User talk:Lar/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 67

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 June 2010 through about 1 July 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

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


Email[edit]

You've got mail! And thankfully, it's not about climate change! Feel free to reply at your convenience. Best, NW (Talk) 18:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This got answered. Interesting situation. ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP review[edit]

Just FYI: Linda Tellington-Jones. May want to review tags and talk page. Doesn't appear to be a crisis, just a bit of self-promotional PR. Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article appears to be in need of serious trimming back if not an actual AfD nom. I'd remove most of the unreferenced material but that's just me. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's adequately notable to keep a bio, but sort of in the Monty Roberts way. I guess I don't care enough to do much with it one way or the other (grin). If I do a cut, will you defend me in the probable firestorm? (LOL) Montanabw(talk) 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prolly, as long as you cut only unreferenced peacock (and bad, but there isn't any bad, I didn't think, or at least I didn't see any) stuff. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is unreferenced. Let me think it over a bit. Stay tuned. Montanabw(talk) 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ref the bare facts (you said you know she's notable... sources must exist then, at least presumably) and cut the rest? Then say on the talk that anything put back in from now forward needs to be reffed, and remind folk of WP:PEACOCK and WP:COATRACK... That'd be my suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to care! LOL! Actually, some of her material is actually pretty good. Just too much cult of personality for my tastes and some views that are in the realm of flaky. But hey, that's horse people. Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor thing worth peeking at[edit]

Possible sockpuppet, may want to toss this to someone else, but note edit history, types of contribs, talk page and age of account for User:Inniverse. No skin off my nose, I only had to delete a bunch of redlinks to a non-article on Equitana, in the process noticing 100s of edits in an astonishingly short time. Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This did get bumped up for others to look at. Not sure where things stand now. ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and put in a formal SPI report too, others can figure out if it's a problem or not, I guess. Not really my problem, I suppose. Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakopedia and Hipocrite[edit]

Speaking of SPIs, if Hippocrite does not promptly initiate an SPI against me, what can I do about his accusations of sockpuppetry? They are a bit tiresome and not really an expression of good faith, and distract from the purpose of the probation. Plus I only have the one account. Weakopedia (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior raises some little hairs of "oddness" for me. If I were a current CU (as an Ombudsman I am recused from any CU activity) I'd probably run a check, it's within the CU remit to do that when we think things are "off". I agree that Hipocrite should file the SPI. If he does not, but merely bandies about charges, you should pursue DR... start with his talk and calmly/politely ask him to stop. Failing that (and I think it will work, he does often listen if asked calmly) AN/I, WQA, an RfCU, or whatever you think is appropriate. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks. I'll just add your name to the list of people who have, incorrectly and with no real evidence, suspected me of sockpuppetry. Weakopedia (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
But suspecting people of sockpuppetry is what CUs do. Then, if the suspicions seem well founded by the actions of the editor, we run checks (if we are active CUs, which I currently am not). Being suspected isn't the same as actually being one, as often (not often enough, but often) we are pleasantly surprised to find no evidence whatever of sockery in the CU results. If you don't want to be suspected of sockery, there are many ways to avoid that suspicion. Your current set of actions aren't it though.
So are you here to berate me for doing what CUs do, or did you want to ask for advice about what to do if Hipocrite won't drop the matter and won't file an SPI? I gave that advice already. (and you're welcome for it) Let me know if you want the other advice I could give. ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite did add Weakopedia to the SPI report filed recently. ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you have to give up being a CU to be a Ombudsman? The CU's are terribly backlogged so it seems silly to take away a knowlegeable CU. The last election for new CU's gave just 1 new CU out of a list of editors. Why can an arbitrator do CU to help with the backlog and you can't? I would really like to understand, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the Ombudsman is there to deal with user concerns about checkusers (and others). That role is incompatible with being a working checkuser, too, just as we do not expect people to be prosecutors and judges at the same time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just concerns with Checkusers, there has been resistance to expanding the mandate, but otherwise, yes. ++Lar: t/c 11:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading meta:Ombudsman commission it seems that privacy concerns in general are covered, or do I misunderstand it? It e.g. lists admins as a separate category of respondents from people with CU access. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get to Meta from here (blocked site, although WP isn't! go figure) to check the wording so I will have to comment later. The primary focus is privacy as it relates to CU usage, though. That doesn't mean an admin might never be a focus of concern. ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. What you say makes sense. It's a shame that the new election for CU'ers only came up with one editor approved. Again, thanks for taking the time to explain this to me, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to participate in the RfC on that if you haven't already. (I did. I want to go back to the old way) ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break for convenience[edit]

Let's review. I'm told over and over to file the SPI. I file the SPI. In repsonse to filing the SPI, the user who has been begging me to file the SPI calls filing the SPI abusive. Lar, was I tricked into a trap? Hipocrite (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. One user claiming something is abusive doesn't make it so. You already know that. So why did you ask, in the manner you asked? Drama and bluster. I will say, as I have before and no doubt will again (unfortunately), the way you go about things isn't the most conducive to drama reduction. You really could improve your approach in that area, it will eventually lead you to come to grief.
As to the specific SPI, it seems remarkably lacking in detail or in fact any corroboration beyond bald assertions. If I were a CU coming up to that request cold, absent contextual knowledge, I'd decline it and admonish you and the others for not making a case for a check. The standards that CUs apply to themselves internally for running checks are different than the standards we like to see in SPI requests. Because if we have a hunch and we act on it, and find nothing, and say nothing, no privacy was breached, and no one's reputation was harmed. But an SPI case ought to make the case sufficient to support the allegation, not just make the allegation. We may be a bit looser with alleged Scibaby socks in practice but I am not convinced we should be.++Lar: t/c 12:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I'd take your advice more to heart if anyone who complained had done anything to stop the unending stream of Scipuppets. How about this - I'll stop reporting them on SPI if anyone on the skeptical axis of editors here gives a real college try of actually curtailing the sockpuppetry and off-wiki solicitation of editors by the remainder of the skeptical axis of editors. Hipocrite (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I'm not asking you to stop reporting things. I'm asking you to do a better job when you do. If you want to put stuff in the Emmanuel Goldstein Scibaby special section, you need to give justification as to why you think it's Scibaby, not just assertion. One would think you're deliberately misinterpreting what others say. Bluster and dramah. Stop. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, how am I supposed to feel when you tell me that what you're asking me to do is change the way I put stuff in the special section, and tell me that I need to use more justification when I put things in the special section, but fail to note I've never put anything in that section. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What do you call all those edits then? I think you may be confused. ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I understand - when you refer to "Scibaby special section," you don't mean the Scibaby special section at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, you instead mean the perfectly normal SPI for scibaby - is that accurate? Just this once I'd like you to admit that the most obvious reading of your comment was different than what you actually meant to say. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The "most obvious reading of my comment" was that I was referring to the SPI special section, since, in this very thread, we both use the term SPI, (You: "I file the SPI", me: "As to the specific SPI") and we both don't use CC/RE or anything similar to it. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Lar, can you see how someone who wasn't you reading your comment that said "Scibaby special section," would think you were refering to "Scibaby special section," as opposed to "Scibaby SPI?" Here - try this - find someone you trust that isn't fully entrenched in this dispute, and show them your comment, note the existance of both sections, and then ask them to which you were referring. Or just realize that you were being unclear again. Either way. I forgot how much your unwillingness to admit fault in any circumstance bothered me. I'll unwatchlist you page again. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit fault all the time. I just have to actually be wrong. As for unwatchlisting, sounds like a good idea to me. Your contribution here (1) is a net negative. Even so, you're always welcome, and your words will remain. As will my optimism. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 - on this page. I'm not referring to your contribution to the entire project. I leave that as an exercise for others to evaluate.

Section break so that Lar doesn't miss the above direct question.[edit]

The SPI contained virtually no evidence, and you didn't even claim to know the sock-master, other than your weak claim that it's Scibaby (it's clearly not). Personally, I don't object to the report, but I can see how someone would.
But in any case, Hipocrite, as a good faith measure, why don't you volunteer to be checkusered? I'd join you without reservation. In fact, maybe we can get all the CC regulars to submit to a checkuser, in order to flush out any socks once and for all. ATren (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You state that I weakly claim that it's Scibaby - this is a lie. The reason I didn't earlier file the SPI is because my earlier suspicion of the master account was dispelled by other evidence. The reason I did file this one was because Lar, an Ombudsperson, said he would check the account. I'll happily submit to checkuser iff you convince Heyitspeter, Thegoodlocust and marknutley to do the same. Hipocrite (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHECK says Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation; note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt. Such requests are typically declined on the English Wikipedia and Checks are inappropriate unless there is evidence suggesting abusive sock-puppetry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that long time users voluntarily submitting to a check is not going to be considered disruptive, especially in such a contentious topic area where there is rampant distrust between editors. ATren (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ATren, you, ZuluPapa5 and Marknutley would do well to read and fully understand the Checkuser policy, especially the section about WP:PIXIEDUST.
"CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Almost all queries about IPs will be because two editors were behaving the same way or an editor was behaving in a way that appears suggestive of possible disruption. An editing pattern match is the important thing; the IP match is really just extra evidence (or not)."
I can think of at least three ways to confound and circumvent a cursory checkuser examination without leaving my desk, and I could scrape up a handful more if I were sufficiently dedicated. (For obvious reasons, I don't want to go into any detail about what I know about how the tool works and what information it provides, and I would urge you to confine any questions or speculation in that direction to off-wiki communication with checkusers.) Checkuser data can be a superb final nail in a sockpuppet's coffin, but behavioral evidence always has been the most important test. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but in the case that brought this debate, the behavioral evidence was 25 edits, none of which was outright vandalism or abuse, and there were certainly deviations from the Scibaby pattern (I identified one almost immediately). So, perhaps checkuser is not needed in obvious cases of abuse, but I dispute that this was obvious abuse. ATren (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost — are you talking about Weakopedia or ClimateOracle, or someone else? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think CO? That's the user with 25 edits. I'll reiterate, if the pattern doesn't immediately fit Scibaby beyond reasonable doubt, making the request at the Scibaby subpage of SPI with no corroborating information as to why a check should be run is not helpful. fish CheckUser is not for fishing ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the above comment referenced CO, which started this long debate (somewhere else, though I can't recall where). Weakopedia is a separate (but related) concern. ATren (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on TOAT and CO[edit]

In the case of ClimateOracle, the blocking admin – me – has never asserted that he was a Scibaby sock. (Indeed, I haven't any experience with Scibaby. Beyond knowing that he tends to show up in climate change pages, I don't know anything about how he might be identified.) I am nevertheless quite confident based purely on extant behavioral evidence that ClimateOracle has extensive previous Wikipedia experience. Creating a new identity solely to dive into an area under general probation and to immediately edit the BLP of an individual who has been subject to extensive on- and off-wiki harrassment is prima facie abusive. Despite that, I still gave him two options to avoid a block — he could edit elsewhere on Wikipedia, or he could identify his previous account(s). He demurred; I blocked; no checkuser needed. (Though I wonder if a checkuser in such cases might not be useful, as it could uncover other puppeteers. In that circumstance, filing a request under Scibaby would be a bit of a lazy and sloppy way to go about things, but could be the easiest way to get a CU to take a peek. In other words, Hipocrite was spot-on in his identification of ClimateOracle as a sockpuppet, but the subsequent SPI filing was either careless or a bit naughty. Give him a rap on the knuckles, but we all know that Checkusers will check out users on their own initiative, despite not knowing the sockmaster in advance, and despite whatever {{fishing}} says.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was CO reported in the Scibaby socks section of the RE, then? (that's a question to the reportee, not you) and did you block based on seeing the report there? (that's a question to you)... if yes to the latter, it may be a bit disingenious to say "I never said X was Y" if you acted based on a mention in a section of "these are all Y, we think"... ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ClimateOracle came to my attention because I have William Connolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) watchlisted. I issued my last-chance warning to CO before I was aware of the RfE. (I only visited RfE to note my actions because I had just seen his name in an edit summary — looking at this page histories, that would have been an hour or two after I warned ClimateOracle.) Of late, I've tried to stay as far away from the CC probation pages as possible because of the poisonous environment.
Speaking of which, the suggestion that I might be being 'disingenuous', however you might couch it in the conditional, is very unwelcome. Can you honestly say that you have any reasonable doubt that ClimateOracle is an experienced editor under a new name? If not, can't you extend at least a little bit of credit to me for my own years of Wikipedia experience, and my ability to conduct a basic sniff test? (Unfortunately, I have rather a lot of personal experience with sockpuppet harassment.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TOAT, of course I have reasonable doubt about CO, but if we're going to bring up legal analogies, reasonable doubt is only a reason to acquit, not to convict. My point in this debate is that lacking significant cause, i.e. blatant or persistent abuse, an indef block based on this sort of suspicion is inappropriate. I am not saying "CO is not a sock", but rather "CO may well be a sock, but unless and until they violate policy in an obvious and egregious fashion, they should be given the benefit of the doubt." This is the spirit of WP:BITE. ATren (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*ping* Lar, I assume that ATren doesn't speak on your behalf. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen how busy this page is? I don't think you answered my question, at least not exactly Reminder, you did say "the blocking admin – me – has never asserted that he was a Scibaby sock", but I'm still not clear on the sequence of events, it may have gotten lost in the shuffle. ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I answered your question. Explicitly, and repeating what I've already clearly stated — I did not block based on the RfE, as I was entirely unaware of it at the time that I offered ClimateOracle the choice of a) identifying his previous account(s); b) ceasing to edit articles under the climate change probation; or c) being blocked as an abusive sockpuppet account. Furthermore and for the record, I have never issued any block on Wikipedia on the basis of suspecting someone is a Scibaby sock, as I have no specific experience with that particular puppeteer and I don't believe I could confidently identify accounts as belonging to him. Are you going to answer my question, Lar? Do you think that ClimateOracle should be unblocked? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. It looked like you did, though, based on the timeline, which is why I asked. (The way things work on this page is that people who want to ask me questions have to answer mine first. Clearly and without evasion. Which you now have. ) So then, in order... Yes. Probably not but I haven't investigated closely, since I don't use my CU tools (this year). I defer to other CUs on the CU findings and to you on the disruption findings. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, a followup question — why do you have to keep trying to attack my competence and (worse) my integrity? First you suggested that I was being disingenuous, then for some reason you decided to post the above comment with the strikethrough already in place: [1]. What's up with that? I answered your question clearly, openly, and completely – twice – and you knew it when you posted the comment or you wouldn't have struck through your snide insinuation that I was evading your question. So why put the struck-through text in your comment at all? That's two cheap shots when, as far as I know, I've answered all your questions clearly and discharged my responsibilities competently. If you think I've erred anywhere, then say so clearly and openly — quit screwing around with veiled barbs. As an Ombudsman, you're supposed to be neutral, forthright, and in general stick to a high standard of conduct. I don't know what I've done to justify your insulting approach. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokes, what a mess. First off, that was supposed to be a small, not a strike. Corrected. Serves me right for not using preview that one time (but have you noticed how busy this page is????) Second no insult to you was intended, you've answered my question satisfactorily. That comment is about others who often come here and barrage me without in turn answering what I ask of them (or who blow off my questions completely, when asked elsewhere, and then turn up here and take pot shots) Not you. Given the circumstances of my error in formatting, I'm going to just overlook the rest of your comments as said in the heat of the moment. Because I can see how it reads if that was a strike. Way snarkier than intended. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I can see what you were trying to do — but can you see how it is unhelpful when you use your conversation with me as a vehicle for taking digs at other editors? (And by 'others', I assume you mean Hipocrite?)
As for the rest of my comment, I'm still genuinely interested in what you have to say about whether or not you think that my block is in error, and I hope you'll reconsider your decision not to answer my question. I'm not asking you to do a checkuser, because the point I've made again and again is that one isn't necessary in this case. Here is ClimateOracle's very first edit. Here is the post he made to his talk page after being blocked: [2]. Here are his first and second uses of {{unblock}}. All of those edits were by a username less than eighteen hours old. Do you find it plausible, based just on those three diffs, that this is not someone with extensive prior Wikipedia experience? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring exclusively to Hipocrite. It's a habit that many folk have but I've seen it a lot from KDP, WMC, SBHB, StS, ds, etc. lately, it seems to be an avoidance tactic. As for the rest, I've sent you mail. I decline to give a public opinion at this time beyond what I already said... that I defer to the CUs and admins who looked into the matter and made the determination. I hope that settles this matter for now. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On filing things[edit]

  • File an SPI or cease... wait, that's what your side says. Do whatever you want - I won't get all defensive and try to have you blocked or banned for doing what I asked you to do - unlike your sockpuppet friends. Hipocrite (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A totally unhelpful comment. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If you have nothing to hide, why not let us search your house and tap your phone?" "If you are not a terrorist, why do you oppose waterboarding?" "Wouldn't it be great if we had a genetic fingerprint of all people in the country to help clear up crimes?" If we start checkusering without good cause, how long until the mere objection to submit to it will be considered evidence? I strongly oppose that line of reasoning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Agree with Stephan Schulz. We could do with less bandying about of accusations, requests to CU all and sundry, allegations of bad faith, and the like. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if the sockpuppetry that causes all of these accusations to spiral out of control were to stop, wouldn't it? Perhaps some of the editors on better terms with Scibaby could assist here - perhaps by asking him to stop, or not standing in the way of people who work dilligently on stopping him? Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these people? Again, reverting Scibaby does nothing to get to the root cause. I suppose you could block all of Idaho or wherever it is he's from. I understand that it makes you feel good thinking you are fighting the good fight though. Just like Twinkle users I guess, nice endorphin rush. That's gotten old for me though. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, because I actually do know how checkuser works, couldn't it be argued that my willingness to be checkusered demonstrates that, like people who know that polygraphs are fake, I've merely employed countermeasures on my deviously employed sockpuppet? Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably. Anyway, who's to say you haven't been checked already anyway? I recuse for two reasons, but if I were an uninvolved CU presented with your pattern of behavior my bells would go off, I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Have I? Do I care? Not really. In the past I have had less than complete faith in the checkusers (and my less than complete faith was fully vindicated, as we all know), I have no concerns currently. My only active sockpuppets are fully disclosed accounts. I've had my problems in the past, but no more. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on the vindication part? ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan, Hipocrite is the one filing CU requests with little or no evidence -- I only suggested that if he's so intent on rooting out socks by filing flimsy requests, he might submit to CU himself as a gesture of good will. ATren (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, I take it that's "no" to my suggestion that you submit voluntarily to checkuser? ATren (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have been explicit enough. Would you please discontinue this line of inquiry? It's not helpful. And it's not likely to prove anything. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yes I will. ATren (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But just to cap it off, you are incorrect. I made a definite "yes" answer above. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SRQ at SPI[edit]

While you're there, check out this SPI (if you haven't already). I'm sure you remember SRQ well... Cheers! Doc9871 (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above, I don't think I have any comment that I can make. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood (chuckles) ;> Doc9871 (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant I don't do CU work this year. Sorry for confusion. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request at CC RFC[edit]

I made a proposal here. I agree that it needs cleanup - I'm half tempted to be bold and do it myself, but editing other people's comments is (understandably) a pretty big deal, so I want ZP on board.--SPhilbrickT 13:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it if you wish, it's in my view OK. Thanks for raising this there, I've commented. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby, the bogeyman, SPI reports, asymmetrical warfare, and false flags[edit]

Scibaby has 659 currently confirmed socks - this is an underestimate, because some of his socks were not labeled confirmed, just blocked. He was blocked on 25 September 2007. The most recent featured article is Lemurs_of_Madagascar_(book), which is 31kbs, or 15500 characters. Right now the average Scibaby report takes up approximately 50 typed characters, give or take - so if we run that back to the first sock, scibaby has only cost us a little over two featured articles. You, it seems, would like the reports to be longer. How much longer? What will be gained from lengthening the reports? How will the responsibility for lengthening these reports be shared - will it be assesed only on individuals who oppose Scibabys content goals, or should it be the responsibility of editors who do share his content goals? Just trying to figure out how the work assignment of trying to avoid one of the most prolific sockpuppeteers is supposed to go, in your mind. Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something justifying why an ID is thought to be Scibaby is in order. Regardless of the effort it requires. Just tossing names into that special SPI section won't do in my view. Perhaps those who created the Scibaby monster are the ones that should be responsible for the work effort.
Or are you OK with my tossing YOUR name into that section? ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. Toss away. Would the following sufficie - "New editor editing Climate Change articles demonstrating well-known Scibaby markers" be enough? Or are you asking people to develop a whole series of diffs. Further, you say "Perhaps those who created the Scibaby monster are the ones that should be responsible for the work effort." Are you blaming the victims, here? Scibaby sockpuppeted on James Hansen to insert biased and defamatory information starting 24 September 2007 - his very first edit - the checkuser who confirmed this was you. Scibaby was sockpuppeting from his eighth edit - [3] and [4]. Who created him, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I lay the monster creation at Raul's feet, actually. Although I am curious as to who you think the "victims" are. And I do not consider "New editor editing Climate Change articles demonstrating well-known Scibaby markers" sufficient, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please model an acceptable level of evidence, thanks. Given that Raul no longer edits in the area and was forced to lay aside the tool he used to clean up after the mess, I don't see how you can assign him the work of cleaning it up. Right now, you're assigning the work to the editors who both clean up after Scibaby and make sure the articles reflect the best and most reliable sources, while editors who want the articles to reflect what they think is true about the world are content to watch Scibaby edit articles in ways they wish they had the gall to. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you were taking this page off your watchlist? Who do you think the victims are? As for acceptable levels of evidence, review CU policy, or ask some seasoned CUs other than myself if what you've presented (or what Stephan Schulz presented... "the usual") is adequate. (it's not) PS, your last sentence assumes facts not in evidence (and shows your bias nicely) It's also quite polemical. Finally, by my own personal policy I don't clean up after vandalism. And won't, until we have workable flagged revisions in place. ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lay the monster creation at Raul's feet - sure, and it's her fault for wearing a short dress. What about blaming the abusive sock master(s), for a change? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, would you say that no prison ever made a prisoner into a more hardened criminal? No cop ever committed anything wrong in dealing with a suspect? Your analogy is misguided. A monster was created here. Second, "for a change"???? I'll stand my record of effort in combating abusive sock masters... as an admin, a CU and as a steward, against anyone. You have no idea. Third, I'll be blunt: Stephan Schulz, you lack standing with me to give me any advice or admonishment. Not while you use my username as a derisive and divisive "unit of measure", among the other snarky and catty tactics you employ. Look to the beam in your own eye before you comment on the motes in those of others. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special SPI section[edit]

(edit conflict)I don't think that people are just "tossing names into that special SPI section" - i've earlier sent off an email with a description to the CU of what specifically makes me add names to the section. As long as there is no abuse of the system (which may be the case here though), i don't see the problem... But there is a documentable problem with writing down the signs, evidence and thoughts behind the identification. Can i come up with a compromise here? If a CU or another concerned editor is disputing an addition (with common sense restrictions on misuse) - then a description can be sent off to the clerk or the CU in charge of the case, so that evidence can be validated? Misuse of the process is a problem - but undermining the process is a problem as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there have been a fair few misidentifications. CO and Weak may be socks, but in that case just report them. No compelling case that they're Scibaby has been put forward. Their names were just lobbed into various places. Your suggestion of how to go forward has merit though. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What level of misidentification do you think is acceptable? What level is unavoidable? And what is your definition of "a fair few"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Over time the unavoidable level of misidentification is going to increase as sockers become more sophisticated. I decline to say more than that about levels.
The duck test, properly applied, is always going to be the best way to go. "block on behavior" was one of my most common responses as an active CU. I just don't see that it's been properly applied in this case, but that's an observation from the outside, as I decline to investigate directly. Not every new editor that turns up at CC pages is Scibaby. I don't think tossing every potential sock onto the Scibaby pile is useful either. It confuses matters. However it also doesn't matter if a particular sock is or isn't Scibaby, it only matters whether the behavior is disruptive. Some people like having a bogeyman though. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a bad idea to lump all of these new editors in as "Scibaby". On the other hand, it's probably worth thinking about what's going on here. There's a steady parade of "new" accounts which display obvious signs of previous Wikipedia experience and migrate immediately to climate-change disputes (often relatively picayune ones, like "retired"-gate). I don't think these are just people off the street who randomly read Lawrence Solomon's tirade and signed up to fight For Great Justice, because most or all demonstrate clear pre-existing familiarity with this site's arcana.

It's also curious that this phenomenon is relegated entirely to the "skeptical" side - I haven't seen any such accounts appear to edit from the mainstream perspective, although I haven't been watching very closely so may have missed some. That one-sidedness argues that this is not a "natural" influx of new editors - if it were, they should be distributed a bit less uniformly.

So that makes me wonder a) what's going on here, and b) what the most constructive way to deal with it might be. I don't think a simple "suck it up and AGF" is the right answer (not that you've said it is), because I think any experienced Wikipedian reviewing this parade of "new" users intuits that something is not right. That said, I doubt that this is all one person, or that it's a problem amenable to simple technical fixes like checkuser. Anyhow... MastCell Talk 20:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for your last sentence, I agree on both points. Especially the last. Checkuser cannot completely stop anything. Or even almost completely, and as time goes on the problem gets worse. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS Socking is trivially easy to almost completely eliminate. Instead we have what we have here. Vandalism visible to the general public is trivially easy to almost completely eliminate. Instead we have what we have here. And so on. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, you say it's relegated entirely to one side? Consider for a moment user #1, registered in November, has a several month break, 11 edits total, then started editing entirely climate change articles with a very heavy environmentalism-slant. On the other hand user #2 (aka me), registered in December, has a several month break, 11 edits total, then started editing the global warming article attempting to remove the heavy environmentalism-slant. Despite the extreme similarities to the editing pattern, ONLY the second user was accused of being a sock puppet and blocked. The only differences were that the second user knew where the 3RR and NPOV pages were and explained them to the first user, and that the two were editing toward different content. So, yeah, it is VERY "curious" that this phenomenon is only happening on one side. But that's clearly not the fault of the new user accounts, but is instead a strong bias in the reporting of sock puppets. WavePart (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User #1 was, and remains, significantly less sophisticated in Wikipedia's ways than you were in your first few edits. I can tell without too much difficulty, from available records and without checkuser, what his IP is and that he is in fact located in Toronto (due to a newbie "mistake" that no self-respecting sockpuppeteer would make). His edits seem to have run into opposition largely from the "mainstream" editors, which would be curious for a returning sockpuppeteer looking to influence the article in a more "environmental" direction. So I don't see these as "extremely similar" situations. That said, I don't understand your claim about "reporting bias". Anyone can report a suspected sockpuppet. Go ahead and report him if you think he's a sock. I doubt it, but it is possible; in any case, that doesn't lessen the clear intuition that you're not a "new" user, or even a user new to climate-change articles. MastCell Talk 22:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would of course not report him as a sock puppet, because there is zero evidence that he is one. Kind of like how there was zero evidence that I was one. Wikipedia experience is not sock puppeting. Neither is wikipedia experience combined with effective editing. It seems that only one "side" of the climate change articles seems to think this is an adequate standard for calling someone a sock puppet, which explains the disparity, and calls into question the integrity of the process. WavePart (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not play games. I think you understand exactly why your account was suspected of being a sockpuppet, and the reasons are not anywhere near as arbitrary as you've presented them. MastCell Talk 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some extremely paranoid people falsely think that having prior wikipedia experience is equal to being a sock puppet. But that's not the central issue to what I said there, because I'm seeing others come forward and say they were also falsely accused of being a sock puppet (while not having any prior wikipedia experience). The one thing they all seem to have in common is editing against a certain perspective on those articles. So, yes, only a subset of editors, slanted toward one side of debates in that area, have taken to making large numbers of sock puppet allegations. WavePart (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on asymmetrical warfare[edit]

I think asymmetrical warfare concepts may explain why the socks all come in on one side... there really is no need for them on the other side. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the assymetrical warfare analogy. ATren (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Asymmetrical warfare" is not a convincing explanation. Both "sides" perceive themselves as under-represented (regardless of the reality, which I have no desire to debate at present). "Mainstream" editors clearly view themselves as under siege, and would likely benefit materially from an influx of "new" accounts. If that perception were the main motivator, then one would expect both "sides" to see roughly similar numbers of sockpuppets. Yet there is no such influx on the "mainstream" side - only on the "skeptical" side. MastCell Talk 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many "skeptical" side admins do we have? ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I don't think it's really relevant, since regardless of adminship, it's clear that the "mainstream" side perceives itself as every bit as unfairly oppressed as the skeptical side. Adminship is open to anyone. If "mainstream" editors are successful at gaining adminship while "skeptical" editors are not, then a number of conclusions could be drawn. One is that the community finds determined advocacy of a contrarian position incompatible with a position of trust on a project that ostensibly aims to create a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell Talk 05:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. Doesn't matter WHY there aren't many. Merely that there aren't. Admins on one side but not on the other are part of what might make things asymmetrical. And frankly, I think "mainstream" side perceives itself as every bit as unfairly oppressed as the skeptical side is not really a creditable view. I'm mmainstream. I don't feel oppressed in the slightest. (well maybe I do feel a bit beset... but it's by others who supposedly are "mainstream". Their science may be mainstream (or it may be a bit too far the other way) but their approach to the wiki process is not.) ++Lar: t/c 10:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace "mainstream" with "those who edit climate-change articles from a perspective favoring mainstream scientific thought" if you like, since that's what I had in mind. MastCell Talk 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a generalizable case[edit]

Another 2 cents here: It would be a fallacy to use this particular case as a generalization of how scibaby cases have been in the past. I do agree that it is not correct to "just" dump people into the scibaby SPI case (and as you can see - i mentioned this on the current SPI case). But (and thats the crux of the issue) this isn't what happens in the "normal" scibaby SPI cases - therefore, while it may be interesting to look at how scibaby SPI cases should be handled - it would be wrong to go by the assumption that this is a "usual" case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to check, i went through the Jan+Feb SPI reports: In total 67 users were listed, 59 were confirmed, ~4 confirmed as unrelated socks, 7 sleepers were found, and there was one case of a false positive who was blocked - and cleared. Confirm rate of >88%. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider 86% at all good, successrate wise. I've not run stats on myself and who can say for sure but that's rather a low bar. I shoot for high nineties. Better that ten socks go free than one innocent be put through the wringer. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Kim, I don't think we should generalize this to all Scibaby cases, many of which are obvious, especially when CU comes back with positive evidence. My concerns are when potentially good faith editors seem to get caught in the crossfire. I'd rather see a few false negatives than a single false positive, and thus, when there is some doubt we should not jump right to the nuclear option. ATren (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blog chatter, false flags[edit]

(e.c.) MastCell, there has been a lot of chatter (especially in blogs) about Wikipedia's coverage of CC articles. This, coupled with the recent highly publicized scandals (climate emails and such), could easily explain the influx of editors here. Now, yes, they do appear to be experienced. Are they socks? Probably. But if they're not editing abusively then I don't think it's appropriate to block them even if they look like socks. There are several explanations for them having familiarity with the site (they could be from another project, they could be legit alternate accounts, or they could be former IP users). Or they could be abusive socks, or they could be Scibaby himself. But we shouldn't be making that determination based on so few edits.

There's another possibility here that I've not seen raised: what if some of these sockmasters are actually sympathetic to the mainstream view, and register these over-the-top skeptic accounts to enhance the Scibaby meme? I believe this is a tactic used in some political conflicts, planting repulsive supporters of your opponent to make them seem more extreme than they are (I think there's even a word for it). That's certainly within the realm of possibility here, and if so, it's a tactic that's worked extremely well, given the number of skeptical editors (even those who are not pseudonymous) who have had to pass through the Scibaby detector before being taken seriously. In fact, I would suggest that Scibaby has done more damage to good faith skeptic-leaning editors than anything else, including other editors or the articles themselves. ATren (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term you are looking for is "False flag" operation, and it would not be terribly surprising considering the long-term sockpuppeting of Ratel. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ATren: I consider it abusive for an established, experienced user to register a new account solely to promote one side of a particular dispute. If that's happening, then we're already at the "abusive" stage - there's no need to wait for some additional threshold to be crossed. I'm also not sure that waiting for 100 edits, as opposed to 20, improves our accuracy. More data points does not always lead to a better decision - in fact, the reverse is often the case, as Malcolm Gladwell admirably argued in Blink. If these are in fact joe-job or "false flag" accounts, then all the more reason to adopt a low threshold for blocking them - or (a much better option) simply restricting them from editing climate-change articles. MastCell Talk 22:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if those are false flag operations then the main goal is to make the threshold low for blocking them since that will inevitably lead to false positives for the side being targeted, which would actually create real sockpuppets trying to avoid unjust bans. It is rather amusing that the people who go after socks the most (e.g. Ratel) end up being sockmasters - kind of like the politicians who are uber anti-homosexual end up having gay affairs. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ratel accused me multiple times of being a master sockpuppeteer <g>. And a few other things as well. Yet he routinely co-ordinated <g> with other accounts across WP. Amazing! Collect (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give any other examples than Ratel, (who as far as i can tell hasn't filed a single scibaby SPI case) for the statement that "the people who go after socks the most (e.g. Ratel) end up being sockmasters"? And please do - because i have filed quite a few scibaby SPI cases, and i find it rather annoying to be labeled "likely a sockmaster" [and before you ask: i'd love to be CU'd - i always edit from distinct IP-addresses]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that Ratel is the only person on your side who is a sockmaster? TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. First: 2 faulty assumptions here: Ratel being on "my" side (look through my comments on Ratel), second that i think that anyone is a sockmaster without reason for suspicion (but to answer your question: Maybe, maybe not). Secondly: You failed to answer my question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC) [an additional comment though: If there are - and they are found - then they should be blocked - fast and with good riddance --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)][reply]
Tell me, how to you reconcile that you don't find people to be sockmasters "without suspicion" and yet you admit to filing numerous "Scibaby" reports? I find it curious that your suspicion is easily aroused after only a few edits in some cases, but longer patterns of behavior don't evoke those same feelings - usually detectives prefer to cast their nets in larger pools. Shall I take your statement to mean that you suspect nobody on your side to be a sockmaster? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is what KDP said. I read it as KDP feels they are good at spotting Scibaby socks on not a lot of edits so file quite a few reports. I also don't see where KDP claims noone on KDP's "side" is socking. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KDP made no claim, one way or another, about socks on his side - I'd have been surprised if he did. Anyway, it doesn't make a lot of sense for a unsuspicious person to file so many reports for suspected crimes - how good they think they are doesn't really change the equation.TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But KDP didn't say they were unsuspicious. They said they don't think people are sockmasters without reasons for suspicion (that they are). Rather different. Please be fair. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the question is then are there no reasons to be suspicious of non-skeptic editors? If I recall then I believe you've expressed some such sentiments about Hipocrite (I didn't go back and check). The problem with "reasons for suspicion" is that they are subjective, but comparing the numbers of reported skeptical editors vs non-skeptical editors is not. Comparing the groups directly may not be completely accurate, but if someone has say, reported 100+ sockpuppets for one group and none for another then that makes me wonder a bit. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, if the statistics bear it out. I don't have those stats, I'm afraid. However it's possible that with a prolific sockmaster like Scibaby active, people learn his patterns but don't necessarily learn the patterns of others. Meaning they can spot Scibaby socks easily but not spot random other sockmasters work nearly as easily. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's true. Also, non-skeptic socks are likely to be older accounts with more street cred for several reasons, the most cogent of which is that socks rarely come only in pairs, and Ratel's only discovered sock (Unit 5) was quite seasoned as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

crosses Lar has to bear[edit]

I'm sorry you have to deal with this, Lar. I hope people recognize the huge effort you give to stay calm, reasoned and productive with the repeated WP:AGF and WP:BAIT violations you're faced with. Good luck out there.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These threads are actually not as bad as some of the earlier ones on the page (check early May) although they will be archived soon. Although I must admit that "Lar" as a unit of measure of uninvolvement really does get up my nose. As I am sure it is intended to. I suppose I shouldn't have admitted that, per WP:DENY and WP:DFTT. Oh well. ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled across this gem. Really, why do I even go looking on other people's talk pages? You'd think there wasn't enough traffic here to keep me busy. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

accused of "American extremist views"[edit]

In [5]. I take umbrage thereat. This is not the first place that editor has made the same accusation, moreover. [6] [7] and about others in [8] etc. The editor feels that the NYT is not RS, and has iterated removal of any statement that Ceausescus was convicted of killings in Romania. Despite dozens of mentions in the NYT etc. <g>. The other editor cavils that unless it can be proven that he directly ordered the killings of 50,000 or more, that it is not "mass killing" which I find a teensy bit amusing. A dictator of a town of 49,000 can kill every person, and still not be a mass killer. The editor has an "idee fixe" on the topic per [9] and [10] as well as the related AfDs etc. accounting for over 10% of his total edits. He appears to be convinced that WP is based on what he "knows" and not simply on what reliable sources report. Thanks for your forbearance. Collect (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold to denialism at all, Many communist leaders have been monsterous but the first four diffs you present seem to be fairly wise statements. Polargeo (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is that I am promoting American extremist views by using the New York Times? Collect (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No of course not. I just think the diffs in general show intelligent debate. Yes he does not have the politeness that he should but there is not a huge problem with those comments. Polargeo (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thus saying someone has "American extremist views" is fine on WP? And the difference between that and calling a person an extremist is? Collect (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are a grown up editor deal with it. If it was a really nasty PA then fair enough but darn!! Polargeo (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The parental "deal with it" response when one is called an extremist? I suggest that you read the WQA pages <g>. Finding that to be acceptable discourse is ... unacceptable. Collect (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are blowing this completely out of all proportion. The "deal with it" comment is totally justified in this situation. If you had been personally attacked in any sort of malicious way I would have a very different viewpoint. Polargeo (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polargeo, you do not have standing here to lecture others until you correct your own blustery habits. Just so you know. Collect appears to have come here to ask me a question or ask for some action (I'm not clear on that exactly) rather than to talk to you. But do go ahead and carry on. (it's just that maybe you should do it on your or Collect's talk) ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And seeing as I started an RfC/U against you it is evident that you have no standing with me to lecture others including myself either. We should just learn to get along with each other. I have had enough dealings with Collect to comment on his issues even though the very first time I ever tried to do this on his own talkpage he banned me from it (something you or I would never do). Polargeo (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, doesn't work that way. This being my talk page I have standing to say whatever I want, and it's a forum for discussions I choose to host. If Collect banned you from his talk (except, of course to deliver official admin-ish things) that ought to be a clue to you, eh? I don't ban anyone. But I certainly can express my opinion, and my opinion of you is that you could do a far better job of being an admin than you do. As for getting along, if you want to get along with me, you have to change your behavior. Or at least be open to admitting that change might be needed, as I am open to that. So if you want to use here to talk to Collect, take the lumps with the cream. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can make a lot of fair criticism of me as an admin but I genuinely have felt that you personally ignore serious red flags in your own admin actions. Your criticism of me has mainly to do with my criticism of you so how you ever felt that you were able to act as uninvolved with respect to me or my comments is incomprehensible to me. It is indicative of the problems that I see in your general actions in the CC enforcement area. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a view universally held. Look, if you want more general criticism, I suppose I could start following you around, but unless you're open to change, it's not a good use of my time (unless I was collecting evidence for something or whatever, which I'm not... it takes a lot for me to get involved in starting an RfC against someone, or to participate in a case). But from what I HAVE seen so far in other areas, I'm not that impressed. Take that as you like. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for "not universally held" you were just very lucky that I was inexperienced enough to dig myself a pit and that I didn't know the half of the problems with regard to your actions when I started to be concerned. If I were you I wouldn't go about congratulating myself just yet. Polargeo (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If I were you I wouldn't go about congratulating myself just yet." Excellent advice, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a specific action item here for me? Or was this just a general awareness item? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a "heads up" to make you aware of that problematic user. If you, or anyone lurking here, decides to peruse the pages in question, that is not my decision. I do, moreover, feel that the interjection here furnished was of no value at all. BTW, the "discussion" from Polargeo was [11] (my reply to his comment visible: Please do not post my user talkpage comments on the RfC talkpage. If you were expecting to provoke me you haven't. It just appears to be rather desperate. which I considered to be in the nature of a useless comment - so I rep,lied that he need not post such on my UT page. He has since posted on my UT page without comment on my part.) Collect (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that collect recognises that his inital ban was not worth it and that I was within my rights to be annoyed with him posting my user talkpage comments in other forums. Polargeo (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly an interesting interpretation of what Collect said. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidences still amaze me[edit]

Compare two almost simultaneous posts to me with identical 10 word sentences (using the term "quote marks" in each, despite that being "sic-able" <g>) [12] and [13]. Where single words are evidence in SPI, what does a 10 word sentence mean? <g> Note: The two here are highly unlikely to be a problem, but it does show how "evidence" needs to be improved in SPI charges beyond "the usual", no? Collect (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, are you referring to the edit summaries where both editors haved used the "default" section heading as an edit summary as "coincidence" or was there some greater point of remark? --BozMo talk 13:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not edit summaries - the gist of the posts made avoid the use of quote marks unless you are actually quoting was found in poists from two editors made only a few minutes apart, and both addressed to me. In each case, the editor uses quote marks instead of the proper "quotation marks", and each manages to use identical language, which I found no other editor ever using in a search. The languagfe is not "common" as Google finds no other web site using those phrases in combination (so much for "common usage" as an excuse!) And each manages not to have read the WP article on them <g> not to mention any manuals of style. Far beyond "the usual" as evidwnce in SPI cases! Collect (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collect makes a good point: not that those users are socks (clearly not) but that behavioral evidence is inherently unreliable. ATren (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we all see what we want to see and Stephan is almost certainly not using that account to sockpuppet even though he is absolutely intelligent enough to avoid any of the obvious tells. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was fairly obvious. He was referring to both users using near identical language. If a single word has been used as evidence of sockpuppetry then two nearly identical sentences would, in most cases (but probably not this case), be incredibly more compelling evidence of sockpuppetry. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. In general open discussion of how to detect socks violates WP:BEANS/ --BozMo talk 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in sock detection for some 23 years now. Mentioning obvious stuff violates nothing logical <g>. Collect (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And complete failure to discuss it (or the terrorists will win!) results in people having no grounds for defending themselves, because they've never been accused of anything specific. There are reasons essentially every justice system in the modern world has some mechanism for accused people to hear the specific evidence brought against them and rebut it. How absolutely stupid would it be if everybody decided we couldn't tell people why we think someone is a criminal, because then none of them would get caught? It's literally astonishing to me how many obvious fallacies of justice have become recommended practice here lately. WavePart (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a stupid way to run a judicial system. It would not necessarily be a stupid way to run a project dedicated to creating a free, online encyclopedia. Contrary to popular opinion, we are trying to create a serious, respectable reference work rather than a functioning judicial system. MastCell Talk 21:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with MastCell. There would be no effective way to enforce the House POV if it couldn't unilaterally condemn those who oppose it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WavePart (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments... I'm trying to stay out of commenting directly on any particular CU actions but...

  1. The standard for "coincidence" for well established users with well rounded contribution histories is quite a bit higher than for brand new users that appear to be WP:SPAs. I doubt most CUs would have even considered running checks on the two users based on the coincidence given (which turns on a very common word usage)
  2. Wikipedia isn't a system of justice. There's no due process. Heck, a fair bit of the time things aren't very fair at all. Expecting any of that is a mistaken assumption. If you haven't figured these things out you're not going to like it here because this is a project whose stated goal is to build an encyclopedia, and policy is mostly descriptive rather than prescriptive. I have recently been reminded the hard way of how unfair WMF projects can actually be but it wasn't a surprise, per se, just a disappointment. Opinions differ on whether the project is meeting the stated goal and no other, or how well, but that's the idea, anyway.
  3. Yes, Beans. But let's not get too carried away here.

Hope that helps. That was 3 comments. So sue me. ++Lar: t/c 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar. I understand your need for detachment with regard to CU, so I will try not to directly discuss any cases in your direction. Let me just say, it's clear wiki isn't a system of justice, but it should still strive to BE just, because game theory dictates that the content of a community-driven encyclopedia can only be neutral if the enforcement of all policies is neutral. This is where "suspicion" breaks down, because it is very rarely neutral. Incidentally, after reviewing your edits for the first time, I must say: 1. Nice. Your dedication to NPOV seems palpable, and I respect that. 2. There is indeed no scientific debate on the awesomeness of LEGOs. WavePart (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. 1) Thanks, I try. 2) We certainly can all agree on the awesomeness of LEGO brand building elements! ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quotation marks: see [14]. So much for the claim that the sentence about "quote marks" is "common usage" (not the use of quotation marks! Collect (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)[edit]

The May 2010 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) 21:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reported via channels, but also a note to you[edit]

Someone is getting rather abusive at me over capitalization issues for horse breeds: User_talk:Montanabw#standardbred. I gave the editor a level one template and put in a 3RR rule complaint, though it doesn't quite meet 3RR. If you can toss this to a responsible adult, I'd be grateful. I know you have other fish to fry right now, but I don't terribly appreciate being called names on something that was long settled by consensus of others. Montanabw(talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR board is pretty meticulous about what is actually reversion and I see your report got closed no action. I've left that editor a mildly worded suggestion to tone it down. Let's see if that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is under control. I'll watch for a few more days but as long as the article editing issue is solved, the rest is probably not my problem. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Carl Lindstrom Parlophone ad.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Carl Lindstrom Parlophone ad.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another oldie. Sorted. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help[edit]

Lar, do you know of a good editor that edits a lot of articles, not dramatic ANI posts, who can help me with formatting an article. I would like Nokian Tyres to be as good as a FA. I am willing to help them on "their" article, too. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... interesting article, and our corporate coverage is not as good as it could be, so bravo. Offhand I am not sure. When you say formatting assistance, what do you mean? If grammar or word flow, sentence structure and the like, try the League of Copyeditors, but last I knew they were a bit backlogged. One of my talk page watchers may have more ideas as well... If you mean something else please clarify. ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like drama and I don't edit articles as much as I should. :P But I'll take a quick look. As a very minor heads-up, you don't need to add "Retrieved... " by hand to each {{cite}} template. You can use the accessdate= parameter to include the retrieval date as part of the template. MastCell Talk 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#Another_request_for_opinion where this matter was raised too, I think. There, SF09 was mentioning references. So I opined there are tools to help you with it. Look into Makeref for one. see http://toolserver.org/~magnus/ and in particular http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php ... there are lots of other tools out there if you dig around. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Reference#Citation_templates_and_tools and Wikipedia:Citation_tools and Zotero ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MK[edit]

There appears to be no change in sight with this user's attitude despite the efforts of a multitude of admins and other concerned users. The "lies I have told" are all documented here, in particular the reference to this personal attack as well as four documented personal attacks on my service in the United States military, including suggestions that I have falsely claimed service in the military. MK is making some very serious allegations on his unblock request that I have repetitively lied to administrators, something which is clearly false and may even be seen in its own right as a personal attack. I am really hoping no-one unblocks this user, but even if they don't this is now almost definitely heading for an RFC/User Conduct. -OberRanks (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my posting here as well. MKs talk page statements are turning down right nasty with promises to bring this to ANI the minute he is unblocked to report me for "telling lies" [15]. -OberRanks (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's trying to get everyone's goat I think... let him try, but don't let him get yours. I don't think his ANI posting, should it happen, will go very far. But it may be prudent to take it to ANI ourselves, as I suggested, or for you to use the material you developed, as a response, if he does. I expect the block to be roundly endorsed. ++Lar: t/c 10:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the results of any ANI that MK wishes to file, I intend to begin the Request-For-Comment (User Conduct) process. As for ANI, I truly hope MK is not really foolish enough to go there after being blocked and start attacking those who blocked him and/or the users who he made personal attacks against. This has been an on-going serious problem with this user, in that MK often seeks punishment or revenge for perceived "wrongs" while denying responsibility for any of this actions. This most recent post demonstrates this, as MK blatantly states he sees the current block as unjust and sees no obligation to follow it [16]. -OberRanks (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Lar, please see this posting [17] by MK regarding a third unblock request. -OberRanks (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ober, I only had a minor tangle with Mk, but I was pretty surprised how fast it got nasty, so you have my sympathies. But what was odd is that I seemed to have cooled him down with a simple request that this all just stop. (See my talk page). Not sure what that says, but if you can create a way out for Mk that does not admit any fault on your part (and from what I can see, you didn't "lie" by offering a personal opinion anyway) but yet opens an escape route for him, it might be worth trying. What that action would be for you, I have no idea, (smile) but maybe look for other situations where he backed off. You may still decide to go the ANI route, but I've dealt with a couple of those and they can eat your life when you'd rather be editing articles. Either way, best wishes. Montanabw(talk) 17:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MK is can actually be a very good editor. However, as you see from this post I made [18] there is a continuous pattern of disruption, anger, a block, calming down, an unblock, brief cooperation, then back to disruption again. This has now been going on in a continuous circle since at least the start of the year. I'm hoping the RFC/UC will change some of the attitudes. MK's behavior must change or else he will wind up in a ban from the site and nobody wants that, not me, the admins, and certainly not MK. He fails to see we are trying to help him, which is the sad part of all of this. -OberRanks (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Based on this "apology" [19], I am very tempted to go ahead and file the RFC/UC. MK seems quite remorseless regarding comments about corrupt admins, an anti-military crack, as well as the original thread which set this into motion, that of calling another user an a-hole and making comments about the user deserving what he said, etc. I was truly hoping MK would return and make amends, or at the very least proceed with editing letting go of the recent unpleasantness without any further comment. I was a bit disappointed to see that posting, as it indicates we are not bound to see a change in attitude. Opinions? Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC/U is certainly one route. However they tend to run for quite a while and it's poor form to block the user while they run. It may be better to let it slide for now and if the bad behavior repeats, and gets to the level of block-ability, seek a block, for a longer time. Each time this recurs the likelihood of an indefinite block increases. The advantage of an RfC/U is that there is some chance that the message will get through and behavior will improve. It does happen, but not often. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. The "calm before the storm" appears to be about 3-4 weeks after each occurrence, based on edit history and pattern of behavior. I think, as you said, it will probably re-occur which would be very bad for MK - I believe the community has lost all patience with this user and one more serious incident will result in an extremely lengthy block or an indef ban on the user. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sure didn't take long: [20] -OberRanks (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malik cut him a break. Fingers crossed that it takes. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFC has been listed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384. Hopefully it will do some good. -OberRanks (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gore Effect[edit]

I just tried to move this to mainspace but the name is protected, can you get that changes please mark nutley (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deleted article there already which I think blocks the move for non admins. It's not much compared to yours, so yes, I could see doing the move for you. Your draft has many refs, have you had an editor check them over for you first under the terms of your restriction? I could if you need me to, but not this very second. Also are you pretty satisfied you've addressed the BLP concerns that were raised earlier this year? Just curious. Note: Maybe you should ask another admin to actually do the move as I tend not to edit in this area. At all. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I have only just added two new refs all the others are from before my probation :) Take a look when you have time, I`ll ask TW if he will do the move, cheers mark nutley (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you have them all vetted before moving anything to article space. Think about why you are under probation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only two were added by me Stephan and both are from major newspapers, i doubt there will be any problems with the refs mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then vetting them all should go rather smoothly, one would hope. Because Stephan Schulz is right, they all need to be vetted, at this point it would be too tangled to try to determine who added which one, better to just vet them all I think. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that a Washington Times Editorial is a lousy source for facts, for example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a source for someone at the Washington Times saying something though. What's this article about? What do the sources have to establish, exactly? ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the gore effect, basicly when people have a big meet about climate change the weather turn lousy :) It`s kinda funny really. It has survived two mfd`s thus far so i hope it`ll survive mainspace mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And the dark side of the moon may just be made of green cheese. Why don't you take a look at User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect? It's used for unattributed statements of fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, er? My question was to you, Stephan. And it was posed after I'd read the article in Mark's userspace already, actually. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm checking the article and the sources now. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes to the article. I think it's ready to be posted in mainspace now. Mark did a good job on it. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article into mainspace. I take no editorial position on the article or its content, but have relied on Cla68's checking of the sources to ensure that Mark is not in violation of his sourcing restriction, and his evaluation of the article as mainspace ready to decide whether to do it or not... ++Lar: t/c 02:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be titlted "Gore Effect" not "The Gore Effect" but it wouldn't let me move it. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bring it up on the talk and if a consensus develops, tag it to be moved. That's my suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Cla68 (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

My understanding is that the Scibaby account was never actually checkusered. If that is the case then why does his user page indicate this [21]? That'd be like saying someone was convicted based on their fingerprints when no fingerprint analysis was done. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember all the details any more, but I do think Scibaby was initially CUed. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm not understanding the terminology, but you declined to checkuser him per duck. This also makes me wonder how future checkusers could confirm users as being his socks if they never had an initial one to use as a base. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I declined to specifically check User:Scibaby against User:Obedium. I no longer remember the details but I assume I felt it was obvious that Obedium was Scibaby. That's not the same thing as "Scibaby was never checked". We were already dealing with Scibaby at that point and much was already known.
Although I think we misidentify too many innocents as Scibaby at this point, and we have in the past accepted too much collateral damage trying to stop Scibaby, Scibaby remains a serious problem we need to deal with. Therefore, I decline to go into further detail on the particulars of when Scibaby was first checked or what was discovered. Hope that nevertheless helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree those two accounts were probably socks. Do you mind if I remove the "this user was checkusered" box on his userpage then since that was not the case? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do mind, because that is not necessarily a correct assertion. Again, that decline was me declining to check S against O. No inference about whether S was checked at other times can be drawn from that data. Again, I decline to give specific details. You will have to accept that, I'm sorry, this isn't a fruitful line of inquiry. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my intention wasn't to give away any trade secrets. I didn't think I was doing that. I just thought it was odd that the "this user was checkusered" tag was added just this year when he was blocked several years ago. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Don't be a Dick page[edit]

This vulgar essay WP:DONTBEADICK apparently gets recreated or given a redirect repeatedly. It is not helpful to anything regarding civility its purported intent and deflects attention away from content. Thank you for your attention. Eudemis (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial topic. The view that it is not a helpful or useful essay is not widely held, although a significant minority of folk do have issues. The view that it's vulgar is also not widely held, although again, a significant minority of folk do have issues. It has been brought up for deletion on Meta many times and is usually kept by a significant margin.
I'm not clear why you have brought this topic to me specifically. You may want to consider raising the matter at the WP:VP, after conducting a thorough review of what has gone before and addressing the substantial reasons for retention that will be raised by others. Hope that helps. (As a note I personally find it useful and helpful and not particularly vulgar in this day and age) ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, no particular reason apart from your being an administrator. I can't imagine you/others finding it "helpful and useful and not particularly vulgar"(a penis with a strike through it) or that it being directed at an editor will increase civility. Any insult particularly a crass one is going to be met with another insult. I will grant you the civility pillar of Wikipedia crumbled to dust a long time ago. Eudemis (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being directed to it rarely is helpful, yes, but it nevertheless has some words of wisdom. I wish everyone read it early in their time here (but not as a result of being directed to it). The penis is a cartoon, and thus it's "not particularly vulgar" in "this day and age". ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Define vulgarity. It makes my blood boil that denoting someone as homosexual is taken as a (minor) slur upon their character, since that - to me - acknowledges that form of identification makes someone less valid, less valuable, less human, than those who identify otherwise. However, this does not seem to be an issue with the majority so I do not speak of it... often. No problem with having an opinion, but it should not be seen as a standard that the vast range of humanity editing on these pages should be required to abide by. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, the only people who go to the page in question are either dealing with one or at risk of being one. It's a little male-centric, but the female equivalent rhymes with witch and would probably be viewed as offensive to most.<grin> The strong language at least gets people's attention. Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LHvU: I'm not sure if that was directed to me, but... I don't think it's possible to give a useful and precise definition of vulgarity. But "not particularly vulgar" doesn't really require a precise definition, does it? I find myself in agreement, at least in spirit, with what else you say. Montanabw: Yep. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There I was, ranting at Eudemis about homosexuality and its use as a social and cultural diminutive and how it makes me angry, and the use of which under my terms is therefore a vulgarity, and Montanabw adds an unhelpful colon... The irony is almost unbearable (whose gaydar can pick out the reference there?) No, I was not directing that comment at you. Vulgarity is defined at a personal level in the manner by which one responds to it - I bridle at the use of "gay" as a slur, and Eudemis by depictions of the phallus; neither of us are however permitted to impress our definition of vulgarity upon everyone else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow did this topic take an odd turn.
Very few editors are self described "dicks" and any who are are not scouring wikipedia essays in a quest for self improvement. There's absolutely no audience interested in reading this for content. Editors direct the essay to other editors they wish to insult. That's how it's used. The argument that it somehow advances civility to me is ridiculous.
I believe there is a serious sampling error when this essay is nominated for deletion. I suspect many users and advocates of this essay are the same editors who live on the ANI page and not our experts on civility. Clearly having this is damaging to the credibility of the Project. To have this presented as any form of guidance should embarrass administrators. Eudemis (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Topics take odd turns, here, it's the nature of the page. OK, I think you've made your view clear, yes, and I appreciate your clarification. Was there an action item for me beyond understanding how you feel about the page? Let me know. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None. Thanks for letting me sound off. Eudemis (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change[edit]

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-issues questions[edit]

It shouldn't be too difficult, so can you please reword your second and third questions to fit the "one-sentence" part of the request? Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deadline again? ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Five days as of opening, which was about 43 hours ago. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some revisions have been done, please advise if you feel more are needed. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fun if you don't have other fish to fry[edit]

Hey Lar, see my comment on User:Josette's page if you want a break from all the other stuff you have going on here. I'm playing in my sandbox. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is up in wiki namespace...comments still welcomed! Montanabw(talk) 07:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BootlegBeatles whitealbum.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BootlegBeatles whitealbum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it ought to be deleted. This was added a long time ago. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite and socks[edit]

Can you please verify Hipocrite's responses here? He indicates that you were involved in the discussion, so presumably you would know if the 6 short answers he gave are correct. Also, do you know what specifically he was sanctioned for (i.e. votestacking? Using socks to gain advantage in a dispute?) I.e. what was the nature of the abuse? ATren (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those answers are not helpful, they are way too short. I'd have to check my notes, and I'd be starting from a blank page, as there is little or no context to the answers, and I just don't remember every case I was involved in. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. The clues he just gave seem to indicate he had some sort of outburst in 1998 and for which he apologized for. I've browsed the contribs of the socks, and haven't found anything related to the current dispute so far. The incident itself is interesting given Hipocrite's zeal at reporting other socks and asking for blocks -- I guess his username is honest at least. But probably nothing more worth pursuing. Thanks for looking into it. ATren (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you mean 2008 rather than 1998 :) ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap I lost a decade! I've been listening to a book on Columbine so 1998-99 must be stuck in my head... ATren (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go Lar. Ironically, that section is a microcosm of the entire problem in this topic area, and I may use it to frame my evidence on the hostility and piling from that group. But there's no use in pursuing it further; I asked, he answered (eventually), it's over with. ATren (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I found the questions reasonable enough. And you may be right, that was a great little microcosm all right. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I go to appeal SPI/Checkuser requests?[edit]

I believe this request was closed far too quickly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, misunderstanding on my part. It is clear that the account I named is a returned user, but despite the behavioral information (some not listed) checkuser did not confirm my thoughts on the matter.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change moving to Workshop[edit]

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_67&oldid=1144605383"