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 July 2010 through about 1 August 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
|
I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location ( talk) 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar. Does your stewards flag and other medals have anything to do with unified login? I set it up a few years ago in the name of my then main account user:mcginnly, but have since been pretty exclusively using user:joopercoopers here. Is there any way of converting my unified login from mcginnly to joopercoopers to prevent this kind of booboo - usurpation or some such? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 12:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I searched for a possibility to use the name "Jowo" at jv.wikipedia.org but found no page for that. I'd like to have the name because it's the last wikipedia where I don't have it and my unified login would be complete with it. I would be glad if you could help me. Thanks in advance Jowo ( talk) 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an appaling lack of good faith and entirely inacceptable. Please retract it. As you are well aware, all pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) are subject to article probation. I'll grant some leeway in arbitration, but this is a completely unfounded smear. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I had seen Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lar#A response to the view by 2/0, but right about that time I grew frustrated with that talkpage and stopped monitoring it. I just wanted to say thanks for your very reasonable response. While I am here - I have made the assumption that you would not be bothered by my light-hearted pun on your username, but if you have even a vague preference that I not I would be happy to refactor (email is fine). I may do so anyway in the spirit of MastCell's model-the-behaviour-you-wish-to-see proposal. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
As you may know, I had a discussion with Guy about some reflections that I have made. In this discussion, I declared my intention to apologise to you. I note that you have since started a community ban discussion. Please realise that my post to him came before you opened this discussion. I mention this to avoid the impression that this may be the result of your proposal, and not genuine concern on my part. I explained, in detail, the situation, and subsequent exchanges that took place. Whilst my desire to apologise is, indeed, genuine, I have never been one to hide my true feelings in hope of a more melifluous outcome. Your comments on my talk page were some of the most offencive I have heard in my time here. (YMMV, of course. Probably does, in fact.) In any case, my taking offence was no excuse for my subsequent remarks. I disagreed vehemently with what you said, and did. I still do. However, nothing that you did rose to the level of being deserved of my comment that you are "a corrupt administrator". I would like to retract that statement, and apologise. Also, my comments about your hobbies, and interest in LEGOS, were egregiously out of line. I apologise for these, as well. Again, this decision on my part, to attempt to do what I feel is right, came before you posted your community ban proposal. This post is in no way an attempt to "make ammends after the fact". I have not done this with the expectation that you will, or should, change your opinion. Mk5384 ( talk) 04:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You might want to look at a number of my Workshop proposals roughly here involving Polargeo, since some mention you. Apparently my evidence on Polargeo was more than anyone else had on him, so I decided to follow through on the Workshop page. I know there were other incidents involving him, but I'm not familiar with them, so if there are some big gaps there, please mention them or perhaps make other findings or proposals. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Lar,
I’m not sure how to handle this – could you advise me how to proceed?
Hipocrite ( block log · checkuser) was apparently originally DepartedUser ( block log · checkuser suspected) and Hipocrite confirmed that DepartedUser is a Doppelganger account on DepartedUser’s user page. It was shown that PouponOnToast ( block log · checkuser) was a sock of Hipocrite here, here, and here, where he explicitly stated that he had used PouponOnToast as a sock.
This was not all of the socks, however. The following accounts were confirmed by checkuser as socks of Hipocrite (through PouponOnToast):
LegitAltAccount ( block log · checkuser)
Archfailure ( block log · checkuser)
Throwawayarb ( block log · checkuser confirmed)
MusingsOfAPrivateNature ( block log · checkuser)
MOASPN ( block log · checkuser)
The following additional accounts are listed as confirmed socks of Hipocrite (through Throwawayarb) in this sock :
CManW ( block log · checkuser)
Semiprivatemusings ( block log · checkuser)
Additionally, Hipocrite admitted to using Hpuppet ( block log · checkuser) as a sock.
The time period covers from 2006 to 2008.
Not alleging that Throwaway85 ( block log · checkuser) is connected to Hipocrite, but the account was created on August 19, 2009, and has been blocked for personal attacks/harassment and socking, a similar pattern as that of PouponOnToast’s blocks and Hipocrite’s general actions. Another similarity is that these accounts do not interact with each other, which was a pattern of some of Hipocrite’s socks.
Again, not claiming that Kindzmarauli ( block log · checkuser) is a sock, but he is actively tagging old or blocked accounts as socks, primarily of users on the opposite side of content issues from Hipocrite. Although an IP user pointed out some of old socks to Kindzmarauli, he has tagged none of them. Since he claimed to be doing so to build edit count, this seems odd unless there is another motive.
I’m just not sure how to proceed. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what to think of all this. My time has been rather limited. I will say that I don't see that TGL commenting on this matter of socks has anything whatever to do with CC and thus I don't see it as a topic ban violation. I will so comment at the enforcement pages if the matter is raised there, if I notice it. I will also say that Hipocrite supposedly came clean about all this and it's all past history at this point, forgiven and forgotten. His stridency about others socking is... regrettable, but perhaps understandable (there's none so anti-smoking as the smoker who just quit, they say). But I do find his user name choice ironic and this is one of many reasons why. ++ Lar: t/ c 12:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You obviously don't owe me or anyone else an explanation for the principal you proposed here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#AGW_articles_should_use_SPOV_for_the_science_related_portions. I'm aware that one can propose a principal that one does not personally endorse without violating WP:POINT. But it would be nice to know what you're getting at. Your responses are almost straightforward, but, e.g., around my neck of the woods your use of the word 'pragmaticism' [2] doubles as a twinkle in your eye.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed all but the last and find them concerning. They do show a pattern of behavior that needs to stop. In particular, I do see gaming of whether this article is science or primarily science, or something else. So, how to fix the proposal? ++ Lar: t/ c 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I made a neutral post [4] to be precise, to all who had opined at thefirst of 5 AfDs in a year on an article. I carefully followed the rules, making sure that I made no selection at all as to who was notified, and that my notification was as neutral as conceivable. Out of the blue, a new user [5] pops off to Gwen Gale to complain <g>. Aside from the fact that he has no interactions with me, nor with Gwen', in the past, and that he miraculously os fully conversant with WP policies, and that his own user page says
" I have another account. The other account has a name that is really really good at only two things: being extremely cool, and insidiously convincing everyone that sees it that they know just exactly what kind of an editor -this guy- is, before they even read my edits.
So at the expense of a small amount of extremely cool, I hope to be taken as just another editor, without the speeding baggage train that is my other username. It is probably doomed to failure, as my writing style is also very distinctive. It may never be used, as my arguments are extremely good anyway, and I hope one day to meet people on WP who aren't easily confused by their prejudices. At least with the other username I can identify those who get an instant attitude quickly and effectively.}}"
I consider it quite likely that this person is a soi disant sock - am I being too unkind? Collect ( talk) 11:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Link to Reuters article - snippet: "The U.S. Geological Survey said the first and largest quake was very shallow, with a verified epicenter only 6.2 miles (10 km) deep. It was located 55 miles (85 km) southwest of Lar, close to the southern coast." - I had no idea you were in Iran! Don't let the State Department know! Kylu ( talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually love having lots of WP:TPWs, as most of them are very helpful and positive, although apparently we have at least one bad apple. As a note, you're giving them (all 350 of them) a great little show. So let's try again. Why did you edit Lar, Iran as your very first edit here if you're not stalking/trolling me? That's pretty blatant, really, and you gave away the whole game. Also, do not change the words of others again, please. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
[6]. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 12:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
What section was he posting in, exactly? Hipocrite ( talk) 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Lar, I suggest you don't respond further to any of this (including the RFE). It speaks for itself, and any further response from you will be used against you. That's how it works. ATren ( talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If the Committee or the wider community wishes to take action against me for what they believe to be my misinterpretation of policy, than that is perfectly acceptable. ArbCom has the proposed decision page to work with, and anyone can submit an RFC against me, which I will waive certification requirements for. If either come to a conclusion that my actions have been inappropriate, then of course I will step back or resign my adminship. However, I ask that these kind of posts that Jayen466 made above at 12:48 and 13:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC) not be made. Either follow through or don't, but please refrain from grandstanding. NW ( Talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A good checkuser! Am I the reason that the Scibaby SPI has been held up for so long? Nah, it's probably the lack of the checkuser tools ;)
In any case, even when I have disagreed with you, I have always respected your opinion. I am planning on taking a few days off this matter entirely to reflect on my actions thus far, and I would appreciate your thoughts on how to proceed. NW ( Talk) 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I found this about as baffling as many of your comments. I don't know what you mean. You talk of the "elephant in the room", and of a powerful faction out for "revenge". This doesn't correspond to anything I know of in around eight months of looking at edits in this area. Please explain what you mean. Name names, stop smearing. -- TS 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That was very nice, what you said about me at Chris' RfA (and I also liked your assessment of administrator trials, etc.). Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, as you commented at BLPN that a racist claim was weakly cited and I agrred and removed it and it was replaced, a discussion has arisen here, would you let me know what you think, when the content was replaced I did at least attribute it which has at least exposed the un notable worth of the opinion. Regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, It was me, who deleted the other editor message from my talk page. I explained it to them in my response from yesterday, but I should have probably changed the title of the message as well. I did it now, and I am sorry about misunderstanding. Please accept my apology. Best wishes.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (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 July 2010 through about 1 August 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
|
I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location ( talk) 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar. Does your stewards flag and other medals have anything to do with unified login? I set it up a few years ago in the name of my then main account user:mcginnly, but have since been pretty exclusively using user:joopercoopers here. Is there any way of converting my unified login from mcginnly to joopercoopers to prevent this kind of booboo - usurpation or some such? -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 12:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I searched for a possibility to use the name "Jowo" at jv.wikipedia.org but found no page for that. I'd like to have the name because it's the last wikipedia where I don't have it and my unified login would be complete with it. I would be glad if you could help me. Thanks in advance Jowo ( talk) 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an appaling lack of good faith and entirely inacceptable. Please retract it. As you are well aware, all pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) are subject to article probation. I'll grant some leeway in arbitration, but this is a completely unfounded smear. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 14:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 19:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I had seen Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lar#A response to the view by 2/0, but right about that time I grew frustrated with that talkpage and stopped monitoring it. I just wanted to say thanks for your very reasonable response. While I am here - I have made the assumption that you would not be bothered by my light-hearted pun on your username, but if you have even a vague preference that I not I would be happy to refactor (email is fine). I may do so anyway in the spirit of MastCell's model-the-behaviour-you-wish-to-see proposal. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
As you may know, I had a discussion with Guy about some reflections that I have made. In this discussion, I declared my intention to apologise to you. I note that you have since started a community ban discussion. Please realise that my post to him came before you opened this discussion. I mention this to avoid the impression that this may be the result of your proposal, and not genuine concern on my part. I explained, in detail, the situation, and subsequent exchanges that took place. Whilst my desire to apologise is, indeed, genuine, I have never been one to hide my true feelings in hope of a more melifluous outcome. Your comments on my talk page were some of the most offencive I have heard in my time here. (YMMV, of course. Probably does, in fact.) In any case, my taking offence was no excuse for my subsequent remarks. I disagreed vehemently with what you said, and did. I still do. However, nothing that you did rose to the level of being deserved of my comment that you are "a corrupt administrator". I would like to retract that statement, and apologise. Also, my comments about your hobbies, and interest in LEGOS, were egregiously out of line. I apologise for these, as well. Again, this decision on my part, to attempt to do what I feel is right, came before you posted your community ban proposal. This post is in no way an attempt to "make ammends after the fact". I have not done this with the expectation that you will, or should, change your opinion. Mk5384 ( talk) 04:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You might want to look at a number of my Workshop proposals roughly here involving Polargeo, since some mention you. Apparently my evidence on Polargeo was more than anyone else had on him, so I decided to follow through on the Workshop page. I know there were other incidents involving him, but I'm not familiar with them, so if there are some big gaps there, please mention them or perhaps make other findings or proposals. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Lar,
I’m not sure how to handle this – could you advise me how to proceed?
Hipocrite ( block log · checkuser) was apparently originally DepartedUser ( block log · checkuser suspected) and Hipocrite confirmed that DepartedUser is a Doppelganger account on DepartedUser’s user page. It was shown that PouponOnToast ( block log · checkuser) was a sock of Hipocrite here, here, and here, where he explicitly stated that he had used PouponOnToast as a sock.
This was not all of the socks, however. The following accounts were confirmed by checkuser as socks of Hipocrite (through PouponOnToast):
LegitAltAccount ( block log · checkuser)
Archfailure ( block log · checkuser)
Throwawayarb ( block log · checkuser confirmed)
MusingsOfAPrivateNature ( block log · checkuser)
MOASPN ( block log · checkuser)
The following additional accounts are listed as confirmed socks of Hipocrite (through Throwawayarb) in this sock :
CManW ( block log · checkuser)
Semiprivatemusings ( block log · checkuser)
Additionally, Hipocrite admitted to using Hpuppet ( block log · checkuser) as a sock.
The time period covers from 2006 to 2008.
Not alleging that Throwaway85 ( block log · checkuser) is connected to Hipocrite, but the account was created on August 19, 2009, and has been blocked for personal attacks/harassment and socking, a similar pattern as that of PouponOnToast’s blocks and Hipocrite’s general actions. Another similarity is that these accounts do not interact with each other, which was a pattern of some of Hipocrite’s socks.
Again, not claiming that Kindzmarauli ( block log · checkuser) is a sock, but he is actively tagging old or blocked accounts as socks, primarily of users on the opposite side of content issues from Hipocrite. Although an IP user pointed out some of old socks to Kindzmarauli, he has tagged none of them. Since he claimed to be doing so to build edit count, this seems odd unless there is another motive.
I’m just not sure how to proceed. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what to think of all this. My time has been rather limited. I will say that I don't see that TGL commenting on this matter of socks has anything whatever to do with CC and thus I don't see it as a topic ban violation. I will so comment at the enforcement pages if the matter is raised there, if I notice it. I will also say that Hipocrite supposedly came clean about all this and it's all past history at this point, forgiven and forgotten. His stridency about others socking is... regrettable, but perhaps understandable (there's none so anti-smoking as the smoker who just quit, they say). But I do find his user name choice ironic and this is one of many reasons why. ++ Lar: t/ c 12:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You obviously don't owe me or anyone else an explanation for the principal you proposed here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#AGW_articles_should_use_SPOV_for_the_science_related_portions. I'm aware that one can propose a principal that one does not personally endorse without violating WP:POINT. But it would be nice to know what you're getting at. Your responses are almost straightforward, but, e.g., around my neck of the woods your use of the word 'pragmaticism' [2] doubles as a twinkle in your eye.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I reviewed all but the last and find them concerning. They do show a pattern of behavior that needs to stop. In particular, I do see gaming of whether this article is science or primarily science, or something else. So, how to fix the proposal? ++ Lar: t/ c 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I made a neutral post [4] to be precise, to all who had opined at thefirst of 5 AfDs in a year on an article. I carefully followed the rules, making sure that I made no selection at all as to who was notified, and that my notification was as neutral as conceivable. Out of the blue, a new user [5] pops off to Gwen Gale to complain <g>. Aside from the fact that he has no interactions with me, nor with Gwen', in the past, and that he miraculously os fully conversant with WP policies, and that his own user page says
" I have another account. The other account has a name that is really really good at only two things: being extremely cool, and insidiously convincing everyone that sees it that they know just exactly what kind of an editor -this guy- is, before they even read my edits.
So at the expense of a small amount of extremely cool, I hope to be taken as just another editor, without the speeding baggage train that is my other username. It is probably doomed to failure, as my writing style is also very distinctive. It may never be used, as my arguments are extremely good anyway, and I hope one day to meet people on WP who aren't easily confused by their prejudices. At least with the other username I can identify those who get an instant attitude quickly and effectively.}}"
I consider it quite likely that this person is a soi disant sock - am I being too unkind? Collect ( talk) 11:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Link to Reuters article - snippet: "The U.S. Geological Survey said the first and largest quake was very shallow, with a verified epicenter only 6.2 miles (10 km) deep. It was located 55 miles (85 km) southwest of Lar, close to the southern coast." - I had no idea you were in Iran! Don't let the State Department know! Kylu ( talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually love having lots of WP:TPWs, as most of them are very helpful and positive, although apparently we have at least one bad apple. As a note, you're giving them (all 350 of them) a great little show. So let's try again. Why did you edit Lar, Iran as your very first edit here if you're not stalking/trolling me? That's pretty blatant, really, and you gave away the whole game. Also, do not change the words of others again, please. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
[6]. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 12:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
What section was he posting in, exactly? Hipocrite ( talk) 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Lar, I suggest you don't respond further to any of this (including the RFE). It speaks for itself, and any further response from you will be used against you. That's how it works. ATren ( talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If the Committee or the wider community wishes to take action against me for what they believe to be my misinterpretation of policy, than that is perfectly acceptable. ArbCom has the proposed decision page to work with, and anyone can submit an RFC against me, which I will waive certification requirements for. If either come to a conclusion that my actions have been inappropriate, then of course I will step back or resign my adminship. However, I ask that these kind of posts that Jayen466 made above at 12:48 and 13:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC) not be made. Either follow through or don't, but please refrain from grandstanding. NW ( Talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A good checkuser! Am I the reason that the Scibaby SPI has been held up for so long? Nah, it's probably the lack of the checkuser tools ;)
In any case, even when I have disagreed with you, I have always respected your opinion. I am planning on taking a few days off this matter entirely to reflect on my actions thus far, and I would appreciate your thoughts on how to proceed. NW ( Talk) 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I found this about as baffling as many of your comments. I don't know what you mean. You talk of the "elephant in the room", and of a powerful faction out for "revenge". This doesn't correspond to anything I know of in around eight months of looking at edits in this area. Please explain what you mean. Name names, stop smearing. -- TS 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That was very nice, what you said about me at Chris' RfA (and I also liked your assessment of administrator trials, etc.). Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, as you commented at BLPN that a racist claim was weakly cited and I agrred and removed it and it was replaced, a discussion has arisen here, would you let me know what you think, when the content was replaced I did at least attribute it which has at least exposed the un notable worth of the opinion. Regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lar, It was me, who deleted the other editor message from my talk page. I explained it to them in my response from yesterday, but I should have probably changed the title of the message as well. I did it now, and I am sorry about misunderstanding. Please accept my apology. Best wishes.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)