User talk:Lar/Archive 20

From ani
(Copied from ani) User 152.91.9.144, I'm not sure that I understand why you have created two sections here, or why you reordered the comments, repeatedly, in the previous section, or why you're taking quite such a strident tone. It may be best to present the facts dispassionately and succinctly and let the facts speak for themselves. Since those facts ARE presented, the best thing to do now is stop completely. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Lar. Just a couple of things:
 * I created the second section because I was told to create a new section. ANI moves very fast and sometimes things get overlooked, and I attempted to simply move the old discussion down to get some further attention.  I replaced it exactly once.  I didn't create the other section, Trodel did.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "re-ordering comments." The only changes to an individual comment I made were to indent P's replies, and the copy-paste to lower on the noticeboard.
 * I'm trying to maintain good humour at being told my tone is "strident."
 * After recieving a week-long block without warning for participating in uncontroversial discussion on ani, I complained not one whit outside my talk page.
 * I placed exactly one quite civil reply on P's talk, explaining how her "get the facts straight" comment to me was quite incorrect. (Mea cupla: The wiktionary link was uncalled for on my part.)
 * P's hostile and inconsistant replies about "whining" seem to pass without notice?
 * Only when evidence of further blocks well outside normal practice were raised did I say anything.
 * You may have noticed that I _have_ stopped completely, after presenting the facts and what I'd like to see happen.
 * I've always taken you to be an even-handed and egalitarian adminstrator, and am somewhat suprised to see you giving tacit support here. Have you actually looked at the two blocks-without-warning that I was concerned about? 152.91.9.144 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez. Did it ever occur to you that I saw that another admin had fixed the mistake? That there was another anon at the same time who was trolling (pretending to be Jimbo in fact) who the block was meant for? The other admin fixed it, you did not suffer a unjustified weeks block, and I saw that it had been fixed and saw you hadn't commented so if you were so peeved by it, you should have said something so I could explain the situation. As it was, you didn't seem to care. Stalking me for weeks afterwards and this continual harassment on your part is an unacceptable behaviour considering the mistake was fixed!. And the blocks without warning was the same person jumping IPs and making the same edit. I have explained that at least 5 times and you continue ignore it. You were indeed to told to make a new section, about the NYeditor block only, not to rehash every flipping thing that had already been discussed, yet you had to start it all over again. Your constant assumptions of bad faith about my actions have been enormous and unjustified. And yes, after you continue to ignore explanations and harass me, I'm not going to be sticky sweet friendly with you, nor am I required to be.pschemp | talk 07:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this short, as it's innappropiate to have it out on someone else's talk:
 * When I "said something" to pschemp regarding my block, she removed it without comment,
 * A single back-and-forth on ani is hardly "Stalking" or "continual harassment,"
 * I'm not assuming bad faith, simply saying that pschemp's blocks for "trolling" are questionable judgment.
 * I'll not reply to any further posts from pschemp on this page, it's Lar's talk, this IP has it's own talk page if pschemp want to communicate with me.
 * 152.91.9.144 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If its inappropriate, then why did you post here to begin with? Perhaps because no one else agrees with you and you are still trying to harass me? I have a right to defend myself against your false accusations about my behaviour. pschemp | talk 23:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If I can help resolve this I am happy to have my talk page used this way. But I'm not sure there is much more to say... Pschemp called this one correctly in my view. Although her bedside manner may leave something to be desired, she's right. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 1 December 2006
 * I left a note on pschemp's talk that I was happy to leave this, but by her posting here after that note I'll take that as an indication that something useful might come of further talk. Part of the problem has arisen because the discussions to date have been vauge, somewhat overheated, and "help" from LightWhatsis has further clouded the issue.  If will try to be really clear in what I'm referring to.
 * Lar - Which block is "this one" that you're talking about? This IP or NYScholar's?
 * pschemp -
 * I posted here because I respect Lar's opinion and I wanted to get it. I wasn't having much luck in getting focused discourse anywhere else.
 * I'd suggest that "no one else agrees with [me]" because we haven't had focused discourse.
 * Statements like "trying to harass me" and "false accusations" aren't helpful.
 * As I said on ANI, I've looked over most of pschemp's blocks for the last month, and they are plentiful and in the largest majority correct. The two that could have been handled better were the aformentioned NYScholar and the one on this IP.
 * NYScholar (talk • contribs • [ logs ] • block user • [ block log ])
 * Here are the edits that this user was blocked for: . There was no warning, and there is nothing there even remotely within the realm of "trolling."   While I'm aware that block was reviewed by one admin, getting two people to agree isn't enough to make something correct. Redvers' rational of "half a dozen edits to one user's talk page" seems quite weak, when we consider that here pschemp took four edits to make one comment and here she took two more.  That's "half a dozen" and these edits to this talk page and are as much "flaming" as this one by NYScholar.
 * 152.91.9.144 (talk • contribs • [ logs ] • block user • [ block log ])
 * This one is wrapped up pretty well here.
 * I'd prefer not to drag this bit of Wiki-drama out, but I'll quote a section from Blocking policy: "Disruption" blah blah blah "severely disrupts" yadda yadda "very controversial" blah blag "note the case on WP:ANI."  You get the drift.
 * 152.91.9.144 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Incredibly you are still at it. The NYScholar block was reviewed by 3 other admins (two of whom are b'crats too) and agreed with. So move on. Your block was already explained in this very thread as a mistake. Plus, it was fixed. Get over it. pschemp | talk 15:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "This one" means this situation, specifically her interactions with you. You're giving the appearance of not being willing to let this go. If a block is a good block, it doesn't get overturnd on review, typically, and if it isn't, it does. Pschemp gets blocks overturned from time to time. That doesn't make her a bad admin. I get blocks overturned from time to time, and it doesn't make me a bad admin either. Your response is disproportionate to the issue and she's calling you on it. That's what I mean about "this one". Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV
Could you please have a look here, once again – and reconsider your stance? Ref – Ice Age (band). &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 05:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked again. Badlydrawnjeff has it right. Kansas was a 70's supergroup. They are hugely notable and they make the label clearly notable (and major enough to count by our rules) by their presence. That means the band is too. Each link reduces strength, to be sure, and this band is two links away from Kansas but Kansas is so HUGE that it works, by our rules. I'm sorry but I'd let this one go, now that the label had more info added. Your initial close wasn't wrong, trust me. But it's a good overturn, in my view. Of course I'm rather inclusionist you know :) ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Date linking
Hi. I wondered if you would be interested in contributing to User talk:Guinnog/date linking? --Guinnog 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem administator
It looks as if we have a rogue administrator with User:Chowbok who is routinely tagging official images of state governors, including Jennifer Granholm. See Image_talk:Jennifer_Granholm.jpg for more info. Steelbeard1 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The english Wikipedia has gotten much more stringent about fair use images lately. Chowbok's actions are in line with the latest thinking on when it is ok to use fair use images. (Jimbo himself has also commented saying that if an image can be replaced, it should be removed... in part as a way to spur replacement). I have seen that Chowbok's actions have been questioned in other cases, on the admin noticeboard, and while some fault the wording, there has been general acceptance of the approach. I see that you've sent a note to the governor's office, using the boilerplate that is recommended we use to seek permission, which is an excellent approach to resolving the issue, so thanks for taking the initiative on that. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD unnecessarily reopened
An anon has reopened an AfD here that did not need reopening. Since I have a conflict of interest, could you do what needs to be done? Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was in the air when you left this message I think... it looks to me like the needful has been done, it appears closed again... Please advise if I can still be of help though... ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for not updating this post. My efforts got sucked into dealing with what turned out to be a sockpuppeteer, and having to smoothe community relations afterwards. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems I only just missed you when I posted this. I was trying to find someone who was actually online at the time (not realising it was already on ANI since I avoid that place). Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. ++Lar: t/c 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative vote
Thanks for your question. I tried to clarify a bit on the voting page, and I have been working on a user discussion page: User:Jd2718/jd2718_ArbCom_notes where I added a line or two. Jd2718 12:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Steward election summary
m:User:Gurch/StewardElections – Gurch 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Hi Lar! I see on Esperanza/Admin coaching/Status that you don't have a student right now. Is this correct? If so, would you like a student? I am trying to match people at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Admin coaching with coaches. If you'd like a student, I would place you with User:Akradecki. Please let me know. Thanks! --Fang Aili talk 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Fang... In the past I've been working with Petros471. I think there is great value in paired coaches. Petros came at things from more of a vandal fighter perspective and I was more from policy and blocking. Do you think I could pair with someone to coach, perhaps? Let me know. PS thanks for filling in on coordinating! ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's any way I can help, let me know. I am a bit of a vandal fighter myself and maybe if Petros is busy I could sub in for him. Best wishes --Guinnog 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent -- thanks for volunteering, Guinnog. I have placed you both with User:Akradecki. Please contact him to get started. Thank you both! --Fang Aili talk 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Stewards elections
refactored to Chacor

Ref conv
Sorry for the downtime. References converter is now back up and running. About a week ago the hard drive in my server crashed. Luckily it stayed together long enough to allow me to pull all the data off onto a new hard drive, but I still had to go through the process of installing Linux on the new hard drive, installing all the necessary programs, and loading in all of the old data from the server. I got all of my essential services up within two days (CVS, Apache, Wiki), but I kind of forgot about web scripts, which I finally got around to fixing today. Everything should be fully functional again. If you see any bugs, just send me a message. You are receiving this message because you are on the spamlist. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, simply remove your name. -- Cyde Weys 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Steward election
Lar, I've got your yesterday's email, the first one I've ever got from you, and I replied to you at once. I gather from your second mail that you did not get my reply. I don't know what happened with my response. Maybe your spam filter is too aggressive. I have resent it. --Irpen 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have received the second one and replied. I have no idea what happened with the first one, but I'm glad that it seems to be sorted. As I said in my reply, I'm happy to discuss further with you in any venue you like... just let me know where. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me then, if the discussion will not be going in endless circles. As I wrote you, public discussions are preferred because they result in accountability. Something that is absent with the discussions held off-record, whose results are implemented on-wiki.

Now, to the point. I do recognize that there may be a legitimate need to discuss certain Wikipedia issues privately. There may also be a legitimate need to contact someone live, which often means IRC. I understand that. If the Willey-like mass move vandalism is going on, it is totally understandable that the editor who spotted it looks for the fastest way possible to contact an admin who would issue an emergency block. I don't think there ever was a controversy or lack of consensus on such IRC "discussions". The same way there may be exceptional cases where the discussion involves private or personal matters, personal info pasted to Wikipedia, issues related to minors, serious threats, etc. I am not talking about such cases.

You certainly realize that many editors, and I am among them, question an ethicallity of IRC plotting of the onwiki activity when it is unrelated to any of the emergency cases discussed above. One of such things is non-emergency blocks, for instance a "punishment" block for what may seem to some as incivility outburst. Discussion over IRC whether the block is appropriate are off-record and then a limited group of editors privately decides how to act. In my opinion, even picking a specific admin to bring up specific beef one has against some  user and contacting such an admin publicly at his Wikipedia talk page is tantamount to court shopping. Issues should be brought to the general public boards such as WP:ANI, WP:PAIN. This is where the consensus regarding the preferable way of action is formed and implemented.

There is enough evidence that there is plenty of back-stage activity going on at IRC. The more harmless example was the appearance of Cowman109's masterpiece called Wikipedia:Administrators are not here to build the encyclopedia (later moved to a different name but still ridiculous). Much more alarming are editor's blocks with "I discussed this at IRC" justification to show some sort of "consensus". You certainly know of such blocks. I do not want to go into details here unless you insist.

Also, vote canvassing, even an open one on the user talk pages, is generally frown upon. Of course the private canvassing at IRC is even more unethical. I happen to notice instantaneous activation of the same groups of people whether one user seems to be failing the ArbCom nomination or when the oppose votes started to mount at your stewardship nomination. Out of nowhere, the threaded comments by the familiar users started to pop up at the voting page. I wonder how soon after I post this, the IRC discussion will commence.

Anyway, I view this an ethics issue. Stewardship gives the checkuser rights, the most sensitive privilege here because it could make possible to connect usernames not only with names, but locations, workplaces, schools and even home addresses. I would like to be sure that such rights are given only to users about whom any ethics questions were not even asked. The cases of Checkuser abuse by one user who lost the access (user is still on IRC all right) is the case in point.

I am not saying you are a bad editor or even a bad admin, although I strongly disapprove your preference of discussion of admin-related matters along the untraceable channels. But I cannot support giving the checkuser rights to you in the view of above.

Please do not take it personally. I did not even want to elaborate but it was you who insisted that I explain my position. --Irpen 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I don't take it personally and I appreciate your candor. I strongly agree with the notion that IRC should not be a substitute for on-wiki consensus. Consensus is a foundational principle of our project and should not be circumvented. Where I think we differ is with the notion that all discussion, all communication should be on-wiki and traceable. I think that has a stifling effect, in fact, just as much or more as too much secrecy does. Some things should remain private. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some things should remain private but communications about non-emergency blocks which you seem to view as the acceptable topic for IRC discussions are not among things to be private. I always called for a greater transparency. Transprarency is not the same as revealing everything to everyone. If the issue requires discussing the checkuser data, keep it at private channels. If someome advises someone else to block an editor, this should be done publicly for better accountability. Then everyone would have to stand up to their decisions, make sure explanations are visible and open to comments and the actions are implemented by the decision makers themselves rather through inciting others to act as their proxies and then, with no trace, there is no way to attribute the actions and opinions. "I consulted with others on IRC and decided to block the editor" is the best example of abuse. I am aware that IRC fairies strongly disagree. I am surprised that the usual suspects have not yet commented here. I am sure I angered some and this was not my intentions. Anyway, I am sure this thread is being discussed.

Anyway, I try to stay out of the policy pages because of those games and IRC spills over to the Wikipedia edit space. I almost don't attend the Wikipedia space unless forced to by the extreme curcumstances. Voting however, is the rare instance where the input may matter (but not always so as the Carnildo promotion after some private discussions have shown.)

I have nothing personally against you but I based my vote on my perception of what's damaging the Wikipedia. I did not want to comment any further and did so here only because you strongly asked me to elaborate. --Irpen 20:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your original oppose had some unsubstantiated statements. I'm still not seeing specific incidents ("his several actions at enwiki raised legitimate questions for which no satisfactory answers were given".. what actions? what questions? where were satisfactory answers not given? ) so that oppose remains unsubstantiated as far as I am concerned, but the reason for your opposition is clearer now than it was then, for which I thank you. I do not expect I am going to change your mind, or that of Giano, Bishonen, Geogre or Ghirlandajo, honestly, because we appear to have some philosophical differences about approaches to creating this encyclopedia, and about what behaviours are acceptable and what behaviours are not, that go deeper than just IRC. Which is OK, the process is working as it should, and you all should feel free to continue to canvass against me, without guilt, if you feel the need.
 * I do however want to respond to this point... your example phrasing "I consulted with others on IRC and decided to block the editor", is in my view, if given as the sole reason for a block on AN/I or wherever, totally unacceptable as a reason for a block. Blocking should be transparent. I have put every one of my blocks (other than obvious vandalism blocks where there were no contributions other than vandalism) up for review at AN/I, and given detailed justification (I've been faulted for being too detailed, in fact) including diffs, that showed the behavior that justified the block. How the matter was first determined to be an issue (IRC, an email, an IM on a third service, a post to a talk page, a post to an incident page... I've acted because of all of those things) really is not relevant to how the matter should be decided and documented. I guess my issue with your oppose is that you give the appearance of lumping all IRC together into one thing, and I reject that notion. IRC is valuable in certain contexts, and you have acknowledged that. I challenge you to find a block of mine that I justified with "This was decided on IRC" rather than with an explanation and diffs. In fact I'm not sure that justification is all that prevalent among any admins, including those that some disparage as IRC Fairies (a rather snide comment, wouldn't you agree?). Do you have specific examples of such justifications? ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes and note that I avoided resurrecting the issue because it seemed to me you knew exactly what I was talking about and I thought this was enough. Since you keep pressuring, I am forced to be more explicit. I raised the issue at one time here. No answer was given and at the time I decided to rather drop it because it was too loosely related to the specific matter on hand. I haven't ever seen a direct answer to this neither from you, nor from Kylu. Here we have a case when we can never fully know what happened precisely because the discussion that does not warrant privacy took place over IRC. --Irpen 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon Lar? Did I read that correctly? " we appear to have some philosophical differences about approaches to creating this encyclopedia" You bet we have some "philosophical differences" - We write it, you pontificate about it! Giano 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)