User talk:Indubitably/Archive 57

deletion review
Hello, please take a look here. Seelefant (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration 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—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Jehochman Talk 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Recall?
Are you still willing to be recalled? If so, I request you hand in your bit for your conduct over Law. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Jennavecia/Recall. Lara  20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Spartaz, if you're going to demand Lara's badge then you ought also to be demanding the badges of lots of other admins as well. I can't really remember who it was told me a few months ago that Law was the Undertow, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Lara; it seemed to be an open secret. This incident isn't pretty, and it certainly demonstrates the hypocrisy that I and others have been complaining about for some time, but if I had to single out just one for adminishment it would have to be GlassCobra. I'm astonished that he would have nominated Law at RfA knowing what he did, and he deserves the whole library chucking at him in my opinion. I've been asking myself whether, if I'd known at the time of his RfA that Law was actually the Undertow, would I have bitten my tongue or would I have spoken out? It's a question that we all ought to be asking ourselves. I'm pretty sure that I would have spoken out, if only because I apparently thought that the Undertow was an arsehole, but if he'd been a friend? Lara's been honest in admitting that she knew, many others who also knew haven't made the same admission. Why pursue the honest, why not go after the dishonest? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I supported him because I know and trust him. More than I can say for most of the other candidates I've supported, for whom I had to base it off contribs alone. People can say this brings my trustworthiness into question, but it's a matter of trust at the base of it. If people want my bit over this, they didn't trust me to begin with. People who trust my judgment would trust it here. I believed he would be a good admin, and in my opinion he was. Lara  21:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm not after your bit over this. Like you I think trust is important. The only problem I have with this episode is that some may have trusted you in your support of Law's RfA, and you let them down. I ask myself what I would have done in your position, as we all should. Obviously I can't be certain, as it's hypothetical, but I couldn't ever see myself supporting. Would I have blown the whistle though? Hard to say. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you're not going for my bit. Where you say "some may have trusted [me] in [my] support of Law's RFA, and [I] let them down." How? Was he not a good admin? Surely he wasn't perfect. Neither am I. Name me one perfect admin. I voted for someone whom I trusted. He didn't let me down in that respect. I'm not sure how then I let others down. Because I had information I didn't share? Look at how the community handles issues. Why would I do that knowing the unnecessary drama that would spur from it? Some say that me not telling wasn't so much of an issue, but supporting his RFA was. Why not vote? I know him better than anyone here. IAR. He wanted to improve the project and I believed he would do well. Period. I would never withhold support for him (whether it be RFA or RFAR or whatever) because of a policy. Now, I didn't always agree with things that he did. I didn't always jump to his defense when he was being called out for something, but when I believed he was being unnecessarily called out or whatever, then yes, I would defend him. Like I said on ANI, I would never not get his back just because I'm an admin. If that's incompatible with adminship, then that's unfortunate, because I don't see a connection. Drama is the issue here. Me standing up for a friend that I believe deserves some defense does not damage the project. I would stand up for him regardless of his sock/admin/whatever status. This is not a case of me sacrificing the good of the project for the friend. It's an matter of IAR. Lara  22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand that, but it's not quite what I meant. It must surely be clear to everyone by now that RfA is little more than a popularity contest; very few of those commenting (IMO) take much trouble to do more than exercise their grievances by opposing, or to support because someone they like did earlier. What I meant was that your support may have encouraged others, who may otherwise have looked more closely, to also support. That's why I wouldn't have done what you did. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying. I guess we just disagree. You're saying people may have seen my support and trusted me enough to support him without looking into his history to judge for themselves. I'm asking how I let them down in that respect. Would they have found out he was the_undertow had they dug through his contributions? I rather doubt it, but I suppose it's possible. They trusted my judgment. Where did I fail them? At least as far as that RFA goes? Lara  23:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not judging Lara, because I'm an imperfect human being as well. As an aside though, does the word "bit" have exactly the same meaning on both sides of the Atlantic, or have I been watching too many Carry On ... films? I might well go for your bits given half a chance. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, ho! Not my naughty bits and not my girly bits. Those are reserved for just one! XD Admin bit, my friend. Keep it clean. Hahaha. Lara  23:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try. "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me". I obviously have been watching too many Carry on films. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with "Spartaz, if you're going to demand Lara's badge then you ought also to be demanding the badges of lots of other admins as well". I do hope that Lara appreciates the fact that I respect her highly, despite those CHU elections, and that being open was the right thing to do. Any request for her to resign her tools is complete and utter profane words nonsense. Best,  ceran  thor 01:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Lara  01:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you'd be willing to tweak that procedure a bit? It looks to be full of preposterous ruleslawyering. Friday (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of coming to my page with a shitty tone, why not make your recommendations? Lara  15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a bunch of people who believe you abused your position. You could take that as an indication of no confidence.  So in my view, resigning the bit is the right thing to do here.  I'd also like it if you'd refrain from future participation in RFA.   Friday (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also bunch of people who believe she didn't. So whose opinion should we go with? We can't have it both ways.  Majorly  talk  15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of people would like you to stop participating in RFA as well. I'm not resigning my bit for no benefit to the project. If I lose my bit, it needs to set a precedent to take out admins who are actually untrustworthy and abused their position, damaging the project. Lara  15:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The objections to your conduct here are not unreasonable. But I see you already have your answer.  I was hoping social pressure could solve this problem, since arbcom's response is underwhelming.. looks like I fail.  It was a long shot, I suppose.  Friday (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Friday, I also think you should resign and refrain from future participation in RfA. So there's that...  Enigma msg  16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (after e/c) Lara, you helped someone cheat - that is a dishonest and untrustworthy thing to do. You effectively lied by omission. I think that the best interests of the encyclopædia are served by having admins who do not lie or cheat. Your continued possession of admin privileges will only serve to increase mistrust of admins in general. Therefore, I believe that you shuld resign. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm not the least bit interested in retroactively dishing punishment. OK, so some things aren't what we hoped they would be.  It might be more productive to address this, and set some guidelines for the future, rather  than looking for a scapegoat to hand as a trophy on someone's belt. — Ched :  ?  15:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The concept of punishment need not enter into it. I'm not interested in punishment.  I'm interested in damage control.  If someone drives a car into a house, and says "Fuck you, I'll drive where ever I want!" they should not have a license anymore.  This is pretty obvious, right?  It's a not a punishment at all.  Friday (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for someone to diff me to the damage caused. People freaking out because I omitted information, uh. So silly. Losing more faith in the admin corp? Wasn't aware that was possible. I work to fix the BLP problem. That's more important to me than people (hypocrites, many of them) are upset that I ignored all rules for the improvement of the project. I'll happily give up my bit, but it hs to serve a meaningful purpose that will benefit the project. Lara  16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the most important thing to consider is our readers, because that's who we write articles for (well, most of us). I for one do not believe this has effected any of our articles, in any way. So that's good. That's all that matters. Does this effect Wikipedia's editors? Not really. One or two might quit in a huff over it, but in general, they aren't effected. Unless, of course, they choose to be effected by it. That's their problem though.

I am not Lara's biggest fan. There was a time when we basically hated each other. But her work on one of Wikipedia's biggest problems - one that effects actual real people - is the exemplar of how admins should treat BLPs. People can moan here all day till the cows come home, but in the end, the encyclopedia is still there, editors are still here, and the only reason I can think of for removing Jennavecia's admin rights are for "ethical" purposes. It doesn't hold water with me. Her removal would be a net negative for sure. For the encyclopedia, though perhaps not the crowd of people who have made it their business to get upset by this, even though it doesn't actually affect them in any way. Just imagine if this had not been uncovered. We'd all be going along our merry way – and we could be now too, if it wasn't for people kicking up an unnecessary fuss.  Majorly  talk  16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * SAhe's a liar - how can anyone trust her when she says something needs to be done? Will readers trust articles edited by her? DuncanHill (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And you just made a personal attack. ("has lied" is different (and I'm not even saying I support that interpretation of the facts) is markedly different than "is a liar") Shall we kick you out, too? Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * She did lie by omission, and is unrepentant about it, even to the extent of implying she would behave in a similar fashion in future. Unlike her, I have never knowingly enabled a banned user to evade their ban, I have never misled others in an RfA or other process to issue enhanced privileges, and I certainly have never deliberately concealed material facts from the community. You don't like the phrase "she's a liar"? OK - replace it with "she's been dishonest, broken trust, and shewn no signs of understanding that such behaviour is anathema to a position of authority or power". She has been dishonest and implied strongly that she will be dishonest in the future if she thinks it right. Therefore she should go (along with any other admins who think it's OK to be dishonest when it suits them or their chums). DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I never used my tools to protect him, I never supported him in anything that I believed would damage the project. I supported his adminship because I believed he wanted to do good things on the project, and he did. I don't share sensitive information that I'm privy to as an admin, I didn't conspire to get rid of editors, I didn't conspire to manipulate content, I didn't conspire to promote him into adminship so that we could advance our objectives. I supported someone I know because I trusted him. There is no evidence that my trust was misplaced. Ignore all rules is specifically about ignoring the rules when doing so improves the project. I did that. If people want to claim they're honest about everything all the time, you've found yourself some liars. When I was asked by an Arb if knew, I immediately said that I did. When I was asked here, I immediately said that I did. Lara  16:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Straw man argument aside, there is no reason to doubt her article work (some of which has been scrutinised in places like FAC and GA). Wanting a friend to be an admin and covering up the fact he was banned, due to the community's unforgiving and unpleasant nature, isn't remotely like writing false information in articles.  Majorly  talk  16:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Minor points: admin tools are not required to contribute; admins are held to a higher level, which presumably precludes assisting in violating Arbcom sanctions; and "due to the community's unforgiving and unpleasant nature" is rather an opinion than a confirmed fact. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your lack of self-awareness and hypocrisy compels me to invite you to leave my talk page and not return. Lara  16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As you request it, I will certainly do so. I note that I reject your hostile accusations; my respecting your request should in no way be taken as acknowledgment or agreement of your attacks on my character. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand and can sympathize with the request for recall. I cannot however support it. This is not to say that I agree with Majorly's point about Lara's article work, because I don't. Like the puppy said, article work and adminship are not really linked. Like it or not, and I don't think any of us do, we are all humans here, names notwithstanding, and we make mistakes. At least I think and kind of hope we are all human. :) Lara made a judgement call about a difficult issue, which happened to involve her knowing something which might torpedo an RfA and not mentioning it. I've never been in that position, and I hope I never will be. Having said that, she apparently thought that this person, under this name, would not misuse the tools and would use them overall as a net positive to the project. That was her decision to make. Having made one dubious judgement call about such an issue is not however I believe directly related to use and/or misuse of administrator tools. I personally wish the identity issue had been raised with the subject before the RfA, and that s/he had come clean then. But we can't control the actions of others. This issue, ultimately, does not necessarily reflect on Lara's ability to use the tools correctly. The fact that her being an admin might give her comments more weight with others probably isn't particularly relevant, because I believe she would probably get much the same level of respect as a good, knowledgable, serious contributor, admin or not. However, I can and do think that, should similar questionable judgements be made in the future, then, maybe, I might change my mind.
 * Like I said above, none of us are perect. I don't think Lara actually broke any rules here, she just chose, in one particular instance, to not act over and above the minimum requirements. But I sincerely hope and pray that such issues do not appear again. Everyone is entitled to one mistake. This was a mistake, possibly, and I sincerely hope it remains the only serious one she makes. If her judgement continues to be questionable, then there would be cause to revisit the matter. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And she was right. the_undertow as Law made a pretty good admin, with a support tally of 101 at his RfA, he was clearly trusted. Excuse me for not remembering the oppose count, don't see it as bias or something like that.  ceran  thor 19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty fair summary I think John. Lara broke no rules that I'm aware of, but I wouldn't have done what she did. That doesn't necessarily make me a better person, just a different person. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

After some long hard thought ...
... I decided that to look myself in the eye every morning, that I needed to make a statement as well. Since I've mentioned you in the statement, I think it's only right to let you know about the link. here. At this point, I'm truly not sure where I stand with you, the community, or anyone else - but at least now I know where I stand with myself, and I'm, happy with it. For your talk page stalkers as well ... Another thing - I did not offer any apology. If someone wants an apology from me ... then you're going to have to convince me of why! ANY editor or admin is welcome to address me on my talk page, all are welcomed. Anyone is free to ask me any question they with - most of which I'm willing to try and answer. For now - I will continue to do what I consider to be the best for the wiki. To be perfectly frank, I'm a little discouraged, and more than a little disappointed in the community as a whole. I have no desire to single out any individual editor at this point, simply because I don't believe that would solve a damn thing. best to all. — Ched : ?  22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way - at least I got first shot here. — Ched : ?  22:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming forward, Ched. I hope (and expect) you fair better than me in this. :) Lara  23:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say hang on in there, but there's nothing really that you should be terrified of. Suffice it to say that there is such a large problem with the Wikipedia model that when I discuss crowdsourcing models with others, I actively discriminate against it. The community is so dysfunctional, it's hardly surprising that researchers at the Augmented Social Cognition team at PARC are reporting interesting numbers around editor churn - it's something that MBizans and myself have been talking about for years. Keep doing the work you're doing on BLPs - it's important and protects people who might not even use the internet, never mind Wikipedia. In the meantime, the project will either work itself into oblivion or make some drastic and fundamental changes. In the meantime, I'll leave you with a quote.

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change
 * Take care, and don't get too stressed about things. Let others chase around like rabid dogs - keep chilled and focused on what's important to you.  Gazi moff  13:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gazimoff. That's exactly what I'm doing. I let this distract me for two days and important work wasn't done. I did some catching up yesterday. Interestingly, in my sociology class (my major) a couple weeks ago, we had an assignment on subcultures. We had to identify and analyze one. I chose Wikipedia. It was a very basic assignment, nothing really in-depth, but it was interesting. I would love to do a full sociological study of this project some day. Lara  14:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Muffins
Two muffins go into an oven. One muffin turns to the other and says, "Hey, man, does it feel like it's getting hotter in here to you?"

The other muffin says, "Holy shit — a talking muffin!"

All drama that lives must (eventually) die. Keep your chin up. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) Yer too cute. Lara  05:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP ?
While technically a WP:WEB issue, I'd appreciate your input on Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck as a BLP vio. full disclosure: I voted delete in the AFD. Thanks. — Ched : ?  16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. I don't understand how we can claim to be an "encyclopedia" with crap like that. Lara  16:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn you're quick this morning ;) — Ched : ?  17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm the non notable biographies are coming in thick and fast. People think even the lsightest affiliation with something else of note automatically qualifies for an encyclopedia article. Now we have Lucy Vodden on the fornt page for millions of people to see, a little girl that Julian Lennon went to school with and mentioned her to daddy John who wrote a song based on a childrens painting. Now the information itself is notable but again I think people have found the wrong page to discuss it. The info could easily be merged into the Lucy in the SKy with Diamonds article rather than actually having a biography about the person itself. I think people really need to start reconsidering what biography actually means. Himalayan   19:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What a boring hook. It suggested she was otherwise notable. Anyone who was duped into clicking that quickly found out she wasn't. I threw my merge vote in on the talk page. But yes, the nn bios are flooding in. Not by the thousands, but still in handfuls. Lara  19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tamara Bach
Hi! You recently nominated this article for deletion, but I've uncovered some references that I think demonstrate notability. Most importantly, they show that she was the winner of a German Youth literature prize in 2004, which, to quote from our article on the prize, is Germany's only state-funded literary award, and therefore clearly a major literary prize. I was wondering whether you'd be willing to have another look at the revised article, and let me know whether you still think it should be deleted. Regards, Scog (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. Thank you. Lara  14:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

spam
I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ?  04:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On your statement

 * Wow. Did you and I leave like the opposite sorts of statements at ArbCom.  I think yours was like 3000x longer than mine.  Wild times.  -- Jayron  32  05:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, we all deserve a change to be verbose now and then. I save mine up and drop it in one huge wall of text. Lara  05:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said, but needs more paragraph breaks.--Tznkai (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I'm just to tired to see them.--Tznkai (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Press ctrl and scroll up. Haha. My vision is too poor for small fonts. Lara  06:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have you beat there. -8 in both eyes (one is .25 worse than the other i think) and an astigmatism in the left. --Tznkai (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I always forget this. What is my vision... I think my last eye exam was around 50/150. Something like that. Astigmatism in both eyes. I went to see about Lasik a few years ago. I was told the vision in my right eye may have prevented them from doing the surgery because if they screwed up my "good eye," it would be bad times to rely on my bad one. After speaking to the doc, I was told he would do it. I ended up not getting it done, and my vision has gotten slightly worse. However, I think technology probably would allow for me to get it regardless at this point. Lara  06:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I thought your statement did you a lot of credit. I think you (and others) erred somewhat severely in how you approached the situation (particularly the matter of Law running for RfA) but I appreciate your candor and imagine others will as well. Though it likely won't be discussed this way, I think this situation (along with some other recent stuff elevated to arbitration) demonstrates the extent to which editing on Wikipedia has far more to do with interpersonal realities and calculations than we often like to pretend. I'm one of those who&mdash;more so than many&mdash;sees that as a problem, but it's also the kind of problem that humans are pretty much always going to have when they try to do stuff in a collective fashion, and perhaps we could do well with a bit more honesty about that fact. In that respect I think your statement is very much a step in the right direction, regardless of how things shake out with this specific situation going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Lara  13:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hate to add a "Me too" to the list, but your statement was quite well done, and I do hope everything works out for the best. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well. :) Lara  14:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pile on support Simply one of the best worded statements I've ever read! ;) — Ched : ?  16:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you saying that, Ched. Lara  20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Link please? I'm sure I can find things to object to about it. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my statement on the RFAR. Lara  20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say. That was a very well-written statement. Jamie  S93  20:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jamie. Lara  20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What a joke this arbitration is. Heaps of very high-ranking folks knew of another admin's sock that double dipped.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very true. Lara  01:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Benjamin Presley Keough
Hello Jennavecia, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Benjamin Presley Keough has been removed. It was removed by 66.108.95.79 with the following edit summary ' (Notability is not in question! References have been added. The Fact is notability is not inherited but a 5 million dollar deal is notable for any new artist.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with 66.108.95.79 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! Awesome bot. Lara  21:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom motions under consideration
Clerk courtesy notice: You are a subject of one or more motions being considered by the Arbitration Committee. The motion(s) is/are: Sincerely, Manning (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Motions
 * Arbitration/Requests/Motions

BLP and Bands
link. I know you're busy, but I also know you are one of the most familiar with BLP stuff .. any thoughts would be appreciated. — Ched : ?  21:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP review of Mary Lou Sapone
Can you check this for BLP? I'm thinking there's way too much innuendo, assertion, and WP:COATRACK there, despite the sourcing. I'm suspecting some things could stand to be rephrased, rather than removed, but others just plain ought to go. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar, yay!

 * Thank you, Julian. <3 Lara  17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Human sacrifice
Thanks ChildofMidnight. I sort of look like her. We have the same sized boobs. :p Haha. Lara 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that. We need a picture. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hahaaha, I already told you, Malleus; you're not going to be seeing mah bits. Lara  00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * * snort* well played, Malleus....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

EDIT WAR! CoM, I liked your change. I don't mind if people fix my spelling and grammar errors or other typos. Plus, the fact tag is funny. :D Lara  21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to push the boob jokes too far. Durova might be watching and she doesn't approve of that kind of thing. She seems to think it's a bunch of horny and uncouth guys on this site. Shows what she knows! But if you did post a picture of appropriate clinical definition that would definitely help in verification. (Okay, well, enough fun. I'm heading back to my man cave/basement) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, I went on Wikipedia Commons to find some photos for the basement article and came across this one . Encyclopedic? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My talk page is a playground. Post whatever you like here. I'm not sure if that image is encyclopedic or not. The better question is why are the chicks in bondage pics never hot? It's so disappointing. Lara  03:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prolly go with not encyclopedic....she'd be ok, with a new haircut, and a better outfit. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A request for clarity
Jennavecia, apologies for this request, but I'm hoping that you could possibly clarify a conundrum that has arisen here. You see, according to posts elsewhere you have stated that you did not know that Law was The Undertow at the time you granted him rollback. Yet your statement on the Arbitration case page states "I wanted Chip to come back as the_undertow, and that's what he wanted too......AC was silent, though. So he went on as Law and I supported him in that.". If possible, would you be able to expand on the timeline of events in this area, so that we may all understand the matter further? Apologies if my request is impertinent, and thanks in advance for any response.  Gazi moff  22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. I knew he had a sock, I didn't know the name of the account until December 5 following a "drunk dial" on my talk page. He had intentionally kept it from me. It wasn't until after that slip that he started telling people who he was. However, I did support him in continuing with his new account once he received no response from ArbCom. I don't think it matters at this point, though. Lara  22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

An opportunity missed
It does now sadly look like you're going down Lara, I'm sorry to say. I don't agree with what you did, but I think you're being made a scapegoat of, which is disgraceful, while the real issue is being swept under the carpet. Ah well, nobody promised that life would be fair. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did my best.  ceran  thor 00:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All the best for the future, I appreciate that this is a really tough situation but hope you'll look back on it in time and find it was also a very worthwhile learning experience. Sound judgement is as important as hard work, and in my experience a lot of learning comes from mistakes. Good luck, dave souza, talk 04:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dave. I screwed up and then screwed myself over. I'm stubborn and I don't think logically when I'm stressed out. Oh well. You only have two options after you embarrass yourself: you can run away in shame or you can own it. Running away has never been my style. Lara  05:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good start, it takes strength and in a way greater confidence to openly accept when one has got things wrong and has to take a break for a bit to relax from the stress and build up again. Hope it works out, dave souza, talk 05:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement
Lara, you had the courage to take ownership of your actions. In time you will bounce back, and I for one will not hold this incident against you. Jehochman Talk 11:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. Be expecting emails later today. Lara  15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang in there! And if you ever find yourself at a point where you want the tools back, and feel that the community would be able to trust you with them again, I'd like to be there to support you! I wish you well in all you do - cleaning up BLPs is always a worthy goal. BOZ (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which "community" would that be? The hundred slavering dogs that hang out at RfA or the 10 million or so editors and readers who don't even know that RfA exists? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a wild guess and say it's not the "community" that doesn't know about RFA. :p Thanks, BOZ. Lara  04:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your resignation
I think you did the only honourable thing that you could in resigning, although it's sad to see another good administrator gone.

I hope you're just resigning from the admin job though, not from the project. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I could put it quite as well as Malleus did above; I echo what he said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I was shocked when I heard about your resignation, I don't know what to say. Second of all, we know that life still go on and just to let you know... the IAR tag you had last year, it's still flying proudly at the bottom right corner of my discussion page. Nonetheless, have a great weekend~! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys. I just resigned the bit, I'm going to continue on with my BLP work. Lara  15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a shame...a huge shame. With any luck, this has set precedent to desysop the admins who cause disruption on a regular basis, but don't actually use their tools to do it. I hope you'll continue whatever you can with your BLP work. As such, would you like me to turn the rollback switch on for you? Best. Acalamari 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes please. It's nice using Beta because I can't see that I'm not an admin anymore. Makes it a little easier to adjust. In Monobook you see your whole header shrink with the loss of half your tabs. In Vector, they're missing from the drop-menu. I highly recommend the use of the Vector skin for admins who get desysopped. Haha. Lara  15:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got rollback? What a wimp! --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * /me whips Malleus. ;) Oh, wait... you said wimp! :/ Sorry. I thought you were admiring my whip. >_> Lara  23:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to lecture on C++ courses. One of my favourite jokes was that friends have access to your private parts. Not rude, but you'd have to understand the access rights that clients have over their server objects in an object-oriented system ... I think I'll give up now before I make the hole any bigger. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * hole any bigger... I see what you did there. Lara  23:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sucks. For what it's worth, though, you'll have much more time to regulate on our BLPs, I think. You know, you look like a good editor, and I'm seeing some good contributions from you - is the Rollback feature something you might find a use for? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * NM, Acalamari beat me to it. That's what I get for posting before reading, I guess! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rollback, pfft... :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see what you did there. Well played, sir. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * *coff* - A l is o n  ❤ 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. At this rate, I expect to be an admin again by tomorrow evening and a steward by the end of the week. Haha. Lara  22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)'
 * I think there's still abusefilter. :P – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * *looks for the edit filter, finds it, prepares to give it to... sees ArbCom staring at him... runs* Ohai dash it all, well I gave you a cup o java. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 03:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(minor mail ping) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sad to see you resign. I thought I would hand in my resignation letter earlier than you :X OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS member
Hi! I apologize for disturbing you, but I think you should add your name here. Regards,-- Roberto  Segnali all'Indiano  05:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I might not be as liberal on such matters as Lar, but feel free to drop me a message if I'm around and he or LessHeard isn't. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate it. Lara  22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * o/ if needed ... but you already know that ... right? — Ched : ?  06:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ex-admin flag
Hahaha. Thanks, Durova. Lara 04:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Well, let me say here too that I think you acted honourably and I still believe you've been a good administrator and I would trust you to be one again. Anyway, from me, you don't get a flag, you just get the Sad Sad (Temporarily?) Desysoped Admin Song (note the more optimistic last verse). Best -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom motions
Your attention is brought to the text of two motions passed by the Arbitration Committee on 11 October 2009.


 * Jennavecia admonished: is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor she knew was using an undisclosed alternate account.  She was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with her support.
 * Jennavecia's resignation: Jennavecia resigned her status as an administrator on October 9, 2009, while this matter was pending. Per normal practice regarding resignation under controversial circumstances, she may apply at requests for adminship or to the Arbitration Committee for the restoration of her administrator status at any time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Archives
Want I should lower them? Or just the current one? –xenotalk 16:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you drop BLP and Oct to semi? Thank you! Lara  18:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Np. Cheers, –xenotalk 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

nice user page
... but I see a few issues, like teh user boxes and your name can get off the wallpaper depending on your screen res. And, as Yogi said, It's like déjà vu all over again.

Won't be soon, as we've a holiday here, so I'll be off. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's supposed to be off the side of the background. That's how I designed it. :) Lara  13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... The 'Lara' can appear on top of the beige background instead of over the image and this makes it pretty much invisible. The block of user boxes can also appear all the way off the picture, partly on/partly off, or all the way on (which was the original intent). My déjà vu comment was referring to the origin of the code that does the image trickery. You got it from Katerenka who got it from Tiptoety who got it from Julian... who likely got it off John's page; and I put it there. Josette's and my pages are similar, too. Anyway, I don't see it adapting to different window sizes to well and could work on it if you like. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. I see what you're saying. No, it shouldn't look like that. The boxes should hang off the side of the image, not the border. Katerenka had them on the left, then I saw Ty's page (after I had already gone to Commons and picked the image!) and I moved them to the right and changed the image size to be smaller or something so the boxes would hang off a little. I don't really care today. I have a stomach bug and have only sat here to check my messages while my soup cooks. It just beeped, so I'm off again. Lara  18:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Love the image. Not really sure that the quote is entirely appropriate in this instance, though. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Elaborate? Lara  00:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's obviously about "reputation", and the quote makes it clear that "reputation" is important, particularly if it is damaged. This raises the question as to whether it was added after the recent "incident", and I didn't check. However, I think most people would probably agree that your "reputation" as an editor is probably still as good as it ever was. Your judgement regarding how to weigh the contributions here as opposed to personal affairs might be questioned by some, but that's a different matter. And even that doesn't really affect anyone's "reputation" as a whole, just maybe some opinions regarding their judgement in what are generally circustances a lot of people don't do well in. Any idea how many people I've seen "let go" in some way for "extracurricular activities: with co-workers I've seen over my mumbledy-mumble years? And, in some cases, I have to say that given a choice between that job and that female (for me; some of the ladies involved in these matters have been really painfully appealing) I have to say in some cases I would have rushed to do the same thing if I had the chance. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is new quote. I think my reputation had totally been affected by this. A lot of people said they lost their trust in me, which is highly unfortunate. Lara  05:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination)
Hi, Jennavecia. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edward Fagan
Hi, Jennavecia. I saw your edits in the Edward Fagan article and I took the liberty to search, identify and replace the missing reference you marked today - as I did yesterday when you were missing another document. As you have certainly found out by now, the article includes quite a large number of relevant and reliable sources, and I want to thank you for all the small edits you have provided. All the references have now the same format and the article looks much better than before. Still, I took the liberty to add the one reference of him stealing the money from Holocaust survivors. This sentence is absolutely relevant and crucial because his fame was founded on his holocause lawsuits and his own claims that he is "best known for filing lawsuits seeking reparations for Holocaust victims". The fact that he - according to the court documents and disbarrment records - betrayed our families, the very same people he once sworn to defend, is so crucial, that it shall not be excluded from the introduction. As for using the work "stealing" vs. "misusing" or "misappropriating" I have an open mind, but still I would like to point out, that he himself never used the words "misuse" or "misappropriation" when he started to sue and fight for the noble cause. Thank you.Okinawasan (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the dead link. I know how to retrieve dead links through IA, but otherwise not so much. I saw you were able to get a dead link of the original server for an earlier removed references, which is why I tagged those as dead as opposed to removing them. I don't get why publishers move stories after they're published. Anyway, I don't think "stealing" is appropriate. It just doesn't sound formal enough. I don't have a problem with the information itself, I just believe the wording should be more encyclopedic and the majority of sources seem to say "misappropriated." Lara  19:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone
It's reopened. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your question before the deletion review was closed. Just to be clear, I would have interpreted the results of the discussion differently, but my believing an early close was not inappropriate is clearly not the same as advocating for "ignoring" potential arguments. I can see how it was great rhetoric on your part, but it's not an accurate summation of what I said or believe. user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should take better care in your wording. Lara  19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...it is highly improbable [...] that the same administrator would have closed the discussion with any other result a few hours later..." and "...an overturn would not result in a different outcome." I think the words conveyed my point just fine, but I realize it's easier for you to diminish my statement to imply I was advocating an administrator should simply "ignore" arguments.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to assume you're being serious right now. Post the whole statement. No, I'll do it.
 * it is highly improbable (per the reasoned and transparent closing rationale given) that the same administrator would have closed the discussion with any other result a few hours later, even if there had been a flood of sound last minute deletion arguments.
 * Okay, so "a flood" suggests many, "sound" suggests valid. So, in your own words, "a flood of sound last minute deletion arguments" would be unlikely to cause a different outcome. So, if you don't mind clarifying, what consideration, if any, do you think these sound last hour arguments would have been given? Furthermore, considering consensus has a magic number of 60% and Hersfold determined by discounting weak or invalid arguments that the keeps were at 60%, how do you find it so improbable that six hours and 40 minutes of further discussion could have no affect? Lara  19:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By his closing rationale, it would have taken a dozen or more sound deletion arguments to have swayed the outcome from retention to deletion. As I said, the likelihood of this occurring would be improbable.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dozens? Seriously? Wow. Okay. That's illogical. A dozen delete votes would have resulted in no consensus. Less than a dozen sound delete votes would have affected the apparent 60% consensus. Lara  19:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the "likelihood of this occurring would be improbable" part? I came here to point out that I felt you poorly interpreted my position.  It's clear you don't see how that could be possible, and I believe it was inappropriate (even after reviewing what I wrote) to suggest I was implying that administrators "ignore" arguments.  That being said, the discussion is reopened, and it doesn't seem productive to continue to debate it here.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did miss that. Where was it? Lara  20:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jutta Oesterle-Schwerin
Why did you delete Jutta Oesterle-Schwerin ? She was member of German Bundestag. GLGermann (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just saw this at DRV. I asked for another admin to handle this request last night, I didn't realize that request was ignored. It was deleted as part of a nearly 3,000 article AFD as one of many mass-created by one editor using a semi-automated tool. I am no longer an admin, so I can't restore it. They were all sub-stubs (one or two sentences), though, and no restriction on recreation, so you're free to create it. Lara  16:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * so i wrote and translated now a small article. GLGermann (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tristan Emmanuel
This may be a question to which you would have some insight:. CJCurrie (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: when you contact Mr. Emmanuel, could you please advise him of this. Thank you.  CJCurrie (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Has he responded yet? CJCurrie (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alan J. Baverman
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alan J. Baverman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Alan J. Baverman. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough
When you have to disclaim "I'm [...] not harassing David," there's a problem. The accusations, allegations, speculation, and conspiracy theories have got to stop. You can dramamonger at the other site all you want, but here it's completely out of line and becoming increasingly disruptive. Seriously, stop. user: J  aka justen (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not conspiracy theories. The diffs are there. And the only person that claims I'm harassing him is Benjiboi, who is also disputing that the sock isn't violating policy. Lara  01:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, Justin, you might like to take an even handed approach and delete David's rubbish too? Or are you, like David, much in need of a Ford Pill? .. Not a bad idea really.  He's on holiday at the moment, so the extra movements won't interfere with his "work".  And when he comes back he can be so much less full of shit.120.155.17.88 (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What was removed? Lara  15:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)