User talk:Lar: Difference between revisions

My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns if you don't want to post.

• Here about a BLP that's persistently getting vandalized and you want me to semi protect it? Leave a note below, (User:Lar/Liberal Semi is no longer in use) and I or one of my TPWs will get it.
• Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active... Ping me if it's truly urgent, or find another admin.
• Here about accountability? see my accountability page.
  Note: The apparent listification of the category (it's back but may go away again) does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way

Please read the two blue boxes :).

Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat!
An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Am I to take it that you closed Nothughthomas' complaint against me when you blocked him? I ask because he's reopened it.[1] Grateful if you could clarify this. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's highly frivolous but I think we need another uninvolved person to pass judgment, once I blocked him I should recuse myself from closing it. If no one turns up shortly, I'll jump on IRC and see if I can find someone. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Sorry you had to be the one dealing with this silliness. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief... [2] You know, I think Nothughthomas and GoRight are deliberately trying to wreck this sanctions regime at the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need more admin eyes on this, getting on IRC now to see who's about. As I said, I have no horse in this race except wanting this to work. Any WP:TPW's about??? ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious to me that User:Nothughthomas is either the most unlucky new user in the history of the encyclopedia or yet another in the unending parade of agenda-driven editors (sock, meat, externally motivated, take your pick) that drive people to distraction on the various articles. I wonder if the discretionary sanctions permit an admin to just topic ban him from global warming for a month. If he's really just so unlucky as to have joined the encyclopedia, made a few edits then got sucked into the mess, wouldn't that topic ban save him from the standard flame-out? If he's just another sock, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the indef ban he'll eat in a few days when someone gets around to jumping through the hoops? If he's a meat puppet or angry blog reader, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the one year topic ban he'll eat as soon as someone figures it out? Hipocrite (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Hipocrite, you're ChrisO's sock (or vice versa?)... [3] and [4] :) ++Lar: t/c 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea, topic banning folk for their own good. If he keeps up what he was doing before the block I'd favor trying it in this case. I'd probably leave it to someone else to actually place it though. ++Lar: t/c 06:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's some evidence that he may be a sockpuppet or shared account of another blocked user. Tony Sidaway pointed this out on my talk page and suggested a checkuser run. I've written up his evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nothughthomas. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. Being worked. Thx. ++Lar: t/c 06:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, apparently. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew that... Something fishy though. ++Lar: t/c 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm catching the whiff of trimethylamine too. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 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) 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just tidying up some loose ends and not trying to be pointy here, but please be aware that this means that you are no longer an uninvolved admin with respect to myself and any use of your administrative tools against me would likely be considered an abuse thereof. If you ever have occasion to believe that administrative actions against me are required please seek out an uninvolved administrator to perform them. Have a nice day. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct. I remain as uninvolved as ever. You may not game the system this way to "knock out" uninvolved administrators. Have a nice day. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that would be for others to decide should such a decision ever be necessary. If my notice is meaningless then no harm done. --GoRight (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing the same pattern of vexatious rules lawyering I warned you about, GoRight. You are unfit to lecture anybody else about policy as you seem to have a very poor understanding of it yourself. Please stop before external restrictions are applied to your account. You filing an "appeal" does not disqualify any admins appealed against from taking further actions. Jehochman ^Brrr 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. As I said. I am only tidying up loose ends, not being pointy. I just wanted to record a notification. Moving on ... --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted that you think you're not being pointy. However, that view doesn't seem to be widely shared. Your notification is spurious, and I've changed the section heading accordingly. You really need to internalize the advice you've been given to "up your game". A lot. ++Lar: t/c 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked by Viridae. Cue drama cascade. --TS 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little out of left field, eh? I'll see where things stand in the AM, I'm for bed. ++Lar: t/c 06:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was only a matter of time, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, since you're a steward, I tghought you'd be able to take this request. Would you be able to delete the cricket article and then restore it minus the first two edits from 2001? I accidentally imported them into the wrong place. The article is *just* over the 5,000-edit limit for deletion, so deleting it won't cause too much disruption. Deleting these edits won't be a good use of the revision deletion tool since it leaves a visible trace of the edits. Thanks. Graham87 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in case you're curious, the imported edits were meant to go to the page cricket (disambiguation). Graham87 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you want those two edits moved there? ++Lar: t/c 11:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think perhaps a developer is needed, as something seems munged up, when I walk those diffs it jumps from those right to the very last revision, skipping the 5000some in the middle. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've bigdeleted, restored the first two revisions to Cricket temp nostalgia restore, and am trying to restore the rest of the article as we speak. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything is restored. I leave it to you to move the two edits (on the page I created) to where they need to go. Please advise if there are other issues or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's all sorted now. Those two edits at Cricket temp nostalgia restore don't need to go anywhere, because they're already at cricket (disambiguation) (I imported one of them yesterday - see the page history there). The reason why you were able to walk right from the first two edits to the last one is because the imported edits have a high revision ID because they were recently imported, and the previous/next edit function moves by revision ID, not date.

As it's summer here in Austrralia, I'm already sick of the sound of chirping crickets - I've been kept awake by them too many times already! I bet it's the opposite for you since it's winter in the northern hemisphere. I'm not a great fan of the sport either; summer is the season for both the sport and the insect in Aussieland. :-) Graham87 03:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, however this works out, thanks. Paul Beardsell (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. However it works out, make sure going forward you're on your best behavior. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fairly easy to see why the header I've used above would be objectionable. But I find it harder to see what you're objecting to on my side. If you'd care to point it out, I'll give careful consideration to striking the objectionable parts William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Back off, or its the enforecement page for you." was what jumped out at me. As I said on the enforcement page, sharp elbows is the level of discord. Not knives at the jugulars. So merely an observation. But it does make it harder to get the sense of what's really going on. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I'll fix that William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically fixed, I suppose, in that the words changed. 173.101.153.240 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've fixed my words but Lar hasn't updated his even-handed rebuke to that effect. Anyone coming here will know he has thanked me; anyone reading that page will still see his (now unmerited) rebuke William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) That IP is me. Apparently I didn't notice my lack of green button. (see my monobook.js if that comment makes no sense) ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I thought it was some snarky IP. Err, well what better were you hoping for? Are you asking me to withdraw all warnings from him at all? Do you not like the new wording? Go on: propose a form of words for the same meaning William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snarky IP? :) naaaa just snarky me, I guess... The sharp elbows are mostly present in the meaning, not the wording choices, I think. What was I hoping for? Less "in your face-ness". Dunno if hoping for better is a good use of scarce resources. Thanks for the refactor just the same. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

It seems the issue might get closed any moment, and since I added my comment in the middle of everything I'm worried no one might've read it. Did I go out on a limb or is my comment with regards to one of the editors in question seemingly relevant? I'm not an admin here and I feel I have too little knowledge on how everything works sometimes, but I've admined more Internet-activities since the early 90's than I'd really want to admit to and the appearance in question struck me as really odd. Troed (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it got looked at very hard. I didn't. Will the 1RR restriction sort it do you think? Who is that editor? You could always open a new request if you think the editor is problematic, I dunno. I think these requests should be clearly actionable though, rather than "this seems odd to me" sorts as I'm not sure what we do with those. Just my theory. Best. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editor in question has as far as I can see in the history never contributed at either the talk page or the article itself, yet appears immideately after the article has been opened for editing and deletes a complete paragraph. After having seen various accusations thrown around at other venues, the closest I could describe this as would be either an incredible coincidence or "meatpuppery" I'd guess. It did strike me as something that should also have been looked at when bringing the issue of reverts up. Sorry if you feel I'm rambling at the wrong place, I guess I just wanted to know someone had read my comment. Troed (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After writing the last bit, above, I did go look at the contribs and I agree, it does seem odd. But what happened next? If that removal didn't stand without discussion, that may be the best we can hope for. I'm not sure we can afford pages of analysis of each edit... I just don't know what to suggest. Sorry if that's not helpful. And yes, maybe this needs raising somewhere more public. I have 300 WP:TPWs but still. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is what Connolley does called "sharp elbows", while when others make similar troll remarks, it's called "incivility" or "trolling", and they're warned and/or blocked for it? UnitAnode 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my point was clear, but perhaps not. You used the phrase "sharp elbows" for behavior similar to that which has resulted in warning and blocks (though not by you) of people on the other side of the discussion. Why do you call it "sharp elbows" instead of calling it what it is: in some cases, trolling, in others, gross incivility. UnitAnode 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was clear. And I agree, to a point. But I try to be mild in my wording. Perhaps I was too mild. But I'd rather err on the side of mildness. And I'd rather that a mild thing stick than a precise thing fail. If you're referring to GoRight, I'm afraid while I may not have blocked him indefinitely, I do think he has went way too far. Not sure that helps. Really, I want this to work... ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message at GR's talkpage to that effect as well. Honestly, I find myself in a position that seems surreal. I'm a fairly liberal Democrat, yet I have found myself growing more and more frustrated with the leftward-tilt of our political and GW articles. Frankly, it's something that I think makes the project look incredibly bad, but I really don't know how to approach the problem. UnitAnode 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhere read that "one side is edit warring to introduce POV, and the other side is edit warring to maintain OWNership" which... sucks. I want to not remind people of exactly what my views are about AGW... I'm trying to stay out of the content itself completely. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then. My question was intended to be more Meta in nature, in that the perception of the project takes a big hit when this type of thing goes on, but I can understand your reluctance to proffer any type of firm view on the subject. Regards, UnitAnode 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Without taking any sides about content, yes. The projdct DOES take a big hit when the types of things that have went on in this area go on. Maybe I'm wasting my time. I don't know. Maybe we all are. I hope not. At least we're trying something, unlike, say, BLP and flagged revisions, which seem hopelessly mired. Maybe I'll get bored with all the fighting in a week and go back to doing something else. Who knows. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave you to it, then, Lar. I've removed all pages remotely related to either Pres. Obama or Global Warming. I just don't have the stomach for what I know is probably coming in both areas. UnitAnode 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed above that you said you have over 300 TPWs. How does one go about figuring that type of thing out? I've had some ... "interesting" posts to my talkpage (and "other" places as well), and I have been growing quite curious as to how many people actually are watching my talkpage. UnitAnode 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[5] For Lar, [6] for you and [7] for me, base tool is [8] Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, rereading my edit comment, it should have read "watcher and tool!" not "watcher, tool!" - I realize it could be misread. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! I'm quite happy to not be nearly so "popular" as Lar! :) UnitAnode 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(*after 2 ecs*) MZMcBride wrote a nifty tool which is here: http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py ... it shows I as of this writing have 326 watchers on my talk: [9] ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) (A TPW beat me to this post :)... Hi Hipocrite )[reply]

I'm winning with 335. MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess my little motley crew of 45 still have some growing to do... UnitAnode 22:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made it 46 just to be friendly William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can rest easy tonight... UnitAnode 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

phew. less than 30 for me. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Norah, I've got 377, and I'm hardly a tenth as active as I used to be. --TS 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you're a bunch of nobodies [10] (that was a joke, folks :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

31, which is more than I could imagine. --Cyclopia^talk 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK all you BSDs, go boast somewhere else. :) I expect the lot of us put together don't have as many as Jimbo. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep! UnitAnode 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I can make this statement freely and not under the threat of indefinite block I wish to say that this was wrong-headed, I should not have done it, and I apologize for having done so. Let us both endeavor to put this matter behind us and speak of it no more. --GoRight (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology. I hold no grudge and do not consider it personal. I cannot promise to "speak of it no more", though. It may come up in some legitimate context or another where it is appropriate to make some comment or another. In the larger matter I do think you have to try to be meticulous in your approach, even if those you disagree with don't seem to be (in your perception). ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:MisterSoup has returned and is vandalizing my user page as of this evening. I thought he was blocked...? -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked for a week but has come off. I see Nancy has warned him, I seconded the warning. ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that as of early today UTC MisterSoup has been blocked indef by Nancy. I see in the discussions on various pages that it's alleged that MS is a returning sock. I was not able to determine who might be the sockmaster, only that MS was themselves running a sock. Given the contribs I think an indef block is appropriate. I've also followed up at User talk:Nancy ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is reportable or not, but these [11] [12] appear to be baiting. Should this type of comment be reported to the enforcement board? I'm going to let Guettarda know that we're talking about him. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your take on it is right. I also don't think anything will be done about it. UnitAnode 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was of the opinion that Ling.Nut was mis-using the talk page of a climate-change related article. So I thought it appropriate to remind him that the page was under sanction. When I got to his talk page I realised that he had already been warned specifically about his behaviour on the same page. I could have added a second template or some nonsense like that, but I really dislike templates as an alternative to actually using your own words. But the point is the same - if you show up to warn someone about their behaviour, and you find that they have already been warned about their behaviour on a specific page, you can either reiterate the warning, or take the next step and file a report. Me, I'm always optimistic that an established editor will get over their problem and step back into line.

I agree that I should have ignored Ling.Nut's taunting and not replied to his/her response. But it was a simple factual statement in response to a question. I've done my best to approach other editors with an assumption of good faith. Which is a lot more than I've gotten in return. But I've quit letting that bother me. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can reasonably argue that those two diffs rise to the level of notability William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I object to my edits being labeled as "taunting", but I'll let it go. I later tried very hard to argue logically in a way that would establish the relevance of my initial remarks, as my edits show, though G (and perhaps others?) seems to have disbelieved me... I'll try to studiously ignore any personal remarks by G in the future, though I'm happy to continue discussing article-related info. • Ling.Nut 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the time stamps, I am guessing that Guettarda was referring to The AGW crowd has lost their comfortable air of invulnerability, as a result of losing the appearance of scientific objectivity. Given that the tone of the rest of that discussion was far from ideal, I think if people disengage from each other and concentrate on article content as Ling.Nut and Guettarda both seem to suggest, we can mark this resolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I wasn't around while this was going on, I've been away from the wiki for a bit. I am not totally sure I see what's going on here but it seems that Cla raised an issue, and then the issue got turned around to criticize the other party instead of being dealt with. I'm not sure that's useful. I see sharp elbows all around and all parties ought to be doing more to try to understand the viewpoints of the "other side". Something that seems to be lacking. Whether there is anything that can be done, I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a problem of opposing viewpoints—those are not a problem at all, under normal circumstances. No, it's a problem of questionable practices. Even more, it's a problem of shitty or nonexistent governance Wikipedia-wide (lack of editors in chief, and lack of accountability for the content of articles), but that is Wikipedia's fatal shortcoming... However, these particular opposing relationships are quite likely going to continue for a long, long, long time. I for one am going to do my part not only to color inside the lines, but to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing in both my words and (far more relevantly) my editorial practices... This of course places me at a huge (and, quite likely, decisive) disadvantage, but... • Ling.Nut 09:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe that en.ep should have three pillars of governance, editor behavior (ArbCom), policy, and content, supervised by three separate but equal committees. I'm afraid, however, that the content decision committee would be constantly overwhelmed by requests to decide content disputes. I don't know how to resolve that problem. Until we do, we have the current system, which, as we know, gets constantly gamed and manipulated and is frustrating to observe. Cla68 (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is rambling, but it is pertinent as well as important to me personally... I think you're wrong about "constantly overwhelmed". In fact, Wikipedia actually works in all areas but the genuinely controversial ones (which is the only reason I still contribute). Any Content Court of Appeals [permanent or ad hoc, but preferably the latter, so that membership could be better targeted to the issue to ensure NPOV] could simply reject all cases that come to their attention that don't seem intractable, and in fact the Wikipedia process would effectively work things out far more often than not, in time. But someone needs to act as a final authority on content disputes as virulent and prolonged as this one. WP:CONSENSUS has no magic powers in these cases; in fact it is counter-productive, because it very strongly encourages the formation of tag-team gangs of bullies etc. (no accusations meant here). • Ling.Nut 10:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point there. Cla68 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've don't think the "tag team" essay translates well to a mainstream science topic like global warming, even if it may be useful in cases such as, say, articles about religious sects and the like where meat puppetry is well known phenomenon.

If a lot of editors tend to hold similar views on a subject, particularly one where those views are backed by a very strong scientific consensus on a matter, surely those editors will tend to be viewed as a "tag team" by those whose views differ with the consensus view. To those whose views differ from the scientific consensus, they will appear to be acting in concert according to some mysterious outside direction, but this is an illusion.

Conversely there may be a tendency to view those who consistently edit against the consensus as pushing a non-neutral point of view. It may simply be, and in practice probably nearly always is, that they are misinformed.

I think that way of looking at things--both in terms of POV puchers as well as tag teams---has proven sterile because it encourages a battleground mentality. We should all recognise that we're trying to represent the facts in accord with the neutral point of view, and discuss any differences we may have with a view to achieving consensus. --TS 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy chatting with you about tag teams and NPOV, Tony. If you're ever in Taiwan, please do stop by for a Taiwan Beer. .. Time to quit for the night again... • Ling.Nut 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away from the wiki and unable to participate very meaningfully. I do see a problem here. I'm not sure how best to phrase it. It's true that most people accept a particular view of climate change in general (that there is a problem here and that we need to take it seriously and that it's highly likely that it's a problem of our own making). But it's also true that there seems to be some difficulty in getting the articles to acknowledge that there are other viewpoints (that it may not have the effects that are generally accepted, that there are questions about some of the data and some of the methods, etc) to the right level.

This seems to be a problem that occurs in more areas than just climate change. There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy or grand cabal, just a few like minded editors who agree with each other, and who are active in the topic, and you have the same effect as a conspiracy, even if they never even exchange one email. I'd point to the previous "ID Cabal" discussions as another example of this. It now is clear to me that there never was an actual cabal, or conspiracy... just editors who felt strongly about the topic and who acted in ways that skewed our coverage of ID. There are many other fringe science topics that seem to exhibit the same effect. The generally accepted view seems to be the only view discussed, or there seems to be POV present that it's the only meaningful view. I've always believed that presenting all the information and letting the reader draw their own conclusions is the way to go rather than predigesting things. Saying this is not going to make me any new friends, but there you have it. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please help with this biography of a living person? It's under attack by anon IP's putting false information in like she was wrongly accused.] It's been brought to the IP's attention that BLP's need to follow reliable sources but they are ignoring saying it's the truth. I don't want the hassles of ANI for an IP like this. They have been reverted by multiple editors and take it to 3r before starting it all over again. The IP has been warned. We could use your help in stopping this by blocking the IP, if that's not possible then protecting the article from this user. Thanks for any help you can give, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took this to ANI. Hopefully someone there will put a stop to the game. Thanks, sorry for bothering you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was no bother, I am sorry I wasn't on wiki to respond instantly. Please advise if you need further assistance on this or other matters. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, hope all's well with you. If you have a moment could take a look at this thread: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Username changes and accounts on other wikis? I think it could use input from someone with a slightly more "global" perspective. Cheers, WJBscribe (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been away from the wiki and unable to participate very meaningfully. I find myself in agreement with you and I've said so at that thread. Hope it's not too late. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar. I need help right away from someone before I blow my stack. Una is back, causing problems with an article I just created and she needs to butt out now and not later. Feel free to toss this to a non-involved neutral admin if you'd like. See Colitis-X, which I created just a few days ago, sourced up the wazoo. I am open to knowledgable editors improving it, but I got Una. Now I have tenditious arguments to deal with, She's creating a problem with my DYK nom, and her usual problem with OR edits (Just for starters, one never calls signs of disease in animals "symptoms" because animals can't talk-- they are "clinical signs" in veterinary medicine). I don't want this to escalate, and it's the annual time when it does. Thanks to Una, I have not created a new wikipedia article since the Sockpuppet debacle last year, and I have been terrified to take any article I personally care about to GA or FA because of her past involvement. Help! Help! Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned her. She should not be allowed to disrupt a productive editor such as yourself. I would appreciate help from my WP:TPW's to review this matter. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job here. Well done! -- Furniture 1Z (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, Greg... why is this sock of yours unblocked again, exactly? ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar. The bigoted harassment of SRQ continues with a new soupy sock[13] . I blocked on sight; happily I was online at the time and caught it within a few minutes. I am wondering whether a CU is in order to identify the underlying IP and see if a block is feasible. Nancy ^talk 11:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran one before, but matters may have changed. Let me take a look and see what makes sense to do. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followup to Nancy: This wasn't a MisterSoup sock, surprisingly. Perhaps they were Joe jobbing? I found another sockmaster. There may be further followup required after some inquiries return. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I am getting harassing emails from the same person, Lar. Something referenced in one of the three emails was mentioned in the post to my talk page. Only the writer of the email would have made that reference. If you would like the headers from the email, let me know. Also, I have my suspicions about the possible identity of this person based on the IP address contained in the email header. I elaborated more on Nancy's talk page, here [14]--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the emails via the wikipedia mailing system or does he/she know your email address already? Send them along, please. I can't promise to be of much help but I will take a look. Sorry you have to put up with it. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has my home email address and they have been coming from outside wikipedia at the following email: trinketsandtreaures@live.com I am not home currently and don't have access to the emails right now to send you the headers. Regardless, it appears you have found the culprit who has been vandalizing my pages? Still, in case there is more than one person working this "game", I will send you the headers and emails when I get home later on today. Oh, and before I forget - the reason I know why the sock and the anonymous harassing emailer are the same person is that the email mentioned a song by the artist, "Beck" - the harassing edit on my talk page made reference to the same artist. Thanks for working on this for me - I truly appreciate it and feel better overall that things should start looking a little brighter on my Wikipedia horizon because of your efforts. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Send the headers (and the bodies too if you're willing to share) when you get a chance. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, after I finished with the above, I had another vandalizing message on my talk page. You can see it here [15] <heavy sigh> Seems my suspicion of there being more than one person here may be accurate. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're still getting hit. That IP appears to be from Verizon Wireless. (see this whois ) and is probably someone editing from their cellphone. All I can say is just hang in there and don't let it get to you, I'm not sure a range block is warranted. Yet. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I noticed you blocked my "friend" Orderly Conductor (talk · contribs) I thought you might want to block his canary bird aka Lowell don't get lunch we'll order pizza (talk · contribs) as well. Cheers, Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC that's a disclosed sock of Thekohser (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). I don't know that every disclosed sock has been blocked again. Something to check, there may be more we missed. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What precipitated *that*? - Alison ^❤ 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as I am not sure exactly when it went up. Probably the Cool3 thing if I had to guess but who knows. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-( I'm upset and annoyed right now that another minor has gone up there, too - Alison ^❤ 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what his problem is. The WR thread is filled with the usual apologist blather. You may want to avoid reading it if you want to keep your blood pressure down. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too late! :x sigh- Alison ^❤ 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddya know - I'm back on Hivemind, too. There's a shocker!! - Alison ^❤ 04:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first let me say I don't think you did anything at all wrong. I appreciate you explaining more at her talk page. I just find that she is kind of in a catch-22 because it's impossible to prove or disprove a negative. I expected your reasons for the block there because of the use of two accounts when the explanation came. User:LaVidaLoca used the two accounts for the explanation on their page I expected the results and reasoning to be because of this. I do believe though that they are good friends who at times share Wildhartlivie's computer. I have been trying to check for overlapping times between them but this is very tedious to do and I'm tired to boot so for now I've stopped looking. I just like things to be fair. I think you did do a fair look at things. I just thought there might be something specific that could show that there are more than one editor here. I am going to let the rest for now though. Thank you for more of your time. I am sure you get tired of having to explain things. If I should come across something, I'll make contact, if I don't I won't bother you. Thanks again for your kind explanations. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for stopping by.

1. First, the LVL and SOM account correlation is stone cold, there's no possible way to even cast any doubt thre... if LVL is a different person than WHL, he/she was socking there, and using a sock to harass another user.
2. Second, no worries about your questioning me, it's fine. What gets up my nose perhaps a bit more is Equazcion using phrasing like "You're basically saying you're sure but you can't tell us why you're sure, but we should believe you because you think you're good at this" ... that's just needlessly snarky on his part. But whatever, it's kind of what I expect from some folk.
3. Third... perhaps I still haven't explained myself well enough. While it may never be possible to actually prove the negative, certain cases are such that it is easier to show there are plausible explanations, and certain cases are such where it is harder. That is an intrinsic feature of the case itself and the circumstances of it. In this case, the explanations offered just do not fit. I don't see how they can. It will be exceedingly hard to convince the other CU, me, or (I wager) any other CU that is shown the information that what was offered so far fits. It's possible that what was offered so far wasn't true, and that these two people live together. If that's the case, things fit better. But that's not what was asserted. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren't aware of this I thought I should show you. My understanding is that they are occasional roommates and have been good friends for a very long time. They visit with each other. Also the mix up last night is that LVL was at Wildhartlivie's at the time she wrote on her talk page the explanation but didn't remember to log Wildhartlivie out and to sign in on her own name. She realized it afterwards and made the correction to her own account. I find this probable, how about you? I know when I go to my son's house and come here I always worry about being told I am not me because of the change in IP. I don't use his computer very often but when I did I always made a note of it once so editors new. I just think the explanation I was given sound accurate and true. Obviously I can't share without permission but I'm sure you can ask Wildhartlivie if she would share that email with you privately. Maybe she was clearer to me than she was to you about the events last night. I woke up to all of this, so it took me by total surprise. Like I said, I'm going to leave this for now. I appreciate your time on this though, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC) (didn't proof read sorry if there are errors)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder of the original SPI report. I had forgotten I opined there but rereading, it all came back to me. At the time, I found it reasonable that these were different users, because the explanation on offer was that they lived together. Now, they are saying they do not. That doesn't fit the findings. So something is off. I don't know what, none of my business whether they do or don't live together or why, except where it impacts operations here. You're a good friend and true for sticking up for what you think is right. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's why I brought it here to refresh memories. User:LaVidaLoca from my understanding of things was visiting and didn't remember to log off and log on with her account when she first edited. She realized later that she didn't log off Wildhartlivie so she returned to her page and signed in to her own account and made the adjustments. This sounds logical to me. It's like when I use my son's computer to me. Though he doesn't edit here anymore as far as I am aware it could be the same situation as here that's why I am kind of trying to make sure this is understood. I just think we should be fair and Wildhartlivie has be fair with me so I am trying to look and see what's going on. Something seems off to me too but I can't seem to understand what. I believe Wildhartlivie and some others I've spoken to so I am just trying to get this to a point where I feel comfortable about what is going on. At this moment I just feel like we are missing something or someone else. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a look at this new user: Special:Contributions/SkagRiverKing. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:23, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Yes, lovely. Nothing found though. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more explicit, I found no connection between this user and any other user. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured you meant :) Equazcion ^(talk) 01:10, 17 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lar - is it possible to have my user and talk pages locked for a period of time due to continued vandalism (probably executed by you-know-who)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of her userspace would probably take care of the problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:31, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Who is the "(probably executed by you-know-who)?" The two accounts are blocked. Please stop poking, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie, please...this has nothing to do with you. I know you're upset about recent events, but it's my user and talk pages that are being continuously vandalized over the last few days by the same person, not yours. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can ask questions about what is going on. You still don't need to be poking people, and yes they are people. Don't act like you know me because you don't. What is going on is something I will pursue if and when I feel like it. I'm am sorry though that you are being rudely attacked. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see response appropriately placed at Crohnie's talk page. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All true, Crohnie. SRQ is under the mistaken impression that she can tell people to "butt out of her affairs". Still though, the success of the poke is in your response to it. If SRQ wants to throw around vague accusations that won't have any real consequence, I think the best response is to pay it no mind. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:12, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)

You are making inappropriate assumptions, Equazcion. If you want a further explanation, see Crohnie's talk page where I responded to what she said above. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer you guys not feud here, please. SRQ, if you want your user or user talk page semiprotected I'm happy to oblige you. How long do you want it for, and do you want your user full or semi (we never full protect talk pages though...) ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...what would you suggest? I was thinking at least until the block expires (but you may have a better suggestion). Semi is fine and should at least slow down vandalism-only users. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try a week. I went with that for both user and user talk. Advise if you want it removed early. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, wasn't sure what to make of it. Is there an action item there for me or were you just letting me know? ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you confirm that its true? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I can neither confirm nor deny it, as I don't have the facts and I prefer not to get involved unless necessary. I have received your second mail, which asks my opinion. I don't have an opinion on this at this time. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. I hope it is alright to email you. I'm sorry for not asking first which would have been the proper thing for me to do but I just didn't think of it until now. You'll understand I think, thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to mail me, no worries. I replied. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I had to update you. Also you might want to look at User:Wildhartlivie's talk page to get an idea how editors are reacting to all of this. This list of angry editors is growing to my surprise. Sorry, but I am actually exhausted by all of this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, when you are feeling up to it would you please check out my talk page at the Zodiac Killer section. I mean it, I have had enough of the hounding, following and assumptions of bad faith to last me a life time. Please make it stop. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did look. I can see why people are frustrated, there is a lot of talking past each other going on.

I am thinking that the matter of whether the WHL investigation has validly found socks or not... is separable from the matter of the difficulties that are being encountered amongst various parties. I am fearing that the latter needs to go to AN/I or somewhere other than various talk pages, because it's not getting resolved amicably. I may not have the time to do that matter justice. Perhaps mediation might be considered? Perhaps one or more RfC/Us about various parties? I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after I wake up a bit, I'll pop in thru email and tell you what my thinking is on this. I think I understand a bit more of why this is going on and it may be a bit less controversial, no sure so I'd like to pass it by you privately. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar. I asked you a question here [16] in relation to Wildhartlivie but it then got moved so I’ve no idea whether you have it on your watch list. Leaky Caldron 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered it, it's now here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie ... it may not still be embedded in the main SPI page. It may not be an answer you care for, but it's one I feel about fairly strongly. This is a delicate situation, it involves a very long time contributor with a lot of edits, we want to find an answer that serves all parties best, and jiggling elbows prematurely may not end up with best results. Don't confuse that with not wanting to answer at all. But sometimes respect for the individual is best served by circumspection. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, it seems that you have saying at several pages that BLP allows you to delete any unsourced BLP article. Please notice that BLP talks about removal of contentious unsourced material, not removal of all unsourced material.

In particular, I was looking at the history of the BLP, and I found this diff[17]. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message in the talk page of BLP about your, ahem, "fixing" :D Nice edit war that you started there. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. I think full protection for a while is a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I had just finished writing up the RFPP request :D --Enric Naval (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you wasted the paperwork :) It seemed needful, so I did it. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think this is the link you were looking for. I'm much more interested in what Jimbo has to say than in SlimVirgin editing policy, which she does a lot. Who knows what she was up to with that series of edits? ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the part about "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."? JBsupreme quoted here all the first paragraph except for this sentence. His message from May 2006 clarifies this further "If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.". This is the real reason because the "contentious" wording and its synonims have survived for so long in the policy, and not because of SlimVirgin. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the second line of your RfAr statement contradictory. Isn't BLP supposed to be policy that complements the three core content policies, not trump over them? - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's complementary to those. It trumps how many #As WP:CSD has or hasn't. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the quick reply. You might want to make that clear. - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. LMKWYT. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good to me. - Mailer Diablo 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{tb|DESiegel}} ... not needed, I watch. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a ref to User talk:DESiegel ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I noticed you indefinitely full protected WP:BLP, giving as your reason the ongoing edit war. I don't believe short-term edit wars are a good reason for indefinite protection. Would you care to pare it down to some reasonable period (like, say, a week)? Thanks, Ray^Talk 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef doesn't mean permanent, I'll lift it as soon as there is forward progress on consensus on the talk. That could be much shorter than any short period I might set (like, say, a week)? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior is up for an Arbcom case, and there is significant objection to the activity. Please stop the BLP deletions until a consensus emerges that supports the activity.

I issued Scott MacDonald a warning that I'd block him for disruption if he kept it up. I believe that you're doing so from an equivalent starting point and in equal disregard for the community dispute and lack of consensus, which is equally disruptive. Please let the community decide where we want to go as a project on this. The issue is not up for individual admin fiat.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, follow or get out of the way. However, I'll be happy to userify any BLP so you can add references, just let me know which ones and how many at a time. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you, as I did to Scott, that this is not an emergency, and there's no jusification to climb the Reischtag with your spidey suit on over this. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your characterization of the situation, not mine. The WP:BLP victims I just saved from further harassment have had unsourced bios for 'three years. How much more time did you need to get them properly sourced? Time's up. How many did you want me to userify to you so you can fix them? Lead, follow or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We want you to restore them in the exact place that you deleted them from. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I want you to lead, follow or get out of the way. Also a pony. But that's not on offer. LMK if you want any userified... if not, that's an answer too isn't it? PS, who's "we"? ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"we" == everyone who has opposed the "delete all unsourced BLPs" thing. You have a handy list at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Comments_in_Opposition. And all the people that has complained at ANI in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's_deletions. And everyone who has opposed an "unsourced BLP" A10 speedy criteria (see my statement in the arbitration request page for a list of discussions). And the talk page archives of WP:BLP should reveal a few discussions rejecting your position, since the policy history had several references to the talk page when changes to that part of the policy were being done. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar...... at this pace you are going to get yourself blocked......... --Enric Naval (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the timestamps on the deletion log and on the first post in this thread. Make sure you correct for UTC. Then try again. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that you stopped. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's no current activity which is problematic. There's no point in arguing over restoring articles at this point; the community is hopefully going to decide shortly whether these deletions are the new standard OK thing or not. If they're ok, then we'll keep them all deleted until someone rebuilds with sources. If they're not ok, they can be restored then, without any warring over them in the meantime. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely laugh out loud at something written on Wikipedia. Your blathering self-importance is truly chuckle-inducing. UnitAnode 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced BLPs are problematic by definition, and every day is one day too many. GWH: How many did you want userified so you can fix them? ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Unsourced BLPs are problematic by definition,

Agreed.

and every day is one day too many.

You suggest a sense of urgency here, or some sort of an emergency situation, in which there is no community consensus or admin consensus, and much dispute.

That there is a problem does not imply automatically that we must nuke the problem from orbit immediately. It's not evident that there's consensus that nuking without good faith repair attempts is appropriate or acceptable. There's clearly much disagreement over nuke first, determine policy later.

The first few deletions could have led to a healthy discussion and new policy. Instead, by having multiple people drive forwards hard enough to raise it to an arbcom case level multi-block wheel war situation, you all have increased drama and decreased the odds of actually getting a community consensus.

The odds of what I think you would consider a successful outcome here have dropped since yesterday, in large part because of your and Scott MacDonald's actions. That is pretty much the definition of a spidey stunt or WP:POINT. The time to stop and constructively engage was this morning, not tonight or tomorrow. Further disruption is only going to make it worse. If you can't see that, you need to take some time off. Significantly degrading your own preferred end goal's chances of success is truly pointless behavior.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you block him, Georgie? See how that works out for you? UnitAnode 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't egg him on to doing something foolish. As misguided as he is I would not want him to lose his bit over this. I've done nothing blockable. ever. And everyone knows it. ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no yolk here; you stopped immediately after being asked to, as I saw, you pointed out, Enric acknowledged etc. I don't think this is in dispute or an issue at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now making PRODs that are not supported by BLP policy since they don't contain contentious BLP material. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs don't have to be supported by policy. Lar, good work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs are for "cases where articles are uncontestably deletable, yet fail to meet the criteria for speedy deletion." Tomorrow (or the weekend, because I might be busy), when I can edit wikipedia again, I will take a look at those articles. I will contest those prods that don't have a policy-backed rationale, I might send a few to AfD, or tag a few, or put some source, or make some fix, or put a better PROD rationale if they are really bad (no notability, etc). You are, of course, free to take them to AfD. It would be nice if you remembered that contested PRODs may not be restored.

(and please reconsider not making mass-PRODdings of articles with the same faulty rationale that is still being disputed simultaneously at ANI, at the deletion policy's talk page and at the arb request page, or I'll have to ask that the arbs put an motion against placing PRODs based on that rationale. Whether arbs will heed my request is a different thing, but I'll give it a try.) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do me the courtesy of not lecturing me. Especially while you have unanswered questions.... ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added you as a party to the arb case request, see my statement for why. -E

Thanks for letting me know. -L

If the unanswered question is "How many did you want me to userify to you so you can fix them?", it was implicitely answered at [18]: none, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, if you don't want to help solve the problem by working on the articles, stop bitching about the deletions and proddings. UnitAnode 06:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, that was my line! :) ++Lar: t/c 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, how many did you want userified? Time's awastin, lots of referencing to do. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought I'd let you know that Gwh has focused his sights on me now. He informed me at my talk that he's told mommy on me reported me to ANI for hurting his feelings. UnitAnode 05:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually commend people for their edits, but this task is worthy of a big thanks. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks, dear IP. Just for that maybe I won't even CU you! (KIDDING!!!) ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At your suggestion, I'll take these off your hands: Osamu Migitera‎, Osamu Kubota, Shiyuna Maehara, Naoki Maeda, Thomas Howard Lichtenstein, and if you would be so kind these that were deleted by others: Seiya Murai, Mutsuhiko Izumi, Hideyuki Ono, Hiroyuki Togo, Takehiko Fujii, Tatsuya Furukawa. And might as well move these off since someone's balls apparently dropped last night and is still rampaging: Toshiyuki Kakuta, Hiroshi Takeyasu, Sanae Shintani, Takayuki Ishikawa. When these pages are moved into user space do they carry their original histories? Cause some of them were severely clipped just prior to deletion. It's a shame really, cause it'll be a time before I can do anything to them. And while putting them in user space is better that deletionism, they won't be in a position to be edited by anyone passing through that can contribute. Which is why Wikipedia exists.  æronphonehome  12:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just add pages under /Articles/ from 8 on up (User:AeronPeryton/Articles/8 and so on) as needed. Thanks.  æronphonehome  12:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, happy to oblige. It may not be this very instant but it will be within a few hours. As a procedural note, if the article has been restored, it doesn't make sense to userify it, as it's already been restored to mainspace and userification would thwart the will of whoever decided to restore it. When it's userified, the entire history will be restored as well (unless there are some revisions that need to stay deleted). If someone decides that the deletion needs to be undone completely, they will presumably move it back. So given the state of flux here, it pays to check to see what's going on before acting. I'll check histories, and I'm suggesting that you check before doing a big edit run, so no one happens to move it while you are editing (maybe add an inuse while doing significant editing? not sure).

Alright then, it'll make more check up work but just move the already red linked deletions. In light of the case built up over this I'll wait and see if the others go down too. In all fairness it's not your fault that people are screaming about this, that happens anytime huge changes are made whether they're needed or not, but the way it was done combined with the attitudes of the people doing the deleting (or supporting it cause they can't do it themselves) makes it hard for me and others to believe that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia, Her purpose and primary goal. Good luck with your case.  æronphonehome  14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPWs please feel free to restore/move these if I haven't gotten to them. AP: Thanks for volunteering!++Lar: t/c 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will update this list as I identify what's going on.

My deletions:

• Osamu Migitera‎ - this was never deleted, I just placed a PROD tag on it. You can work on it in mainspace, and if you feel it shouldn't be prodded, remove the tag. I'd appreciate you referencing it well first though. If not I may take it to AfD so we can decide what to do.
• Osamu Kubota - Ditto.
• Shiyuna Maehara - Was deleted. Now restored and placed at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Shiyuna Maehara
• Naoki Maeda - Was deleted. Now restored and placed at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Naoki Maeda
• Thomas Howard Lichtenstein - Was deleted. Now restored and placed at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Thomas Howard Lichtenstein

By Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

• Seiya Murai - was deleted by Scott. Now restored and placed at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Seiya Murai
• Mutsuhiko Izumi - was deleted by Scott. Now restored and placed at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Mutsuhiko Izumi
• Hideyuki Ono - was deleted by Scott. Now restored and placed at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Hideyuki Ono
• Hiroyuki Togo - was deleted by Scott. Now restored and placed at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Hiroyuki Togo
• Takehiko Fujii - was deleted by Scott. Now restored and placed at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Takehiko Fujii
• Tatsuya Furukawa - was deleted by Scott. Now restored and placed at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Tatsuya Furukawa (also talk page)

Not sure what is up with these yet:

• Toshiyuki Kakuta
• Hiroshi Takeyasu
• Sanae Shintani
• Takayuki Ishikawa

Done with mine, working the rest. ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second bunch is Scott's, done, need to do the third bunch. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your help, these are unrelated to this event but are related to the article scope I work in so what's a few more at this point?:

• Anna Quinn
• Argie Lanette Phine
• Bill Hamel
• Drew Campbell
• Maki Kirioka
• Rena Jones
• Reo Nagumo
• Tatsuya Mizuno
• Tatsuya Shimizu

And we'll put Atsushi Shindo one on watch along with Osamu Kubota & Osamu Migitera. As for working on them in the mainspace it's clear that we've exceeded the Wikipedia deadline for article completion.  æronphonehome  18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the rest of these for you, sure... but can you sort out this many at once? Presumably you have enough to do to keep you busy for a bit, I may not get to the rest right away, but I will get to them, probably within 24 hours or less. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration, hence this notice. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#BLP deletions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for Arbitration. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I already commented. If the matter ends up being a full case rather than summary motion, I'll have more to say in the evidence section. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lar. Since it looks like you are going through old, unsourced BLPs, I just wanted to request that you at least consider using AfD instead of PROD for some of them. I'm specifically talking about ones where the claim to notability is particularly strong, or where it is clear that another user disagrees with you that the article should be deleted (Hasan Muratović is the case that I have in mind, but I'm sure there will be others). I skim through the entire list of AfD discussions on most days, and I've actually seen many articles that were unsourced for years but quickly had sources found when taken to AfD. Since AfD and PROD both delete things after the same amount of time, taking something to AfD won't keep bad content around any longer than using PROD, and I think AfD has a better chance of finding sources when they are out there. I'm certainly not suggesting that you use AfD for all the unsourced BLPs, only the ones that sound notable enough that it would be likely sources are out there. Anyway, if you would at least consider it, I would appreciate it. Calathan (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable request. PROD is faster to do though. I'll AfD any articles that the PROD tag is removed from without improvement of the references but if the PROD tag achieves a reference improvement, there's no need for the AfD. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents%2FRdm2376%27s_deletions&action=historysubmit&diff=339163019&oldid=339162721

What in the blue blazes is that? --Gwern (contribs) 16:05 21 January 2010 (GMT)

"Blue blazes" ??? Looks like a poorly handled (ec) rather than anything sinister... let me fix it for you. Or you can if you'd rather I not touch your words. Or just null edit after I put them back to validate it, whatever works for you. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you fixed it. If not please advise. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that the unsourced-BLP tags on these articles are correct before you delete. For example, BJ McKie had a perfectly good source -- it was just listed as an external link rather than a reference. Deleting articles because you don't think the sources are good enough, or aren't in proper format, is a whole different can of worms. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Once a consensus forms, please follow it. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not trump WP:BLP, sorry. UnitAnode 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP was formed by consensus, not by His Noodley Grace. Jehochman ^Brrr 19:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, nearly everything is subject to consensus. The only situations where consensus could be argued to be overruled are in cases of majority representative body fiat - i.e. Arbitration Committee or WM Foundation Board directive. However, the same community that forms consensus elects those august bodies, so divergence seems unlikely. — James Kalmar 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nawlin: I've switched to PRODding and AfDing... for now. A bare external link needs to be turned into a more usable cite and tied to specific parts of the text though. Else it's not really a source, just an alleged one.

JEH: See what I said to you on KL's page. BLP is a mandate from the board, and a moral imperative. This is a project, not a community. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your rush to be the crusading knight in shining armor you've managed to do a lot of collateral damage. For example, Christopher Maher had a source listed just under further reading rather than under references. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly sourced, then, and a valid deletion, wasn't it? Did you want me to undelete it to your user space so you can fix it? I bet you can fix it in less time than 3 years... if you set your mind to it. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]