User talk:Lar/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 68

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.

Talk Page Archives
My post 2012 archived talk
Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013
Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016
Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018
Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021
Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023
Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ??
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date


RFC[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry, I haven't had time to think about this and probably will not so I will need to defer to others and abide by whatever consensus emerges. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Login[edit]

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)[reply]

After my last confirmation (marked by much character assassination by the many grudgeholders I've accumulated over the years, and some valid feedback that was concerning, but which was nevertheless successful by the definitions in use), my steward flag was taken away from me by a secret committee advised by some folk, who to this day choose to remain anonymous and who decline to make the proceedings public, so I'm afraid I cannot personally help you since I don't have the required bit any more, but indeed there are ways to accomplish what you seek. Peruse the material on Meta regarding changes in username. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How very Kafkaesque - you have my sympathies. I'll see if I can make headway at meta. Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alleged Probation violation[edit]

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)[reply]

As a note, I've given you a great deal of leeway over the last 6 months by letting your continued personal attacks on me stand (I could have taken you to enforcement multiple times over the milliLar thing, but chose not to, and there are many other examples) and I find it interesting that you take issue with this. Gnats and camels.
However, please elaborate on why you think this is in any way an issue. It is a rebuttal of a flawed analysis, and I find it highly implausible that no one of you was aware of this article. Possible, certainly, but highly implausible. If you can suggest another wording that conveys the meaning desired, I'm very open to modification, but it's an important point that needs making. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think my Lar (unit of bias) joke is somehow different from your "Wacko candidate" joke? I don't think the milli-part is mine, or that I ever used it, although I may be wrong about the later. I stand by the substance - when you entered climate change, you already had a preformed (and sadly mistaken) opinion, you were biased beyond reason and argument, and, as far as I can tell, you have not yielded an inch since, not matter how obviously wrong you are. If you think this opinion is inacceptable, I invite you to do something about it.
Sorry, but if you don't see how Since the "regulars" can't prove they weren't aware of this article (although I'd be surprised if they weren't, frankly, since JD is one of their demons, isn't he?) this argument isn't going to go very far on lack of plausibility. But the converse, that it's likely they were aware, but stood aside and left it a mess because it suited their purpose... that's much more plausible. is a failure of good faith, I cannot help you. As far as I'm concerned, JD is a third rate polemicist writing for a newspaper I don't buy that's published in a foreign country and in a weird language. I don't know if I'd even heard of the person 6 months ago - I certainly was somewhat surprised when my link in the evidence section came up blue. And while I cannot (nor have to) prove that I was not aware of the article state, I'm sure someone with sufficient DB skills can verify that it is not and never was on my watchlist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You think my Lar (unit of bias) joke is somehow different from your "Wacko candidate" joke? " Yes, in kind and in degree. It wasn't a response to a joke, it was an attack, and you used it over and over and over.
JD might be a third rate polemicist but he's a person. His BLP was a disgrace for months, and it took Jimbo saying so to get it sorted, if indeed it IS sorted. It puts paid to the notion that you guys are some wonderful editors who need a free pass to act like prats in exchange for a spiffy topic area. Your gang's editing in the topic area, taken as a whole, frankly, is below par. Your priv, we're all volunteers, but you don't get to claim special privs from others for your wonderful work. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote above: I stand by the substance. You were and are biased. Your attempts to act as if you were not are plain disruptive. Sorry that I tried to pack the message with a bit of humor.
  • Your comment on "spiffy prats" is offensive in more than one way. In particular, I strictly refuse to settle an editor with the responsibility of fixing and maintaining articles he or she has no interest in, has never edited, and may not even be aware of. Your guilt by association claim (SA has edited the article, therefore all science-minded editors are in for it) is absurd. Neither is SA particularly active in climate science articles, nor, apparently was the problem in the article when he edited it. In fact, the article has only ~35 page views per day, and less than 30 people watch it even now, after the kerfuffle. The anonymous IPs you complain about geolocate to Sheffield and London - large population centers in the country where Delingpole writes and not, to my knowledge, associated with any of the "regulars". In short, you are fighting straw men with unreasonableness.
  • Your definition on "over and over again" seems to be different from mine. I'd be somewhat surprised if you can find 5 instances (individual edits, not counting typo corrections) where I used it. I'd be very surprised and buy you a beer if you can find it in 10 independent conversations (as defined by different talk page headers).
--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)@Lar: your continued personal attacks on me I've seen you mention the "milliLar" thing, but it would be useful to show arbitrators diffs that it was ongoing, because that that's another order of magnitude from a brief incident, and the evidence page as of now doesn't reflect that. @Stephan: when you entered climate change, you already had a preformed [...] opinion; irrelevant, almost everyone does and the trick is to separate admin judgment from that; you were biased beyond reason and argument -- again, we've reached the point in this saga where this kind of assertion is for the workshop and evidence pages, not here where it can't do any good. @Lar & Stephan: I think it would be better to just respond coolly to each other on the Arb case pages, stick to the evidence and what we can draw from the evidence. It'll be less bothersome and a lot more useful. Just a thought. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)[edit]



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

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)[reply]

Response to your response[edit]

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)[reply]

Er, what pun? If I don't know at this remove (or can't recall) what it was I must not be too sussed about it! So I wouldn't worry were I you. And you're welcome. It did seem like a way forward, with learnings. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies[edit]

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)[reply]

I think you need to internalise that you have a behavioural problem here, your approach does not work, and was going to lead you to a permanent ban. This is significantly better than your previous approach, but there are still potential areas of improvement possible. I do thank you for making the effort. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I would like to think that there are always potential areas of improvement possible. Best-Mk5384 (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely true but sometimes they are larger than other times. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed.Mk5384 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop proposals mentioning you[edit]

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)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I have some stuff to add to the workshop page myself. ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Behavior[edit]

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 · checkusersuspected) 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) [reply]

Well, I would like to point out that Hipocrite has apparently used "tor" networks, which I suppose is a way to hide one's IP. Also, a user named Hipocrite posted a comment at GoRight's blog from a TOR network which indicates he is still using them. I'm not sure if this is something checkusers look for, but I wonder if the user I'd fingered earlier as a sockpuppet was using such a technique as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An aside. I read the first diff (to Hip's user page) and I don't read that as a statement that Hip uses Tor... merely deploring that Tor seems to be a focus of much activity when perhaps there are other things worth worrying about... that read could be incorrect of course. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I read this, "I have ceased editing with this account because it contains personally identifing information attached to me (namely, the checkuser data that is idiotically retained by the foundation), and will wait patiently for the idiotic "no logged in TOR editing" policy to dissapear before creating another account," to be that he wasn't going to edit until TOR editing was allowed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I am sorry about this but isn't this sock accusation on [[1]] on 28 June a violation of the terms of TheGoodLocusts topic ban, which ran until 11/7? Aside from it giving an indication of the general level of seriousness with which we should take tGL? --BozMo talk 08:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought TGL`s sanction covered CC related pages, sock puppets are a separate thing to AGW Bozmo, and you can`t ban someone for reporting suspected socks mark nutley (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right mark, I haven't checked. I thought that the ban was on the whole topic area with exceptions for Arbcom cases and appeals, and Lar's own talk page. General pages like AfDs, talk pages, sock accusations on users based on only activity within the topic area etc I thought were clearly covered, because they gave possibilities for pointless disruption and forum shopping etc. When I have a minute I will look up the wording --BozMo talk 09:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the terms of the ban, Mark, AFAICT all conversations on CC where prohibited except ones in the appeal process and arbcom deliberations. This sock puppet accusation, based entirely around CC change edits and which was used in passing to make mild PAs on a couple of other CC editors is not exempt and looks like a clear violation to me. Lar, what do you think? I think it is a shame because there does not seem to have been much thoughtful reflection on approach during the ban period. --BozMo talk 09:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A little bit less of the digging and side remarks would be helpful if things are really forgiven. Polargeo (talk)
I agree, and I'm glad you've offered to reform, but it may be too late. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny :) Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I don't think your digs and side remarks have been that funny, taken as a whole. And certainly offering to reform isn't funny either, if you really mean it. Maybe I'm confused about what you're driving at. Feel free to be more clear. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to his comment here except in one detail. Broadly he made a formal accusation of socking against WMC which looks pretty disruptive and bad faith within his probation period. All the "evidence" he cited was on CC pages and it got dismissed out of hand. Then he described it here as "fingering" (someone) with a link to a diff where he added WMC. I am not optimistic of his future valid contribution if he sets out with that kind of rubbish. But it is stale so I guess it gets rolled into the next complaint of disruptive editing on CC. --BozMo talk 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith? The account I "fingered" (not sure why you don't like that term) was created within hours of WMC's banning from Fred Singer - an area that account edited heavily with a viewpoint similar to WMC's. Not only that, the checkuser agreed that "Freakshownerd" was likely a returned user based upon my behavioral evidence. Anyway, several of WMC's friends have often bragged about how easy it is to fool checkuser - I would not be surprised if freakshownerd is using such techniques. Also, I believe I've filed a single sockpuppet investigation? I certainly haven't done it with a great deal of frequency and did it because I honestly believe Freakshonerd is a sockpuppet. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@B: I'm not sure that the use of the term "fingered" was helpful, no. But in reviewing that case, it seems to have a lot of material that justifies running a check on the ID identified (FSN). And it seems that the CU felt there was reason for it, and ran it. So I'm not sure it's all rubbish, perhaps you can clarify what was wrong with that report. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@L: Well here for example are a set of personal attacks and other allegations against WMC included in the CU request which are inflamatory and completely unwarranted. The sock report if you read it pretty much repeats the kind of behaviour tGL was banned for and much of it is nothing to do with the account which was CUed but a bad faith attempt to malign an editor. Read it, read it again and then tell me you think this is the work of someone who should be allowed to edit in the probation area. And remember that's the bar you are setting for how editors should treat each other because no one has been below it. --BozMo talk 21:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Break it down for me, will you? I'm not seeing the personal attacks yet. Just linking to the whole report may not be enough analysis. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict> Personal attacks? I admit I'm not thoroughly versed in what should be included in a SPI, but I tried to be as fair as possible - I think any mistakes I may have made are relatively minor in that regard and I certainly didn't think I was breaking any sort of probation by reporting a sockpuppet. However, looking at your top edits I find the following:
  1. Talk:Global warming[WP] (313)
  2. User talk:William M. Connolley[WP] (304)
  3. Global warming[WP] (111)
  4. User talk:Stephan Schulz[WP] (57)
In short, I don't believe a person who has edited WMC's talk page over 300 times, with a strong interest in global warming and WMC's friends, and who I recently presented evidence against at ArbCom that hopefully leads to your desysoping possesses the necessary neutrality for determining whether or not I made a personal attack against his friend. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@L. You have looked and not seen. That's enough for me, am unwatching here. I am not however impressed, sorry. As for tGL, I don't think your views are news, nor in danger of widespread adoption. --BozMo talk 22:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification?[edit]

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)[reply]

Sure. I think NPOV has been gamed in this area (and in other contentious scientific topic areas) and no amount of explaining that WEIGHT, UNDUE, RS, and so forth will fix it, nor will tinkering with the NPOV policy itself (such tinkering is subject to being undone). That's my fear, borne out by much drama in these areas. Saying straight up "science articles rely on scientific sources, end of story" I think is simpler and less gameable. It's pragmatic to override NPOV instead of sticking to the purer form. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just for an outside perspective, let me give you an example of how I see WP:SPOV being gamed, already, in the article I know the most about (that's not saying much). Editors of CRU documents controversy have repeatedly argued that the CRU researchers embroiled in the controversy, as scientists, represent the the scientific point of view. On these grounds they have tried to push inclusion of blog postings by scientists working for the CRU as 'reliable sources' when citing statements about the controversy (without qualification), e.g., about the accuracy of the allegations being made against themselves. By the same token they have tried to remove statements from reliable sources like the NY times, the WSJ and the ICO to the effect that these allegations are not entirely baseless. (I can provide you with links and diffs if you like.) Since scientists are not authorities on metascience, this is inappropriate. But these edits have been consistently justified with reference to WP:SPOV.
So I don't see WP:SPOV as less gameable than WP:NPOV. So much for pragmatism. And since WP:NPOV is better than WP:SPOV in principal, the former should be a principal and the latter should not. Do you disagree with this reasoning?--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's an easy one. Climategate isn't a scientific topic. No way, no how. So primacy of scientific sources wouldn't apply. End of discussion. What's a scientific topic is gameable, but less so than NPOV, oddly. At least IMHO. You may not agree, which is fine but what really gets up my nose are those who think I am less than serious here, or who ascribe some ulterior motive. That's not how I operate. ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as climate change skeptics have argued that the science displayed in the documents is faulty, and insofar as scientists have responded to these claims by going over the science (as they have), Climategate qualifies as subject solely to WPSPOV per the clause of your principal that states "AGW articles covering the science (or partly covering the science) should be written from the WP:SPOV" (my emphasis). I agree that the real controversy of Climategate is not scientific in nature and think it's unfortunate that skeptics have chosen it as a rallying flag, but whether I like it or not they have, and because they have, Climategate "cover[s] the science (or partly cover[s] the science)." Perhaps this clause could be reworked? I could see many more endorsements if it's fixed to avoid this loophole.
(If I'd thought you were less serious than you are or ascribed an ulterior motive to you I wouldn't even have asked.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am exceedingly open to improving the wording of this or any of my proposals. Perhaps here is a better place to thrash that out than in the proposal discussion threads, what do you think? Please let me know what you think might sort it out. As for diffs, evidence is closed supposedly, but I think there's value in surfacing them. Perhaps here first (as well)... ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Sorry if the "succinct" tone of these comments came out "curt." In the meantime, in regards to my offer of diffs/links above, here are links to a couple of sections of the Climategate talkpage that directly concern the use of the RealClimate blog as an 'RS' by several editors: Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 10#RealClimate_bloggers.27 comment.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F, Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 12#Climategate.2C_global warming.2C and the tree rings divergence problem, Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 14#Proposed FAQ_addition. And for the contrary, where patent RS' are disqualified because some editors argue that they aren't experts on the field they're commenting on (e.g., aren't scientists), a scroll through these sections might be enough: Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive_24#Proposed_version Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive_24#Totally_broken.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Concerning? These are detailled debates about sources. The sort of debates that should be encouraged on wikipedia. I am very concerned that you are concerned about them. Polargeo (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Properly framed debates about sources are good. Improperly framed ones are not. I think you need to read the threads again, carefully, and with an eye to the tone taken, as well as with an eye to the specific issue HiP raises, that of claiming the topic of the article is science and then insisting that certain sources be included and others excluded. HiP makes the point that gaming (of what sort of article it was) was going on. If that isn't concerning to you, well, that concerns me as well. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the threads with no preconceived ideas and saw nothing to concern me. That is not the same as me agreeing with any of the stances taken. Any questions you may have can be addressed by entering into the discussions Heyitspeter has linked to. But that is something that I understand you do not wish to do because it may jepordise your uninvolved status. Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Polargeo. The problem is probably that I linked to sections and not diffs. In several cases the 'concerning' edits do not even start popping up until 5-10 comments have been written, and still then not in a single chunk. That makes the links difficult to parse. To make things very clear, I should begin with a link to the description of the kind of problematic editing that these sections demonstrate [3]. I find that if you scan them for the unfortunately very usual suspects you find WP:F5 violations regularly and quickly, but you aren't an active editor of articles in the CC topic area so that didn't help you on your first runthrough.
I extracted a small selection from the last two sections I linked to here. It's been removed presently as past the evidence deadline. You can read the rest of the section tied to the preceding diff as indication that these comments represent a longterm pattern of editing, and by editors that ought to know better.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seemingly new user complains about me - to Gwen - amazing coincidence[edit]

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)[reply]

Of course it's a sock of some sort, and a troublemaking one at that. As you point out, it claims it (in 9 layers of collapse, how annoying). You need to convince a current CU to run a check, but that should not be hard. At first read, there's a chance they are trying to look like they are a sock of someone they actually are not a sock of. (My initial read was that they were trying to sound like they were Hipocrite, so they probably are not actually Hip...) Which is disruptive. File an SPI. Also I thing Gwen is wrong about "too many". ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen earlier "instructed" me not to file such investigations (funny thing - more than half the people I suspected of running such have since been blocked for them <g>) She, meanwhile, finds the whole bit to be not worth pursuing. And I am glad to have your opinion thereon - it is in line with that of User:Kotniski who appears quite valued and experienced as an editor. H was not active in the Palin article, so I doubt it is he. Odds are exceedingly high it is one who has edited on Peace flag, Sarah Palin and possibly on the AfD as well (hard for multiple personas to avoid !voting when they have not been found out, isn't it?) Collect (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a binding instruction by Gwen? If I were a CU, based on what I saw, I'd run this. Something smells fishy. You can quote me to whomever. LMK if there is more you want from me. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if Gwen follows this here - but she blocked the sock <g>. And still insists that "everyone" should not mean "everyone" (that is, only a handful of notices is proper, but following the explicit rules is not <g>) Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to have a word? Seems to me that if there are concrete criteria for inclusion in a notification, and they are reasonable, it's OK if that means 50 people get notified. That seems better than restricting to some subset chosen non mechanically. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If she fails to understand my position, then I doubt anyone else will convince her otherwise <g> I was just trying to follow what the rules are to the letter, and a sock decided to mysteriously choose her as the one to complain to. Somehow, I think many admins would have been higher in clue level on this <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes?[edit]

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)[reply]

I wonder what else can be found 55 miles to the southwest of Lar? Normally, I would have thought the answer was Lutefisk? :-D Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe sometimes, but right now I think you could find the Liberty Bell about 55 miles southwest of me, give or take. As for Lar (Iran) that article occasionally gets edited by my most boring stalker... presumably just so he knows I know he's still around. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making snide remarks about other editors, Larry? That's not like you. RoscoHead (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess your ears were burning? Making snide remarks about me on Stajinara not exciting enough without me there to take the bait? Troll someone else, please. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would my ears be burning? I've never edited the page you linked? I was merely pointing out yet another example of how you treat editors here. RoscoHead (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pull the other one! It's your very first edit. ++Lar: t/c 06:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is not the page you linked. You, as an admin of such experience, and with all the kerfuffle about climate change at the moment, should realise how important it is to make sure of the accuracy and relevance of any links referenced. Instead you just go on your merry way acting like you're special, treating other editors as though they're not as good as you. RoscoHead (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. So, then what DID bring you here? How'd you know you were being talked about if you're not stalking? As for your theories of mind, I think you're confused. I give people the respect they deserve, and a bit more. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I didn't know I was being talked about, in fact I assumed I wasn't. I was simply commenting on how you treat other editors. Does being a WP:TPW equate to stalking now? If so, you seem to have quite a few "stalkers". And did I mention how hypocritical it is to ask me to stop trolling, right after you did it yourself? Oh, and BTW, the link is STILL wrong, maybe you need to do a wiki refresher course. Oh stuff it, why don't I go fix your mistakes myself? RoscoHead (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Really Larry, that irrational response does not become you. I admit, the first page I edited (over 4 years ago! How time flies!) I probably found by typing your username into the search (I really don't remember, it's so long ago), then following links that looked interesting I found a page with some vandalism, so I reverted it. Stalking? Hardly. And how can it be trolling unless YOU are stalking MY contributions????? And I didn't change anyone's words. We can keep this show going as long as YOU want, though I'm guessing one of your cabal mates will suggest it's time to stop fairly soon. RoscoHead (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's time for you to stop now. You've failed to respond constructively to the concerns I've raised, so we are done. Stop editing my talk page. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Larry, I answered your direct question, yet you've failed to answer most of mine. But no matter, let's try again. Why did you post "As for Lar (link since "fixed") that article occasionally gets edited by my most boring stalker... presumably just so he knows I know he's still around."? That's pretty blatant, really, no matter WHO you were referring to. RoscoHead (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

[6]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I will comment in the appropriate section of that request. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You know better than to post in that section of WP:GS/CC/RE in the first place"[edit]

What section was he posting in, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved Admins in the case involoving KDP and another editor mark nutley (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are (apologies, fingers in fromt of brain) he was wrong, Mark, what punishment would be appropriate? Hipocrite (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong about what mate? You asked were he had posted, i told you he posted in the uninvolved section in an RFE about KDP and another editor mark nutley (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so he did. I left diffs of him doing so on his talk. He subsequently removed the commment entirely rather than leave it in the proper place on the page, but he posted, then edit warred to preserve the place. As for what punishment would be appropriate? That seems a rather argumentative phrasing. ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the punishment for people who leave comments in the wrong section, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question should be, what is the punishment for pointy, disruptive behaviour and for edit warring. So you tell me Hip mark nutley (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"will be moved to the section above." Why was this not done until Lar did it at [7]? Is there a reason why others were permitted to move WMC's comments to an entirely different section than the one that is the sanction for posting out of place, exactly? Are the rules that hard to understand? Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the diffs I provided. Weakopedia moved it, appropriately, and then WMC edit warred to restore it. Only then did I move it again. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make little to no sense, Anyone can move comments, and everyone knows not to post in that section, to do so is disruptive, i just moved your comment in fact mark nutley (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did, carefully. Weakopedia did not move it appropriately - he moved it to WMC's response section, which is not what people are directed to do with comments by !uninvolved admins. Are the rules that hard to understand? Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If I respond, thanking you for this advice, does that mean I'm not taking your advice? ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you're OK with this single response; but reply to this one and all bets are off! ;-) ATren (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AOTR[edit]

Hello, Lar. You have new messages at TomStar81's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Full details at above link. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

de re BLPia[edit]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your reasoned reply. I have no desire for your bits, I have no desire to see you put through an RfC (knowing just how much fun they are!!!). But I do think you need to step back a bit and take a look at the pattern of your actions here. You're a good admin, and a good CU, and you've done a lot of great work in the past but these particular actions (unprotecting something as soon as Rlevse left town apparently because WMC asked you to, blocking MN but not the others, and some other recent actions that also struck me as problematic) don't stand up to scrutiny and don't meet your usual standards.... they make you look at best sympathetic to one side (and not necessarily uninvolved if we apply standards that some try to apply to other admins...) if not an actual faction member. Take that for what it's worth. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence

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)[reply]

Nuke. don`t be a tit, everyone makes mistakes. You are for the most part a good admin. Forget about it mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mark (by the way, "don't be a tit" is an interesting expression, can't say I have ever heard that before). Still, always looking for ways to improve, and what better way to do that than to ask those who disagree with you. NW (Talk) 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning 17 in the Urban Directory, FYI. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, I would not want to see NW desysopped or sanctioned at all for that matter. The fact that he is listening to Lars' advice and taking it to heart is the mark of a mature and thoughtful leader and something Wiki could use more of. There were a couple of actions I think NW may have been a little too hasty on but I don't know the reason for that and there's no reason to think it couldn't be corrected now that it has been brought to his attention. The only reason I'm making this post here is because I was the one who brought up NW's actions in the first place and I do not want it to turn into a witch hunt, nor do I want it to be construed as my intent or desire that NW be sanctioned. Minor4th 01:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were a CU already. Maybe just a clerk. I think stepping back and taking a long hard look here would be worthwhile. There are factions active here, I really don't think that's denyable at this point. Look at your actions and see if they don't give the impression that you're on one side. The unprotect because WMC asked you... Maybe it seemed the right thing to do at the time but it just looked really bad. I'm with M4, I don't want you sanctioned, I don't want an RfC. I just want the old NW back. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the day that someone admitted nostalgia for old fashioned Nuclear Warfare... Mark this day! LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows how long we will have to wait :) NW (Talk) 15:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification required[edit]

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)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure how exactly to make it clearer. You said you think that the enforcement doesn't make things better and the case is proof. I disagree. It makes things better, but there still is a need for a case, even so. Did you want to deny there are factions operating in this area? I've named names in my proposals on the workshop page. ++Lar: t/c 00:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tony would like you to name names and provide evidence. Most likely you've already done this and could merely link to the relevant evidence section. That way people know whether or not you are accusing them of wrongdoing, and on what basis. I truly have no opinion* on whether WP:GS/CC is helping or hurting, but I am hopeful that the arbitration case will move things to a better place. Jehochman Talk 00:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) * At this time. I may have had opinions in the past, but they are now obsolete.[reply]
OK. Well, you may have to uncollapse things for this link to work I think. Start at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop#Proposals_by_Lar. Then review principles 9 and 10 and findings of fact 1, 3 and 4. Note that in Remedy 2, other folk propose other names to include in the faction I identified. Hope that helps. The proposed decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 01:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. And some folk who proposed other names suggested some of mine didn't belong or weren't the worst. I'm fine with that. Views differ. But only the "deniers" deny altogether that there are factions operating. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that because I'm keeping the subject at arm's length I haven't paid much attention to the arbitration evidence. I would like a straightforward response.
I know why the probation was proposed, and I felt some dismay when it immediately went in an entirely different direction from that originally conceived. The original proposer, indeed, departed over the issue. There has been some success in attracting some admins to the area, but the use of their time has been poor because those administrators who want to take action in the area are being forced to engage in long discussion, and those editors who are causing problems are given a pulpit from which to voice their prejudices. The area badly needs all admins to be proactive in enforcing Wikipedia's core policies without having to engage in repetitious debate. Liberal blocks and bans at the outset would have convinced all involved that the editing area was not to be trifled with. This is not what happened. --TS 01:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily agree that a first on the scene approach would have worked as well, I think we'd have a lot more infighting among admins and racing to impose things by getting there first instead of the reasoned approach we have. But I could be wrong. I'm not sure what other response to give you, Tony, as you seem to have posted a view in your followup rather than a question. I understand your view but I don't agree. Which is fine. We still get along. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

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)[reply]

De nada. Nothing more than a well deserved comment.. Best. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment[edit]

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)[reply]

I think your replacement was an improvement and I have so opined on talk. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

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)[reply]

No worries, honest! ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_68&oldid=1145851454"