User talk:Lar/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 71

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 2010 through about 1 November 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


May I please ask you to lift my sanctions[edit]

Hi Lar, may I please ask you to lift my sanctions . Thank you for your consideration.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have circumstances changed such that a lift is warranted? Please elaborate. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I practically stooped editing in I/P conflict area now, and I am sure that I will not violate a normal 3RR rule. So, it would have been nice, if my editing restrictions would have been lifted.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more convincing if you edited in the area and showed that you never reverted at all. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe I am interested in editing in this area anymore. So should I understand your response as "no"?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not interested in editing in the area any more then a) you can't demonstrate that you can edit successfully there, and b) you don't need the sanctions lifted. ++Lar: t/c 01:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny. It reminded me how I came to rent my first apartment in US. Landlord asked me to produce my tenant history that I of course did not have, and I was refused in renting. OK, Lar, if it is your decision, so it be, let the editing restriction go on. Thanks. BTW I sent you email. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not quite like that at all. OK, will check when I have access to my mail. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design[edit]

Hi, can I steal your page design? Foldedwater (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. it's a wiki. Credit is nice but not mandatory. See the comments in the various pieces that make up the tabs and suchlike for instructions. If you're really stuck, ask for help. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coatracks[edit]

Re. [1]: The property that makes a coatrack a coatrack is that an otherwise unrelated topic is hijacked to present a particular point of view. It has nothing whatsoever to do with inherent qualities like truth, beauty, and the American Way of Life. The ultimate classical coatrack probably is Cato's ceterum censeo. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem by that definition you were the one coatracking by attacking me with the same old same old when I explained why the situation wasn't "non-standard". It's not non-standard, more's the pity. Your faction is not the only one that exerts ownership in some topic area, indulges in bad behavior, and chases most reasonable folk away from the area... it's just among the worst. I know that your virtual playbook requires shooting the messenger at every opportunity but still, you lay it on thick at times. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email[edit]

What it says on the tin. :-) Risker (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check yours. You have some serious questions to answer. ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed up on Risker's email with one of my own, Lar. SirFozzie (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been reading[edit]

And saw [2] which seems apter than I would wish. Collect (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least you weren't talking about the section before that one. :) But to be fair I'm willing to be hopeful about this decision. Some people that should have been named in the findings and remedies got off scot free, but if the new sanctions regime works, they will either modify their behavior or find it modified for them. As for me, I'm out. Once this case closes, I'm not going to have anything more to do with the CC topic, for a good long time if not forever. ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the serpents? Alas - it may also be more apt than one would reasonably wish. Amazing how true Aesop's parabes have become. Remember, moreover, that all it takes for one side to "win" is for others to become discouraged. Collect (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essay in progress / basic precautions for new editors[edit]

Hi Lar, I'm curious for feedback on this little essay I just put together, so I figure this is as good as any place to ask. The basic idea is that often editors jump into situations without necessarily considering the consequences, and before they've had a chance to see how things work or read through all the policies. Certainly there are the WP:Pillars, but otherwise I'm not sure we have anything that quickly addresses the ways that new editors are most likely to harm themselves. Any thoughts appreciated. Best, Mackan79 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems worthy to me. The problem with such initiatives in general is that there's quite the thicket of policy, guidline, essay, advice, etc already. I wonder if we should institute a practice of not writing a new one unless we identify two to shorten or replace or remove entirely. (or something. Maybe based on word count?) ++Lar: t/c 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, indeed. I actually have in mind something that would be highlighted for new users as the most important risks they may face from editing Wikipedia. It's exactly because there's no way they can be expected to read through everything, and yet some things you really should know right off. For now I'm trying to think what such a guide should look like, and got a couple of good suggestions from Risker. Mackan79 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed it, but I don't see any mention of admin restriction of Lar in the remedies. Please feel free to remove this comment if I did indeed miss it (preferably after pointing it out to me...). RoscoHead (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no restriction on Lar. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan Schulz and Lar both fall within category (iv) of "involved administrator" in the enforcement notes: "an administrator identified by name in the final decision". Mathsci (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which was odd as the traditional definition of "involved administrator" was not explicitly altered (15.1). WRT Lar all remedies failed, and his sole FoF was that he had been subject to an RFC/U! The discussion on the RFC/U (FoF 12.2) said it was only there as a "matter of fact" which implies that those supporting it did not think this would be a "back door" to declaring him "involved." But through a simple clause of result 2 somehow the definition got turned on its head. Since no remedies regarding Lar passed, I doubt that his mention in the case is sufficient for the result to include him other than by "mere mention." I further surmise that he is not included in the "final decision" if no remedies mentioning him passed. I doubt that the RFC/U which failed to establish that he was "involved" is thus intended seriously by Arbcom to state that he is "involved" as that would be a splendid case of an indirect bite at the apple. I sincerely hope the arbitrators will shortly revist this apparent and serious anomaly. Collect (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your analysis. I appreciate it. It might be right on the face of it, but the fact of the matter is that my presence in enforcement became a polarizing factor.
Now that the case is closed, I can step away, and leave the entire topic area to fresh admins. If things continue as they were, then there will be another case. But that's not my hope. My hope is that fresh admins, and lots of them, will mean a more balanced approach with less playing field tilt. ++Lar: t/c 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the final decision again. In particular note Finding 12.3 which says "User:Lar has made inappropriate comments and actions and at times shows a battleground mentality, especially for an admin." It's simply incorrect to say there is only one finding on Lar and that's there 'only there as a "matter of fact"'. 12.3 is a finding of inappropriate interaction and battleground behavior.
I agree that Lar was not found "involved", but he is one of the two admins explicitly barred from acting under Enforcement order 2.1 because he is "identified by name within the decision of the case." The notion that he's not included in the decision, when his name is there in the text, is simply and flatly incorrect. He could act as an administrator but not under the discretionary sanctions.
I welcome Lar's decision to disengage entirely from the topic area. I agree that new admins stand the better chance of achieving more peaceful topic editing. --TS 13:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - Lar was not cited, however, for being "involved" in any way in the case. Thanks for pointing out the other finding of fact - and eliding the fact that zero remedies affecting Lar were enacted. Other than the back-door revision of the definition of "involved" contrary to the principles adopted. When a remedy violates a principle, I think something is errant. Collect (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should probably seek clarification from the arbitration committee. The decision obviously looks clearer and less ambiguous to me than it does to you. --TS 13:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In legal terms, I have no "standing" as I bore no involvement in the contretemps. I suggest that contradictions between principles and results should be dealt with sua sponte by the committee, of which neither you nor I are a part. Collect (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standing has no real place in Wikipedia dispute resolution. I don't understand what the problem is, but I've asked an arbitrator if he'd like to take a look and see if he can make sense of and respond to your concerns. --TS 13:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collect's interpretation is incorrect; Lar was mentioned in the decision and is thus considered "involved" going forward by ArbCom's definition; and ArbCom has already clarified this point (which was rather clear to begin with) several days ago. MastCell Talk 03:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that was a last minute save by Risker. I imagine there was significant concern among some of the arbs when they realized they couldn't remove Lar under any sane definition of "involvement". Then Risker came up with a new wrinkle to insure he got caught up in the net: just pass a finding to remove every admin mentioned in the case! Brilliant! With Lar gone there are no more pesky principled admins mucking up the POV, and Wikipedia can go on saving the world. ATren (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to put a different spin on it. It was clear that I had become a polarizing figure (rightly or wrongly, my fault or not). So, OK, let someone else have a turn in the barrel. There are still several principled admins from the ancien regime (such as The Wordsmith, for example), plus hopefully lots more new ones. Let's give things the benefit of the doubt. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that explanation doesn't really cut it, because 2/0 and NW were quite polarizing as well, and instead of removing those polarizing admins, they removed the editors who challenged them. That's the way it works: admins who defend this POV (i.e. 2/0, NW) are doing "noble work" and any editor (i.e. me) who challenges their actions, even politely, is summarily removed. But when an admin like you (Lar) come across as unfriendly to this noble POV, as you did, editors can openly mock and bait you relentlessly, and the resulting conflict will be used against you, not the editors who baited you. Thus, by removing all challengers, this all important POV is preserved, and Wikipedia can save the world. ATren (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is simply too important for Lar to remain involved. He was pointing out too many holes in the carefully crafted editor balance which has been protecting the "good" side of this issue for years. There's a greater good at stake here people! CC activism is a really important cause and Wikipedia needs to do its part to promote that cause. Think of the children! ATren (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Full marks for sarcasm. But your post might not be adding much to reasoned discourse. It made me laugh though, so thanks! ++Lar: t/c 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) ATren (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RoscoHead, I was wondering when you'd turn up... I trust your question has been answered to your complete satisfaction? On the bright side, at least 2 of your recent contributions were actually to encyclopedia articles! That's better than my track record of late. But you may want to work on broadening your focus a bit, hmm??? People might think you're just here to ... well I don't know exactly. Why ARE you here anyway? ++Lar: t/c 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking my contributions again Lar? Whatever, I am just a little confused as to why you are the only user explicitly mentioned in this summary, but not in the remedies. Not a biggie, perhaps, but just a little strange. Perhaps it was just an oversight by Dougweller or whoever put together the summary.RoscoHead (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't that many to review, really, are there?... so it's not like it was an actual stalk. Mostly just you baiting me in one way or another. Give it a rest, you're really a journeyman compared to the masters. Anyone else think it odd how Rosco seems to focus on me so much?
As for the case, I think you're splitting hairs. I was mentioned in the case (remedies, findings, even principles (!!!), it matters not). Therefore by the definition of involved that ArbCom says will be operative in this topic area, I'm involved. As is StS. Neither of us got any particular remedies that actually matter, but we're nevertheless now involved. QED. ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual friend[edit]

One might look at an acquaintance, who specifically was a "prime mover" in averring your "involvement" in CC, who has been found to have more than ten socks ready. [5] e.g. I was disappointed as I wrote on his behalf at least once. Collect (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That really sucks. I wish I could be surprized by the finding though. I guess I should dive in to the articles now. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean we get to say they were enabling a sock master all that time? Ha! ATren (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Ratel. Collect (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno bout you lot, but I'm thinking maybe it is time to put down the pointy sticks and move on to other things? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this is so much fun! Now that I'm out of it, I am definitely going to enjoy watching the circus from a distance. ;-) ATren (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schadenfreude therapy? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you're talking about, Collect. Sorry. Perhaps you could clarify? ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo had a handful of sleeper socks that were identified yesterday. All known accounts of his are now blocked indefinitely. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well that's disappointing. Whatever other faults I may or may not have thought Polargeo has, socking wasn't one that I had expected. ++Lar: t/c 05:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I supported him for sysop, saw him as one of the editors with solid knowledge of the subject matter, but was concerned by the increasing sharp tone of the exchanges. That's an issue that a few months break could cure, but socking? That puts a serious dent in any desire to return.--SPhilbrickT 13:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the socks existed before he became a sysop, and were used to edit project-space in a deceptive manner (despite his claims that the undisclosed alternate accounts were not violating policy). It is very disappointing. I realize that he's probably having a tough time right now, but he needs to know that it gets better, and he probably could return to good standing with some work. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benoît Mandelbrot[edit]

Hi Lar. I saw your edit at ANI so since noone seems to be available at this time could you possibly fully protect the article due to BLP concerns regarding his death date. See also my report at ANI, RPP and the talkpage of the article. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis

I am sorry, I don't have time right now to give this the review it would deserve before doing a full protect, have to run. Maybe ask BWilkins? He's sound... Normally I would gladly agree but not this time, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 10:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks. BWilkins took care of it. Best regards. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 11:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare[edit]

Do you know what the story is behind this?--SPhilbrickT 13:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, I'm afraid. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing exciting, I promise. Just needed a break. NW (Talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23[edit]

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser question[edit]

Hello Lar. For a user that is banned here and whose CU information would be stale but edits commons, would it be possible for a CU to compare the information from the user on commons to a user suspected of being a sock of the banned editor here? nableezy - 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if circumstances warrant. It's best to work with a CU that holds the bit on both projects. There are several, Avi for one, you can also check the list of admins that hold other permissions at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nableezy - 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpreting the application of the term Prat[edit]

Please redact your PA William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you've misinterpreted what I said. Unless you choose to apply the term to yourself, I wasn't talking about you, necessarily. By the way, did you apologize for (much less redact) where you called me stupid and malicious yet? Look to the beam in your own eye first. ++Lar: t/c 10:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS, congratulations on being mentioned in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. (webcite link: http://www.webcitation.org/5tdzzTTyQ). Too bad that it got so many facts wrong about the case. ++Lar: t/c 11:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grr... paywalls make it hard. Try this one (good for 7 days): http://www.webcitation.org/5te2VunZs or full cite (transparent WebCite® URL): http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle_email%2FSB10001424052702304410504575560630778483558-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwMTEyNDEyWj.html&date=2010-10-21 ++Lar: t/c 12:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What'd it get wrong? It looks pretty solid to me. It did omit some stuff, like how the arbs found a loophole to ban you when direct remedies failed, but they got the major facts right. ATren (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well:
  • "Wikipedia's group of seven dispute arbitrators banned him from the topic entirely" There are more than 7 arbs...
  • " They also banned other posters who had turned Wikipedia into their global warming propaganda outlet." Topic banned, not banned, and also they topic banned more folk from the other side I think, than from the so called "alarmist" faction (note that I'm an alarmist too).
  • The piece paints the decision as a major victory for the so called "skeptic" faction. Which it isn't. If anything it's a victory for the rank and file editors peacefully editing away quietly, the bunch that feels that factions are bad. But not a major victory (yet... hopefully).
That's a fair bit. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quibbles. No one outside of Wikipedia really cares how many ArbCom members there are. Removing some editors from the topic is a major step forward, and the severe flaws in the decision don't outweigh it. The language is imprecise about "topic banning" in that one instance. I liked the "belatedly" dig, which is well deserved (isn't this the longest ArbCom proceeding ever? and the problem with this topic area should've been addressed long ago). If the Wall Street Journal had knocked me like that, I'd run out and get a copy of the dead-tree edition, then make a PDF of it (and xerox it) and start thinking about how I could apply for grants from the likes of George Soros. Being knocked by the WSJ is a feather in your cap in some circles. (I've heard that Mark Zuckerberg's standing went up in Silicon Valley after The Social Network came out, and the Gordon Gekko character in Wall Street was celebrated by many in financial circles.) Clearly, there's an upside to being excoriated in certain ways. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When one finds oneself in agreement with the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, it's often worth reassessing one's conclusions. The inaccuracies Lar notes are trivial in themselves, but also emblematic of the lack of concern for detail (read: facts) for which the page has been (in)famous for decades. MastCell Talk 00:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were you referring to my comment about "belatedly" or "Removing some editors from the topic is a major step forward" as worth reassessing? Do you disagree with either of those ideas? (And that was an editorial, not op-ed piece.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers often get trivial details incorrect Mastcell. This is not a problem specific to the WSJ and something quite obvious to people who've read stories where they've been interviewed or about subjects where they are incredibly informed. If you want to discount the opinion piece because it got a few inconsequential details wrong then that is certainly your prerogative and it is not unexpected since that has been the pattern with other pieces as well (e.g. Solomon). TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In future, just call people Karlof. Collect (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom enforcement request[edit]

Please see this filing by me which refers to continued mutual needling by the three of you. --TS 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Responded there. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_banned_editors_needling_one_another for general discussion. --TS 20:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)[edit]



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

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hi Lar, I sent you email. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I replied. Please advise if you need a re-send. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_71&oldid=1144605376"