I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 October 2008 through about 1 November 2008. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
|
Hi Lar, may I ask you to take a look at this deletion request filed by me? I came across this article while hunting down the edits of an IP which vandalized another article on my watchlist. This article turned out to be most-vandalized article I ever saw. In fact, I was unable to find any revisions without vandalisms except for its very beginning when it curiously described the town of Broadford on the isle of Skye. Since then this article was misused as an attack page against the inhabitants of this village. You'll find a summary of the revision history here. At the end I did not find any useful revision I could revert to and I thought it would be straightforward to get this article deleted and to start from scratch. In particular, I think it would be appropriate to get rid of edits like this one or that one. (There are more of this kind embedded in the revision history.) Since I opened this deletion request, apparently nobody understood my concerns. Most were simply arguing that this village is notable and that just some cleanup is required. Some even tried to save this article by removing all apparent vandalisms. The problem I see, however, is the remaining revision history as it includes insults against inhabitants of that village. In addition, I think, that such a long history of edits is a burden for anyone working on this article. Therefore I suggest to get at least rid of the revision history until my deletion request. Or to delete the entire article and start from scratch as I suggested on the deletion request. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and share your insights how this is best handled. Thanks for your support and best wishes, AFBorchert ( talk) 07:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not have Oversight on en:wp, sorry. You might speak to ArbCom about that, I've asked for it and had it declined. I can take a look at this article but my queue is rather long right now. Is there a specific action item here for me? Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, I am sorry to bother you again with this issue but this will be the very last time. This deletion request was closed early, i.e. before running for five days, by a non-admin. I do not think that this closure is in conformance with this policy but I do not intend to follow this point any further. It worries me, however, that a long series of revisions with defamatory stuff (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]) was kept in this article despite this policy which explicitly requires such material to be deleted and not just reverted. Given that multiple editors started to save the article by rewriting it from scratch after I filed it for deletion, the deletion of the entire article seems no longer be appropriate. Perhaps a selective deletion is the way to go. I saw it as my responsibility as a mere editor to draw the attention of admins to this amount of libel in this article and I got somewhat frustrated as apparently nobody followed to see a problem with that. I am not really familiar with the English wikipedia and its procedures. Perhaps this contributes to the problem that I apparently fail to make myself clear. This notice to you is my very last attempt to draw any attention to it. Thanks for your offer to help and best wishes, AFBorchert ( talk) 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I need help with an essay. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
They routinely agree with each other and even follow each other on to noticeboards to agree with each other. They always support each other's changes and both help to revert back each other's changes. They may indeed be different people, but I assure you, H and C have far more similar actions and back-ups (I could show you over 100 if you cared to see them all), then the editors Kelly charged me with being related to who appeared once and disappeared. I'm not asking for a formal request, but if you could check just to reassure yourself and me, I'd appreciate it. GreekParadise ( talk) 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lar,
I was thinking of requesting adminship in the near future, as many of my recent edits have been in areas where I could help more easily if I was an administrator. However, I recognize that I am probably too inexperienced with Wikipedia and possibly too ignorant of some policies. So I was wondering if you would consider admin coaching me.
Thank you, NuclearWarfare contact me My work 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The
September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I found the Halsam patents on wooden bricks and added it to the LEGO article. I don't know if you follow the article, but I noted your interest in LEGOs. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Rapid-response you your email, sir. Iet's sort this out quickly - Alison ❤ 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
You get this star for best edit summary ever. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
This video rocks. I'm a fan of both SpaceX and Crystal Method so it's doubly good. High Roller indeed is a great choice for an accompaniment! ++ Lar: t/ c 04:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, I've closed this discussion which seemed to be becoming rather bitter, and tried to focus attention on how things might be improved. I hope my rationale makes sense and is something people can get behind. It occurs to me that in blanking the RfCU request beyond your earlier redactions, I have rather exceeded the authority of a non-checkuser in this area. For that I apologise. If you feel that my further blanking hampers the ability of checkusers to keep a check on misconduct by SA, I of course defer to you and accept your right to revert me. I think however that this course reflects the consensus of the discussion and is the best way for everyone to move on positively. WJBscribe (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you watchlist Talk:Fiador (tack) and its associated article? The last time this article was subject to a round of editing, I was the recipient of a wikiquette alert. The same OR and photos have been reinserted again, I have commented on the talk page, I am going to be making some structural edits and tagging some materials in the article, and this issue needs to be resolved once and for all. I'm sick of fighting over it. Montanabw (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
(redacted)
I don't mind giving it out, certainly not to you. I do not make it automatically available because a now-banned user once used it to harass me, that's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lar: At Arthur Rubin's suggestion, I have started a User RfC for Kay Sieverding, who is continuing to do exactly what she did before Risker's block. Please feel free to participate here Non Curat Lex ( talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, hope is well. Popped back into Wikipedia today after a long break, and found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, under Topic ban needed for two edit warriors. I personally think it is more wasteful arguing, where all they had to do is come up with a shared-name in the filename and include all terms in the image, and everyone is jumping up and down happy. Anyway, I always enjoy your comments on situations, so if you have time, drop by. I think it is just childish to have topic bans, blocks, etc. in this case. They just need to agree on a shared solution and be done with it. On the side, I'd actually like to see if you would be willing to be the unofficial mediator for this topic area if any future issues come up with naming. You've always been good at seeing through the babbling and just getting a compromise. :) Icsunonove ( talk) 20:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you see if there are any more? Thanks. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, Cumulus has made a bad faith 3RR report on me, which was, thankfully, promptly dismissed. However, a sudden new account, "Arizona Biltmore" has suddenly appeared, interested in making the exact reversions CC has made, and also leaving, at best, strange Talk page entries. He does not seem to accept that unsourced material in a bio can be removed, although CC did it often in the past. Can you see if there is a chance that AB is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of Cumulus Clouds? Merci! Collect ( talk) 09:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Holy smokes, thats rather a lot to read... Cumulus Clouds: When making suggestions that two users are related and requesting a check, even informally, it's helpful to give some diffs of specific edits that suggest a connection (because the edits are similar, or are both reverting the same thing, or one user is speaking as the other, or whatever) ... hope those tips help. (But I repeat myself) Please present specific diffs that justify a check. Thanks. Also, this may not be the best place to resolve disputes. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Collect posts tirade on talk page of User:Jclemens. Jclemens directs Collect to a defunct RFC to make a point. Collect reads RFC and registers User Honey and Thyme in advance of AFD. Collect posts message to talk page of User:MichaelQSchmidt to engage user in dispute. MichaelQSchmidt rejects message and removes it from his talk page. Shortly afterwards, Honey and Thyme posts AFD. I comment on AFD (article is on my watchlist). 90 minutes later Collect posts a keep vote. A day later, Collect posts again to AFD claiming to support conclusion that Honey And Thyme is a possible sock.
Arizona Biltmore was registered on 15:51 3 December 2007. 10 months later, they edit the talk page of Charles Keating and begin engaging in the debate with no prior edits to that article or any other. They exhibit typical sockpuppet behavior and know far more about process than is typical of new accounts. At 12:50 on 14 October, Arizona Biltmore makes first revert to Charles Keating, exactly three hours after Collect's last revert. Collect reverts Arizona Biltmore exactly one hour later. Collect ceases editing at 12:25 14 October. Resumes editing at 13:40 14 October. Arizona Biltmore makes no futher edits that day.
I post the 3RR notice, check Charles Keating and note that a new account has now engaged in edits. Over an hour later, I add a new diff for Arizona Biltmore's revert at 18:26 14 October. Arizona Biltmore logs in 24 minutes later and posts to the talk page of Charles Keating. One minute later, they revert Collect's edit. Collect responds on the talk page and reverts Arizona Biltmore's edit 4 hours later. Collect remained logged out of their account between 0901 15 October 2008 and 0236 16 October 2008, when they logged in to respond to Arizona Biltmore and revert their edits. I am convinced there is a third account to fill in the gaps.
There are no overlaps in editing times between Arizona Biltmore, Honey And Thyme and Collect. Both Arizona Biltmore and Honey And Thyme know far more about process than is typical of new registrations. Both accounts have been used in a concerted effort to appear as if they were me. Had I not posted the comment to the AFD, I am certain that Collect would be asking you to perform checks on me for that one as well. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not seeing a really solid reason from you, CC, to check User:Honey And Thyme against either of you. However I did see enough in HaT's contribs to warrant a check anyway and HaT is not related to either of you. I suggest you dial down things if you possibly can. The road you are on is not a good one. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
AB, HaT, CC, and Collect are seperately and individually not technically related to any of each other. I think that's 3 factorial different relationships I'm saying aren't there. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lar, you have a query regarding your recent
Did you know nomination. Please respond
here. Thank you. --
How do you turn this on (
talk)
16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I changed the hook. I will try to work on those grammatical formulations as well. Thanks again. Docku: “what up?” 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Our friend "Arizona Biltmore" has insisted on an unsourced section on the Keating Family in the Charles Keating article. And when asked for a "source" gives a vague "Mariposa County" source with no link, no page, and I sincerely doubt, any relevance to the charges made in that section. On his talk page, he says:
I pointed out that removal of unsourced stuff from a BLP is proper. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245785064&oldid=245783109 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245782774&oldid=245776258 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245772808&oldid=245772650 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245772650&oldid=245748135 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245578210&oldid=245340330 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&oldid=245286485 and coincidentally from dear Cumulus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&oldid=245334567 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&oldid=245018772
ad mauseam. Arizona is well over 3RR at this point.
All pushing the same unsourced material. Collect ( talk) 00:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) AB has been warned not to revert war. AB has been cautioned not to bring the fact that Collect was properly removing BLP violating material to the editor assistance board. IF AB goes over the line after being warned, a block is warranted. I am seeing a lot of people with a lot of viewpoints they apparently want to push, no one's hands are clean. I'll question actions (not integrity) as I see fit. If that's not satisfactory, (and also speaking of things I'm not a huge fan of) let me point out that this page is not really the place for dispute resolution, or sock reports. When it goes for more than 2 or 3 screens, it probably belongs somewhere else. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, Lar, I understand that you've been really frustrated with Kay Sieverding ( talk · contribs) for awhile now, because of the dispute at Pro se legal representation in the United States and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kay Sieverding, but how exactly is this edit, [22] justification for a 1-week BLP block? I'm not seeing it. -- El on ka 03:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I must concur with Lar about the appropriateness of this block, in all of its aspects. The length of the block is in keeping with WP:BLOCK, which suggests progressively longer blocks for inappropriate editorial behaviour. Kay has been told to please stop adding information and commentary about her personal experiences less than 48 hours ago. [23] Celebrating the downfall of a real world opponent with an edit summary of "my good news hurrah hurrah" is most certainly a BLP violation; the person involved is clearly identifiable. Bringing external disputes onto Wikipedia is unhelpful at the best of times; there isn't much difference between this interpersonal/political dispute and some of the inter-ethnic/political disputes that our encyclopedia has seen, except for its scale. Risker ( talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's my concern: the first revert eliminated an outright copyright violation when she copied the text of the articles. Immediately after, as if to challenge the intervening admin, she brings it back as links. I don't deny her the right to some schadenfreude, but using wikipedia for it, in the face of inceasing controversy, is disruptive. Also, linking to the articles raises BLP issues. I mean, the papers may be entitled to a presumption of reliability as published sources, but papers can still commit libel - what if the stuff abotu Nottingham turns out to be wrong? Kay would still potentially be using wikipedia to republish libel (and remember that libel is tortious even if you don't originate it, you merely repeat it). When you look at the total, Kay's edit adds a lot more burden than value. A one week block might not ordinarily issue for an mere posting of links on a userpage... but there's so much more going on here than just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Non Curat Lex ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 October 2008
Elonka, I find this edit thoroughly unhelpful. It is important with an editor like Kay that you give absolutely no opening for wikilawyering, that you remain consistent. You may have had issue with the block but to go to Kay's talk page, and make an edit like that, after you had already engaged in discussion here, is unconscionable. I would greatly appreciate your removing it or repudiating it, because, as I said, it was thoroughly unhelpful, even meddlesome. It's as if when you were losing the argument here, you went there and made an edit that undercut the action of a fellow admin. Agree to disagree but that sort of thing is uncollegial and I'm disappointed. ++ Lar: t/ c 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, Elonka tells Bishzilla "I'm not going to openly argue with you on that editor's talkpage"... apparently there may have been a change in her views about openly arguing in light of the edit she made which I called "thoroughly unhelpful" above. I stand by that assessment. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Folks, it looks like this is winding down and everyone is approaching their last post, so lets cut it off here. Nothing to be gained beyond this point except further acrimony and distraction. Avruch T 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
If I may get a last word in here...sorry for the delay in commenting, real life has been very hectic for me this evening. The block was endorsed by all who commented at the thread on WP:AN, as well as on this page. Many agreed that there was a BLP violation. Nobody disagreed specifically about the nature of the block except Elonka, and she certainly has the right to her own opinion, and to express it.
Recognising consensus is usually straightforward for independent third parties. Those involved in situations sometimes lose sight of the forest for the trees. Something I learned long ago is that, if I am the only person on one side of an argument, it's probably time to stop arguing, and figure out why nobody else seems to agree with me. The worst thing to do is to escalate beyond initial intentions. Perhaps Elonka might wish to reflect on that. The exchanges on this page and on ANI went far beyond questioning the description of a block that everyone, without exception, agreed was appropriate. Escalating the discussion to the point it got to tonight is absurd, particularly on a day when another longtime editor had "twat" and "prick" put into his block log - on the unblock message at that. Elonka, that block might have been a better one to review closely. Risker ( talk) 06:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a lost as to what the BLP violation is. The material is sourced to reliable sources. Whether it has any business on a userpage is a separate issue. But we shouldn't cry BLP when that isn't the real concern. JoshuaZ ( talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a little to the article to make it clearer that JCPenney had three stores ("and JCPenney's new store opened on March 1, 2008, resulting in the closure of the three former JCPenney stores"). Also, source 7 says "While three JC Penney stores used to be spread throughout the mall, shoppers now have easy access to Penney's traditional department store offerings in one location." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This concerns a content dispute concerning two competing films which have been compared in several news articles, An American Carol and Religulous. What do you think about the comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=An_American_Carol&diff=245885620&oldid=245882808 ? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 17:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, that discussion is taking a turn for the worse. Did you see the accusations that Rarelibra is making against me now? This has become his mode of operation now. Tell people to be quiet, and make all these innuendos that he is hunting people down for retribution. Icsunonove ( talk) 21:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, thanks for trying to help contain this issue. I agree with your assessment that the "legal threat" issue is a bit of a red herring and a misunderstanding. But do you think we could perhaps have a checkuser on the IP that sparked this recent bout of bitterness? 76.89.157.102 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was extremely abusive (gloating about how Rarelibra was going to be sent to Iraq, plus various other personal attacks); it was obviously someone who is intimately familiar with the long-standing dispute; they were hiding deliberately from their normal identity by using the IP; so it's certainly abusive sockpuppetry. Rarelibra believes it was Icsunonove, but can't prove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar. Thanks for your comments on the 11 October DYK nomination for the Larmer Tree Festival. I've added two new hooks [34] that I hope will be better. Cheers. Roisterdoister ( talk) 11:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
(Refactored to User_talk:ScienceApologist per my policy) ++ Lar: t/ c 01:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
purports to be a new account (error on my part -- a renamed account) -- which created a bunch of stubs and then a huge revert of Thomas Muthee. (I doubt a new user would do this) -- if you look at Thomas Muthee's last edits, there appears to be a possible pattern. Again, I would never accuse anyone of anything, but I do wonder about this ("new) user"
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246226570&oldid=246224133 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246223652&oldid=246195905 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246195650&oldid=246194454 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246192446&oldid=246189064 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246188679&oldid=246185366 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246182586&oldid=246182424
-- Thanks! Collect ( talk) 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Lar, hi, I wasn't sure you were aware of it, and if you are, I apologize, but if not, you may wish to read (or re-read) this guideline? Just a heads-up, -- El on ka 05:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I wanted to show you this; it's my first new article in a while. Hope you're keeping well, -- John ( talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, I am a big fan of LEGOs. When I was a youngster, I had a whole city of them on my bedroom floor. It drove my poor parents just about nuts. I suspect that someday, if and when I become a dad, my kids, whether boys or girls, will find themselves encouraged to become LEGO builders. Non Curat Lex ( talk) 06:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
G'day Lar (the knock knock isn't the beginning of a bad joke, it's more that I'm having uncomfortable flashbacks to arriving at the genial headmaster's office....) - I'm totally aware that you've been rather busy elsewhere for the last little while, but thought I'd swing by and let you know a couple of the things I've been up to. SirFoz also sort of pointed me in this direction, after my request for an arb clarification earlier. Your thoughts and feedback on that matter are, as ever, most welcome, but I'd also like to to gently poke you for any thoughts on my recent editing at Anthony Watmough and John Ogden (photographer) :-)
hope you're good too :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 08:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
< okey dokey, so here's the material I've reviewed;
I tried to sum up what I felt the position was at the arb pages, and feel rather roundly criticised for that attempt. You're saying that it's clear to you that Steve is in fact under a 6 month arbcom ban, and that further 'on wiki' discussion is inappropriate though, right? best, Privatemusings ( talk) 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, WTF is going on with User Talk:Kay Sieverding? I've been marginally aware of some issues there, and now it's on WP:BLP/N. If you want my 2 cents, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground or a venue to import and pursue outside conflicts. The entire situation brings to mind Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. I would strongly favor asking the editor in question to move on and pursue this in a more appropriate venue, and I'd generally just take care of this, but I see a wide-ranging cast of admins are already on the case - so I don't want to intervene unilaterally. What's the status of this, if you don't mind my asking? MastCell Talk 16:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we've all been doing the "excessive good faith" thing, frankly... I'm now 99.99% sure it's already time to cut losses. I see Risker reverted the page. Good deal. I'll comment on the BLP/N page. I've been somewhat slack in reverting, despite my warnings, partly because I was a bit tired of arguing with Elonka about this (see above, at some considerable length) and partly because I've had other matters on my mind (see a certain ArbCom proposed decision talk page, now locked against edits). ++ Lar: t/ c 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think as long as the scope is clearly defined, it's reasonable to ban Kay Sieverding ( talk · contribs) from certain articles or talkpages, and even from making certain types of edits. She seems to like rules, so if we set up a very specific "You can do this, you can't do that" structure, it might work well. For example, it sounds like we have consensus to ban her from any edits related to Judge Nottingham, or to bring up any sources which are not directly related to existing Wikipedia articles. Questions here though would be: Is she still allowed to participate at the Edward Nottingham talkpage, to suggest additional sources/additions? Is she still allowed to participate at the Pro se legal representation in the United States article? Also, since her name does appear in certain external reliable sources, is she allowed to bring up those sources, where they might be directly related to an existing article? -- El on ka 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
<--(unindent) Elonka, Kay is in a real-life legal dispute with these people. This isn't just a conflict of interest, it is drawing Wikipedia into a real-world legal battle; thus, permitting her to edit those talk pages is inappropriate. The extent of her ongoing crusade has only become clear in the last few days, as she has posted more and more information on her talk page. I don't make a habit of doing internet searches on editors I interact with, although I know some others do. The restrictions on her talk page are clear, and extend beyond what you propose by a long extent based on her editing patterns and behaviour. Before I imposed the restrictions currently on her page, I read all those links and checked all her edits. Restricting her from editing the main pro se article is completely insufficient, as she has attempted to distort a number of articles in order to insert her POV material relating to self-representation; your suggestion would permit her to continue doing so. Risker ( talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(moved from my [Risker's] talk page, to keep this together)
Hi Risker, I just wanted to contact you directly on your talkpage, since we seem to be having trouble communicating on Lar's talkpage. I have to admit that I'm scratching my head here, because I'm not understanding what it is that you're trying to say. On the one hand you seem to be saying to give KS another chance, on the other you seem to be saying no, don't give her another chance. Can you please clarify? I have great respect for your opinion, but I'm really not understanding which way you would like to proceed here. -- El on ka 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Is User:12.145.227.121 a known entity? (re: Nottingham which I stumbled on accidentally) Collect ( talk) 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Now 96.60.81.245 . A pattern emergeth? Collect ( talk) 20:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, what needs CUing? Her and the IPs mentioned in this thread? More? Less? Ranges? Thx. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Just curious - do you intend to answer my question? If not, I shall resign from pursuing the matter further. Thanks. talk:search of persons. M/C Max conformist ( talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
[-unindent] Lar, I looked at the page, and MaxC is right. It's crap. Moreover, the material is already covered -- better -- by another article, search and seizure. I think search of persons should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to search & seizure, and I should turn my attention to marginal improvement of that article (and hopefully MaxC as well). MaxC doesn't agree that search of persons should be eliminated as an article unto itself. Question: Do I need to open a prod for what I'm proposing? Procedurally, what do I do to get a community discussion of the proposal? Non Curat Lex ( talk) 04:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all that you do! I see you a lot here and at Commons. Royal broil 00:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you will be amused to hear that I was selected to speak at the Web 2.0 Summit. There are about 2000 attendees, and 70 speakers, with me among least notable. I'll be talking about "virtual blight" from the perspective of a Wikipedia administrator. If you, or your numerous talk page watchers have funny examples of disruption, harassment or socking, I could use PowerPoint fodder. MBisanz has already cornered me and secured a promise that I will release the presentation GFDL. Regards, Jehochman Talk 05:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
... from my wife's talk page: [38] ... Enjoy. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My wife put something applicable (from common law and tradition) on her page that she thought would counter some of the unhelpful things that have been said. She's, as I said above, feeling rather put upon. She did nothing wrong in any of this.
You can tell me to shut up if you like. You're in fact welcome to do just that, right here. I explicitly take no offense at these comments. and I explicitly disclaim and deny that (in particular) Giano's comment was incivil, in case anyone was thinking of taking a free shot at him for expressing his opinion to me, a friend. Just don't. (Risker: I appreciate the sentiment behind the initial reversion, but no. If any of the commenters here want to strike their remarks, feel free, but no removals, thanks. See the top of this talk page)
The cite has been removed from my wife's page. Let that be the end of this. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Lar, you have the absolute and unquestioned privilege to share anything (and hopefully everything) with your spouse. However, your spouse then inherits the obligation to convey absolutely nothing to third parties. Spousal privilege is only what the exact words mean, it's a confidence between precisely two people. Kinda like a sysadmin, when you help a VP print out the layoff notice, you still can't tell people they'll be fired tomorrow. When you help out the payroll clerk, you can't tell George that Mary gets paid more than Fred. Trust can only be absolute. This may not be apropos, since I haven't followed the whole mess (or even sure which mess it is?). Franamax ( talk) 08:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247627505&oldid=247624405 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247601781&oldid=247601737 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247590785&oldid=247589819 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247586346&oldid=247584962 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247584450&oldid=247584116
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247390060&oldid=247388103
appear to possibly show a problem in Sarah Palin. GP has, if I recall correctly, been blocked in the past for 3RR violations in that article, and been warned about editwars. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
As a note: 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. If a user repeatedly does 3, but not 4, unjustified reverts in a 24 hour period, thinking they have avoided the rule... they may nevertheless find themeselves blocked anyway, for gaming the system. "scrupulously avoiding exceeding 3 reverts" is not a defense. Just something to keep in mind. (and if there is a pattern, bringing it to the 3RR noticeboard is probably the best appproach) As for the rest of this I'm not seeing a specific action item here for me. This seems like a content dispute, which is best worked through on the relevant article talk page or pages. I'd ask everyone to try to work together collegially to resolve this without needing to come to admins for assistance, if at all possible. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I will post a full -- and long -- explanation on the Administrators' notice board. GreekParadise ( talk) 19:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The CheckUser tool is granted to highly trusted and experienced Wiki users and it must be used with the utmost respect for privacy as governed by Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. CheckUsers must exercise sound judgement, balancing need to protect the community with privacy concerns. Breaches of this should be dealt with through the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission.
Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion. The users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—are reminded that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. All CheckUsers are reminded that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times.
For the Arbitration Committee,
—
Rlevse •
Talk •
01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I recently noticed a minor edit in a minor article which would be considered spam, i.e. a link added to an "external links" section which promoted the website of a new user, Sackrabbit ( talk · contribs). However, I found the linked site to be useful and relevant to the subject so I kept it, simply editing it to remove reference to sackrabbit.com. I informed the user on his wikitalk, and then noticed something: the user creation log entry for Sackrabbit appeared in my watchlist. Is this normal? I did create his talk page, but I don't remember ever seeing creation entry appear in my watchlist prior to this. Please point me to information regarding why this has happened, as I searched but was unable to find an explanation. Thanks - Sswonk ( talk) 04:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 October 2008 through about 1 November 2008. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
|
Hi Lar, may I ask you to take a look at this deletion request filed by me? I came across this article while hunting down the edits of an IP which vandalized another article on my watchlist. This article turned out to be most-vandalized article I ever saw. In fact, I was unable to find any revisions without vandalisms except for its very beginning when it curiously described the town of Broadford on the isle of Skye. Since then this article was misused as an attack page against the inhabitants of this village. You'll find a summary of the revision history here. At the end I did not find any useful revision I could revert to and I thought it would be straightforward to get this article deleted and to start from scratch. In particular, I think it would be appropriate to get rid of edits like this one or that one. (There are more of this kind embedded in the revision history.) Since I opened this deletion request, apparently nobody understood my concerns. Most were simply arguing that this village is notable and that just some cleanup is required. Some even tried to save this article by removing all apparent vandalisms. The problem I see, however, is the remaining revision history as it includes insults against inhabitants of that village. In addition, I think, that such a long history of edits is a burden for anyone working on this article. Therefore I suggest to get at least rid of the revision history until my deletion request. Or to delete the entire article and start from scratch as I suggested on the deletion request. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and share your insights how this is best handled. Thanks for your support and best wishes, AFBorchert ( talk) 07:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not have Oversight on en:wp, sorry. You might speak to ArbCom about that, I've asked for it and had it declined. I can take a look at this article but my queue is rather long right now. Is there a specific action item here for me? Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 12:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, I am sorry to bother you again with this issue but this will be the very last time. This deletion request was closed early, i.e. before running for five days, by a non-admin. I do not think that this closure is in conformance with this policy but I do not intend to follow this point any further. It worries me, however, that a long series of revisions with defamatory stuff (see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]) was kept in this article despite this policy which explicitly requires such material to be deleted and not just reverted. Given that multiple editors started to save the article by rewriting it from scratch after I filed it for deletion, the deletion of the entire article seems no longer be appropriate. Perhaps a selective deletion is the way to go. I saw it as my responsibility as a mere editor to draw the attention of admins to this amount of libel in this article and I got somewhat frustrated as apparently nobody followed to see a problem with that. I am not really familiar with the English wikipedia and its procedures. Perhaps this contributes to the problem that I apparently fail to make myself clear. This notice to you is my very last attempt to draw any attention to it. Thanks for your offer to help and best wishes, AFBorchert ( talk) 05:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I need help with an essay. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
They routinely agree with each other and even follow each other on to noticeboards to agree with each other. They always support each other's changes and both help to revert back each other's changes. They may indeed be different people, but I assure you, H and C have far more similar actions and back-ups (I could show you over 100 if you cared to see them all), then the editors Kelly charged me with being related to who appeared once and disappeared. I'm not asking for a formal request, but if you could check just to reassure yourself and me, I'd appreciate it. GreekParadise ( talk) 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lar,
I was thinking of requesting adminship in the near future, as many of my recent edits have been in areas where I could help more easily if I was an administrator. However, I recognize that I am probably too inexperienced with Wikipedia and possibly too ignorant of some policies. So I was wondering if you would consider admin coaching me.
Thank you, NuclearWarfare contact me My work 01:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The
September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I found the Halsam patents on wooden bricks and added it to the LEGO article. I don't know if you follow the article, but I noted your interest in LEGOs. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Rapid-response you your email, sir. Iet's sort this out quickly - Alison ❤ 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
You get this star for best edit summary ever. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
This video rocks. I'm a fan of both SpaceX and Crystal Method so it's doubly good. High Roller indeed is a great choice for an accompaniment! ++ Lar: t/ c 04:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, I've closed this discussion which seemed to be becoming rather bitter, and tried to focus attention on how things might be improved. I hope my rationale makes sense and is something people can get behind. It occurs to me that in blanking the RfCU request beyond your earlier redactions, I have rather exceeded the authority of a non-checkuser in this area. For that I apologise. If you feel that my further blanking hampers the ability of checkusers to keep a check on misconduct by SA, I of course defer to you and accept your right to revert me. I think however that this course reflects the consensus of the discussion and is the best way for everyone to move on positively. WJBscribe (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you watchlist Talk:Fiador (tack) and its associated article? The last time this article was subject to a round of editing, I was the recipient of a wikiquette alert. The same OR and photos have been reinserted again, I have commented on the talk page, I am going to be making some structural edits and tagging some materials in the article, and this issue needs to be resolved once and for all. I'm sick of fighting over it. Montanabw (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
(redacted)
I don't mind giving it out, certainly not to you. I do not make it automatically available because a now-banned user once used it to harass me, that's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lar: At Arthur Rubin's suggestion, I have started a User RfC for Kay Sieverding, who is continuing to do exactly what she did before Risker's block. Please feel free to participate here Non Curat Lex ( talk) 19:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, hope is well. Popped back into Wikipedia today after a long break, and found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, under Topic ban needed for two edit warriors. I personally think it is more wasteful arguing, where all they had to do is come up with a shared-name in the filename and include all terms in the image, and everyone is jumping up and down happy. Anyway, I always enjoy your comments on situations, so if you have time, drop by. I think it is just childish to have topic bans, blocks, etc. in this case. They just need to agree on a shared solution and be done with it. On the side, I'd actually like to see if you would be willing to be the unofficial mediator for this topic area if any future issues come up with naming. You've always been good at seeing through the babbling and just getting a compromise. :) Icsunonove ( talk) 20:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you see if there are any more? Thanks. J.delanoy gabs adds 04:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, Cumulus has made a bad faith 3RR report on me, which was, thankfully, promptly dismissed. However, a sudden new account, "Arizona Biltmore" has suddenly appeared, interested in making the exact reversions CC has made, and also leaving, at best, strange Talk page entries. He does not seem to accept that unsourced material in a bio can be removed, although CC did it often in the past. Can you see if there is a chance that AB is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of Cumulus Clouds? Merci! Collect ( talk) 09:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Holy smokes, thats rather a lot to read... Cumulus Clouds: When making suggestions that two users are related and requesting a check, even informally, it's helpful to give some diffs of specific edits that suggest a connection (because the edits are similar, or are both reverting the same thing, or one user is speaking as the other, or whatever) ... hope those tips help. (But I repeat myself) Please present specific diffs that justify a check. Thanks. Also, this may not be the best place to resolve disputes. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Collect posts tirade on talk page of User:Jclemens. Jclemens directs Collect to a defunct RFC to make a point. Collect reads RFC and registers User Honey and Thyme in advance of AFD. Collect posts message to talk page of User:MichaelQSchmidt to engage user in dispute. MichaelQSchmidt rejects message and removes it from his talk page. Shortly afterwards, Honey and Thyme posts AFD. I comment on AFD (article is on my watchlist). 90 minutes later Collect posts a keep vote. A day later, Collect posts again to AFD claiming to support conclusion that Honey And Thyme is a possible sock.
Arizona Biltmore was registered on 15:51 3 December 2007. 10 months later, they edit the talk page of Charles Keating and begin engaging in the debate with no prior edits to that article or any other. They exhibit typical sockpuppet behavior and know far more about process than is typical of new accounts. At 12:50 on 14 October, Arizona Biltmore makes first revert to Charles Keating, exactly three hours after Collect's last revert. Collect reverts Arizona Biltmore exactly one hour later. Collect ceases editing at 12:25 14 October. Resumes editing at 13:40 14 October. Arizona Biltmore makes no futher edits that day.
I post the 3RR notice, check Charles Keating and note that a new account has now engaged in edits. Over an hour later, I add a new diff for Arizona Biltmore's revert at 18:26 14 October. Arizona Biltmore logs in 24 minutes later and posts to the talk page of Charles Keating. One minute later, they revert Collect's edit. Collect responds on the talk page and reverts Arizona Biltmore's edit 4 hours later. Collect remained logged out of their account between 0901 15 October 2008 and 0236 16 October 2008, when they logged in to respond to Arizona Biltmore and revert their edits. I am convinced there is a third account to fill in the gaps.
There are no overlaps in editing times between Arizona Biltmore, Honey And Thyme and Collect. Both Arizona Biltmore and Honey And Thyme know far more about process than is typical of new registrations. Both accounts have been used in a concerted effort to appear as if they were me. Had I not posted the comment to the AFD, I am certain that Collect would be asking you to perform checks on me for that one as well. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not seeing a really solid reason from you, CC, to check User:Honey And Thyme against either of you. However I did see enough in HaT's contribs to warrant a check anyway and HaT is not related to either of you. I suggest you dial down things if you possibly can. The road you are on is not a good one. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
AB, HaT, CC, and Collect are seperately and individually not technically related to any of each other. I think that's 3 factorial different relationships I'm saying aren't there. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lar, you have a query regarding your recent
Did you know nomination. Please respond
here. Thank you. --
How do you turn this on (
talk)
16:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I changed the hook. I will try to work on those grammatical formulations as well. Thanks again. Docku: “what up?” 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Our friend "Arizona Biltmore" has insisted on an unsourced section on the Keating Family in the Charles Keating article. And when asked for a "source" gives a vague "Mariposa County" source with no link, no page, and I sincerely doubt, any relevance to the charges made in that section. On his talk page, he says:
I pointed out that removal of unsourced stuff from a BLP is proper. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245785064&oldid=245783109 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245782774&oldid=245776258 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245772808&oldid=245772650 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245772650&oldid=245748135 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&diff=245578210&oldid=245340330 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&oldid=245286485 and coincidentally from dear Cumulus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&oldid=245334567 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Charles_Keating&oldid=245018772
ad mauseam. Arizona is well over 3RR at this point.
All pushing the same unsourced material. Collect ( talk) 00:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) AB has been warned not to revert war. AB has been cautioned not to bring the fact that Collect was properly removing BLP violating material to the editor assistance board. IF AB goes over the line after being warned, a block is warranted. I am seeing a lot of people with a lot of viewpoints they apparently want to push, no one's hands are clean. I'll question actions (not integrity) as I see fit. If that's not satisfactory, (and also speaking of things I'm not a huge fan of) let me point out that this page is not really the place for dispute resolution, or sock reports. When it goes for more than 2 or 3 screens, it probably belongs somewhere else. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, Lar, I understand that you've been really frustrated with Kay Sieverding ( talk · contribs) for awhile now, because of the dispute at Pro se legal representation in the United States and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kay Sieverding, but how exactly is this edit, [22] justification for a 1-week BLP block? I'm not seeing it. -- El on ka 03:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I must concur with Lar about the appropriateness of this block, in all of its aspects. The length of the block is in keeping with WP:BLOCK, which suggests progressively longer blocks for inappropriate editorial behaviour. Kay has been told to please stop adding information and commentary about her personal experiences less than 48 hours ago. [23] Celebrating the downfall of a real world opponent with an edit summary of "my good news hurrah hurrah" is most certainly a BLP violation; the person involved is clearly identifiable. Bringing external disputes onto Wikipedia is unhelpful at the best of times; there isn't much difference between this interpersonal/political dispute and some of the inter-ethnic/political disputes that our encyclopedia has seen, except for its scale. Risker ( talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's my concern: the first revert eliminated an outright copyright violation when she copied the text of the articles. Immediately after, as if to challenge the intervening admin, she brings it back as links. I don't deny her the right to some schadenfreude, but using wikipedia for it, in the face of inceasing controversy, is disruptive. Also, linking to the articles raises BLP issues. I mean, the papers may be entitled to a presumption of reliability as published sources, but papers can still commit libel - what if the stuff abotu Nottingham turns out to be wrong? Kay would still potentially be using wikipedia to republish libel (and remember that libel is tortious even if you don't originate it, you merely repeat it). When you look at the total, Kay's edit adds a lot more burden than value. A one week block might not ordinarily issue for an mere posting of links on a userpage... but there's so much more going on here than just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Non Curat Lex ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 17 October 2008
Elonka, I find this edit thoroughly unhelpful. It is important with an editor like Kay that you give absolutely no opening for wikilawyering, that you remain consistent. You may have had issue with the block but to go to Kay's talk page, and make an edit like that, after you had already engaged in discussion here, is unconscionable. I would greatly appreciate your removing it or repudiating it, because, as I said, it was thoroughly unhelpful, even meddlesome. It's as if when you were losing the argument here, you went there and made an edit that undercut the action of a fellow admin. Agree to disagree but that sort of thing is uncollegial and I'm disappointed. ++ Lar: t/ c 06:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, Elonka tells Bishzilla "I'm not going to openly argue with you on that editor's talkpage"... apparently there may have been a change in her views about openly arguing in light of the edit she made which I called "thoroughly unhelpful" above. I stand by that assessment. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Folks, it looks like this is winding down and everyone is approaching their last post, so lets cut it off here. Nothing to be gained beyond this point except further acrimony and distraction. Avruch T 23:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
If I may get a last word in here...sorry for the delay in commenting, real life has been very hectic for me this evening. The block was endorsed by all who commented at the thread on WP:AN, as well as on this page. Many agreed that there was a BLP violation. Nobody disagreed specifically about the nature of the block except Elonka, and she certainly has the right to her own opinion, and to express it.
Recognising consensus is usually straightforward for independent third parties. Those involved in situations sometimes lose sight of the forest for the trees. Something I learned long ago is that, if I am the only person on one side of an argument, it's probably time to stop arguing, and figure out why nobody else seems to agree with me. The worst thing to do is to escalate beyond initial intentions. Perhaps Elonka might wish to reflect on that. The exchanges on this page and on ANI went far beyond questioning the description of a block that everyone, without exception, agreed was appropriate. Escalating the discussion to the point it got to tonight is absurd, particularly on a day when another longtime editor had "twat" and "prick" put into his block log - on the unblock message at that. Elonka, that block might have been a better one to review closely. Risker ( talk) 06:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a lost as to what the BLP violation is. The material is sourced to reliable sources. Whether it has any business on a userpage is a separate issue. But we shouldn't cry BLP when that isn't the real concern. JoshuaZ ( talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I added a little to the article to make it clearer that JCPenney had three stores ("and JCPenney's new store opened on March 1, 2008, resulting in the closure of the three former JCPenney stores"). Also, source 7 says "While three JC Penney stores used to be spread throughout the mall, shoppers now have easy access to Penney's traditional department store offerings in one location." Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This concerns a content dispute concerning two competing films which have been compared in several news articles, An American Carol and Religulous. What do you think about the comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=An_American_Carol&diff=245885620&oldid=245882808 ? Steelbeard1 ( talk) 17:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, that discussion is taking a turn for the worse. Did you see the accusations that Rarelibra is making against me now? This has become his mode of operation now. Tell people to be quiet, and make all these innuendos that he is hunting people down for retribution. Icsunonove ( talk) 21:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar, thanks for trying to help contain this issue. I agree with your assessment that the "legal threat" issue is a bit of a red herring and a misunderstanding. But do you think we could perhaps have a checkuser on the IP that sparked this recent bout of bitterness? 76.89.157.102 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was extremely abusive (gloating about how Rarelibra was going to be sent to Iraq, plus various other personal attacks); it was obviously someone who is intimately familiar with the long-standing dispute; they were hiding deliberately from their normal identity by using the IP; so it's certainly abusive sockpuppetry. Rarelibra believes it was Icsunonove, but can't prove it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar. Thanks for your comments on the 11 October DYK nomination for the Larmer Tree Festival. I've added two new hooks [34] that I hope will be better. Cheers. Roisterdoister ( talk) 11:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
(Refactored to User_talk:ScienceApologist per my policy) ++ Lar: t/ c 01:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
purports to be a new account (error on my part -- a renamed account) -- which created a bunch of stubs and then a huge revert of Thomas Muthee. (I doubt a new user would do this) -- if you look at Thomas Muthee's last edits, there appears to be a possible pattern. Again, I would never accuse anyone of anything, but I do wonder about this ("new) user"
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246226570&oldid=246224133 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246223652&oldid=246195905 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246195650&oldid=246194454 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246192446&oldid=246189064 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246188679&oldid=246185366 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Muthee&diff=246182586&oldid=246182424
-- Thanks! Collect ( talk) 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Lar, hi, I wasn't sure you were aware of it, and if you are, I apologize, but if not, you may wish to read (or re-read) this guideline? Just a heads-up, -- El on ka 05:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lar. I wanted to show you this; it's my first new article in a while. Hope you're keeping well, -- John ( talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, I am a big fan of LEGOs. When I was a youngster, I had a whole city of them on my bedroom floor. It drove my poor parents just about nuts. I suspect that someday, if and when I become a dad, my kids, whether boys or girls, will find themselves encouraged to become LEGO builders. Non Curat Lex ( talk) 06:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
G'day Lar (the knock knock isn't the beginning of a bad joke, it's more that I'm having uncomfortable flashbacks to arriving at the genial headmaster's office....) - I'm totally aware that you've been rather busy elsewhere for the last little while, but thought I'd swing by and let you know a couple of the things I've been up to. SirFoz also sort of pointed me in this direction, after my request for an arb clarification earlier. Your thoughts and feedback on that matter are, as ever, most welcome, but I'd also like to to gently poke you for any thoughts on my recent editing at Anthony Watmough and John Ogden (photographer) :-)
hope you're good too :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 08:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
< okey dokey, so here's the material I've reviewed;
I tried to sum up what I felt the position was at the arb pages, and feel rather roundly criticised for that attempt. You're saying that it's clear to you that Steve is in fact under a 6 month arbcom ban, and that further 'on wiki' discussion is inappropriate though, right? best, Privatemusings ( talk) 00:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, WTF is going on with User Talk:Kay Sieverding? I've been marginally aware of some issues there, and now it's on WP:BLP/N. If you want my 2 cents, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground or a venue to import and pursue outside conflicts. The entire situation brings to mind Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. I would strongly favor asking the editor in question to move on and pursue this in a more appropriate venue, and I'd generally just take care of this, but I see a wide-ranging cast of admins are already on the case - so I don't want to intervene unilaterally. What's the status of this, if you don't mind my asking? MastCell Talk 16:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think we've all been doing the "excessive good faith" thing, frankly... I'm now 99.99% sure it's already time to cut losses. I see Risker reverted the page. Good deal. I'll comment on the BLP/N page. I've been somewhat slack in reverting, despite my warnings, partly because I was a bit tired of arguing with Elonka about this (see above, at some considerable length) and partly because I've had other matters on my mind (see a certain ArbCom proposed decision talk page, now locked against edits). ++ Lar: t/ c 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think as long as the scope is clearly defined, it's reasonable to ban Kay Sieverding ( talk · contribs) from certain articles or talkpages, and even from making certain types of edits. She seems to like rules, so if we set up a very specific "You can do this, you can't do that" structure, it might work well. For example, it sounds like we have consensus to ban her from any edits related to Judge Nottingham, or to bring up any sources which are not directly related to existing Wikipedia articles. Questions here though would be: Is she still allowed to participate at the Edward Nottingham talkpage, to suggest additional sources/additions? Is she still allowed to participate at the Pro se legal representation in the United States article? Also, since her name does appear in certain external reliable sources, is she allowed to bring up those sources, where they might be directly related to an existing article? -- El on ka 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
<--(unindent) Elonka, Kay is in a real-life legal dispute with these people. This isn't just a conflict of interest, it is drawing Wikipedia into a real-world legal battle; thus, permitting her to edit those talk pages is inappropriate. The extent of her ongoing crusade has only become clear in the last few days, as she has posted more and more information on her talk page. I don't make a habit of doing internet searches on editors I interact with, although I know some others do. The restrictions on her talk page are clear, and extend beyond what you propose by a long extent based on her editing patterns and behaviour. Before I imposed the restrictions currently on her page, I read all those links and checked all her edits. Restricting her from editing the main pro se article is completely insufficient, as she has attempted to distort a number of articles in order to insert her POV material relating to self-representation; your suggestion would permit her to continue doing so. Risker ( talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(moved from my [Risker's] talk page, to keep this together)
Hi Risker, I just wanted to contact you directly on your talkpage, since we seem to be having trouble communicating on Lar's talkpage. I have to admit that I'm scratching my head here, because I'm not understanding what it is that you're trying to say. On the one hand you seem to be saying to give KS another chance, on the other you seem to be saying no, don't give her another chance. Can you please clarify? I have great respect for your opinion, but I'm really not understanding which way you would like to proceed here. -- El on ka 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Is User:12.145.227.121 a known entity? (re: Nottingham which I stumbled on accidentally) Collect ( talk) 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Now 96.60.81.245 . A pattern emergeth? Collect ( talk) 20:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, what needs CUing? Her and the IPs mentioned in this thread? More? Less? Ranges? Thx. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Just curious - do you intend to answer my question? If not, I shall resign from pursuing the matter further. Thanks. talk:search of persons. M/C Max conformist ( talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
[-unindent] Lar, I looked at the page, and MaxC is right. It's crap. Moreover, the material is already covered -- better -- by another article, search and seizure. I think search of persons should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to search & seizure, and I should turn my attention to marginal improvement of that article (and hopefully MaxC as well). MaxC doesn't agree that search of persons should be eliminated as an article unto itself. Question: Do I need to open a prod for what I'm proposing? Procedurally, what do I do to get a community discussion of the proposal? Non Curat Lex ( talk) 04:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all that you do! I see you a lot here and at Commons. Royal broil 00:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you will be amused to hear that I was selected to speak at the Web 2.0 Summit. There are about 2000 attendees, and 70 speakers, with me among least notable. I'll be talking about "virtual blight" from the perspective of a Wikipedia administrator. If you, or your numerous talk page watchers have funny examples of disruption, harassment or socking, I could use PowerPoint fodder. MBisanz has already cornered me and secured a promise that I will release the presentation GFDL. Regards, Jehochman Talk 05:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
... from my wife's talk page: [38] ... Enjoy. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
My wife put something applicable (from common law and tradition) on her page that she thought would counter some of the unhelpful things that have been said. She's, as I said above, feeling rather put upon. She did nothing wrong in any of this.
You can tell me to shut up if you like. You're in fact welcome to do just that, right here. I explicitly take no offense at these comments. and I explicitly disclaim and deny that (in particular) Giano's comment was incivil, in case anyone was thinking of taking a free shot at him for expressing his opinion to me, a friend. Just don't. (Risker: I appreciate the sentiment behind the initial reversion, but no. If any of the commenters here want to strike their remarks, feel free, but no removals, thanks. See the top of this talk page)
The cite has been removed from my wife's page. Let that be the end of this. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Lar, you have the absolute and unquestioned privilege to share anything (and hopefully everything) with your spouse. However, your spouse then inherits the obligation to convey absolutely nothing to third parties. Spousal privilege is only what the exact words mean, it's a confidence between precisely two people. Kinda like a sysadmin, when you help a VP print out the layoff notice, you still can't tell people they'll be fired tomorrow. When you help out the payroll clerk, you can't tell George that Mary gets paid more than Fred. Trust can only be absolute. This may not be apropos, since I haven't followed the whole mess (or even sure which mess it is?). Franamax ( talk) 08:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247627505&oldid=247624405 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247601781&oldid=247601737 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247590785&oldid=247589819 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247586346&oldid=247584962 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247584450&oldid=247584116
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247390060&oldid=247388103
appear to possibly show a problem in Sarah Palin. GP has, if I recall correctly, been blocked in the past for 3RR violations in that article, and been warned about editwars. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
As a note: 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. If a user repeatedly does 3, but not 4, unjustified reverts in a 24 hour period, thinking they have avoided the rule... they may nevertheless find themeselves blocked anyway, for gaming the system. "scrupulously avoiding exceeding 3 reverts" is not a defense. Just something to keep in mind. (and if there is a pattern, bringing it to the 3RR noticeboard is probably the best appproach) As for the rest of this I'm not seeing a specific action item here for me. This seems like a content dispute, which is best worked through on the relevant article talk page or pages. I'd ask everyone to try to work together collegially to resolve this without needing to come to admins for assistance, if at all possible. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I will post a full -- and long -- explanation on the Administrators' notice board. GreekParadise ( talk) 19:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The CheckUser tool is granted to highly trusted and experienced Wiki users and it must be used with the utmost respect for privacy as governed by Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. CheckUsers must exercise sound judgement, balancing need to protect the community with privacy concerns. Breaches of this should be dealt with through the Wikimedia Ombudsman Commission.
Having received an explanation of his carrying out the check at issue, and of the circumstances surrounding it, the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion. The users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—are reminded that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct. All CheckUsers are reminded that it is imperative that they make every effort to abide strictly by the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy at all times.
For the Arbitration Committee,
—
Rlevse •
Talk •
01:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I recently noticed a minor edit in a minor article which would be considered spam, i.e. a link added to an "external links" section which promoted the website of a new user, Sackrabbit ( talk · contribs). However, I found the linked site to be useful and relevant to the subject so I kept it, simply editing it to remove reference to sackrabbit.com. I informed the user on his wikitalk, and then noticed something: the user creation log entry for Sackrabbit appeared in my watchlist. Is this normal? I did create his talk page, but I don't remember ever seeing creation entry appear in my watchlist prior to this. Please point me to information regarding why this has happened, as I searched but was unable to find an explanation. Thanks - Sswonk ( talk) 04:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)