User talk:Lar/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 47

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 October 2008 through about 1 November 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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadford, County Limerick[edit]

Hi Lar, may I ask you to take a look at this deletion request filed by me? I came across this article while hunting down the edits of an IP which vandalized another article on my watchlist. This article turned out to be most-vandalized article I ever saw. In fact, I was unable to find any revisions without vandalisms except for its very beginning when it curiously described the town of Broadford on the isle of Skye. Since then this article was misused as an attack page against the inhabitants of this village. You'll find a summary of the revision history here. At the end I did not find any useful revision I could revert to and I thought it would be straightforward to get this article deleted and to start from scratch. In particular, I think it would be appropriate to get rid of edits like this one or that one. (There are more of this kind embedded in the revision history.) Since I opened this deletion request, apparently nobody understood my concerns. Most were simply arguing that this village is notable and that just some cleanup is required. Some even tried to save this article by removing all apparent vandalisms. The problem I see, however, is the remaining revision history as it includes insults against inhabitants of that village. In addition, I think, that such a long history of edits is a burden for anyone working on this article. Therefore I suggest to get at least rid of the revision history until my deletion request. Or to delete the entire article and start from scratch as I suggested on the deletion request. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and share your insights how this is best handled. Thanks for your support and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, AFBorchert, there actually is a Broadway on the Isle of Skye. I checked, so that's just a good-faith error. If you have issues where there may be defamation of real people, point the diffs out and I will personally evaluate them and oversight them. Honestly, we dont' nuke articles that are good and encyclopedic. Right now, it's actually just fine - Alison ❤ 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there is a town named Broadford on the isle of Skye. This is also one of the very few good faith edits of this article but it is pretty useless now as that article was hijacked to become the article of Broadford in County Limerick. Since then you will find just vandalism and good-faith articles spellchecking the vandalism etc. And I do not think that the entire article including its long revision history of vandalisms and insults of living people is anything close to "fine". --AFBorchert (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think it's "fine", then fix it. Honestly, the average article has a metric ton of vandalism in its edit history. We don't have the time to go redacting every instance of vandalism when reversion does the job just as well. What matters is the current revision - Alison ❤ 08:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The maintenance of the current revision is not always sufficient. There are copyvios, privacy violations, and defamations which in some cases even ask not just merely deleted (out of sight of regular editors) but even oversighted. This article was simply a series of edits inserting defamatory stuff that included insults directed against supposedly living people from that village. As there was no useful contents or any useful revisions during its long history it appeared to me the best approach to get this article deleted and to start from scratch. This case is different from other articles that have useful content but get occasionally vandalized. Nobody took care of this article which allowed this article for years to become game of vandals, each of them trying to add more insulting stuff. Did you actually went through the entire history of that article like I did, Alison? When this extreme case gets preserved, anyone can continue to harass the inhabitants of this village by just providing permanent links to it. And this case is not just extreme but also quite simple as there is nothing that ought to be preserved from the edits before I filed my deletion request. And sorry no, I will not contribute any edits to an article with such a long history of harassments. I know exactly how harassments feel from personal experience and will not ignore such issues just because this stuff is no longer present at the front door. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ufff. Without getting into a fight over who's-harassment-was-worse, I do know about oversight, being one of a handful of oversighters here on enwiki.[1] I've already asked once; please provide diffs of edits you consider defamatory and I'll evaluate them for oversight. It's as simple as that. When I went through the entire history of the article (yes, I did), I didn't see anything worthy of deletion, let alone oversight and this is something I get to deal with on a daily basis here, being one of the more active oversighters on the project (nobody beats Fred :) ). Honestly, this is a waste of time now. We should both be doing constructive work instead of arguing over this - Alison ❤ 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (sorry, Lar, for taking over your talkpage)[reply]
I've provided these diffs already (at the deletion request and in my initial notice to Lar). They survived for quite some time and got even updated. To me they are bad enough and they are likely, given the whole context of this game, to raise interest even if they are no longer part of the current revision. Sorry Lar that you received such a long thread by now on your talk page. This was not my intention. Alison, if you have anything to add, please do it at the deletion request or at my talk page. Thank you. AFBorchert (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have Oversight on en:wp, sorry. You might speak to ArbCom about that, I've asked for it and had it declined. I can take a look at this article but my queue is rather long right now. Is there a specific action item here for me? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that is was declined. I do not know many senior admins at the English wikipedia, so I contacted you because I know you from Commons. But I do not want to bother you with this any further if you are that busy with other issues. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help, I just can't tell what help it is you need :( ... ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the revision history of Broadford, County Limerick ought to be deleted at least to the point when I filed it for deletion. I have two reasons for it: Firstly, in my opinion this page was mainly used as an attack page against the inhabitants of that village which included defamatory edits like this one or that one. Secondly, as there was practically no useful content at all and no unvandalized revisions such a history is a burden for anyone taking care of that article in the future and it is also embarrassing for the Wikipedia and, of course, for that village. From my point of view, a simple deletion of this revisions would suffice, i.e. I do not think that they need to be oversighted. I do not see any value or necessity in keeping that revision history; in particular I do not see a violation of the GFDL when it gets deleted. Unfortunately this is an unusually extreme case (i.e. an article which more or less consisted of vandalisms only) and to understand the problem it is necessary to go through the long history of that article. In summary, I simply wanted your advise in how to proceed best in such a case as I am not very familiar with the procedures of this project. Thanks and regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup[edit]

Hi Lar, I am sorry to bother you again with this issue but this will be the very last time. This deletion request was closed early, i.e. before running for five days, by a non-admin. I do not think that this closure is in conformance with this policy but I do not intend to follow this point any further. It worries me, however, that a long series of revisions with defamatory stuff (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]) was kept in this article despite this policy which explicitly requires such material to be deleted and not just reverted. Given that multiple editors started to save the article by rewriting it from scratch after I filed it for deletion, the deletion of the entire article seems no longer be appropriate. Perhaps a selective deletion is the way to go. I saw it as my responsibility as a mere editor to draw the attention of admins to this amount of libel in this article and I got somewhat frustrated as apparently nobody followed to see a problem with that. I am not really familiar with the English wikipedia and its procedures. Perhaps this contributes to the problem that I apparently fail to make myself clear. This notice to you is my very last attempt to draw any attention to it. Thanks for your offer to help and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those edits - requires oversight. I'm not seeing the defamation there at all - Alison ❤ 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, AFBorchert is a well respected user on many wikis, I've found his previous reports sound and his counsel wise, (heck, he voted against my candidacy once so he's no dummy! :) ) so I think the concerns should be taken seriously. I have had other matters that took my attention. If Ally says they're not oversightable, they're not, I trust her judgement. But that doesn't mean there isn't something to look into here. Talk Page Watchers.... can you help me out here? Take a look at some of the edits AFB gives diffs for and evaluate them not on oversightability, but on whether they are or are not problematic? Thanks! I spot checked a couple, and what I saw was garden variety vandalism... saying that the place is somewhere to go to die of leprosy and other foolishness... not something that rises to the level of defamation, just something to give an IP a stern warning or short block over... I may have missed some though, but as Allie says, "the average article has a metric ton of vandalism in its edit history" ... sad but true. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the IP involved in many bad edits to the subject article a warning. Not for those edits, which are too old to warn an IP about, but for recent edits. For the record: 84.203.146.56 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was warnded for a Newcastle West edit. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it, Lar, and for your kind words. I cannot claim that I have significant experience in hunting down vandalism and hence I wasn't sure how this is handled best. And, yes, I felt somewhat uncomfortable if all this is left in the history (in particular this and that raised my attention as this associates a named person with defamatory remarks). The other defamations go against one of the local pubs which is declared to be rat-infested and the village in general. (But the story about the quarantine sounded for some readers realistic enough to ask a question on the talk page or to add a dubious tag to it.) I concur with Alison that this does not require oversight. If you think that it also does not require selective deletion then I will trust your judgement. Alison, I thank you as well for looking into this matter. Please understand, however, that I didn't met you before and I just wanted to have a second opinion. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting revisions can be done with less fuss than oversighting them. If you have particular ones to delete, prepare a list, and I'll take a look. You can use the contact me feature if you don't want to post them... ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed you my suggestion. Thanks and best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answered via mail. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page lurker[edit]

I need help with an essay. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What essay? I'm not the best at reading minds and people get jumpy when I scan their contribs :) ... (not that that stops me) ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (PS, take a number! :) ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
>>>>>>>Wikipedia:Talk page lurker<<<<<<<<<< Jehochman Talk 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, THAT one. Asked and answered. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You prefer watcher? Watcher seems more lurid! I think a lurker is more slothlike. Jehochman Talk 23:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lurking is what people do in dark alleys or smoky bars. I just like to watch, myself. Risker (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nowt wrong with The Lurkers! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever check Hobartimus and Collect?[edit]

They routinely agree with each other and even follow each other on to noticeboards to agree with each other. They always support each other's changes and both help to revert back each other's changes. They may indeed be different people, but I assure you, H and C have far more similar actions and back-ups (I could show you over 100 if you cared to see them all), then the editors Kelly charged me with being related to who appeared once and disappeared. I'm not asking for a formal request, but if you could check just to reassure yourself and me, I'd appreciate it.GreekParadise (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. See User_talk:Lar#Allegations_of_socking, first paragraph. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Admin Coaching[edit]

Dear Lar,

I was thinking of requesting adminship in the near future, as many of my recent edits have been in areas where I could help more easily if I was an administrator. However, I recognize that I am probably too inexperienced with Wikipedia and possibly too ignorant of some policies. So I was wondering if you would consider admin coaching me.

Thank you,NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accepting any coachees at this time as I don't think I can devote the necessary time to do a good job and would rather not do a slipshod one. Sorry. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Thanks for reading this though :) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)[edit]

The September 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) 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LEGO[edit]

I found the Halsam patents on wooden bricks and added it to the LEGO article. I don't know if you follow the article, but I noted your interest in LEGOs. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His interest! Lar is a LEGO nut. He eats bricks for breakfast. MBisanz talk 19:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. That's bad for you. I've had LEGO candy and LEGO waffles though. ++Lar: t/c 05:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a few too many of those waffles, heh? Hello. User Power here from Brickwiki - do you know what's happened to Brickwiki? I havene't been able to get on for months. I remmember there was talk of amalgamating with other wikis - has that happenned? I hope all the work there hasn't been lost (I've got copies of my stuff to put up somewhere else). I see you're really involved here but I've only just arrioved - the LEGO article seems well done - could my stuff fit somewhere? Should I just put it on a user page? Power4life (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BrickWiki seems sporadic, it runs on "thrown together" hardware. It has been working for me lately though. The merger talk didn't seem to go anywhere. And with the recently announced cuts to Wikia staffing (suggesting that there may be issues) merging to a Wikia wiki might not be something to rush into anyway. As for your stuff, putting it onto a subpage of your user page is a good idea. I keep stuff in progress as subpages of User:Lar/ToDo, and when I am sure it's ready to go as an article, I move it to articlespace. But, the standards here are far stricter about what can be included. Please be sure to read some of our core policies related to articles. I strongly recommend notability, reliable sources, verifiability and if you write about people the Biography of Living Persons policy... hope that helps. (the core policies can be found at WP:FIVE.. the rest of them also apply but some focus on how you should interact with others...) ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've helped with some of the Lego articles too, so if I can be of assistance, let me know. Lego is the one addiction that actually successfully competes with my Wiki-addiction.  ;) I even have Lego ice cube trays and a Lego business card holder, heh. I don't think I've ever done anything with the BrickWiki, but I do post updates to inventories at peeron.com every so often. In fact, as we speak, I've got the full 5,000+ piece Millennium Falcon here on my desk (took about a month to build). My next big project is the Death Star II.  :) --Elonka 15:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnng[edit]

Rapid-response you your email, sir. Iet's sort this out quickly - Alison ❤ 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
You get this star for best edit summary ever. bibliomaniac15 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um thanks, but I can't really take credit for that one. (check the caption of the picture on the essay page)... besides that's not even MY best ever... I do pride myself on them though, so keep watching. ++Lar: t/c 11:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocking![edit]

This video rocks. I'm a fan of both SpaceX and Crystal Method so it's doubly good. High Roller indeed is a great choice for an accompaniment! ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MFD closed[edit]

Hi Lar, I've closed this discussion which seemed to be becoming rather bitter, and tried to focus attention on how things might be improved. I hope my rationale makes sense and is something people can get behind. It occurs to me that in blanking the RfCU request beyond your earlier redactions, I have rather exceeded the authority of a non-checkuser in this area. For that I apologise. If you feel that my further blanking hampers the ability of checkusers to keep a check on misconduct by SA, I of course defer to you and accept your right to revert me. I think however that this course reflects the consensus of the discussion and is the best way for everyone to move on positively. WJBscribe (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks for taking this particular bull by the horns. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babysitting request??[edit]

Can you watchlist Talk:Fiador (tack) and its associated article? The last time this article was subject to a round of editing, I was the recipient of a wikiquette alert. The same OR and photos have been reinserted again, I have commented on the talk page, I am going to be making some structural edits and tagging some materials in the article, and this issue needs to be resolved once and for all. I'm sick of fighting over it. Montanabw(talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a bit more about what I need to watch for? I don't know anything about the topic. Even E, who knows way more about horses than I do, doesn't know much, but she's trying to come up to speed, and just leaned over and said she'd talk to our trainer about it. However she unfortunately has returned to work and has a bit less time. That said, I've watchlisted it and I'd encourage all my TPWs to do so as well... ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a stable diff to my version: [20] . Essentially, though there are other side issues, the short version is that the fiador, as understood in the USA, is seen in western riding, as part of some hackamores used as a type of throatlatch to stabilize a bosal on a young, green-broke horse. It's the thingy of white cord tied to the back of the hackamore shown here. The issue is that Una keeps adding material on Australian neck collars and Australian bardoo bridles to this article, and these neck collars are NOT fiadors. The critical difference here is that these neck collars are used to tie up a horse, while a fiador is placed on equipment that should NEVER be used to tie a horse. It's a safety issue, which is why I'm being a bit stubborn about this. I took all the questionable material out and parked it on the talk page until we can reach a resolution. She also says that the word fiador, as used in Spanish-speaking countries, describes something like a neck collar, and I have fact tagged some of this material - She may be correct, I don't speak Spanish, so I don't know. There may be a place to discuss neck ropes too, but not necessarily in this article. Montanabw(talk) 02:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my e-mail[edit]

(redacted)

I don't mind giving it out, certainly not to you. I do not make it automatically available because a now-banned user once used it to harass me, that's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User RfC - Kay Sieverding[edit]

Dear Lar: At Arthur Rubin's suggestion, I have started a User RfC for Kay Sieverding, who is continuing to do exactly what she did before Risker's block. Please feel free to participate here Non Curat Lex (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

Hi Lar, hope is well. Popped back into Wikipedia today after a long break, and found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, under Topic ban needed for two edit warriors. I personally think it is more wasteful arguing, where all they had to do is come up with a shared-name in the filename and include all terms in the image, and everyone is jumping up and down happy. Anyway, I always enjoy your comments on situations, so if you have time, drop by. I think it is just childish to have topic bans, blocks, etc. in this case. They just need to agree on a shared solution and be done with it. On the side, I'd actually like to see if you would be willing to be the unofficial mediator for this topic area if any future issues come up with naming. You've always been good at seeing through the babbling and just getting a compromise. :) Icsunonove (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought we were friends? Geesh. OK, I went there and said something. We shall see. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're on now...[edit]

Can you see if there are any more? Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 04:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

didn't spot any. ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Beat ya :) - Alison ❤ 04:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All  sorted. Found another one or two - Alison ❤ 04:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing one of us was paying attention. Me, I just wrote an article ... felt good! Julia Morton. One edit. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice indeed. I'm jealous :) - Alison ❤ 04:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) (wants to get back to decent article creation)[reply]
(like a thousand e/c's...) O_O I get two checkusers working on my request? Wow. Now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D (BTW, thanks...) J.delanoygabsadds 04:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me you asked both of us and didn't tell us? ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no. Normally, I bug Alison, but apparently (ummm, allegedly...........) she is on wikibreak. So I just looked at Special:ListUsers/checkuser and chose the one who had last edited. Which was you.
While I'm here, I may as well ask: Are phone number oversightable? Or should I just delete them? Or should I just revert and ignore? (I've sent a couple to Special:EmailUser/Oversight]], but I don't know if they were done or not. I've deleted a couple, but the other day I deleted a freeking huge page, (read: >3000 revisions) and it really slowed Wikipedia down. So now I don't know what to do. J.delanoygabsadds 04:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I view them as PII (personally identifiable information) and if not voluntarily disclosed, oversightable. Voluntary disclosure requires "proof" taht the number belongs to the discloser.. that is I can't voluntarily disclose YOUR number. Even if I claim it's mine. It has to really BE mine. Which is hard to prove, so I just delete them usually. But ask Allie. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to oversight phone numbers, yes. Pmail me the links - Alison ❤ 05:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 You've got mail J.delanoygabsadds 05:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who does? Geez, you're notifying HER on MY page? :) ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CC made bad faith 3RR report[edit]

FWIW, Cumulus has made a bad faith 3RR report on me, which was, thankfully, promptly dismissed. However, a sudden new account, "Arizona Biltmore" has suddenly appeared, interested in making the exact reversions CC has made, and also leaving, at best, strange Talk page entries. He does not seem to accept that unsourced material in a bio can be removed, although CC did it often in the past. Can you see if there is a chance that AB is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of Cumulus Clouds? Merci! Collect (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is always helpful to leave a link when you come to the page of a relatively busy admin... either a regular one for a slow moving page (for example Wikipedia:AN3#User:Collect_reported_by_Cumulus_Clouds_.28talk.29_.28Result:_Decline.2C_diffs_are_BLP_exempt.29 ) or if it's likely to get archived even before the admin can get to it, a history link (for example [21] ) When making suggestions that two users are related and requesting a check, even informally, it's helpful to give some diffs of specific edits that suggest a connection (because the edits are similar, or are both reverting the same thing, or one user is speaking as the other, or whatever) ... hope those tips help. I will take a look at this as soon as I get a chance. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. I know, after decades as a wizop, that being an admin is not fun. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245578210 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245286485 compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245334567 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245018772 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=prev&oldid=245004735 specifically noting the interest in maintaining the unsourced comments about Keating's family and implying they acted illegally or improperly. Again, apologies for sure. The only two article edits ever done by AB were the two reverts. Collect (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the diffs you've presented do show a possible social correlation between these two editors, sufficient to merit a check. Thanks for documenting them. So, I've carried one out and I do not find technical evidence of a correlation. It's possible that these edits are entirely innocent or coincidental, the behaviour does not rule that out. It is also possible that these two IDs represent two editors that know each other, with AB being a newly recruited meatpuppet as it were, and the behaviour does support that. It is also possible (although I suspect unlikely) that CC is a puppeteer clever enough to evade detection. But there's nothing I could say further technically, other than Red X Unrelated or at best  Unlikely, because unfortunately,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Remember that no correlation is not proof of innocence just as correlation is not proof of guilt. If this hasn't been brought to the WP:BLP noticeboard (WP:BLP/N) to get more admin eyes on it, it probably should be. Sorry I wasn't more help in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking it out. If I see more, I shall certainly blurt it out. CC, by the way, seems in the past to have prided himself on identifying socks, though his later adventures seem more confrontational than anything else. Collect (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding me? Did you check to see if Arizona Biltmore has any correlation to Collect? I believe that Collect has set up several sockpuppet accounts in order to bait me into situations like this one. User:Honey And Thyme is a good example, since that account filed an AFD report minutes after User:Jclemens pointed Collect towards an RFC filed against me, in which my dispute with User:MichaelQSchmidt was discussed. Collect than posted to MQSchmidt's talk page, attempting to draw that user into our conflict and, when MQSchmidt removed those comments, Honey&Thyme appeared to nominate MQS's article for deletion. After I posted my comment in that AFD, Collect immediately followed me with a keep vote. Later, he backtracked and concurred that it was indeed suspicious that a new account would nominate the article for deletion.
  • I believe Collect himself is a sockpuppet account, though I haven't yet been able to figure out who. He appeared back in May of this year after a 6 month hiatus, and his few edits in 2007 had been themselves preceded by another 6 month hiatus. Collect is a dangeous and manipulative user who is attempting to game the system with these fraudulent reports and I strongly condemn them. I am in good standing and have never been suspected of sockpuppetry. My integrity here has been absolutely unimpeachable, and even users with whom I've engaged in former disputes can vouch for my unequivocal hatred of sockpuppetry. I would ask that this report and this discussion be closed immediately. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm going to point out that once the BLP exceptions were explained in the 3RR report, I first checked for sources on those issues (there are none in Google) and then abandoned all edits to Charles Keating. I had been continually reverting Collect on that article, as I had been on Dino Rossi and others, because his edits are almost entirely partisan, with little concern for accuracy or neutrality. I believe that this discussion represents another attempt for that user to abuse administrative process to prevent me from correcting any of the bias Collect continues to insert into those articles. This is also why I believe they have gone to great lengths (including registering User:Arizona Biltmore and User:Honey And Thyme) to have me blocked. This user has left messages with User:Gwen Gale and others complaining about this same issue but each have, in turn, rejected him. I'm going to point out that I hadn't even heard of the issue concerning Keating's son and the Arizona Biltmore properties until I began editing that article and I didn't even bother to check the facts until after the 3RR report was rejected as a BLP violation. The article is unsubstantiated and there are no sources, and I absolutely do not support its inclusion in that article. If I see Arizona Biltmore or anyone attempt to reinsert I will revert them myself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And last, if you read what Arizona Biltmore wrote on the talk page, they're glaringly similar to Collect's previous postings at Talk:Sarah Palin and Talk:Dino Rossi. He's cherry picked a few select words (like "whitewashed") out of my posts and inserted them in an obvious attempt to clone my vocabulary, but it's pretty clear that it's Collect's attempt at baiting me and trying to manipulate you into running this report. I also want to point out that Arizona Biltmore wasn't registered until after I filed the 3RR report (or so close that it's negligible) and that I didn't even see those edits until after I had filed it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and one more thing: Collect doesn't even appear to know that he was requesting a Checkuser report. He asked about meatpuppets and sockpuppets -both words he picked up from the RFC- and then asked you to look into it. He probably didn't count on your ability to trace IPs to individual user accounts and so didn't see that as possible evidence against his claim. Again, that's another obvious indicator that Collect was trying to manipulate the system here by registering Arizona Biltmore as his sockpuppet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neat -- I think you forgot I have been around for over two years now, and online for over 26 years. My job, in fact, included the equivalent of "checkuser" and "sockpuppet" checks. And you seem to ignore that I have informed Lar about who I am in some detail. The GP charge is just a little bit higher on this very page, by the way. Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- you should know that GreekParadise made the same charge of me being a "sockpuppet", eating up lots of admin time. I have given Lar sufficient information for him to state conclusively that I am a specific single person, and where I am located. He can also subtract, and realize that if my post on the schmidt page was made at 21:09 on 14 Oct, that I would not then after that have been able to create H&T 10 hours EARLIER ROFL! . And since you were the one who reinserted the claims in Keating once before, I am glad you now recognize they are unsourced. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it was over 24 hours after Jclemens posted the link to the RFC, from which you sorted through and determined the root cause of the earlier conflict between MQS and myself and then tried to exacerbate that conflict both through your posts to MQS' talk page and then, after those failed, with the filing of the AFD. I have no doubt now that this person is you and I would ask that Lar run a checkuser on you and Honey And Thyme to determine if there is any technical evidence linking those accounts. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smokes, thats rather a lot to read... Cumulus Clouds: When making suggestions that two users are related and requesting a check, even informally, it's helpful to give some diffs of specific edits that suggest a connection (because the edits are similar, or are both reverting the same thing, or one user is speaking as the other, or whatever) ... hope those tips help. (But I repeat myself) Please present specific diffs that justify a check. Thanks. Also, this may not be the best place to resolve disputes. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh ok, here goes:

User:Collect posts tirade on talk page of User:Jclemens. Jclemens directs Collect to a defunct RFC to make a point. Collect reads RFC and registers User Honey and Thyme in advance of AFD. Collect posts message to talk page of User:MichaelQSchmidt to engage user in dispute. MichaelQSchmidt rejects message and removes it from his talk page. Shortly afterwards, Honey and Thyme posts AFD. I comment on AFD (article is on my watchlist). 90 minutes later Collect posts a keep vote. A day later, Collect posts again to AFD claiming to support conclusion that Honey And Thyme is a possible sock.

Arizona Biltmore was registered on 15:51 3 December 2007. 10 months later, they edit the talk page of Charles Keating and begin engaging in the debate with no prior edits to that article or any other. They exhibit typical sockpuppet behavior and know far more about process than is typical of new accounts. At 12:50 on 14 October, Arizona Biltmore makes first revert to Charles Keating, exactly three hours after Collect's last revert. Collect reverts Arizona Biltmore exactly one hour later. Collect ceases editing at 12:25 14 October. Resumes editing at 13:40 14 October. Arizona Biltmore makes no futher edits that day.

I post the 3RR notice, check Charles Keating and note that a new account has now engaged in edits. Over an hour later, I add a new diff for Arizona Biltmore's revert at 18:26 14 October. Arizona Biltmore logs in 24 minutes later and posts to the talk page of Charles Keating. One minute later, they revert Collect's edit. Collect responds on the talk page and reverts Arizona Biltmore's edit 4 hours later. Collect remained logged out of their account between 0901 15 October 2008 and 0236 16 October 2008, when they logged in to respond to Arizona Biltmore and revert their edits. I am convinced there is a third account to fill in the gaps.

  • Oh, right, it's Honey And Thyme. Those edits fill in substantial portions of the gaps that day. There may also be a fourth account to fill in the rest. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no overlaps in editing times between Arizona Biltmore, Honey And Thyme and Collect. Both Arizona Biltmore and Honey And Thyme know far more about process than is typical of new registrations. Both accounts have been used in a concerted effort to appear as if they were me. Had I not posted the comment to the AFD, I am certain that Collect would be asking you to perform checks on me for that one as well. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You are now into palpable libel. Not just asking questions, but making false and despicable assertions. You should also tell Lar that you have now tried to get an article in my personal workspace deleted, even though it makes no mention of anyone at all, and is linked to WP:GAMING. Collect (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@CC: Ok, why would Collect set up two socks, AB and HaT, and then ask me to check YOU against them? As soon as I checked them, I'd find him. Or if I didn't, then when YOU ask me to check them against HIM, I'm going to get the same "not found" I got the first time. I checked AB. AB does not, to me, appear to be related to you, (Cumulus Clouds), or to Collect. This smacks of a fishing expedition... and fish CheckUser is not for fishing. Or is there a hole in my logic? ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because he was not aware of the checkuser process. He did not know that IPs could be checked and he assumed the case would be accepted on circumstantial evidence alone. His posts above indicate only that he wanted you to open a sockpuppet case against me, something he learned about from the RFC. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, again, he registered both socks so they would appear to be mine, so that he could come here, have you find me guilty of sockpuppetry based on his manipulated evidence and then have me blocked. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and at least check Honey And Thyme, the evidence there is pretty convincing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing a really solid reason from you, CC, to check User:Honey And Thyme against either of you. However I did see enough in HaT's contribs to warrant a check anyway and HaT is not related to either of you. I suggest you dial down things if you possibly can. The road you are on is not a good one. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HaT is worthy of a check if only because of their first three edits and ongoing demonstration of remarkable knowledge about wiki procedures. My personal suspicion is that it is related to IP 76.174.60.251, whose relation to User:MichaelQSchmidt is touched on here and has been disclosed privately to at least one checkuser. Franamax (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. That's what I was basing the check on. Can you send me that info offline? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AB, HaT, CC, and Collect are seperately and individually not technically related to any of each other. I think that's 3 factorial different relationships I'm saying aren't there. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Dear Lar, you have a query regarding your recent Did you know nomination. Please respond here. Thank you. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you some ideas... see what you think! ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

age of consent at DYK[edit]

Thanks for your suggestion. I changed the hook. I will try to work on those grammatical formulations as well. Thanks again. Docku:“what up?” 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, I'll take another look if it didn't already get taken up for DYK. Thanks for your contributions to the project. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arizona Biltmore making lotsa reversions today ...[edit]

Our friend "Arizona Biltmore" has insisted on an unsourced section on the Keating Family in the Charles Keating article. And when asked for a "source" gives a vague "Mariposa County" source with no link, no page, and I sincerely doubt, any relevance to the charges made in that section. On his talk page, he says:

"Wrong! I suggest that the government & municipality of Maricopa County, Arizona, USA is a SOURCE of Recorded Real Property Deeds. The aforementioned are the authorities of the municipality and these public officials have recognized the information of how the Keating Family profited and have duly recorded the same with the Assessor Parcel Numbers referenced in my discussion. You must have some personal interest in non-full disclosure and I suggest that your personal interests are clouding the big-picture that Wiki extolls. Talk etiquette to Ann Landers, speak english to me. Further vandalism of this topic is reported. You're Welcome. Arizona Biltmore (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)"

I pointed out that removal of unsourced stuff from a BLP is proper. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245785064&oldid=245783109 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245782774&oldid=245776258 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245772808&oldid=245772650 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245772650&oldid=245748135 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245578210&oldid=245340330 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&oldid=245286485 and coincidentally from dear Cumulus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&oldid=245334567 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Keating&oldid=245018772

ad mauseam. Arizona is well over 3RR at this point.

All pushing the same unsourced material. Collect (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warned AB, that was cut/dried. Will take a look at Cumulus. This needs involvement from other admins. Suggest you take this to the BLP noticeboard WP:BLP/N to get more eyes. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- but at this point I think it is wiser to let AB and CC dig down six feet first (72 LEGOs?) . I still have the deletion request from CC to tend to ... Collect (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have unlimited time to devote to this, so at some point someone will turn up here and I won't be here to deal. This needs to be rehoused at the correct place, as my talk page is not AN/I, nor is it BLP/E nor is it 3RR/I ... If it goes a few more rounds ok, but ... think about it. No LEGO brand building elements were harmed in the posting of this message. ++Lar: t/c 00:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So block Arizona Biltmore indefinitely. There isn't a lot to this. If an account exists solely to make one reversion, get rid of it. And I'm not a huge fan of you continuing to question my integrity here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And more to the point there: Arizona Biltmore continues to reinsert material directly related to the Arizona Biltmore Estates Village Association. If that's not a conflict of interest or a single purpose account, I don't know what is. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) AB has been warned not to revert war. AB has been cautioned not to bring the fact that Collect was properly removing BLP violating material to the editor assistance board. IF AB goes over the line after being warned, a block is warranted. I am seeing a lot of people with a lot of viewpoints they apparently want to push, no one's hands are clean. I'll question actions (not integrity) as I see fit. If that's not satisfactory, (and also speaking of things I'm not a huge fan of) let me point out that this page is not really the place for dispute resolution, or sock reports. When it goes for more than 2 or 3 screens, it probably belongs somewhere else. ++Lar: t/c 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK well, you invited me to comment here because you named me as a sockpuppet suspect. I feel like I'm entitled to my own defense of those allegations. You don't seem to have overcome the last of those suspicions so I trust you'll let me know what else I can do to demonstrate my thorough and complete opposition to sockpuppetry. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CUs tend to be suspicious and assumptive of good faith, both at the same time. It's a gift. I'd rather you "demonstrate" your "thorough and complete opposition to sockpuppetry" by not engaging in revert tussles as opposed to making sock allegations. (There have been a lot tossed around, and to what end?)... if you don't tussle, then it's less likely that there will be other POV warriors around that you get confused with. Try WP:1RR, I highly recommend it. After your edits don't stick, go to the talk page and work out how to resolve the matter, amicably and collegially. That's my advice. ++Lar: t/c 05:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, and like I said once the 3RR report was rejected as a BLP exception, I stopped editing the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds like a good approach. The advice applies in general though. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Um, Lar, I understand that you've been really frustrated with Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs) for awhile now, because of the dispute at Pro se legal representation in the United States and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kay Sieverding, but how exactly is this edit,[22] justification for a 1-week BLP block? I'm not seeing it. --Elonka 03:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elonka! As always, I welcome review of my blocks... Go back to the previously reverted material (which I reverted with this edit). The edit re-adds essentially the same material, defamatory to the same opponent. The only redeeming factor is that it's no longer a copyvio. She has been counseled not to bring her conflicts here to Wikipedia. I think "dispute" is the wrong term to use (there is little dispute that this user is disruptive), and I'm not at all "frustrated", I think that's an incorrect inference to draw. It's just time that we move beyond warning with this user, and the last block was 3 days. See the RfC as well. I predict that if there is not a significant change in behaviour, this user will end up permanently blocked. The week will allow some time to reflect on what needs to change in this user's behaviour. Hope that helps clarify matters.++Lar: t/c 03:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy reply, and open-minded response.  :) I did look at the previous edits to her userpage, and I agree that she had added a copyvio. Which you warned her about, so she changed it. But, to be honest, it looked to me like she was being responsive to your concerns. And I'm honestly not seeing a BLP violation in the links that she then added. It's definitely no worse than what we already have at the Edward Nottingham article in the "References" section. So I'm still having trouble with the block for a few reasons: (1) That she was blocked for violating BLP, even though there wasn't a real violation; (2) That she was blocked without having been given the opportunity to fix things herself; and (3) That you were the one imposing the block, since you've been in a dispute with her for about a month now at the "Pro se" article. Now, I am not disagreeing with you that she has been disruptive in other ways: She's been very focused on a narrow area of interest, and she appears to have been editing tendentiously, though not today. But that you blocked her for BLP when she didn't really violate BLP, makes me uncomfortable. Would you be terribly offended if I lifted the block? If she continues to disrupt in any way, it could of course be reinstated, but it might be best if someone less involved makes that call? --Elonka 03:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To your points, in order (1) I'm sorry, but I see citing a number of news stories about the misfortune of an adversary (with a summary of Hurrah! Hurrah! or similar) as very much a BLP violation. (2) She has had plenty of opportunities to fix things, to engage in conversation, and so forth. I reverted the first time, warned her, and her response was to remove the warning and reinstate the material. There have been enough warnings, and enough admin time has been wasted here already. The disruption needs to stop. (3) I've not been in a "dispute" with her. I have absolutely no stake in the content of the article whatever. I have been an admin that has been assisting the regular editors of a set of articles in dealing with a disruptive influence, but that's just normal run of the mill admining, not a "dispute". It's a long running matter, yes, but that's merely an argument that it's time to cut losses. Given that I've addressed all your concerns, no, I don't think overturning my block would be appropriate. As always, I welcome further review, so perhaps if you have concerns, one of us should take it to AN/I, but for you to come in and out of the blue overturn a block, with little context or previous exposure to the situation (other than your rather unhelpful archiving), and before the user has had a chance to even contemplate why it was placed, or ask for a lifting, would be very counterproductive. I certainly will be delighted to shorten this block if the user gives sign that they are going to change their approach, but not before. If this does not address your concerns, then by all means let's continue to dialog but I expect that you will not be overturning my block until we have reached a consensus. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risker's view[edit]

I must concur with Lar about the appropriateness of this block, in all of its aspects. The length of the block is in keeping with WP:BLOCK, which suggests progressively longer blocks for inappropriate editorial behaviour. Kay has been told to please stop adding information and commentary about her personal experiences less than 48 hours ago.[23] Celebrating the downfall of a real world opponent with an edit summary of "my good news hurrah hurrah" is most certainly a BLP violation; the person involved is clearly identifiable. Bringing external disputes onto Wikipedia is unhelpful at the best of times; there isn't much difference between this interpersonal/political dispute and some of the inter-ethnic/political disputes that our encyclopedia has seen, except for its scale. Risker (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are you regarding this judge as her "adversary"? --Elonka 04:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Kay said so. Read the very first, deleted version, of her user page. It has a very long detailed narrative of how this judge was the start of all her troubles. Again, having some context with a user is often the best way to understand just how far to let things go and when it's time to cut losses. It's time. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it, and the RfC, and I see your point. And I do agree with you that there are many many reasons that perhaps this individual and Wikipedia should part ways. But I still disagree that her edit violated BLP. And especially because of the circumstances as outlined in the RfC and her (ex)-userpage, we should be very careful that if/when we block her, that it's done properly, with no loopholes, don't you agree? --Elonka 05:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We may have to agree to disagree about the BLP issue. Both Risker and I, who have been working with this editor, see it clearly. I'm glad you now see the rest as valid. Can we now consider this matter settled? ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about trying a little harder to find consensus, rather than going for a "2 against 1" argument? For example, I would support a block, but not for BLP. So how about unblocking, and re-blocking under a different rationale? --Elonka 05:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to find consensus? Eh? Either it's a BLP violation or it isn't. The admins who have been working closely with this editor see the violation clearly, and you, who haven't been working closely with this editor, apparently don't. That is not a 2 against 1 thing, it's the voice of experience speaking. If there's a lack of trying to find consensus here, it's not Risker and I that are lacking. This is a sound block for sound reasons, after multiple warnings. If you disagree, I'm sorry but I'm not sure what else to tell you. I'm not sure why you're apparently confused about this, really, or why you chose to get this involved. I'd invite you to again review the material, especially the deleted portions of the page. I see no compelling reason to unblock and reblock for some trumped up rationale, that's just procedural wonkery. This editor is overdue, and this was the last straw. I am confident that if this went to AN/I and were neutrally presented it would be endorsed. You said you wanted to work with me, to wipe the slate clean. So work with me, don't spend pages arguing. It doesn't help others form favorable impressions of you when you do this. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Concern[edit]

Here's my concern: the first revert eliminated an outright copyright violation when she copied the text of the articles. Immediately after, as if to challenge the intervening admin, she brings it back as links. I don't deny her the right to some schadenfreude, but using wikipedia for it, in the face of inceasing controversy, is disruptive. Also, linking to the articles raises BLP issues. I mean, the papers may be entitled to a presumption of reliability as published sources, but papers can still commit libel - what if the stuff abotu Nottingham turns out to be wrong? Kay would still potentially be using wikipedia to republish libel (and remember that libel is tortious even if you don't originate it, you merely repeat it). When you look at the total, Kay's edit adds a lot more burden than value. A one week block might not ordinarily issue for an mere posting of links on a userpage... but there's so much more going on here than just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Non Curat Lex (talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 October 2008

For purposes of argument: let's (a) take the BLP issue in isolation and (b) assume that reasonable minds could differ on whether it's a BLP issue. Isn't it in keeping with the overall BLP policy to err on the side of caution? Also, let's not be blind to the subject matter of these articles Kay is touting: a potentially disgraced judge is being tried, and possibly lynched, by the media. Don't you think this is the sort of person who is willing and able to fight back? Someone not without tools of his own? The very kind of worst case scenario against which strict adherence to BLP is supposed to provide a prophylaxis? Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Non Curat Lex, for reminding us of why BLP is so very important, and further, for validating that the edits Kay made were indeed BLP issues from your perspective. ++Lar: t/c 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that linking to this is an inappropriate use of a USERPAGE ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox"), and can be easily seen as a WP:BLP violation. A one week block is quite a stiff block, but it is a reasonable escalation as Kay has already been blocked once for 72 hours, and that didnt work. If she requests an unblock which shows an appreciation for the gravity of BLPs on Wikipedia, then I think the objective has been obtain and the unblock request should be seriously considered, and perhaps she should be reblocked for a shorter period to clarify that the single diff mentioned in the block history is part of a much larger BLP problem. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She [the blocked user] did try to post an unblock request (though misformatted as just more talky-talk). However, the substance of the request was more of the same: "intransigent" wikilawyering. She has demonstrated herself as remorseless. My guess, based on what happened last time, is that right now, she is biding her time on this block, and as soon as it expires, will be back on pro se junking it up with irrelevant quotations. Her conduct demonstrates that she's out to prove something to the world, to Judge Nottingham, and to us, and will not be deterred. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) (amended Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thoroughly unhelpful edit[edit]

Elonka, I find this edit thoroughly unhelpful. It is important with an editor like Kay that you give absolutely no opening for wikilawyering, that you remain consistent. You may have had issue with the block but to go to Kay's talk page, and make an edit like that, after you had already engaged in discussion here, is unconscionable. I would greatly appreciate your removing it or repudiating it, because, as I said, it was thoroughly unhelpful, even meddlesome. It's as if when you were losing the argument here, you went there and made an edit that undercut the action of a fellow admin. Agree to disagree but that sort of thing is uncollegial and I'm disappointed. ++Lar: t/c 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am in agreement that this user should be blocked. Where I am disagreeing, is in how this block was approached, and about your own behavior in this matter. It is fairly clear to me that you, as an administrator, have become emotionally engaged with this user, such that you are unable to use the administrator tools from a position of neutrality. You use frequent non-neutral language, both with her,[24] and with me, when I challenged the block. Let me try and turn it around and see if this helps explain. Suppose I (Elonka) had blocked a user, and you (Lar) had trouble with my block rationale. Suppose you came to me and expressed good faith concerns. Then suppose I reacted to you in a defensive manner, that I told you that I was more experienced with the user than you were. Suppose further that I then accused you of being unhelpful and "meddlesome". Do you think that that would have been a proper way for me to act?
You, as an administrator, a steward, and someone with CheckUser access, hold a position of respect within the community. Precisely because you hold this increased status, more is expected of you, as a rolemodel. It does not mean that you have more freedom to overlook others' concerns. In my opinion, your behavior in regards this block was inappropriate even for a non-steward, non-checkuser. When I expressed concerns, what you should have done was to listen respectfully and do your best to take my concerns on board, rather than to tell me that I was "wrong" to express a view when it disagreed with yours.
In my opinion, administrators need to treat each other with respect, even when they disagree. In fact, especially when they disagree. I do not feel that you treated me with respect on this matter, and I hope you will take the time to reconsider your actions here. --Elonka 19:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have greatly mischaracterized matters on a number of levels. I've been respectful, and open to input, throughout. But there comes a time when everything that can be said has been said, every point that needs addressing has been addressed. At that point the thing to do is to say "you're right" or to say "Thanks, we will have to agree to disagree" not to start becoming tendentious. Consensus about this block, about the rationale for it, is very clear, here, and at WP:AN/I. Apparently the only thing that would have satisfied you would be if I had said, in the face of strong consensus otherwise "you're right Elonka, I made a mistake". It is not disrespectful to decline to do that when it's not called for. Remember, when it's the right thing to do, I admit fault, and I apologize. I'm not sure I've seen you admit fault much, though, even when you're clearly wrong. I'm also not sure that your behavior here has been at all respectful, or helpful. It is also not disrespectful to point out that you have less context in a matter than I do. I am seeing now why you seem to have a fair bit of controversy swirling around you, following you, or sometimes arising in areas where you choose to insert yourself when leaving the matter to others might be a better approach. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I am curious at what point the administrator's language becomes, "non-neutral." Involved administrators, particularly anyone who has a hard conflict of interest pre-existing an occurence in which they play an administrative role, should abstain, and let an uninvolved admin come in. Likewse, so should an admin who is too closely tied to an editor to make a fair call. However, even admins who start out netural are called upon to make judgments. If something violates a certain policy, and a neutral, unvinvolved admin decides that it does, how does he express that neutrally without undercutting his own judgment? I defer to Lar and Elonka when it comes to any and all matters of administrative policy, but there's something that doesn't seem logical to me about the idea that Lar shows a lack of neutrality. He has no ideological committment to the subject, no ideological committment against Kay (it would have to be off-wiki, because she's very new here - they've never had any prior dealings except in regards to her disruptive editing). So once, it's all out there in the open, how can Lar make an administrative judgment without expressing that judgment? Does the expression of an administrative judgment, once made, have to be equivocal and tentative in order to preserve the administrator's ongoing ability to administer his own decision? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view: It is possible to make a firm point, or even deliver a harsh judgment, respectfully and politely... so it is vital that one strives to do just that, remain polite and respectful. Introductory remarks, especially those ascribing motive or state of mind, often can set a disrespectful or prejudicial tone if one is not careful. On the other hand, saying that one is, for example, frustrated is not in itself non-neutral. Instead it is humanizing. And it is good to be human, as long as one does not take sides, other than taking the side of the project... But to be neutral is not to be "out of gear" (to mix metaphors). When it is time for firmness, time for action, the fact that one has prior context does not in any way in and of itself mean that one is not neutral. Remain neutral, but get in gear... get done what needs to get done. When it is time to speak plainly, beating around the bush is not helpful and can make things worse. ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Elonka tells Bishzilla "I'm not going to openly argue with you on that editor's talkpage"... apparently there may have been a change in her views about openly arguing in light of the edit she made which I called "thoroughly unhelpful" above. I stand by that assessment. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between disagreeing with an admin's actions, and personally attacking them. When I was speaking to Bish, I was pointing out that she was jumping into the middle of a discussion with name-calling behavior. It surprises and disappoints me, Lar, that you cannot see the difference between these situations. I had expected better of you. Can you please consider that you might be so involved in this situation, that it is preventing you from looking at things in a neutral manner? --Elonka 19:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What free-hand nonsense, Elonka. I'm going to charitably assume that you're not making it up, but merely misremembering what happened. You were the one who jumped into the middle of a discussion that I and Risker were conducting with a new editor on their talkpage. You recommended the well-known policies WP:BITE and WP:AGF to our attention—perhaps on the assumption that they were new to us? (Lar's word "meddlesome" for your post certainly comes unbidden to mind.) [25] [26] [27] [28] When I had the effrontery to object,[29] you posted a toffee-nosed response on Bishzilla's page about the need for admins to present a "united front" (meaning apparently that you present a front and everybody else agrees with you). Your illogic provoked Scott MacDonald into a most trenchant analysis of your position,[30] and I really thought your lack of response to that meant you knew when you were out of your league. But apparently not, because here comes the same strange attack again, this time directed at Lar. Repetion of a foolish position won't improve it, you know. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry Bish, I think you've got it backwards. I was alerted to the Phenom situation at my talkpage,[31] and you, since you were monitoring my talkpage at the time, opted to jump in. A simple look at Phenom's contribs: Phenomenon8980 (talk · contribs) will show that this was a WikiProject Soap Operas matter, a topic area where to my knowledge, you never participate, but I do. Which doesn't mean that you were unwelcome, but if you are trying to make some case that I just randomly jumped into a situation where you were participating, that would be incorrect. Instead you jumped into a situation that I was invited to handle. Then when I did show up, you responded to me with incivility and name-calling. This was inappropriate on multiple levels. If you want to dislike me, fine, that is your right, but please keep it limited to appropriate talkpages, instead of expanding the dispute onto those of new editors. --Elonka 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, you have frequently told people to back off because they are too involved. Now you are telling somebody they needed to back off because they were too uninvolved. For the sake of reducing drama, perhaps you should stop worrying so much about the behavior of other admins, and instead focus on doing really solid admin work at places like: WP:COIN, WP:NPOVN, WP:WQA, and WP:SSP. SSP in particular is frequently backlogged. You seem to have an excellent mind and could be a big help in sorting the more complex sock puppetry cases. Jehochman Talk 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note... I restored this. I never revert things and I prefer that they remain around, I have nothing to hide, (unlike some editors that use archiving, or worse, deleting, as a way to apparently brush things under the carpet) and people posting here should also not have anything to hide, at least not while they are here... do I need a box at the top for that? Feel free to repudiate or correct or apologise but unless it's an egregious personal attack please don't remove things. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion with Elonka, I removed the above comment, but Lar restored it. I will not edit war with Lar on this page, so I am striking instead of removing. Jehochman Talk 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC) and 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full marks for being willing to work with Elonka, and also for finding a solution to her request that satisfies my peculiarities... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Free hand nonsense?" I have to remember that. Elonka, I think you're missing the possibility that you're the one in error here. But this conversation really ought to be over. The user was rightfully blocked, the action was endorsed on AN/I and that's that. Move on. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Lar, this is my last post. It ought indeed to be over, but I guess I need to reply to Elonka's unblushing implication that I lie. Elonka, you have an exaggerated notion of my interest in you and your page. The reason I warned Phenomenon about his behaviour was that Rm994 wrote a rather pathetic appeal about it on WP:ANI. Nothing whatever to do with you. Bishzilla reads ANI sometimes, and takes action on what she reads. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: No worries. I do think the amount of discussion that a pretty routine block engendered is symptomatic of something. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, sorry, but yet again, I believe you are mistaken. To my knowledge, Rm994 (talk · contribs) did not post such a thread on ANI as you claim. In fact, to my knowledge, Rm994 has never posted a single post on ANI (or AN), ever. Care to try again, perhaps with a diff this time? --Elonka 01:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There is, as Elonka says, a difference between disagreeing and personally attacking. Generally, personal attacks are logically and ethically improper. (Generally, but not but not invariably; for example, an accusation of bias is personal, but it is relevant, and even if not phrased as an attack, it would probably be taken as one, but if well-founded, it's not an improper personal attack.)
I'd like to know what diff, or diffs in this exchange, across all of the many pages upon which it has played, constitute an improper "personal attack," if any. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you are asking... I do not think that the edit of Elonka's, on Kay's talk page, was a personal attack. I just think it was thoroughly unhelpful, as I've explained. With an editor as intransigent as Kay, any sort of thing that could be grasped as a way to avoid facing the issue is ... thoroughly unhelpful. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, it looks like this is winding down and everyone is approaching their last post, so lets cut it off here. Nothing to be gained beyond this point except further acrimony and distraction. Avruch T 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for Lar and for Avruch: I was asking ANYONE involved if ANYTHING here is actually a personal attack, because I've seen the phrase thrown around, but I don't actually see a personal attack anywhere. I wanted to give anyone who felt different a chance to clear the air, because people shouldn't have to look over their shoulders or walk on eggshells. However, if Avruch is correct that this baby is finally asleep, I see no need to wake it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may get a last word in here...sorry for the delay in commenting, real life has been very hectic for me this evening. The block was endorsed by all who commented at the thread on WP:AN, as well as on this page. Many agreed that there was a BLP violation. Nobody disagreed specifically about the nature of the block except Elonka, and she certainly has the right to her own opinion, and to express it.

Recognising consensus is usually straightforward for independent third parties. Those involved in situations sometimes lose sight of the forest for the trees. Something I learned long ago is that, if I am the only person on one side of an argument, it's probably time to stop arguing, and figure out why nobody else seems to agree with me. The worst thing to do is to escalate beyond initial intentions. Perhaps Elonka might wish to reflect on that. The exchanges on this page and on ANI went far beyond questioning the description of a block that everyone, without exception, agreed was appropriate. Escalating the discussion to the point it got to tonight is absurd, particularly on a day when another longtime editor had "twat" and "prick" put into his block log - on the unblock message at that. Elonka, that block might have been a better one to review closely. Risker (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This being my talk page, I get the last word. That's the way things work here. :) But I don't have anything to add to what Risker said at this time except to endorse it. Let's draw a line under this, see if we can't all learn something from it, and move on. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Z's question about User:Kay Sieverding's BLP violation[edit]

I'm at a lost as to what the BLP violation is. The material is sourced to reliable sources. Whether it has any business on a userpage is a separate issue. But we shouldn't cry BLP when that isn't the real concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight. This user doesn't get to put together an attack page against a long time adversary... the material maybe could go into the article on that judge, where it could be balanced but not on a user page. BTW, how'd you hear about this? Do I need to start marshalling my allies too? And, why start a new thread? Please move this thread to an appropriate place in the section above. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no need to marshal, I watch this talk page thankfully and agree with the content removal and block, clearly the content was laid out to place undue weight on that judge's situation, BLP applies everywhere and the editor knew exactly what they were doing when they did it. It's a joke template that won't actually work, but I echo the sentiments of {{User:MBisanz/NoUserpage}}. MBisanz talk 15:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[32] Seems this was discussed on AN/I. I will mention further the reason behind the block and why this is a BLP issue in that thread.Risker (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Risker. I've given a bit more background, pointed people here, and asked that my block be endorsed. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because it started as a more clear BLP violation, and I am just not as knowledgeable about all of the permutations of policy. The user page started out... bizarrely, to say the least, was deleted, and then the user cut-and-paste copyrighted, and BLP, material. Does BLP apply to a userpage as well as mainspace? I really don't know, or care. But I see several obvious liability problems for wikipedia and its editors, and I raised the concern of the policy with which I was most familiar, and which seemed like the nearest fit. Then administrative action was promptly taken. Voila. Problem solved? Actually, no, the user then posts links on her userpage that send a visitor to the exact same story/stories she had copied before. Not a direct copyright violation any more, but a disruptive edit, disrespectful of wikipedia and its administrators, and still using her userpage for the purpose of attacking a living person. Moreover, it's typical, part, and parcel of a general pattern of editing which Lar aptly described as "intransigent" (excellent word choice) with respect to the five pillars.
Elonka is right about this: we do a disservice if we are clumsy with rules and regulations, but I don't think Lar was far off, if at all. The original copyright and BLP violations, and then the "rebound" constitute good reason for a block; it has been reviewed by SEVERAL others here and on WP:AN who agree. Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What BLP is and is not could be the subject of many essays. (and in fact I've blogged about it... ([33]) To me it is a broad mandate about what we must not do. It applies everywhere. We do not have the right to attack specific others, especially others not of this project, anywhere in the project, regardless of page type. Anything that is unbalanced must be redressed. Further, I would remind you of what it says at the top of this page... Our pages do not belong solely to us. ++Lar: t/c 00:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtland Center[edit]

I added a little to the article to make it clearer that JCPenney had three stores ("and JCPenney's new store opened on March 1, 2008, resulting in the closure of the three former JCPenney stores"). Also, source 7 says "While three JC Penney stores used to be spread throughout the mall, shoppers now have easy access to Penney's traditional department store offerings in one location." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for letting me know. Did you get a chance to say that on the T:TDYK page? Anyone can update the suggestion to clear it, it doesn't have to be me... I will if someone else doesn't get to it first. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added that to the DYK page too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil comment?[edit]

This concerns a content dispute concerning two competing films which have been compared in several news articles, An American Carol and Religulous. What do you think about the comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_American_Carol&diff=245885620&oldid=245882808 ? Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary? Could be more civil, yes, if that's what you are asking... not the end of the world as these things go, though. Isn't Nil rather a long time editor? Are you engaged in an edit war with him? Try not to do that... offer Nil an olive branch and see if you can work through whatever the underlying issue is maybe, and hopefully Nil will apologise. If that doesn't work, pop back or ask for another view from someone else? ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEGAL[edit]

Hi Lar, that discussion is taking a turn for the worse. Did you see the accusations that Rarelibra is making against me now? This has become his mode of operation now. Tell people to be quiet, and make all these innuendos that he is hunting people down for retribution. Icsunonove (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are nowhere near WPLEGAL. Show me exactly where I am "hunting people down" or any "retribution" threatened? Icsunonve's denials are disappointing, at best. But maybe we should lighten up and just focus on the solution that has already been presented? Rarelibra (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Icsunonove, can you give me a specific diff of a comment that you think is a legal threat, and an analysis of why you think it is? That might be helpful. Because what we have here, right now, is a failure to communicate. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm free to drop the issue (again) and just focus on dealing with this debate between Rarelibra and Supparluca. It is a bit surreal to me that Rarelibra comes after me, saying all these things like I e-mailed him off-line, I know his name, etc., etc. I'm just shaking my head at this point. I'd love to be shown where the heck he gets this from. Relaxing (!) would be refreshing, because I have no major issue with Rarelibra. I just wish he'd take a bit of time to see the others' point of view a bit, and stop labeling us as these evil POV-pushers because a decision was made that he did not agree with. There should at least be a bit of credit given that the war on that topic has all but disappeared with the new page names and content. Why we get bashed for helping get multilingual names put up instead of pushing one side or another is just amazing to me. That said, I only go online at work occasionally, and it is Friday. So I'll check back when I can. I still say: 1) shared approach, and 2) get an Admin such as you Lar to keep the children apart when things get .. well .. childish. Good weekend to you both. Icsunonove (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, thanks for trying to help contain this issue. I agree with your assessment that the "legal threat" issue is a bit of a red herring and a misunderstanding. But do you think we could perhaps have a checkuser on the IP that sparked this recent bout of bitterness? 76.89.157.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was extremely abusive (gloating about how Rarelibra was going to be sent to Iraq, plus various other personal attacks); it was obviously someone who is intimately familiar with the long-standing dispute; they were hiding deliberately from their normal identity by using the IP; so it's certainly abusive sockpuppetry. Rarelibra believes it was Icsunonove, but can't prove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ran a check but I wasn't able to determine anything useful at this time. I agree the IP's disruptive but I would not go so far as to associate it with any particular named user. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Thanks for the info. It's curious though, because the circle of possible candidates should be fairly small, given that the IP was so obviously a very experienced participant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and over time the proportion of situations where CU doesn't resolve matters clearly inexorably will go up, as people get more clever. The IPs contributions were not helpful, and the focus was odd, but there wasn't anything there technically. Block on behaviour. Your two day block was sound, and if it happens again a longer one is called for, there is little or no collateral damage possible, I would adjudge. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11 Oct DYK nom[edit]

Hi Lar. Thanks for your comments on the 11 October DYK nomination for the Larmer Tree Festival. I've added two new hooks [34] that I hope will be better. Cheers. Roisterdoister (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look if I get a chance but if not, someone else surely will. It sounds like a lovely festival, were you lucky enough to attend? ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"outing someone"[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:ScienceApologist per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 01:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:WitchieAnna[edit]

purports to be a new account (error on my part -- a renamed account) -- which created a bunch of stubs and then a huge revert of Thomas Muthee. (I doubt a new user would do this) -- if you look at Thomas Muthee's last edits, there appears to be a possible pattern. Again, I would never accuse anyone of anything, but I do wonder about this ("new) user"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246226570&oldid=246224133 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246223652&oldid=246195905 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246195650&oldid=246194454 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246192446&oldid=246189064 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246188679&oldid=246185366 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246182586&oldid=246182424

-- Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking this to the BLP noticeboard. As much as I would love to get involved in yet another Sarah Palin related controversy (that is, I would rather not), I don't have the bandwidth to give this the attention it deserves. Looking at the edit history of that article I see a lot of edit warring from all sides and little or no admin involvement. (well, it's protected now so...). Also I see nothing that justifies a check. I may have missed something though. Who do you think this user is a sock of, and why? ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have insufficient data to make an accusation, if she is a former user, I would need to find out who she was and see if there was any odd activity. If she is not an identifiable old user, then the whole case will be much more suspicious. Would it be stalking to see if I can find a "disappeared user" who edited in hthe topics she claims to have been active in? All I want is for facts to be correctly sourced, and opinions not used in articles. A daunting task. Collect (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can now say she is unlikely to be who she says she is -- at least no sign of a similar person in any of the topics she states she was heavily involved in. I did get some strange comments (for example: "Collect, that computer that was just mapped, in the spiritual warfare of which you and Jclemens and your associated church groups think is a manifestation of an edit war, belonged to a young lady whose mother is well connect attorney from New York, who is well connected both with NOW and with enforcement authorities. She was just showing the young woman how censorship works on Wikipedia, and it looks like some folks may be needing more than a just a Wikilawyer as it will be appropriately investigated outside of Wiki, given the line that was crossed last night with this witchcraft accusation stuff, scaring that young lady like that. Some might find they need more than Wikilawyers to defend their censorship, as there will likely be a referral for the appropriate investigation, with all of the extensive written documentation of censorship attempts that will be looked at from a perspective outside of Wiki to see who is involved in the incident." " Also, your groups have "mapped" extensive lists of Jews, with the excuse that they are to be targeted for "transformation". Try reading the sources before you get further invovled in the explict and open censorship movement of this church group, and the "physical manifestation" of the "spiritual war" Kalnins talked about in the deleted content. Yes, there is an extensive talk page record of your edits and POV. Again, I am no longer the entity you and Jclemens and your church group need to argue to." and more -- now archived in User Talk:Collect/taut . Collect (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you copy stuff, you should copy the source, as copying the displayed text loses all the wiki markup, making it harder to make use of the text to navigate to user pages, etc.. But it's better to just get a history link to the page as it was at the point you want to archive, and record that, annotating why you think things are significant. I know you're not necessarily going to ArbCom with this but they have some good writings on how to collect information like this for best use later... (see the guide and in particular this section) That stuff strikes me as seriously weird. I am about to get on a plane so I think this needs to be brought somewhere else for folk to look at... this editor needs to be careful not to run afoul of our no legal threats policy. I suggest you take it to WP:AN/I to get some other admin attention on it. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see there has been a suspected sockpuppet case opened: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Tautologist ... I suggest you link your information from there (in history form perhaps). Good luck. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLANKING and its non universal applicability[edit]

Lar, hi, I wasn't sure you were aware of it, and if you are, I apologize, but if not, you may wish to read (or re-read) this guideline? Just a heads-up, --Elonka 05:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty basic, what makes you think I've not read it? I refer to it all the time in leaving messages. I don't see it as applicable when someone is as seriously blocked as Kay is, if that's what you're driving at. ++Lar: t/c 10:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we're making basic suggestions, I would suggest that you consider using more descriptive subject headings than "query" or "note". On a talk page as busy as this one, they're not particularly useful. I think there might actually be a guideline about it. I apologise if you were aware of it. I changed this one (the latter) for you to a heading that's more descriptive, although the first one is too late to easily change now given how much reference it's had. You might want to keep that in mind going forward. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be subtle. I figured as soon as you saw my name, you'd know what it was about, considering our recent discussions, and that the majority of your time is being spent on issues related to two disruptive editors. And I didn't want my message to look like a warning, it was just a genuine good faith heads-up. I've actually said more or less the same thing to several other admins as well, since they had the misperception that if a blocked editor deletes a warning, or a block message, that it should be immediately restored, when in reality it should just be left deleted.
Personally, I think that when an editor is blocked, the best course is often to just leave them alone, rather than engage in a long drawn-out argument on their talkpage. It's not about trying to change their mind on things, it's about setting out very specific behavior guidelines, like, "You are not allowed to do x, y, and z. If you do these things, you will be blocked again. If you are willing to promise a, b, and c, I will lift the block early. If not, the block will be left in place." Especially with this editor, who is probably heading for a complete ban anyway (I know I'd support one at this time, for a variety of reasons). Or in other words, if you really feel it's worth arguing with this editor, go ahead, that's your time to spend. If it were me, I'd leave the talkpage alone for the rest of the block, or space out my replies to once every couple days. When the block is lifted, if the editor starts disrupting again, I'd block again, probably two weeks or a month this time. When that one expired, if the editor disrupted again, it might be time to proceed to an indef block. If anyone had concerns about that, they could come to me on my talkpage. If no one had concerns, then the indef block would be an effective ban. --Elonka 18:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tipping point on whether to argue or ignore seems to rest on the ability of the blocked editor to reason. Always better to convince someone that it's in their own interest to conform, but certainly not always possible. In this particular case I think there is an outside chance that this editor can be reformed, and since I have a few minutes to comment on some things I have. (I know you weren't addressing me, but I can't speak for Lar's reasoning). I know reforming editors is something you've spent a lot of time on, Elonka. Perhaps if there is another block after this one expires, and it isn't indefinite, you can take a whirl at it. Avruch T 18:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, be happy to. And I understand that some people might be scratching their heads here, as they perceive me as the "champion of the disruptive", when in reality I'm more of, "Give them a few good faith warning shots across the bow, and then take 'em out."  :) For more details about my style, some folks might be interested in reading the talkpage at User talk:Svetovid, who I banned/blocked multiple times, and we were one or maybe two steps away from an indef when he just finally opted to find another hobby. Though be aware that anyone interested in reading, will have to do some stepping through history, as he was one of those who often deletes things. --Elonka 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My new article[edit]

Hi Lar. I wanted to show you this; it's my first new article in a while. Hope you're keeping well, --John (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dig it. Did you put it up for DYK? GA? I've been a bit distracted. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal note[edit]

As it happens, I am a big fan of LEGOs. When I was a youngster, I had a whole city of them on my bedroom floor. It drove my poor parents just about nuts. I suspect that someday, if and when I become a dad, my kids, whether boys or girls, will find themselves encouraged to become LEGO builders. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

knock knock[edit]

G'day Lar (the knock knock isn't the beginning of a bad joke, it's more that I'm having uncomfortable flashbacks to arriving at the genial headmaster's office....) - I'm totally aware that you've been rather busy elsewhere for the last little while, but thought I'd swing by and let you know a couple of the things I've been up to. SirFoz also sort of pointed me in this direction, after my request for an arb clarification earlier. Your thoughts and feedback on that matter are, as ever, most welcome, but I'd also like to to gently poke you for any thoughts on my recent editing at Anthony Watmough and John Ogden (photographer) :-)

hope you're good too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of your mentors have expressed their views of your request at the arb clarification section. I'm glad to see you editing in article space though, however little. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmmmm.... I remain, as ever, available at times to catch up 'real time' on any medium you'd like, and thought I'd come by here rather than reply on the arb pages. There's a brief conversation which might be relevant here too. To use local lingo, all I'm trying to clarify is that Steve was given a 'fair go' (just means treated fairly), and what his specific block / ban status is. I'm happy to wax lyrical about why I believe that clarity is the both the kindest, and generally best way forward.
I reckon an arbcom decision should probably be publicly certified in some way, for heaps of reasons, not least to avoid confusion between the arb.s. I also reckon that it's healthy (and beneficial for heaps of other reasons) to have some sort of 'for the record' statement from anyone interested in commenting (I guess this would be the 'evidence' and 'workshop' pages usually?) If I've missed such stuff, then of course the egg is on my face, for I will have wasted the time it takes whomever to point me in its direction. I have read all of the postings I can find on this one and can tell you that in my mind a couple of specific uncertainties remain.
Happy to chat further, and sadly I also feel it's important to reiterate that I sincerely believe clearing this up, and communicating the resolution clearly is in the best interests both of the project, but importantly, also of Steve. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The arbcom has clarified the status, and gotten two previous requests to review this... what additional value add did your new request give? The same answer as before was given, wasn't it? ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is gonna end up being egg on my face, Lar - I just can't find where the arbcom has clarified the ban in a way that assuages my concern that there's a slim possibility miscommunication could have occurred. I'd expect to find some info in places like this too, and am happy to update the page as and when. Given that the arbcom have banned Steve for 6 months, my concerns about a 'fair go' remain, though I haven't expressed them all that clearly currently to be sure :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< okey dokey, so here's the material I've reviewed;

I tried to sum up what I felt the position was at the arb pages, and feel rather roundly criticised for that attempt. You're saying that it's clear to you that Steve is in fact under a 6 month arbcom ban, and that further 'on wiki' discussion is inappropriate though, right? best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps, I don't want to make you spill your tea - but the value I would like to bring to this situation is a bit of rigour in examining both the strengths and weaknesses of what has happened to date, and establishing the status quo clearly... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...[edit]

OK, WTF is going on with User Talk:Kay Sieverding? I've been marginally aware of some issues there, and now it's on WP:BLP/N. If you want my 2 cents, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground or a venue to import and pursue outside conflicts. The entire situation brings to mind Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. I would strongly favor asking the editor in question to move on and pursue this in a more appropriate venue, and I'd generally just take care of this, but I see a wide-ranging cast of admins are already on the case - so I don't want to intervene unilaterally. What's the status of this, if you don't mind my asking? MastCell Talk 16:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT kick in with an indef block + page protection? I'm more than willing to indulge in good faith, but it appears to be a battle over BLP, which I don't like one bit. MBisanz talk 17:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my near-blanking of her page and post there now, it kicks in the next time she posts anything anywhere about her external conflict. I think that will work for everyone. Risker (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The excessive good faith dance[edit]

I think we've all been doing the "excessive good faith" thing, frankly... I'm now 99.99% sure it's already time to cut losses. I see Risker reverted the page. Good deal. I'll comment on the BLP/N page. I've been somewhat slack in reverting, despite my warnings, partly because I was a bit tired of arguing with Elonka about this (see above, at some considerable length) and partly because I've had other matters on my mind (see a certain ArbCom proposed decision talk page, now locked against edits). ++Lar: t/c 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we're all on the same page, more or less. MastCell Talk 17:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. My estimate: (just my own effort) A month and a half elapsed time. Well over 100 edits by me. Well over 20K of text written, and 100K read and responded to. Dozens of emails received and sent. Lots of individual incidents. Patiently explaining BLP, NOT, and other policies at least a half dozen times each. And for what? This editor still does not get it. This is a classic case of excessive good faith. I am a softie and this tends to happen to me a lot, (sigh) but this may be the worst cost/benefit ratio I've ever done. The ONLY upside is I got to work with some damn fine admins and users (including one who I think will be an awesome admin, come the day), and got to practice my patience skills, perhaps unsuccessfully, in working with Kay... and a few other folk who really ought to know better than accuse me of not assuming good faith or of being sufficiently detatched, or of not knowing what is a BLP violation and what isn't, or of not being stewardlike enough. As if. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban[edit]

I think as long as the scope is clearly defined, it's reasonable to ban Kay Sieverding (talk · contribs) from certain articles or talkpages, and even from making certain types of edits. She seems to like rules, so if we set up a very specific "You can do this, you can't do that" structure, it might work well. For example, it sounds like we have consensus to ban her from any edits related to Judge Nottingham, or to bring up any sources which are not directly related to existing Wikipedia articles. Questions here though would be: Is she still allowed to participate at the Edward Nottingham talkpage, to suggest additional sources/additions? Is she still allowed to participate at the Pro se legal representation in the United States article? Also, since her name does appear in certain external reliable sources, is she allowed to bring up those sources, where they might be directly related to an existing article? --Elonka 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for that because I see no likelihood of it working. There is a fundamental impedence mismatch here. I think we have consensus to ban this user, full stop. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's not how I'm understanding Risker's opinion, though perhaps Risker will clarify? --Elonka 17:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Is I think we have consensus to ban this user on the next infraction, full stop. (added bolded text) better, then? That is what I meant to say, and what I thought I did. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but my questions were about what defines an infraction? --Elonka 18:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing up anything related to this outside judge, his court, the legal case around it, or the legal principles involved in the case is what I would read. MBisanz talk 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SINCE we're defining stipulations... or any of her other cases, or anything to do with self representation, since she's demonstrated a manifest inability to edit POV free. That last clause to be lifted after suitable time demonstrated editing in areas entirely unrelated to anything legal... Or how about just trusting to the good judgment of the next admin who sees her in the weeds instead of trying to pre-secondguess this??? ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would also work, although if I had been the first admin on the scene, she's probably already be blocked for a month or something. MBisanz talk 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us try to have a more delicate touch. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think a topic ban will be enough, Elonka. Prior to my most recent actions on her talk page, I went through and reviewed her editing history in detail; in almost every article she has worked on, she has violated one or more of our core editing policies. The overwhelming majority of her edits have been reverted or significantly altered. Anything related to self-representation is a direct or indirect reference to her external conflict. The only article that she seemed to avoid obvious problems with was one about a town in Illinois. The "next infraction" would be any violation of core policies, or any addition that relates to her external conflict, either directly or indirectly. Risker (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me either but since we're here wasting time... ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded my comments on her talk page to include the above identified stipulations.[35][36] Risker (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to endorse what you're doing, but if I can't understand it, then I doubt that Kay will either. To be specific: What it sounds like you're saying, to me, is that if Kay provides a link to a reliable source, on an article talkpage, which source has her name in it, and Kay suggests that the source might be a useful addition to that article, that you (Lar and Risker) would regard that as an infraction that would be justification for an immediate indefinite block. Am I understanding this correctly? --Elonka 18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[37] ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the restrictions quite explicit, including bolding, on her talk page, Elonka. It specifies that she may not edit on this subject "anywhere in Wikipedia". Given the way that Kay has tended to refer to multi-thousand-byte chunks of text as "references", yes, even adding a reference to a talk page will be considered justification. Risker (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over-defining a sanction can be counterproductive, because it leads to a legalistic, letter-of-the-law search for loopholes and actually generates more angst if/when the sanction is enforced. The problematic behaviors have been amply named and described. It's up to Kay to avoid them. If she doesn't, then we're way past the point of justification to ask her to take her campaign elsewhere. MastCell Talk 20:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sometimes over-defining something can be counter-productive, but I also think that this may be an exception to the rule. I also agree with Risker than when Kay posts thousands of bytes, it's excessive. Where I have trouble though, is the idea of a restriction where we are telling her that she is not even allowed to provide links to reliable sources on a talkpage. Because that's exactly what we do tell people to do at WP:COIC. So, how about this as an alternative? If I were going to post at Kay's talkpage (which I won't, because I think that there are enough people posting there already), I might say:
Kay Sieverding, we understand and appreciate your desire to help with the Wikipedia project. However, it appears that many of your actions on Wikipedia, though undertaken in good faith, are not in accordance with our guidelines and policies, especially Biographies of living people and Neutrality. Many attempts to communicate with you about these violations have not had a satisfactory outcome, and it would appear that you may be as frustrated here as some of the people who are attempting to communicate with you. There has been some quite vigorous discussion about your status among other Wikipedia editors and administrators, as to how to deal with this issue. Some editors have proposed that your access to Wikipedia simply be completely and permanently blocked. Others have suggested a more moderate approach. For now, the general consensus that seems to be emerging is:
  • You should be allowed one more chance to edit on Wikipedia in a constructive manner
  • This is your last chance, and if this doesn't work, the community's patience will be considered exhausted, and your access will be blocked permanently.
  • Under this chance, there would be very specific restrictions on your editing, for at least 90 days:
    • No edits to the Edward Nottingham or Pro se legal representation in the United States articles, though you are allowed to participate at talkpages, with the following restrictions:
    • You are not allowed to refer to any personal anecdotes of off-wiki activities
    • You are allowed to provide links and citations to reliable sources which discussed those activities.
    • Any links or citations which you provide, must be brief (10 lines maximum per post), and provided in a neutral manner, with no personal embellishments.
    • If you engage in discussion about any existing sources, your commentary must be restricted simply to what is already in that source, without providing any additional information unless specifically asked by another Wikipedia editor. You may offer, "I have additional information if anyone would like," but you are not to provide this information unless another editor asks for it.
    • You are to remain civil at all times, and limit your discussions to specific article content. You are not to make any personal attacks or other commentary about other editors or their motivations. All comments must be limited to articles only.
If you could abide by the following restrictions (otherwise known as a topic ban) for 90 days, then the restrictions would be lifted, and you could edit freely after that, though an additional ban might be imposed in the future if other problems surfaced.
Does this all make sense? If you have questions about any of the above, please ask. However, please keep posts short, no more than 10 lines. If you feel that you need to post more than that, then please break things down to one issue at a time, and we'll handle them one by one, with short posts.
Hopefully with the above structure, we can get through this roadblock, and find a way that you can continue to participate on Wikipedia, since there are editors here who do feel that you have much to offer to our project. Best, <sig>
How's that sound? --Elonka 20:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--(unindent) Elonka, Kay is in a real-life legal dispute with these people. This isn't just a conflict of interest, it is drawing Wikipedia into a real-world legal battle; thus, permitting her to edit those talk pages is inappropriate. The extent of her ongoing crusade has only become clear in the last few days, as she has posted more and more information on her talk page. I don't make a habit of doing internet searches on editors I interact with, although I know some others do. The restrictions on her talk page are clear, and extend beyond what you propose by a long extent based on her editing patterns and behaviour. Before I imposed the restrictions currently on her page, I read all those links and checked all her edits. Restricting her from editing the main pro se article is completely insufficient, as she has attempted to distort a number of articles in order to insert her POV material relating to self-representation; your suggestion would permit her to continue doing so. Risker (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not so much "my" suggestion, as I'm trying to figure out what exactly the consensus is here. Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you are okay on letting her continue to edit, as long as there was a complete topic ban on anything in the "legal" topic area. This would mean no edits to any articles about law, lawsuits, legal professionals, litigants, etc. This ban would be not just on editing those articles, but also a ban on editing the talkpages of those articles, or on posting anything related to those articles on any user talkpages, either. She would, however, be allowed to edit articles in other topic areas. Okay, I could go along with that, as long as we put some kind of a specific time scope on it, like 90 days? Then if she could prove that she was able to edit in a collegial manner in other topic areas, we could consider letting her back into the legal topic area, to see if she'd figured out policies yet? --Elonka 21:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from my [Risker's] talk page, to keep this together)

Query

Hi Risker, I just wanted to contact you directly on your talkpage, since we seem to be having trouble communicating on Lar's talkpage. I have to admit that I'm scratching my head here, because I'm not understanding what it is that you're trying to say. On the one hand you seem to be saying to give KS another chance, on the other you seem to be saying no, don't give her another chance. Can you please clarify? I have great respect for your opinion, but I'm really not understanding which way you would like to proceed here. --Elonka 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, Elonka, if Kay wants to edit about flowers or polar bears or beautiful Minnesota lakes, I am all for it. But she has demonstrated repeatedly that she is not able to edit appropriately on any subject that touches, even peripherally, on her personal legal situation. It's pretty clear from her history, not only here but in the parts of her history that she has posted on her own page, that she is not able to be neutral on this subject area at all. Now, I don't like having this discussion chopped up so I am going to move both your post and my response to Lar's page so everything is on one place. Risker (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that she appears to be editing these articles at present with several IP's (see below), I'm strongly inclined to go ahead with the indefinite block and page protection. Lar, is there any confirmatory checkuser information available? MastCell Talk 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:12.145.227.121 a known entity? (re: Nottingham which I stumbled on accidentally) Collect (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... MastCell Talk 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This particular IP is likely related, but very dynamic so I am not inclined to block it at this point, especially as MastCell has been good enough to semi-protect the article. Thanks, MastCell. Risker (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now 96.60.81.245 . A pattern emergeth? Collect (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) While everyone debates the language of her umpteenth warning, it appears she is merely continuing via IP. Maralia (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I saw it and blocked her already. Risker (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what needs CUing? Her and the IPs mentioned in this thread? More? Less? Ranges? Thx. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi Lar, pardon the party happening in your living room in your absence. I've sent through a request to Sam Korn for the 96.60 IP for block evasion, but have not heard back yet. The other one would probably be worthwhile, although it may be a meatpuppet rather than block evasion. Risker (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OH HAI! Sorry we don't have any avocado dip today. I'll see what I can do. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search of persons Article[edit]

Hello. Just curious - do you intend to answer my question? If not, I shall resign from pursuing the matter further. Thanks. talk:search of persons. M/C Max conformist (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, I missed that.. it had been a few days since your last edit when I commented. I'll get to it shortly. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated topic. I found this: Category:Top-importance legal articles. What causes an article to be placed in this category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max conformist (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 October 2008
Good questions. The explanation is convoluted but in brief, there is an article classification system. It's in part automated, and in part driven by people placing templates at the top of talk pages (like I just did on the Talk:Search of persons article, when I discussed this further. A "top" importance article, at least to me, informally, is one that if you had to make a gazetteer of say, only 10,000 articles total, you'd include it. Very few articles in any given topic area should be Top. (Amphibian probably is "top"... an article about a particular species of tree frog probably is not).... You can read more about classification of quality and importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/Assessment#Importance_assessment (the Law project is a project that given your interest you may want to consider joining) and at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/Assessment#Quality_scale and for more background, at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment ... As Wikipedia moves from an interesting novelty/experiment to a reference worthy of being referred to by millions, grading articles by importance and quality will become increasingly vital to improving the entire body of work. I hope that helps explain matters. A trivia point, the templates that most projects use for this include some code that I was instrumental in creating (although other, better template coders have taken it far from its humble beginnings)
Also, I changed your [[Category:Top-importance legal articles]] to [[:Category:Top-importance legal articles]]... the leading colon in front of Category shows the link to the category on the page (it's a "dereference"), but without it, it just puts the page containing it IN the category... as self important as I may be, my talk page certainly does not belong in the top importance legal articles category! Normally it is rude to change the words of others, even to fix things you think minor, but in this case, having my talk page in a category was a bad thing... ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, another good overview is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Assessment_FAQ ++Lar: t/c 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sorry that my edit negatively affected your talk page. The few articles that I viewed in the top-importance category appear to be in terrible condition (the administrative law article being a notable example), and as usual, grossly incorrect. Sad day. Max conformist (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not mad, it was no big deal, absolutely no worries about it, OK? Just wanted you to know so you can keep an eye out. Links to categories are tricky and when you think you added one but don't see it in preview, it's usaully because you left out the leading ":"... Images are similar.... say this: [[Image:Rock's-anne-supreme-winner.jpg]] and you get the image at right, (that's our baby, by the way, and she's a beaut) but say this: [[:Image:Rock's-anne-supreme-winner.jpg]] and you get a link to it: Image:Rock's-anne-supreme-winner.jpg Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[-unindent] Lar, I looked at the page, and MaxC is right. It's crap. Moreover, the material is already covered -- better -- by another article, search and seizure. I think search of persons should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to search & seizure, and I should turn my attention to marginal improvement of that article (and hopefully MaxC as well). MaxC doesn't agree that search of persons should be eliminated as an article unto itself. Question: Do I need to open a prod for what I'm proposing? Procedurally, what do I do to get a community discussion of the proposal? Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I just happen to be passing by [Hi Lar, sorry for the cookie crumbs in the carpet], you might find that WP:MERGE is what you are looking for. You don't actually have to merge anything in from the "persons" article; but it would probably be worthwhile to go through the full process with the tags, because it tends to draw other people without previous exposure to the topic who can give independent opinions. Just a suggestion. Risker (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Search" seems rather a big topic. When done as well as it could be, it should probably have an overview article (of some considerable length), and a bunch of more detailed articles linked from it, which the frisking one could be a part of. For now, I support a merge/redirect, but long term they should grow to that. Compare Horse... see all those subsidiaries? Each topic gets coverage AND a link to more detail. This thinking can be discussed on the talk page, and if everyone agrees, just implement it. Save whatever is useful from the frisk article and move it... if there is dissension, then it would need discussion via WP:AfD (with the nominator proposing a merge rather than an outright deletion) perhaps. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Julia Morton[edit]

Updated DYK query On 24 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Julia Morton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for all that you do! I see you a lot here and at Commons. Royalbroil 00:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fun stuff[edit]

Maybe you will be amused to hear that I was selected to speak at the Web 2.0 Summit. There are about 2000 attendees, and 70 speakers, with me among least notable. I'll be talking about "virtual blight" from the perspective of a Wikipedia administrator. If you, or your numerous talk page watchers have funny examples of disruption, harassment or socking, I could use PowerPoint fodder. MBisanz has already cornered me and secured a promise that I will release the presentation GFDL. Regards, Jehochman Talk 05:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "virtual blight" ?? I'm not sure I have a lot of funny examples of harassment or stalking, though, there is nothing funny about it. I've seen some disruptive vandalism that was funny though... someone once edited a number of one word articles in an order chosen so that when you looked at the edit history it was a grammatical sentence (with a somewhat polemic message). I found that funny, if only at the thought of the terrific waste of time it represented. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I can release my excellent works of fine art at august forums, I expect Jehochman to do the same. :) MBisanz talk 13:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Virtual blight is what happens when a web community is attacked by parasitic marketers, predators, spammers and such. The bad drives out the good. For harassment, I do not need funny examples, I need scary examples. Website owners need to understand that if they become popular, they may have to deal with everything up to and including (drop in scary thing). Jehochman Talk 13:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something interesting for all my Talk Page Watchers to mull over[edit]

... from my wife's talk page: [38] ... Enjoy. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't spousal privilege primarily aimed at allowing married people to exchange information without fear of being required to surrender that information in court? (it doesn't, for instance, protect the transmission of classified information where proof of transmission can be obtained in other ways). It is an interesting point, though, and it has some relevance to recent problems. I wouldn't, myself, assume that anything I tell one spouse is going to be kept confidential from the other spouse unless that is clearly agreed at the otuset. To expect otherwise seems unreasonable. Avruch T 20:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Not exactly. It was indicated to me, that it is actually significantly broader than that, although perhaps it is not. I have some legal types among my TPWs, perhaps they'll comment and clarify. 2) Yes it does have relevance all right. I suspect my wife is really feeling rather put upon... she never did anything wrong whatever, and has been about as polite and helpful and friendly as it's possible to be, but she's getting dragged through mud along with me. I'm a big boy, mud comes with the job, and lots of disruptive users drag admins through dirt unjustly, of course (although perhaps they are not quite the VestedContributors we have here). However my wife is just an editor, nothing more. A darn good editor who writes better articles than I do, but just an editor. Heck, perhaps better articles than any of the parties in the case write, actually, despite most of them not being just an editor. We need more of those sorts of "just an editors". ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever... Even though I do not have the patience and sanguine approach of Lar, I am the very example of meekness when people attack me compared to when people might offend my sensibilities vis a vis her what shares my shname - I go ship ate crazy, so I do (but even then, I am working from a sense of honour - she is far far harder and cutting than I could ever be). It is to the blessings of the community and its less perceptive of deadly dangerous danger that the "old ball and chain" is not - and expresses the desire never to be - a Wikipedian. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea if some people were able to judge the time to shut the fuck up. Giano (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. MastCell Talk 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My wife put something applicable (from common law and tradition) on her page that she thought would counter some of the unhelpful things that have been said. She's, as I said above, feeling rather put upon. She did nothing wrong in any of this.

You can tell me to shut up if you like. You're in fact welcome to do just that, right here. I explicitly take no offense at these comments. and I explicitly disclaim and deny that (in particular) Giano's comment was incivil, in case anyone was thinking of taking a free shot at him for expressing his opinion to me, a friend. Just don't. (Risker: I appreciate the sentiment behind the initial reversion, but no. If any of the commenters here want to strike their remarks, feel free, but no removals, thanks. See the top of this talk page)

The cite has been removed from my wife's page. Let that be the end of this. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except... I do not believe that Giano was responding to you, since he is experienced in the use of formatting, and I consider that Riskers actions were to prevent a possibility of me doing something rash - like in this instance, I do tend to wish to explain myself. I also do not consider Giano was uncivil, simply robust, and, incidentally, wrong. I may have been tempted to explain why in equally vigorous fashion, and Riskers actions certainly permitted me time to reconsider. I am also fully supportive of your revert - as is your practice - since this is your page to administer as you wish. Now, perhaps, this is an end to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, you have the absolute and unquestioned privilege to share anything (and hopefully everything) with your spouse. However, your spouse then inherits the obligation to convey absolutely nothing to third parties. Spousal privilege is only what the exact words mean, it's a confidence between precisely two people. Kinda like a sysadmin, when you help a VP print out the layoff notice, you still can't tell people they'll be fired tomorrow. When you help out the payroll clerk, you can't tell George that Mary gets paid more than Fred. Trust can only be absolute. This may not be apropos, since I haven't followed the whole mess (or even sure which mess it is?). Franamax (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct in all aspects. "your spouse then inherits the obligation to convey absolutely nothing to third parties" is a very crucial point. And one scrupulously adhered to in this matter. As for which mess... lucky you for not knowing. ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm pretty sure I do know which mess - however I prefer to adopt a studied blindness to the messes that stray over to the silly side, lest I find myself getting involved in the silliness. On Wikipedia, that means an awful lot of not-watching :( Franamax (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Paradise possible editwar in Sarah Palin (redux)[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247627505&oldid=247624405 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247601781&oldid=247601737 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247590785&oldid=247589819 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247586346&oldid=247584962 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247584450&oldid=247584116

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247390060&oldid=247388103

(some intervening edits not cited as possibly not being technical reverts)

appear to possibly show a problem in Sarah Palin. GP has, if I recall correctly, been blocked in the past for 3RR violations in that article, and been warned about editwars. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a great deal of discussion at the Talk:Sarah Palin page, which GreekParadise is participating in. The history is big, so it's not totally clear exactly what is going on, but it looks like most people agree that discussion is good and needs to happen but someone is repeatedly verting without discussion. Have you had a word with that person? (User:Threeafterthree I think?) If there's a consensus, reverting TO that consensus if it's under discussion on the talk is not nearly as serious a matter as just blindly reverting back and forth in my view. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly both. GP has been warned about Sarah Palin before (being blocked IIRC) and he is making not a few threats about this. I may be biassed as GP has made a few unfounded accusations about me (sigh). Collect (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general he seems to be amiable though... ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would that were so. (supra allegations about me and others) Collect (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been extremely careful to avoid 3RR. Everything I have done I have discussed in the detail on the talk page before, during, and after doing, and everything was done with the support and consensus of everyone except Collect. The last thing I did -- returning a well-sourced eight-word sentence saying Palin supports the Knik Arm Bridge to the Knik Arm Bridge section of the Palin article -- was a triple reversion but no more. The fact is verified by a dozen sources. Collect does not believe that it is relevant in a section entitled "Knik Arm Bridge" to give eight words saying Palin supports the "Knik Arm Bridge." Virtually everyone else on the site disagrees with Collect. I am more than willing to arbitrate or mediate this. I think that it IS relevant in a bridge section in a Palin biography that she continuees to support the bridge in question. I'll let Collect make the extremely counter-intuitive argument that somehow it is not relevant. GreekParadise (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you need more detail, let me know. Collect will find it impossible to show I have made more than three reversions in twenty-four hours on any text in any article. I challenge and defy him to try. As noted, the most I've done is three reversions (but no more!) with one sentence: putting back in the eight-word sentence that Collect and ThreeafterThree have repeatedly taken out without once admitting they were doing it or giving a reason for doing so openly on the talk page, even though I have begged both of them in edit history and on the talk page to say what they was doing and give reasons for doing so before mindlessly reverting. The invitation is still open, Collect. If you still want to delete this sentence, by all means open a new section on the talk page and say why and try to garner support. As you know, I agreed to add your additional material to the sentence (about the June feasibility review) long before you complained to Lar. I wish, in fairness, you had told him that. In sum, Collect, I'm willing to work with you, and I ask you in fairness to work with me. If you disagree that a brief, relevant, well-sourced, and notable fact about Palin should be in the article, go on the talk page and say WHY.GreekParadise (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Larry -FWIW, I haven't been involved in the back and forth on this matter but I have observed GreekParadise's willingness to compromise on this content issue on the talk page, and I also agree with the solution he's supporting. It's a very contentious article, to say the least, and any willingness to compromise is noteworthy. Cheers Tvoz/talk 00:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that my specific concerns that one part of the original sentence was maintained by GP and that the part which partially contradicted the sentence was removed. That I mentioned this on the Talk page. That he agreed that it should be restored. And that at last check he did not restore the original sentence. Further that I did not "complain to Lar" as you quaintly phrase it, but that I listed what appeared to me to be a case of editwarring. As for your claim that I "repeatedly" removed the sentence, that claim is false, and palpably false. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note: 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. If a user repeatedly does 3, but not 4, unjustified reverts in a 24 hour period, thinking they have avoided the rule... they may nevertheless find themeselves blocked anyway, for gaming the system. "scrupulously avoiding exceeding 3 reverts" is not a defense. Just something to keep in mind. (and if there is a pattern, bringing it to the 3RR noticeboard is probably the best appproach) As for the rest of this I'm not seeing a specific action item here for me. This seems like a content dispute, which is best worked through on the relevant article talk page or pages. I'd ask everyone to try to work together collegially to resolve this without needing to come to admins for assistance, if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A further note, there has also been discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:GreekParadise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I will post a full -- and long -- explanation on the Administrators' notice board.GreekParadise (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So then, in future, just remember that "extremely careful to avoid 3RR" may not be a viable defense. All in all, this seems like a matter where, if everyone could just talk to each other amiably, it could all be worked through. I have no position whatever on the content and prefer to stay that way. I also may not be the best choice for someone to come to, as I'm rather distracted right now. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I didn't come to you and won't bother you again.GreekParadise (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, that last bit was directed at others, although I had you in mind when talking about 3RR. Sorry if that was not clear. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The CheckUser tool is granted to highly trusted and experienced Wiki users and it must be used with the utmost respect for privacy as governed by Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. CheckUsers must exercise sound judgement, balancing need to protect the community with privacy concerns. Breaches of this should be dealt with through the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission.

Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion. The users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—are reminded that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. All CheckUsers are reminded that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry regarding a new user[edit]

I recently noticed a minor edit in a minor article which would be considered spam, i.e. a link added to an "external links" section which promoted the website of a new user, Sackrabbit (talk · contribs). However, I found the linked site to be useful and relevant to the subject so I kept it, simply editing it to remove reference to sackrabbit.com. I informed the user on his wikitalk, and then noticed something: the user creation log entry for Sackrabbit appeared in my watchlist. Is this normal? I did create his talk page, but I don't remember ever seeing creation entry appear in my watchlist prior to this. Please point me to information regarding why this has happened, as I searched but was unable to find an explanation. Thanks - Sswonk (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I don't know why a user creation log entry would turn up on your watch list. The talk page, sure, but not the user creation log entry. I'm not necessarily the best person to ask, I'd try on Village pump (technical). Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VPT question posted, thank you. Sswonk (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_47&oldid=1144575264"