wonderful job! Very good and helpful post. Thx, your blog in my RSS reader now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.221.227 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure which post you liked but thanks in any case :) ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg[edit]

Orphaned non-free media: Thanks for uploading Image:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content guideline[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:Staka per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem editor[edit]

I received the following from an editor who repeatedly places the names of persons who were speculated to be or declined to be candidates for public office and never declared their candidacies on the same footing with actual candidates on candidates' lists. It goes:

Such speculation only belongs in the body of articles and never on candidates' lists. Can you mediate the dispute? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Dr who1975's talk. I'm willing to try to help. I would ask what the right venue for discussion is though... ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steelberd seems to have forgotten this compromsise which he agreed to both on United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 and Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008 where he said... "That's a good compromise. Removed now redundant passage". I felt a warning was aproprite at this point.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Steelbeard didn't ask you to teach me a lesson like he did Markles. Interestingly, I had had 2 disagreements with Steelbeard where his views had prevailed... but it was only after this issue, where he was forced into a compromise that he asked for me to be blocked. He is not interested in improving wikipedia... he is only interested in getting his way.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbeard has now done it to another page I have summed up the history of this disagreement atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Template:Elections are historical.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steelbeard and I have put this issue up for mediation before (which reulted in Jayvdb's compromise) and he didn't stick to the resolution. He just waited a few months and carried on as though nothing had happened.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to stop and let steelbeard respond after this. Steelbeard1 s contention that "Such speculation only belongs in the body of articles" does not match his actions... he didn't put it in the body of the article, he removed it entirely and we've had this discussion numerous times as outlined by my explanations above. So the question is... is he lying... it's certainly deceptive and misleading. Steelbeard... is it your contention that you've forgotten our previous discussions? Lar, who's really the problem editor here? I went directly to his page to address the disagreement directly... he goes to Markles and your pages with headines like "problem editor" in the hopes that you will block me from wikipedia.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to put the info in the body of the article, background is needed. Some of the citations have become dead links. I'll be asking Dr. Who to write the text in the body of the article as he knows more than I do. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar... what information do you need to mediate this dispute?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but this is a matter of what is the correct principle in this area, rather than a matter of specific articles, right? So I would think some pointers to previous discussions would be helpful, if I don't have them already. If I understand the dispute, you're saying you think that there is a compromise already reached, which is that the information about potential or speculated candidates who are not eventually confirmed, or who eventually say they are out, should not be in lists, but it is ok, if properly sourced, and significant, that it be in expository material about the election? Further, you're saying that you think Steelbeard1 is not abiding by this compromise? Why do you say that exactly? Steelbeard1 on the other hand seems to be saying (if I understand correctly) that you're adding material to lists, rather than to articles, and that there has been edit warring about it? Both of you, is that correct? If not, what am I missing about the nature of the dispute? A statement of it that you both agree to would be very helpful I would think. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that non-candidate speculation can be included in the body of articles (with linked citations to back up the speculation), but never in candidates' lists as Dr. Who had been trying to insert, thus causing the edit warring. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who, do you agree with that characterization, that the compromise relates to exposition not lists, and that you have been inserting material in lists? Or is that not correct? If not, why not? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been inserting material into lists. They were there since the pages were created.

Here is the summary I asked you to read a few days back... as before...the links are clickable to diffs that verify the statements...


Dr. Who is clearly missing the point which I believe you fully understand, Lar. In the recent revisions, I had deleted the speculation in the candidates' lists, but couldn't insert it in the body of the articles because in one article, two thirds of the citations had become dead links and the other one, concerning Ben Nevers, had no citations at all. When Dr. Who inserted the Nevers speculation in the body of the article, the citation he gave was from Nevers' official state senate web site which, by its very nature, could not back up the speculation because it would be unlikely that Nevers would give his congressional ambitions in his own web site. That's why I deleted the Nevers speculation from the body of the article.Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Nevers has nothing to do with any of the pages mentioned in my summary, in fact, we have obly discussed him the last 3 days or so. Steelbeard... please stop changing the subject and give Lar an oportunity to review my statement and click the links.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot about the talk page discussion at Talk:Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 which I previously stated that I had problems with the citations because 2/3rds of them had become dead links which delayed my inserting the material in the body of the article and due to the lack of currenly verifiable citations is not a satisfactory edit, but because the links once existed, I decided to let it slide. Steelbeard1 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Dr. Who either forgot about or intentionally overlooked an earlier edit I made to the Mississippi special election article about Jamie Franks when I inserted the Franks speculation in the body of the article at [6] and Dr. Who inserted another passage about Franks elsewhere in the body of the article which he mentioned above. That's when I removed the now redundant passage and said it was a good compromise when I had created it earlier and he missed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of this talk page discusssion, Dr. Who had tampered with my rebuttals then changed his mind. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure he knows that it's not on to mess with other people's words on talk pages to change the meaning or intent (refactoring is ok) so ??... Was that on purpose or maybe by accident or because of an edit conflict?? ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar... how do I e-mail you?--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By clicking Here -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Avraham. Both of you: I'd prefer to keep as much of this public as possible, but feel free to mail me if you feel the need... I am sorry if I'm a bit slow but I'm at my client today and a bit heads down. My comment right now is that both of you are convinced the other one is not quite living up to the compromise, but that you both agree that the compromise is the right way to proceed. (that's from a skim, not a detailed read, I promise to read more closely later).What I see now is that maybe there is some difficulty with sources in a few of these? Why not stick to one specific article/list and work through the specifics there? I think you're both good guys who mean well, honestly, but both of you maybe aren't assuming quite enough good faith from the other? ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda#ongoing elections and prominence given to candidates. As the issue has arisen again, it is time to involve more people and start to write some guidelines. --John Vandenberg (chat) 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost all respect for Dr. Who. See the latest postings in Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to wonder if I can be effective in mediating this. It may be beyond my feeble powers, because it looks like, as I said before, you are both not assuming enough good faith in the other one. I see a lot of sparring in a number of places. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying... I'm sorry to have caused this to even come to your board. Other's have taken up the various content disputes on apropriate project pages as a result of this so maybe some good has come of it. I only wish I had had the patience and (more importantly) the knowledge to take it to the apropriate place. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda#ongoing elections and prominence given to candidates--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be the place. I have held back speaking out there about my views because I was trying to stay impartial enough to mediate but perhaps that would be the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VK's proposed return[edit]

Your input and comments are welcome on the talk page here User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. Giano (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I was curious, in your comment here, to whom were you referring? seresin ( ¡? ) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone I'd prefer not to identify. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback#User:Sceptre. Danke. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFR[edit]

Lar, a note of clarification. I agreee with you that roll-back should only be used for certain clear cut cases. I disagree that the community feels otherwise. Apologies for troubling you, but otherwise my remark at the dialogue concerning Sceptre is possibly unclear! Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the discussion was closed already when I got there I went ahead and clarified. I can't quite tell where these get archived to so I can't give you a pointer except into the history. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter, Issue 4[edit]

Hello, Lar. A new edition of the USRD newsletter may be read at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Volume02/Issue04. Apologies for the late delivery; my internet connection went down halfway through the delivery process. --Rschen7754bot (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Payback time[edit]

Hi again. Please refer above; there's a checkuser issue in a closely related area here. It means a lot of work for somebody, but I think it's in a good cause. Feel free to tell me to get lost and file a regular report, but it would be much appreciated it if you could have a hack at it. Thanks, --John (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started digging. This is a mess. And I'm late for bed. Someone with a fair bit of time will need to dig. The IPs you give are not the only IPs editing in those ranges. I'm tempted to suggest blocking some of the obvious ranges set to anon block only, account creation not prohibited, but the collateral damage would be high, even with narrow ranges. So the best I can suggest right now is block FaithChecker, block all the IPs that have a history of reverting out the category removals and read your email. I'll dig further tomorrow to see what I can do to narrow this down. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namecheck in an AN thread[edit]

I seem to have given four people, including a current arbitrator, a former arbitrator, and a steward, a public ticking off. <looks worried> So I thought I'd better let each of you know about it. See here. Thread is here. Apologies in advance if this irks you, but I feel strongly about how some of these threads end up poking fun at individuals. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what the issue with my clarifying remark is. Deskana said there were no objections. That's not true, there were. Kurt objected (whether to the appointment or the process, it was an objection). I pointed that out... no commentary on Kurt was express or implied. The smiley? Is that the issue? If so let me apologise to whoever necessary for putting a smiley after I corrected someone. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I seem to have rolled you in with Relata refaro, who's remark was more in the "let's caricature Kurt" mode. It was your smiley as well that annoyed me (I was unsure whether it was a friendly smile or a laughing at Kurt smile, if you know what I mean), but I've made my point so I'm going to drop this now. It was embarassing enough that I missed Kurt's "Arbitrary Committee" remark - my eyes glided over that and read it as "Arbitration Committee". :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time[edit]

Hi, Larry. May I know why, or is it just a gut feeling. You don't have to post there, here my talk page, or e-mail is fine. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded my opposition at the nomination page. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. I have responded there, and, as I requested there, I would appreciate the opportunity to follow through with you on this, as in my mind, it is much more important that the RfB. Thank you for your honesty and clarity. -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to discuss further and work with you as our time and schedule permit... Today is not a good day though. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, contact me on my talk page or via e-mail when you have a chance. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lar. FYI, I responded to your thoughts under Herby's opposition, regarding the self-nom and also the time differential, which I based on Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3, as I referenced in the initial statement way at the top. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:AOR[edit]

Having just commented on a DRV, I'd like to stop by to say that I actually appreciated your not so recent post about the AOR category. I'm just continuing to postpone to do something around it, but still hope to get around before it is 'too late'. Best wishes.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My ongoing wish[edit]

I think one way to deal with the "searching" concern would be to implement something I've wanted to see for awhile.

An "MoS" namespace. It would include all content/style/naming convention pages. MOS: is already an existing shortcut similar to how WP: is for Wikipedia: So this would include the "big three": NPOV, OR, V; as well as related pages, the MOS pages, etc. It wouldn't include the so-called "behavioral" pages. What do you think? - jc37 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new namespace is interesting indeed but maybe it should be "Policy:"? MOS fits into policy better than V and OR fit into MOS, no? ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the word "policy" you'll get into all sorts of debates.
If you're concerned about NPOV "fitting" with "style", how about Manual of style and content? (MoSaC)
Though to be honest, I'm not really concerned about the name, as long as it's easy to type and accurate as to its contents.
Noting too that if we do this here, it's possible that other language Wikipedias might follow suit, each with their own name for the namespace.
So, besides the name, what do you think? : ) - jc37 02:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, assuming that this is so that everything else that DIDN'T get moved from Wikipedia to Policy/MoS will then be not indexed, I think it's great. If it's to achieve something else then I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Though I also like the idea simply due to navigability : )
Now all we have to do is get a few hundred other editors on this bandwagon, and we're all set : ) - jc37 03:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the easy part. Convincing me was the hard part. Or something like that. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Bows to your benificent grandeur)
If that's all it took... : )
That aside, what would you suggest as the "next step"? (Or are you doing that now?) - jc37 03:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Dunno. This is the sort of policy that isn't descriptive, so just starting to do it won't work. Maybe...

  1. Talk about it here
  2. ... ??? ....
  3. PROFIT!!!

No, that can't be right. Maybe float the idea past a few more people, then start a page to flesh out which pages go in which, and the float it to the VP to see if it gets buy in, then open a bug once it has wide consensus? ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least for now, talking about it here isn't bad (I have a feeling your talk page has more lurkers than the VP : )
But that aside, let's see if we can come up with a list... (Looking over Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines.)
  1. Article standards policies
  2. Classification guidelines
  3. Content guidelines
  4. Style conventions
  5. All MoS: sub-pages (Category:Manual of Style)
  6. All WP:NC sub-pages (often done parenthetically)
  7. The contents of:
    1. Category:Wikipedia content policies
    2. Category:Wikipedia content guidelines
    3. Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines
    4. Category:Wikipedia naming conventions
    5. Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
    6. Category:Wikipedia style guidelines
The more I look into this, the more I like that behavioral guidelines would be separated from the content/style/editing guidelines. I also didn't include WP:NOT since it covers more than just mainspace. (I wonder if it should be edited to resolve, or at least clarify, that?)
Anyway, how's this for a list? - jc37 04:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad list. But allow me to play devil's advocate. How is this notion of creating a new namespace, and placing some but not all of the current content of WP namespace in it, then doing the norobots thing to WP but not this space better than just doing the norobots thing to WP namespace but giving everything on your list the exemption via magic word? Just curious. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation, for one thing. Clarity in naming. Etc. All those things that we claim we do for the readers : ) - jc37 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the stuff in the Wikipedia namespace is for us, though. A test of a new namespace to me is, it should be obvious what goes in it and what does not. I think this proposal has a way to go yet. ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I think that Wikipedia space is quite the hodge-podge. If I had my drothers, I'd actually like to see an MoS namespace (policy and guidelines which deal with style, content, and convention), and a "behavioral" namespace (hoping for a better name, but essentially policy and guidelines which concern editors and editing and interaction). The latter two being set up as "help" namespaces, since that's what they are. I'd like to see "projectspace" (Wikipedia:) focused to be a place for collaboration and discussion. Is that clearer? - jc37 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP[edit]

I see you're off to bed. I'd best be getting some shuteye too.

It was great fun sparring with you on this issue this evening, and I hope we can sort out a good compromise on this matter. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) It looks like I lost track of the time too, wow it's early![reply]

Agreed, I do always like working with you even if we don't agree. Avb is way off the mark, I think, about us. Yes, lets see what we can come up with. I'm off to my client so it probably won't be for a while that I contribute more. ++Lar: t/c 10:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing an example, even though we disagree on the interpretation. Do you have more where that came from? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shedfuls. Once we've established the validity of that one, I'll trot them all out, if you insist. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid application of BLP, that much is true. To predicate the logging of data on mutual agreement on whether it shows a particular position would introduce clear statistical bias, so just log any application that looks like it's BLP, that's fine.
As to things being BLP 3RR Exempt. I think you would rationally agree that to show that 3RR exempt applied in a case, there would have to be (a) It has to be a BLP case (or claim to be one) (b) 4 or more reverts by one party, and (c) no adverse actions against that party in any administrative log (blocking, protection on "Wrong Version", etc), and (d) no other escalation up the dispute resolution chain (If the situation is resolved by a different dr method, then it was resolved by a different dr method, not by blp 3rr exempt).
I don't see many cases meeting (a)(b)(c)(b) at the moment. I think you are saying that (1)obviously the BLP 3RR exemption exists, so (2)lack of observation of (a)(b)(c)(d) so far must have some external cause.
Is that a correct representation of your position? Or do you have issues with the definition of (a)(b)(c)(d) that I've been misreading or missing?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I'm just going to slow down and take my time figuring this... so no hurry answering! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to agree whether data shows a particular outcome, but we do have to agree that data is in the correct population. Since for the datum I presented (b), (c), and (d) do not hold, then no, I don't agree. To me the BLP 3RR exemption applies to all actions that are BLP related (condition (a)). Regardless of what happens next. The red light exemption for ambulances applies regardless of the vehicle type through the intersection or the current state of the traffic signal. So... until we can agree on what the correct population to sample from is, I won't be providing more data, because providing data that ultimately isn't in the sample set (hey, I may be wrong, I doubt it, but maybe) is a waste of time, I have more important things to do. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For ambulances, the analogous list would be: (a) it must be an ambulance with blue lights and a siren on (b) it must run the red light (c) No accident must ensue, because drivers should be getting out of the way[*] (d) no one gets arrested, there is no court case, congressional inquiry, B2 surgical strike, etc...
If (a)(b)(c)(d) hold for some sample size, then we can say that the de-facto law of the land corresponds with the written law of the land (to wit, ambulances are exempted from obeying a red light, provided they have their lights and sirens going)
(If an ambulance does not operate lights and siren, they will crash, and none of (a)(b)(c)(d) holds).
[*] we might accept a slightly raised accident rate due to the inherent danger of the maneuver involved, and driver inattention.
A different example: in the late 1920's the law of the united states was that it was forbidden to drink alcohol.
(a) someone must have access to alcohol (b) They must sell it. (c) every time they sell it, people must protest, act against them, or report them (d) They must be arrested and taken to court.
Now in reality, people did get arrested for selling alcohol occaisionally, but in a very significant number of cases, they did not (in fact, they might end up shooting the police officers and getting away, even if an arrest attempt was made). Many people also bought alcohol, and very few turned in the "criminals".
so (a) (b) held, (c) often didn't, and (d) even less.
In this case the de-facto law of the land differed significantly from the written law. So much so, that the government finally capitulated by mid 1930's and changed the written law back the way it was before.
A third example, for the road: All countries ban murder
(a) someone must have means, motif and opportunity to kill someone (b) They must attempt to kill someone (c) any eventual witnesses must attempt to protest, act against them, or report them. (d) they must be arrested, tried in court, imprisoned and/or executed. (or be killed due to the self-defence exemption ... but that's for another day, if we need it :-P )
In this case, in reality, we do see that (a)(b) hold for some percentage of the population, newspapers sometimes tell of heroic attempts at (c), and the number of anecdotes about (d) is also quite large .
So here in most countries, and most of the time, (a)(b)(c)(d) hold, and the de-facto law and the law of the land are in agreement.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, just checking, do you agree that the above approach is indeed a correct approach for assessing whether a de-facto practice coincides with documented procedure? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. :) Sorry, lost the thread here, got sucked into something else. Let me come back and elaborate in more detail but I think this analysis misses the gist. ++Lar: t/c 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got interested in the one topic, due to the other. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to put your oar in on that one, it could use some fresh perspective. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done per mail. Please reply to the above too, at some point! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wrong way round ?[edit]

I keep seeing this discussion in various places, and it seems to me that Kim (whom I respect greatly), is coming at this one backwards. WP:IAR suggests, somewhat, that strict absolute rules don't exist. However, for simplicity, a "bright red line" was painted for 3RR violations. An admin can block anyone for 3RR. Hold up a hand and blow the whistle, hold on, no more editing until the smoke clears! Otherwise many 3RR violations would be accompanied by arguments that "I was just enforcing WP:NPOV," etc. NPOV is a crucial policy, actually, but it isn't considered an emergency. BLP violations are. So, whether in practice or in theory, an exception was carved out: 3RR does not apply to removing defamatory material. I ran into this myself, though not at the 3RR level. I reverted a few edits of an IP editor clearly a block-evading sock, without regard to content. And I very nearly got blocked for it, based on a prima-facie appearance of restoring defamatory material. (It actually wasn't, but that was an appearance crafted by the sock, and some noticeboards aren't known for subtlety of judgement.) Removal of defamatory material is considered so important that it overrides block policy. And, quite properly, it overrides 3RR policy, which was an unusual thing, a "bright line."

Essentially, the "3RR exemption" is not some new thing, but a return to the older situation where 3RR doesn't exist, the rule is "no edit warring." Except in emergencies. Except to enforce policy. Except, except. The 3RR exemption isn't a carte blance. It is simply *removing* a rigid rule in one narrow area. The underlying rules and guidelines and policies still exist, the bright line just has a bump in it. The 3RR exemption would not apply to someone, on their own, using reversion to protect a BLP article, for days, without at least making a good faith attempt to bring in administrative attention. If many reversions are necessary, the article should be protected, for starters. And broader attention should arise, so that it is not only the judgment of a single editor that another's edits are defamatory. But the editor taking the material out should not be blocked automatically. The one putting it in (or perhaps even the multiple editors putting it in) might be blocked. We should, as a default, feel safe removing defamatory information where there is no community consensus to keep it. That's special to BLP, in other articles the situation isn't automatically biased toward inclusion or exclusion. While documenting actual practice is interesting, actual practice is not the only source for guidelines. Community consensus (a real consensus, not the transient consensus that sometimes passes for it) is another source. Both. They interconnect, and they move each other. --Abd (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd - you've got to stop telling lies about me - it does you no favours. It was not a matter of me "crafting an appearance", it was you repeating reverting in claims that a woman had aids and had passed on aids to multiple other living figures because of your obsession with "punishing me". What you seem unable to accept (and this was explicitly explained to you by various admins plus a member of arbcom) is that it's irrelevent to us if the material is "true", because we don't deal in truth - we deal in verification. It was a) unsourced and b) in breach of our BLP policies. The frankly obsessed manner in which you seem unable to make make any policy related statements without mentioning me is starting to creep me out. You were in the wrong, regardless of my status, multiple editors told you were in the wrong, you were threaten with a block if did not cease and desist. How many more times are you going to bring this up before you accept that you were wrong and nobody agreed with your course of action. --87.112.79.25 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My, my, my. Speak of the devil. Folks, you can tell by the sulfur that we've had a visit from User:Fredrick day. Given that I did not allege that I was not "in the wrong," that I was giving the incident as an example of how strong BLP policy is, it's really moot. However, the AIDS incident described is well-known, is sourced multiply if you look for it. I'd actually heard of it years ago, even though I have practically no interest in porn stars. Well, no encyclopedic interest, and I restrain myself, otherwise. Multiple editors told me I was wrong *on principle*, not about that specific edit, and because several admins warned me, including one that I respect greatly, I wasn't going to be the one to restore sourced, well-known material to the article. Essentially I don't care *that* much about articles on porn starts being complete, and I did not want to do more than the most superficial research. My, my, look at that! ... But it is the thing that woman is most famous for, now. Fd set this up specifically to attempt to trap me into restoring defamatory material, but he picked an example that only looked defamatory. I'm not the one obsessed and I abandoned, immediately, doing what encountered admin criticism. Now, 'nuff said, or even more than enough. Back to our regularly scheduled programming. Sorry, Lar. --Abd (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still entirely miss the point - it doesn't matter than it CAN be sourced, it doesn't matter that you had your own personal knowledge about the matter, it doesn't matter that you were in dispute with me, it doesn't matter that (if your claim is true) that it's the thing that she is most famous for. The only point, we as wikipedia, are concerned with is that as presented, the material was unsourced - that's the start and end of our interest. You've been told this repeatly but don't seem to get this - wikipedia is not interested in 'truth', it is interested in verification - that's why you were wrong, that's why you were warned off. BLP violations and their ramifications are one of the most serious threats we face and we don't get to pick and choice how we enforce them (porno stars or not). You were explictly told this at the time. --87.112.79.25 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, thanks for turning up. I think you've got something there with that perspective. It's a different way to think about the matter, and a useful one. I won't comment on the particular matter that you and IP are disputing, I don't have the context, except to say that it clearly illustrates that not all BLP matters are cut and dried, sometimes it's not clear what version is defamatory and what version is not. maybe in some cases both versions are? Or neither? Hence, I think your suggestion that someone bravely using 3RR violating reverts to combat something indeed does need to ask for help as soon as it is practical rather than soldiering on solo... and then needs to explain that they in good faith were reverting beyond 3RR... it doesn't matter if it turns out they were wrong, the admins at the 3RR board should be giving them the benefit of the doubt on that, I would say, unless there's some pattern. Much of what Kim fastened onto, I think, is the fact that this process of asking for help, informing that you had to exceed the norms, and getting evaluated... seems to be coming out with wrong answers a fair bit. That seems a process problem, not an exemption problem. Unless as Kim alleges it's just impossible to do because the concept itself is broken. I just don't think so. Your reasoning above also supports that it's not conceptually broken. Again, thanks for turning up. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it clearly illustrates that not all BLP matters are cut and dried, sometimes it's not clear what version is defamatory and what version is not. maybe in some cases both versions are? Or neither Lar the answer to that one is really really simple - if you look at an article and it's unsourced and you cannot tell what is right or what is wrong - you stubbed it and then you rebuild from scratch, line by line with sources. I've done this many many times, I've reduced some articles to literally the name of the person - because that is our responsibility to living figures, because it is better to have imcomplete articles on living figures than articles that are wrong --87.112.79.25 (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree that when in doubt, stubbing is the right thing to do. See, for example, Mike Cox which I recently cut back a lot because when I removed the unsourced/copyvio stuff, what was left, even though sourced, was unfairly weighted, the article as a whole was no longer NPOV, so I stubbed that out too. I would defend that decision if I was challenged. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfb participation thanks[edit]

Hello, Larry.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As per our discussion above, I am waiting on an e-mail from you, at your earliest convenience. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome... You have my sympathy and respect even though I did not support you at this time... it is surely an unpleasantness we foist upon those who volunteer here, is it not? ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fun, that is certain, but it is a learning experience, and it provides lessons for life—not just wikipedia. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lar. I am still interested in discussing your concerns with you when you have some time. -- Avi (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... my, where has the time gone? I'm sorry, I'm not deliberately ignoring you, it just slips off the bottom of my todo list. I'll try to make the time and connection soon. Perhaps we should do it via email after all, asynchronous might work best. ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me; at your convenience, Larry. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<-)Lar, if I didn't respect you that much, I wouldn't care as much, but since I do, I'm still interested in having that conversation; email is fine. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Another 2 weeks ++ has went by. sigh. I will try to make some time. I really am sorry. ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonymous editing[edit]

Hello Lar, I caught your comment at one of the noticeboards where you mentioned a possible change of policy away from anon- and pseudonymous editing. This is a topic I would like to follow and keep on my watchlist. Can you point me to a central place where it is being discussed? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, as far as I am aware, up for serious consideration anywhere. It just happens to be an opinion of mine. (see [8]) I would predict that it would never come to pass, or if it did, there would be so much discussion first that it would be impossible to miss. It is, after all, a foundation principle of the WMF projects that "anyone can edit". ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link! Just to make sure I understand the concept, would one's name be known only to the Board of Trustees or another select group within the project (and provided to interested parties on demand, when accountability is required), or would it be known, accessible, and googlable to the entire world wide web community? (I'm not trying to draw you into a discussion here, just trying to understand, and not very knowledgable about these things.) ---Sluzzelin talk 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder, this is my opinion alone. I would have it be like Citizendium... your real name would be known to all and sundry, and searchable by all. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
with, I suppose, the provision that Citizendium has for allowing pseudonyms on special request for good reasons--though I am not aware whether or not they have ever had such a request, let alone accepted one. DGG (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully controlled pseudonyms? Probably not. Better to make it crystal clear that editing the project puts your name, reputation, everything... on the line, out in the open and unprotected from casual passers by who may well do whatever they wish with the data, and that the project makes absolutely no guarantees whatever that you will be safe, protected, indemnified, etc, as it has no powers to affect any matters outside its servers. If you could not edit under those conditions, don't. There is no overriding NEED for any one particular person to edit, after all. Radical? Absolutely. But it's my personal opinion of what is necessary. Meanwhile I absolutely support the current policies even if I think they're not right, because that's what we sign up to do, support them. Or leave. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your candid response and food for thought. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demn you, Sirrah![edit]

... and your virtual cloth in a box with a fan! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else, much cleverer than me in the ways of Flash, wrote it. I just found it. But just keep clicking the ads, that's all I ask :) ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love Kim, but...[edit]

This. It seriously is unacceptable to me, as I'm seeing now on two seperate key policy discussions the equivalent of discarding and maiming consensus to advance one's personal stances. The governence reform, I now believe, he worked to sink because it would have made "senior" people like him irrelevant to the grand scheme of things, and with no more weight or individual authority than any other user, and this attempt to cripple BLP is just baffling. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 04:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ask Kim a very valid question. I'm hoping he'll stop with the recasting everything and the socratic method... Just like when he's good, one of the key things he does is call other people on bad assumptions... when he's not quite as good, it's the others that need to keep him honest. We'll see. ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've backed off on the BLP talk page, at least for the next week or so. What I was trying to do clearly wasn't working. Then some folks tried a similar approach on NTWW chat, and we saw exactly how badly it wasn't working (even though logically it ought to, but there you go.) I can't be hypocritical and not fix my own procedures when there are issues with them.

One thing apparently got you angry where it wasn't intended: A comment I posted about the log being empty? It was true at the time. When you put a data-point in the log 2 hours later, you apparently read the comment as saying I'd rejected your log entry (which is obviously not true, as it hadn't been made yet at the time of the comment). Apologies for that misunderstanding. I appreciate your attempts at gathering data.

I hope you have a nice morning! --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, long-term, we're not here to just discuss policy. We only should be here to make encyclopediac content. But if policy needs to be discussed, or anything, if people have faith in their views, those views should be able to stand on their own without having to defend them religiously. More importantly, if consensus needs to be hashed out, I think you'll find many people (myself as a prime example) will take any offense at that consensus having any appearance of scripting or manipulation. Only a natural honest, un-gamed, unmanipulated consensus has value. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here was that people kept misunderstanding each other! Something like this:
  • I say "X"
  • person 1 says : "I don't like Y"
  • I say "But I said X!"
  • person 2 says : "I agree with person 1, Z sucks"
  • I say "Huh?! But I said X, and Person 1 said Y!"
  • person 3 says: "Don't be disingenuous! I heard you say W all along!"
  • I say "but but but!"
  • .oO(ARRRGH!)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC) omg wtf, bbq! YUM![reply]

You can claim to be misunderstood, I suppose, but I don't think so. The major issue I have with this is that during the course of this, you were asked many clarifying questions which you did not answer, and had many of your assumptions challenged, which you did not address. I find myself agreeing extremely strongly with FaithF here. You need to either admit that FaithF's view (and I suspect, the majority of the other participants as well) of what transpired is correct, and understand why it is unacceptable to act that way, or determine why so many people perceived your approach to this matter singularly unhelpful, and why they did not understand what you really were trying to do. I think it is possible that there is some self delusion involved, your perception of what you were doing may not match what you actually were doing. I'm sorry to speak so harshly but I feel a fair bit of time was flat out wasted in this matter.

To be crystal clear, it is my view that:

  • You do not admit the validity of the notion that BLP policy is prescriptive but instead act as if there can be no doubt it is descriptive and persist in using descriptive methods against near universal local consensus that you are wrong without addressing the issue.
  • You have not shown that there is a basic problem with the exception itself because your sample set is too small. When it has been pointed out to you that the methodoligy is flawed, at length, you have given the impression you are going to define things as you wish to get the answer you wish. I gave what I feel is a very apt analogy, with some very clear correspondence of pieces and you engaged in sophistic attempts to define the pieces otherwise than I intended. It's my analogy, after all, so it's rather insulting to do that. You did that same sort of redefinition on what people said to try to turn "I support the policy exemption but think there is a problem with admins at the noticeboard not heeding it" into "I don't support the policy", even in the face of repeated explanation.
  • You wanted more data, yet repeatedly refused to address the basic questions asked about the first data point I supplied. My later annoyance came from the perception that you were dodging the point that you yourself should supply some data about your own BLP actions... or admit that you have not actually yourself carried out any edits in support of BLP.

I'm really sorry to say this Kim, but you did not at all acquit yourself well here, and your attempts to reframe what happened after the fact contribute to that assessment. I'm surprisingly disappointed in you. You need to internalise that what others are saying may actually be an accurate assessment of what transpired.

I suggest that while you are going off and thinking about what happened, that you spend some time doing some actual BLP work. Your article namespace contribs show less than a dozen edits there in the last two months, and I'm not seeing any of them (on spot checking) as BLP related. To have standing in this matter, it may be helpful to spend some time at the coalface, seeing the magnitude of the problem. Go find some BLP problems and try to fix them. They won't be hard to find. It is depressingly easy, actually. Most people find one within the first 20 times they hit "random article". I feel that while I am not the most diligent, I do have some standing, as reviewing my article namespace contribs shows 150 over the last two months, not less than a dozen (still in dilettante mode, to be sure) and with a predomination of BLP related ones recently (all those AfD related removals and the like are BLP AfDs) So while my standing is slight compared to the really hard working folk who deal with this more often, it is non zero. ++Lar: t/c 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite claiming to be misunderstood (far from it). What you're saying may or may not be true, but what really got to me was the NTWW chat discussion. That discussion proceeded in a very similar manner, including specifically X, Y, Z, W sequence. I was just watching, and Faith and yourself weren't participants (and the policy under discussion was a hypothetical policy "WP:FLOOFYPOO"), so whatever happened in the NTWW chat must be due to the kind of questions or the way they were asked, not due to anything else. Well, *THAT* was rather odd and unexpected, and that's what caused me to decide to step away from the page.
My last involvement with a BLP issue was where I was mediating off-wiki between several different parties on Rosalind Picard. User:Ottava Rima was "the man at the keyboard" for that particular case. (so you'll find them in his own style and in his edit history, not mine. And rightly so. Note that this is fairly typical when mediating). He was really pleased with his role for having edited straight through a BLP edit-war without getting involved, and we solved most of the WP:UNDUE issues with that article. I became interested in 3RR-exempt, because one of the participants had emailed Rosalind Picard and invited her to come and look, and the edit war was still ongoing. That definitely was not a good thing.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something in which you may be interested[edit]

You are a steward are you not? (Well, I opined that you should be :) )

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#the undertow

--Avi (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a steward, see my WikiMatrix... At this time I don't see a formal call for desysopping by ArbCom (that one former member commented is not a formal request), nor a request for it by the user, (the two things that would trigger a desysop request to be acted on) so there's no action item for me as a steward, but I'm naturally concerned about this, regardless of who did what, as it seems troubling. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know that there is no call for anything now, prior to a RfAr, but this event looks like it may have legs, so I thought to give you the heads up. -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. Much appreciated. I went on IRC to keep an eye on things and see what was what. If there is a proximate call for a desysopping, there are plenty of stewards around to handle it, so it would get handled very swiftly. I better get back to my SQL hacking... :) ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ey oh, wassup?[edit]

I was a bit bothered by this the other day, and then I noticed this. Perhaps it would be best to chat about this in email. You know how to contact me, tonysidaway@gmail.com if you don't. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can if you want, but here's fine too. The two edits seem only mildly related. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thank-spam[edit]

Lar/Archive 42, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary vs. mandatory recall[edit]

Lar, your name came up on my talk page, if you want to take a look. Regards, Tim Smith (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token a6b43f4322f4bbdfa09a724d0ac9b8ab[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are so sure you want to do it[edit]

I would suggest you read User:Filll/Moultonunblock. All of it. Carefully. I added more to it, but there is still lots more.

Such as evidence of past disruption of other online communities. And evidence of trying to cause disruption on purpose so he can write about it as a research study to see how we react. Now, I think it is ok to give people a second chance. However, I think people who do this should go into this with their eyes open. And fully aware of what might await.

If you want to take him under your wing and try to educate him, go ahead as far as I am concerned; just keep him away from me. You can see more details in that link above. If you are successful at reforming him, I will take my hat off to you.

Of course, a lot of the information derives from private emails and other private records. But it exists. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I am, never said I was. My expectation is that either there won't be consensus to unblock, or that if there is an unblock, he won't edit at all, but yes, I'll take him under my wing. And block quickly if it's not working out. I'm aware of a fair bit of past history. But "Should we block/unblock?" misses the point, or at least part of it. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If, knowing what you do, you're willing to take him under your wing, then, to quote the Yarbirds a bit out of context, "Mr., you're a better man than I". And I mean that sincerely, not with the sarcasm of the Yardies' version. I know I've been snarky over this whole thing -- my memories of interacting with Moulton are not pleasant ones -- but, since I too like experiments, I'll support you as best I can. I suppose time will tell how it'll go (although, I'd lay odds in a certain direction). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate your change of heart, even though I share your dubiousness (I know you may not believe it, but I do...) Best. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back on this, it's the research study part of it which struck me. a declared attempt to edit disruptively in order to see what will come of it is not good faith. It may be an interesting research project from an outside perspective, if he can get away with it, (though most ethics committees would have some doubts), but we have the same right and obligation to keep such people out--just as if they wanted to do an experiment and see how much spam they could add, for their own private satisfaction. But perhaps you are right, that it was intended to be provocative and won;t happen again. May we all come out OK. DGG (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. editing disruptively to see what will come of it is a kind of "breeching experiment", and I've in the past come down very hard on anyone that I thought was doing that. This would be no different, if I see signs of it, I will not be at all favourably disposed. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunholm[edit]

See you weighed in pretty well on previous dicussions on Sunholm socks, would you mind looking at User_talk:Dmcdevit#Sunholm? and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1qx_and_DUCK? I believe that he's back. Also, MrBigBux (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) may be of interest. Thanks, Metros (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check that AN/I link, seems wrong to me... Do you think MrBigBux is related or were you just asking about that one too? ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it got archived: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive418#1qx_and_DUCK. As for MrBigBux, he's shown up before (including today) tagging these socks in different ways, so I was wondering if there was a connection there. His only contributions have been to tag these socks. Metros (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this has been handled, near as I can tell. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Street[edit]

I don't know if you noticed I added some Rush Street information to SS Christopher Columbus. I also put a note on the talk page about finding more images. You may find the current Rush Street FAC interesting. I have just added some new image formatting that I need feedback on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at SS Chris's talk, please take a look. I'll try to make time to take a look at Rush St... an article about a street up for FA! cool. BTW what do you think of SS Chris being on the main page for Columbus day? you can't suggest more than a month in advance, so... have to remeber to suggest it mid September. ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would of course be a cool date. If you nominate it drop me a note and I will support. I just noticed that the WP:USRD/MTF has finally gotten around to a request of mine for a map of Rush Street without informing me. I think their map is better in some sense although it is imprecise. I have swapped images and commented on their map request page with my quibbles. I will check the SS CC talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account[edit]

Hi Lar. Sorry to bother you since you probably have more pressing things to do, but, as you are the admin who unblocked me when I was accused of sockpuppetry, I wanted to clear my creation of a second account for use on public computers per WP:SOCK#LEGIT with you. I'll name it something obviously related to me ("Doctorfluffy2" or similar) and will tag it with one of the appropriate alt account templates. Naturally, it's possible that both accounts might edit the same page during the course of a debate, but I would think with the above measures it would be apparent to all that I am not socking in a malicious or collaborative manner. Would you have any problem with this? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's properly tagged, and isn't used in violation of policy I have absolutely no problem, thanks for notifying me. Using a name like Doctorfluffy2 or DoctorfluffyPublic is a good idea. The first name you may have trouble creating because of how close it is, if you decide that's what you want and it is so, let me know and I'll create it for you. (the second name is marginally better I think, but it's a personal preference matter) ++Lar: t/c 10:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, you may want to link the signature of the alternate to the main... that's the easiest way to use both in a discussion without anyone being accidentally confused. See for example how I set up my alternate account User:Larbot to sign as in this diff. Hope that helps. Best. ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went with your recommendations on both the user name and the signature. Thanks for the tips. DoctorfluffyPublic (alt account for Doctorfluffy | talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you're welcome. One thing you may or may not want to do is redirect User talk:DoctorfluffyPublic to your normal talk. You can leave the current warning you have there too. A nice thing about an alternate account on other wikis is that you can set the account's prefs so that every time anything on that account's watchlist is changed, you get a mail. Then on the alternate account, only watch things you actually want to get mailed about. (I use larbot that way on multiple wikis... you have to log in using that account to reset the notifier though) en:wp doesn't support that, too many accounts, but it is great on smaller wikis. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lar[edit]

Thanks for the suggestions regarding my accountability page. I've updated it, clarified my terms, and posted the updated page. Since there's two weeks lead time (to be fair), would you mind looking it over and giving it the up or down for me? User:SirFozzie/Accountability. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far, one loose end I spotted, is it original recaller (the one that gets the recall certified as started) plus 5 more, or does the 5 include that bloke? It's a bit vague there. Also ", any new attempts to recall for the same issue/incident"... means? What if the issue is that you are an abusive admin? No one can ever recall you for that, ever again? Or just that they need a new incident that shows it, not the old evidence from before... Also, "clerk, Any" we don't typically capitalise subordinate clauses. Ok that was three loose ends. tough noogies!++Lar: t/c 22:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bettor? :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. 1) There's still a loose end around the original requestor bit... do they have to recertify on the page, like the other signatories, or is it sufficient that they asked it be started? 2) Same same gets removed by clerk... does that mean whatever poor schlub you get to clerk the first one is stuck clerking your user page until some recall that raises NEW material actually gets started? :) ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. Ever think of going into wikilawyering ;-). I've made it clear on 1)... and put in something for two, but not sure how to do it SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Ever think of going into wikilawyering"... that cuts me to the quick. Besides, have you read mine? Some say I have! Or at least wikilawclerking. As to how to fix the clerk is beholden forever bit, try saying that at a certain point, the clerk certifies it's OVER, and then is done with any obligation, and then YOU remove stuff until a valid one starts. (If someone has a problem with that, hey, this is voluntary, ArbCom is thataway) ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting to you, and notice of resignation[edit]

Hello sir. As I write this, I grow tired. Just for identification, I am someone who you have fought with in the past. I have been reflective in the last few weeks, since the last church service with the sacrament of Holy Communion (I'm a Congregationalist Christian, United Church of Christ). To keep this short, I am sorry to you, and those administrators I have wronged and other users as yet unnamed here. I have not only wronged you sir, and those named here, but I have also violated the Word of Christ, who I swore on a sacred oath to follow for all my days, how many I have left. I come seeking forgiveness in His spirit, but don't expect it and won't force the issue. I don't seek to be unblocked, and I won't force it. To conclude this, I hereby withdraw my threats of legal action against the project and Mr. Wales and all the administrators. I seek to just be at peace, and with that spirit, I resign from Wikipedia. God Bless you Lar, you and your family. Keep safe will you? ForeverSearching (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not sure exactly how we have encountered each other in the past, thanks for your thoughts, your apology is accepted, and best wishes to you in whatever the future holds for you. Best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. — Scientizzle 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suppose I could have CU'ed the account to learn that but didn't have probable cause so let it be. I expect you're right though. 'preciate the info. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you're aware, check out User_talk:Scientizzle#Greeting. — Scientizzle 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite amazing, really. I think you've adequately bounded the problem. Please advise if you need assistance. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steward question[edit]

Hi Lar - Have been trying to do the whole SUL thing, and unexpectedly discovered that there is apparently a user named "Risker" on Japanese wikipedia. Well, sort of...their name is obviously in katakana first and then letters, so I am half wondering how it could be considered the same "name", but I guess that is neither here nor there. I'd like to usurp the account, which does not appear (from what I can see) to have had any more than a handful of edits some years ago; however, I have no idea how to communicate with Japanese bureaucrats, or how to read Japanese to find out if they have any special rules. Can you help me out here? It would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What error are you getting? Can you give me a link to the ja:wp account in question? There is an algorithm that is used to prevent names that are "too close"... that would prevent for example RIsker here.... Any admin usually can override it and create an account for you. If the account is not exactly the same you just need a ja:wp admin to create the account and send you the pw. There are many that speak english, to find one, find out who the admins are using the same URL you use here, and then find out who is in the en babelbox setup category, intersect, and ask for help. That's what I would do. Alternatively, get on the #wikipedia-ja IRC channel and ask for help there. (note, since the project has local admins and local 'crats, that's the route to go to get help... stewards never intervene if there are local folk to help, except in dire emergencies) BTW I use this tool to check for account names: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Lar&lang=en (just change the Lar to Risker.) Works a treat. (if the toolserver is happy, works not at all if the toolserver is sad... :) ) LMK if you need more help. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS .. this should help.
I spotted several admins I know speak english, but which ones? left as an exercise to the reader. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is supposedly the userpage here[9] (it's just boxes on the screen here at work, it's katakana on my better setup at home); interestingly when I use that search, the ja:wp doesn't show up at all[10]; in fact, when I went to set up the SUL, I was rather shocked to find out the Japanese account existed. Thanks for pulling those links, I'll work on that little project when I get home. Risker (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm confused. Tell me again, what exactly were you doing and what error did you get? When you go to unify, what should stop you is if there is a local account that is spelt EXACTLY the same as yours but that has a different password or email associated... the characters before "Risker" in the URL you gave are just "user" in a different format. But compare this

http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Lar&page=&year=&month=-1 to this http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Risker&page=&year=&month=-1 That says to me the account (which has no contribs) doesn't exist... Try doing the SUL unify from your home wiki again and this time, paste in the exact error you get?... ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, when i go to m:Special/CentralAuth I do see that the ja:wp is an "unattacked account" ... can I muck about? I can go onto IRC later and ask some more sage people. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I unmerged them so you can try the merge again and this time tell me what it said. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. This is what I get when I try to do the unified thing:[11] Earlier today, the en.wp, commons, meta and en.wikt accounts were up at the top and all in fact have the same username and password; only the jp.wp was at the bottom and needed a password match. Now, all but the en.wp are at the bottom, despite the fact that all but the jp.wp have the same username and password. (after putting in the password, it looks like this[12]) Never a dull moment around here. Please feel free to muck about; I'll trust you on this, and should be home at about 5:30 EDT on gmail or on-wiki. Haven't quite worked up the energy to do the IRC/cloaking thing yet! Risker (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link takes me to MY SUL status, not yours :) Can you get into your commons/meta etc (except for ja:wp) ok? I have to fly soon, so I won't be around on the nets till late tonite. You may want to work with someone else if it's urgent... More later. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez, that penny should have dropped, sorry. Yes, I can get into all of my accounts - commons, meta, en.wikt, and obviously en.wp. I'll be around until late tonight, I am determined to do some copy editing for fun and profit (as if), and might even do some research on this whole IRC thing. Thanks for your help. Risker (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I think that (barring me going in and renaming that account to move it out of the way (which just isn't done on a wiki with 'crats)) you're going to have to ask to usurp that account. I am sorry if I wasted your time. As I suggested before, find an admin to try creating the account for you, or if that doesn't work, a 'crat who speaks english. Sorry for confusion! ++Lar: t/c 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, Lar, and thank you for your assistance. I had just this moment emailed a ja.wp admin who also has an account here, requesting assistance and guidance in usurping that account. From what the google translator tells me, the account has no contributions and no user page and no user talk page, so it does raise certain questions as to whether it is even an account. Let's hope this is fairly straightforward to get through. I can struggle my way through many European languages, but I am completely hopeless trying to figure out languages that show up as squares on my screen, if you understand what I am saying. ;-) Risker (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. A really good person to reach out to if you get stuck is User:Kylu who knows an amazing number of languages well enough to get messages across... ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall ideas[edit]

Lar, seeing as your the "grandfather" of the recall idea, I wanted to run my newest expansion of my recall criteria (to include my BAG membership) by you at User:MBisanz/Recall. MBisanz talk 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "godfather" but ok. Um... I've never seen BAG folded in that way but it seems eminently straightforward and reasonable. Please update your entry on Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Admin_criteria to note that you've added BAG stuff, it may be of use to other BAGgers... PS good luck on your candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

evening gramps....[edit]

A silly picture

(hope you don't mind my small tease per the above thread!) - thought I'd drop a note in here rather than reply to your message in the An/I thread...

I was supporting the 2 week ban only on MM, and not the straight to indef. in my comments - though I did think about re-wording to "I'm happy to agree with Lar" which perhaps better reflects the bit of ambivalence / doubt which remains. Actually - and I've considered the possible harm in saying this openly - and discounted it - I think there's also a 'better the devil we know' argument in there too. It's worth remembering that it is nigh on impossible to prevent someone from editing wikipedia if they want to (and I was a bit surprised in my case at the advice I got from some quarters to do just that - both the advice, and where it came from raised my eyebrow a bit).

Further to my comments at AN/I about the arbcom being not fit for purpose - I've been having some interesting conversations, and trying to think through a few ideas, and wondered if you might have any advice as to the best 'on-wiki' next steps? - are you interested in this aspect at all? hope you're good Lar - and here's a completely random comment for you - I was tempted to illustrate a post at 'that' current arb case talk page with this pic... fortunately I didn't find it sooner, and the post is probably better unsaid anywhoo....!

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love the pic, PM! I've moved it up so it looks a bit better, hope you don't mind. Risker (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PM where did you get that pic? Your own artwork? You've a talent I wasn't aware of... (and some you do. I may start calling you Thirg...) I dunno about getting into any sort of dissection of arbcom's shortcomings at this point. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurantism[edit]

Why, thank you. :) I was searching for the pithiest crystallization of the frustration that Moulton's style seems to inspire on occasion, and that's what I came up with. I seem to recall seeing it described as "condescending, self-indulgent bullshit" on the Site-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named, which is caustic but also perhaps more accurate. Anyhoo... keep up the good work. MastCell Talk 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland at ANI[edit]

Hi Lar. I just replied to you here -- just a heads up so you don't miss it! Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks like it is closed. At least for now? Appreciate the heads up. (and no, I'm not Lir, but still :) ) ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvass[edit]

Consider yourself to retroactively canvassed.Balloonman (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fat lot of good it does NOW. Some cabal ringleader you are. Turn in your secret decoder ring at once! ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secret decoder ring...d0H! I knew I forgot something!Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

"I suggest that you are not the person here with the most moral standing to speak about corruption or fraud or favoritism. Put your own house in order first."

What does this comment mean, Lar? SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate an explanation. If you accuse a good editor of corruption and fraud, you have a duty to explain what you mean. SlimVirgin talk|edits
I agree. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please do explain. It can't be because he voted one hour and whatever after me, because your wife voted 13 minutes after you, and I am certain she didn't do it just because you did. It can't be because you think he was canvassed (which he wasn't, at least not by me), because you have several times canvassed people by e-mail for votes, both in RfAs and in your own stewardship. So please say what it is, Lar. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. My mistake, I thought you were referring to Crum375 needing to explain what he meant when he accused a good editor of "corruption and fraud"", because he absolutely does need to explain that. He hasn't. Instead he has been attacking those who point it out.
It is absolutely not corruption or fraud to communicate with other editors about matters of mutual concern, which is what Giggy did with those GAs, which is presumably what you and Crum do all the time, and which is what I did when I turned in my chair and mentioned to my wife that Giggy was running for admin. If you think I'm saying that mere communication is evidence of corruption, I think you need to read what I've said more carefully. Giggy didn't tell people to pass things, and I don't tell my wife how to vote (as if she'd listen anyway). Communication by itself is fine, as far as I'm concerned. After all, you and I were on a private list together for some time, communicating about matters of concern. Nothing wrong with that. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above, so I'll word my question more carefully. What do you mean exactly when you refer to Crum375 as being involved in corruption and fraud? SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to clarify your remarks on the RfA, then, since you now apparently agree you misstated things there. What does Crum375 mean, exactly, when he refers to Giggy as being involved in corruption and fraud? And what did you mean when you said "too many concerns"? I see several people are waiting for clarification on that. Also, have you asked Sean William what he meant by Tu quoque yet? ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Slim. It is what it is. ps: "hi there". Miss you. See you soon. (mwah). 85.3.218.119 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is the place to talk about this particular issue Lar. I know this is a particularly heated topic at the moment, but could I please ask you to focus your comments on the candidate, rather than the history and relationships of the people who have commented. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd agree but I find the use of the terms "corruption and fraud" in regard to this matter so pejorative and so "well poisoning" that I find myself with no choice but to point out how inappropriate it is to attack a candidate that way, and why. I've said my bit though, unless there are further attacks of that nature in that RfA. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, your restraint is much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. By the way, are you aware of this?? I wonder if it's appropriate to consider saying something is "fallacious" as a personal attack... there does seem to be a lot of that going around. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit odd. Maybe he didn't mean it in the policy sense? Anyway, I'm off to have a beer. Talk to you later. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that someone doesn't know the difference between fallacy and fellatio - which further leads me to suspect that said person isn't married... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Lar? Could we resume that chat in email? This is a very worrying turn of events. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mailed you. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_42&oldid=1184971349"