User talk:Lar/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45

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 August 2008 through about 1 September 2008. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

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


The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)[edit]

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li wikisource[edit]

What's going on here? Could you please tell us something about it on that page? (because here I won't see it) Thanks. --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my talk page watchers, I did answer there... and I didn't use any umlauts. :) ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's ok. And yes I've seen that too :D --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall clarification[edit]

There is a situation you should look on User talk:Elonka. The question is whether the default recall criteria is six editors, or net six editors. Jehochman Talk 20:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the question is whether Elonka's criteria is six editors or six net editors. Participation in recall is voluntary, not binding, and interpretation of criteria has to come from the horse's mouth so to speak. Avruch T 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Avruch, it's Elonka's criteria. However if Elonka said "I use the default" then ya, it might be "what does the default say". I am probably not a good authority on the default, because I wasn't in on creating them.... per CAT:AOTR the list of who uses what criteria is here: Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria and Elonka appears not to be in that list. So what criteria she uses is also not clear. I do seem to recall encouraging Elonka to set up criteria, when I pinged everyone then in the category. But I may be misremembering. If SHE says she's using the default criteria (somewhere??? not sure where) , my interpretation of default criteria is that there is no "net"... only those in favour of recall are counted. This is similar to my own criteria. I hope that helps. Elonka should feel free to contact me if needed. ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my criteria to the second page. This conversation has been productive in some way. Jehochman Talk 23:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the most "loosey goosey" criteria I've seen yet. I never want to see someone recalled. But maybe I'll make an exception in your case just because I want to see if they work out! :) ++Lar: t/c 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're an ok bloke too :-)[edit]

...thanks for your words at AN... an amusing retort came to mind (idle speculation about how many of the adjectives applied to me may apply elsewhere in due course....) - but I think it's best unsaid. Kinda.

Anywhoo... various people have been helping me along at my mentoring pages, and as you'll note if you make it to the bottom, I struck while the iron was reasonably warm and made a request of the arbs. Thoughts most welcome anywhere (even if they're of the 'geez... no way!' variety :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to do a better job of following that garden walk ... really you need a better mentor than me, mate. As for your request to ArbCom, Sam's right, you keep blowing up your chances there with the stunts you pull. I don't think anyone can fault you for wanting to do what's good for the project. Plus I LOLed. But if you're trying to convince the arbcom you're sober/responsibile/respectable, etc, tweaking their noses may not be the best approach. But ya I think it's time to lift the restriction. ++Lar: t/c 10:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well I guess the reaction to nose tweaking was predictable, and it shouldn't be a great surprise.. but I will say this.. notwithstanding the fact that I clearly agree with you that it's time to lift the restriction.. I also feel that the way in which you go about examining situations, and evaluating what to do, is very strong. Some arb.s clearly disagree with your conclusion.... at the end of the day the fate of little 'ol me is essentially in my hands (toe the line and it'll all be ok seems to be the message) - but looking at the differences in how you, and some arbs, come to your respective conclusions may be of interest.. and maybe both useful and revealing? hmmm... I've noticed a few 'colour me' type comments around recently... so today, you can colour me a darkish mauve..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)ps. the whole 'group mentoring' thing works quite well from my perspective... the only extra benefit of having an 'official' hat is that I kind of promise to listen to you....![reply]

deleted article request[edit]

Hello, could you email me an copy of deleted article Terry Heartsfield? even though it was called vandalism, I did not intend it to be. Thanks --Arsenalfan101 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look and get back to you here. Please watch here. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted as an "Obvious hoax". can you provide a way to corroborate that Terry actually is on the Arsenal_F.C._Academy team or was in the 2007 UEFA European Under-17 Football Championship ?? If you can I'll be happy to userify it... but if not I think I would decline. Who called it "vandalism"??? Please give me a diff if you can. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like, according to his userpage, he agrees that its not true (mockautobiography, he calls it) - but at the time of posting, he thought it was. He asked to e-mail it, not userfy it, not sure if that makes a difference or not but I thought I'd point it out ;-) Avruch T 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka[edit]

Lar, I have been subjected to an intense on and off wiki smear campaign that accuses me of "obsession", "harassment" and "stalking". As a result, I had to make clear why I had been investigating Elonka, and get the community to confirm that there are problems with her administrating. Elonka's habit is to edit Wikipedia every day. She has been offline for two days, not responding to the recall on her talk page. This matter is creating an unusual amount of stress around the wiki, touching off side disputes (retaliation by Elonka's supporters) at places such as User talk:Bishonen. This matter need to be clarified urgently. I am hoping you can help in some way. Jehochman Talk 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that there is no response at all to the concerns raised. I said something on her talk. I then tried mailing Elonka and got nothing back. I don't think that not dealing with problems is the way to make them go away. I'm not sure what exactly can be done by me though. I'm open to suggestions if you have some, feel free to contact me via email, or here, or however... whatever makes sense for you. BTW where else are the side disputes? Hey talk page watchers... *yes I am talking to YOU!* go see if you can pour some calming oils? ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I archived my talk page, which seems to have had a calming effect there. There was edit warring at WP:RFC/U when User:Sceptre tried to get that page deleted. A WP:AE request against Giano set off a brush fire on that page. Unfortunately FT2 showed up, and received much abuse. Yes, lurkers, do help if you can. Jehochman Talk 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We talk page stalkers may well weave our magic in subtle ways that are not apparent to the naked eye. I'll confess to being extraordinarily time-constrained at present, however; this will ease up after the weekend. Having said that: Jehochman, my first suggestion would be to ease up on the rhetoric just a bit, please. A philosophy I have found serves me well in situations like this: if there is a conflict between myself and another editor (or group of editors), and where I find that there is unlikely to be a point where we can agree, my tendency is to withdraw; if my point is valid, others are likely to pick it up, and if I am off-base, then it's time for me to stop talking. YMMV, but I think you can honestly say that others have picked up your point in this case. Best, Risker (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That they have. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 14:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka replied to me via email within the last hour or two (I had a call I had to do right then). She indicated she is very busy right now, but is aware of the need to respond. I got the sense that she will respond but that it might be after the weekend. I think that's reasonable, myself and I propose to go state something to that effect on her talk page, asking for some forbearance. She also addressed a number of points but I'm not at liberty to speak to what she said. ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping you a line here because I hope this is less watched, and therefore I hope to stir up less drama than this otherwise might on Elonka's talkpage. Basically, my feeling is this: notes saying "this editor has been in touch with me, so I ask you to calm down for awhile and wait quietly" rarely achieve their intended outcome. This is because the subtext of the notes can be read as "this editor had time enough to not only respond to my email, but also to address substantive points in her reply to me. The rest of the community doesn't get to hear what she said until later." The reason that I don't want to draw attention to my post here is that I understand that Elonka may want time to compose herself to make a statement. The reason that I want to drop you a line about this is that I think that, while clearly well-meaning, this approach usually amplifies the volume from opponents (cue dozens of messages like "she has time to reply to you but not to the hundreds of us?") and supporters (cue dozens of messages like "see? she heard you. now sit quietly until she responds"). I'm not sure that this effectively expresses what I'm trying to get across, but I wanted to try, anyways. Regards, Antelan 21:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised how watched this page is, actually. I think you raise some good points. The thought did cross my mind that it might not work out perfectly. And I note I'm getting slagged about it on WR too. So I dunno. Too late now, as it has replies. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, well then I (1) failed to get to you before there were already replies, and (2) failed to find a quieter place to express my thoughts to you. Sorry about that. Antelan 21:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no worries. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to think of this as meaning that the person involved needs some time for an adequate response. WP moves faster than the rest of the world. DGG (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall criteria[edit]

Hi, Lar, I am still working on my own criteria, User:Jehochman/Dispute resolution. Last time you looked, you said my criteria was not specific enough and too easily gamed. I really want to keep it simple. Do you think the current version is reasonable? Jehochman Talk 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems somewhat clearer now, yes. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABN AMRO[edit]

Hello again. It looks as if the ABN AMRO is unlocked now. At the writing, the only new edits are positive ones in which the last remaining mentions of "ABN Amro" were corrected to ABN AMRO. So we should watch the article closely to avoid more edit and renaming wars. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall[edit]

Lar, if I could just interject into the general recall discussion, at User:MBisanz/Recall I take control of certifying the recall out of my biased little hands and shove it at someone who in theory I rarely cross paths with. Eliminates a lot of the potential lawyering as to what is or is not a valid recall. Also, I think my terms are slightly more defined than most peoples. MBisanz talk 02:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prespecifying the clerk is an interesting twist. Another twist might be to specify 4 or 5 and let the initial filer pick (Myself I just say I'm going to pick someone of my own choosing and tough noogies :) ). Can I encourage you to take this discussion to a more central place, somewhere related to CAT:AOR ??? ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, but I thought CATT:AOR redirected here :) MBisanz talk 03:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh no. But lately I've been thinking of redirecting HERE to THERE... ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

(on WQ:AN) I went and checked Meta:Special:CentralAuth to see the status of this account... Crum375 is a unified (SUL) account and is present and attached on 11 wikis. - Is there any interface by which non-stewards can view the status of unified accounts? If not, is there a reason this information is not available? --Random832 (contribs) 08:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. (I've seen arguments as to why it shouldn't be available, but it is, I'm not sure I was convinced by those) As you noted when you reverted the above someone noted how to tell there. (for my talk page watchers (HI!) it is [1] and then enter the ID you're interested in...) I've unreverted you because I leave everything... unless highly abusive, I prefer to have a complete historical record, I'm not one of these users that removes everything as soon as it hits, my archives are complete. Even the egregious slurs I leave a diff link behind in almost every case. ++Lar: t/c 13:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR[edit]

Hi Lar, it wasn't my intention to step on your toes with that proposal. Had I known your involvement was that serious, I certainly would have consulted you before putting it forward formally. It was more my sense at the time that someone needed to step up to the plate, and since I was suggesting the compromise I considered myself obligated to walk the walk. It would actually be somewhat easier for me not to be PM's mentor. He's charming and a joy to work with; it's more a question of pushing a couple of things onto the back burner to make the time. Dual mentorship might be ideal, if you're amenable. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 06:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, could work... maybe find a third to break ties... preferably someone from that relative timezone as we're both almost half a day out of synch from him. I have someone in mind, let me reach out to them and see... ++Lar: t/c 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They agreed. In fact, they've been mentoring all along too, see [2] ... I'll update with a comment. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comments at RFAR, there are sides to my track record you may not have seen. As long as all parties are willing, though, I'd be glad to work with three. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, there may be sides I have not seen. But we can only judge by what we are aware of. I think all parties are willing, we just need to get ArbCom itself to bless this arrangment. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO[edit]

According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (SS Christopher Columbus) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion.[edit]

I COMPLETELY understand where you're coming from, re DS, but I think all sides had disengaged at this point, it's over, man, let's not reignite things (especially because I have to get up for work in less then five hours :P) SirFozzie (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed to be burbling along madly to me last I checked. Thanks though! ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Disruptive trolling[edit]

I would like both User: Frostie Jack and User: Lord Charles checkuserd for disruptive trolling and baiting. Thank you. Giano (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Frostie Jack. Jehochman Talk 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano: already done, Risker's on the case. Jehochman: Commented there. Also liasing with Sam Korn about the findings. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Email en route to you now, Lar. Risker (talk)
Received and responded. Please forward the file for context as suggested, as I responded to more people than you did. :) And honestly, I read my mail a lot. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the participants of this and this are being considered. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Simple-en when I was accused of being Grawp: ...I have no objection to my account being checkusered and any alternate accounts publically disclosed. Cheers. MBisanz (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC). MBisanz talk 16:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is becoming surreal. I have no idea how all these things are connected. Jehochman Talk 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They might not be in fairness Jehochman, but Giano's userspace article had a non-free image relating to "Savementmore" which would probably be ok in mainspace - so when 2 different users then try and move the entire article into mainspace against the author's wishes, it rather looks like there may be a connection. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be perfectly acceptable to have any non-free pictures in the article draft to just be a link (that way Giano can change it from a link to a picture and back again while trying to sort out correct sizing for the image), and then turned from a link to a picture when moving the article. That would mean that while the article is a draft, that the image isn't being used at all, and it would have to be fiercely guarded against those who delete orphaned non-free image. But an "exception" template should be easy to rustle up. It is also possibly to just let it be deleted, and to then undelete when the article is ready, but that is silly. Personally, I'd just keep a local copy and use a placeholder in the draft, and then reupload. It does seem silly, but it is better to do that then be driven insane by trying to adhere to process for non-free images... Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image involved is indeed in another article right now, Mentmore Towers, but the complaint is that it isn't being used well enough there. Just in case it does get deleted, I've uploaded it to my computer, but let's hope this nonsense doesn't continue. Risker (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an action item here for me, dear TPWs? ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Lar, you were out so we made ourselves at home. Sorry for the footprints on the coffee table. And, um...that spill on the sofa was *not* me. Risker (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TPW? Surely not the one about top posting? :-) Send me the sofa cleaning bill. Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, Carcharoth, certainly not. :-) TPW = talk page watcher. I suspect you have a fair number yourself. Risker (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down with parties!!! ...and don't worry about the sofa. I'm just miffed that no one invited ME. :) Oh, and who put Verdi and Vivaldi on the stereo? I commented on one of those image deletions by the way. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not participate in either of the IFDs. And I must say I feel somewhat slighted by any suggestion that I might be MBisanz – unlike Matthew, I know how to wear a suit. I merely spotted Giano in dispute with a bot – a less than profitable activity, given that it's merely carrying out its function – and then solved that dispute (I mean, that back and forth between automaton and man, allied with the hilarious edit summaries, was a bit like watching a chap stab himself repeatedly in the leg with a fork, while complaining about the sharp things that the manufacturer was putting on the end). Really, he should've thanked me.

(BTW, Lar: excellent blog. Seriously, it's one of the few good Wikpedia-related ones, right up there with Andrew Lih's. Stepwell (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also like Lar's blog, would you like to point me to your main account's talk page so we can continue to discuss Lar's ideas? MBisanz talk 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that particular sock will be able to answer you straightaway. Or ever. Not here anyway. Drat, down to one fan. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the happy banter, I want them checkusered, and I want the name of main account, and I want that blocked too. I shall not give up on this. Giano (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. There is an investigation underway. People are looking into it. It's not my policy to comment on ongoing investigations but believe me who the main account is... is a matter of considerable interest. Feel free to give any evidence you think might help find the main account over at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Frostie Jack any info would be helpful. Seriously. ‎ ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another example[edit]

People jumped down my throat when I proposed we do away with the no fair use in user namespace point of WP:NFCC. It was precisely to allow editors, like Giano, the freedom to format and construct articles that I made this proposal. That others would use fair use to decorate their user pages seems irrelevant, it is the point that there is legit purposes to transclude fair use that trumps the unncessary hand-wringing by freedom extremists. Again, in the eyes of the court, there is no fundamental difference between main namespace and user namespace, Wikipedia is always taken as a whole. If some copyright holder complains, then we can adress it at that time, but preemtive action seems absurd. Can we just nuke this silly restriction now and shutdown the dumb bot? --Dragon695 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall recall[edit]

Seeing as you are the patriarch of recall, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#The_admin_recall_process_is_dead might be of interest. MBisanz talk 10:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the patriarch. But thanks for the pointer. Discussion is in the wrong place though. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depersonalization disorder[edit]

Lar, I see input from you at User talk:Ecrone. Can you review this in light of recent tag removal and repeat FAC submissions from a dynamic IP: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Or should I submit a Checkuser? I believe it's the same dynamic IP mentioned at that user's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably submit a RFCU. I'll take a look when I get done with the one I'm on now. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and QualityBadge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) plus the dynamic IPs; I'll submit if you say so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on the last one. If it's urgent then yes, if not, I'll try to get to it yet tonite. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all urgent. Several admins are watching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been from yesterday so it's rather late to place a preventative block on that IP. It's not the same one as the one that got the autoblock back in July. Block on behaviour I'd say, there's nothing to CU, really. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lar ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ecrone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there. It seems the IPs are too dynamic and there would be too much collateral damage. I suggest DQing the article and the nominator from further participation at FA for a while maybe? ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's less about FAC disruption and more about article disruption. Since I don't understand the ins and outs of Checkuser and range blocks (and I suspect Sam Korn is tiring of my checkuser requests :-), I'm unsure how to handle it. I thought semi-protecting the article would solve IP disruption, while Ecrone can be blocked for behavior if the issues continue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds right to me, yes. And further, as I said, if the behaviour by Ecrone at FA gets disruptive again, maybe a topic ban. In your view is the behaviour such that a block of Ecrone is needed right now to stop the disruption, or would a warning suffice, or were they already warned? ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I issued a warning about the article disruption this morning; Ecrone didn't start up until the article was semi-protected, which shut down the IPs. If he continues, can I drop you a note? I spent the better part of the last 24 hours looking for admins to deal with several vandal/sock/troll situations. It was just my day, I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. You know my email too. There are other admins that would gladly help as well. This is where IRC is helpful, to get a fast response to an already established and understood issue that needs quick action. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no chance I'm ever going to invest time and energy into figuring out what or where IRC is. Old dog, new tricks, Giano ArbCom trauma, too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Well maybe just have the emails of a few of us handy to ping, in case the first one doesn't get right back to you? ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings restriction lifted and placed under mentorship[edit]

Per ruling of arbcom, User:Privatemusings' restriction is lifted. Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova. If no issues arise, the mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion. See full motion and remedies here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the activity related to this can be seen at User:Privatemusings/A_walk_on_a_path_in_a_garden ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My user space[edit]

Hi Lar. I've got that page in my user space for a reason. I don't want to get all prissy, but I'm reverting your edits for the time being whilst I think about them. For me the whole point of the page is to ignore the fact that there may be some other process, regardless of whether it works or not. I can see where you are coming from, but I don't really want to mention a process I appear to disagree with at the minute. I apologise, and I hope you understand. Hiding T 15:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't redirect to it from project space, then, please. Delete that redirect and I'll let your reversion stand. If you don't, then the essay itself needs to move to project space, at which point the edit is a good one subject to community process. Note I added a pointer to the essay at the reference materials section. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to go to work now so I don't have time to get into this right now. I don't agree that the redirect has to go, that's a new one on me, but you could quite possibly be right. I;d appreciate a link to wherever that's stated in policy. I'll revert to your preferred version until we work this out if that's okay? Hiding T 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Works for me. I'd actually prefer this be placed in project space, as I think you make some important and valuable points. I'll try to dig up a ref for you but I've always taken it as generally accepted practice ... no shortcut/redirect links from article space to user or project space, and no shortcut/redirect links from project space to user space. I might be wrong though! It can wait for now. I think the redirect is only used in two places (one by you, one by me) so it's easy enough to fix that. While I don't agree with everything you're saying, involuntary voluntary really disturbs me, I went and commented on the three current RfAs that mention it. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to my TPWs... this discussion continues at User talk:Hiding/Recall ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Camaron/Adminship recall/Policy[edit]

Thanks for your feedback. I have made a few further changes if you are interested. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PM[edit]

I sent a PM via WR. If you would like to discuss my actions, please respond there. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optimistic[edit]

I've been on semi-vacation, so it was quite pleasing to see that NYB is back and taking on the tough case. I think my faith in the process has been somewhat restored. I just hope that a decision which honors the exceptional hard work of both Sandy and Cla68 will be reached. As we've seen in past weeks, the collective wiki-reputation of their detractors has fallen sharply. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us remain hopeful... Paul leaving is not a good thing, of course. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a considerable understatement—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joopercoopers (talk • contribs) 23 August 2008

Thinking outside the infobox[edit]

Well not really. Citizendium have taken a different tack relating to the way their articles are organised. Essentially the article proper is conceived as a sun around which supplemental satellites revolve. By way of example, I've had a go here. I'm personally of the opinion that there's a great deal of 'extra value' (horrible phrase) we could give to readers with such an approach and the interminable arguments, jockeying for position in article space might subside. Any thoughts? I'm also here to thank you for your talkpage tabcode which I've shamelessly pinched because I rather like it's elegance.--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I've lost the context of wherever it was that I was referring to Citizendium. Can you remind me? (Also ... :) Make sure you haven't confused me with my wife, we're rather on the opposite sides of this issue as I do generally like infoboxes, with some exceptions...) I like your idea of creating a "tabbed article" though, it seems to have a great deal to recommend it. The tab metaphor is fairly common in user interfaces now, and should be well understood by most. However, I think there's something not quite right with how you've set the tabs up, because the "current" tab isn't showing up without the bottom line and in the "darker" color, as you can see here on my tabs... ("Talk" has a different tab appearance than the rest)... I could try to fix that if you wanted me to give it a go. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We, amongst others, were discussing infoboxes in general at Talk:Buckingham Palace a few weeks ago I think, which spurred this effort. I can't claim credit for the idea as this is just what they do at CZ, hence my reference to it. (I've no idea where you might have been talking about it:-). Please make any fixes you like, if it takes off we'll have to get some standards in place - would you need a separate "/supplement" template for each article or could one standard one be crafted that used fields to create the links? eg. {{supplement|Statistics|Gallery|Maps}}. Any thoughts on where to propose this? Any downsides? I'd like to get a few people on board to consider some of the issues before 'going public' at maybe Village Pump? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this takes off we want a generic template that we can invoke which we pass in the section names, and it does the individual tab #if -ing and invokes generic ActiveTab/OtherTab templates... let me hack on your User:Joopercoopers/Supplement real quicklike and see if I can sort this. I can make the generic if and when. And I agree VP is the place, if and when. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that thing. (except for the lead tab which since it's in your userspace isn't the "right name" and thus doesn't work). I will try to remember if someone already templatized part of this (a lot of people have used my tab scheme over the years) and find that, else I'll have a go at templatizing this further myself. I suggest getting a few more people to take a look informally, and then if this has the legs I think it does, let's take it to VP after that. My wife loves the idea already! Can you make the map narrower on the main page though, it looks crappy when the page has a scroll bar. I narrowed it on the maps page. Stylistically we may not want to keep the blue frames all the way around, and extra width, and stuff that I use on my talk, and ONLY have tabs on the top. have to think. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabbing[edit]

Well it seems my trick is used by a few other page sets. Mostly user pages but here's one notable one: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress ... I found these by doing this search: [8] (there may be better searches... ) I'm going to spend some time now to try to parameterize this. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, thanks Lar, it's working much better now - I've fixed the map width for the benefit of your wife:-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should buy her a bigger display. :) PS I dropped Markles a note. I'm about to get started on templatizing this. All in my user space at first. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try it now[edit]

I've changed User:Joopercoopers/Supplement to use my newer hopefully easier to use templates for doing the tabs. LMK what you think. ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. The only minor glitch I've spotted is the tabs seem to change width as one cycles through them. I see a village pump thread started a few days ago, which I wasn't aware of. I'm a bit peeved as I'd hoped to get a comprehensive 'pro' case together before taking it to the community, but I see you've done an admirable job of putting it. I'll respond at length and in depth tomorrow to the 'cons'. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR comment[edit]

I urge you to clarify your comment. If the community were to decide in a discussion that an admin bit would be removed, I would expect any steward to execute that decision. That is what stewards do. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not what stewards do. Stewards implement policy and consensus. Absent a community consensus about recall that takes the force of policy, I find it exceedingly unlikely that stewards would remove the bit of an admin because of an apparent, local consensus ,which, absent policy change, is all that it would be. Apparent. Local. I am not alone in that view, I believe. I've asked my fellow stewards before, and I'd be happy to do so again, but that's the general consensus among stewards. Changing my comment to reflect something other than reality might not be the best approach. Given those precepts, what clarification if any do you think would be appropriate? ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The steward policy speaks of community decisions. I don't understand anywhere in that policy that a local policy has to exist. I see where it speaks of conforming to local policy, but if there is no policy to conform to, then they should execute the decision according to the steward policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with that policy, in fact I've helped edit it from time to time. The title of the section, I remind you, is "Don't decide". You are asking stewards to judge outcomes, to weigh arguments, to determine nuances. That is something that by and large, especially on wikis with large, active communities, that stewards do not do. I can raise the issue on the list again to check steward consensus, (do you wish me to?) but en:wp is a very large community. I think it is clear that any recall process outcome or decision arrived at on AN/I or whatever, would be considered a local consensus at best. Not one that the entire community was behind. That's why en:wp has policy. Policy is the codification of community decisions. Get policy changed to say that recall, once committed to, is binding, or that a vote of 50 users to remove someone is binding, or whatever, and then, yes, I suspect stewards would start considering it. We have had this discussion before. I am sorry that you do not find the answer satisfactory. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This makes better sense regarding the size of the community. This may need to be better clarified in the steward policy so this same misunderstanding does not occur. What did you mean by my not finding your answer unsatisfactory? I don't recall us having this discussion in the past, but of course, we may have. I just don't remember it, I'm sorry. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a policy rewrite project active on Meta. You're welcome to give your opinion there, of course. One of the problems facing stewards lately is more and more demand to judge and decide, when stewards are specifically chosen to not do so. They're granted these tools with the understanding that they will only perform actions which are clearly uncontroversial. Considering that there's an arbitration case involved, it's obviously not uncontroversial enough for stewards to act upon it. Kylu (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so, Kylu, thanks. NVS, I could swear we've talked about something like this before. If not, I apologise for misapprehending you, but I know I've said this before to someone or another. ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things to any TPW that might be interested. 1) This topic has come up on the stewards mailing list and several stewards have just reiterated what I have said about current policy. 2) There appears to be a proposal currently being mooted to change current policy: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposal:_Allow_stewards_to_deadmin_based_on_community_consensus ++Lar: t/c 11:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's definitely a perennial proposal... and it's being discussed now at WP:DeSysop too... Privatemusings (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)proud owner of a 'TPS' badge... W'ing is for wimps! :-)[reply]

A friendly metapedian may be required....[edit]

here - would you mind taking a quick look. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there's much that can be done, from Meta. Commented to that effect there. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dyk nom[edit]

Updated DYK query On 24 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clara Fisher, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Hi! Victuallers (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU[edit]

Given the high density of TPS around, I was wondering if anyone had an update on the status and identity in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Frostie_Jack case? MBisanz talk 11:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TWP not TPS... Please AGF! I don't know that there's much more to say publicly at this point. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean TPW, right? As to the case, I continue to suggest removing the restriction on fair use in user space since it has been causing issues for good faith contributors. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant TPW, thanks! As to the case, I'm not sure I see the connection to Fair Use (can you explain?), but I do not support use of FU images on user pages, as they are not needed there for "criticism or commentary". I think the issue is rather with how FU repair/remediation gets implemented than with the concept of not allowing it. But that's a different topic. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giano was having trouble with fair use, apparently, while constructing the article in his sandbox. Wasn't that the whole motivation behind the premature moving? --Dragon695 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. How soon we forget. ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think a holding place for supposedly "orphaned" fair use images that someone has claimed would be OK. The only orphaned fair use images that should be deleted are those where no-one pops up and says "hang on, I want to use that in this article I'm writing". I know this will wreak havoc with the automated tools that search out orphaned fair use images, but they should be able to adjust their algorithms to accommodate this. Carcharoth (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that seems reasonable on the face of it. The details to be worked out are "where" (as in, do you tag it somehow, put it in a special sort of page, etc), "how long" (as in, it should not last "indefinitely" but it should last more than just a few days, people work on stuff for months or even years... but is years "ok"??) and "who" (Should you have some track record before this is ok?) Whether this passes muster with the Foundation legal team given the Foundation's statements and desired practices, I don't know (and is not my call) This would have to be coded into the en:wp fair use policy statement (the policy that every wiki is suposed to have) ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem[edit]

Email sent, answered and asked... Risker (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seriously, what IS it with you pinging me to tell me I have mail? As if. Thought we covered this??? Or were you just tipping off my TPWs????? In which case, carry on. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TPS noted. subject? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is only because I take great pleasure in annoying you, Lar. You know that. If the worst thing I do is leave you a message saying I've emailed you, consider yourself a lucky man. Risker (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm sure the checkusers take great pleasure in checking who people have been sending e-mail to when they run checkusers. Or is that a separate checkuser action only intended to be used when there are allegations of e-mail abuse (no, not your e-mails, Risker!)? Carcharoth (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's for ferreting out e-mail abuse. Such as Risker's. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again[edit]

Well, now that you've commented, I can ask you what you think. (If you get tired of me asking your opinion about contentious RfAs, please let me know.)

I've also left comments on her talk page.

Thanks : ) - jc37 09:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been too mysterious of a request, I even went to your contribs to try to figure out what you are referring to. I think I know now but... PS, think of the poor TPW's... they may be even less clued than me. (in fact some would say hanging out here is a sign of cluelessness! :) Not me of course, but SOME would say that, yes) ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd comment that your guess is likely "right on the money", but the puns abound... - jc37 11:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your humor may be about, um... 3 levels above most of my TPWs humor grasping abilities. Just sayin'.
OK I'll go put my oar in there, maybe. But here, I'll say I don't think that having all the policies swotted is key. In fact even not knowing the right answers to every possible word problem is... (if you want that, get a perfectly prepared coachee). What is needed is clue, and willingness to admit error and learn from it. When I was a wee lad, just learning to drive a car (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and gas was under 50 cents a gallon), it wasn't necessary that I was a perfect driver before I was allowed behind the wheel the first time. Instead there was a graduated series of exercises, evaluations, tests, additional permissions, etc until I was a full fledged driver. And even then I made mistakes. What the drivers license process judged was not perfection, but a) good enough for the situation and b) willingness to get better. The RfA process is all or nothing, which is unfortunate. It would be better if there was a mentorship process, a learners permit, etc. But there isn't. So I don't require perfection from candidates I support. Just clue. This candidate has clue. And the right attitude. We don't need admins who are here just to be admins, so some article space contribution Gnoming, writing good stubs, fixing things, finding pictures, writing GAs, writing FAs, reviewing and fixing GA or FA candidates... whatever, I don't care... but something, not just ALL metaspace stuff) is key. This candidate has that. In spades. Hence my support. My suggestion, reevaluate in view of that and see what you think. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your feelings about adminship. (It's part of why I like to ask your thoughts, since yours tend to be rather "stable" : )
And I have been attempting to "rethink". After all, as you noted, there are quite a few editors whom I respect, who supported.
But then, as I mentioned to User:Horologium (when I asked him about it), the candidate says things like: [this (among other things), which makes me concerned that there is something other to this nom. There's just something that "feels" not quite kosher here. (Even perhaps a bit pointy.) And since this is all about trust...
But, of course, my thoughts are likely moot, as (with a currently fairly steady 81%) the candidate is likely to succeed. So I hope that the "trends" I am noting, and my "feeling" of concern turns out to be unnecessary.
I still would welcome your thougts, both on my previous comments (and "vote" at the RfA) , and the ones above. - jc37 01:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No easy answer there. RfA is a horrifically broken process in which there are many competing agendas, perspectives, and the like (at least one for each participant, if not more). The result is a gruesome gauntlet that candidates have to run. Given how hard it is to remove admins that have flubbed up against their will (stalwart and true members of CAT:AOR notwithstanding, and I aknowledge that it is likely that not every category member is there in good faith, although that's what I prefer to assume), there are many who are quite cautious in giving their approval. Unfortunately this seems to have set up conditions in which the candidates who are less than perfectly bland or have gotten their noses bloodied in the past cannot pass, even if they've learned from their mistakes. Personally, I'd prefer candidates who made some mistakes and learned, as long as they knew they did not have all the answers. I'd prefer candidates who are human and sometimes make flippant remarks to ones that are always 100% politically correct. Despite that diff, which I suspect is flippancy, I think this candidate has what it takes. Could she have a defter touch? Yes. So could we all. But she is not likely to blow up the wiki and she has a lot of clue, so my support remains firm. I am hopeful that she will take feedback on board regardless of passing or failing. Some of our best admins did not sail through at 100% or close to it. So keep raising your thoughtful concerns. But do keep your eye on the big picture... Adminship is unfortunately a big deal. Don't let imperfections in candidates lose us admins with clue while gaining us admins who regurgitate pat answers but screw up when they hit the reality of the daily bustle/grind/coalface. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(72 and sunny?)Avruch T 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thought-filled response. (As usual) you make some valid points.
And I agree with the idea that "oops in the past; but I've shown in the months (years) since then that I've learned and will likely not do that again", means that I typically wouldn't oppose such a candidate. But if I felt that they were intentionally (almost pridefully) continuing such a pattern, I'd probably oppose, likely for that alone.
And despite what I've been accused of in the past, I don't realy only on the responses to question, nor to "regurgitating policy". As I've now seen quite a few varied resonses to my questions (as well as the classic/recurring ones), the way a candidate answers is sometimes more important than what they actually say. The "context". (Something that we Wikipedians often neglect with our single diffs.) And when combining that with the "context" of someone's comments when going through their edit history, it can often be enlightening to their character, and can (sometimes) indicate trends and tendencies. And one of my main concerns is "cluefulness", especially in their ability to read for content (as you already know from my criteria), and showing a lack thereof is concerning to me.
As for my thoughts as to how to "fix" RfA:
a.) Remove the ability to block/unblock from the default admin package. I think that that alone would diffuse the "adminship is/isn't a big deal debate. Of the "big three": block, delete, and protect, it seems to be the one that editors are likely to consider the most "personal" of attacks. Plus, unlike the others, it prevents an editor from editing any articles, not just the one deleted or protected. (Though, of course, cascading protection is something else altogether.)
b.) Remove the almost useless support section. This would end the RfA is a "vote" concept, for one thing. For another, it would allow for discussion. I think any candidate should be "adminship-worthy" unless/until proven otherwise". So anyone with concerns could note them, and the community could discuss. And at "closing time", the bureaucrat determines consensus, and that's that.
c.) (Yes, there's a minor third : ) - Make it easier for admins to be desysopped temporarily. Giving bureaucrats the ability to selectively block userrights, rather than blocking most of them (as is currently done by "blockuser"), would likely help resolve a lot of concerns.
What do you think? - jc37 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the end of the RfA ends the discussion as well? : ) - jc37 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I read it, nodded, said I need to respond, and then forgot, other stuff came up. As you can see, my page is rather busy. No slight intended.
I can't say I disagree with the principles you articulate for support, at least not in the main. We just came out to different results. Which is OK. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was mostly what I was asking your opinion on. Thank you. - jc37 09:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding a) That's an interesting idea. Stewards now have the ability to create different packages of permissions at the global level. It might be something to see that extended to local (right now it takes a bug). The change would require consensus of course. The issue is that if that permission is removed, you have a NEW process needed to grant the permission to some folk (we can't not have blocking at all)... The problem is to get consensus for a change. b) I don't know. The current process is broken but there have been periodic suggestions of reform that never go anywhere. I was involved in one (WP:DFA and this) before I was even an admin. The problem is to get consensus for a change. c) seems like a good idea, the problem is to get consensus for a change. Hmmm... theme? ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And everytime I bring them up (in respective order):
"You're gonna try to take away my ability to block. Oppose!" (Which isn't the proposal, but considering how many people "disappear" only to quietly return under "other" names, perhaps they are more concerned about their future accounts. Anyway, it all seems to be about territorial control, or in other words that sense of "power" - IWANTMINE.)
"But I wanna vote for who I wanna vote for. This is democracy. This is America. I have my rights. etc." (Another case of IWANTMINE...)
No single quote, this "discussion" just devolved. For one thing, too many other things involving user-rights were going on, which were being "pushed" by forces beyond me : )
So yes, I'll probably bring them each up again, at one point or other. But until the admin user-right package is "broken up", I don't think that a or c will happen. Too much irrational fear and territorialism.
And the same pretty much goes for RfA changes.
But who knows. I've seen things change which I never thought would happen (both for good and ill). SO dunno. - jc37 09:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

!ping! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, my spam folder (where all your missives are directed by default) is empty. And what's this burning bag I spy by my door? ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these character from the film Earth Girls Are Easy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to answer, this is veering away from G rated territory. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabbed articles[edit]

I've started setting out some of my thinking here‎. If you get a chance, your thoughts or questions would be gratefully received. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially[edit]

Hi. I'm sorry we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot.

So as not to clutter up the Talk:Ponte Vecchio#Cleanup thread: I care who is an admin, because admin status is a fairly reliable indicator that the user has a modicum of self-restraint, and a modicum of community trust. It occasionally indicates that they will know technical details about whatever they are discussing, and implies that they have more than a few months of experience.

  • Collapsible sections (like collapsible "References", which are continually suggested by people who consider the large blocks of citations to be annoyances/eyesores) have many immediate drawbacks.
  • The default page-view should be the best view for the most readers - it's as simple (and complex in details) as that.

That's the gist of my perspective. I'm not trying to be closed-minded to interface experiments, just to give the readers a good experience. Hope that helps make my stance clear. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your perspective. Best is a very nebulous term, and good enough is the enemy of better as they say. What is good is a shifting target as our wiki-technological capabilities advance. What can be done with templates and formatting depends on how clever people are in using the current software, which advances over time as people learn more, (for example the article classification templates are much more sophisticated and reliable now than they were back when Kingboyk and I first developed them in 2006) and in what the current MediaWiki software is capable of, which advances over time as bugs and enhancements get added to the codebase. We must be careful not to ossify. What we thought was true about what is "best" a year ago may no longer be true. Standards are good but sometimes imposing standards "too early" stifles innovation in a way that makes it hard to really improve. Analog television held back HD digital for 50 years, at least. I really think those saying "tabs are bad, show/hide infoboxes are bad, multiple pages are bad" and so forth, and those trying to impose central authority over local consensus are stifling innovation. Don't be part of that please. Let's not get ourselves convinced that we have to get everything good enough right away and stifle a chance for better later... there is no deadline.
Tangentially, I think it's false to rely too much on who is an admin and who isn't, in judging the level of clue. There are some deeply wise and profound non admins, and some terrifically inexperienced and clueless admins out there. Try not to stereotype. Keep your mind open. ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the balance between immediatism and eventualism is delicate. I usually side with eventualism. Except when the issue is over a situation that causes immediate and actual problems.
I don't "rely" at all on admin-status. I'm sorry that you choose that sentence to concentrate on, as it was basically irrelevant (as pointed out) to the subject at hand. What I was trying to get across, was that User:Shereth and User:LordAmeth and User:Mr.Z-man and User:Masem and User:Carnildo all agreed that hidden-infoboxes are bad, and that they all happen to be admins and have therefor been around a while and might know a thing or two. I was trying to prevent drawn-out quibbling over semantics, which these discussions so often devolve into. It backfired (as life so often does).
Again: The default page-view should be the best/optimal/most-useful/least-problematic view for the most readers. Do you think a hidden-infobox is ever the best default? (Given that many readers won't discover it at all, and that they do not print properly, and obscure any images within them, and etc etc?) (Perhaps better answered at the MOS thread..)
Thanks again for listening. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that old-timers may be recalling the days when Wikipedia had the spoiler collapsable section. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@quid Have you actually tried printing the page with hidden boxes? Go to the print page and click the 'show' on the box - it displays and can then be printed perfectly - so the reader may choose to include it in his print. Nifty huh? --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I went all the way to a printed sheet of dead-tree in my hand, that does not show the infobox (not even the "Facts at-a-Glance" heading). In the top-right is just the coordinates with an image underneath. It does not print. The print-preview shows it fine, but it does not print. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balls! Quiddity, please accept my apologies (and egg on face cheeky embarassment), you are quite right - so much for WYSIWYG! I'll strike my objections on that basis at MOSINFOBOXEN. peace. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other example, though somewhat extreme, is this recent/current Wikipedia:2008 main page redesign proposal/MindstormsKid design draft. That page demonstrates perfectly why large hidden-sections might be considered harmful.
(It also shows what sometimes happens in mainspace when per-article-consensus completely overrules "central-authority" wiki-wide-consensus.
See also, dubious navbox colour schemes, such as {{Varieties of Coca-Cola}}. Some trends need to be discouraged... Bad code proliferation is one of them. (and small fonts everywhere, another thing I've been trying to get discussion going on recently))
See also Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hidden templates in article prose which I just noticed. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. On the main page redesign, I'm not seeing the issue there at all. That design isn't my cup of tea but having the last section hidden by default seems an interesting approach to reducing clutter (the main page currently is dreadfully cluttered, especially at the bottom), and batting around ideas like that seems goodness to me. After all, ideas, even bad ones, sometimes lead to innovation. On the Coca Cola navbox color scheme I don't see the issue there at all, can you clarify? On the hidden text not printing issue... you're using a technical limitation as a counter argument here. I don't buy that. The answer to technical limitations is... (wait for it) Bugzilla. Have you searched for, or raised, a bug yet to ask for an enhancement which supports show hide functionality in a way that gives desired print control (always, sometimes, never? Ideally give the user a radio button popup (suppressable) to choose section by section, or some other approach, factoring in automation). If you haven't, you don't have standing to complain about technical limitations. The trend I'm seeing here is that you're giving examples of things that maybe don't work today as evidence that ... well I don't quite know what. That innovation is bad? Bad in some cases? ++Lar: t/c 11:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent)There are three hidden sections at that main page redesign, and you were looking for them but only saw the one! How far is someone going to get, if they are used to the old main page [or infobox style], or aren't naturally-curious-enough to click everything in sight? Yes, experiments are good, but this one just doesn't work.
The {{Cc brands}} color scheme is in the corporate branding of coca-cola red. Extrapolate that as a trend to every navbox. Now extrapolate to every infobox (see the regulated-beginnings at Template:Television colour).
A better example (which I just remembered) is the Wales infobox from earlier this year. Much edit-warring, much discussion of Rainbowpedia/Kaleidopedia. Small amounts of customization can be good (that Cc brands navbox is not critically bad, just subjectively/aesthetically "dubious", an eyebrow-raiser/eye-roller), but large amounts are quickly overwhelming (to some people, not all. (To misquote: "You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time...")).
Joopercoopers is intending to file a bugzilla report (see the end of the thread on my talkpage). Besides which, it's not my obligation to help along a proposal I disagree with, is it?
You seem to be stuck on the idea that I'm somehow "Campaigning Against Innovation" in the abstract. Could you try to re-conceptualize my actions in the frame of "Campaigning For Ease-of-use", please? A little good faith goes a long way :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I recently overhauled the Infobox Project's navbox, and I thought using the 2 cat-trees in there was fairly innovative... I'm pro-innovation, dangit! But I prefer it when it works well, and when it doesn't interfere with any of our readers' experience.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Show/hide isn't just some mysterious completely unguessable function, it's pretty intuitive. 2) I don't at all see the problem with using corporate color schemes in corporate infoboxes, so you've lost me there. 3) If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. How many bugzillas have you filed, overall, just out of curiosity? 4) I find that those who accuse others of lacking good faith are often actually the ones who lack it. On innovation, to me, some bumps along the way are acceptable. It's an OK cost to pay. Wikipedia need not be perfect every day in every way. Even some backsliding is OK with me. There is no deadline. ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps try reading it all again with a British accent? I have traces remaining... I'm saddened by how poorly we're agreeing on anything, given the huge overlap between your userboxes and my interests (I used to have more userpage categories..)
1) I've explained how a computer-mouse works too many times recently, to consider anything universally "intuitive". (and similar practicalities of computer use (copy and paste, the existence of "file explorer" (or equivalents) for "where should i save my files?", etc) The human race, in all its shapes and ages, is often surprisingly diverse.
2) What about the Wales example? Would you be happy to see each town in Wales (eg Cardiff) use the color from their local flag or coat-of-arms in their infoboxes?
3) That's awfully black and white! Were you paraphrasing anyone in particular?! (sorry, had to)
I've filed 1 (#11056) and commented or voted in a few. There is no preview or editing of old comments at bugzilla, and every time you press "commit" it emails one or more people. The help docs are appalling. I don't want to relearn everytime, and to get things wrong and waste people's time, so I generally submit problems to WP:VPT instead. I disliked bugzilla when wrestling with it to submit Mozilla bugreports waybackwhen, and I dislike it now. Make sense? (and, You haven't filed one either?)
We'll see what the developers think of this hiding solution. Hopefully they can explain things to everyone's satisfaction.
Again, sorry that we're not getting along better. I'll go back to reading Mason & Dixon, and stay out of the way of inhabited bridges. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm just following-up, and was wondering if you were intending on replying to this thread, or if I should take it off my watchlist? (As Risker just said below, it's busy around here!) No reply is needed, but I was hoping we could agree on something before the discussion ended, even if it's just a love of xkcd :) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how it's all going to play out... the "experiment" has been running at Ponte Vecchio for what, 3 weeks or so now? Not sure how much forward progress actually was made after the initial flurry. However, a bug report about printing got filed, and answered (see a thread below) and I cross posted to the MediaWiki talk:print.css page and it looks like things are percolating. So who knows. As for a reply I wasn't sure exactly what to say... this IS a busy talk page :) ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benkenobi is a retardate[edit]

Please see the above page. Sorry for the long report, but I really want to get this off my back. As it says, I expected at least one of the suspected socks to go around editing while I file the report. User:Ausonia is doing just that. Please help if you can. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see/think you asked Jpgordon too? I'll take a look later when I have some time if he hasn't sorted it. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for giving out too many notices. I guess I wasn't aware if there was a checkuser who would deal with the issue ASAP (I was a little desperate at the time). Thanks for the good work on monitering those socks, though. ~ Troy (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it turned out I didn't do anything... all sorted now I think. As Jpg said, you should feel free to use RFCU next time if you need to. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOINDEX harmful?[edit]

I don't know when it goes into effect, but I am worried about the net negative impact that NOINDEX will have on the project. I have tested Wikipedia search for diff researching in a few cases I was following and it is nearly impossible to get the accuracy that you get with Google. Sometimes, it is just downright wrong or is missing crucial hits that Google would pick up. Now that was only a few cases, I wonder how it will affect those who often, even on a daily basis, have to research others' histories to find specific instances of inappropriate comments/actions. What about incidents/statements you vaguely remember, but have no idea where the hell you heard it? Have you tried going a day or a couple of days using only Wikipedia'a search to research diffs? I guess one really doesn't appreciate the power of Google until it is taken away. I think it potentially means dealing with problem editors will become 10x more difficult. Could Cla68 perform his very detailed and accurate evidence gathering without the aide of Google? I think this is also bad for policy discussions and debates, where finding previous statements is often needed to clarify positions. Over on WT:NFCC, I noticed that even an experienced editor like Carcharoth was expressing concern on how this may change the ability to locate an important quote that Mike Godwin had said in the past. I believe NOINDEX was an admirable idea but I feel the costs are too high for only a feel good benefit. I say feel good because I believe that is the only benefit that is gained, there is no real legal threat at play IMHO. The loss is detrimental, however. I think NOINDEX will be terrible for accountability and transparency on Wikipedia. Some may actually welcome this, since it obfuscates their past wrongdoing, but I doubt the majority of the community would want this. Any thoughts? TPW feel free to chime in, too. ^_^ --Dragon695 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note there is a more accurate version of the MediaWiki search function, however it is disable at -en for performance reasons, so either we need more money or more developers. MBisanz talk 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we were promised better search. Heck I know we were!!! Keep opening those bugs at Bugzilla:Bugzilla reporting particular issues and they'll get fixed. Because I'm cool with losing some search func, temporarily, in exchange for the benefits of NOINDEX. As for researching stuff, I think you'll see more tools created like wikistalk and the commonality editing and etc. I have something myself that can look for regexes in someone's contribution history... it's not very done and not very ready for prime time but it works. Oh, TPWs... he didn't say TPW chime in FIRST. :) But whatev. Man this page got busy all of a sudden. What is this, son of ANI? ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the level of discourse on your talkpage seems to be a bit higher than AN, which is why I posted here. Besides, your opinion is valuable, too >_>. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flattery will get you anywhere. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to your concerns, Dragon695, let me link you to the evidence page I developed for a recent arbitration case. Over 100 diffs, more than 150 searches performed (some searches were to confirm that discussions had not taken place), and not one single Google search amongst them. An improved internal search might have made a difference, but to be honest I rather doubt Google would have shaved very much time off the preparation of this data. At present, the majority of page types proposed for NOINDEX are "personnel"-type pages. They're the kind of thing that will show up when prospective employers do a google search on a candidate for a position, a practice that is very common throughout North America, and often required for certain industries (high tech, those dealing with security issues, financial sector). Think about the potential for negative effects for an editor who has used his real name as a username, then been subjected to an RfC or been dragged to ANI for totally specious reasons. That editor has had his reputation besmirched, regardless of whether the community rallies in agreement with his actions and finds him non-culpable. Keep in mind, as well, that some employers and prospective employers will specifically ask where one spends time on the internet, and under what username, so editing under a pseudonym may not necessarily protect an editor as much as he or she thinks. See also my post at the talk page of the proposed NOINDEX policy/guideline, where I detail a very limited search to see what pops up and how it might affect the editors involved.
I want editors to clean up vandalism in Sex and Islam and Penis and Homosexuality and all the other heavily vandalised articles, but I don't want their good-faith clean-up work on Wikipedia to have adverse effects on their real lives. I'm happy to extend that to editors who came here and registered under their real names, only to discover they really didn't belong here for whatever reason. I hope that perhaps you can see this perspective. Risker (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck do you do differently? Is there some new feature in search I am not aware of? Does it now accept regular expressions? --Dragon695 (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it does, directly. That's what I'm talking about tool developers being able to enhance things. (and why I did my own code... crappy as it is.) Further, I'd urge EVERYONE complaining about ANYTHING at all techie (hey, I think the infobox guys should pay attention here) to get a bugzilla account, and USE IT. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A what? A where? ok.... Joopercoopers (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quickie[edit]

Hey Lar,

hope you're keeping okay. The admin recall thing in my user page is getting added to Wikipedia:Administrators, or rather it has been added and is now being edited. That's just a heads up. At some point, once it is stabilised and appears to have consensus to stay there, I'll move the redirect over. Anyway, I came here to ask a question. What's the tool for watching what gets added to a category. I think you use it to watch the recall category. Any help? Ta, Hiding T 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. See CAT:AOTR and go down the list of "see also's" till you see the one that starts out "Automated". That page is maintained by Bryanbot. It's fairly self documenting how to set one of these up to watch whatever categories you like. However it only catches adds, not removes. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hiding T 09:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC infoboxes (again)[edit]

Quiddity, JohnInDC, Lar (Joopercoopers has commented already): I have added a revised version of a proposed statement against hiding infoboxes at MoS (infoboxes). Please take a look and add your valued input there, as the previous discussion has been archived. Sswonk (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the archiving of the previous discussion was done at the request of Joopercoopers, and in the request he asked me to post the the revised version.
Can your answer to the following be please be made by you acting in your capacity as steward:
Would the posting of generic statements similar the one above on the talk page of dozens of WikiProjects addressed to project members be considered spam? Sswonk (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't require Steward standing to answer that, I don't think. Some would consider it spam. Some not spam but canvassing. And some would consider it a courtesy. For best results, if you decide to do something like this, word it neutrally, and select people based on a criteria that is not related to their likely opinions (for example, pick members of a project who have been active in the last X days, perhaps, rather than members who have voiced an opinion you agree with...) see WP:CANVASS for some guidance. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Be please be the the thanks?" I read my question a couple of times but then accidentally hit "Save page". Happens once in a blue moon. I am investigating WP:CANVASS, and appreciate the advice. Sswonk (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived the discussion at MoS. The experiment at Ponte Vecchio will continue and no further discussion about a blanket statement against hiding infoboxes appears necessary. The discourse bore fruit in that major concerns about functionality and innovation were aired and a cooperative atmosphere prevailed. Sswonk (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Frostie Jack[edit]

I have had a comment on my talkpage here from an ip purporting to be the above sock. I don't know if this is any help, as the case is closed, or I am being trolled for some reason. No need for response, just file if useful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_45&oldid=1183685028"