User talk:Lar/Archive 70

Hi Lar, long time since I pestered you about anything now (actually a while since I did anything wikimedia-wise - it has been a long and (almost) internetfree summer. Hope all is well - both off and onwiki.

This is regarding some Spanish provinces where there has for a while been drive-by-reverts of the maps. Noticed this a while back because Basque Country (autonomous community) was on my watchlist - there has been a discussion on that articles talk page about changing the map with no consensus (so far) reached to do so. The pagehistory pretty much gives the rest of the picture - various ip's changing the map &then reverts back by some user (myself included). Personally I'm not that concerned which map is in those articles, and there are reasons why I even could support the map the ip keeps on adding. I'm still reverting to the original version per current consensus.

Is it possible to semiprotect these pages - the other seem to be Gipuzkoa, Biscay, Álava. Hope you or one of your (many) tpws could have a look. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

sure, how long do you think? a month? That's what I went with.... I did all 4. LMK if that wasn't what you were thinking. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I sure hope a month will do the trick ;) Best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at the harassment on my talk page by User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being listed as an "Admin willing to make difficult blocks," and would hope that you can warn him off, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on that list also, that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have commented at User talk:Viriditas, and hopefully the editor will either withdraw or take their concerns to the appropriate place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's what's needed all right. If not, they need to be encouraged to withdraw with a bit more vigor. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

@LHvU: Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 01:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Chill. [1] That was useless, and you know you're only on his back and not mad at some other arb because he's already voted and been participating (behavior most of us want to encourage in arbs). That comment may or may not do some harm but it is certainly not going to do any good, and we have no idea what the other arbs are going to do or why, so keep your cards face down. This communication is, obviously, part of Our Denialist Cabal (the ever clever "ODC"). I had to send it via this public means because I lost my secret decoder ring. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Point taken. I'm afraid it's really how I feel though, and I've not been good at cards face down, I'm much more a cards on the table, grab the brass ring, say what you mean sort. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just typed up a note on Kiril's talk page, but I'm not gonna hit that save-page button because you'll just copypaste the above and put it on my talk page, and I'm gonna be a model of decorum here for at least the next 10 minutes. Excuse me while I go select a wall to punch. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I did put a note on his page, but it's mighty toned down. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised at that series of votes, to put it mildly. After all this, the basic remedy is to ask 5 people to disengage?... that's it? And throw the book at a couple of skeptics? ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I`m not surprised at all, this is exactly what i said would happen. Sceptics get screwed over, and the real trouble makers walk, wow how shocking mark nutley (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty much with Mark on this. All these things, on all levels (not just wikipedia), tend to play out in a similar manner. The RfE process was basically used to ban skeptics and now the ArbCom process may play out that way as well. But hey, I feel good knowing I helped give them the evidence they needed to make an informed decision and if they instead choose make a decision based on vague feelings and carefully cultivated rumors then that is on them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Let us hope that some new admins, not from the WMC bloc, come in to the AE area with an open mind. That may be the best that one can hope for at this point. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please point to the policy where it says you can't "incorrectly identify edits" on your own user talkpage. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

WP:AGF and WP:NPA. They don't say you can't... they say you shouldn't. Don't make a habit of it, please, because if you're doing it on purpose, repeatedly, someone might take action. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It was a pretty marginal call, and reading the talk page I am more concerned about how it's being twisted the other way. I don't think chiming in on SA's talk page at this juncture is helpful here, given the environment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

SA deleted a notification of an CC/GW/RE request concerning him as "vandalism", and you think that suggesting that's a bad thing to do is a "pretty marginal call"? That sort of thing is not collegial at all on SA's part, and my polite request that he be more careful in future doesn't seem at all "unhelpful". I'm confused by your remarks here. ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

At very best it was extremely marginal, and at worst could be described as tendentious, given that the tactics in manipulating her as a ringing endorsement in the lead would appear to be the greater misinterpretation. The addition of 'please' to a curtly toned note does not make it polite, which you and I both know - I wouldn't have taken it as such either. In fact, you yourself even conceded shouldn't for can't above, which makes the case for action more tenuous. However, it does look like SA acceded and didn't revert yours as vandalism, so it looks like it's all resolved now :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you're still not making sense. A notification of an action is not vandalizing a talk page. You seem to be discussing the merits of the request. Further, I don't see where SA has acceded to anything. An acknowledgment that he was wrong to characterize a notice as vandalism and an undertaking to try not to make the same mistake is what's needed. Perhaps you could try to make your point more clearly? ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

He didn't revert yours as vandalism, just removed it, as to the final point. As to the first, I am not going to play last word, so take it or (as I suspect you'll do) leave it. Pointless wasting more energy on it now as you'll find reasons to support your view on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reverting a notice as vandalism is wrong. It's not a big wrong, but it's wrong. If it was accidental, one says "oops, sorry" and that's that. One doesn't challenge why it's wrong. So I'm forced to conclude that SA doesn't see why he can't call anything in particular whatever he likes. And further, I'm forced to conclude that you'll obfuscate matters to make that OK and my calling him on it wrong. Was that your point? That's how this all reads to me. Perhaps if you'd make your point clearly it might have some positive effect. So far you haven't actually done that. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Lar, at least some of the arbitrators think it would help Wikipedia if you departed the CC venue. Why don't you do that now? No fault, just walk away and leave all the people who've been arguing with you disappointed. Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Who else have you asked? ++Lar: t/c 02:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Why would that matter? The acrimony today is even worse than before. Now is a great time to disengage from arguments. I won't be asking any editors I think should be sanctioned. Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Who do you think should be sanctioned? Please be specific and comprehensive. Is there a bloc? Is there an unlevel playing field? Is there a problem with BLPs? With uneven sourcing requirements? With undue weight? You want me to just walk? Assure me that at least one other person with a teeny bit of power to actually do something... gets it. You don't even have to promise to do anything. Just that you get it. I'm listening. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• ...Lar, at least some of the arbitrators think it would help Wikipedia if you departed the CC venue.

...and if and when he does, the sole administrative voice of a declared "warmist" advocating for the draconian measures needed to fix this mess (at least that I've managed to identify) exits stage left. To many observers (including myself), the integrity of Wikipedia as something more than an instrument of ideological propaganda hangs on the slimmest of threads of which voices like Lars is largely composed. I'm not sure there's anything of integrity left saving if such a voice is driven from this arena. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

All praise Lar. The voice of reason. When Lar says a teeny bit of power. StephanSchulz has no power, I have no power nor would I wish to have any. The admin power you wish to wield seems to be entirely over content, neither of us ever tried such a thing. I have seen on BLPs and any media type article that editors who you have supported have a monopoly now. Editors you have supported are now trailing each other around and backing each other up all with a fixed agenda to spread their POV, this is your legacy. Polargeo (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Polargeo, you seem to be taking all of this a little too seriously. Cla68 (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I seriously think that several editors are making hay whilst the sun shines on them. In a far more coordinated group than even Lar has ever outlined. This is not improving wikipedia in any way. Polargeo (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Polargeo, the CC articles are going to be just fine, especially the BLPs now that a spotlight has been shown on them. Cla68 (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just a follow up. As usual I haven't been editing much over the weekend, but I just took a quick look around the CC articles and I don't see any kind of coordinated attack on the CC articles that you appear to be describing above. In fact, I'm seeing more reasoned discussion on the talk pages with better civility, improved enforcement of the reliable sources policy, especially with regard to the removal of blogs as references, and stricter interpretations of the BLP policy across the board instead of selectively. So, it seem that the environment in the CC articles is actually better at the moment than they have been in a long time, if not ever. Cla68 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it has something to do with ChrisO not being around? Or something to do with keeping their heads down as we get close to the end of the case? ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Polargeo, you have significantly more than "a teeny bit" of power. You, by virtue of your alliances, have more power to effect change than I do, because the troublemakers might at least listen to you (as they sometimes listen to BozMo or NW or 2/0). They clearly don't listen to me unless my message is accompanied by something sterner than words, and often not even then. So you could effect change, if you wanted to. But you don't want to because you just don't get it. Your animus towards me has blinded you to the far more serious problems the bloc you've aligned yourself with causes. That's too bad, really. ++Lar: t/c 12:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I try to respond to every case on its merits. The idea that I am aligned to a "bloc" appears to me to be you judging everyone by your own standards. Polargeo (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm interested in the views of others on this matter but your perception of your actions does not seem to fit the facts in evidence. So, others watching... am I right? ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, no would be my gut answer. Polargeo doesn't seem like the type to sock in the area - that is a big criterion in my mind. He is opinionated, like all of us, and needs to find some way of reconciling with you (a two way street), but I wouldn't classify him as a block editor. I don't think he is a "bad guy" in this, but he's certainly caused me to go "WTF" a few times. I actually think he might be a good admin in the CC area. Of course, I could be wrong in all of this, but I certainly hope not. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't disagree but I think I didn't specify the question crisply enough, I was referring to the questions I asked JEH. I note he hasn't answered. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding; I'm a bit worn out. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• In the proposed decision, at 3.3.18 ("Lar is an uninvolved admin but advised"), it says "Lar is advised to take a break from the area." Would you react to that as a request to voluntarily depart from the area, which you can properly refuse ("no thanks, arbcom, I'm not taking your advice")? Or as an order to leave the area indefinitely? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Why do you ask? Who else have you asked this of? ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • I asked because I'd like to know what is going to happen if this part of the PD passes. I haven't asked anyone else because you are the only editor mentioned in this part of the PD. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • I consider it as request or advice rather than a requirement. But absent extenuating circumstances, ignoring a request from ArbCom is not often a good approach. What I will do will depend on how things unfold. Now go ask StS and Polargeo what they plan to do, please. I'd be fascinated by how they answer you. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Several unexplained events occurring in temporal proximity are unlikely to be coincidence. I daresay that the belief that some deus ex machina suggested to one editor that vanishing would avoid some sort of issue (SPI? COI? I dunno which one) at the same time as one committee member took French leave is not a coincidence, nor the extreme likelhihood that nothing will come from lengthy deliberations in conflict with that belief. Has such occurred in the past? Collect (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Who knows what Rlevse and Kirill are motivated by but we should not jump every time shaddows cross. Polargeo (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Polargeo, you are welcome on my page but must you insert yourself into conversations so? ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Collect, I'm not sure what exactly you mean. I'm not familiar with the term French leave (or wasn't until I followed the link I just made)... but I'm not sure that's exactly what Rlevse did. It was abrupt but proper notice was given I think. But even absent an exact understanding, I will say that it all seems exceedingly odd to me. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did not think Rlevse's departure was foreshadowed by any of his posts at all. The term is often used to mean "leaving without prior notice." Coincidences rarely exist, in my experience. Collect (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

Hi, Lar. I saw this, and thought you would be interested. Although maybe you already knew about it. Cardamon (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

No I didn't! Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, I forgot you were into legos. I saw this recently, which you might be interested in. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have commented there. I take it you are accepting the article ban rather than fighting it out of expediency? ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the !votes. GregJackP Boomer! 19:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

...why don't you rank the most disruptive climate change editors in order with diffs and rationale for why they are so ranked? That way we'll know how you see the problem. [2]

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might want to reconsider this comment. --TS 15:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's strongly worded, no doubt. BTW I see that we indeed were talking at cross purposes and followed up to that comment. Apologies. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was actually wondering if you were repeating WMC's words back to him to see if you'd get called out on them while he wasn't - an interesting experiment to be sure, but only necessary for purposes of replication. In any case, it may not have been the wisest statement (or beyond my ken) since the reaction to baiting always seems to be highlighted and condemned rather than the baiting itself, which as always simply reinforces the initial baiting behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest adding...NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) who has had recent accusations of bias and involvement levied...to your list ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair, I suppose. Is there anything in particular you would like ArbCom to say in their Finding of Fact?

Also, User:Future Perfect At Sunrise is a blocked impersonation account; you want User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (just so arbs get to the right contributions page). NW (Talk) 02:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think you have shown bias and have been involved in editing the articles, so naturally what I'd like them to say in their finding of fact is a validation of that, to wit, that you have shown bias toward one side (working hand and foot with certain bloc members, in fact) and that you are no longer uninvolved. Then I would hope they put in a corresponding remedy worded similarly to mine, encouraging, but not requiring, you to absent yourself from admin actions in this area going forward. As for the account, thanks, I will fix that. Or anyone among my TPWs can if they wish... they should note in the edit summary I said they could and that it's an impersonation error. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

For those who are curious or require more proof of my analness, I've examined every edit-war at the Phil Jones article since November 30, 2009. It took me half of the day and I'm sure that there are mistakes (corrections are encouraged!), but by my count, there have been at least 13 edit-wars involving approximately 60 different editors. Details are available at: Phil Jones Content Disputes.
P.S. Lar, I will temporarily add your your talk page to my watch list should any editors post comments here instead of my user space. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

That indeed is anal LOL Minor4th 04:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good job AQFK. I was laughing out loud at some of the diffs you had listed along with your captions. You probably should link to that page on the PD talk page. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

...it's becoming clear that nothing much will change after this case concludes, except that perhaps the playing field will be even less level than it is now.

I think it would really help if you could add a brief bullet list, illustrating what you want to change. This way, we can target it for discussion. I realize you have expressed this dozens of times in prose, but seeing it in a list helps to visualize it. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I may be so bold, may I suggest that you take a crack at it (here)? It would show whether my message has penetrated, and further, it uses the very powerful facilitation technique of stating things from another's viewpoint. Once you do I'll be happy to comment further. I think the exercise will be very interesting and useful. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I should do that. Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lar, I'm trying to start, but I don't know where this even began. How did you get mixed up in all this? Have you talked about the history of your involvement anywhere? I'm only asking because I don't know how to encapsulate your position without knowing where you coming from on the topic. I'm not really looking for specific answers to these questions, but more of a general feel. I know that you are concerned with civility, but at the same time, I also notice that you refer to blocs, sides, and factions, which is polarizing and doesn't help resolve the problem. Maybe you could point me in the right direction? Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've become increasingly concerned about the power of factions, and the negative effects of factionalism in general, not just in this topic area, over a number of years. It is a feature of many conflicts here, not just this one. There was no one specific precipitating event. That said, the "how I got mixed up in this" is far less important than what the problem actually is, and what needs changing. Start there would be my suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 11:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, what is your solution to dealing with factions? Conflicts are inevitable, but it's how we personally deal with them that matters. How have you dealt with them? Are you recommending that we deal with them as you have? Why or why not? Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Opening this up to other editors - I think that first you have to recognise that factionalism exists, and that not only does it grow from legitimate loose groupings of editors with a shared subject matter but also that not all characteristics of membership of a faction is negative; only when conformity to the existing consensus within the faction becomes inflexible and resistent to opinion from outside the faction, but further when the faction's view of consensus replaces the one which it should be a part of. Once you recognise the existence of a faction and its self perpetuating view of it being the defining consensus, then it can be dealt with by means of discussion and testing the premis of the standing opinion. The difficult thing is to have the members of a faction understand that you are working with them for the benefit of all, and not attacking them. This last has not been satisfactorily addressed, as far as I can see. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how using sweeping generalizations and polarizing language like "factions" and "factionalism" helps move us towards resolution. We need to start on this path by being mindful of the words we use. Simplifying a problem as us versus them is moving backwards not forwards. I have been watching this drama play out for many years now and what I see has nothing to do with factionalism. May I suggest that everyone take a step back and look at the problem with a wider gaze? Obviously, there will be multiple perspectives on the problem, which is why I came to this talk page. We can't get a grip on what we are really dealing with unless we can see out from the eyes of different editors. The best we can hope for is understanding. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

These aren't the droids faction you are looking for. -- Obi Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just joking with ya, Viriditas. Seriously though, when a bunch of like-minded editors shows up on one article and reverts in a way I find biased, then when many members of the same group show up on another article and revert and become contentious in a way I find biased, and then when I see it again and again, I find the strictures in WP:BATTLEGROUND have been violated -- by a faction. And so I start using the word "faction" because I've identified a group that battles against Wikipedia's best interests. No way to fix the problem of editors going from article to article, together and using their strength in numbers to warp Wikipedia's goals without identifying the problem. Don't you agree that this has been a problem on CC articles with one and probably two factions? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Viriditas, were you going to take a crack at a list as originally intended? Because debating back and forth yet again will not necessarily move anything forward. ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought it'd be polite of me to let you know that I mentioned you here - it's about conversations from April which relate to child porn. and WMF (sorry it's a grotty subject). Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)/me waves at talk page watchers :-)Reply