:We don't need a clarification on this, I don't think. We 4, (including PM) agreed to the terms of how this was going to be done. He went outside the terms. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:We don't need a clarification on this, I don't think. We 4, (including PM) agreed to the terms of how this was going to be done. He went outside the terms. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::It confuses alot of people, myself included. I don't think your actions were unreasonable, but you cited a remedy that did not apply. I'm more asking for a amendment than a clarification. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 01:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::It confuses alot of people, myself included. I don't think your actions were unreasonable, but you cited a remedy that did not apply. I'm more asking for a amendment than a clarification. [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 01:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I suppose we could have posted the email at the time. Maybe we will now. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 03:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
Here about accountability? see my accountability page. Note: The apparent listification of the category does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way
Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active... (my status is believed to be: Template:Ustatus)
This is Lar's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.
please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy
My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns. I will archive this page if/when there is a need but will not delete comments. I reserve the right to refactor by moving comments under headings, adding headings, and so forth but will never change comment order in a way that changes meaning.
Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat!
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date
What the....
Seriously Lar - you want to put me on a community restriction? I haven't spent the last 6 months commenting on Peter on WR - I highlighted a concern, that's it. I'm shocked, I'm tempted to walk now, I really am - if this goes through, or even nearly goes through I'm out of here. I haven't called anyone dog lovers of threatened to call animal welfare organisations about other editors, yet I suddenly turn into the criminal. Not impressed, not impressed at all. Ryan Postlethwaite22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps an enforced community restriction is too harsh a term... if so, sorry! Can you suggest another that conveys you should just walk away and leave this to others?
Because... I think you have a blind spot there. There are how many other admins, again? People suggest to me I have blind spots and I don't typically threaten to stalk off in a huff. Maybe I'm wrong. But if you call for an indef because of something going down offsite, that's a blind spot. (not a "criminal" just a blind spot"...) Now, this editor is fulminating over there about some sort of plot to subtly vandalise... if he follows that up with vandalising here, block him and throw away the key. But over there? Let him fume. For now, he has NOT done stuff here to deserve an indef. ++Lar: t/c22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to lift the block, on the understanding that he agrees not to interact with, or mention FT2 here or on WR. Then I'll walk away and never look back - but for that to work, he can't comment on me either. I'll lift the bloody block myself, no questions asked. The way you worded it wasn't that I had a blind spot - I'll admit that the indef wasn't the best course of action, but that doesn't suddenly mean I need a "topic ban". I've worked my socks off for this project and when someone starts suggesting restrictions on my editing, I suddenly turn into a disruptive user so apologies if you think I've gone off in a huff. Ryan Postlethwaite22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you really need to reconsidier you proposal to sanction Ryan. I think the block was well deserved, Peter's shit is still smeared all over FT2's talk page. This guy is a real TE, especially when it comes to pedophilia, FT2, and NLP. I think we should topic ban him in all three for at least 6 months to see if he can actually contribute productively without being a wikiwarrior. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I think this is why people don't understand, they are looking for edits by PD not this other account. Notice the account name that Geogre uses in the original post. You should clarify. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user pages of each account identify the other as alternate accounts and identify which areas each edits in. Risker (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't his parole terms per se, it's his understanding that when some arbcom members agreed to the unblock of his new account, he was told to stay clear of FT2. Ryan Postlethwaite01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<--(unindent)Thanks for clarifying, Ryan. I could not recall or locate any parole terms, and Thatcher (the unblocking admin) said that he was unaware of any. I'm hesitant to take it as gospel that PD was told anything, even though it is possible that WJBScribe may have been, erm...told that PD had been told...given recent evidence of communication difficulties. Risker (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and this is a concern that I have as well. The unblock reason was something along the lines of "per discussion with arbcom". I'm not sure it was even this - From what I can gather (and don't hold me on this) from thatchers comments on the situation, there was just discussion with a couple of arbs on IRC - certainly not a collective decision, and that increases the probability that PD was told to stay away from FT2. That's why I would certainly unblock with an explicit ban on commenting on FT2 both here or on WR, likewise probably commenting on me now as well. Ryan Postlethwaite01:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying and sorry for intruding, this has gotten a bit too convoluted for me. And here I thought Tony's use of socks was annoying...--Dragon695 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I depart, I would urge Ryan not to go down the WP:BADSITES route. It really did not go well for SlimVirgin and you'll only be attracting more attention by fighting it. It'd be best to just deal with on-wiki harassment ad let PD troll over at WR. I assure you, I'm not the only one who's got him in their ignore list there. Just a thought. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use socks. I just changed my username because somebody said my old one was too long and I agreed. --Jenny04:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I (think) I getcha....
when you refer to problems with 'due process' - I think you make a valid point, and one which I agree with, but I also see many using 'due process' in a sense that renders it synonymous with 'fairness' (is this a US thing? dunno....) - by conflating things in this way, folk may well be muddying the waters, but unfortunately your point can't really get through without an interpreter being willing to make the separation... it's a wiki trait (that I've noticed) to be either unwilling or unable to do so, and I reckon it's handy to understand that when evaluating our own communications.
Just sayin' is all... Privatemusings (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
ps. per the advice I've had to "to seek a mentor, someone who does gravitas, measuredness and "clue" well." - if you can think of anyone, let me know ;-) I'll be here all week, thanks for coming, try the veal.....[reply]
sure there is! (be of good cheer! :-) ) - besides I need a mentor in order to convince a recalcitrant arbcom to eventually lift my rather silly blp restriction to better myself as an editor, learning how to apply moderation and balance to my approach in order to contribute as best I can to this project....
actually I mean this in all seriousness - I respect you greatly, and would be very happy if you'd be prepared to offer advice or guidance in any way - I've no idea what being a 'mentoree' may involve - but I certainly am up for it! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd be willing. For what it entails, see just above. However please note that I apparently have rather an abysmal record at this. If you note WHO the last person was, you'll also note that PoT was recently blocked (for unrelated reasons, but still). Most of my other mentorees also end up indef blocked... fair warning. So what exactly do you think needs mentoring? That's a place to start I think. ++Lar: t/c12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well to be honest I'd see the start of such a relationship as being a sort of agreement to discuss aspects of my wiki behaviour in a bid to improve the net result for the project - things I do poorly, things I do well, things that I may do well but which don't help, things that I may do poorly (or mighn't want to do) but which do help etc. etc. - That may or may not include chatting about past behaviour, stuff like what motivates me to be here, or even the nitty gritty about how I decide what to post, and where - starting points could range from the concrete - ie. examining a particular issue (or even page?) to the more abstract - ie. a bit of wiki-philosphy... I guess that's up to us, and I'm open to your advice on that too! (these two approaches aren't exclusive, of course!).
talking with someone a (little bit ;-)) older, and certainly smarter, has got to be a good thing - and I'm really pleased you're willing - I'm really just here to learn. One small thing is that I'd actually prefer to keep as much as possible 'on-wiki' - really just because it feels like that's where it should largely be... on the other hand, I'm certainly up for hearing your thoughts on that too! - I'm off for the weekend now, so happy 4th July to you! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So you want my advice then nevertheless? OK. Probably should do this on a subpage somewhere. Perhaps in your user space. Let's try to structure things a bit, eh? And make sure I don't have to do a lot of homework but can just blather on and look profound ok? Let me know where and I'll turn up. :)
If you get the chance - could you take a look here? - I'm very pleased that three current arb.s have signed up, and I really do think it could be a fantastically useful page - I've got a few questions I'd like to submit - but also thought that you might be a really good person to come to, to help get everything that should be out in the open clearly communicated... thoughts / advice most welcome.. Privatemusings (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)response to the mentor thing is forthcoming... I'm a slowcoach too![reply]
I am not exactly sure what you mean... can you elaborate? It sounds like not just asking questions but something else? I might ask a question or two... ++Lar: t/c01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - as we do the mentor thing you'll unfortunately come to realise that I'm rubbish at saying simple things simply - I just meant that I think the quality of questions you would ask would be high - and that this could help! sorry for being verbose (and a bit inarticulate!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about splitting the workshop page into unusably small per-editor sections occured at this location. like so many other things, it now appears that a random "theoretical" change now has the full weight of The Fez behind it. No room for thinking, it appears. Colour me unsuprised. - brenneman07:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Far out I was being a nasty-pasty (which rhymes in Australian, by the way) wasn't I?
I've just left a comment (hopefully a nicer one) at D's talk page about the level of judgement I had thought that clerks were to use. It's quite similar to the decent discussion I had with you about stewards, in fact: Serve as checks and balances or just do as told, etc.
While I'm a big beleiver in "process creates stability which makes adding content easier" I feel like there's a trend toward beauracracy underneath all this that (in the long run) will probably stifle content-adding.
Anyway, I'd appreciate if you could look over what I've said and provide some input.
Your recent statements here appear to me unnecessarily personal, and frankly a little venomous. I've taken your misstatement of my views in good part, and corrected them. Why are you acting so belligerently? In particular I'm worried by your accusation of "manipulation", which you must know to be completely false. --Jenny04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No personal slight intended, and certainly no venom. I apologise if you took it that way. But really, Tony, I just don't see your participation helpful. You are so far out of the main stream of consensus and so insistent. Do not confuse not being helpful with not being allowed to participate. You have not, yet, reached that point... continue to participate, continue to make your voice heard, just do not be dismayed when others call "poppycock" on you. I'm not the only one to have done so.
As to manipulation... As I told Filll in another matter, I calls them like I sees them, and WP:DUCK does not only apply to socks, it can apply to cabals, discussions, whatever. In particular, "manipulation" can be done by what is said, how, and by whom, without use of any tools. Just like poisoning wells can be. That discussion was indeed manipulated by a minority belligerently insisting they would wheel war to keep MM unblocked, and rather than coutenance that, the majority conceded that there was, at that time, no consensus to block despite it being the majority view (majority != consensus, the minority needs to be far smaller than 49% or even 33% (which is my estimate of what it was then) for consensus to be clear) and let it be rather than start a war. ++Lar: t/c04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, you know WP:DUCK's an essay, right? Moreover your description of how the minority's dissent ended in the failure of the proposal is somewhat slanted--you speak in terms of wheel warring and the like. If a sizeable minority of the community dissents, that's what we call "no consensus", and of course action in the event of no consensus could have led to inappropriate action, which is why we discuss these things instead. The consensus requirement in the case of a community ban is particularly stringent, as I've noted above. Those opposing the ban were members of no cabal. Sam Korn, for instance, had been away from Wikipedia for about a year. Does this cabal include DmcDevit? Theresa knott? Zocky? WJBScribe?
I've no problem with my points being dismissed as "poppycock" by other editors. You went a bit further than that when you made accusations of manipulation. --Jenny05:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're conflating... let's let the poppycock slide. IIRC there were definite statements made by several people that they would repeatedly unblock. That's wheeling, or threatening to do so. I can dig up the diffs if you like. To the recitation of names of some that opposed the sanction at that time: I did not say that every single person who felt the block was unwarranted manipulated that discussion. Merely that it was manipulated. I will say this. I think it is an exceedingly good thing that consensus is not "bare majority" but instead requires subsantial concurrence. For every time when a discussion is manipulated to thwart a large majority and make a minority bigger, there are 23 times when the requirement for a very small minority prevents some sort of bad thing from happening. Hence, consensus, not majority, rule is the better choice. ++Lar: t/c05:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should, as you have suggested, dig up the diffs. Our memories diverge considerably on this, and you're making a rather serious claim. --Jenny05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I shall regret entering into this particular fray, but why should I learn from experiance!
Forgive me for being dense, but Tony can you be specific on what exactly is it the "rather serious claim" being discussed here? - brenneman06:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are two, but I'm concentrating on the most recent one for now: that during the community ban discussion concerning Mantanmoreland "there were definite statements made by several people that they would repeatedly unblock." We'll talk about that first and then I'll move on to the earlier statement. --Jenny06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, if you've done a search now I think you know what I, having done a similar search, also know: that your memory was in error when you spoke of administrators threatening to repeatedly unblock Mantanmoreland. It was a preposterous claim on the face of it, but I wanted to give you time to certify that for yourself.
I want to move on to your other claim, which you've only made in the vaguest terms up to now, but which is somewhat more personal because it is an attack on my honesty. In recent comments, you have directly claimed that I acted manipulatively. Here, addressing me, you say "That you and others were able to manipulate the discussion on a community ban to prevent the proper outcome until more time was wasted... well, I won't say you SHOULD be ashamed, although I could." Here you repeated the charge of manipulation in less personal terms "As I said on my talk, conversations can be manipulated in many ways. There was a failure to reach consensus, but that does not mean that the process was not somehow manipulated."
Now your accusation that I, personally, had somehow been involved in manipulation of the community ban discussion really worries me, because I don't know how you could have got that idea at all. Why do you make that claim? --Jenny23:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment on the arbitration page where you equated making lots of comments on a discussion to manipulation. I think that's a ridiculous suggestion but as I've seen several people comment on my tendency to make lots of comments on a subject of interest to me I'm adopting this rule. It applies, as far as I'm concerned, to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk (community space). I have absolutely no intention of ever manipulating any discussion on Wikipedia. The idea is repugnant to me and I will not allow even the suspicion of such manipulation to fall on me. --Jenny23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I carried out a review of the discussions relating to the proposed indefinite blocking of MM and SH, which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion/Part 2. What I found was disturbing and depressing. I was concerned about the tone and form of that discussion at the time, but at three months remove, if anything, I think it's worse than I remember. While my specific memory of "administrators threatening to repeatedly unblock Mantanmoreland" was incorrect, I did find administrators who did "threaten to unblock Mantanmoreland" repeatedly, meaning that they said more than one time that if MM was blocked, they would unblock. In more than one case, that statement was made not in the form of "I do not support a block" or "I do not feel there is consensus" (things that I say myself) but rather in a way that left the implication that they would unblock even if there was a consensus for the block. Exactly what a "community ban" is has underwent some considerable morphing... and I'm not sure I know exactly. At one point it apparently was that not a single admin was willing to unblock. At another point it was that there was not broad consensus. So arguably saying that one would unblock in the face of a consensus is a form of wheel warring, potentially (at least it is under some interpretations of matters... for example Geogre is being currently charged with wheel warring for just such an action). Later, after the block was actually implemented, there was an unblock, and arguably that too was a minority action, although the margins had drifted downward by then. (not that we vote).
Worse than that, there was a significant amount of edit warring over tags and the like that went on during the episode. Again, in large part, this edit warring was done by the minority (numerically), but by folk that perhaps have some considerable power, or influence, either overtly or behind the scenes. The examples set were not good. I would say that seeing powerful people working to contravene what was at that time a consensus or a large majority has a chilling effect on the further discussion. That is, to me, a kind of manipulation.
Finally, to your role: I think you too influenced the discussion, and not just by the strength of your argument. You did so not by overtly underhanded techniques, but rather by repeating the same things, even in the face of refutation, a considerable number of times, and by using pejorative terms similar to "lynch mob" and "witch hunt" (you were not the only person to use pejorative terms, on either side, to be sure). I think having 20% of the total contributions has a somewhat dominating effect on the discussion. A manipulate effect, if you like. Now, do I ascribe bad faith to you? No. I think you truly do not realize that you sometimes do have that dominating effect, and that it's a bad thing. Or at least you did not. But I see you've instituted a new self check, of only commenting once per day on any given project space discussion, and confining further remarks to your own talk page (or presumably the talk pages of others). I think that's a good idea but perhaps going a bit too far the other way. It's not an almost complete muzzle of you that the community would benefit from... rather it is a moderation of your input to the point where your ideas come across, your points are made, but you do not take up a disproportionate share of the discussion. If there are dozens of participants on a sustained basis, your contribution should not be 20% of the total. I would stipulate that this is an issue that I am not completely immune to either, I do tend to sometimes get overly involved.
The takeaway from all of that analysis is this: As a community we do seem to have trouble handling contentious cases and their aftermath. Our norms do not always hold. Our presumptions of good faith sometimes break down. You knew this already, and have stated it. I knew this already, and have stated it, but to reread the historic record of that affair reinforces it. Surely in rereading it you became just as dismayed and depressed as I did?
I hope this is a satisfactory clarification. If not, let's discuss further. I will update the project space discussion in due course but wanted to reach concordance or agreement to disagree here first. ++Lar: t/c19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple apology would have been better than this attempt to salvage your false accusations with further false accusations. We're at the point of diminishing returns, here. I'm finished with this. --Jenny00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you feel that way. I admitted I erred and am prepared to clarify that on the case page as well. But I stand behind the rest of my analysis. If I was remiss in not apologising to your satisfaction, I apologise for that too. ++Lar: t/c02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony's contributions to discussions: frequency analysis
I have to admit, I was taking this seriously at first. I got as far as having looking through "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion" parts one and two. Then I noticed that over 20% oof the contributions to those pages were yours. At least thirty people took part in that discussion, but you made twice as many comments as the second highest contributor.
I'm going to repeat myself, in bold and italics with underline: You made twice as many comments as the second highest contributor.
I forgot for a moment that the weight that should be placed upon high volume/low fact contributions is equal to the smartest comment made divided by the total number of times it's repeated. That you've chosen to draw out this petty sniping contest in this manner serves mostly to illustrate my point. I'm withdrawing from this conversation before it wastes any more of my time.
I popped this into a thread by itself. I'll transfer it to my talk page if Lar wants, as it seems to have nothing to do with the current discussion. --Jenny08:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still willing if he is, and if the community decides that is an appropriate course of action. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I accept your offer. I will edit nicely. I will not be abusive to others. I will only use one account, this one. Upon agreeing to mentor me, I will log in to my other accounts to declare them close. I can't do this before then because then it would be a ploy to get me to do this and then refuse to mentor me. I'm excited about coming back to Wikipedia and doing good! GoodWikian (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Realise please, that the terms will have been changed by events a bit. This would no longer a voluntary mentorship, subject to negotiation about what behaviours were subject to review. You'd have to be OK with my being a bit more firm about what was and wasn't on the table. (subject to the community's will, not merely mine, of course, but less so yours...). But yes, under those provisions, I'm fine to go ahead. Needs to be blessed by the community first and foremost though. ++Lar: t/c17:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With your willing to go ahead, I am willing to present full disclosure. I will release the names of approximately 150 socks upon being allowed to edit (referring to your mention of the community's will). (Incidentally, some of sock accusations are wrong but I won't argue about that point) I will also log in to the blocked accounts to declare them retired and this will prove that I am a former sockmaster and not someone else. I will state that I will edit well and for the benefit of Wikipedia from this point forward.
Usually the community bans, they don't say "you are ok". So do we let this sit for 3-4 days and if there is no community ban, then I will begin mentorship? GoodWikian (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm willing and maybe this will be the one to break the jinx? ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reproduced from ANI
I promise you that I will break jinx. I will edit nicely. I will not throw egg on your face - I am a nice person and I will prove the naysayers wrong and do nothing to embarass you. GoodWikian (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. There are two things that are needed. You need to establish that you are indeed PouponOnToast. Please edit on that talk page as PoT to say GoodWikian is you. The other is that the community needs to agree, which they have not, yet, last I checked. ++Lar: t/c21:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait on the community. So when the community finally allows you to mentor, then I will confirm my identity on the Poupon socks page. I am not Poupon but I AM a confirmed Poupon sock. (You see that's the trouble with sock accusations, checkusers and accusers hurt innocent people. I have been called a Poupon sock and I agree to mentoring and to retire the real socks but I cannot control the one main Poupon account because I am not that account. Still, this helps WP because you will be able to end a feud and get part of Poupon socks to start editing constructively). So let's hope the community will agree to mentoring and I will present you 150 Poupon socks - I guarantee it. In other words, I am willing/I want your mentoring and will take your mentoring on the condition that I expose approximately 150 Poupon socks under my control (some caught, some not caught - I'll mark them retired and let you know once mentoring is started). GoodWikian (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mild trepedation......
^ I see you weren't kidding about the 'Lar effect' on folk you mentor! (although I did also see that the chap above turned out to not be who he said he was?) - anywhoo... here we go... - I wouldn't blame you one bit if your first advice were to be a recommendation for a page rename!
Lots of interesting questions and musings there but my issue is that I'm not sure exactly what to comment on, advise, interrogate, etc... ++Lar: t/c16:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a bit more concrete down, Lar - and hope that helps... equally - if you fancy just asking any sort of questions on the talk page, go ahead - I'm sure we'll find the ways in, and there's no rush.... cheers Privatemusings (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New user award
Home-Made Barnstar
Hey Lar, it's time you had one of these for your intelligence, integrity, and good common sense. Here's to you, and keep up the good work. John (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you... not sure what I've done lately to deserve a star but this is a nifty one indeed! ++Lar: t/c16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing exactly that, off wiki, for the last month. "What I would have done was..." I'm going to write them on-wiki from now on (with datastamps) and when election time comes around I'll be ready... - brenneman01:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm copying my notes to User:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV but find them more shot-gun than I had supposed. While this is intended as an eventual supporting document for my run at ArbCom (did I just say that out loud?) I'd appreciate any input. I'm trying to really break apart what happens in arbitration, and look for not just how I'd do it better, but how the community can do better as well. Your input as always is appreciated. - brenneman05:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are being serious about this. You'd make a great arbitrator. The lack of clue shown by them, in light of Sam's can't we all get along motion, has been stunning. We so need someone of your caliber on the committee. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this product or service. I think Brenny would make a good arbitrator as well. Brenny, you'd have my vote. I read your analysis. Needs more cowbell, but other than that seems a good start. Please continue for other cases. Maybe I should do the same.... ++Lar: t/c11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand what Sam is thinking. This is outrageous. I'm going to go back to do more move to commons work, this is really just disgraceful. >_< --Dragon695 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it's just one arbitrator. If in a weeks time we've got a collective failure by the committee and the motion gets accepted, we can look at things again. Ryan Postlethwaite14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@D:I undestand where he's coming from, I think. I just don't think he's right (as of when I last checked, anyway, perhaps more has been added). I won't go so far as to say it's disgraceful, but it's disappointing. There are endemic problems that a forceful resolution of this case would help resolve by setting some precedent and principles.
Participation elsewhere
@R: Nice of you to pop in... while you're here I have a few bones to pick with you :) (start by carefully reading this and internalising what NYB is saying ... ++Lar: t/c14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I read it, and I think I understand the point you're making - before you go further, I seriously think me and you are going to have to agree to disagree on this one :-S Ryan Postlethwaite14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may have read it, but did you understand it? Sometimes agreeing to disagree is a good approach, and sometimes it is not. In this case, I'd rather you saw the light, actually, because I see some of your actions in this area as seriously counterproductive and/ or damaging to this project.++Lar: t/c15:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and I'd like someone with access to sensitive information not to be posting to such a site and discussing things with people that are solely there to harass members of our project (not all of them are there for that of course, but there are some serious bad apples), but that's not going to happen. But please don't worry - I've decided to stay well away from anything related to WR or any other "attack site" for that matter. I think you gave good advice last week when you said there's plenty of admins here and if something needs doing, it'll get done by someone else - I no longer think I should get involved because I have clouded judgement when it comes to things related with that site. Strong views on a subject means that you can't honestly make rational and neutral decisions and actions. Ryan Postlethwaite16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eminently wise, prudent and sensible. Knowing where your blind spots are is one of the very best kinds of vision to have. (I'm certainly not perfect at it, but then who is?) In view of that, I do think that agreeing to disagree will work out. (but mind you, I don't disagree with you as much as you might think I do...) Best of luck, it's not easy to stick to the advice you've just given yourself, and I wish you every success. Please don't hesitate to ask if there is anything I can be of assistance with, regardless of whether it's related to this or not. ++Lar: t/c16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and I'd like someone with access to sensitive information not to be posting to such a site and discussing things with people that are solely there to harass members of our project" - pardon my paranoia, Ryan, but I hope that's not directed at myself here - Alison❤00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or at me. But I can't really think who it's directed at if not you and I among others... This sort of innuendo is far from collegial, and far from acceptable. I chose to overlook it if it was directed at me alone, but since it has given offence to another, I think a retraction and apology are in order, Ryan. ++Lar: t/c00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. To be honest, Lar, I'm not so much looking for an apology as a clarification. There is a strong insinuation that I (I can only speak for me), by posting to "such a site" and discussing things, am somehow divulging confidential and trusted information. That is absolutely not the case, and I seriously resent the implication. We've had arbitrators (Newyorkbrad, Deskana, UninvitedCompany) posting over there without privacy nor confidentiality issues, and indeed, since I've been a regular contributor there, have been entrusted with oversight privileges by ArbCom. It's obvious that they don't see it as being a problem. I don't like being painted with the big wide Dishonesty Brush, Ryan. You have no justification whatsoever in making that insinuation here - absolutely none. I discuss privacy matters with nobody', Ryan, so please stop banging that drum here - Alison❤01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I hate to butt in, but I was just reviewing the disgraceful thread that led to Everyking loosing his administrator bit. It's breathtaking to see how far we've come, yet some resentment still remains. As I recall, both MONGO and SlimVirgin were none to pleased when you got CheckUser and Oversight. Still, I have to say that Alison and Lar both do wonderful things by at least trying to dialog with aggrevied users there. It's also nice to be able to chat in a manner that isn't as discombobulated as wiki talk pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yayy!! Someone who actually 'gets it'. Being an admin here mandates that we deal with all sorts of people and not all of them are happy with what has happened. It's vital to listen to everyone and not just those we deem "acceptable". Posting on WR is posting on their turf, and listening to banned editors opining on what's wrong with Wikipedia. I consider that useful Thank you, Dragon695, for saying what you did - Alison❤01:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone has to, otherwise they stew and fester until they start taking it out on the project using vandalism and socks. Now that isn't to say that all can be reasoned with, there are some incorrigible types, but I've seen some useful dialog. Also, for better or for worse, they are a pretty good early warning system for potential problems. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm being perfectly honest, it does upset me when I see two well respected Wikipedians posting at the site, and getting involved in the general banter there. Given that you both have CU access, it does get to me somewhat. I don't think it's right one bit if I'm being honest with you. My snide remark was out of order, so I apologise for that. One of the things that get to me is this principle from the MONGO RfArb - "Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored." How do you honestly expect the average user know what's going on? We haven't got access to CU logs. Fair enough, I'm 99.9% sure you guys won't have done anything wrong, but we don't know that and it's bloody tough for the majority of the community to moniter activities on the site when we don't have access to any of the logs. I've already said I don't wish to talk about WR here again - I've stated my opinion of it, probably used my admin bit inappropriately over it and that's the end of it for me. Please don't force me into discussion about this - you'll obviously disagree with me, but I want to leave WR well behind me here. Ryan Postlethwaite01:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec on my own talk page!)You've said something that I think is worth refuting. I'm sorry if you don't want to talk about it, but it's in the very recent past. Once we've worked through this then that's fine but I think you need to either make an explicit allegation that some specific person (you can choose from Raul, me, Flo, Uninvited Company, NYB, Allison, and I don't recall exactly how many more, but it's rather a considerable list, just of people who have CU on en:wp) has in some way violated the trust the community placed in them in some way related to WR, or explicitly retract that statement of yours and apologise for it. "99.9% sure" isn't good enough. As for the MONGO RfAr, that whole thing is discredited in my view. You're welcome to closely monitor my activities as much as you like (as I am of yours, and you certainly have some activities that do raise some eyebrows, you know) but do drop the insinuations. Review this again, please, and really think about it. Nothing has changed my fundamental view that burying one's head in the sand about criticism is a flawed approach to improving something. ++Lar: t/c01:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I've been ignoring you all day, keeping out from under your feet after yesterday's debacle yet here I find you banging on about it again? What am I supposed to think at this stage? "I'm 99.9% sure you guys won't have done anything wrong, but we don't know that" - do you know how nasty that sounds? As regards the MONGO rfarb, trust me in that I'm one of the most scrutnised admins on the site; not just because I have cu/os, but because I post on WR. Did it even occur to you that this set of circumstances means that I have to be impeccable in everything I do, given that there are an entire army on both sides of this inane situation who'd be only too happy to see my head on a platter?? Thus, your nasty comments are all the more hurtful, and you remain unapologetic throughout. Ryan, I have lost a serious amount of respect I had for you over the last 24 hours - you have no idea.
And in conclusion, if you have any issues with me and cu/os, or anything you can find that I've done wrong, bring them out into the sunlight now. Or stop the smear campaign. Better still, bring it to ArbCom, but just don't pretend that you represent the community at large, because you do not - Alison❤01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't at all - it's an ethical concern and that's it. My personal opinion is that I don't think it's right, that's all. Not for one second trying to suggest it's a community opinion. No smear campaign intended for one second. Ryan Postlethwaite01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Alison and Lar are being coy of course, Ryan - both will run a checkuser for 50p and a packet of crisps - and I heard Lar will make you an admin for a bottle of cider..... you obviously have strong issues with WR, and in my view the irony is that it's the power of these feelings (the enemy within type stuff) that, whilst understandable, actually causes the most trouble... even WR love their children too, you know!
I'd encourage you to join Alison and Lar in shining little lights here and there over at WR, but totally understand that you don't want to. What you do have to do however, is resolve some of the anger / fear / annoyance you feel to the point where you don't lash out 'on-wiki' at all.... not engaging in any conversation about it is probably a great start (though easier to say, than do...) - and with that, I return to sitting on my hands! cheers, :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a thesis to do on Aspergillus niger and it's prevelance on ancient Egyptian remains and I'll ace it. Put me in a situation like this, and I'll goof it every time. I've re-read everything I've said in this thread and it's just wrong. It sounds like I'm suggesting that you've used CU or oversight against policy, or that I even think that. I don't for one minute. Yeah - I'm crap with words, I really am. I've made so many insinuations without even meaning to imply them. I do admit, I it does bother me any user in good standing posting there, but that's slightly hypercritical given I do as well. I apologise to you both - my stance has come across in completely the wrong way I intended. In a nutshell - Do I think you've abused any powers? Nope, not for one second - I know you both too well. Seriously guys, I'm sorry if I implied that. Ryan Postlethwaite01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Say no more about it then, we're square. Just please do be careful about the effect words can have, eh? Best. ++Lar: t/c01:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put the last couple of days down to a huge learning experience - I've certainly learnt a lot here. I am honestly sorry from my heart - I didn't mean to upset two good guys. You work your arses off and you didn't need any crap from me. Just carry on doing what you do best! Ryan Postlethwaite01:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, definitely, off-topic
"...and I heard Lar will make you an admin for a bottle of cider....."
Despite the seriousness of the discussion, I just have to admit that that made me laugh : )
(And, sigh, looks like I better go find someone to nominate for adminship, since, admin or not, cider sounds rather good atm : ) - jc3701:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way am I paying for anything - I'm a student, so I expect a crate of White Lightning on my door step ASAP! Let's celebrate that we're all Wikipedians! Ryan Postlethwaite01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone got a can opener for this tin of worms?
I dunno... should I be more upset that someone thinks that I shouldn't be engaging (I can't help it, it is genetics) over at WR, or that no-one cares because my standing at WP is pretty abysmal...? Talk to me, people, because this question taunts and haunts me for several seconds every day... or so. Eh? Sorry? What was I wittering on about? (/joking) LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just between us, Lar...given how a certain administrator responded when being called a stalker by a certain editor who wound up blocked, and the hypothetical reason for that reaction - I wonder if you might rethink? Mind you, I could envision a really good userbox for talk page "watchers"...eyes to binoculars or something like that... Risker (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I was thinking similar things about the essay myself, earlier. "Ruthless talk page editors" is closer, I suppose, but has its own issues. "Lurker" doesn't describe the act of editing, just of watching. So I dunno. Something related to m:Metapedianism, I guess. - jc3702:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a talk page stalker refers to a specific type of person- people such as me lol:) I'd rather keep my cider than be an admin though. StickyParkin02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "lurker" sounds nicer. The term always was somewhat of an oxymoron; even in the bad old days of Web 1.0, a true lurker, by definition, would leave no trace. As soon as you post, you are no longer strictly lurking. Nevertheless, I think someone who watches others' user pages and occasionally comments, is more of a lurker than a stalker, which to me implies some sort of malevolent or obsessive quality. Sorry, I'll get back to my lurking now... --John (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New and improved;
Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page watchers. With long range binoculars, in case Lar doesn't archive!
A) Yes I need to archive this page. I got lazy. At around 250K or so... at least it's shorter than your
average ArbCom case. So sue me.
B) I like how people come by here. Lots of interesting convos... It's the cool place to hang out (after Giano's)... call them watchers or stalkers or lurkers, as you like. But ya, Risker has a point.
I may be able to meet that standard - there is a whole lot of LEGO hidden away at my house. Not that there's anything I really want, but it's handy to keep in mind. I have made a little modification to Giggy's new and improved userbox and have now applied it to my own talk page. (Thanks Giggy!) It will explain some of the odd things that happen there. Risker (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A) Viewing diffs can be deadly. And yeah, it's over 250K I believe. They have bots for a reason! (I would sue but I might get blocked :-(.)
A) When someone makes a bot that archives on perfect one month boundaries, but with tweaking so that the newly archived page starts with a "nifty-ish" convo, I'll think about it. Till then, by hand
B) Seen it? I stalk there mysekf! SRSLY. Ok, not really.
I haven't been watching it really closely in the last day but when I last checked it was an amazing piece of work. Someone ought to spend the effort to go through it item by item and do a thorough analysis. ++Lar: t/c13:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean the part where he lists all of our names and links to our userid's on WR. Then, oh so cleverly, he poisons the well by saying we are on a campaign to destroy SlimVirgin because of the Slimvirgin sub-forum. You'll note the extra snide remark where he questions your and Alison's status as CheckUsers by saying "who claim to be", as if he wasn't perfectly aware of Special:ListUsers! I'll admit I don't buy a lot of the SV conspiracy nonsense, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Yet Tony points to my criticism as being some plot against SlimVirgin. Yes, you're damn straight I'm going to ask someone to post to foundation-l calling her out for trying to use "stalking" in a manner to disrupt her moment of accountability! Where's the justice for the lowly editors SV has no doubt abused in her obsessive ownership issues with all things PanAm 103 and Animal Rights? Who will speak for them? The evidence is clear and damning, no administrator should be allowed to engage in such behavior, even if no tools were involved. I'm tired of him continuing to make the most absurd statements all the while playing like he doesn't understand what's wrong with SlimVirgin and FeloniousMonk's behavior! Even after SandyGeorgia laid things out in a crystal clear manner, he comes back to say the only one who is possibly at fault is Cla68! I don't even need to WP:AGF to know that he can't possibly be that stupid, so I have to assume he is doing this on purpose. With Tony, I can no longer WP:AGF anything he says or does. He's the reason I quit back in 2006 but I'll be damned if he drives me away again! --Dragon695 (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, laughed and ignored. It's a typical Tony smear campaign and I'm pretty sure the arbitrators are smart enough to see right through it. I'll probably leave a followup on the talk page later today but honestly, it's just more BADSITES fever. A quick check of the eeevil forum will show that I actually spent a lot of time defending SV over there, and we're not exactly inseparable friends or anything (au contraire!). Still, the truth does have a habit of ruining a perfectly good fairytale - Alison❤17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar! Sorry for the delay in replying to your message - it's been like Four Weddings and a Funeral here in the last two weeks, except with some comedy. But now, with a broken foot and off my face on painkillers, the promised reply.
The issue with Commons is something I've noticed over the past three years. At first it was a fun place to upload to, somewhere where people who enjoy categorizing and creating lateral links could meet with people (like me) who don't enjoy such things and aren't any good at them. The two types of editor worked well together in a collaborative environment. But then something started to change. I'm not sure exactly when it happened - it was subtle at first - but the "atmosphere" at Commons started to sour. Instead of encouraging new uploads and trying to seek out new talent in both categorizing and imagemaking, it felt like the categorizers were suddenly in control. The purpose of Commons shifted, from building a repository of free media into cataloging a repository of free media - not the same thing at all.
Well, that's fine. Our projects can and should keep their processes and purpose under review and are free to change emphasis. Those who don't like it can try to change it back or leave. I chose to leave - switching to uploading run-of-the-mill encyclopedic images directly to Wikipedia (via this account) and stopping altogether uploading my more whimsical or artistic ex-commercial images (via another account in my real name). Now, this is fine. We don't force people to upload to Commons, although we encourage it. But then the categorizers started spreading from Commons onto Wikipedia. They brought with them the new Commons culture - people upload on sufferance, by permission, should be grateful for the opportunity and should do it right first time.
This crept into Wikipedia's processes slowly. I used to clear the {{nowcommonsthis}} backlog. I went to do it one day and the rules had been subtly changed. You can't now just check all is correct and delete: now you must go to Commons and not just check all is right, but find the correct category at the correct level in the hierarchy and add that before you do anything here. But I'm no good at that and don't want to learn (I'm entitled to be both rubbish at and willfully ignorant of the system on a different project if I want) so I stopped doing that - previous experience shows that categorizing is not only beyond me but also beyond most people - look at my Commons uploads as Redvers and see them being shunted endlessly from one category to another (not my problem, and no, I didn't have email-reports enabled, as I don't care). And I know that if you get categories wrong, people are direct and vocal that you're not doing a good enough job (item 1 for "things to change about Commons", if you're interested). Stopping clearing the NCT backlog wasn't a hardship - I enjoyed it, but the world didn't end in not doing it. But the culture clash with Commons continued to spread across Wikipedia, aided it seems by SUL.
Commons users and Commons admins - those who primarily edit at Commons - started to come across to Wikipedia, declaring that they could deal with Commons' problems 'at source'. I watched as clashes happened across the 'pedia, as people with good uploads, well enough done by Wikipedia standards, started to get into scrapes with Commons people enforcing Commons policy on Wikipedia images and Wikipedia editors. I'm sure you can think of one in particular that I'm thinking of, but there were others. These Commons editors, aided and abetted by the more authoritarian Wikipedia editors who just like the opportunity to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules (a Wiki disease, rather than a 'pedia or Commons one), were bombarding people with multiple talk page messages and templating people who had been here since the 'pedia started - because Commons has no tradition of not templating regulars... because categorizers love nothing more than a good template!
None of this really affected me - I continued to upload to Wikipedia rather than Commons, as is my right and my choice, generally stayed away from the Commons-derived rows mentioned above and got on with editing Wikipedia. Then, one day, this arrived. Ouch. Assuming Good Faith was difficult, given what had come before and the fact that, typical of Commons (in my experience), the message didn't even bother to say "thank you" or anything - just the Commons-style demand that I use Commons. Now, I over-reacted to this, I know. It just really pressed my buttons. But there we are. I gave a foul-tempered reply. I got silence in return. I deserved nothing less. But then it became obvious why I had got silence. I'd been given a template, not a talk message. The template had been left and, confident of the righteousness of their actions, the leaver had moved on and instantly forgotten me. How very Commons, I though. So I put a little notice up. It's the type of childish thing that amuses me, purges superfluous annoyance and lets me get on.
People started to appear asking what the issue was [3][4] and I explained. Some people had noted similar issues. But it was all a bit nothing really. And then my little banner came to the attention of Commons editors. Now, this is where it gets really interesting and, to my mind, starts to prove my point that Commons editors operating on Wikipedia operate like jerks. For instance, seeing my opinions, one Commons editor says s/he will stalk my contributions and immediately transfer Wikipedia uploads to Commons. That's not really helping matters at all. So, childishly but deliberately, I promoted the reply to a userspace essay. There are thousands of these things on Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors rarely pay them any attention: even when they are racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic. But Commons editors (and, as mentioned before, the rules-lovers already on Wikipedia) don't like it up 'em. So along people come [5] saying that it must been deleted. Some Commons people, like yourself, seek to work with me. Some, however, seek to work with me, but then immediately revert to type, playing to the stereotype I've already got for Commons editors in my head. Watch how an offer to work with me on the Commons issue quickly turns into a WP:POINT crap-flood of my talk page: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. I express displeasure, but offer to work with you as soon as my life (which had, at that point, started to go all John Cleese on me) calmed down. The result? The Commons-treatment again - a further, targeted crap-flood: [16][17][18][19]
That having failed in whatever its objective was, Common-treatment goes to individual images: for instance with a pointless and sharp debate that again proves the point: Commons editors throwing their weight around, but not actually understanding the issue they're dealing with (the "it should've been uploaded to Commons in the first place, so it doesn't matter about the treatment of it now" idea that is common in Commons-led debates). Then a bot is pointed at some of my images, transferring them to Commons and marking them for deletion. Again, really helpful. By this time, I'm not editing due to the aforesaid Four Weddings and a Funeral scenario (actually two weddings, one funeral, a moved-up deadline at work and a broken foot). So my essay, one among thousands, one that is quite mild compared to many, is sent to MfD. That helps. A debate finally breaks out at Commons [20] - thanks for being a (somewhat lonely) sane voice there, by the way - where my motives are debated and I'm accused of probably not understanding copyright (good accusation, but very wrong and completely unrelated to the matter at hand, but throw enough mud...) but few people - yourself excluded - look at the substantive point: is Commons working properly with Wikipedia? And those that do address this point take the view that Commons works well with Wikipedia, but Wikipedia doesn't work well with Commons... which is roughly were I started this essay and the crux of the problem.
The MfD is, of course, very properly speedy closed as a keep. The Commons response? Renominate it!. Oh yeah. Helpful again. In the meantime, there is discussion of the essay... some of it oddly taking place on the essay itself, rather than the talk page, with Commons editors complaining when comments are moved to the talk page. Commons usage of talk pages must be different to Wikipedia's: but Commons editors must edit Wikipedia as Wikipedia is edited rather than extending Commons practice to Wikipedia. Honestly, this is just commonsense. But the discussion on the talk page doesn't get very far either: "rubbish", says one Commons editor (helpful again). Without full possession of the facts, Commons editors opine that I have nothing to base my essay on and should leave Wikipedia if I'm unhappy. I'm not unhappy with Wikipedia, but there we go. More debate of my motives carries on on the page, but again, nobody except you is willing to work on this: the Commons wants me to shut up, withdraw the essay and give in quietly to the extension of Commons attitudes to Wikipedia's pages. And I remain mystified as to what this was meant to mean, but perhaps it's just that the intellectual depth of the comment is beyond me.
So, to summarize, if you're still with me: Commons' way of working is different to Wikipedia's way of working. The attempt to impose Commons' officious-sounding, template-driven, Asperger's-style communication and categorisation methods to Wikipedia is causing trouble on Wikipedia. It probably should stop, as Wikipedia editors are being made unhappy and even admins have recently left because of it and related issues. Uploading to Commons is something to encourage, but not something to demand or require, especially when the system on Commons requires extra steps - like categories - that Wikipedia does not, and whilst Commons templates people and niggles over categorization. Putting ones own house in order before setting about righting another's is much recommended. Wikipedia has upload facilities and people are entitled to use them and Commons editors should accept that. There is a difference of culture between Commons and Wikipedia. Because of that difference, I choose not to contribute to Commons. Commons should respect that choice and, especially over my essay, cease the hounding and the complaints about my motives and instead look at the points I'm making rather than trying to find the super-secret reason I'm making them. Cheers. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 16:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redvers, thanks for answering. Is this the best place? Maybe the talk page of your essay so more can find it? There's a lot to digest and think about there, which will take some time. I would ask you to maybe next consider what specific things should change at Commons so others don't get frustrated too? Thanks for taking the time to write this out! ++Lar: t/c12:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is the right place to discuss it... or, at least, the talk page of the essay is the wrong place (it's a road accident at the moment, full of Commons editors making nasty and/or evidence-free assertions: as is happening here, of course, with this Commons thing of examining motives but not addressing the points, but it's worse on the essay talk page). I note you would like some more verbage from me, giving you specific things that should change (TL;DR above? ;o) but perhaps it could be the other way around: would you like to identify the points where you think I'm right and wrong and we'll go on from the basis of your reply? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, after reading this, I think there is absolutely no reason for ЯEDVEЯS to change his essay nor is there any reason to delete it. It is legitimate criticism, some of which I strongly agree with. I'll especially note how our more WP:TEimage specialists tend to be Commons imports. They come on here like they are on some George Bush mission to spread freedom by wiping out the evil fair-use. Thus, I see them as being the driving force behind the current War on Fair-Use. As NYB pointed out over on the BADSITE, these people refuse to compromise and just scream foundation resolution as a basis for such refusal. Wikipedia is not Commons. Wikipedia's goal is to write a high-quality encyclopedia that is free and fair-use is a freedom which the bulk of the English speaking world enjoys. They have no right to come over here and demand that Wikipedia adhere to the Commons policies. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, after reading this, I guess I can see where Redvers' point of view (and I have unwatchlisted the essay and Redvers' talk page, will leave that to others - it was a bad idea to renominate it again so soon) but I don't agree with it, or even really comprehend it. Even the MECU comment cited as the catalyst for the essay says "please" and "thanks", and it wasn't a template. (I do resent the "crap-flood" statement above - if you look at the diffs, I didn't post any of those messages to Redvers' talk page.) I guess after reading that whole thing I still don't see what needs to be fixed at Commons. Stop categorizing? Stop moving free images to Commons? Or something else? And Dragon, please don't generalize like that. Kellyhi!18:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<-As much as I'm grateful for Dragon's support, I have to admit that I'm cool (not anti, just cool) on Fair-Use. We handle it badly almost every time, being lenient in obvious abuse cases and coming down very hard on images in the grey areas. The policing of NFC has become such a minefield - and I agree that the influx of Commons culture has a lot to do with it - that many of us stay away from it... leaving the field open for warriors from both sides to go head-to-head without the voice of reason between them. As for Kelly, well, I've been trying to disengage from Kelly since roughly our third or fourth exchange. Since then, they have edited my talk page at least 9 times, often provocatively. Luckily, I've been away so haven't been able to rise to it. But the argument "if you look at the diffs, I didn't post any of those messages to Redvers' talk page" is laughable: they clearly went through my Fair-Use uploads, in editor order, not alphabetical or date or anything logical, spending time and energy orphaning the images and provoked a crap-flood of BJBot messages to my talk page, directly after I asked them to disengage. This was not helpful, didn't improve my view of Commons editors' tactics and was noticed by others. I'd ask, but fear the answer, what would be solved by removing my little, not-much-linked, essay. But, as I say, I'm trying but failing to disengage from this person. And now for bed with these rather fabulous drugs. I'm sleeping with Prince Valium tonight! :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a response, I've tagged hundreds of images by dozens of uploaders with {{ShouldBeSVG}} or {{ShouldBePNG}} per WP:IUP#Format as purely routine housekeeping - a look at my contribs would show that (though I don't do much of that any more, I mostly upload images now). I didn't orphan the images, and I don't really have any control about what other users' bots do. Kellyhi!19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yeah. Every time someone has called you on the crap-flooding and the WP:POINTing, it's been someone else's fault. That's fine. Some people don't mind. Me, well, I just don't trust Commons editors any more and I'm not having my trust rebuilt. Now, I really must continue with my promise to try to disengage from you. Bed, with these glorious benzodiazepines, will help that. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HI-"Я", I suppose that all those pretty nice people here are mostly talking about COM vs. enWP, right?
Presumably you mean the smaller Wikipedias, oft-quoted as a reason why Commons must be used? @Lar, another example posted to my talk page today is this - a Commons editor saying that the choice is to upload free images to Commons or to not upload free images at all. Now, that's really, really really Not Good, I'm sure you agree. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, I haven't forgotten about this, but it's rather been overtaken by other events. I guess I want to go back to first principles. Commons has as a mission (subject to clarification, there is work underway now to clarify it) the hosting of media that are likely to be of use to multiple projects, likely to be of use in an educational or informative way generally. Not to be a free hosting site or flickr but to host images. The rationale behind setting up commons in the first place was to make things easier for multiple projects... one image hosted one place can be used by many projects. That seems goodness to me. But is Commons filling that mission? Is there a place for individual hosting on individual projects? Is it easy to use Commons, and easy to find out that there are things that might need fixing? It should be. Because if it's not, that's against the mission of Commons. That's where maybe there are loose ends... More in a bit... ++Lar: t/c17:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand entirely: you were one of the few people not calling for an immediate reply whilst I was sat in the ER [A&E for UK readers] and taking my silence as some sort of admission of guilt. I think I can extend the same leeway to you, especially given the drama of late.
Clarification of the mission of Commons is a good idea. I believe, and I have messages to support this, that the Commons has one view of its mission, whilst en:WP has a completely different one. That is probably a fundamental crux problem in interaction between C and en:WP. A clear mission statement from C, or a list of goals, would be very helpful to editors in both camps. At the moment, we have a big problem where editors upload images to WP, have them removed to Commons with a surly message and then get them deleted as not being suitable for Commons in the first place. These are volunteer editors, spending time and money making freely available what they could be charging for and making money from. We shouldn't be treating them like this, it's bad for morale - the only currency we have here.
A global repository is, of course, a good idea. In an ideal world, we would only have a single upload point for all our projects. That single upload point will, of course, develop its own bureaucracy. But that bureaucracy needs to be either confined to Commons (where, if it runs away with itself, it will damage only one project) or needs to sync with the other projects (meaning that Commons editors will need flexibility - not something that wikicommunities do well). I'm aware that these are mutually exclusive, but the essence of wikiediting is compromise and consensus, so there must be a path through. Whilst a situation exists where perfectly acceptable images are moved to Commons and then deleted, or where Commons editors instruct people to upload to Commons or not upload at all, or (and I will be attacked for this and people will say it's my main point when it's actually a minor one) where people feel they have a degree of control of their uploads on WP but are disenfranchised on C, then there will be problems that are now coming to a head. On a related point, the highly-suspicious proposal to give Commons users semi-admin rights on other projects is entirely the wrong way around: if anything, Commons should be giving users on other project semi-admin rights on Commons. After all, is Commons there to serve the WMF projects or are the WMF projects there to serve Commons? Commons editors argue that it's the latter. They're wrong.
So, is Commons fulfilling the current mission. I'd say, yes with a but, or no with an and. Certainly more no than yes at the moment. Is there a place for local uploading? No, not in the ideal world. But we don't live there, so yes, there is. Ideally, people should want to upload to Commons. But you've seen from me and others that a considerable and vocal number of people, including WP admins, don't want to. That's something Commons should address: how to win back the trust of those who don't want to upload there. Clue: attacking them, editing their userspace to attack them, and discussing them with off-wiki sociopaths is probably not the right route to go. (Also, please tell Rob Boy or whatever its name is that it owes me a month's rent money. It can donate the cash to the WMF and send me the receipt by email. Fair's fair).
On the final points: no, it isn't easy to use Commons. It is unwelcoming, ill-communicative and over-bureaucratic compared to the (slightly-over) freewheeling Wikipedia model. On WP, you upload a free image, put it in an article and get on with your life. On Commons, you upload a free image, categorize it, have someone recategorize it and template you for being an idiot, have someone else recategorize it and template you again, have it nominated for deletion because there are "enough" of such images, have someone turn up on your WP talk page to spread the misery by pointing out how much of a dunce you are with uploads, have it deleted, reupload it to WP and then put it in an article where it sits fine until someone moves it to Commons and the entire cycle begins again. That's not "easy to use", in comparison. But Commons then presents its methods as not only ideal but the only way to do things. Wrong again.
To me, of course, it's easy to see what's wrong. But it'll take a reasonable insider in Commons to know how to fix things. And, of all the Commons editors who have had a go at me for complaining, you're the only one who hasn't had a go at me for complaining. As much as you wanted to! So you've got an uphill battle ahead. I'm not confident you will succeed. Although if anyone can, it's you. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to put some thought into the first and get back to you... as for the second, I thought this went round before? I personally still think it's a good idea but it seems not to be able to gain consensus. ++Lar: t/c17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'seems not to be able to gain consensus' is a bit of an understatement currently! - It's an issue I feel is important enough to want to keep plugging away on, and I thought my 'conversation' was a new way of explaining things which was worth another look. Only 26 wikipedians have thus far gone on the record, and to be honest my feeling is that this warrants the attention of many more - and if you do agree, 6 of us would sure love the company! :-) I look forward to reading more feedback on all the other stuff! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, rather than start a threaded discussion, I thought I'd bring this here - hope you don't mind! With regards to arbcom running smoother since Kirill joined, I actually meant that the process works better than it would do without him. If Kirill wasn't a member, I suspect the community would have even less confidence in the committee. In some respects, I think the committee are a lot open than they once were, and it's in part thanks to Kirill for offering more explanation when asked and using the workshop. Obviously the OM debacle shook the community a lot, but Kirill was there to set the record straight, and was willing to do so despite knowing the problems it would cause - that takes a lot in my opinion. Hope that clarifies my stance a little, probably not best clarifying my comment now since people have already endorsed it. Ryan Postlethwaite18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah - I've realised what a thankless job it is and there's plenty of people that would give a better service than me. I'll certainly try and convince a few people that I know would do a good job. Ryan Postlethwaite19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a few people that spring to mind from my work on MedCom - WJBscribe is an excellent candidate in my opinion. He's not scared to speak his mind, but he's very respectful towards those who he's in discussion with. He's neutral and doesn't judge - two very important qualities. Another is Vassyana - tremendous mediator and knows a lot about the dispute resolution process. Like WJB, he's not scared to get involved with controversial issues, but always comes off as calm and collected. You of course as well - you obviously care about the wiki and know all about it. You step into controversial areas and try and calm them down and people respect your opinion in them - something which an arb must have. There's a few others I'm sure, but they're the ones I've thought a lot about. Ryan Postlethwaite21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nod... I rather don't like his summary presentment of evidence in Giano's case... (Hi Giano!)... rather don't like it a LOT, in fact... but all in all, Kirill's far from the worst arb we have. Which is why I endorsed. Note that you can always clarify a comment and add a parenthetical that "people endorsing before time X are only endorsing the original" or something. ++Lar: t/c20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll probably take a stab at clarification sometime later then. I certainly agree that the way he went about the Giano evidence and proposed decision was wrong - it looked like he had an axe to grind somewhere, and that's not a good thing in arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere.else.opedia
If you are editing Wikipedia but feel that it's all become too much, join a group outside Wikipedia that develops Wikipedia articles. Every week or so, a robot copies content into the history on Wikipedia. It ignores obvious vandalism. If your site becomes a persistent source of vandalism your site will eventually be blocked and blacklsted, but that won't happen because you want it to work.
I actually do have a workable method for forking. Please email me if you think there exist people who would like to contribute content without the politics. --Jenny22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled by this... are you saying you have one of these sites? that you have a bot? or something else? ++Lar: t/c22:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"navel scale" rather than "naval scale" I think you mean... :) I don't think it's so much a matter of how long things have been around, as what their focus is. ++Lar: t/c22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fancy reviewing a difficult situation?
If so, would you mind taking a look here (and attendant statement, arb comments etc.) and here.. I'd be really really pleased if a way forward were found which represented appropriate resolution...
Sometimes I think it's worth applying rigour to try and find ways around obstacles, particularly when a 'closed door' solution is also on the cards - your thoughts on my approach are of course also welcome!. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has the user put in an unblock? what was the other wiki? I don't have time to read shedfuls but if the user retracted the legal threat, I'd be willing to entertain an unblock, unless it owuld be in direct contravention of ArbCom. ++Lar: t/c02:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, you might be interested in reading my comments at the bottom of my talk page as it gives a slightly briefer overview. Actually, I'd be kind of interested in your perspective on what I think is the crux of the issue. Risker (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps for looking at this, guys! - The other wiki was nl - this link is actually quite important... and Guido has put in many unblock requests - they're all in the collapsible bit of his talk page.... the arbcom request was formally rejected about an hour ago.. as I said I think this represents Guido's position best at the moment (- and thanks to Risker too, for her comments... :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You dropped your good faith, you may want to pick it up. As SlimVirgin says, this isn't a chat forum for little children. Using the word shit isn't uncivil, and neither was his comment. I don't appreciate you calling me disingenuous, practice good faith please. Just because you disagree with someone's opinion does not make it disingenuous. Beam03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was just going to swing by your talk page to raise this very matter. The lack of good faith here is not on my side, it's, in my view, on yours. Let's unpack... Is NewYorkBrad a troll? Is Allison? Am I? Answer precisely please, and let's see where that takes us. ++Lar: t/c03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief Beam, you are taking this issue a little too seriously. How many times have you repeated your comments at ANI now? You are assuming bad faith on those who actually endorse the block. seicer | talk | contribs03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not bad faith on others, they just don't understand the comment in the way I do. The kid, who may be a jerk who knows, is saying that the TROLLS from that site (troll site or not) are pieces of shit. Who can deny that trolls are pieces of shit? Beam16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think many people do understand what Tony (who is no kid, believe me, he's been around on the internets for well over a decade) meant to say. I think you've been defending something you haven't parsed correctly yet yourself. Let's go back to my unpacking... Is NewYorkBrad a troll? Is Allison? Am I? Answer precisely please, and let's see where that takes us. ++Lar: t/c17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. No one is, actually, and to say differently is to fail to assume good faith. But that's the wrong question to answer, the right one is the one I asked. ++Lar: t/c06:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, your question doesn't make sense. I don't know any of you with any significance. In fact, due to AGF, I like all of the people you mention. I've browsed WR, and that place seems a cesspool for gossip and the like. And Trolls, whether from /b/ or from WR are worthless. Beam15:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So apparently you want to disparage people but you're not sure who exactly you want to disparage, as you can't actually name anyone one way or the other. Right. I think we can discount your input. ++Lar: t/c15:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Discount my input? Go check the history of my talk page. Go look at what the WR Trolls did at my first mention of WR on Wikipedia. What the hell is wrong with you? You haven't apologized for calling me disingenuous and now you're acting like...well you're just acting. Good job!! Beam16:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with YOU is the question that needs asking, frankly. (along with whether you're actually someone's sock that's playing at goodhand/badhand here) You were disingenious, as well as lacking in good faith at the start of your participation in this matter and I've seen no change in that behaviour pattern. I apologise if pointing that out gave offense, but sometimes I favour WP:SPADE. People WILL discount your input if you foam too much, you know. Per your request, I'm looking at your talk page history. Who were the trolls there? Name names. Or better yet, give diffs, because you are making no sense with that line of reasoning. Why is it I feel like I'm being trolled right now? ++Lar: t/c16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit. Now you're accusing me of being a sock!!! Chill out. Go look at the anon contribs yesterday or the day before. The two paragraph rant threatening to find out where I live and etc. That was posted as a direct result of the whole mess regarding trolls and WR. Beam16:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say to you what I say to those asking for any other sort of investigation. Diff link please. What other people do is not a free pass, though. And yes, I think there is reason to look into whether you are a goodhand/badhand account, based on your actions. That's not the same as an accusation, you know. ++Lar: t/c16:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodhand/badhand? What does that even mean? And it is the same as an accusation. It's bullshit, is what it is. I'll go grab the diffs. Beam 16:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
diff Wasn't hard to find, you didn't even look. Beam16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still going to defend the pieces of shit from WR? Really? And if you do find out who did this through your use of WR, tell them I have no problem with them coming to meet me, I'd love a personal meeting with them. Really. Beam16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're here trying to make points. The diffs are therefore yours to supply, not mine to go mining for. Now that you supplied that diff, yes, I agree that particular anon posted something reprehensible. And was blocked for it, rightly so. If other anons turn up and pull stunts like that, they should be blocked too. I'll be happy to do so if a diff is supplied to me.
But was that someone actually from WR? Who knows. People troll for all sorts of reasons. (If I said I was from the FBI, or from Mars, or from the New York Times, that doesn't make it true, especially if I'm posting anonymously). As to what goodhand/badhand means, see Wikipedia:SOCK#.22Good_hand.2C_bad_hand.22_accounts. In my considered judgement, a significant fraction of your recent contributions are in fact "artificially stirring up controversy". Especially your second paragraph. Calling anyone a "piece of shit" is not acceptable. My pointing that your behaviour is unacceptable is not "defending" anyone. Discontinue that phrasing, please. Now, who exactly is it, other than anons, that you have issues with, that you are willing to actually name as a "troll". If you won't raise issues about specific users, but just keep repeating these polemical statements, I suggest that this entire thing is just you disingeniously "artificially stirring up controversy" ++Lar: t/c16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What don't you get? Trolls from WR are bad. I'm not saying that there is a specific person acting like a troll. I am saying trolls, trolls from mars or the FBI to use your analogy, are bad. Keep accusing me of stuff too, it's nice. Beam16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beam, enough. Do you think you're going to convince anyone of your point of view here? For the love of all that is holy, drop it or take it elsewhere. Kellyhi!16:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More fool me for continuing. :) Beam: No one is saying trolls, or trolling, are not bad. What I'm saying is first: "bad" != "piece of shit" ... that sort of language is unacceptably not civil... second: muttering platitudes is meaningless potstirring... you're smearing people without even having the courage to say who you have an issue with. For the last time, either make specific your issue and stop with the allegations that add no value, or drop the entire matter and stop stirring things up. Or I will work to make you stop, using the processed and procedures at my disposal. Those are your choices ++Lar: t/c16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't threaten me Lar. I may be new at Wikipedia but I know enough that you shouldn't be threatening me. And to Kelly, I don't care what you people think. I'm sorry you enjoy the gossip fest that is WR. That's swell, it really is. Doesn't change my feelings on trolls. At all. Good luck in the future, threatening people and making accusations seems fun. Beam16:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I should have been clear. By "you people" I meant anyone who reads my feelings on trolls. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and further believe everyone has their own opinions, and prerogative and more importantly a right to them. And even if Lar thinks I'm a sock and I'm being disingenuous, I'm not. And Lar's threatening of me isn't right. I'm sorry to see you stand by and let that happen Kelly. Beam17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is taken. Please consider this a warning, though. Either stop harping on this point on Lar's talk page, or I will take this to dispute resolution. Nothing personal, honestly, but this isn't getting anywhere. With respect - Kellyhi!17:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing! I'm not trying to prove a point. I just didn't like being called disingenuous. Further I really don't like being accused of being a sock, and being threatened with Lar's "powers." That's abusive. Beam17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. However, I don't think further conversation here would be productive. I'd be happy to continue the discussion with you on my talk page. Kellyhi!17:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I had not even suggested it yet, because I was planning on suggesting Columbus Day as the date. I don't see the nom for it but wow... I'm happy. Nice way to counterbalance some of the current AN/I dramahs... I guess I better get busy and get another one to FA! ++Lar: t/c13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, er... I hope you meant "exciting", and not not "exiting" :) ... I have no plans to exit any time soon! :) ++Lar: t/c14:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh congratulations Lar! I'll stick this on my watchlist for July 23rd. Every once in a while, vandal-whacking is quite refreshing. Risker (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello lar you just talked to me on irc. I have an emergency, I was testing a tor server on my computer and somehow irc.freenode.net picked it up. I am now k-lined. Please contact a freenode staffer to get there nickname typr /stats p. I constantly use irc.freenode.net to further the progect. I will disclose my ip adress to you via email one you reply on my talk (or use the {{talkback}} template. Thanks so much, Mww113(Talk)(Review me!)21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Risker... when I'm online I check my email approximately every 5 min, that's how obsessive I am. And when I'm not, a ping isn't gonna get me online any faster. :) But I like pings. I should start collecting them like I do RfA thank yous (which I never seem to get anymore... maybe I should start !voting in RfAs again?) ++Lar: t/c04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? You mean you don't have a tab open to your email account 24/7? And I suppose I should vote in more RfAs too...I'm just not up to spending a couple of hours reviewing contribs for everyone lately. Ah well... Risker (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. :) Well, almost no comment. (kind of like how "this page intentionally left blank" is actually false) ++Lar: t/c04:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... IBM is famous for making a great deal of use of these pages (back when IBM published all its manuals in hardcopy form). They would carry a footer with the manual name and the page number of the manual where they belonged. I can recall inserting them into manuals on my desk, many a time. (Periodically one would receive packets of pages in the post containing fixes to manuals, which one duly inserted into the manual binders, hopefully in the right places. Sometimes some of the new pages would be blank, to replace a page that described something that had been obsoleted, and sometimes some of the new pages would be non blank, but would replace a page that had previously been blank, as they described something new which space had been reserved for in the organization of the manual) There is an apocryphal story that there was an APAR opened against the entire publication group, requesting that all pages which said "THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK" be replaced with pages which said "THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK" on the grounds that was a more accurate statement... Needless to say if there was such an APAR, it must have been rejected, as the cost of the PTF to identify, produce and print all those (thousands of different) pages (properly numbered and with proper footers, since that is how things were done), mail them out to every manual receipient, and so forth, would have been enormous. Even for IBM. ++Lar: t/c11:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Besides, the civil thing to do if we find a page with an erroneous statement like that is to add a cn tag. :-) Actually, pedants are often wrong. "This page intentionally left blank" refers to the state of the page before the notice was added. If it were "This page is intentionally blank" it would be the oxymoron. However, there is another alternative now, with modern technology, and I typed it accidentally. "This page intentionally left black." This comment is intentionally silly.Warning to pedants: don't read this comment, while it is rare, your head might explode.--Abd (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Lar - hope you're doing good (I'm tempted to go find the lego scream again... but p'raps it's calmer in the eye of wiki storms?) - I wonder if I could give you a gentle poke about reviewing a difficult block. It's probably best to simply review this thread - and maybe ask any questions that I might be able to help with? - I chatted with three admins about this in the unblock channel too - which you can review here (admins names changed just because I'm not sure of the protocol.. and I'm not sure if it really matters? - all were certainly uninvolved in my view, and willing to talk through the issues).
I believe there's a chance of helping Guido contribute usefully here, and I'd be really pleased if that could be the outcome... your thoughts would be appreciated - and yours, Steve..... and other admin.s.... ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)ps. I took your name in vain on the mailing list today, then thought a bit further about the context that may mean you are unable to respond, even to tangential points that I may have been making... I don't think that's right, and I hope I didn't mis-speak....[reply]
I looked at it already. As I (meant to?) say above, I'm not sure what additional value I could add... ++Lar: t/c13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lar - and sorry for not keeping up - it's my own stupid fault for splitting the thread, and not paying attention! - sorry...
by my reading Guido has committed to comply with the WP:NLT policy, and further committed to not engaging in any way with any aspect of the dispute - a commitment I'd certainly support any re-blocking admin in interpreting broadly.. I also had a very helpful chat with Sam Korn about this, and he's now emailed Guido... I wouldn't be massively suprised to see a noticeboard discussion on this one at some point, and I'd hope you might support an unblock either then, or sooner! :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave this a cursory review only, so may have missed something here, but my view of what this user said was that he's saying so rather grudgingly, and with rather snide commentary about everyone else's bad faith. I'm not sure that's condusive to a long term successful experience. I see no reason to unblock at this time but would not oppose one if consensus formed for it. ++Lar: t/c13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On another matter. You asked me to mentor you. Here's a piece of advice. Avoid getting involved in every cause celebre’ that comes along. Focus on making positive, unremarkable contributions, and don't see every controversy as a way to push your own agenda. I think that is a better way to rebuild your reputation, long term. Easy advice to give, hard advice to take, drama is such a draw... but try. ++Lar: t/c13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that's good advice - and I've tried to be mindful of it. I'm trying to focus my efforts in areas where I both genuinely care about the issues, and believe that I might actually be able to help - on the other hand I totally understand that at the end of the day, one has the reputation one deserves... it's always gonna be a question of balance, I guess... I'll try and restore it a bit... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you take a look at this discussion and give your opinion?
Would you look into this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Boy2Boy? I do think it stinks that a new editor with an announced gay agenda is making worse-than-inappropriate edits to an article about a Catholic saint, but I think I'm arguing in favor of his indef block on the basis of Wikipedia policy. You know your policy and you're levelheaded, so if you have the time, I hope you'll weigh in. And if you disagree with me, that's more than all right with me, as long as the discussion can get away from You're all homophobes. If the user is unblocked, this might be a case for WP:UAA. And if you do have the time and interest to look at it and see that I've said anything inappropriate in that discussion, please tell me. Regards, Noroton (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, events moved too fast and it's been closed as resolved already. I think the outcome of LHvU having given a final chance unblock seems prudent to me. I personally would probably have blocked the account for the name, but I'm rather prudish that way. Consensus seems that the name was OK... so be it. I think you raised some valid concerns. Perhaps 4 posts in a row wasn't the best approach, but I didn't see anything really awfully dreadful. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the attacks. You've been subject to allegations for no other reason than where you post. BADSITES failed; the tactic is now to attack individuals. Hopefully, you'll be exonerated as far as possible. Minkythecat (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yoko Ono plans to appeal a failed lawsuit against a filmmaker who used a piece of footage from the Imagine (film) without permission. US District Judge Sidney Stein found in favour of the filmmakers based on Fair use. (Interesting for Wikipedia editors...)
As you may have seen, the talk page banner changed a bit. It has a couple of bugs (most notably the categorisation problems), but the {{WPBannerMeta}} standardisation was long overdue. Thank you to Dendodge for sorting it.
The newsletter's back after a very positive reaction, and thanks are again due to Dendodge.
Article adoptions: Heather Mills will be a hot topic next month, as the truth will be referenced.
The hottest Project page this month has been The Quarrymen (now a GA). It reveals the most accurate history of their early days, because so many other web pages tell a completely untrue story (one web page said they lost a Carroll Levis competition to a woman who played the spoons :)
New members to the project (since the last issue, which was a long time ago) include a lot of names, which can be found here....
Project member news:
Issue of the Month
Apart from the usual vandals, there is an ongoing problem with Wikipedia editors deleting free and fair-use photos because they don't think they are of any value to articles, even though this sometimes leaves articles with no photos at all. These editors do not leave notes on talk pages, so if you see that a photo has vanished, check the talk page and the history log.
From the Editors
It's been a while, but the newsletter's back! After a short discussion on the project talk page, seemingly unanimous consensus to bring it back was reached. This issue, and subsequent ones, will probably be shorter - as we kept running out of things to say before! There's a lot to say this month, purely due to the long absence of a newsletter, but we'll keep it as brief as possible.
In order to get delivery by Denbot sorted, the special delivery interface has been changed slightly - but existing delivery options still stand. Inactive participants who want delivery should place their names on this list.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 014 – August 2008). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
Other :Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Congratulations on SS Christopher Columbus appearing on the Main Page! It really is a great article. (Just think, more people will read the article today, than sailed on it in a day during the Columbia Exposition) And I have read it (twice now!), so I know it sailed the Lakes! The Stormy seas is because, well... I almost never comment at RFAR, but I do read it. And I can only hope that the satisfaction of seeing your magnum opus up there takes some of the edge off the outrageous and unfair invective and aspersions that have been cast your way on the mailing list. I'm as frustrated as I've ever been and wish there was something meaningful I could do in your defense -- and this coming from the guy who you met when I opposed your Steward candidacy! Just keep in mind that outside the 600 or so Wikipedians that care about ArbCom, the rest of the world barely knows all that garbage is happening; tens of thousands of people, however, are going to read your fine article. Hopefully that's something of a safe haven right now. Best, --JayHenry (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dammit someone beat me to it! - It's an awesome article, Lar, and congrat.s for your moment in the spotlight - I hope all the other stuff sorts itself out as smoothly as possible... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, and thanks in particular to those of you busily keeping the edits flowing smoothly at SS Chris. One blanking so far, one POOP, one AW SHIT, one eheheh ... not bad. (what this town needs is a better class of vandal... but I don't intend to give it to them!) I rather like the article, even after leaving it be for a while. Alexander McDougall really needs an article of his own though. JayHenry, I think the truth will out and it all will be sorted. Wikien-l is not the right place for arguing the case. Kelly, I just gotta ask, what exactly is that cheerleader doing? Some sort of odd motion. Not exactly a whale back I don't think... She looks more like a minnow, and probably could stand to get on the outside of a few fish dinners... ++Lar: t/c05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I was wondering about the cheer-contortionist too, but I bet Petty Officer 1st Class Scott Cohen enjoyed himself immensely during that photo assignment. Risker (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - you're probably right! A PO1 is an E-6 and he is probably the person in charge of his section - I can just see him handing out the assignments for the day. "OK - Seaman Johnson, you take the photos of the corrosion repair on the submarine. Seaman Smith, you handle the change of command on the cruiser. Jones, put on your whites and take care of the consul's reception. Oh, crap - there's nobody left to cover the USO tour with the Dolphins cheerleaders. Well, I suppose I can do that myself. Dismissed!"
That was all you liked? Well, that doesn't really help the peanut gallery figure out if you're a boy or a girl, Kelly... at least not these days. ++Lar: t/c05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, congratulations, indeed! Sorry about wikien-l, tho. It is disheartening to read some of the crap being said there :-/. Well, cheer up! Now's your time to shine! --Dragon695 (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes for parties
These notes are detailed guidelines for the case, agreed by the ArbCom.
Please be aware in submitting evidence that it may be shared with other parties to the case, on a confidential basis, at the Committee's discretion.
Our intention is to circulate the leading points, but not full background detail, unless there are good reasons to do otherwise.
If there is a particular reason not to share some part of your evidence with other parties, please flag that clearly in your submission.
We will be open to all requests for further clarification.
To avoid any further risk to the privacy of third parties, the parties to the case are strongly requested not to make any further public statements concerning the matters under review by the Committee.
The administration of the case will be by emails sent to active Arbitrators; please send mail to an Arbitrator of your choice (preferably CC another), and not to the ArbCom list.
you'd think the best part of a week would give me enough time to figure out a good comeback... but nope! cupboard's bare I'm afraid, and I'm not even net savvy enough to know how to do one of those tongue sticking out things dammit! - ah well.... I'm actually also wondering if you're around at all? love to bend your ear on something...... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly odd. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I admit I find much of what Jim62sch does to be quite mystifying. I think Kelly has clue (if not always the deftest of touches) so I guess the one that doesn't is me? :) ++Lar: t/c22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, you want me to run a CU on myself because you suspect I'm a sock of Kelly? I'll get right on that! (actually I run CUs on myself a fair bit, truth be told)... ++Lar: t/c22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I ran it mainly cause I knew it would show you guys weren't socks, otherwise there would be far more votes in the common contribs, instead of talk page posts, most of which come from Kelly's image tagging I think. Glad we got that out of the way though. Now to convince Simple-en I am not grawp... MBisanztalk22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I should be flattered that someone thinks I might be you. :) I'll be off to try to find a clue now... Kellyhi!00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented there. Thanks for helping move the discussion from edit summaries to the talk page. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c12:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. At ArbCom what I actually said was, "Sockpuppetry has never been proven to the satisfaction of the community." Please don't edit my remarks out of context. There's already more than enough of that sort of thing going on.
I really don't know what I can do about the sockpuppetry accusations. Millions of people use this ISP, and it's clear that another user of this ISP was voting on this page. I have no way to control that. What do you recommend? How can I get rid of this cloud you keep pointing to, that's hanging over my head? WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. There are 2M articles so far. Almost all of them have nothing to do with Barack Obama, or even with American politics. Every single one of them... even the WP:FA class articles, has areas that need additional work. Go work on them until you have a respectable body of work, and have the respect of your peers as a reasonable contributor. THEN come back to Barack, if you're still interested. There is no rush. There is no deadline. The Barack article will still be here next year, and the year after next and the year after that. Now, if you say "but... but... Barack is up for election THIS YEAR... something has to be done!"? Why then, you've tipped your hand. You're an SPA, essentially, a POV pusher, concerned with the truth about some issue, rather than the project as a whole. We have enough of those already. ++Lar: t/c20:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if it's not stub tagged on the article, it's not a stub. Anyway, how could that discography be a stub? There is only so much you can do in a discography anyway... that one does it all, near as I can tell. ++Lar: t/c13:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not goin to revert your edit if you want to denie it." ?? My suggestion is, if you know it's not a stub, don't mark it as a stub without any further comment. To do so is disruptive. ++Lar: t/c14:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the question is whether Elonka's criteria is six editors or six net editors. Participation in recall is voluntary, not binding, and interpretation of criteria has to come from the horse's mouth so to speak. Avruch T 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Avruch, it's Elonka's criteria. However if Elonka said "I use the default" then ya, it might be "what does the default say". I am probably not a good authority on the default, because I wasn't in on creating them.... per CAT:AOTR the list of who uses what criteria is here: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria and Elonka appears not to be in that list. So what criteria she uses is also not clear. I do seem to recall encouraging Elonka to set up criteria, when I pinged everyone then in the category. But I may be misremembering. If SHE says she's using the default criteria (somewhere??? not sure where) , my interpretation of default criteria is that there is no "net"... only those in favour of recall are counted. This is similar to my own criteria. I hope that helps. Elonka should feel free to contact me if needed. ++Lar: t/c22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the most "loosey goosey" criteria I've seen yet. I never want to see someone recalled. But maybe I'll make an exception in your case just because I want to see if they work out! :) ++Lar: t/c10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're an ok bloke too :-)
...thanks for your words at AN... an amusing retort came to mind (idle speculation about how many of the adjectives applied to me may apply elsewhere in due course....) - but I think it's best unsaid. Kinda.
Anywhoo... various people have been helping me along at my mentoring pages, and as you'll note if you make it to the bottom, I struck while the iron was reasonably warm and made a request of the arbs. Thoughts most welcome anywhere (even if they're of the 'geez... no way!' variety :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need to do a better job of following that garden walk ... really you need a better mentor than me, mate. As for your request to ArbCom, Sam's right, you keep blowing up your chances there with the stunts you pull. I don't think anyone can fault you for wanting to do what's good for the project. Plus I LOLed. But if you're trying to convince the arbcom you're sober/responsibile/respectable, etc, tweaking their noses may not be the best approach. But ya I think it's time to lift the restriction. ++Lar: t/c10:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well I guess the reaction to nose tweaking was predictable, and it shouldn't be a great surprise.. but I will say this.. notwithstanding the fact that I clearly agree with you that it's time to lift the restriction.. I also feel that the way in which you go about examining situations, and evaluating what to do, is very strong. Some arb.s clearly disagree with your conclusion.... at the end of the day the fate of little 'ol me is essentially in my hands (toe the line and it'll all be ok seems to be the message) - but looking at the differences in how you, and some arbs, come to your respective conclusions may be of interest.. and maybe both useful and revealing? hmmm... I've noticed a few 'colour me' type comments around recently... so today, you can colour me a darkish mauve..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)ps. the whole 'group mentoring' thing works quite well from my perspective... the only extra benefit of having an 'official' hat is that I kind of promise to listen to you....![reply]
deleted article request
Hello, could you email me an copy of deleted article Terry Heartsfield? even though it was called vandalism, I did not intend it to be. Thanks --Arsenalfan101 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like, according to his userpage, he agrees that its not true (mockautobiography, he calls it) - but at the time of posting, he thought it was. He asked to e-mail it, not userfy it, not sure if that makes a difference or not but I thought I'd point it out ;-) Avruch T 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka
Lar, I have been subjected to an intense on and off wiki smear campaign that accuses me of "obsession", "harassment" and "stalking". As a result, I had to make clear why I had been investigating Elonka, and get the community to confirm that there are problems with her administrating. Elonka's habit is to edit Wikipedia every day. She has been offline for two days, not responding to the recall on her talk page. This matter is creating an unusual amount of stress around the wiki, touching off side disputes (retaliation by Elonka's supporters) at places such as User talk:Bishonen. This matter need to be clarified urgently. I am hoping you can help in some way. JehochmanTalk12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that there is no response at all to the concerns raised. I said something on her talk. I then tried mailing Elonka and got nothing back. I don't think that not dealing with problems is the way to make them go away. I'm not sure what exactly can be done by me though. I'm open to suggestions if you have some, feel free to contact me via email, or here, or however... whatever makes sense for you. BTW where else are the side disputes? Hey talk page watchers... *yes I am talking to YOU!* go see if you can pour some calming oils? ++Lar: t/c13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I archived my talk page, which seems to have had a calming effect there. There was edit warring at WP:RFC/U when User:Sceptre tried to get that page deleted. A WP:AE request against Giano set off a brush fire on that page. Unfortunately FT2 showed up, and received much abuse. Yes, lurkers, do help if you can. JehochmanTalk14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We talk page stalkers may well weave our magic in subtle ways that are not apparent to the naked eye. I'll confess to being extraordinarily time-constrained at present, however; this will ease up after the weekend. Having said that: Jehochman, my first suggestion would be to ease up on the rhetoric just a bit, please. A philosophy I have found serves me well in situations like this: if there is a conflict between myself and another editor (or group of editors), and where I find that there is unlikely to be a point where we can agree, my tendency is to withdraw; if my point is valid, others are likely to pick it up, and if I am off-base, then it's time for me to stop talking. YMMV, but I think you can honestly say that others have picked up your point in this case. Best, Risker (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka replied to me via email within the last hour or two (I had a call I had to do right then). She indicated she is very busy right now, but is aware of the need to respond. I got the sense that she will respond but that it might be after the weekend. I think that's reasonable, myself and I propose to go state something to that effect on her talk page, asking for some forbearance. She also addressed a number of points but I'm not at liberty to speak to what she said. ++Lar: t/c16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dropping you a line here because I hope this is less watched, and therefore I hope to stir up less drama than this otherwise might on Elonka's talkpage. Basically, my feeling is this: notes saying "this editor has been in touch with me, so I ask you to calm down for awhile and wait quietly" rarely achieve their intended outcome. This is because the subtext of the notes can be read as "this editor had time enough to not only respond to my email, but also to address substantive points in her reply to me. The rest of the community doesn't get to hear what she said until later." The reason that I don't want to draw attention to my post here is that I understand that Elonka may want time to compose herself to make a statement. The reason that I want to drop you a line about this is that I think that, while clearly well-meaning, this approach usually amplifies the volume from opponents (cue dozens of messages like "she has time to reply to you but not to the hundreds of us?") and supporters (cue dozens of messages like "see? she heard you. now sit quietly until she responds"). I'm not sure that this effectively expresses what I'm trying to get across, but I wanted to try, anyways. Regards, Antelan21:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised how watched this page is, actually. I think you raise some good points. The thought did cross my mind that it might not work out perfectly. And I note I'm getting slagged about it on WR too. So I dunno. Too late now, as it has replies. ++Lar: t/c21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, well then I (1) failed to get to you before there were already replies, and (2) failed to find a quieter place to express my thoughts to you. Sorry about that. Antelan21:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think of this as meaning that the person involved needs some time for an adequate response. WP moves faster than the rest of the world. DGG (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. It looks as if the ABN AMRO is unlocked now. At the writing, the only new edits are positive ones in which the last remaining mentions of "ABN Amro" were corrected to ABN AMRO. So we should watch the article closely to avoid more edit and renaming wars. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recall
Lar, if I could just interject into the general recall discussion, at User:MBisanz/Recall I take control of certifying the recall out of my biased little hands and shove it at someone who in theory I rarely cross paths with. Eliminates a lot of the potential lawyering as to what is or is not a valid recall. Also, I think my terms are slightly more defined than most peoples. MBisanztalk02:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prespecifying the clerk is an interesting twist. Another twist might be to specify 4 or 5 and let the initial filer pick (Myself I just say I'm going to pick someone of my own choosing and tough noogies :) ). Can I encourage you to take this discussion to a more central place, somewhere related to CAT:AOR ??? ++Lar: t/c03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(on WQ:AN) I went and checked Meta:Special:CentralAuth to see the status of this account... Crum375 is a unified (SUL) account and is present and attached on 11 wikis. - Is there any interface by which non-stewards can view the status of unified accounts? If not, is there a reason this information is not available? --Random832 (contribs) 08:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. (I've seen arguments as to why it shouldn't be available, but it is, I'm not sure I was convinced by those) As you noted when you reverted the above someone noted how to tell there. (for my talk page watchers (HI!) it is [24] and then enter the ID you're interested in...) I've unreverted you because I leave everything... unless highly abusive, I prefer to have a complete historical record, I'm not one of these users that removes everything as soon as it hits, my archives are complete. Even the egregious slurs I leave a diff link behind in almost every case. ++Lar: t/c13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFAR
Hi Lar, it wasn't my intention to step on your toes with that proposal. Had I known your involvement was that serious, I certainly would have consulted you before putting it forward formally. It was more my sense at the time that someone needed to step up to the plate, and since I was suggesting the compromise I considered myself obligated to walk the walk. It would actually be somewhat easier for me not to be PM's mentor. He's charming and a joy to work with; it's more a question of pushing a couple of things onto the back burner to make the time. Dual mentorship might be ideal, if you're amenable. Best wishes, DurovaCharge!06:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, could work... maybe find a third to break ties... preferably someone from that relative timezone as we're both almost half a day out of synch from him. I have someone in mind, let me reach out to them and see... ++Lar: t/c10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comments at RFAR, there are sides to my track record you may not have seen. As long as all parties are willing, though, I'd be glad to work with three. Best regards, DurovaCharge!15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, there may be sides I have not seen. But we can only judge by what we are aware of. I think all parties are willing, we just need to get ArbCom itself to bless this arrangment. ++Lar: t/c03:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I COMPLETELY understand where you're coming from, re DS, but I think all sides had disengaged at this point, it's over, man, let's not reignite things (especially because I have to get up for work in less then five hours :P) SirFozzie (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano: already done, Risker's on the case. Jehochman: Commented there. Also liasing with Sam Korn about the findings. ++Lar: t/c14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Received and responded. Please forward the file for context as suggested, as I responded to more people than you did. :) And honestly, I read my mail a lot. :) ++Lar: t/c15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They might not be in fairness Jehochman, but Giano's userspace article had a non-free image relating to "Savementmore" which would probably be ok in mainspace - so when 2 different users then try and move the entire article into mainspace against the author's wishes, it rather looks like there may be a connection. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have any non-free pictures in the article draft to just be a link (that way Giano can change it from a link to a picture and back again while trying to sort out correct sizing for the image), and then turned from a link to a picture when moving the article. That would mean that while the article is a draft, that the image isn't being used at all, and it would have to be fiercely guarded against those who delete orphaned non-free image. But an "exception" template should be easy to rustle up. It is also possibly to just let it be deleted, and to then undelete when the article is ready, but that is silly. Personally, I'd just keep a local copy and use a placeholder in the draft, and then reupload. It does seem silly, but it is better to do that then be driven insane by trying to adhere to process for non-free images... Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image involved is indeed in another article right now, Mentmore Towers, but the complaint is that it isn't being used well enough there. Just in case it does get deleted, I've uploaded it to my computer, but let's hope this nonsense doesn't continue. Risker (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Lar, you were out so we made ourselves at home. Sorry for the footprints on the coffee table. And, um...that spill on the sofa was *not* me. Risker (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down with parties!!! ...and don't worry about the sofa. I'm just miffed that no one invited ME. :) Oh, and who put Verdi and Vivaldi on the stereo? I commented on one of those image deletions by the way. ++Lar: t/c18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I did not participate in either of the IFDs. And I must say I feel somewhat slighted by any suggestion that I might be MBisanz – unlike Matthew, I know how to wear a suit. I merely spotted Giano in dispute with a bot – a less than profitable activity, given that it's merely carrying out its function – and then solved that dispute (I mean, that back and forth between automaton and man, allied with the hilarious edit summaries, was a bit like watching a chap stab himself repeatedly in the leg with a fork, while complaining about the sharp things that the manufacturer was putting on the end). Really, he should've thanked me.
I also like Lar's blog, would you like to point me to your main account's talk page so we can continue to discuss Lar's ideas? MBisanztalk21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that particular sock will be able to answer you straightaway. Or ever. Not here anyway. Drat, down to one fan. ++Lar: t/c21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the happy banter, I want them checkusered, and I want the name of main account, and I want that blocked too. I shall not give up on this. Giano (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. There is an investigation underway. People are looking into it. It's not my policy to comment on ongoing investigations but believe me who the main account is... is a matter of considerable interest. Feel free to give any evidence you think might help find the main account over at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Frostie Jack any info would be helpful. Seriously. ++Lar: t/c23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another example
People jumped down my throat when I proposed we do away with the no fair use in user namespace point of WP:NFCC. It was precisely to allow editors, like Giano, the freedom to format and construct articles that I made this proposal. That others would use fair use to decorate their user pages seems irrelevant, it is the point that there is legit purposes to transclude fair use that trumps the unncessary hand-wringing by freedom extremists. Again, in the eyes of the court, there is no fundamental difference between main namespace and user namespace, Wikipedia is always taken as a whole. If some copyright holder complains, then we can adress it at that time, but preemtive action seems absurd. Can we just nuke this silly restriction now and shutdown the dumb bot? --Dragon695 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been from yesterday so it's rather late to place a preventative block on that IP. It's not the same one as the one that got the autoblock back in July. Block on behaviour I'd say, there's nothing to CU, really. ++Lar: t/c23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I commented there. It seems the IPs are too dynamic and there would be too much collateral damage. I suggest DQing the article and the nominator from further participation at FA for a while maybe? ++Lar: t/c16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's less about FAC disruption and more about article disruption. Since I don't understand the ins and outs of Checkuser and range blocks (and I suspect Sam Korn is tiring of my checkuser requests :-), I'm unsure how to handle it. I thought semi-protecting the article would solve IP disruption, while Ecrone can be blocked for behavior if the issues continue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds right to me, yes. And further, as I said, if the behaviour by Ecrone at FA gets disruptive again, maybe a topic ban. In your view is the behaviour such that a block of Ecrone is needed right now to stop the disruption, or would a warning suffice, or were they already warned? ++Lar: t/c17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I issued a warning about the article disruption this morning; Ecrone didn't start up until the article was semi-protected, which shut down the IPs. If he continues, can I drop you a note? I spent the better part of the last 24 hours looking for admins to deal with several vandal/sock/troll situations. It was just my day, I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. You know my email too. There are other admins that would gladly help as well. This is where IRC is helpful, to get a fast response to an already established and understood issue that needs quick action. ++Lar: t/c18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no chance I'm ever going to invest time and energy into figuring out what or where IRC is. Old dog, new tricks, Giano ArbCom trauma, too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Well maybe just have the emails of a few of us handy to ping, in case the first one doesn't get right back to you? ++Lar: t/c20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Privatemusings restriction lifted and placed under mentorship
Hi Lar. I've got that page in my user space for a reason. I don't want to get all prissy, but I'm reverting your edits for the time being whilst I think about them. For me the whole point of the page is to ignore the fact that there may be some other process, regardless of whether it works or not. I can see where you are coming from, but I don't really want to mention a process I appear to disagree with at the minute. I apologise, and I hope you understand. HidingT15:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't redirect to it from project space, then, please. Delete that redirect and I'll let your reversion stand. If you don't, then the essay itself needs to move to project space, at which point the edit is a good one subject to community process. Note I added a pointer to the essay at the reference materials section. ++Lar: t/c15:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go to work now so I don't have time to get into this right now. I don't agree that the redirect has to go, that's a new one on me, but you could quite possibly be right. I;d appreciate a link to wherever that's stated in policy. I'll revert to your preferred version until we work this out if that's okay? HidingT15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I'd actually prefer this be placed in project space, as I think you make some important and valuable points. I'll try to dig up a ref for you but I've always taken it as generally accepted practice ... no shortcut/redirect links from article space to user or project space, and no shortcut/redirect links from project space to user space. I might be wrong though! It can wait for now. I think the redirect is only used in two places (one by you, one by me) so it's easy enough to fix that. While I don't agree with everything you're saying, involuntary voluntary really disturbs me, I went and commented on the three current RfAs that mention it. ++Lar: t/c15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on semi-vacation, so it was quite pleasing to see that NYB is back and taking on the tough case. I think my faith in the process has been somewhat restored. I just hope that a decision which honors the exceptional hard work of both Sandy and Cla68 will be reached. As we've seen in past weeks, the collective wiki-reputation of their detractors has fallen sharply. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well not really. Citizendium have taken a different tack relating to the way their articles are organised. Essentially the article proper is conceived as a sun around which supplemental satellites revolve. By way of example, I've had a go here. I'm personally of the opinion that there's a great deal of 'extra value' (horrible phrase) we could give to readers with such an approach and the interminable arguments, jockeying for position in article space might subside. Any thoughts? I'm also here to thank you for your talkpage tabcode which I've shamelessly pinched because I rather like it's elegance.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I've lost the context of wherever it was that I was referring to Citizendium. Can you remind me? (Also ... :) Make sure you haven't confused me with my wife, we're rather on the opposite sides of this issue as I do generally like infoboxes, with some exceptions...) I like your idea of creating a "tabbed article" though, it seems to have a great deal to recommend it. The tab metaphor is fairly common in user interfaces now, and should be well understood by most. However, I think there's something not quite right with how you've set the tabs up, because the "current" tab isn't showing up without the bottom line and in the "darker" color, as you can see here on my tabs... ("Talk" has a different tab appearance than the rest)... I could try to fix that if you wanted me to give it a go. ++Lar: t/c16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We, amongst others, were discussing infoboxes in general at Talk:Buckingham Palace a few weeks ago I think, which spurred this effort. I can't claim credit for the idea as this is just what they do at CZ, hence my reference to it. (I've no idea where you might have been talking about it:-). Please make any fixes you like, if it takes off we'll have to get some standards in place - would you need a separate "/supplement" template for each article or could one standard one be crafted that used fields to create the links? eg. {{supplement|Statistics|Gallery|Maps}}. Any thoughts on where to propose this? Any downsides? I'd like to get a few people on board to consider some of the issues before 'going public' at maybe Village Pump? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this takes off we want a generic template that we can invoke which we pass in the section names, and it does the individual tab #if -ing and invokes generic ActiveTab/OtherTab templates... let me hack on your User:Joopercoopers/Supplement real quicklike and see if I can sort this. I can make the generic if and when. And I agree VP is the place, if and when. ++Lar: t/c16:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that thing. (except for the lead tab which since it's in your userspace isn't the "right name" and thus doesn't work). I will try to remember if someone already templatized part of this (a lot of people have used my tab scheme over the years) and find that, else I'll have a go at templatizing this further myself. I suggest getting a few more people to take a look informally, and then if this has the legs I think it does, let's take it to VP after that. My wife loves the idea already! Can you make the map narrower on the main page though, it looks crappy when the page has a scroll bar. I narrowed it on the maps page. Stylistically we may not want to keep the blue frames all the way around, and extra width, and stuff that I use on my talk, and ONLY have tabs on the top. have to think. ++Lar: t/c17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tabbing
Well it seems my trick is used by a few other page sets. Mostly user pages but here's one notable one: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress ... I found these by doing this search: [31] (there may be better searches... ) I'm going to spend some time now to try to parameterize this. ++Lar: t/c18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should buy her a bigger display. :) PS I dropped Markles a note. I'm about to get started on templatizing this. All in my user space at first. ++Lar: t/c18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. The only minor glitch I've spotted is the tabs seem to change width as one cycles through them. I see a village pump thread started a few days ago, which I wasn't aware of. I'm a bit peeved as I'd hoped to get a comprehensive 'pro' case together before taking it to the community, but I see you've done an admirable job of putting it. I'll respond at length and in depth tomorrow to the 'cons'. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to clarify your comment. If the community were to decide in a discussion that an admin bit would be removed, I would expect any steward to execute that decision. That is what stewards do. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not what stewards do. Stewards implement policy and consensus. Absent a community consensus about recall that takes the force of policy, I find it exceedingly unlikely that stewards would remove the bit of an admin because of an apparent, local consensus ,which, absent policy change, is all that it would be. Apparent. Local. I am not alone in that view, I believe. I've asked my fellow stewards before, and I'd be happy to do so again, but that's the general consensus among stewards. Changing my comment to reflect something other than reality might not be the best approach. Given those precepts, what clarification if any do you think would be appropriate? ++Lar: t/c01:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The steward policy speaks of community decisions. I don't understand anywhere in that policy that a local policy has to exist. I see where it speaks of conforming to local policy, but if there is no policy to conform to, then they should execute the decision according to the steward policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with that policy, in fact I've helped edit it from time to time. The title of the section, I remind you, is "Don't decide". You are asking stewards to judge outcomes, to weigh arguments, to determine nuances. That is something that by and large, especially on wikis with large, active communities, that stewards do not do. I can raise the issue on the list again to check steward consensus, (do you wish me to?) but en:wp is a very large community. I think it is clear that any recall process outcome or decision arrived at on AN/I or whatever, would be considered a local consensus at best. Not one that the entire community was behind. That's why en:wp has policy. Policy is the codification of community decisions. Get policy changed to say that recall, once committed to, is binding, or that a vote of 50 users to remove someone is binding, or whatever, and then, yes, I suspect stewards would start considering it. We have had this discussion before. I am sorry that you do not find the answer satisfactory. ++Lar: t/c01:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This makes better sense regarding the size of the community. This may need to be better clarified in the steward policy so this same misunderstanding does not occur. What did you mean by my not finding your answer unsatisfactory? I don't recall us having this discussion in the past, but of course, we may have. I just don't remember it, I'm sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a policy rewrite project active on Meta. You're welcome to give your opinion there, of course. One of the problems facing stewards lately is more and more demand to judge and decide, when stewards are specifically chosen to not do so. They're granted these tools with the understanding that they will only perform actions which are clearly uncontroversial. Considering that there's an arbitration case involved, it's obviously not uncontroversial enough for stewards to act upon it. Kylu (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so, Kylu, thanks. NVS, I could swear we've talked about something like this before. If not, I apologise for misapprehending you, but I know I've said this before to someone or another. ++Lar: t/c02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 24 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clara Fisher, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You mean TPW, right? As to the case, I continue to suggest removing the restriction on fair use in user space since it has been causing issues for good faith contributors. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant TPW, thanks! As to the case, I'm not sure I see the connection to Fair Use (can you explain?), but I do not support use of FU images on user pages, as they are not needed there for "criticism or commentary". I think the issue is rather with how FU repair/remediation gets implemented than with the concept of not allowing it. But that's a different topic. ++Lar: t/c17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano was having trouble with fair use, apparently, while constructing the article in his sandbox. Wasn't that the whole motivation behind the premature moving? --Dragon695 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think a holding place for supposedly "orphaned" fair use images that someone has claimed would be OK. The only orphaned fair use images that should be deleted are those where no-one pops up and says "hang on, I want to use that in this article I'm writing". I know this will wreak havoc with the automated tools that search out orphaned fair use images, but they should be able to adjust their algorithms to accommodate this. Carcharoth (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that seems reasonable on the face of it. The details to be worked out are "where" (as in, do you tag it somehow, put it in a special sort of page, etc), "how long" (as in, it should not last "indefinitely" but it should last more than just a few days, people work on stuff for months or even years... but is years "ok"??) and "who" (Should you have some track record before this is ok?) Whether this passes muster with the Foundation legal team given the Foundation's statements and desired practices, I don't know (and is not my call) This would have to be coded into the en:wp fair use policy statement (the policy that every wiki is suposed to have) ++Lar: t/c10:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, seriously, what IS it with you pinging me to tell me I have mail? As if. Thought we covered this??? Or were you just tipping off my TPWs????? In which case, carry on. ++Lar: t/c23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is only because I take great pleasure in annoying you, Lar. You know that. If the worst thing I do is leave you a message saying I've emailed you, consider yourself a lucky man. Risker (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm sure the checkusers take great pleasure in checking who people have been sending e-mail to when they run checkusers. Or is that a separate checkuser action only intended to be used when there are allegations of e-mail abuse (no, not your e-mails, Risker!)? Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you've commented, I can ask you what you think. (If you get tired of me asking your opinion about contentious RfAs, please let me know.)
That may have been too mysterious of a request, I even went to your contribs to try to figure out what you are referring to. I think I know now but... PS, think of the poor TPW's... they may be even less clued than me. (in fact some would say hanging out here is a sign of cluelessness! :) Not me of course, but SOME would say that, yes) ++Lar: t/c11:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your humor may be about, um... 3 levels above most of my TPWs humor grasping abilities. Just sayin'.
OK I'll go put my oar in there, maybe. But here, I'll say I don't think that having all the policies swotted is key. In fact even not knowing the right answers to every possible word problem is... (if you want that, get a perfectly prepared coachee). What is needed is clue, and willingness to admit error and learn from it. When I was a wee lad, just learning to drive a car (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and gas was under 50 cents a gallon), it wasn't necessary that I was a perfect driver before I was allowed behind the wheel the first time. Instead there was a graduated series of exercises, evaluations, tests, additional permissions, etc until I was a full fledged driver. And even then I made mistakes. What the drivers license process judged was not perfection, but a) good enough for the situation and b) willingness to get better. The RfA process is all or nothing, which is unfortunate. It would be better if there was a mentorship process, a learners permit, etc. But there isn't. So I don't require perfection from candidates I support. Just clue. This candidate has clue. And the right attitude. We don't need admins who are here just to be admins, so some article space contribution Gnoming, writing good stubs, fixing things, finding pictures, writing GAs, writing FAs, reviewing and fixing GA or FA candidates... whatever, I don't care... but something, not just ALL metaspace stuff) is key. This candidate has that. In spades. Hence my support. My suggestion, reevaluate in view of that and see what you think. ++Lar: t/c13:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your feelings about adminship. (It's part of why I like to ask your thoughts, since yours tend to be rather "stable" : )
And I have been attempting to "rethink". After all, as you noted, there are quite a few editors whom I respect, who supported.
But then, as I mentioned to User:Horologium (when I asked him about it), the candidate says things like: [this (among other things), which makes me concerned that there is something other to this nom. There's just something that "feels" not quite kosher here. (Even perhaps a bit pointy.) And since this is all about trust...
But, of course, my thoughts are likely moot, as (with a currently fairly steady 81%) the candidate is likely to succeed. So I hope that the "trends" I am noting, and my "feeling" of concern turns out to be unnecessary.
I still would welcome your thougts, both on my previous comments (and "vote" at the RfA) , and the ones above. - jc3701:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No easy answer there. RfA is a horrifically broken process in which there are many competing agendas, perspectives, and the like (at least one for each participant, if not more). The result is a gruesome gauntlet that candidates have to run. Given how hard it is to remove admins that have flubbed up against their will (stalwart and true members of CAT:AOR notwithstanding, and I aknowledge that it is likely that not every category member is there in good faith, although that's what I prefer to assume), there are many who are quite cautious in giving their approval. Unfortunately this seems to have set up conditions in which the candidates who are less than perfectly bland or have gotten their noses bloodied in the past cannot pass, even if they've learned from their mistakes. Personally, I'd prefer candidates who made some mistakes and learned, as long as they knew they did not have all the answers. I'd prefer candidates who are human and sometimes make flippant remarks to ones that are always 100% politically correct. Despite that diff, which I suspect is flippancy, I think this candidate has what it takes. Could she have a defter touch? Yes. So could we all. But she is not likely to blow up the wiki and she has a lot of clue, so my support remains firm. I am hopeful that she will take feedback on board regardless of passing or failing. Some of our best admins did not sail through at 100% or close to it. So keep raising your thoughtful concerns. But do keep your eye on the big picture... Adminship is unfortunately a big deal. Don't let imperfections in candidates lose us admins with clue while gaining us admins who regurgitate pat answers but screw up when they hit the reality of the daily bustle/grind/coalface. ++Lar: t/c19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thought-filled response. (As usual) you make some valid points.
And I agree with the idea that "oops in the past; but I've shown in the months (years) since then that I've learned and will likely not do that again", means that I typically wouldn't oppose such a candidate. But if I felt that they were intentionally (almost pridefully) continuing such a pattern, I'd probably oppose, likely for that alone.
And despite what I've been accused of in the past, I don't realy only on the responses to question, nor to "regurgitating policy". As I've now seen quite a few varied resonses to my questions (as well as the classic/recurring ones), the way a candidate answers is sometimes more important than what they actually say. The "context". (Something that we Wikipedians often neglect with our single diffs.) And when combining that with the "context" of someone's comments when going through their edit history, it can often be enlightening to their character, and can (sometimes) indicate trends and tendencies. And one of my main concerns is "cluefulness", especially in their ability to read for content (as you already know from my criteria), and showing a lack thereof is concerning to me.
As for my thoughts as to how to "fix" RfA:
a.) Remove the ability to block/unblock from the default admin package. I think that that alone would diffuse the "adminship is/isn't a big deal debate. Of the "big three": block, delete, and protect, it seems to be the one that editors are likely to consider the most "personal" of attacks. Plus, unlike the others, it prevents an editor from editing any articles, not just the one deleted or protected. (Though, of course, cascading protection is something else altogether.)
b.) Remove the almost useless support section. This would end the RfA is a "vote" concept, for one thing. For another, it would allow for discussion. I think any candidate should be "adminship-worthy" unless/until proven otherwise". So anyone with concerns could note them, and the community could discuss. And at "closing time", the bureaucrat determines consensus, and that's that.
c.) (Yes, there's a minor third : ) - Make it easier for admins to be desysopped temporarily. Giving bureaucrats the ability to selectively block userrights, rather than blocking most of them (as is currently done by "blockuser"), would likely help resolve a lot of concerns.
Um... I read it, nodded, said I need to respond, and then forgot, other stuff came up. As you can see, my page is rather busy. No slight intended.
I can't say I disagree with the principles you articulate for support, at least not in the main. We just came out to different results. Which is OK. ++Lar: t/c15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a) That's an interesting idea. Stewards now have the ability to create different packages of permissions at the global level. It might be something to see that extended to local (right now it takes a bug). The change would require consensus of course. The issue is that if that permission is removed, you have a NEW process needed to grant the permission to some folk (we can't not have blocking at all)... The problem is to get consensus for a change. b) I don't know. The current process is broken but there have been periodic suggestions of reform that never go anywhere. I was involved in one (WP:DFA and this) before I was even an admin. The problem is to get consensus for a change. c) seems like a good idea, the problem is to get consensus for a change. Hmmm... theme? ++Lar: t/c15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And everytime I bring them up (in respective order):
"You're gonna try to take away my ability to block. Oppose!" (Which isn't the proposal, but considering how many people "disappear" only to quietly return under "other" names, perhaps they are more concerned about their future accounts. Anyway, it all seems to be about territorial control, or in other words that sense of "power" - IWANTMINE.)
"But I wanna vote for who I wanna vote for. This is democracy. This is America. I have my rights. etc." (Another case of IWANTMINE...)
No single quote, this "discussion" just devolved. For one thing, too many other things involving user-rights were going on, which were being "pushed" by forces beyond me : )
So yes, I'll probably bring them each up again, at one point or other. But until the admin user-right package is "broken up", I don't think that a or c will happen. Too much irrational fear and territorialism.
And the same pretty much goes for RfA changes.
But who knows. I've seen things change which I never thought would happen (both for good and ill). SO dunno. - jc3709:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot.
So as not to clutter up the Talk:Ponte Vecchio#Cleanup thread: I care who is an admin, because admin status is a fairly reliable indicator that the user has a modicum of self-restraint, and a modicum of community trust. It occasionally indicates that they will know technical details about whatever they are discussing, and implies that they have more than a few months of experience.
Collapsible sections (like collapsible "References", which are continually suggested by people who consider the large blocks of citations to be annoyances/eyesores) have many immediate drawbacks.
The default page-view should be the best view for the most readers - it's as simple (and complex in details) as that.
That's the gist of my perspective. I'm not trying to be closed-minded to interface experiments, just to give the readers a good experience. Hope that helps make my stance clear. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Best is a very nebulous term, and good enough is the enemy of better as they say. What is good is a shifting target as our wiki-technological capabilities advance. What can be done with templates and formatting depends on how clever people are in using the current software, which advances over time as people learn more, (for example the article classification templates are much more sophisticated and reliable now than they were back when Kingboyk and I first developed them in 2006) and in what the current MediaWiki software is capable of, which advances over time as bugs and enhancements get added to the codebase. We must be careful not to ossify. What we thought was true about what is "best" a year ago may no longer be true. Standards are good but sometimes imposing standards "too early" stifles innovation in a way that makes it hard to really improve. Analog television held back HD digital for 50 years, at least. I really think those saying "tabs are bad, show/hide infoboxes are bad, multiple pages are bad" and so forth, and those trying to impose central authority over local consensus are stifling innovation. Don't be part of that please. Let's not get ourselves convinced that we have to get everything good enough right away and stifle a chance for better later... there is no deadline.
Tangentially, I think it's false to rely too much on who is an admin and who isn't, in judging the level of clue. There are some deeply wise and profound non admins, and some terrifically inexperienced and clueless admins out there. Try not to stereotype. Keep your mind open. ++Lar: t/c19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the balance between immediatism and eventualism is delicate. I usually side with eventualism. Except when the issue is over a situation that causes immediate and actual problems.
I don't "rely" at all on admin-status. I'm sorry that you choose that sentence to concentrate on, as it was basically irrelevant (as pointed out) to the subject at hand. What I was trying to get across, was that User:Shereth and User:LordAmeth and User:Mr.Z-man and User:Masem and User:Carnildo all agreed that hidden-infoboxes are bad, and that they all happen to be admins and have therefor been around a while and might know a thing or two. I was trying to prevent drawn-out quibbling over semantics, which these discussions so often devolve into. It backfired (as life so often does).
Again: The default page-view should be the best/optimal/most-useful/least-problematic view for the most readers. Do you think a hidden-infobox is ever the best default? (Given that many readers won't discover it at all, and that they do not print properly, and obscure any images within them, and etc etc?) (Perhaps better answered at the MOS thread..)
@quid Have you actually tried printing the page with hidden boxes? Go to the print page and click the 'show' on the box - it displays and can then be printed perfectly - so the reader may choose to include it in his print. Nifty huh? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I went all the way to a printed sheet of dead-tree in my hand, that does not show the infobox (not even the "Facts at-a-Glance" heading). In the top-right is just the coordinates with an image underneath. It does not print. The print-preview shows it fine, but it does not print. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balls! Quiddity, please accept my apologies (and egg on face cheeky embarassment), you are quite right - so much for WYSIWYG! I'll strike my objections on that basis at MOSINFOBOXEN. peace. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(It also shows what sometimes happens in mainspace when per-article-consensus completely overrules "central-authority" wiki-wide-consensus.
See also, dubious navbox colour schemes, such as {{Cc brands}}. Some trends need to be discouraged... Bad code proliferation is one of them. (and small fonts everywhere, another thing I've been trying to get discussion going on recently))
OK. On the main page redesign, I'm not seeing the issue there at all. That design isn't my cup of tea but having the last section hidden by default seems an interesting approach to reducing clutter (the main page currently is dreadfully cluttered, especially at the bottom), and batting around ideas like that seems goodness to me. After all, ideas, even bad ones, sometimes lead to innovation. On the Coca Cola navbox color scheme I don't see the issue there at all, can you clarify? On the hidden text not printing issue... you're using a technical limitation as a counter argument here. I don't buy that. The answer to technical limitations is... (wait for it) Bugzilla. Have you searched for, or raised, a bug yet to ask for an enhancement which supports show hide functionality in a way that gives desired print control (always, sometimes, never? Ideally give the user a radio button popup (suppressable) to choose section by section, or some other approach, factoring in automation). If you haven't, you don't have standing to complain about technical limitations. The trend I'm seeing here is that you're giving examples of things that maybe don't work today as evidence that ... well I don't quite know what. That innovation is bad? Bad in some cases? ++Lar: t/c11:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent)There are three hidden sections at that main page redesign, and you were looking for them but only saw the one! How far is someone going to get, if they are used to the old main page [or infobox style], or aren't naturally-curious-enough to click everything in sight? Yes, experiments are good, but this one just doesn't work.
The {{Cc brands}} color scheme is in the corporate branding of coca-cola red. Extrapolate that as a trend to every navbox. Now extrapolate to every infobox (see the regulated-beginnings at Template:Television colour).
A better example (which I just remembered) is the Wales infobox from earlier this year. Much edit-warring, much discussion of Rainbowpedia/Kaleidopedia. Small amounts of customization can be good (that Cc brands navbox is not critically bad, just subjectively/aesthetically "dubious", an eyebrow-raiser/eye-roller), but large amounts are quickly overwhelming (to some people, not all. (To misquote: "You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time...")).
Joopercoopers is intending to file a bugzilla report (see the end of the thread on my talkpage). Besides which, it's not my obligation to help along a proposal I disagree with, is it?
You seem to be stuck on the idea that I'm somehow "Campaigning Against Innovation" in the abstract. Could you try to re-conceptualize my actions in the frame of "Campaigning For Ease-of-use", please? A little good faith goes a long way :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I recently overhauled the Infobox Project's navbox, and I thought using the 2 cat-trees in there was fairly innovative... I'm pro-innovation, dangit! But I prefer it when it works well, and when it doesn't interfere with any of our readers' experience.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Show/hide isn't just some mysterious completely unguessable function, it's pretty intuitive. 2) I don't at all see the problem with using corporate color schemes in corporate infoboxes, so you've lost me there. 3) If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. How many bugzillas have you filed, overall, just out of curiosity? 4) I find that those who accuse others of lacking good faith are often actually the ones who lack it. On innovation, to me, some bumps along the way are acceptable. It's an OK cost to pay. Wikipedia need not be perfect every day in every way. Even some backsliding is OK with me. There is no deadline. ++Lar: t/c04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps try reading it all again with a British accent? I have traces remaining... I'm saddened by how poorly we're agreeing on anything, given the huge overlap between your userboxes and my interests (I used to have more userpage categories..)
1) I've explained how a computer-mouse works too many times recently, to consider anything universally "intuitive". (and similar practicalities of computer use (copy and paste, the existence of "file explorer" (or equivalents) for "where should i save my files?", etc) The human race, in all its shapes and ages, is often surprisingly diverse.
2) What about the Wales example? Would you be happy to see each town in Wales (eg Cardiff) use the color from their local flag or coat-of-arms in their infoboxes?
3) That's awfully black and white! Were you paraphrasing anyone in particular?! (sorry, had to)
I've filed 1 (#11056) and commented or voted in a few. There is no preview or editing of old comments at bugzilla, and every time you press "commit" it emails one or more people. The help docs are appalling. I don't want to relearn everytime, and to get things wrong and waste people's time, so I generally submit problems to WP:VPT instead. I disliked bugzilla when wrestling with it to submit Mozilla bugreports waybackwhen, and I dislike it now. Make sense? (and, You haven't filed one either?)
We'll see what the developers think of this hiding solution. Hopefully they can explain things to everyone's satisfaction.
Please see the above page. Sorry for the long report, but I really want to get this off my back. As it says, I expected at least one of the suspected socks to go around editing while I file the report. User:Ausonia is doing just that. Please help if you can. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see/think you asked Jpgordon too? I'll take a look later when I have some time if he hasn't sorted it. ++Lar: t/c22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for giving out too many notices. I guess I wasn't aware if there was a checkuser who would deal with the issue ASAP (I was a little desperate at the time). Thanks for the good work on monitering those socks, though. ~ Troy (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it turned out I didn't do anything... all sorted now I think. As Jpg said, you should feel free to use RFCU next time if you need to. ++Lar: t/c02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOINDEX harmful?
I don't know when it goes into effect, but I am worried about the net negative impact that NOINDEX will have on the project. I have tested Wikipedia search for diff researching in a few cases I was following and it is nearly impossible to get the accuracy that you get with Google. Sometimes, it is just downright wrong or is missing crucial hits that Google would pick up. Now that was only a few cases, I wonder how it will affect those who often, even on a daily basis, have to research others' histories to find specific instances of inappropriate comments/actions. What about incidents/statements you vaguely remember, but have no idea where the hell you heard it? Have you tried going a day or a couple of days using only Wikipedia'a search to research diffs? I guess one really doesn't appreciate the power of Google until it is taken away. I think it potentially means dealing with problem editors will become 10x more difficult. Could Cla68 perform his very detailed and accurate evidence gathering without the aide of Google? I think this is also bad for policy discussions and debates, where finding previous statements is often needed to clarify positions. Over on WT:NFCC, I noticed that even an experienced editor like Carcharoth was expressing concern on how this may change the ability to locate an important quote that Mike Godwin had said in the past. I believe NOINDEX was an admirable idea but I feel the costs are too high for only a feel good benefit. I say feel good because I believe that is the only benefit that is gained, there is no real legal threat at play IMHO. The loss is detrimental, however. I think NOINDEX will be terrible for accountability and transparency on Wikipedia. Some may actually welcome this, since it obfuscates their past wrongdoing, but I doubt the majority of the community would want this. Any thoughts? TPW feel free to chime in, too. ^_^ --Dragon695 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note there is a more accurate version of the MediaWiki search function, however it is disable at -en for performance reasons, so either we need more money or more developers. MBisanztalk21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we were promised better search. Heck I know we were!!! Keep opening those bugs at Bugzilla:Bugzilla reporting particular issues and they'll get fixed. Because I'm cool with losing some search func, temporarily, in exchange for the benefits of NOINDEX. As for researching stuff, I think you'll see more tools created like wikistalk and the commonality editing and etc. I have something myself that can look for regexes in someone's contribution history... it's not very done and not very ready for prime time but it works. Oh, TPWs... he didn't say TPW chime in FIRST. :) But whatev. Man this page got busy all of a sudden. What is this, son of ANI? ++Lar: t/c22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the level of discourse on your talkpage seems to be a bit higher than AN, which is why I posted here. Besides, your opinion is valuable, too >_>. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to your concerns, Dragon695, let me link you to the evidence page I developed for a recent arbitration case. Over 100 diffs, more than 150 searches performed (some searches were to confirm that discussions had not taken place), and not one single Google search amongst them. An improved internal search might have made a difference, but to be honest I rather doubt Google would have shaved very much time off the preparation of this data. At present, the majority of page types proposed for NOINDEX are "personnel"-type pages. They're the kind of thing that will show up when prospective employers do a google search on a candidate for a position, a practice that is very common throughout North America, and often required for certain industries (high tech, those dealing with security issues, financial sector). Think about the potential for negative effects for an editor who has used his real name as a username, then been subjected to an RfC or been dragged to ANI for totally specious reasons. That editor has had his reputation besmirched, regardless of whether the community rallies in agreement with his actions and finds him non-culpable. Keep in mind, as well, that some employers and prospective employers will specifically ask where one spends time on the internet, and under what username, so editing under a pseudonym may not necessarily protect an editor as much as he or she thinks. See also my post at the talk page of the proposed NOINDEX policy/guideline, where I detail a very limited search to see what pops up and how it might affect the editors involved.
I want editors to clean up vandalism in Sex and Islam and Penis and Homosexuality and all the other heavily vandalised articles, but I don't want their good-faith clean-up work on Wikipedia to have adverse effects on their real lives. I'm happy to extend that to editors who came here and registered under their real names, only to discover they really didn't belong here for whatever reason. I hope that perhaps you can see this perspective. Risker (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it does, directly. That's what I'm talking about tool developers being able to enhance things. (and why I did my own code... crappy as it is.) Further, I'd urge EVERYONE complaining about ANYTHING at all techie (hey, I think the infobox guys should pay attention here) to get a bugzilla account, and USE IT. ++Lar: t/c02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hope you're keeping okay. The admin recall thing in my user page is getting added to Wikipedia:Administrators, or rather it has been added and is now being edited. That's just a heads up. At some point, once it is stabilised and appears to have consensus to stay there, I'll move the redirect over. Anyway, I came here to ask a question. What's the tool for watching what gets added to a category. I think you use it to watch the recall category. Any help? Ta, HidingT22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. See CAT:AOTR and go down the list of "see also's" till you see the one that starts out "Automated". That page is maintained by Bryanbot. It's fairly self documenting how to set one of these up to watch whatever categories you like. However it only catches adds, not removes. ++Lar: t/c01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the archiving of the previous discussion was done at the request of Joopercoopers, and in the request he asked me to post the the revised version.
Can your answer to the following be please be made by you acting in your capacity as steward:
Would the posting of generic statements similar the one above on the talk page of dozens of WikiProjects addressed to project members be considered spam? Sswonk (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't require Steward standing to answer that, I don't think. Some would consider it spam. Some not spam but canvassing. And some would consider it a courtesy. For best results, if you decide to do something like this, word it neutrally, and select people based on a criteria that is not related to their likely opinions (for example, pick members of a project who have been active in the last X days, perhaps, rather than members who have voiced an opinion you agree with...) see WP:CANVASS for some guidance. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c03:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Be please be the the thanks?" I read my question a couple of times but then accidentally hit "Save page". Happens once in a blue moon. I am investigating WP:CANVASS, and appreciate the advice. Sswonk (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have archived the discussion at MoS. The experiment at Ponte Vecchio will continue and no further discussion about a blanket statement against hiding infoboxes appears necessary. The discourse bore fruit in that major concerns about functionality and innovation were aired and a cooperative atmosphere prevailed. Sswonk (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re Frostie Jack
I have had a comment on my talkpage here from an ip purporting to be the above sock. I don't know if this is any help, as the case is closed, or I am being trolled for some reason. No need for response, just file if useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship in an wikipedia
Hi Lar, I'm a sysop in Aragonese Wikipedia (an:), and we just realized and were surprised to know that you were in the list of sysops of the aragonese wikipedia. It is not a problem that you are an admin, but we are a little bit puzzled about it, since your registration date in an.wp is 3rd august, and you have not any contributions yet. Anyway we had had no news about it. Could you explain what happened? Thank you! (I'd prefer if you can answer at an:User:Juanpabl)--Juanpabl (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answered there, but briefly, there was a spate of vandalism on your wiki, and many others, and I was renaming users and looking up CU information to help fight it, in my role as a steward. I forgot to turn the permissions off. ++Lar: t/c18:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry it got so heated. I know I can seem thick headed sometimes, I'm told that I have my head in the clouds by me closest. That my perception of ideals, cloud my best judgment at times. I enjoy collaborating with you, I want you to know that. Sorry for the arguments on AN. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Ideals are good. They're awesome, in fact. But we live in the real world. I wish people were smarter but the risk was too high. I enjoy collaborating with you and will again, I'm sure. I'm sorry if I got a little hot myself. ++Lar: t/c05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Silly Brit. MYSUVs are 'murrican. Actually I'm a huskyorangeman. And here, OM, I thought you were a Marlins fan or something... but I have to confess. I got my SU degree via IBM. They used to fly SU professors to Poughkeepsie to teach us IBMers under the Graduate Work Study program... (sweet deal, that). So I've never had Varsity pizza in Syracuse, because we didn't spend any time on campus. But I'm always amenable to pizza! (maybe that's why I'm husky?) ++Lar: t/c14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically that makes you an SU alum, and that's cool. Yes, the "Orange" in my user name refers to Syracuse University. I got one of my numerous degrees there, paid for by the good folks at the United States Navy. Although I did not get my undergrad there, I did spend an inordinate amount of time at the Cuse, so it's the school I follow the most (although my undergrad school is a sports mecca too). Now, for Varsity pizza, it has the requisite amount of grease to make everyone happy--and it's served in slices, as all good pizza should. California has the worst freaking pizza ever. So, since you did this off campus, I guess we can't recount the good times on Marshall Street.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, regarding your comment at AN at 13:46, I'm sure that you're trying to help, but I don't think it does. The problem is that the comment is too general; you're telling someone to go an examine everything they do. And that's a really general directive, which makes it really hard to follow. Try to be specific. I'm signing off till tomorrow. Stay sane, cheers, Ben Aveling14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you mentioned me there. Although I understand what you're saying, it doesn't mean I'm not pissed off at what I'm reading. Comments like this one are patently unfair, uncivil, and immature. Why are you not impartial? You slap me down along with this paranoid fantasy of an "ID cabal" at every chance you can, but you won't reprimand your "friends"? You cannot use me for your purposes in that discussion, unless you are willing to stand up for what is right everywhere. I'm concerned that reaching out to you is a wasted exercise. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to all be editors here, not in camps and cabals and factions and alliances... and I need to be better at calling everyone on stuff, not letting those who happen to agree with me more "slide". It's not easy but it's needful. I was trying to do what I could to move away from where we've been. If I haven't done that or if I've given offense I'm sorry. But believe me, impartiality is not at all easy. It is what we all need to do, to uphold NPOV, but I think we all could improve. Some more than others but I do not except myself from that assessment. ++Lar: t/c18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My formula for giving this sort of advice:
assume that everyone is well intentioned and that at least one party has missed a vital clue somewhere. That usually turns out to be true.
look for the core disagreement, which can be obvious but isn't always.
I'm just about to go out to dinner. What did you have in mind? You and I are both old timers. I stalked your writings on KC's (and JV's) pages and you're on to something... what's needed is a way to get beyond the labels, the old animosities, and get behavioural change. Kelly WAS out of line. But KC wasn't the person to point it out, at least not yet, there would be some bridge building needed first. Complement your adversaries, counsel your friends. (or as I've said before, block your allies, unblock your enemies) ++Lar: t/c21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I'm just trying to splash cold water around, and I was thinking of asking you to help. And I was curious to see your reaction to what I wrote above. :-) Enjoy dinner, catch you later. Ben Aveling22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you are high on the chain of command around here (and yes, there are elements of command and control running about this place). I would contend you have lost the right to choose sides, you have got to be absolutely consistent in fairness. And frankly, you're not even close. I'm not going to spend the time to dig up comments you made during the FT2 drama, because that's water under the bridge. But I still have yet to see you deal with your friends in any way close to how you dealt with me. Cla68 should have a 24 hour block, pure and simple. Since you lack the temerity to do that, and everyone else is chickenshit of being labelled part of the ID cabal if they did it, he gets away with unacceptable behavior patterns. And you enable it, because his friends aren't going do anything about it, which includes you. So every time I see you post something that deals with this destructive and anti-social name-calling from your buddies, I tune you out, because I know you default to their position. If I could see that you were truly fair, then MY default position would be that you're trying to solve the problem. Believe it or not, I am far more respectful of what you say than you might assume. That respect is tainted by your fundamental lack of true fairness to all editors who are completely devoted to this project. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, and for the TPW's that might be here, it looks to me like SirFozzie had a word with Cla68 suggesting that phrasing wasn't the best. Hopefully that will do the trick. ++Lar: t/c14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(out)... I want to build on what you did by reaching out to me, and by my reaching back. It may be a slender strand but it is something worth nurturing. I said above I am not perfect, and we all could stand to be more even handed. If you point me to something recent that needs attention, regardless of who said it or did it, I'll take a look. If a word is needed in my view, I'll give it. I won't commit to handing out blocks in advance though, that's not my style. Besides, civility blocks never work. I'd rather get beyond what happened in the past and focus on how to not have the same things happen in the future. I again say am sorry if I gave offense to you, it was not my intent. So how to move forward? How do we put bad memes behind us and focus on what we are here to do. ++Lar: t/c22:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thread isn't that bare, but it's more like we're beginning a climb up Half Dome, and I'm checking out your nylon ropes. It's a bit dark, so I can't tell if they're frayed or perfect. How's that for beating up a metaphor!?!? At any rate, let's set aside Cla68's uncivil comments, because just by my stating you should block him in this thread, probably ends any hope of that happening. Basically, my reading of the whole AN commentary about the "ID cabal" is that you don't think it's that important. Well it is. You need to come down firmly that any labelling of people is wrong. I try to not label Alternative Medicine supports as "dumb ass POV nutjob losers", toning it back to...nothing. I just deal with their edits in a fair but very tough manner. The thought that I spend north of 12 nanoseconds thinking about Intelligent design is just plain weird on the part of, to create a label, the Anti-anti-ID cabal. See how stupid this is? As one of the big wheels around here, you need to set the standard. I don't care what you have said to me, that has passed under the bridge, gone out to sea, and now is part of global warming (LOL).OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd have to strain to see how, unless you had the context we do. I'm ready to kick back and wait to see what happens here. This editor has been fenced in, put on notice that we expect constructive editing, and surely knows that any new socks I find are going to be blocked as soon as I find them (the old ones he revealed, I intend to let slide, as long as they don't start editing, although they could be added to the SSP if you would be so kind). We can't force people not to make smartass remarks (nor should we, actually). We can't force people to "get" the wiki way... he doesn't get how consensus works yet, but so be it. Let him be a wiseacre, within reason, and let us otherwise abide. The real proof of the pudding is what article edits end up getting made and how good they are. That's my thinking. Maybe a third opinion is needed, we're pretty close in on this. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a third opinion would be called for before doing anything radical, but not at this time. I also agree with your approach, and with your interpretation. I will keep a continue to keep an eye on what I normally keep an eye on. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a clarification on this, I don't think. We 4, (including PM) agreed to the terms of how this was going to be done. He went outside the terms. ++Lar: t/c01:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It confuses alot of people, myself included. I don't think your actions were unreasonable, but you cited a remedy that did not apply. I'm more asking for a amendment than a clarification. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
