[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

User talk:Lar/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 62

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 January 2010 through about 1 February 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


Happy New Year

[edit]
Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request

[edit]

Am I to take it that you closed Nothughthomas' complaint against me when you blocked him? I ask because he's reopened it.[1] Grateful if you could clarify this. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's highly frivolous but I think we need another uninvolved person to pass judgment, once I blocked him I should recuse myself from closing it. If no one turns up shortly, I'll jump on IRC and see if I can find someone. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Sorry you had to be the one dealing with this silliness. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief... [2] You know, I think Nothughthomas and GoRight are deliberately trying to wreck this sanctions regime at the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need more admin eyes on this, getting on IRC now to see who's about. As I said, I have no horse in this race except wanting this to work. Any WP:TPW's about??? ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nothughthomas

[edit]

It seems obvious to me that User:Nothughthomas is either the most unlucky new user in the history of the encyclopedia or yet another in the unending parade of agenda-driven editors (sock, meat, externally motivated, take your pick) that drive people to distraction on the various articles. I wonder if the discretionary sanctions permit an admin to just topic ban him from global warming for a month. If he's really just so unlucky as to have joined the encyclopedia, made a few edits then got sucked into the mess, wouldn't that topic ban save him from the standard flame-out? If he's just another sock, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the indef ban he'll eat in a few days when someone gets around to jumping through the hoops? If he's a meat puppet or angry blog reader, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the one year topic ban he'll eat as soon as someone figures it out? Hipocrite (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Hipocrite, you're ChrisO's sock (or vice versa?)... [3] and [4] :) ++Lar: t/c 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea, topic banning folk for their own good. If he keeps up what he was doing before the block I'd favor trying it in this case. I'd probably leave it to someone else to actually place it though. ++Lar: t/c 06:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's some evidence that he may be a sockpuppet or shared account of another blocked user. Tony Sidaway pointed this out on my talk page and suggested a checkuser run. I've written up his evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nothughthomas. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. Being worked. Thx. ++Lar: t/c 06:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, apparently. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I knew that... Something fishy though. ++Lar: t/c 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm catching the whiff of trimethylamine too. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

[edit]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoRight makes an unfounded allegation of involvement

[edit]

I'm just tidying up some loose ends and not trying to be pointy here, but please be aware that this means that you are no longer an uninvolved admin with respect to myself and any use of your administrative tools against me would likely be considered an abuse thereof. If you ever have occasion to believe that administrative actions against me are required please seek out an uninvolved administrator to perform them. Have a nice day. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct. I remain as uninvolved as ever. You may not game the system this way to "knock out" uninvolved administrators. Have a nice day. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that would be for others to decide should such a decision ever be necessary. If my notice is meaningless then no harm done. --GoRight (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're continuing the same pattern of vexatious rules lawyering I warned you about, GoRight. You are unfit to lecture anybody else about policy as you seem to have a very poor understanding of it yourself. Please stop before external restrictions are applied to your account. You filing an "appeal" does not disqualify any admins appealed against from taking further actions. Jehochman Brrr 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. As I said. I am only tidying up loose ends, not being pointy. I just wanted to record a notification. Moving on ... --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted that you think you're not being pointy. However, that view doesn't seem to be widely shared. Your notification is spurious, and I've changed the section heading accordingly. You really need to internalize the advice you've been given to "up your game". A lot. ++Lar: t/c 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked by Viridae. Cue drama cascade. --TS 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little out of left field, eh? I'll see where things stand in the AM, I'm for bed. ++Lar: t/c 06:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was only a matter of time, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request using bigdelete

[edit]

Hi Lar, since you're a steward, I tghought you'd be able to take this request. Would you be able to delete the cricket article and then restore it minus the first two edits from 2001? I accidentally imported them into the wrong place. The article is *just* over the 5,000-edit limit for deletion, so deleting it won't cause too much disruption. Deleting these edits won't be a good use of the revision deletion tool since it leaves a visible trace of the edits. Thanks. Graham87 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in case you're curious, the imported edits were meant to go to the page cricket (disambiguation). Graham87 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you want those two edits moved there? ++Lar: t/c 11:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think perhaps a developer is needed, as something seems munged up, when I walk those diffs it jumps from those right to the very last revision, skipping the 5000some in the middle. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've bigdeleted, restored the first two revisions to Cricket temp nostalgia restore, and am trying to restore the rest of the article as we speak. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything is restored. I leave it to you to move the two edits (on the page I created) to where they need to go. Please advise if there are other issues or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's all sorted now. Those two edits at Cricket temp nostalgia restore don't need to go anywhere, because they're already at cricket (disambiguation) (I imported one of them yesterday - see the page history there). The reason why you were able to walk right from the first two edits to the last one is because the imported edits have a high revision ID because they were recently imported, and the previous/next edit function moves by revision ID, not date.
As it's summer here in Austrralia, I'm already sick of the sound of chirping crickets - I've been kept awake by them too many times already! I bet it's the opposite for you since it's winter in the northern hemisphere. I'm not a great fan of the sport either; summer is the season for both the sport and the insect in Aussieland. :-) Graham87 03:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

psb777 sanction

[edit]

Hey, however this works out, thanks. Paul Beardsell (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. However it works out, make sure going forward you're on your best behavior. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ almighty your good at obfuscation ain`t ya

[edit]

I think it is fairly easy to see why the header I've used above would be objectionable. But I find it harder to see what you're objecting to on my side. If you'd care to point it out, I'll give careful consideration to striking the objectionable parts William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Back off, or its the enforecement page for you." was what jumped out at me. As I said on the enforcement page, sharp elbows is the level of discord. Not knives at the jugulars. So merely an observation. But it does make it harder to get the sense of what's really going on. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, I'll fix that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically fixed, I suppose, in that the words changed. 173.101.153.240 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've fixed my words but Lar hasn't updated his even-handed rebuke to that effect. Anyone coming here will know he has thanked me; anyone reading that page will still see his (now unmerited) rebuke William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:) That IP is me. Apparently I didn't notice my lack of green button. (see my monobook.js if that comment makes no sense) ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I thought it was some snarky IP. Err, well what better were you hoping for? Are you asking me to withdraw all warnings from him at all? Do you not like the new wording? Go on: propose a form of words for the same meaning William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snarky IP? :) naaaa just snarky me, I guess... The sharp elbows are mostly present in the meaning, not the wording choices, I think. What was I hoping for? Less "in your face-ness". Dunno if hoping for better is a good use of scarce resources. Thanks for the refactor just the same. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

curious with regards to sudden appearance

[edit]

Hi,

It seems the issue might get closed any moment, and since I added my comment in the middle of everything I'm worried no one might've read it. Did I go out on a limb or is my comment with regards to one of the editors in question seemingly relevant? I'm not an admin here and I feel I have too little knowledge on how everything works sometimes, but I've admined more Internet-activities since the early 90's than I'd really want to admit to and the appearance in question struck me as really odd. Troed (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it got looked at very hard. I didn't. Will the 1RR restriction sort it do you think? Who is that editor? You could always open a new request if you think the editor is problematic, I dunno. I think these requests should be clearly actionable though, rather than "this seems odd to me" sorts as I'm not sure what we do with those. Just my theory. Best. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editor in question has as far as I can see in the history never contributed at either the talk page or the article itself, yet appears immideately after the article has been opened for editing and deletes a complete paragraph. After having seen various accusations thrown around at other venues, the closest I could describe this as would be either an incredible coincidence or "meatpuppery" I'd guess. It did strike me as something that should also have been looked at when bringing the issue of reverts up. Sorry if you feel I'm rambling at the wrong place, I guess I just wanted to know someone had read my comment. Troed (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After writing the last bit, above, I did go look at the contribs and I agree, it does seem odd. But what happened next? If that removal didn't stand without discussion, that may be the best we can hope for. I'm not sure we can afford pages of analysis of each edit... I just don't know what to suggest. Sorry if that's not helpful. And yes, maybe this needs raising somewhere more public. I have 300 WP:TPWs but still. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sharp elbows"

[edit]

Why is what Connolley does called "sharp elbows", while when others make similar troll remarks, it's called "incivility" or "trolling", and they're warned and/or blocked for it? UnitAnode 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my point was clear, but perhaps not. You used the phrase "sharp elbows" for behavior similar to that which has resulted in warning and blocks (though not by you) of people on the other side of the discussion. Why do you call it "sharp elbows" instead of calling it what it is: in some cases, trolling, in others, gross incivility. UnitAnode 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was clear. And I agree, to a point. But I try to be mild in my wording. Perhaps I was too mild. But I'd rather err on the side of mildness. And I'd rather that a mild thing stick than a precise thing fail. If you're referring to GoRight, I'm afraid while I may not have blocked him indefinitely, I do think he has went way too far. Not sure that helps. Really, I want this to work... ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at GR's talkpage to that effect as well. Honestly, I find myself in a position that seems surreal. I'm a fairly liberal Democrat, yet I have found myself growing more and more frustrated with the leftward-tilt of our political and GW articles. Frankly, it's something that I think makes the project look incredibly bad, but I really don't know how to approach the problem. UnitAnode 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhere read that "one side is edit warring to introduce POV, and the other side is edit warring to maintain OWNership" which... sucks. I want to not remind people of exactly what my views are about AGW... I'm trying to stay out of the content itself completely. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then. My question was intended to be more Meta in nature, in that the perception of the project takes a big hit when this type of thing goes on, but I can understand your reluctance to proffer any type of firm view on the subject. Regards, UnitAnode 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Without taking any sides about content, yes. The projdct DOES take a big hit when the types of things that have went on in this area go on. Maybe I'm wasting my time. I don't know. Maybe we all are. I hope not. At least we're trying something, unlike, say, BLP and flagged revisions, which seem hopelessly mired. Maybe I'll get bored with all the fighting in a week and go back to doing something else. Who knows. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave you to it, then, Lar. I've removed all pages remotely related to either Pres. Obama or Global Warming. I just don't have the stomach for what I know is probably coming in both areas. UnitAnode 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counting TPWs

[edit]

I noticed above that you said you have over 300 TPWs. How does one go about figuring that type of thing out? I've had some ... "interesting" posts to my talkpage (and "other" places as well), and I have been growing quite curious as to how many people actually are watching my talkpage. UnitAnode 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[5] For Lar, [6] for you and [7] for me, base tool is [8] Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, rereading my edit comment, it should have read "watcher and tool!" not "watcher, tool!" - I realize it could be misread. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting! I'm quite happy to not be nearly so "popular" as Lar! :) UnitAnode 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(*after 2 ecs*) MZMcBride wrote a nifty tool which is here: http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py ... it shows I as of this writing have 326 watchers on my talk: [9] ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) (A TPW beat me to this post :)... Hi Hipocrite )[reply]
I'm winning with 335. MBisanz talk 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guess my little motley crew of 45 still have some growing to do... UnitAnode 22:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made it 46 just to be friendly William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can rest easy tonight... UnitAnode 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
phew. less than 30 for me. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Norah, I've got 377, and I'm hardly a tenth as active as I used to be. --TS 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you're a bunch of nobodies [10] (that was a joke, folks :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31, which is more than I could imagine. --Cyclopiatalk 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK all you BSDs, go boast somewhere else. :) I expect the lot of us put together don't have as many as Jimbo. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology.

[edit]

Now that I can make this statement freely and not under the threat of indefinite block I wish to say that this was wrong-headed, I should not have done it, and I apologize for having done so. Let us both endeavor to put this matter behind us and speak of it no more. --GoRight (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology. I hold no grudge and do not consider it personal. I cannot promise to "speak of it no more", though. It may come up in some legitimate context or another where it is appropriate to make some comment or another. In the larger matter I do think you have to try to be meticulous in your approach, even if those you disagree with don't seem to be (in your perception). ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MisterSoup is back

[edit]

User:MisterSoup has returned and is vandalizing my user page as of this evening. I thought he was blocked...? -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked for a week but has come off. I see Nancy has warned him, I seconded the warning. ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that as of early today UTC MisterSoup has been blocked indef by Nancy. I see in the discussions on various pages that it's alleged that MS is a returning sock. I was not able to determine who might be the sockmaster, only that MS was themselves running a sock. Given the contribs I think an indef block is appropriate. I've also followed up at User talk:Nancy ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change diffs

[edit]

I'm not sure if this is reportable or not, but these [11] [12] appear to be baiting. Should this type of comment be reported to the enforcement board? I'm going to let Guettarda know that we're talking about him. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your take on it is right. I also don't think anything will be done about it. UnitAnode 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the opinion that Ling.Nut was mis-using the talk page of a climate-change related article. So I thought it appropriate to remind him that the page was under sanction. When I got to his talk page I realised that he had already been warned specifically about his behaviour on the same page. I could have added a second template or some nonsense like that, but I really dislike templates as an alternative to actually using your own words. But the point is the same - if you show up to warn someone about their behaviour, and you find that they have already been warned about their behaviour on a specific page, you can either reiterate the warning, or take the next step and file a report. Me, I'm always optimistic that an established editor will get over their problem and step back into line.
I agree that I should have ignored Ling.Nut's taunting and not replied to his/her response. But it was a simple factual statement in response to a question. I've done my best to approach other editors with an assumption of good faith. Which is a lot more than I've gotten in return. But I've quit letting that bother me. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can reasonably argue that those two diffs rise to the level of notability William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I object to my edits being labeled as "taunting", but I'll let it go. I later tried very hard to argue logically in a way that would establish the relevance of my initial remarks, as my edits show, though G (and perhaps others?) seems to have disbelieved me... I'll try to studiously ignore any personal remarks by G in the future, though I'm happy to continue discussing article-related info. • Ling.Nut 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the time stamps, I am guessing that Guettarda was referring to The AGW crowd has lost their comfortable air of invulnerability, as a result of losing the appearance of scientific objectivity. Given that the tone of the rest of that discussion was far from ideal, I think if people disengage from each other and concentrate on article content as Ling.Nut and Guettarda both seem to suggest, we can mark this resolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I wasn't around while this was going on, I've been away from the wiki for a bit. I am not totally sure I see what's going on here but it seems that Cla raised an issue, and then the issue got turned around to criticize the other party instead of being dealt with. I'm not sure that's useful. I see sharp elbows all around and all parties ought to be doing more to try to understand the viewpoints of the "other side". Something that seems to be lacking. Whether there is anything that can be done, I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a problem of opposing viewpoints—those are not a problem at all, under normal circumstances. No, it's a problem of questionable practices. Even more, it's a problem of shitty or nonexistent governance Wikipedia-wide (lack of editors in chief, and lack of accountability for the content of articles), but that is Wikipedia's fatal shortcoming... However, these particular opposing relationships are quite likely going to continue for a long, long, long time. I for one am going to do my part not only to color inside the lines, but to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing in both my words and (far more relevantly) my editorial practices... This of course places me at a huge (and, quite likely, decisive) disadvantage, but... • Ling.Nut 09:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe that en.ep should have three pillars of governance, editor behavior (ArbCom), policy, and content, supervised by three separate but equal committees. I'm afraid, however, that the content decision committee would be constantly overwhelmed by requests to decide content disputes. I don't know how to resolve that problem. Until we do, we have the current system, which, as we know, gets constantly gamed and manipulated and is frustrating to observe. Cla68 (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is rambling, but it is pertinent as well as important to me personally... I think you're wrong about "constantly overwhelmed". In fact, Wikipedia actually works in all areas but the genuinely controversial ones (which is the only reason I still contribute). Any Content Court of Appeals [permanent or ad hoc, but preferably the latter, so that membership could be better targeted to the issue to ensure NPOV] could simply reject all cases that come to their attention that don't seem intractable, and in fact the Wikipedia process would effectively work things out far more often than not, in time. But someone needs to act as a final authority on content disputes as virulent and prolonged as this one. WP:CONSENSUS has no magic powers in these cases; in fact it is counter-productive, because it very strongly encourages the formation of tag-team gangs of bullies etc. (no accusations meant here). • Ling.Nut 10:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point there. Cla68 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've don't think the "tag team" essay translates well to a mainstream science topic like global warming, even if it may be useful in cases such as, say, articles about religious sects and the like where meat puppetry is well known phenomenon.

If a lot of editors tend to hold similar views on a subject, particularly one where those views are backed by a very strong scientific consensus on a matter, surely those editors will tend to be viewed as a "tag team" by those whose views differ with the consensus view. To those whose views differ from the scientific consensus, they will appear to be acting in concert according to some mysterious outside direction, but this is an illusion.

Conversely there may be a tendency to view those who consistently edit against the consensus as pushing a non-neutral point of view. It may simply be, and in practice probably nearly always is, that they are misinformed.

I think that way of looking at things--both in terms of POV puchers as well as tag teams---has proven sterile because it encourages a battleground mentality. We should all recognise that we're trying to represent the facts in accord with the neutral point of view, and discuss any differences we may have with a view to achieving consensus. --TS 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy chatting with you about tag teams and NPOV, Tony. If you're ever in Taiwan, please do stop by for a Taiwan Beer. .. Time to quit for the night again... • Ling.Nut 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been away from the wiki and unable to participate very meaningfully. I do see a problem here. I'm not sure how best to phrase it. It's true that most people accept a particular view of climate change in general (that there is a problem here and that we need to take it seriously and that it's highly likely that it's a problem of our own making). But it's also true that there seems to be some difficulty in getting the articles to acknowledge that there are other viewpoints (that it may not have the effects that are generally accepted, that there are questions about some of the data and some of the methods, etc) to the right level.
This seems to be a problem that occurs in more areas than just climate change. There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy or grand cabal, just a few like minded editors who agree with each other, and who are active in the topic, and you have the same effect as a conspiracy, even if they never even exchange one email. I'd point to the previous "ID Cabal" discussions as another example of this. It now is clear to me that there never was an actual cabal, or conspiracy... just editors who felt strongly about the topic and who acted in ways that skewed our coverage of ID. There are many other fringe science topics that seem to exhibit the same effect. The generally accepted view seems to be the only view discussed, or there seems to be POV present that it's the only meaningful view. I've always believed that presenting all the information and letting the reader draw their own conclusions is the way to go rather than predigesting things. Saying this is not going to make me any new friends, but there you have it. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Wuornos

[edit]

Hi, could you please help with this biography of a living person? It's under attack by anon IP's putting false information in like she was wrongly accused.] It's been brought to the IP's attention that BLP's need to follow reliable sources but they are ignoring saying it's the truth. I don't want the hassles of ANI for an IP like this. They have been reverted by multiple editors and take it to 3r before starting it all over again. The IP has been warned. We could use your help in stopping this by blocking the IP, if that's not possible then protecting the article from this user. Thanks for any help you can give, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took this to ANI. Hopefully someone there will put a stop to the game. Thanks, sorry for bothering you. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was no bother, I am sorry I wasn't on wiki to respond instantly. Please advise if you need further assistance on this or other matters. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a sec?

[edit]

Hi Lar, hope all's well with you. If you have a moment could take a look at this thread: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Username changes and accounts on other wikis? I think it could use input from someone with a slightly more "global" perspective. Cheers, WJBscribe (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away from the wiki and unable to participate very meaningfully. I find myself in agreement with you and I've said so at that thread. Hope it's not too late. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's back

[edit]

Hi Lar. I need help right away from someone before I blow my stack. Una is back, causing problems with an article I just created and she needs to butt out now and not later. Feel free to toss this to a non-involved neutral admin if you'd like. See Colitis-X, which I created just a few days ago, sourced up the wazoo. I am open to knowledgable editors improving it, but I got Una. Now I have tenditious arguments to deal with, She's creating a problem with my DYK nom, and her usual problem with OR edits (Just for starters, one never calls signs of disease in animals "symptoms" because animals can't talk-- they are "clinical signs" in veterinary medicine). I don't want this to escalate, and it's the annual time when it does. Thanks to Una, I have not created a new wikipedia article since the Sockpuppet debacle last year, and I have been terrified to take any article I personally care about to GA or FA because of her past involvement. Help! Help! Montanabw(talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned her. She should not be allowed to disrupt a productive editor such as yourself. I would appreciate help from my WP:TPW's to review this matter. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work

[edit]

You did a good job here. Well done! -- Furniture 1Z (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, Greg... why is this sock of yours unblocked again, exactly? ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soup's off

[edit]

Hi Lar. The bigoted harassment of SRQ continues with a new soupy sock[13] . I blocked on sight; happily I was online at the time and caught it within a few minutes. I am wondering whether a CU is in order to identify the underlying IP and see if a block is feasible. Nancy talk 11:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran one before, but matters may have changed. Let me take a look and see what makes sense to do. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Followup to Nancy: This wasn't a MisterSoup sock, surprisingly. Perhaps they were Joe jobbing? I found another sockmaster. There may be further followup required after some inquiries return. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I am getting harassing emails from the same person, Lar. Something referenced in one of the three emails was mentioned in the post to my talk page. Only the writer of the email would have made that reference. If you would like the headers from the email, let me know. Also, I have my suspicions about the possible identity of this person based on the IP address contained in the email header. I elaborated more on Nancy's talk page, here [14]--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are the emails via the wikipedia mailing system or does he/she know your email address already? Send them along, please. I can't promise to be of much help but I will take a look. Sorry you have to put up with it. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user has my home email address and they have been coming from outside wikipedia at the following email: trinketsandtreaures@live.com I am not home currently and don't have access to the emails right now to send you the headers. Regardless, it appears you have found the culprit who has been vandalizing my pages? Still, in case there is more than one person working this "game", I will send you the headers and emails when I get home later on today. Oh, and before I forget - the reason I know why the sock and the anonymous harassing emailer are the same person is that the email mentioned a song by the artist, "Beck" - the harassing edit on my talk page made reference to the same artist. Thanks for working on this for me - I truly appreciate it and feel better overall that things should start looking a little brighter on my Wikipedia horizon because of your efforts. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send the headers (and the bodies too if you're willing to share) when you get a chance. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, after I finished with the above, I had another vandalizing message on my talk page. You can see it here [15] <heavy sigh> Seems my suspicion of there being more than one person here may be accurate. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're still getting hit. That IP appears to be from Verizon Wireless. (see this whois ) and is probably someone editing from their cellphone. All I can say is just hang in there and don't let it get to you, I'm not sure a range block is warranted. Yet. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one

[edit]

Since I noticed you blocked my "friend" Orderly Conductor (talk · contribs) I thought you might want to block his canary bird aka Lowell don't get lunch we'll order pizza (talk · contribs) as well. Cheers, Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC that's a disclosed sock of Thekohser (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). I don't know that every disclosed sock has been blocked again. Something to check, there may be more we missed. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh! :(

[edit]

What precipitated *that*? - Alison ❤ 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as I am not sure exactly when it went up. Probably the Cool3 thing if I had to guess but who knows. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-( I'm upset and annoyed right now that another minor has gone up there, too - Alison ❤ 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what his problem is. The WR thread is filled with the usual apologist blather. You may want to avoid reading it if you want to keep your blood pressure down. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too late! :x sigh- Alison ❤ 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddya know - I'm back on Hivemind, too. There's a shocker!! - Alison ❤ 04:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wildhartlivie

[edit]

Hi, first let me say I don't think you did anything at all wrong. I appreciate you explaining more at her talk page. I just find that she is kind of in a catch-22 because it's impossible to prove or disprove a negative. I expected your reasons for the block there because of the use of two accounts when the explanation came. User:LaVidaLoca used the two accounts for the explanation on their page I expected the results and reasoning to be because of this. I do believe though that they are good friends who at times share Wildhartlivie's computer. I have been trying to check for overlapping times between them but this is very tedious to do and I'm tired to boot so for now I've stopped looking. I just like things to be fair. I think you did do a fair look at things. I just thought there might be something specific that could show that there are more than one editor here. I am going to let the rest for now though. Thank you for more of your time. I am sure you get tired of having to explain things. If I should come across something, I'll make contact, if I don't I won't bother you. Thanks again for your kind explanations. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for stopping by.
  1. First, the LVL and SOM account correlation is stone cold, there's no possible way to even cast any doubt thre... if LVL is a different person than WHL, he/she was socking there, and using a sock to harass another user.
  2. Second, no worries about your questioning me, it's fine. What gets up my nose perhaps a bit more is Equazcion using phrasing like "You're basically saying you're sure but you can't tell us why you're sure, but we should believe you because you think you're good at this" ... that's just needlessly snarky on his part. But whatever, it's kind of what I expect from some folk.
  3. Third... perhaps I still haven't explained myself well enough. While it may never be possible to actually prove the negative, certain cases are such that it is easier to show there are plausible explanations, and certain cases are such where it is harder. That is an intrinsic feature of the case itself and the circumstances of it. In this case, the explanations offered just do not fit. I don't see how they can. It will be exceedingly hard to convince the other CU, me, or (I wager) any other CU that is shown the information that what was offered so far fits. It's possible that what was offered so far wasn't true, and that these two people live together. If that's the case, things fit better. But that's not what was asserted. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you weren't aware of this I thought I should show you. My understanding is that they are occasional roommates and have been good friends for a very long time. They visit with each other. Also the mix up last night is that LVL was at Wildhartlivie's at the time she wrote on her talk page the explanation but didn't remember to log Wildhartlivie out and to sign in on her own name. She realized it afterwards and made the correction to her own account. I find this probable, how about you? I know when I go to my son's house and come here I always worry about being told I am not me because of the change in IP. I don't use his computer very often but when I did I always made a note of it once so editors new. I just think the explanation I was given sound accurate and true. Obviously I can't share without permission but I'm sure you can ask Wildhartlivie if she would share that email with you privately. Maybe she was clearer to me than she was to you about the events last night. I woke up to all of this, so it took me by total surprise. Like I said, I'm going to leave this for now. I appreciate your time on this though, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC) (didn't proof read sorry if there are errors)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder of the original SPI report. I had forgotten I opined there but rereading, it all came back to me. At the time, I found it reasonable that these were different users, because the explanation on offer was that they lived together. Now, they are saying they do not. That doesn't fit the findings. So something is off. I don't know what, none of my business whether they do or don't live together or why, except where it impacts operations here. You're a good friend and true for sticking up for what you think is right. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's why I brought it here to refresh memories. User:LaVidaLoca from my understanding of things was visiting and didn't remember to log off and log on with her account when she first edited. She realized later that she didn't log off Wildhartlivie so she returned to her page and signed in to her own account and made the adjustments. This sounds logical to me. It's like when I use my son's computer to me. Though he doesn't edit here anymore as far as I am aware it could be the same situation as here that's why I am kind of trying to make sure this is understood. I just think we should be fair and Wildhartlivie has be fair with me so I am trying to look and see what's going on. Something seems off to me too but I can't seem to understand what. I believe Wildhartlivie and some others I've spoken to so I am just trying to get this to a point where I feel comfortable about what is going on. At this moment I just feel like we are missing something or someone else. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


side issue

[edit]

You may want to have a look at this new user: Special:Contributions/SkagRiverKing. Equazcion (talk) 20:23, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Yes, lovely. Nothing found though. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more explicit, I found no connection between this user and any other user. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured you meant :) Equazcion (talk) 01:10, 17 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Locked userspace?

[edit]

Hi Lar - is it possible to have my user and talk pages locked for a period of time due to continued vandalism (probably executed by you-know-who)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of her userspace would probably take care of the problem. Equazcion (talk) 20:31, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Who is the "(probably executed by you-know-who)?" The two accounts are blocked. Please stop poking, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crohnie, please...this has nothing to do with you. I know you're upset about recent events, but it's my user and talk pages that are being continuously vandalized over the last few days by the same person, not yours. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor can ask questions about what is going on. You still don't need to be poking people, and yes they are people. Don't act like you know me because you don't. What is going on is something I will pursue if and when I feel like it. I'm am sorry though that you are being rudely attacked. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see response appropriately placed at Crohnie's talk page. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All true, Crohnie. SRQ is under the mistaken impression that she can tell people to "butt out of her affairs". Still though, the success of the poke is in your response to it. If SRQ wants to throw around vague accusations that won't have any real consequence, I think the best response is to pay it no mind. Equazcion (talk) 21:12, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)
You are making inappropriate assumptions, Equazcion. If you want a further explanation, see Crohnie's talk page where I responded to what she said above. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer you guys not feud here, please. SRQ, if you want your user or user talk page semiprotected I'm happy to oblige you. How long do you want it for, and do you want your user full or semi (we never full protect talk pages though...) ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...what would you suggest? I was thinking at least until the block expires (but you may have a better suggestion). Semi is fine and should at least slow down vandalism-only users. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try a week. I went with that for both user and user talk. Advise if you want it removed early. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have mail

[edit]

you have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, wasn't sure what to make of it. Is there an action item there for me or were you just letting me know? ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can you confirm that its true? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I can neither confirm nor deny it, as I don't have the facts and I prefer not to get involved unless necessary. I have received your second mail, which asks my opinion. I don't have an opinion on this at this time. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

[edit]

You have mail. I hope it is alright to email you. I'm sorry for not asking first which would have been the proper thing for me to do but I just didn't think of it until now. You'll understand I think, thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to mail me, no worries. I replied. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I had to update you. Also you might want to look at User:Wildhartlivie's talk page to get an idea how editors are reacting to all of this. This list of angry editors is growing to my surprise. Sorry, but I am actually exhausted by all of this, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you are feeling up to it

[edit]

Hi Lar, when you are feeling up to it would you please check out my talk page at the Zodiac Killer section. I mean it, I have had enough of the hounding, following and assumptions of bad faith to last me a life time. Please make it stop. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did look. I can see why people are frustrated, there is a lot of talking past each other going on.
I am thinking that the matter of whether the WHL investigation has validly found socks or not... is separable from the matter of the difficulties that are being encountered amongst various parties. I am fearing that the latter needs to go to AN/I or somewhere other than various talk pages, because it's not getting resolved amicably. I may not have the time to do that matter justice. Perhaps mediation might be considered? Perhaps one or more RfC/Us about various parties? I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, after I wake up a bit, I'll pop in thru email and tell you what my thinking is on this. I think I understand a bit more of why this is going on and it may be a bit less controversial, no sure so I'd like to pass it by you privately. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

[edit]

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

Question re SPI

[edit]

Hi Lar. I asked you a question here [16] in relation to Wildhartlivie but it then got moved so I’ve no idea whether you have it on your watch list. Leaky Caldron 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered it, it's now here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie ... it may not still be embedded in the main SPI page. It may not be an answer you care for, but it's one I feel about fairly strongly. This is a delicate situation, it involves a very long time contributor with a lot of edits, we want to find an answer that serves all parties best, and jiggling elbows prematurely may not end up with best results. Don't confuse that with not wanting to answer at all. But sometimes respect for the individual is best served by circumspection. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy and deleting unsourced BLPs

[edit]

Lar, it seems that you have saying at several pages that BLP allows you to delete any unsourced BLP article. Please notice that BLP talks about removal of contentious unsourced material, not removal of all unsourced material.

In particular, I was looking at the history of the BLP, and I found this diff[17]. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message in the talk page of BLP about your, ahem, "fixing" :D Nice edit war that you started there. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. I think full protection for a while is a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I had just finished writing up the RFPP request :D --Enric Naval (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you wasted the paperwork :) It seemed needful, so I did it. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think this is the link you were looking for. I'm much more interested in what Jimbo has to say than in SlimVirgin editing policy, which she does a lot. Who knows what she was up to with that series of edits? ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the part about "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."? JBsupreme quoted here all the first paragraph except for this sentence. His message from May 2006 clarifies this further "If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.". This is the real reason because the "contentious" wording and its synonims have survived for so long in the policy, and not because of SlimVirgin. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some sort of odd template :)

[edit]

{{tb|DESiegel}} ... not needed, I watch. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a ref to User talk:DESiegel ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef protection?

[edit]

Hi: I noticed you indefinitely full protected WP:BLP, giving as your reason the ongoing edit war. I don't believe short-term edit wars are a good reason for indefinite protection. Would you care to pare it down to some reasonable period (like, say, a week)? Thanks, RayTalk 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef doesn't mean permanent, I'll lift it as soon as there is forward progress on consensus on the talk. That could be much shorter than any short period I might set (like, say, a week)? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GWH makes an unreasonable request and an inapt characterization

[edit]

This behavior is up for an Arbcom case, and there is significant objection to the activity. Please stop the BLP deletions until a consensus emerges that supports the activity.

I issued Scott MacDonald a warning that I'd block him for disruption if he kept it up. I believe that you're doing so from an equivalent starting point and in equal disregard for the community dispute and lack of consensus, which is equally disruptive. Please let the community decide where we want to go as a project on this. The issue is not up for individual admin fiat.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, follow or get out of the way. However, I'll be happy to userify any BLP so you can add references, just let me know which ones and how many at a time. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind you, as I did to Scott, that this is not an emergency, and there's no jusification to climb the Reischtag with your spidey suit on over this. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your characterization of the situation, not mine. The WP:BLP victims I just saved from further harassment have had unsourced bios for 'three years. How much more time did you need to get them properly sourced? Time's up. How many did you want me to userify to you so you can fix them? Lead, follow or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We want you to restore them in the exact place that you deleted them from. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I want you to lead, follow or get out of the way. Also a pony. But that's not on offer. LMK if you want any userified... if not, that's an answer too isn't it? PS, who's "we"? ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"we" == everyone who has opposed the "delete all unsourced BLPs" thing. You have a handy list at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Comments_in_Opposition. And all the people that has complained at ANI in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's_deletions. And everyone who has opposed an "unsourced BLP" A10 speedy criteria (see my statement in the arbitration request page for a list of discussions). And the talk page archives of WP:BLP should reveal a few discussions rejecting your position, since the policy history had several references to the talk page when changes to that part of the policy were being done. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar...... at this pace you are going to get yourself blocked......... --Enric Naval (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the timestamps on the deletion log and on the first post in this thread. Make sure you correct for UTC. Then try again. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that you stopped. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no current activity which is problematic. There's no point in arguing over restoring articles at this point; the community is hopefully going to decide shortly whether these deletions are the new standard OK thing or not. If they're ok, then we'll keep them all deleted until someone rebuilds with sources. If they're not ok, they can be restored then, without any warring over them in the meantime. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely laugh out loud at something written on Wikipedia. Your blathering self-importance is truly chuckle-inducing. UnitAnode 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced BLPs are problematic by definition, and every day is one day too many. GWH: How many did you want userified so you can fix them? ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:
Unsourced BLPs are problematic by definition,
Agreed.
and every day is one day too many.
You suggest a sense of urgency here, or some sort of an emergency situation, in which there is no community consensus or admin consensus, and much dispute.
That there is a problem does not imply automatically that we must nuke the problem from orbit immediately. It's not evident that there's consensus that nuking without good faith repair attempts is appropriate or acceptable. There's clearly much disagreement over nuke first, determine policy later.
The first few deletions could have led to a healthy discussion and new policy. Instead, by having multiple people drive forwards hard enough to raise it to an arbcom case level multi-block wheel war situation, you all have increased drama and decreased the odds of actually getting a community consensus.
The odds of what I think you would consider a successful outcome here have dropped since yesterday, in large part because of your and Scott MacDonald's actions. That is pretty much the definition of a spidey stunt or WP:POINT. The time to stop and constructively engage was this morning, not tonight or tomorrow. Further disruption is only going to make it worse. If you can't see that, you need to take some time off. Significantly degrading your own preferred end goal's chances of success is truly pointless behavior.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you block him, Georgie? See how that works out for you? UnitAnode 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't egg him on to doing something foolish. As misguided as he is I would not want him to lose his bit over this. I've done nothing blockable. ever. And everyone knows it. ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no yolk here; you stopped immediately after being asked to, as I saw, you pointed out, Enric acknowledged etc. I don't think this is in dispute or an issue at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now making PRODs that are not supported by BLP policy since they don't contain contentious BLP material. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs don't have to be supported by policy. Lar, good work. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PRODs are for "cases where articles are uncontestably deletable, yet fail to meet the criteria for speedy deletion." Tomorrow (or the weekend, because I might be busy), when I can edit wikipedia again, I will take a look at those articles. I will contest those prods that don't have a policy-backed rationale, I might send a few to AfD, or tag a few, or put some source, or make some fix, or put a better PROD rationale if they are really bad (no notability, etc). You are, of course, free to take them to AfD. It would be nice if you remembered that contested PRODs may not be restored.
(and please reconsider not making mass-PRODdings of articles with the same faulty rationale that is still being disputed simultaneously at ANI, at the deletion policy's talk page and at the arb request page, or I'll have to ask that the arbs put an motion against placing PRODs based on that rationale. Whether arbs will heed my request is a different thing, but I'll give it a try.) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do me the courtesy of not lecturing me. Especially while you have unanswered questions.... ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added you as a party to the arb case request, see my statement for why. -E
Thanks for letting me know. -L
If the unanswered question is "How many did you want me to userify to you so you can fix them?", it was implicitely answered at [18]: none, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then, if you don't want to help solve the problem by working on the articles, stop bitching about the deletions and proddings. UnitAnode 06:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it, that was my line! :) ++Lar: t/c 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, how many did you want userified? Time's awastin, lots of referencing to do. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought I'd let you know that Gwh has focused his sights on me now. He informed me at my talk that he's told mommy on me reported me to ANI for hurting his feelings. UnitAnode 05:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proding (prodding?) unsourced BLP

[edit]

I don't usually commend people for their edits, but this task is worthy of a big thanks. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks, dear IP. Just for that maybe I won't even CU you! (KIDDING!!!) ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom courtesy notice

[edit]

I've noticed that you are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration, hence this notice. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#BLP deletions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for Arbitration. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I already commented. If the matter ends up being a full case rather than summary motion, I'll have more to say in the evidence section. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request that you consider using AfD for some unsourced BLPs

[edit]

Hi, Lar. Since it looks like you are going through old, unsourced BLPs, I just wanted to request that you at least consider using AfD instead of PROD for some of them. I'm specifically talking about ones where the claim to notability is particularly strong, or where it is clear that another user disagrees with you that the article should be deleted (Hasan Muratović is the case that I have in mind, but I'm sure there will be others). I skim through the entire list of AfD discussions on most days, and I've actually seen many articles that were unsourced for years but quickly had sources found when taken to AfD. Since AfD and PROD both delete things after the same amount of time, taking something to AfD won't keep bad content around any longer than using PROD, and I think AfD has a better chance of finding sources when they are out there. I'm certainly not suggesting that you use AfD for all the unsourced BLPs, only the ones that sound notable enough that it would be likely sources are out there. Anyway, if you would at least consider it, I would appreciate it. Calathan (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable request. PROD is faster to do though. I'll AfD any articles that the PROD tag is removed from without improvement of the references but if the PROD tag achieves a reference improvement, there's no need for the AfD. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removal

[edit]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents%2FRdm2376%27s_deletions&action=historysubmit&diff=339163019&oldid=339162721

What in the blue blazes is that? --Gwern (contribs) 16:05 21 January 2010 (GMT)

"Blue blazes" ??? Looks like a poorly handled (ec) rather than anything sinister... let me fix it for you. Or you can if you'd rather I not touch your words. Or just null edit after I put them back to validate it, whatever works for you. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you fixed it. If not please advise. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see; I withdraw any imputation of sinisterness or censorship. But really, you've been on Wikipedia as long as I have - oughtn't you be familiar with edit conflicts by now and how to deal with them? --Gwern (contribs) 20:33 23 January 2010 (GMT)

BLP deletions

[edit]

Please make sure that the unsourced-BLP tags on these articles are correct before you delete. For example, BJ McKie had a perfectly good source -- it was just listed as an external link rather than a reference. Deleting articles because you don't think the sources are good enough, or aren't in proper format, is a whole different can of worms. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Once a consensus forms, please follow it. Jehochman Brrr 18:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not trump WP:BLP, sorry. UnitAnode 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP was formed by consensus, not by His Noodley Grace. Jehochman Brrr 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, nearly everything is subject to consensus. The only situations where consensus could be argued to be overruled are in cases of majority representative body fiat - i.e. Arbitration Committee or WM Foundation Board directive. However, the same community that forms consensus elects those august bodies, so divergence seems unlikely. — James Kalmar 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nawlin: I've switched to PRODding and AfDing... for now. A bare external link needs to be turned into a more usable cite and tied to specific parts of the text though. Else it's not really a source, just an alleged one.
JEH: See what I said to you on KL's page. BLP is a mandate from the board, and a moral imperative. This is a project, not a community. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your rush to be the crusading knight in shining armor you've managed to do a lot of collateral damage. For example, Christopher Maher had a source listed just under further reading rather than under references. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improperly sourced, then, and a valid deletion, wasn't it? Did you want me to undelete it to your user space so you can fix it? I bet you can fix it in less time than 3 years... if you set your mind to it. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And it strikes me as quite hypocritical to complain about these deletions when 48,274,299 users had over three years to fix the articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it is improper sourcing to take 10 seconds because someone mislabeled what section it should go under and rather than just undelete and make the single tiny edit to relable "Further Reading" to "References" it has to first go into userspace and then get corrected and then get moved over. And this is coming from the people who are trying to claim justification under ignore all rules. Unbelievable. If you insist on making it take up more of your time and more of my time so you can feel good about yourself by all means go and userfy it to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do that. Unlike the other user, above, I expect you to fix all the loose ends like cats and templates and the like unless it's ready to right back in an hour or two. As for the rest of your lament, the community had 3 years to fix it. Tough noogies. This may or may not get through to you. Probably not. But one can hope. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, argumentum ad Jimbo. Yeah that has real logical force. Especially when it just him thanking someone for something rather than anything resembling an argument that even he's making. And tough noogies isn't an argument. As has already been explained most people haven't touched these articles because they aren't the actual problem. The real problem is in serious BLPs of notable people where bad content can slip in or where POV pushing can create problems. Now you can go back to having fun and convincing yourself that you are actually doing something helpful or you can try to actually understand that. And frankly, I might have bothered thinking about correcting templates and categories but I'm really not inclined to because that's not a BLP concern. I'd love to see you try to justify deleting an article because it doesn't have perfect categorization though. That would be even funnier than your previous activity. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't read it, did you? You need to actually think about why the founder would come out and endorse the activity and what that means. ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. No claim made there was any different than any other claim. Simple repetition of claims doesn't constitute an argument. I am interested however in your assumption that I didn't read the remark. It is noteworthy that one of the strong signs of when ideology rather than logic takes over is when an individual feels the need to make negative assumptions about those he disagrees with. I can't say I've been perfect in that regard either during this discussion. But it might help to understand that humans can legitimately disagree and even disagree vehemently and still have read the same material, thought about points being, made rejected them, or considered them to simply be permutations of prior points. To think otherwise invites the worst sort of tribalism. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ: Done. See User:JoshuaZ/Christopher Maher. Note that you are incorrect about the article being sourced. IMDB is not a WP:RS. You'll have to find another source than that or the article is subject to redeletion. How much time do you need? ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for undeleting. Frankly, I have to wonder whether you actually bother reading what I've wrote or not. There is an IMDB link which isn't even under "Further reading" The source I directed you to is the source under "further reading." Imagine that! JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I promise I read what you write most of the time. I suspect far more often than you do, actually. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a clever remark. I've move the source in so it is explicit about where it sources. I haven't added any templates or changed categories. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you. I try. Was there anything else you needed here? ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The harassment continues

[edit]

I am still receiving harassing messages, although, since my talk page is locked and inaccessible to new IP accounts, the harassment is being placed on articles I am currently editing. The most common place right now is the Charles Manson talk page. I would like my userspaces to be protected at least another two weeks (or more), if you can do it as I fear that as soon as the lock is removed, the harassment will just continue there. Needless to say, it's beyond annoying to have to continually revert vandalism until a determined vandal (IP or otherwise) can be blocked. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do but as you can see I'm kinda busy :) ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering where you are on extending the lock on my userspaces. I realize you are busy, but I don't imagine it would really take all that long to extend the time period, would it? Thanks for looking into this, Lar. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It ran out already? I hadn't realised... OK, no it hasn't. I think (as tedious as it may seem) the Powers That Be like to see the protection run out to see if the vandalism/harassment stops. I'll check in again once it does to see where things stand. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another 2 weeks for your user talk. ++Lar: t/c 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton makes an unwarranted demand for an apology

[edit]

According to the AUSC, in a communication with Versageek, you wrote that you suspected my account was an alternate account purely to participate in contentious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively.

Since a quick check of the contributions history of my account up to that time fit into a single 500-count contributions history page, which easily would have shown that most of my edits were not to discussions, and just a little further looking would have easily found that contributions even to those discussions were mostly not contentious, and barely any of even the contributions to contentious discussions were "aggressive" and none disruptive, why don't you tell me why I shouldn't consider this statement of yours a lie? Why don't you take it back and apologize? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not demanding an apology from you. Just pointing out the problem and inviting you to fix it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I calls them like I sees them. Your claims have now been thoroughly discredited. I think the apologies that are actually owed need to come from you, and go to Versageek, to me, to the AUSC and to the community at large. But I don't think you have it in you to admit fault at all. Or to interact civilly. Say, weren't you banned on WR? That says a lot about your approach right there, if it's true. I forget. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you've done is lie. Provably. It isn't a mistake. It wasn't harmless. It wasn't a white lie or a misinterpretation. It was a lie which looks like it was meant to achieve a political end by crushing an opponent, or perhaps it was just anger -- I don't know. I'm relying on facts anyone can see. You're relying on authority and hiding behind private communications you refused to release. AUSC released one short quote from your private communication, and it's simply a lie. If, somehow, there's a context in the language of that communication that exonerates you or puts that statement in a much better light, feel free to make it public. But no amount of sneering at me or insulting me is going to help you or bait me. I wanted to give you one more chance to settle this. But I don't think you have it in you to admit fault at all. That's a personal attack, and, since you're familiar with my previous statements about this matter, you know it's also untrue. Clearly, you're not interested in taking the opportunity I'm giving you, so I'll stop posting here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that I'm lying is itself a lie. By you. Your aspersion casting is getting rather tiresome, I wish you would stop. You do not know how to take no for an answer, and you do not know how to quit. The very model of an incollegial, tendentious, timewasting editor. So, am I misremembering, or WERE you blocked from WR? ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about my PRODing

[edit]

Should I keep some kind of a list of the articles I've PRODed so far, so that when and if they are deleted, it will be easier to userify them? UnitAnode 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems prudent if it's not easy to derive from your contribs. We're out to foster the articles getting fixed if they're worth saving, not to be difficult by hiding what we do. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I've done between 50 and 60. Should I just make a user subpage, or is there going to be some sort of central "holding place" for these? UnitAnode 02:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of such a central place yet, so I'd say make a page for now, if one develops you can move stuff over then. I probably should do the same thing I guess. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a holding page for my work. Please ping me if something more central is created. UnitAnode 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. We need more eyes, a more central listing, and some clever template coders to make it all be more table-ish with clear status markers, sortability, etc etc etc. But that's great to start. I think I will use the same format as you. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you finishing up December 2006? If so, I'll move on to a different month, when I resume working on it later this evening. I think there needs to be some sort of coordination of efforts, so as to avoid duplication of efforts. UnitAnode 15:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say you should go ahead, I have a lot of other WP tasks I need to pick back up (an ongoing investigation, userifcation requests, general drahamahs etc) so I don't know when I can get back to this... I agree that coordination might be good. I also think (on the other hand) that it's OK for multiple eyes to look at these. I switched to PRODding instead of deleting. So I have some of my PRODs to go review too, if they got unprodded and not fixed I am thinking of either deleting outright, or AfDing, depending on what makes more sense. (after first asking the person who unprodded to fix them) ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I've been working at January 2007 for the past day, so feel free to help out. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chillum is now threatening to wholesale revert my PRODs, without working on the underlying problem, and to block me if I readd the PROD. This is just surreal. UnitAnode 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of BLPs

[edit]

I randomly picked 5 BLPs you deleted recently (Chris McDevitt, Almanbet Matubraimov, George A. McCarthy, Jing Jing Luo & Vaughan Lowe). For four I found a source, so restored the article and added the source. The other one is a comedian for sure but would probably fail an AfD so I didn't bother. Ideally I would have asked first before restoring, but it was far easier for me to edit the articles once open because my source, Factiva, has tiny browser sessions.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ask. I'm glad that you improved the articles so they could be restored. The point of this exercise was not to delete the articles forever. Merely until they were properly sourced. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of the project. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod of Krynauw Otto

[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Krynauw Otto, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC).
Not to be confused with Cod throwing.


Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

[edit]

Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

Lar, you should not have prodded that in the first place. Did you even check the external link in the version you prodded? It's a reliable source: the official site of South African Rugby Union, and it was wikilined as such! Your action was no better than that of the random tag spammer. A similar commentary applies to Mkativerata action to remove most of the info: similar to that of the random vandal that deletes info instead of tagging with {{fact}}. Not everything needs an inline citation. Please read Wikipedia:CITE#General reference. Pcap ping 17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I don't agree, though. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What exactly did you solve with your comment? ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum stirz da drahmaz

[edit]

He's now opened up an ANI on my work. I really don't understand how people can't see that I'm working to solve a big problem. UnitAnode 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it closed already, while I was in the air. I've left Chillum an invite to pop round here to talk about this further. As for using your sock, I think probably you should stick to one account at a time just now. Especially if both accounts are editing in the same area. Even given how clear it is that it's your account. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum tells me he undid my joke archive in which I said: " UnitAnode is to be troutslapped for using an alternative account name that could easily be confused with his first account name." I can't think what else one can say about this that would result in sysop action, or why it needs to be discussed anywhere else but User talk:Unitanode. I mean, people are still allowed to stick PROD tags on articles, I should think. --TS 01:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I thought it was a for real close (although it brought a smile... those are the best kind). And I thought people could darn well PROD things so color me confused. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using the alt account simply for logistical reasons. It's much easier to cut-and-paste the article names from an uncluttered contribution list than it is from one that has ANI, my talk, your talk, and other general editing mixed in. There's no attempt to hide, though, as I immediately update my main account userpage, and the holding area when I finish a run. UnitAnode 02:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can always hope that a jokey close like that will be taken as conclusive.
In this case evidently there was more to say. And that's okay too. I think it's reasonable to try to funnel discussion to the RFC, but this was framed as a conduct issue, and arguably there's a good hand/bad hand issue that definitely needs to be handled if only by making sure that UnitAnode understands the implications and won't do it again.
Compared to us old timers, UnitAnode is very new. He's doing pretty much the kind of thing one does in exploring a new and broadly welcoming environment, testing the boundaries. This is not the time to conduct such experiments unless one has built up a substantial head of credit. I don't know whether he has such credit, though I find the fact that he knows you very promising. (I just edit-conflicted with UnitAnode) ---TS 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here for three years, Tony. Take another peek at my userpage. UnitAnode 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us were editing Wikipedia when the American President was Illinois Senator Barack Obama, If you've been editing for three years, that means you were a new editor during the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration and you cannot remember a time when there was no biographies of living persons policy. --TS 02:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of BDJ, but I'm not sure of the details. I didn't start editing as an account until early in 2007. UnitAnode 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. You've been editing for longer than I had been by the 2007 Badlydrawnjeff arbitration. By that time I'd been an admin and an arbcom clerk, but that was in the days when neither adminship nor clerking was a big deal. I suppose that was my point:things have changed. But I was wrong of course. Old Timers always tend to think they have something sensible and useful to say to others, and they're almost invariably wrong. --TS 03:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by this post. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. And about adminship, et al, I've never been that ambitious about those type of things. I like to write, and had been focusing on that almost solely lately. But the BLP issue is more important, so I've decided to focus on that for awhile. UnitAnode 03:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"By thy long grey beard and glittering eye, Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?" --TS 03:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that I learned the reason for the alternate account I have to say I think it's a perfectly valid use (to make list generation much easier) and since it's disclosed, it's not an issue at all. I was thinking of using User:Larbot the same way. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again everyone... I think actually since U is making this list: User:Unitanode/Unsourced_BLP_work the API may or may not be of help... basically he is just taking ALL the edits of his sock and using that as the starting point if I'm not mistaken. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the API would just make that easier to automate. It sounded like he was just scraping the contributions screen and then manually editing the page names to links and scrubbing out the extraneous html. I've done that and it's a pain. The API is just cleaner, as long as you have a XML or JSON parser handy and can write a simple script. --TS 01:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm doing is cutting and pasting the contributions from my Unitasock account onto the top of the holding area page. I then delete the usertalk notifications, and selectively cut-and-paste the rest into the appropriate sections. I then number them, and wikilink them. In all, that process itself takes 5-10 minutes at the end of each run I do. I'm willing to do it, though, if only to prove that those people who claim I'm being "disruptive" (Off2riorob and DuncanHill are particularly bad about that) are simply not paying close attention to my actual activities. UnitAnode 01:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. It's in htmlized XML so you'll still have some pain unless you're scripting, but at least it include only namespace 0 edits (articles). --TS 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I like the "date/time" that c-and-p-ing the contribs allows. But I also like that the tool scrapes out the usertalk notifications. Hmmm... UnitAnode 01:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You want a timestamp? --TS 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That helps, but I was wondering, how does it help me with the largest problem, which is manually wikilinking all of them, after I finish a run? UnitAnode 02:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That depends on what tools and languages you have available. If it was me and I was going to do a lot, I'd probably write something in perl that could quickly change that list into what I wanted for wikimarkup. Another way to do it is to use AWB, save the list as it is somewhere and then use AWB's search/replace facility to change it. It has the ability to save a bunch of regular expressions so you could just run it against the page each time you did a new batch and apply the same text changes. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say, I wonder if we should be trying to (in general) get better tools to help with this? Get the Twinkle/huggle/AWB guys thinking about this, get Magnus and the other toolsmiths thinking? IF we are going to be doing a lot of big improvement drives soon, making the tracking of who did what and where things stand easier to do will help a lot. Where to discuss? ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no skills in regard to coding, so I'll leave you lot to that. I'll keep doing it my way for now, but let me know if the guys who know how to do such things come up with something better. UnitAnode 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego takes the baton

[edit]

He has informed me at Chillum's drama-stirring ANI thread, that if I'm asked to stop PRODing, that I will stop PRODing, which I interpreted (reasonably, I think) as a threat to block. What can be done to stop this harassment? Prodego himself has been involved in mass-deprodding without bothering to add sources. UnitAnode 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a time when finding a forum of uninvolved admins to look at an issue was considered a wise course of action, I am not sure when such wisdom became "drama-stirring". If you have any concerns about my posting to ANI you are welcome to come to my talk page and talk it out with me. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is a noted dramapit. You know that. And yet you took this there anyway. Fortunately, enough admins there were able to see through he "complaint" that nothing remotely resembling consensus developed to block me. UnitAnode 01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mass AFD nominations instead? If prod isn't the solution, outright deletion isn't it, then the next step is AFDs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you haven't been asked to stop, you have no need to worry Unitanode. But if there were a consensus that you should stop, you absolutely should. Prodego talk 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't override BLP policy, so you're wrong here. UnitAnode 23:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, AFDs then. Either they could ensure they have seven days through the prod backlog or let it get listed and absolutely have to deal with it. Then we'll see what consensus is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you have "good-faith" users like Off2riorob that are just mass-voting "keep" after barely even looking at the article, what's the point? (See his !vote at the AFD on Bobby Cruise.) UnitAnode 01:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is formed from consensus. No policy overrides consensus. The WMF can override consensus, but in practice, almost never does. Prodego talk 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy does "override consensus", if consensus actually were against these PRODs and deletions. Consensus is not. A loud group of editors is griping about it, but that does not equal "consensus." UnitAnode 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't have any consensus supporting all the non-free image requirement we suddenly made years ago but it was done anyways (and through similar admin fighting, IAR complaints, etc.). That was by a Foundation statement which some could argue is similar to WP:BLP. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego: No local "consensus" (i.e. whatever random folks happen to turn up somewhere) can override application of BLP policy if it is done reasonably and with consideration. If you're confused about that, review the ArbCom motion issued recently finding that the deletions and proddings WERE within policy. Further, no consensus, even a real global consensus, can override the underlying principles of the wiki, and BLP policy is a direct outgrowth of those underlying priniciples, seasoned with some mandate from the WMF that it's not just talking points. Prodego, really, I'm surprised you seem to be on the wrong side of this. You really need to rethink things We could use your help instead of your resistance. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And they're trying to find an itchy trigger finger again

[edit]

This is getting really tiresome. I really think that some of them are of the opinion that if they threaten me enough, and harass me at ANI enough, that I'm going to stop trying to fix this problem. UnitAnode 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disconnect in comment...

[edit]

Hmmm? Accusations of a cabal behaviour or "patterns" is OK, because they are done by "good faith editors". But making the general observation that both sides are mudslinging at each other is .... ? What does that make the other "side"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i'm just tired (i should've been in bed 4 hours ago), and writing nonsense, but it seems to me that there is a serious disconnect in this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is. I'm not really sure what can be done about it. ++Lar: t/c 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside dispute resolution it's mere mud-slinging. The most egregious mud-slingers can be sanctioned if they show no serious interest in WP:DR. --Tasty monster —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Caleigh Peters

[edit]

I hate celebutantes but I've found sufficient citations to justify removing your prod. Send her to AfD if you must. I'm grumpier than you, LOL. Bearian (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've added citations (and I see 5 different refs there now) I see no reason to AfD it. It's not about deleting everything, it's about deleting things people don't care enough to fix. You fixed it. Bravo, and thank you. ++Lar: t/c 06:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Request.

[edit]

Can you User Greg Landau to Usefy:Hell in a Bucket. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Apoc is working on it, see just below. You may want to give him some help? ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion requests

[edit]

Hello. Would you (or any talk page watcher) consider undeleting the following articles and I will add the sourced provided:

  1. Gilles Morin [19] [20] [21]
  2. Jérôme Minière [22] [23] [24] (all in French)
  3. Makoto Uchida [25] [26] (original source?)
  4. Greg Landau [27] [28] [29] [30] self

--Apoc2400 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well since those deletions are clearly out of process (I don't know what lar was thinking there), done. Prodego talk 18:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages too? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had done that, as it turns out I had missed one of them. All of them are restored now. Prodego talk 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego, those deletions were not out of process, they're supported by policy. You may not like it, and in fact I certainly derived no satisfaction from doing them, but it's not particularly helpful to assert that they were. I'm glad someone wants to take them under their wing and sort them out. That was the idea. Thanks Apoc for stepping up! ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, there is no CSD for that, and that purports to be the cases when an administrator can unilaterally delete. Prodego talk 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is a CSD for it or not is minutia... policy wonkery. Broadly, policy supports removal of unsourced material. This is especially true of unsourced BLP material. If nothing remains after you remove unsourced or very poorly sourced material, then the entire thing should be deleted. ArbCom has already spoken on this and I will not engage in indefinite debate about it. If there isn't a CSD, that's a sign that things there need to catch up. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So make them catch up! WT:CSD awaits. It will never be done unless someone does it. Prodego talk 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's needful, please do. I'm personally not seeing a strong need for that kind of paperwork, and I am also not so keen on long drawn out discussions that don't resolve much (wasn't there a discussion about this already, I forget) ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the undeletion Prodego. I might come to you with more requests later. Gilles Morin and Jérôme Minière actually had a source each, but had been tagged wrongly. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change article probation enforcement ChildofMidnight

[edit]

I think this has degraded enough.[31] Want to test the new template we're discussing dealing with inappropriate comments? ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what action is desired at this point. This appears collapsed already, and CoM is disputing that it should be collapsed as he is asserting the matter is not resolved. I see some merit in that view based on a quick skim. But I could be wrong. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well I guess it's already taken care of, thanks! However CoM wants to reopen it, and apparently it's not official until an administrator does it. I definitely see some hints WMC should take, but the merit in CoM's accusations is a measure of the dirt he can dig. Well this is my take, and what you see may be different. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

[edit]

Hi Lar. Could you semi-protect Zach Randolph? This was up for over 15 hours, and is now visible in the Google results: [32] Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 3 months since there is no previous protection history. Please advise if anything further needed. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Zagalejo^^^ 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question about Ikip

[edit]

Is this kind of battleground mentality acceptable. His obstructionism on the BLP issue aside, his attacking tone there just seems, I don't know, kind of unhinged. UnitAnode 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable in theory? No. Is it "acceptable in practice"? It shouldn't be. But it's pretty run of the mill rhetoric for Ikip, unfortunately. I have too much of a history with him myself to do much other than wring my hands. An uninvolved admin is needed. Which isn't me, given the amount of rhetoric emitted in my general direction by Ikip. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improper assertion of applicability of WP:BLANKING by Ikip

[edit]

"Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption..."[33] Ikip 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, you are off base with that policy cite. We are talking about a discussion thread, here, not a warning. I restored the thread one time aspart of adding my comments in the appropriate place in the thread. Further, you removed **my** comments from someone else's talk page.
Do it again and you will be blocked with no warning. Since you've turned up here in response to my posting on your talk, further discussion will be here (per User:Lar/Pooh Policy) and you will be deemed to have seen what I said. I hope I make myself clear but if not feel free to ask for clarification. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is clear here is that certain users are unfit to continue as stewards. — James Kalmar
Thanks for your input, dear Anon. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I must apologize for two unintentional (and unrelated) matters: my earlier post did not carry my signature and it came across as more snarky than intended. I respect the work you do. However, my mild frustration with the BLP deletions has caused me to post in more direct terms than is deserved. All I meant to communicate was that:

  • Your role as steward clearly is one of very great trust.
  • Your deletions call into question your agreement with community definitions of appropriate intervention.
  • Your interaction with User:Ikip directly above appears to be threatening a block from an involved administrator (you).

I suspect that most people believe you are still very qualified to serve in all your capacities. I really do not mean to belittle your long and vast contributions. I truly wish you the best in your productive encyclopedia-building work, and again ask you accept my apologies for any offense with my snarky comment. Your colleague, — James Kalmar 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking improvements

[edit]

I'm looking for suggestions on how to track improvements to the articles that have been prodded. Ray has been kind enough to source every single article he's deprodded, and to notify me that he's done so. Others have simply mass-deprodded dozens of articles, without fixing the problem. Any ideas how to track what progress is being made? I'm thinking of simply clicking each article, and creating a separate "results list" that shows what improvements are being made. UnitAnode 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm late for bed. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. Want to make book that I wake up banned, blocked, or some combination thereof? UnitAnode 04:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No bet but I certainly hope not. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Jones

[edit]

You will find several more references to Graham Jones at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&q=%22Graham+Jones%22+Hyndburn&cf=all

I suspect that once you go through them all, you will be able to restore some of the text that was removed as unreferenced. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research, but that's not really my area of interest. I did enough to establish the person exists and I removed the uncited stuff. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

For your note. I'll watch my email. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. Best. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Paulshock

[edit]

Hi. I noticed you added the PROD tag to this BLP aticle. I've found four references for it so far and was wondering if it's okay to remove the tag? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the PROD tag, thanks for your work! --Cyclopiatalk 14:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good removal, Cyclopia, looks to me like there was significant improvement indeed, thank you for your efforts, JuneGloom07! ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Pamela Paulshock‎

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pamela Paulshock‎, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Paulshock‎. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Enric Naval (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not just a moaner

[edit]

Hi, firstly feel free to delete this after reading. I saw you comment that I was only complaining and doing nothing to help and wanted comment about that, I assure you I am here to help the wikipedia, I also know there is an issue with this just I disagree with what is being implemented. I have done work to save articles since this started and will also do more to help in the coming times once it is clear there is agreement on action. I am not an inclusionist, my position is that I do not want to see decent content lost, it should be cited, I agree, myself I would have put some energy into collecting a hit squad to cite the uncited, so to speak and there may be after this cage rattling more people willing to join a task squad to do that, but the community is imo still working out what is best and when it clearly does I will be part of the team available to help implement that decision.

Here are some of the prods I removed, it is not comprehensive, just a cut and copy of some to show you I have also helped with this and not only complained.. I have also saved an article from the mass deleted articles from the Google archives and cited and replaced it, I also have cited and replaced two articles from the incubator collection and here are some that I have simply added a citation and removed the prod.

  1. 08:36, 24 January 2010 (hist | diff) Barry Stewart ? (remove uncited template)
  2. 08:36, 24 January 2010 (hist | diff) Barry Stewart ? (add reflist)
  3. 08:35, 24 January 2010 (hist | diff) Barry Stewart ? (add citation)
  4. 23:23, 24 January 2010 (hist | diff) Tímea Dragony ? (add citeation, add reflist aremove prob and remove uncited template)
  5. 18:39, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Keith Caputo ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  6. 18:28, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Diane Carey ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  7. 18:23, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Dean Chamberlain ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)

?

  1. 18:12, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Monte Conner ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  2. 18:03, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) William Croft (linguist) ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  3. 17:56, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Yosef Dayan ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  4. 17:39, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Jim Donovan (reporter) ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)

)

  1. 17:27, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Andrej Dynko ? (add content, add citation, add reflist, remove prod, remove uncited template)
  2. 16:31, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Isabel Galhos ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  3. 16:21, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Thomas Blachman ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  4. 16:03, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Márcio Faraco ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  5. 15:51, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Sue-Ellen Case ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  6. 15:39, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Martin Fletcher ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
  7. 15:21, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Paul-Marie Coûteaux ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist

Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts, apparently I misjudged. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I am actually coming round to the idea slowly, accepting it. Off2riorob (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you making positive contributions in a number of discussions. Thanks for that! ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question

[edit]

how does one ask for a check user search? Is that something only admins ask for? Thanks.Malke2010 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can request it. Review WP:SPI, that's where public requests are made. If you have reason to think that the request is so sensitive you don't care to go public, you can email any CU with your concerns. I also get requests here if they relate to cases I've worked in in the past. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check email. Thanks.Malke2010 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think we are in agreement at the talkpage there, and someone else added a comment to that effect to the WMC thread. He has asked at my talkpage that the external links be removed from the evidence. I replied here that I did not consider those links when formulating the close, but would defer to others regarding their removal. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a bit too cryptic for me, as I'm trying to parse if there's an action item for me. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I had too many tabs open this morning. I think your comment to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Rules of the game should take care of it. If you would like to remove the irrelevant external links from the WMC climate change enforcement request, I would not object, though I do not personally think it is necessary. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this one closed if we can manage it. We are very close I think. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at the WP:GS/CC/RE page

[edit]

(this regards this edit ++Lar)

...because I'm increasingly frustrated that an editor with a grand total of 106 main space edits, nearly all of them political POV pushing, keeps distracting and baiting valuable expert editors with thousands of constructive main space edits. I think this aspect needs to be highlighted. If we want to build an encyclopedia, we need to protect our most valuable assets better. And that value is, in the end, the ability to contribute actual content. I believe in WP:SPADE. Civility is useful, but it's not a goal in itself. Establishing a pleasant climate of cooperation between 150 undereducated morons by driving away everybody who has an actually qualified opionon cannot be our primary mission. As for the mu (negative): It's about the only useful answer to the "have you stopped beating your wife" type of questions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I agree that creating content is what the project is about, and being able to contribute good content is a (key, if not the most important) characteristic of a valued editor. But that said, in this area, there is an view held by many that the "long term editors" are controlling the topic to keep it a certain way. Suppressing each new voice as it appears is not going to help dispel that aura. Finally, I don't think you actually were asked a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. Try reading it again in the light of it being an honest question and a valid concern, and see if you can answer it. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify the WP:WEASEL "many" above? And I'm not talking about "each new voice", I'm talking about a couple of SPAs who have not shown any serious interest in contributing to Wikipedia beyond pushing their very narrow POV in a very narrow area - and even that not by rational discourse, but by spurious complaints and persistent whining (laid over a carpet of permanent socking and anonymous insults).
Looking at the Mu in question, it's in reply to the claim that I " consider WMC calling people "septics" and "fools" to be "spurious" allegations of misconduct." Since I don't even grant the premise, and never have, this seems like an adequate answer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Many" means more than just a few people. I'm not sure that your characterization of matters is going to lead to successful resolution. Socking and insults are not acceptable but I think you've shut down to the notion that there's more to this matter than "spurious complaints and persistent whining" from "a couple of SPAs". Finally, what premise is it you're not granting? That WMC used that terminology? Perhaps if you answered more plainly? ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not researched the phrase in question but I believe the statement is that WMC has not called other wikipedia editors the Sword, without endorsing or refuting the statement, or approving or disaproving of any specific action statement or whatever. In fact, without taking a position on anything, at all. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That WMC called people "septics and fools", which is quite different from "using the terminology". "Septics" is a harmless play on words blown out of proportion and illustrating that the so-called "sceptics" usually are anything but - they typically accept the most unsupported claims based on the weakest imaginable sources as long as it fits their preconceived notion. I've not seen anybody on-wiki being called a fool. And I see your "more than a few" and claim "nearly all Wikipedians and nearly all Buddhists". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" 'Global warming hucksters' is a harmless play on words blown out of proportion and illustrating that the so-called 'climate scientists' usually are anything but - they typically promote outlandish theories based on manipulating the data to fit their preconceived global warming conclusion." Stephan, if someone were to say the preceding words, would you call them a POV pusher? ATren (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite: that confused me. Could you clarify? ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means that in all the cases (so far) where people have pointed out that WMC used 'septics' he wasn't referring to editors, but instead to a generalized component in the climate change debate. Much the same (but not directly the same) people/groupings/industry that amongst others Newsweek terms "deniers"[34]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed exactly the point. It is regrettable that Lar has got so far into this debate without realising it. Still, you know it now, Lar: do you disagree? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do I disagree with what, exactly? That seems to be lost on all the verbiage. I think your use of the term "septic" is derisive, and you yourself have admitted as such. When it's used here, even tangentially, I think it's not just derisive, but divisive. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question, since you have that opinion, is now: Who is it derisive towards? And what is it divisive about? And the resulting question then becomes, are "liberals", "sceptics", "alarmists", "pro-AGW'ers", "deniers", "POV-pushers" etc. derisive, and in what cases is it sanctionable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Derisive towards whoever is called that, of course. Divisive in that calling names never improves discussions. Sanctionable if the disruption rises high enough to be sanctionable. I agree with TS that even one use of the term onwiki, or via reference to his blog, when done as a substitute or circumlocution is unacceptable. Bygones are bygones but it needs to stop, going forward. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Schulz confused: Septic is not a "harmless play on words"

[edit]

Stephan Schulz: Septic is not a "harmless play on words", sorry. WMC has issues that need addressing. Are you sure you're here in good faith? ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to differ on the significance of "septic". WMC is sometimes abrasive. But the reason he is being agitated against is not his abrasiveness, but rather that he as a subject specialist has been tirelessly maintaining our climate change articles to reasonably reflect the state of the science. The behavioral issues are used as a club only. William's language is harmless compared to what I regularly get - I'm a communist, a lackey, a tree-hugging liberal, I want to destroy western civilization and bring us back into the stone age, I want the UN to take over the Earth...you get the idea. I've not yet seen any spontaneous mob arising to challenge people calling me that...
Can you explain the "good faith" issue? My Buddhists followers are confused as to why you would doubt it. But in case that was not clear: I object to your use of an unspecified "many" - its a hollow rhetorical device. Speak for yourself or be specific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First: use of the term septic? see above. Second: Are you sure he's actually "tirelessly maintaining our climate change articles to reasonably reflect the state of the science" ? That appears to be contrary to the view of many editors(1), who seem to have rather a different view of what is going on, although I don't happen to have a list handy. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - More than a few... but not necessarily a majority of the population.
Let's rewind a bit. Even one use of the term "septic" (or reference to derogatory statements on his own blog) is unacceptable. But I find it hard to swallow that "many" editors have a problem with the content of the global warming article. It's a featured article and it's widely accepted to reflect the state of the science. As for the other articles, I think it would be fair to say that we tend to err on the side of giving a tiny minority of climate sceptics too much weight. Your mileage may vary, but I'm willing to bet not by much. There are some pretty severe conduct issues, but they seem to be pretty evenly spread. --TS 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I speak of the topic area as a whole, not the specific article. As with many contentious areas, all the factions involved are wrong in some ways and all share blame for how things are now. But in this particular contentious area, there is a perception among "many" editors that one side is controlling the topic quite effectively. "Many" is not a majority of the 11.5 million editors who have edited here, to be sure. It may not even be a majority of the active editors (most active editors I suspect are oblivious to this). Or even a majority of the editors who are involved in this topic area. But there is such a perception, and it is held by more than a "few"(2) editors. I'm not so sure that this control is as blatant as it is in some other areas. Or even there at all. But I can see characteristics in the behavior of one "side" that make it look like that control is there ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 - 3 or 4
(outdent) Oh my. Yes, all "share blame" for how things are now, just like the Sioux shared part of the blame for Wounded Knee. But that's an essentially useless common-place statement. Matthew 7:3 seems to be appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid assigning specific blame. I'm not sure your analogy is the most apt one that could have been chosen. If we want to be more specific about blame we could be I guess. Also I'm sorry, I don't know the christian bible well enough to get the reference. (a Google search later) Ah. The beam/speck thing. Yes I think it's highly relevant. I just suspect that the senses are reversed in my view of relevance. Apropos, I think fortress mentality might be useful reading, though. (well it would be if it wasn't a red link)... because I think you might think that I'm attacking you and that you might be attacking back. That's a good part of the problem, actually, if my perception is true. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We agree the term Septic ought not to be used, and aspersions cast on the host

[edit]

Regarding "septic," I would prefer that WMC not use that term. I also would prefer that Lar show the same high level of concern about derogatory terms being used against those editing from the consensus perspective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was in agreement (I agree, for example, that derogatory terms are not a good thing and in general ought not to be used) but then I got to the end and I got confused. What is "the consensus perspective"? Is that a POV of some sort? And who are "those editing against" it? That last part made my head spin. ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "consensus perspective" I refer to the broad perspective on climate change endorsed by all national academies of science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So what other "perspectives" are there? If I, for example, think that man's impact on climate and the environment is sharply negative, and is of serious concern, and that it's likely that it has caused warming, and will cause serious harm to us and the rest of the organisms on earth, and that something ought to be done about it, but I don't necessarily agree that all the data presented by certain parties (c.f. the email scandal for example) as supporting this view necessarily does support it, or has been collated appropriately, or necessarily agree with the relative emphasis given to certain articles here on Wikipedia, does that means I am "editing from the consensus perspective" or not? What exactly does this consensus cover? ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite good at this. I concede. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just as confused as ever. What is it, exactly, that you've conceded? ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's dropping a non sequitur on you, in which Boris doesn't have to answer the question, while still seeming to imply that you are simply playing some sort of game with the "you're quite good at this" portion of his comment. UnitAnode 03:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you think he concedes "nothing", then? I don't get it. I was asking a serious question. I also don't know what the other part of this is about, what derogatory terms, said by which parties, was SBHB referring to, he hasn't said. ++Lar: t/c 03:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want a concession, I wanted an answer to my question. So ... now what? I don't have time for games, nor desire. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a ton of experience there, but from what I have seen, the pro-AGW editors drop far more backhanded insults than the anti-AGW crowd does. Unless misspelling WMC's name or calling him "Will" counts. UnitAnode 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I could use it as a blanket concession, then, until it's clarified what was meant? That might come in pretty handy. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should. UnitAnode 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain my views on this, your hypothetical example lacks context: It would certainly depend on what data you were sceptical about, and how you went about turning that scepticism into the concrete. Your hypothetical person could be anywhere from a rabid left-of greenpeace treehugger to an equally rabid denier of climate change, it would all depend on the whats, the wheres, and the how it gets materialized.
But this is also a completely irrelevant example, since the hypothetical person may be well aware of his biases, and work towards understanding what can and cannot be shown to be reality by reliable sources. He may also be aware of exactly where the scientific opinion currently is located, and strive to keep articles as NPOV as possible.
On the other hand, he could also be completely unaware of his biases, and truly think that everything he reads on his favorite blogs/op-eds/whatever, and that everyone else is lying, are biased to the extent of being untrustworthy on everything, and that everyone around hir is ganging up on hir, since they will not accept the latest tid-bit as being the WP:TRUTH.
Or your hypothetical person could be somewhere in between... It all depends on context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you asked a simple direct question, and so far have received pages of responses from several editors, none of which contains a direct answer. This is the way it is on the talk pages of these articles, and it's why reasonable editors never stick around long enough to fix it. ATren (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the pro-AGW editors way of denigrating the position of the anti-AGW editors. It's also very common for pro-AGW scientists to refer to "scientific consensus" to denigrate the positions of scientists who don't believe in AGW, even though science has never operated by "consensus." UnitAnode 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


And the "scientific consensus" argument is used everywhere, not just on questions of science. I personally have not touched the scientific aspects of the GW debate, mostly focusing on the BLPs, yet I've frequently seen the consensus argument used as justification for arguments that are only tangentially related to the science; i.e. allegations of conflict of interest against scientists, which are included much more liberally in skeptic BLPs than in proponent BLPs.` ATren (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "the consensus argument used as justification for arguments"? Further, is that COI allegations are included much more liberally in skeptic BLPs actually true? Have you actually collected statistics on these allegations showing that? That might be useful data to put forward, if indeed it's true, as that's a violation of WP:UNDUE is it not? ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the "scientific consensus" argument seems to be raised in debates about content that doesn't have much to do with science, i.e. public opinion, controversy (i.e. climategate), and BLP claims. It's just something I've noticed in the time I've spent here, but it's not something I've researched deeply. I don't have an example handy, maybe I'll look for examples this weekend.
Regarding the weight argument, I have had long arguments on BLPs about weight of critical claims (mainly with Kim). I did collect a small amount of data on this, but it's too sparse to be considered "statistical". You can browse what I have here. Unfortunately, I've recently become very busy IRL, so I don't have a lot of time to pursue it further. ATren (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be WP:UNDUE, but that isn't what is happening. Its a simple fact of reality, on all topics, that if someone moves outside of the mainstream, then that person will be criticized more, than if hir moved inside the mainstream, whether hir is correct or not. Thus the weight of material would balance more towards criticism. The main point of contention between ATren and me, is that ATren wants that pro/contra mainstream has equal weight of praise/critique - whereas my view is that no individual can be measured by generalities (where he stands on a pro/contra scale), but must be weighted on prominence of material available. Ie. no two cases (material available) will be identical although they may superficially look that way (both scientists). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the justification Kim gives for suppressing criticism of a GW proponent sourced to multiple major newspapers on at least continents, while including criticism on a skeptic sourced to Mother Jones. ATren (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Do you have a link to that discussion? If that happened, it's ludicrous, and needs dealt with immediately. UnitAnode 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this section of the Stephen Milloy article. Actually, checking it again, the claim is also sourced to Union of Concerned Scientists and The New Republic -- but that's two clearly partisan sources and one borderline, and certainly no major newspapers. I never tried to fix this one (because by then I'd given up). I think there was another place where Mother Jones was used, but I can't remember right now. Certainly, a similar claim would never be accepted in a proponent BLP if it were sourced to Cato, Heritage Foundation and Fox News. ATren (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. And it shouldn't be acceptable for "sourcing" of anti-AGW BLPs either. UnitAnode 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPOV has been deprecated?

[edit]
  • Implying that not believing in anthropogenic global warming is akin to pseudoscience (which you did by citing the pseudoscience arb case) isn't helpful in the least. There is a significant minority of scientists that question this "scientific consensus", and to have articles that read otherwise, or that denigrate the position is not helpful at all. To doubt some (or even all) premises of AGW is not a fringe theory, akin to the Truthers and Birthers. Yet, it's treated as if it is. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. UnitAnode 04:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not implying that anyone's beliefs are pseudoscientific. "Pseudoscience" is the name of an ArbCom case which happens to contain applicable principles. If I say that "As practiced on Wikipedia, the wiki process contemplates that any editor may edit any article provided they do not disrupt it", am I calling anyone a pseudoscientist? If I cite a principle put forth in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2, am I saying that you're Hkelkar?

    Scientific consensus allows that a minority of scientists may disagree - it does not imply unanimity (have you looked at our article on scientific consensus? It's not bad). I agree that our articles should not denigrate any position, though they should note its level of acceptance among knowledgeable people in the field. I agree that a notable minority of scientists disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. We should cover that viewpoint. And we do. And as with most minoritarian viewpoints, Wikipedia gives it far more prominence and visibility than does any other serious, respectable reference work, due to its overrepresentation among Wikipedia editors as compared to experts in the field. I don't think I've ever compared climate change skepticism to the beliefs of Truthers or Birthers, and I agree that is an inappropriate comparison. MastCell Talk 05:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't speak for others, but many of the so-called "regular editors" of the GW articles often seem to be trying to make those who try to bring more balance to GW-related articles look like they're nothing more than extremists of some kind. The BLPs in the group of articles are especially bad in this regard. And Boris's dismissive "you're really good at this" comment is just one more example of it. UnitAnode 05:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Often", the positions advocated do not "try to bring balance" based on the published work of the very few reputable scientists (like e.g. Lindzen) that are skeptic, but rather try to confuse the issue based on press releases, think tanks, blogs, and political statements citing people who have not published original scientific work in decades, if ever. The "balance" is that 97% of active climate scientists support the core IPCC positions, as do more than 30 national academies of science, with not a single notable scientific organization in opposition. Heck, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists changed its position to (lukewarm) acceptance of the consensus due to grassroots pressure from its members. If you look carefully, you will find that the alleged "pro-AGW" editors are working to maintain the integrity of the article in either direction - we don't have runaway to Venus conditions or famed "by 2015, hurricanes will destroy 3 times the world GDP" graphic in the article, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could, in light of the above articulation of your view, take a shot at answering the question I posted to SBHB? ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to put your question from the hypothetical into the concrete? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is non-concrete about it? I gave some very specific specifics. Try. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the "if" to move us from the hypothetical to the concrete, and, while you are at it, clarify "likely", "certain parties" and "all data". 30% is likely, and given the 1000s of scientists involved in the IPCC, I'm quite sure that someone somewhere made a mistake. So these statements are lacking in specificity. If you make it "up tp 30% likely" and "significant parts of data have been misrepresented in a way that significantly changes our understanding of global warming", we have something tangible. Your original formulation is compatible both with mainstream and denier positions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that didn't parse for me. Perhaps post a version of the question somewhere that you think is sufficiently concrete that you would be willing to answer it. (I'm surprised this is so hard, actually...) But the last sentence gives me pause. My original formulation is compatible with denier positions? How so? What exactly makes it "compatible with denier positions"? (and what does "compatible" mean in this context?) ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's trying to pin you down to a particular viewpoint. It seems that many of the "regular editors" like to dichotomize in this way. UnitAnode 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd like a sufficiently concrete description, and I feel that would be easier if we are talking about Lar's own position (which I suspect is what he tried to describe). But I'll give it a try:
If I, for example, think
  • that man's impact on climate and the environment is sharply negative, and is of serious concern, and that it's likely that - so far it's mostly fluff and does not commit you to any position specific to global warming.
  • it has caused warming - how much and since when? 0.1 degrees in the last century puts you into denier country. 5 degrees means you are weird. 0.7 degrees puts you squarely within the mainstream.
  • and will cause serious harm to us and the rest of the organisms on earth, - mostly fluff again, and not particularly scientific. "the rest of the organisms on earth" is very broad - no doubt some organisms will even profit. I would take this as evidence of someone with a not very well developed scientific understanding of the issue, or someone with less than precise language.
  • and that something ought to be done about it - another political position, although one that is easily reached when looking at the science.
  • but I don't necessarily agree that all the data presented by certain parties (c.f. the email scandal for example) as supporting this view necessarily does support it, or has been collated appropriately - again, unspecific. It is highly unlikely all the data "has been collated appropriately" - after all, we talk about thousands of humans working over many years and large distances. If, however, you believe there are problems significant enough to seriously challenge the mainstream position, I would consider this a denier position. Likewise, if you think the CRU emails demonstrate serious distortions of the science, you are beyond the mainstream.
  • or necessarily agree with the relative emphasis given to certain articles here on Wikipedia - "necessarily" is another weasely term, as is the whole "relative emphasis". There is a fairly widespread feeling that the skeptical position is overrepresented, compared to its prominence in the literature and its scientific merit. Is that what you want to say?
In summary, your statement is so unspecific that it could be truthfully be made by either a denier or a mainstream supporter - or even someone with a much exaggerated position. That's what I mean with "compatible". The statement would not commit you to either position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mastcell: this sounds very reasonable, but in practice, many respectable non-Scibabies are of the opinion that it is taken too far. I've seen editors compare GW skepticism to flat earth theories, which is absurd even for people like me who are not antagonistic to the science. And further, not every dispute is a question of the science. I focus almost exclusively on BLPs and BLP issues, and I've seen the pseudoscience/flat-earth/SPOV argument raised frequently in debates to justify a position that only tangentially relates to the science (if it relates at all). It is this misapplication and overapplication of the pseudoscience principle that is problematic. ATren (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that one of the most distressing aspects of Wikipedia is the tendency to litigate scientific/political disputes through the biographies of involved parties. I agree with you that it's a real problem. I also have some sympathy to the view that the approach on climate-change pages is overly heavy-handed. I think it's a matter of two sides pushing each other, and neither being willing to be the first to back down. Empathy would probably help. On one side, people need to honestly ask themselves how they would feel if they had to deal with over 500 sockpuppets of a single editor, and how that might affect their approach to Wikipedia. On the other, people need to honestly ask themselves whether, in the effort to eliminate clear abusers like Scibaby, they've alienated reasonable people with differing views who ideally should form the bulwark against POV-pushing from either side.

A journalist once crystallized the Israeli/Palestinian issue by saying that each side viewed itself as the victim, and the other as the perpetrator. In truth, both sides are victims and perpetrators. Same sort of dynamic here, I think. Hopefully it will turn out better. MastCell Talk 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree. On one side, GW proponents see every new arrival as an agenda-driven POV pusher. On the other side, GW skeptics are distrustful of the motives of long time editors and admins, who have created what they view as an uneven playing field. This mutual distrust creates a feedback loop that spirals out of control.
For my part, I am more than willing to fight Scibaby-type abuses. But the plain fact is that I rarely get the chance to do so, because there are already a bunch of editors who undo the damage before I see it. There is no such band of protectors on the skeptic side, so I find myself in the position of defending skeptical claims much more often than proponent ones, even though I consider myself neither -- and I am therefore viewed as a skeptic. Once I'm viewed as a skeptic, I become part of that degenerative feedback loop. I believe this has happened to other uninvolved editors who have tried to mediate this mess (User:Tedder comes to mind), and once they realize how toxic the situation is, they don't stay long. So the only ones left are the ones who care enough to fight. Ergo, it's a constant battle. ATren (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to answer Lar's question

[edit]

Since Boris declined to answer your question, instead dropping a non sequitur, I'll have a go. In your hypothetical, you would be considered as not part of the "scientific consensus." As far as I can tell, anyone who believes anything other than the "company line" is outside of the "scientific consensus." UnitAnode 03:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, UnitAnode. If you want to argue about global warming please use your blog. Here we require no test of ideological purity, real or hypothetical. We can all work together on articles, subject to site policies. --Tasty monster 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, if it were actually true. UnitAnode 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few points.

  • First... Tony: I don't think Unitanode is "arguing about global warming". Rather, he's making observations about how he perceives things operate here with respect to this topic area. Which is fine, as long as he stays within site policy, which he is.
  • Second... Unitanode: For the most part it DOES work that way here. And when it does, it's wonderful. However there clearly have been cases in the past where it hasn't been true, for one reason or another. There are many editors who think that this area may be one of those places, where for whatever reason, some sort of purity test seems to be applied in evaluating the stances of some folk.

That Boris chose not to answer my question was interesting... I still haven't got a grip on what it means. Perhaps I should ping him? ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try, but I doubt you'll get much more than the dissembling you received above. UnitAnode 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best talk page practices

[edit]

I know there's some dispute about best talk page practices around global warming. What should be done about this. Was my intitial collapse wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't on the global warming pages, it's on the enforcement pages. I think it helps to keep discussion there focused. Seems a good collapse to me, but if TLG reverted it, I'd expect him to immediately explain why the topic was germane... if not, or if the explanation really isn't any good (as opined by several others) I'd probably say it ought to be restored and left collapsed. Makes sense? Note that there's another thread where some folk think I went into the weeds too. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made me involuntarily raise my eyebrows

[edit]

Please refrain from such behaviour in the future. This edit summary was the offending article. At least until I had read the actual comment. ViridaeTalk 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eh? ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poor attempt at humour :) ViridaeTalk 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So was "eh?" :) ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (VERY poor)[reply]

Awesome ownership

[edit]

I'm trying to remove backlinks to deleted pages at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Mutsuhiko Izumi, which is a userfied WP:BLP... I am really not sure what the rules are pertaining to this so I'm asking you, as you know better and are the admin who moved it upon request. I'll leave it alone for now. JBsupreme (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either, or that there are specific ones. In such cases, common sense probably is the way to go. I'd suggest you drop Aeron a note explaining what you're doing, and then just carry on turning redlinks that are gone back into plain text... it may be worth seeing if the redlinks have any chance to come back before you dewikify. Hope that helps. If I misunderstood the question please advise. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading I can see that my question wasn't laid out very clearly. With normal articles (in article space) it is common practice to remove red links from connecting articles when they are deleted. Should this practice apply or not apply to connecting articles which have been migrated into user space? I didn't even think this was up for debate until this person reverted me, twice, when trying to perform the cleanup task. To me this is no different than de-categorizing an article in user space, but maybe I'm missing something. JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, while it is in user space some latitude is allowed, I suppose. But before the article is taken back into article space, if such should come to pass (not a given), or shortly thereafter at the latest, yes. Were you reverted first? I again recommend opening a dialog with the user (they are on my talk page up a few sections and seem like a reasonable person to me.) ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More problems

[edit]

User:Wikidemon is edit-warring to reclose AFDs that were inappropriately closed early, as well as attempting to readd unsourced information to articles, without providing a source. I'm unsure what to do here, as he's making it clear that he's on some kind of crusade to undo my BLP work. UnitAnode 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged his talk asking that he come here and clarify. Can you give me some specific examples of edit warring, or of inappropriate reinsertion of unsourced material? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking into this you might look into the AFD that Unitanode is refering to.[35] I would question both the description on inappropriately closed early as well as who is edit warring here. As far as I can see Uni didn't even have the courtesy to discuss this with the closer.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four or five quick keeps != SNOW close, period. When I realize a nom is wrong, I withdraw it. I'm not convinced there yet. UnitAnode 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you're convinced or not. It's an obviously notable individual who you nominated to prove your WP:POINT about BLPs and sourcing. You prodded the article; I selectively reversed this and perhaps a dozen others as obviously bad prods. You then nominated most or all for deletion on your new theory. The article is not going to be deleted, and your reversion of a snowball close is out of process. As I mentioned in your edit summary, if you have a problem with it you need to take it to a different venue. And if you want to change BLP policy please use the policy discussions and stop warring it out by hacking away at articles in article space. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. 4 or 5 keeps != a snowball close, period. And once a premature, non-admin closure has been reversed, it's YOUR edit-warring to restore the close that is "out-of-process." Stop with your accusations of POINT as well. I'm sick to death of your bad faith accusations. UnitAnode 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in your conflict, but with this AFD, your only expressed arguement for deletion was addressed and it was open for 3 days with 5 keep !votes. Can you explain how there's a "snowball's chance in hell" that anyone could come by and close that delete? Or even NC?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a more concerned about the aggressiveness and battleground approach. I've left a warning on your talk page[36] for referring to this as vandalism[37] and mass reverting the deletions I objected to. You've been around long enough that you should know better than flinging around accusations of vandalism. I'm not going to join you in edit warring or trading insults, but if you do it one more time after this I'm filing an AN/I report, as I said, and we can work it out there. Thinking that you're improving the encyclopedia is no excuse for antagonizing a bunch of editors who disagree. This has gotten quite obnoxious. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked extensively, just checked the samples given above. A few points:

  • That AfD was not a snow close, in my view, It wasn't a bad faith nom. It's open now and people are continuing to comment on it, and it should be left that way. Further edit warring is Not On. However if Wikidemon tries to snow close further AfDs rather than edit warring, the thing to do is take it to DRV. Try one reversion of the close, and if it doesn't stick, DRV for the nom and AN3 for the edit warring by the person resnowclosing.
  • On obligations. WP:BEFORE is not policy. The obligation is not on the nominee to fix things. If an article has been unsourced for a very long time, the community had their change. Deprodders that didn't add sources should be glad that the article was only taken to AfD instead of summarily deleted. Wikidemon, if you are deprodding things without adding sources in regardless of how notable the subject is in your view I suggest you discontinue that.
  • On charges of vandalism. Restoration of unsourced material is not vandalism. Only bad faith edits are vandalism. However it IS against policy and I suggest it be discontinued. The proper response to removal of unsourced material is to either source it, or demonstrate why it is "sun rises in the east" sort of infomration that doesn't require sourcing. (note: there is NO BLP content that fits that description) Wikidemon, if you are readding material without adding sources in regardless of how obvious the facts are in your view I suggest you discontinue that.
  • On "aggressive editing". I think Unitanode could benefit from a bit of stepping back, but I see the aggressive editing here is in things like snow closing AfDs that don't warrant it, deprodding, and reinserting unsourced material. Those are all unacceptable behaviors.

Arbcom has spoken on this matter. Disregard that at your peril, Wikidemon. I would like to see an acknowledgement that unacceptable behaviors are going to stop, or I may act further. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, Do you understand that WP:SNOW has nothing to do with good faith or bad faith? Rather it's about wether there's a chance that the article will be deleted.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - addressed to Lar) Please get off your horse here and stop making threats. I have every right to deprod bad prods. I am not edit warring over that, I have exercised my discretion on a case by case basis, after carefully reviewing each case. What behavioral policy do you claim I have violated? Please point me to one - I don't see one. I assume you followed the ArbCom case and the AN/I threads. If so you must know you are not on the side of consensus here. UnitAnode, and you apparently, have a minority content position that material must be sourced and not just verifiable. That content position, if taken to its logical conclusion, would gut 90% or more of the content on the encyclopedia. It's absurd. Yes, ideally the fact that an author wrote a book or that a news reporter had a byline should be cited in proper format to a third party source. But it's as easy as finding google to do, and if you look at it, the claim that an author wrote a book is sourced because the source is the book itself, if anyone cares to check. The vast majority of claims in Wikipedia that a person wrote a book, or acted in a film, or sang a song, simply do not have citations. If you and UnitAnode wish to change that you have a long road ahead of you, and taking potshots at random articles is not a good way to get there. Making block threats and calling things vandalism only makes it worse. Threatening to use tools against me to advance your position is abusive, and actually doing so would be an abuse of tools. Regarding the AfD, the article certainly is a snow close. Undoing a reasonable snow close without consensus, particularly when done by the nominator, is clearly disruptive. UnitAnode was engaging in a campaign to delete verifiable BLP articles for lack of sourcing, which is disruption given the RfC on the matter. ArbCom has opined as much that mass deletions at this point would be a problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and carefully review Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Motion_regarding_BLP_deletions. In particular think about the implications of "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns". Reinserting unsourced material is a policy violation. Regardless of how easy it is to source. If it's easy, do it, THEN reinsert.
As for your claim that I'm not on the side of consensus, I'm on the side of policy. BLP policy trumps local consensus. As for your claim that I "threatened to use tools against you" that's false. I said that unless you indicated you were going to discontinue violating policy, I would contemplate further action. That likely would be taking this to AN/I. Or ArbCom. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that muddled case carefully. Thank you for your clarification that you are not planning a block - a reasonable editor in my position could easily get the wrong impression. I for one am not about to go against consensus, and would heed the outcome of an AN/I or arbcom process. If you truly want to keep order here, I would urge you not to encourage or help in the IAR deletionism. UnitAnode's editing over my in process article fixes was just plain mean spirited and it wasted a lot more time than I should have spent addressing his misguided concerns. The "policy trumps consensus" argument is a canard here, and is no excuse for disruption or harassment of editors who disagree. Arbcom members did make that point clear in the round of follow-up explanations for their motion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, you chose to readd the unsourced material BEFORE you added the INUSE tag. I simply removed the material, until you sourced it. The only real problem is how angrily you reacted to that at my talkpage. UnitAnode 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what happened. I did not add any unsourced material before applying the "inuse" tag. Please refrain from messing, simply or otherwise, with articles I am editing while the "inuse" tag is on. You are also wikigaming to claim that I am adding content when I am reverting an edit of yours with which I disagree. Equating the two is misleading. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty safe to say that it can be snow-closed now. Two more supports since the re-opening of this pretty much seals the deal per se. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back when AFDs were changed from 5 days to 7 days there was a big push to put an end to snow closures. So may as well just let it run. –xenotalk 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've withdrawn the nomination, if one of Lar's admin TPW's wants to go ahead and close it. Looking over the article, it's now much-improved from where it was at the point it was nominated. UnitAnode 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Improvement of articles to rid them of BLP problems is the desired outcome. Deletion is a poor second best. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is certainly true, that's why I had such puzzlement about your !vote in the AFD. Although you had Keep rationatle in there, the first word was a bolded delete, and your edit summary read "delete". It seemed to me that it was an opportunity to commend article improvement. Instead it came across to me as if you couldn't even pry the word "keep" out of your mouth.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point that needed conveying was that as the article was at the time of the nom it was an exceedingly valid delete. (there seemed to be some contention around that point). I was delighted at how much it improved though. I have no problem advocating keeping things when appropriate, which is why I said Keep in my comment. As for the edit summary for it I think I slipped up, it got saved before I was done typing. I usually do longer-ish summaries (but not always) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

I am pleased by your willingness to join the conversation. Welcome. Ikip 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Ikip. That project has potential. IF done properly. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_62&oldid=1142543867"