User talk:Lar/Archive 49

old meta crosswiki checkuser
Hi, I would appreciate a hand explaining the quite old crosswiki checkuser request that I raised at meta; it has come up here: User_talk:Nishkid64. I'll go find diffs over on meta, so that interested people can take a look to see if they think it was all appropriate. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A round of drinks

 * Took ya long enough, geez that was almost a week! (oh wait, my RfA thanks took a month... ) ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolution attempt with Montana
I've started a thread over at User talk:Montanabw to discuss the concerns I had with Montana's protection of article over at the AN/I filed by Una Smith. Your help in resolving the issue would be much appreciated.

Peter Isotalo 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on a prior RFCU about an IP and SA
Please see User talk:ScienceApologist. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter's stuff
Lar, discussion moved to User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. FYI. Montanabw (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted already. Thx. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Mare and the recent history at User:Montanabw/Peter's Sandbox. I believe at this point the issue is over as I have no interest in providing a forum for a single individual to harass me and make personal attacks.  I think it's time to shut this "mediation" down now.  If I am at fault here, I welcome constructive comments.  But I am tired of therest.   Montanabw (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm out too. This is going nowhere, and now he's switched to attacking me.  Like Montana says, if I'm at fault, I welcome constructive comments, but I'm getting tired of this too. Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did put a comment in there. I don't think this was very productive. (yet?) ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lar. Seeing as how it's a sandbox off my talk page, would it be possible to delete the whole thing?  I could blank the page, but I'd prefer the whole thing just be removed, unless there is some logical reason to keep it.  But I think I need an admin to do that. Of course, maybe there IS a reason to keep it...?   Montanabw (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not delete it just yet... consensus is needed that it's over. But if and when, you can tag it for deletion, or even nominate it at WP:MfD and see what is said. ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but IMHO, but I fear the person who started all this will NEVER agree it is over but will simply continue using it as a forum for additional abuse and all manner of unjustified personal attacks on me and anyone else who offers to defend me. I frankly consider the direction this went to constitute an unacceptable level of vitriol, it was abusive,  and nothing constructive has emerged.  I'm pretty sick and tired of the whole situation.   Montanabw (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar, I feel unfairly treated when I see that Montana's personal comments about me is excused by lack of patience, stress or whatever, while my complaints about it are portrayed as personal attacks. If I had gotten just as personal in the article discussions, we'd probably be in the midst of a nasty RfC by now.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I feel intimidated and bullied by Peter, whom I feel distorts everything I say. Shall I just quit wikipedia and make everyone happy?  Montanabw (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the sandbox a bit closer, Montana. You consistently ignore the diffs I provide to justify my own behavior and fail to present any to back up your own complaints. Now you're acting as if everyone is against you despite getting support from your friends while I'm being yelled at.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're talking past each other. While Montanabw is not perfect (we are none of us perfect) you're not taking anything on board at all, Peter, at least not that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is Montana taking on board that I'm not?
 * Peter Isotalo 13:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

BMW declared the discussion officially closed, so thanks for your efforts. It was worth a shot. Montanabw (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I agreed, so now it'll be deleted or archived or whatever. Before that happens, though, I have a question for Lar: are you going to stand by the vitriolic comments in your last reply to me? Peter Isotalo 11:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Vitriolic? I'm afraid you still haven't internalised that there is a problem with your behavior. Read BMW's closing comments (and remember, BMW is someone who participates in a lot of WQAs and is extremely mild in tone and very slow to speak bluntly), why don't you? Think about what caused BMW to say "At this point, your comments towards Montanabw are leaning towards harassment for harassment sake. Time to WP:AGF. It's way past time for this to end, and the only one who need to apologize now is you."... So I stand behind my comments, although they are not vitriolic, just blunt. I spoke bluntly because less direct wasn't working. I can get blunter still if you still aren't getting the drift. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking about that you accused me of bad faith and that I was trying to wreck HiW. Peter Isotalo 07:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where was that? Look, seriously, you have to stop treating everything as not being about you... either you will internalise you have issues (as do we all, no one is perfect) that need work, or eventually you will fail. You seem like you have contributions worth making, knowledge worth sharing. But no one is indispensable. If you continue to pick at me and others, you will get more attention paid to your behaviour, that's just human nature. You won't like how that turns out, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about this. Peter Isotalo 06:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand behind those questions, including the way they are worded, they are very serious and you need to think hard about them instead of trying to shoot the messenger. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Telling me I'm out to screw up articles and wreck future FA status has nothing whatsoever to do with my difficulties with Montana. If you hold fast to that, then I don't see why I should take you seriously. Peter Isotalo 15:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. You're welcome to take my advice or not, as you like. I've plenty else to worry about so good luck to you. But one final thought, I'm not the only person telling you that you have issues you need to work on. Part of your issue is your apparent inability to parse for meaning, you confuse rhetorical questions with accusations, and questions about motive with aspersions. Not my problem though, Wikipedia is not a self help program, and I am not your guidance counselor. However, refusal to admit you have an issue is no defense against administrative action if it turns out to be required... so watch out for that. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're claiming good intentions while allowing yourself the indescretion of "rhetorically" asking me if I'm out to screw up articles. That's basically a "have you always been this incompetent?"-type of question. You don't do that to experienced editors unless outright vandalism and POV pushing is going on, and I think you know perfectly well that it wasn't happening. Peter Isotalo 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of "I'm not the only person telling you that you have issues you need to work on." were you having trouble with? ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You were the only one who actually went on to rant about my intentions concerning content. That was bonus incivility, not behavioral advice. Peter Isotalo 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We differ about my motivations for the comments I made. We differ about your motivations for the comments you made. Oh well. I think we're done here, unless you continue. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter's stuff redux
Hi, Lar. You seem to have archived while I was writing a comment on the section "Peter's stuff". Sorry to revive a discussion you felt finished with, but I really do want to comment on it (and the last post in it was actually just a few hours old), so here goes. I'm having trouble with the whole of that conversation. It contains a lot of accusations of an "If you won't admit you have issues, you obviously have issues" nature from you (not an actual quote). (See me too "confusing" rhetorical questions with accusations there..? Except that I think the rhetorical confusion was yours.) You mention your own motives—I would never presume to offer an opinion of those — and you shouldn't presume to offer an opinion of Peter's� motives—especially not an obscure, sideways opinion that is all insinuation and condescension. (For instance, "your apparent inability to parse for meaning," "stop treating everything as not being about you" (? what happened there?), "internalise you have issues", "no one is indispensable.") And as for your hints about "administrative action"...do we block for argumentativeness now? Is there something at the bottom of this that I'm missing? Your portentuous tone rather suggests that such is the case. Perhaps you'd lay it out for me, if there is. I'm sure Peter wouldn't mind. I know him as an editor of strong integrity, and it pains me to see you assuming bad faith on his part. Regards, Bishonen | talk 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC).
 * The "Peter's stuff" thread did not get archived. I usually archive on month boundaries, and do it about a half month or so in (it varies). So I've moved your comment up here with the rest of it. Sorry for any confusion. I think you may be missing out on some of the back story here, though. Take some time and review the prior interactions between Peter and Montanabw, including the sandbox linked at the top of this thread (and what went before), and take on board the comments that others made to Peter and I think a lot of it will clear up for you. ++Lar: t/c 00:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I have reviewed it and find it quite clear. What needs clearing up for me is rather your own approach and demeanour, Lar. Bishonen | talk 01:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC).
 * I'll see what I can do. Thanks for letting me know of your concern. ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar, you've done nothing wrong but try to assist. Because you actually give a sh|t, you've then bore the brunt of one specific user's nastiness, and obviously, one other user hasn't read anything.  You didn't deserve it.  Sorry for not seeing this much much earlier.  Hang in there.   ♪  BMW  Δ  21:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously, BMW. For a while there I actually thought the backlash against my complaints against Montana were relevant, but with this aggressive outburst I get the feeling that it might be relevant to bring the issue up again to be solved properly. I mean, it's not like the sandbox discussion lead to anything constructive, especially not concerning Montana's ownership tendencies and extreme lack of patience with disagreeing parties.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

After some serious consideration
I have taken the difficult decision, having seen your sensible offer to re-introduce some balance into this year's arb elections, and with the good of the community, and the reputation of the election process in mind, to, with some reservations, allow you to Suppport my candidature.

Unfortunately I must be very clear that this in no way condones some of your mischievous and disruptive posts concerning my judgment and responsibility, nor will this have any bearing on the one hundred and forty dollars you'll be sending my way as contribution to the PM Christmas Fund, however in the spirit of the season, I think it's only fair to offer you this olive branch. Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC) and yeah - I know there was another problem with the 10 buck transfer.... third time lucky, fingers crossed (sending again now) :-)
 * Very gracious of you, that, offering to allow me to support you. But I'm afraid I cannot impose on your goodness that way, as really it's too much of a sacrifice on your part to allow it. ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ever the gentleman, Lar :-) - now on a totally ungentlemanly note, I wonder if I can steal a moment of attention from you for this - I've dug out an image especially for you, and seek your advice on how to avoid conflating 'disruption' with stimulating discussion in this area..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you. I also don't completely see the encyclopedic value of that image. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * me neither really - just stumbled across it and it raised my eyebrow a bit - plus it fits in the context, of course! - the matter I'm asking advice over is how to frame a discussion about explicit imagery on Wikipedia - and of course your opinion on it - I've proposed restricting sexual content to article space, though the conversation hasn't really moved things on that far, and the current view is clearly against such a measure. I believe a full discussion about sexual content is overdue, and wondered what you thought, and how you might recommend enabling it? thasall... best, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * and I also offer my apologies if the image offended you - I understand it's rather base, and although it was intended as a bit of fun, may have been inappropriate... ironic that I should be offering this apology in this context... Privatemusings (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That proposal has been soundly rejected, I'm not sure why you're trying to revive discussion on it. I don't really see the need for further discussion. Seems rather besides the point. As for the image, I'm not at all offended by it. I've seen far more explicit images than that executed in LEGO. (no, I'm not going to share links) I just fail to see the encyclopedic value of it, and note it's only used (as decoration) on one user's page, the one who uploaded it. You are using it in an apparent attempt to stir up controversy. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

< not at all the intention - was intended to raise a smile, not stir. More there, and my talk page. Privatemusings (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'd say you're failing at not stirring. Or succeeding at stirring, whichever. Sooner or later you're going to go too far and that arbcom link Durova showed you will turn blue. ++Lar: t/c 00:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ping
Not an urgent one, though. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read it, replied, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Moulton
"(dude, if **I** think you're narcissistc, you are...)"

I liked that.

Regardless, what do we do? There is some cross Wiki issues right now with Rootology and Moulton, and there is a move for a ban of his talk page on Wikiversity. Is that a good idea? I don't mind it there, as long as he plays with it instead of trashing the rest of the place. If we ip block him but let him post as his user name on his talk page, it seems to keep him from seeking other ips etc. I don't know. Its all a mess.

Any ideas? Any suggestions? Here is this if you want to weigh in. If not, it doesn't matter. Blah. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what JWSchmidt is getting on about. If Moulton is using his talk page inappropriately, delete and protect it and move on. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas gubernatorial election, 2010
Here's a web site worth monitoring, Texas gubernatorial election, 2010 as a non-Wikipedian using an IP address is inserting his own speculation without a bonafide journalistic citation to back up the edit, about the possibility of former candidate Larry Kilgore running again in 2010. Can you check it out and take action if necessary? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a suitable citation to back up disputed edit, the candidate's own 2010 campaign web site so the edit was restored with the new citation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it is sorted then? ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Check User request from JJJ999
I'm not experienced at this process, but suspect user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coruscant is a sock or meat puppet of user Dynaguy. It doesn't appear to be more than a casual use of a defunct account, but if someone could keep an eye on it/check it, that would be nice.JJJ999 (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any contribs at all for User:Dynaguy. Are you sure of the spelling of that userid? Also can you give me some diffs that support your feeling that there is something untoward going on here? I see only one contribution since July for Coruscant. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He means me. Dynablaster (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dynaguy has been trying every trick in the book to dodge consensus, and 3R criticism from the Farenheight 9-11 article. I just find it very suss that all of a sudden a defunct account does his edit for him.  I guess check the IPs and so on, and generally keep an eye on it.JJJ999 (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you give me specific diffs to look at please? So far I don't see basis for a check yet. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much just a hunch, but if one was done I'd like my chances.JJJ999 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't check on hunches. However I think I like my chances better. ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, JJJ999 made a mess of this page, unwittingly duplicating various passages and sources. A differenct editor tagged the offending section, requesting simply that it be cleaned up. (diff) Falsely believing that editors first need to gain consensus on the talk page before tagging the main article, JJJ999 deleted the tag (diff) and then asked you and a second editor (diff) to perform a Check User on myself, because he suspects I am using an alternative account to undo his changes. (diff) I am quite happy for you to perform this check, should you wish to do so. Dynablaster (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed this and I see no clear reason to run a CU and reveal any results. Absent some new reasoning I'd consider this matter closed. If I may offer some advice, though, I'd suggest everyone take things to the talk page a bit more, there was a fair bit of back and forth that some might even say started to shade toward edit warring. Try not to do that. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asked for assistance by JJJ, but have not been following the matter. DGG (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that this matter has spilled over onto your talk page. But now that we are here, will one of you be kind enough to ask JJJ999 to stop removing the 'dispute' tag from Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy until the matter is fully settled? He seems to think that I need to seek his permission before the page can be tagged, and he won't listen to me anymore. Dynablaster (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * dude, you've had dirty hands on this for months. I've already asked DGG to intervene, but if Lar is happy to be an arbiter then stop adding unjustified tags, go to the talk page, and propose to Lar a rewrite for us to discuss and Lar to arbiter.  Just stop with the switch and bair tactics and refusal to engage on substance.  And don't tag it again pleaseJJJ999 (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys... You don't want me to get involved in the page itself, trust me, Because when I go to the page history, I see enough reverts that I'd be comfortable blocking both of you for edit warring. Let's just not go there. As for whether there needs to be a tag or not? How does that really matter? What matters is that there is contention about the article content. Instead of warring over whether you need a specific tag or not, try to work the substantive article differences. Why don't you both try writing for the enemy and see where that takes you? ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you please perform a check user request. JJJ999 won't let the matter drop, insisting that I am operating a sock. Dynablaster (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * . Further, it's not a way to prove innocence and we don't normally run it on person A at the request of person A. All that said, and without setting a precedent, a CU has been performed. Although there are technical limitations not usually present, in my view the users  and  are ❌. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

More BLP stuff
I updated my answer - see here and what I said here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I like Roger's rollup answer. And your thinking. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Question to you regarding AT
Have you bookmarked (redacted) yet? It's sort of like Wikipeda's refdesk, except it doesn't suck. This may look like spam, but really isn't. It's more of a public service announcement. For some reason, Wikipedia has blocked (redacted) hostname from here! Can you believe it? That site deserves a Wikipedia article, don't you think? Maybe even you could unblock it and start the article?
 * This is spam. It was left at several places and I see no reason to follow up on it, or to go to this site, or to contest the blacklisting of the site. However (and with sincere thanks to Redvers for his revert) I've restored it under my User:Lar/Eeyore Policy, because there is little that I remove. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you reconsider? It's not pure spam, the site is actually a GNAA browser hijack site. If people visit it, they will immediately - and unwittingly - start vandalizing with more of the same announcements. Better to WP:DENY in this case, pretty please? It wasn't left at several places - it was left at hundreds this morning, well over a thousand this week. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS ❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I left the note (so people know the pattern), but redacted the site url and name, thanks! Where do I go to read about the hijack itself, want to make sure I'm not affected by that. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

if you have time
Hi Lar, if you have time, could you please please look into this? There are strong hints here and there that among these, there's someone with the admin bit. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did some digging, posted some results. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added another IP, although I know it likely wouldn't show much. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Lar, can you take a look at (redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.187.154 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 December 2008
 * That's an attack site, really, and there's no reason for me or anyone else to review it any further. Run along. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You've been Blocked

 * Ha! Thanks. Welcome back, good luck, and you (apparently) know where to find me if you need me. ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I've GOT to replace that horrid image, the perspective is way too forced!
 * Disclaimer: I've used this before. At the time, I was looking for a wooden block for children, the A, B, C sort, and didn't find one. I agree that this is a lousy image; replace away. Your talk page was easy to find; not too many letters! Neat edit notice; I'll be back to look behind the curtain. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This cracked me up, which set me off looking for an everyday kids' building block with letters and numbers on it, so startled when I couldn't find one but I did stumble across this :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What's a unit block? ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I'd never heard it as a term for a toy before but lo, the article Unit block is sourced and unit block seems to be an educational toy industry term for building blocks of any shape, learn something new every day! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a lot of why we're here? Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

True 12345
Lar, hi, requested deletion of her userpage under WP:VANISH.  I see that there used to be a sockpuppet tag on the page, so I'm not sure of protocol here. You seem to have been involved in discussions with this user, so it's your call... For now, I've restored the page to your last version. Since she's requested deletion, should the page be deleted, blanked, or something else? --Elonka 16:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, gimme a few to check... ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered there. See what you think, and thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Thanks for the quick turnaround. --Elonka 17:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
I need your advice on a dispute that spilled onto your talk page three days ago. It concerns the film Fahrenheit 9/11 directed by Michael Moore. Hopefully this will not take long. I just want you to say whether or not it is a NPOV violation to write a section (in whole or in part) from the viewpoint of Moore's critics. Take a quick look at the dispute here. We have two sources (Christopher Hitchens and Dave Kopel) who allege that Moore backtracked on a stated position simply in order to attack George Bush, and two other sources (Stephen Himes and Christopher Parry) who contend that Moore's has been misconstrued. Instead of writing the section in a neutral way, allowing readers to follow both sources to make up their own mind, I contend that user JJJ999 has made his own determination as to which point of view is correct, and has proceed to edit the article based on the premise that Moore indeed flip-flopped, and has failed to provide an answer as to why he did so. Instead of describing the controversy, his edits have the unintended effect of actively coming down in favour of one side of it. The dispute has gone on for so long I fear it may be putting people off getting involved. There is a lot of reading to do, but I just want you to take a brief look at the last few exchanges. I will be most grateful if you could spare 15 minutes of your time. Dynablaster (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's getting silly. The same user doesn't even understand the concept of WP:OR. Please, please, take a look at his latest edit. (diff) This is the worst editor I have ever come across, since 2003. Dynablaster (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented. You may not like it, because I think you both could stand to improve. In particular, characterising someone as the "worst editor I have ever come across, since 2003" may not be the best way to find common ground and move forward. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been asked dozens of times to submit alternative texts. It's disingenuous to come here pleading clean hands.  You have written literally pages of text.  It would have been little trouble for you to offer some constructive alternatives.  The fact that you haven't speaks of how you've been forced to back down from most of the positions you initially took, and are now down to a fight to the death about whether a tag should be there.JJJ999 (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There was nothing wrong with the original section. That is the version I have repeatedly tried to restore. It's curious that JJJ999 should expect me to help correct the text when, on the article talk page, he maintains that his text is acceptable, and does not need correction. Even now, when his original research remains on the main page, (diff) he has the temerity to call me "disingenuous". It is important that JJJ999 understand why his edits constitute POV pushing and original research. We will achieve nothing until he reads, understands and respects these basic rules. Dynablaster (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right pot, I'm a black kettle...
 * Dynablaster- "your text is no good"
 * JJJ- it's fine, even a disinterested admin said so
 * Dynablaster- "no, it isn't"
 * JJJ- explain to me how you would rewrite it if you don't support it
 * Dynablaster- "I don't have time to rewrite whole sentences! I'm too busy writing pages and pages of irrelevant ramble criticising your editing."JJJ999 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are talking past each other. I don't see how I can help you, really, as I have too much on my plate already to try to mediate this at the detailed handholding level I think would be needed. I think some other form of dispute resolution may be needed. I'd suggest you work together to find it. Because if it gets too bad, you may both end up being blocked. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm sick of the guy too, but he's impossible. To begin with, he was never in the majority anyway.  DGG came on and said the text said what the sources said.  I've humoured him, even rewritten the text that had been agreed on by the majority so it was more in comprtment with the sources.  He's been asked for months to propose alternative texts.  He's now re-added the tag saying there is a POV dispute.  He seems to think that as long as he says "I dispute it" every few weeks, then he doesn't have to do anything meaningful, like explain how he would like it written, or engage on the issues on the talk page, etc.  Can you please tell him to put up or shut up (preferably the latter at this stage), and stop engaging in edit warring by reverting the tag.  I mean, he was given a chance to engage with the new text, and didn't.  Nor has he engaged with the talk page.  It's just gotten ridiculous.JJJ999 (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are making this up as you go along. The section is disputed. This single edit breaks 2 different rules alone. (diff) Please do not remove the tag until the dispute is settled. I'm open to debate, but I think a cooling off period would be a good thing. Dynablaster (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One more revert and you've committed 3R. How you can claim I have is bizarre.  You've been given days to give input to the new text, and you've been on wiki since then.  You've also had months to propose alternative texts.  a "cooling off period" is just you stalling again.  I assume you're going to revert for the 3rd time.  Can you please ban this guy now?JJJ999 (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy&action=history That's 3R. User DGG asked me to leave a tag on earlier.  That was before more edits and discussion, the new version should be fine, and you've never explained why it isn't.  Of course, DGG also told you that my previous version was fine, so you seem to selectively invoke DGG.  Quite how this changes the fact you just committed 3R is unclear to me.JJJ999 (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything you say is false. Have you no shame? Dynablaster (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There was nothing wrong with the section before you began POV pushing (see WP:NPOV). That is the verion I wish to restore until such time as we agree on the wording. Dynablaster (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are either confused or being deceptive. DGG said that the version I wrote was fine.  It has been settled for weeks before you came out of nowhere from licking your wounds and started another edit war.  You've never responded to the current version, and more to the point none of this changes the fact you just committed 3R and should be blocked for a week (you have a long history of this).  Btw, I know you dispute DGG agreed with all my edits, but that's clearly what was written and DGGs text never gives any reason to suppose otherwise.JJJ999 (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For Lar's benefit, on the talk page, under a heading titled "with the current wording" DGG says:
 *  the material seems fairly presented. I don't see the significance myself-- in a controversy between A & B, they each generally says that each others' answers are inadequate, & that the other side wont debate on fair terms & it's just surrounding rhetoric to the real questions at issue, but still, the people did say what they are referenced as saying, and peopler can judge the importance for themselves. Leave this alone now, please. work on the rest--try to get rid of the phrase "critics say" Nobody is likely to be blocked, at least by me, but this is not the place to talk about user conduct, nor to accuse other editors of prejudice.
 * In reply you ignored him and said basically "I don't agree" right underneath his post, and proceeded to more or less ignore what he said, then try to claim he was only supporting part of what I wrote. I don't understand how this can be read into the text since the chronology was a long series of disputes, me rewriting all of it and saying "how bout this", and DGG saying what he said above (indeed, I later worked on the reference to "critics" and replaced it with the names of the critics.  Anything else you have imagined.  Enjoy your ban.JJJ999 (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already rebutted this specific claim, in my reply to you of 6 December. (diff). Nothing in DGG's contribution (diff) makes clear that he was responding to the third and final dispute. Indeed this "...I don't see the significance myself -- in a controversy between A & B, they each generally says that each others' answers are inadequate, & that the other side wont debate on fair terms..." is a clear reference to the first of the three disputes, when you were asked (and failed) to provide direct quotes from both Hitchens and Kopel saying that Moore had declined to debate them. Furthermore, you omit the most important part of DGG's response, "Leave this alone now, please. work on the rest...", which is an unambiguous reference to other disputed areas. How dare you misrepresent DGG's remarks so openly before falsely accusing me of doing so. Dynablaster (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to sugar coat it and not call you a liar, but I don't see how. I said I was going to edit all of the disputed text so there was no issue with sourcing.  I did that, including the section currently disputed on Osama, and DGG said "that's fine" per the above comments.  Maybe on planet Dynablaster that means "only sections x, y and z are ok", but to anyone who can read English I think my view is quite clear.  the previous section to the one in which DGG made those remarks was titled "Claims made, proposed discussion of terms", in which I listed all the claims (including the Afghanistan one), and said "in the spirit of what DGG has proposed" I would address all the issues, and propose new texts for all fo them.  How you read the following section section with DGGs post (which he wrote the title for), entitled "with the current wording" as an endorsement of only parts of text is bizarre.  When DGG said "leave this alone now" that counts to you too.  Instead, you were the one who came in and added the tag after hiding for a few weeks (without adding any explanation on the talk page first to explain why a tag was necessary, indicating that if I hadn't undone it and challenged you that you weren't going to).  You seem to have plenty of time to ramble here, but you still haven't explained on the talk page what the problems are with the new version.  Again, none of this is relevant to you committing 3R, and I hope you're blocked for a while to think things over.JJJ999 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good grief. DGG's words are right here: "Leave this alone now, please. work on the rest". (diff). (Emphasis mine). He simply expressed a wish that we move on to other disputed areas. Furthermore, he told you in no uncertain terms not to keep removing the tag. (diff) If DGG were entirely happy with your editing, why would he tell you to stop removing the tag? And finaly, I never went into "hinding"; I was just too busy to respond to your endless errors and POV pushing. I will not be responding further on this talk page. Dynablaster (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you're obviously wrong. You are also going to be blocked soon.  Lastly, you have bad faith too.  DGG posted the current text was fine.  You vanished for 2 weeks, came back and without any explanation on the talk page you re-added the tags (and deleted some content too if I recall).  Also, the fact DGG asked at some earlier point to just leave the tags there doesn't mean that they stay until he takes it back.  After that edits were made to make the text clearer.  You have not ever responded to these subsequent edits on the talk page.JJJ999 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If we can't rely on Admins to enforce 3R, then this place is going to hell in a handbasket. Could you please block this guy for 3R, or refer it to someone who will?JJJ999 (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want me to look into exactly who has how many reverts in this matter? Remember that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement... Really, I think you guys need to try mediation, or an article RfC or something like that because this just isn't going anywhere good. ++Lar: t/c 02:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to go back through history and decide if anyone ever committed 3R ever. Other admins have looked at that and made a decision not to do anything, and to push for constructive engagement, so it would be retroactive justice to intervene there.  It's now at a very different point.  Dynablaster has abandoned any pretense of being constructive.  The current text has gotten no comment from him, and he just keeps insisting the tag goes there.  He seems to think he need not engage with what is going on, just object every now and again and it's quell.  I don't pretend not to be a fiery editor, but it's plain as day where the bulk of the guilt here lies.  They have committed 3R repeatedly in the last few days, combined with a refusal to address either the new text or go to the talk page.  No admin has yet addressed these recent developments, and I feel confident I have not committed 3R over a 24 hour period in that timeframe.  I also feel Dynablaster is not being constructive.  In the event you decide to block both of us I would like Dynablasters tag removed, because otherwise you'll be sending the message that so long as they "get in last" then committing 3R repeatedly was "worth it", which in all honesty seems to be how Dynablaster is thinking since there has been no engagement whatsoever on the talk page in this time, and nothing whatsoever said on the current text.JJJ999 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC sounds good to me. We badly need the input of other editors. The most immediate problem is that JJJ999 keeps removing a NPOV tag when the dispute remains unresolved. Dynablaster (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not supporting an RfC unless the tag is removed since you've made no comment whatsoever to justify tagging the current text. You can't just claim it's NPOV and get an RfC without any substantive objection.  You're just trying to weasel out of your 3R ban.JJJ999 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have explained why the tag is justified -- not once, but several times! Please stop making outrageous claims. The tag is to alert people that a section is disputed. Which, by your own admission, it is. Dynablaster (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not posted one single word about the current version of the text in the talk page, or in anyone elses talk page. Saying in each edit where you add a tag something to the effect of "I dispute it" is not enough to justify a tag.  You've also been forced to back down on almost every position you've taken in regards to this page (we're now down to arguing about a tag), and you've lied about what DGG said, and you've committed 3R repeatedly.JJJ999 (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The current version is worse than the last version, and my objection to that is explained clearly on the talk page of the main article. Anyone can determine tthe truth by reading the last few exchanges. Dynablaster (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Chronology (Simplified):
 * 1) You were in the minority to begin with, never proposed an alternative text, and got told to leave it as it was by the admin mediating after I revised the text (see above text).
 * 2) You slunk off for 2 weeks.
 * 3) You came back and without adding so much as a word to the talk page you re-added a tag (and deleted some text).
 * 4) I called you on doing this
 * 5) You then made an explanation for the tag (but abandoned any attempt to justify textual alterations without consensus).
 * 6) After much argument (in which frankly you said almost nothing) I was generous enough to propose a new text (something I shouldn't have had to do in light of DGGs earlier remarks).
 * 7) You made no comment for several days about the new text
 * 8) I removed the tag
 * 9) You have since then insisted on re-adding the tag, but refuse to make any comment why, and the best you can come up with is a scant reference in your latest remark on Lars talk page that the new text is "worse". Still no alternative text from you, months on...JJJ999 (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing a lot of "You broke Policy X" and "Policy Y means I am right" in this conversation. That isn't how the editing process works.  I think both sides need to take a break from this article and read some of the following essays that I have found useful
 * Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
 * Don't bludgeon the process
 * Don't be officious
 * WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
 * NOT


 * Following that reading, I would suggest you both go to WP:MEDCAB and enlist the help of a neutral mediator who can work specifically on this issue. Lar is great at solving problems, but at the end of the day, his talk page isn't set up as a workshop to analyze and resolve the fine point issues of an article.  I'll note that generally, the failure of two parties to put aside their differences and use the set means of dispute resolution will result in sanctions to protect the encyclopedia from disruption.   MBisanz  talk 18:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys
Hiya, I need Checkuser advice on something. There's an editor,, who's right on the edge of eligibility for ArbCom voting (he needs 150 mainspace edits prior to November 1, but only has around 100). When he clicked on the "are you eligible" utility, it told him that he was eligible, but then it turned out that there was a bug in the utility, and that he wasn't eligible. We discussed this a bit at WT:ACE2008, and the consensus was that he should be allowed to vote, but his votes would be indented so they wouldn't count. However, when he's trying to vote under the system, he's still getting people yelling at him, and even threatening to block him. The thing is, he does have another username that he was using this year, because he was avoiding another editor who he felt was harassing him. That username doesn't have 150 edits prior to November 1 either, but the two of them combined, do show him as meeting the standard. Mervyn would very much like to vote, and is very confused by the mixed messages he's been getting. I think he's an editor that we should nurture, since he's a PhD, a political science professor, and has been repeatedly bitten in his short time here. He's been harassed, outed, was told he could vote, and then yelled at when he did vote, and now he's in this limbo where his frustration is continuing to climb, especially as now he's even being threatened with blocks for even trying to vote (see User talk:Mervyn Emrys). I was wondering, as a way out of this, would it be possible for a Checkuser to verify that he has used multiple accounts and does meet the "150" threshold, so that Mervyn can vote without being hassled about it? I think there's precedent for this in the case of renames. For example, is voting, and claiming to meet the threshhold because of prior editing by the  account. Let me know what you think? --Elonka 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting problem. I'm very sympathetic. Is Mervyn willing to have a CU run, do you think? If the results showed another account, would my (or my, plus another CU) word be sufficient, without needing to reveal the other account? Because I want to be very sensitive to privacy considerations here. Mixed messages are especially bad. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll check with him. What kind of permission would you need to have, to run the CU on his behalf? Would an email be sufficient, or would he have to post a public message on-wiki? Is this enough? --Elonka 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not quite as explicit as I'd like, but it's in that direction all right. You may have misssed this, but I just replied right below it, pointing here for context but inviting a reply there saying yes or no. Mailing me the other id would be helpful, but it's not required I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, see also Requests for checkuser/Case/Suigetsu which came up ❌, but checks have been run already. ++Lar: t/c 04:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, that's not the account we're talking about. --Elonka 04:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Roger that. Check your mail pls. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will send an email to your hotmail address. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, no. That address does NOT WORK. use the wikipedia email this user function, or use one of my publicly disclosed mails but not Hotmail... as it says in the contact box. larrypieniazek(at)hotmail(dot)com (IM only. Not a mail address. Rarely on.)!!!! Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK.....publicly disclosed where? Looking, not seeing. I don't use Wiki email because I'm afraid the person attempting to out me may access it. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Got one and resent my message to you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup: I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#Eligibility_of_Mervyn_Emrys. Please advise of questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser case filed by sock of User:Yorkshirian
Hi Lar. I wonder if you could take a look at this and perhaps comment? I've uncovered two of this guy's socks now, and this seems to be a retaliatory nomination. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Commented there. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. As always, your help is much appreciated. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Could you comment on his unblock request? Thanks,  Sandstein   10:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did. Now unblocked per Seicer. Thx for heads up. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just curious
Did you deliberately time that vote to break the record, or was it a lucky accident? Durova Charge!
 * Some of each. ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons
Hi Lar! I see you edited here some minutes ago. Could you please check the Commons' RfA's (some are over.) and your E-Mail inbox? Thanks,  abf  /talk to me/  15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered mail. Eugene beat me to the closes. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Single Revision Deletions
(Refactored to User_talk:Tznkai per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser mail list
That's me.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorted. Not quite what I had in mind, but sorted. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Voltcan
Hi, Lar. What's the norm with a cross-wiki spammer?


 * Voltcan
 * Voltcan
 * Voltcan

all by the same user


 * Antoinesdad

I just tagged the en:page w/db-spam and the others probably should be, too; db-spam doesn't exist on fr and es and doesn't have interwiki links to a local template of some other name. I think iwlinks on such things would be great for helping sort such issues cross-wiki even when one doesn't speak the other language. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there was a logo on commons that I got speedied;. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I wouldn't automatically assume this is a spammer. Self promoter perhaps, but the company seems legit. Probably too small to be notable (Google turns up rather less results than you'd expect for a notable company) but I would say this user should be told about our norms and guided to our standards on N and RS and COI instead of summarily shown the door. But then I'm rather soft hearted. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I see you did precisely that and the user has not engaged you in conversation, near as I can tell (unless they did so on your page) ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem notable to me, either ;) I expect it's a real company and that this editor has some COI, which counts as a spammer to me; a single purpose one; there's probably not enough marketing budget to contract the job out. User repeatedly removed clean-up tags (I didn't leave the originals, but did restore them). There are some anons in the histories, too, and I expect they're the same person. I did leave the user a note and then saw that this had move on to es:wp, and took the advert tag up on the idea of db-spam. I'm not so soft hearted ;) fyi, I noticed your chat w/Eusebeus after my above post.
 * I'm off for hours after this post, so I'll see later. G'night, Jack Merridew 04:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec w/ps); nothing on my page or on other wiki's. gotta go... Jack Merridew 04:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's gone from here now, and you've done what you can with the user. If they persist in the face of deletion we can lock the account but you have to be pretty persistent before that's done. For now just monitor, I guess. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya, I see, and it didn't take long. I'm thinking you meant locking the page against recreation if they persist at pasting it back. My sense of it is that the user's not experienced enough to have a local copy of the wiki-text. I'll go de-iwlink the fr and es pages. I'll leave the en page watchlisted.
 * Got an opinion on point 1 at User talk:Casliber? Cas didn't comment yet; his life's about to get really busy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what point 1 is or what I should be opining on? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cas took it to: WP:ANI (should have said bullet 1)
 * I'm tempted to remove the note on the userpage, but am looking for a consensus about it. I'm unconcerned about the editor; doesn't edit much these days, and it seems to have been his own decision. My recollection is that I speedy-tagged the PortionPac page Lazzo created and he lit into my user page; moved it a bunch of times. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear what you're asking me to do here. Sometimes you have to explain things to me in small words, explicitly, in ways that admit of yes/no answers :) ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the note top-right on User:TLazzo that reads Thanks to all who aren't jerks be redacted as a personal attack on me? (y/n) ;) The whole scheme of positioning those notes was copied from my page and only the 'jerks' bit changed en route (see #2 @ User talk:TLazzo). The page moves on my user page were in the same vein.
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Voltcan was speedied, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The 10 edits to get move-confirmed has got to be bumped to about 50; do look at the sandbox edits. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * while I'm on your talk page...
 * Special:Contributions/Rhys Pwnes - Grawp
 * That one looks sorted, I see other CUs looking into the matter. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Timotheus7
Hi Lar. A user has requested a second opinion on my actions at the above page. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Thanks and take care. --John (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did. Please advise if further is needed. ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Boy, that was fast. Thanks as always for your speedy and accurate work. --John (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Slow nite I guess? ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletey goodness
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Delete_function_question Hows it going so far? :)] rootology ( C )( T ) 14:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Protecting BLP articles feeler survey
Unless you favour an "all-or-nothing" approach to flagged revisions, it might be worth also signing under "Implement Flagged Revisions for all BLPs". Several users have signed multiple statements they generally agree with (Notably, Rootology, David Gerard and Davewild all signed both "Implement Flagged Revisions for all BLPs" and "Implement Flagged Revisions for all articles / content pages", - thusly, those signing just one or the other might create a misleading impression of the overall support. Cheers, Wily D 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've actually been doing just that while you were typing this :) I put in all my "intermediate step" choices in. I don't care how we get there, but we need to get to S/F for all BLP, and F for all articlespace things (or included in articlespace) eventually. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, good. It would be nice if this poll could serve as a kick in the pants to get moving on the whole issue.  Certainly there's a lot of fear of the unknown about flagged revisions.  My hope is that a smaller run could assuage those fears.  I'm very slightly nervous that co-opting it from a "How to deal with BLPs?" discussion to a "Flagged Revs?" poll with stoke those fears, but it's probably too late now. Ah well, here's to hoping. Wily D  21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First, open editing is best. But that ain't cutting it for BLPs anymore. I thought that too as well, for the semi-fears, but
 * a) something needs doing, and no one has ever been willing to just lob it out there, so why not an unperson with nothing to lose anymore?
 * b) I didn't know if all-semi for BLP would fly more or less than all-flagged, so I tossed it both in the air.
 * c) lesser of two evils.
 * rootology ( C )( T ) 22:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I think you listed two "Second choice"s in the not-a-poll. Cut and paste massacre? 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they're tied for second. LMK if I need to clarify this there. I see where we want to get to (sighted for EVERYTHING, including BLP, and BLPs all semiprotected, with marginal notable opt out, dead tree required to not be marginally notable, and default to delete all applying to removal discussions for BLPs so if they're at all iffy, away they go) as a place that any one of several intermediate steps are OK to start with... so if we do sighted BLP, great... not my first choice but acceptable step, so it's a second. If we do sighted everything, great, not my first choice but acceptable step, so it's a second, if we do semi BLP, great, not myu first choice, but acceptable step, so it's a second. I'll take what I can get, those are all better than what we have now. It's an acyclic directed graph. :) The only choices I oppose are the do nothing choices. Those are non starters. End of discussion. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

VPP
Hiya Larry. Regarding "can't just be handed out by admins", I prefer that idea myself ... I think RfAs might go smoother if people were allowed to make mistakes and get their feet wet in an "RfA lite". But most people are thinking of something admins would hand out, so let me run a few ideas by you. Is there any possible way to make that work? How about if we require admins to keep an eye on how the tool is used by people they hand it out to, and train them or take the tool away if it's being misused, and we get medieval on them if they don't? This might help to set up exactly the kind of coaching relationships that eventually lead to successful RfAs. (I'll be watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have to think about this. Really I think editing protected is a far more powerful permission than rollback so I'm really keen on it not being handed out lightly. (not as onerous as our RfA but SOME process...). In my view (mostly from the outside) I think handing out rollback (and taking it away) is too loosey goosey at present. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that's an interesting idea, I haven't heard that; perhaps if there were an "RfA lite", we could toss rollback into that. That would mean we're really talking about userrights that are relatively lightweight ... I'll float this idea around.  Do you know anyone who shares your view that rollback is too loosey goosey?  (Haven't heard that phrase since Mrs. Doubtfire.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, just realized that's easy to misread. I just meant that I haven't heard the suggestion that we treat rollback more formally during this round of discussions, but I support that.  Btw, it also looks like Flagged Revisions for BLP articles is getting enough support to pass, so maybe the ability to mark revisions for Flagged Revisions plus Rollback (plus maybe something else?) could go into some kind of RFA-lite process. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily looking for a new "admin-lite" role, with a different package of abilities than the current admin. In fact I probably would not be keen on it. But I am in favour of unbundling, as Rollback was. However to get me to support unbundling, I want to see more process, more review, than rollback has. Whether others share that view I am not sure. I just have seen some loosey-gooseyness in rollback being granted, then revoked, then granted, then revoked, etc. ++Lar: t/c 05:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'll allow me to be lazy, I find myself wanting to give pretty much the same response that I just gave to Protonk, although you two are approaching this from different directions ... so I'll just copy what I said on his talkpage.
 * What would really be nice would be some lighter-weight process, with cooperation from devs and/or stewards so that we could vote on giving someone like User:lustiger seth some lightweight standard package (including rollback and one or two other admin userrights that wouldn't "break the wiki"...MBisanz has a long list on his talk page) plus the ability to edit (in seth's case) just the spam-blacklist-associated protected files. This may sound at first like it goes against the sense of the vote at WP:VPP, for instance, Balloonman's "If we trust them to work in protected areas, we trust them to work in protected areas."  The problem is that that option seems to have thoroughly blown up at this point ... people have agreed that, in general, we don't want non-admins to fiddle with protected pages, too much harm could be done.  What I was voting against was the idea that when someone wants to edit the spam blacklist, we'd have a community vote and then get a dev or steward to grant the right, then another vote when we think they're ready to edit some other protected pages, then another vote when they're ready to use some admin userrights, etc.  But I'd be perfectly happy with allowing people to make one such "lightweight" request, that might include editing specific protected pages and would come with a standard (smallish) package of userrights, provided we could get some assistance from devs or stewards to make it work.  In fact, picking those userrights where there's currently a backlog of chores would be a good way to help the admins out, and seeing how they do with the userrights would be an excellent way to figure out later on whether they're ready for RfA. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WT:DYK
Hey Lar. The poll on WT:DYK seems to have stagnated. I doubt much will change in the next few days. It might be worth closing this one. &raquo; \ / (⁂ | ※) 09:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look, thanks for the heads up. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I Am Related To AndrewWeaver1-5, HE ISNT A SOCKPUPPET, I Recommend You Unblock Him Immedatly, YoMamma6188 And AndrewWeaver6188 Is His Best Friend Jacob, Im Not Going To Read User:Lar/Pooh_Policy Because I Know He Isnt A SockPuppet At All, Maybe His Userpage Is Similar To YoMamma6188 But That Doesnt Mean Anything At All, Nobody Told Them That Their Userpage Had To Be Different, AndrewWeaver Did Nothing At All That Was Wrong. Like I Said Before I Recommend You Unblock Him And The Rest Of AndrewWeaver1-5's Account Immedatly, Or I Will Take Matters Into My Own Hands Thanks, KFCWeaver1994 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, why should I unblock ALL of the AndrewWeaver accounts? Wouldn't just one be enough, don't you think? I'll let that one be answered at your leisure. Or his, or whoever. I'm so confused. Oh, I edited your user page for you. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Handling Ships
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 22:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya prolly. Answered there. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP board
Hi, whoever you are. "I'm not sure you're contributing much to substantive discussion here." No, I am done there after seeing "Beback"'s posited reword, which smacks of irredeemably bad faith, and life's too short (a failure of the wiki system is that it favours those for whom life isn't). I did point out though that your first comments there were only in the service of badmouthing the original poster on false premises, which was a substantive point. 86.44.31.179 (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My real life identity is right there on my user page. So "whoever you are" doesn't apply to me, like it does to you. I don't think there's much else to say here. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I don't know you and your name means nothing to me, it applies in exactly the same way and is exactly as rude a thing to say, at least where I come from. 86.44.30.199 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And another thing you could say is "I take your point about my opening remarks, and whether it is a tendency or an exception in my editing, I will watch for it in future. Thank you." But apart from that, yeah, done. 86.44.30.199 (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchangel et alia
21:07 19 Dec (initial reinclusion of consensus deleted material)

01:25 22 Dec

08:56 22 Dec

23:58 22 Dec (by Buster7)

Anarchangel was warned by LedRush on 22 Dec at 14:19.

Anarchangel is apparently of the mind that he has KillerChihuahua in his pocket per -- while this is only a co-operative 3RR at this point, I would comment it to your general attention. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAR
As a note at the ScienceApologist RFAR, I made a mention in a follow-up post that I am open to other suggestions, which include topic bans, civility monitoring, and so forth -- strategies that has worked elsewhere and is being used by ArbCom in much more frequency. As there does not seem to be consensus for a community ban, these 'creative' strategies may prove to bear some fruit. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is good, I've enough gray hair already... read the SA CU cases to get some sense of the frustration level :) Further, for long term contributors I'd rather seem the issues sorted than the contributor gone. That's a general rule but it applies to SA as well as others. ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and I am willing to give options sans an outright community ban, but it needs to take the admittance of ill and wrong doing on SA's part to make aware that his behaviors are unacceptable. We shall see whenever ArbCom does accept -- which is now likely, in 2009. Have a good holiday season, seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  12:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Poll close
(Refactored to User_talk:Gatoclass per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 05:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about carrots instead of sticks?
A contest like ---> ta-daaaa this one. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Full marks for a good try but I'm dubious. I have expounded there. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Until its resolved?
Noted your comment on PatW's page. Could you expand on what is still unresolved at this point? I thought Jossi had retired. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "You will be unable to edit till the matter is resolved" == "you'll be blocked and you won't be unblocked until you agree not to again do the thing that you got blocked over". Has nothing to do with Jossi's status per se. Sorry for any confusion. I could clarify but I'm not sure it's worth the bother. Your message seemed cogent to me. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; I've appreciated your assistance at various points, and some of the discussions we've had. Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best,

Happy holidays to you all too!
++Lar: t/c 16:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A user needs OTRS help
Hi Lar, Merry Christmas. Could you look at the note I just left a user; If this can be sorted, there are a lot of nice pieces of art to be had. I could pop over to the museum easily enough, if it would help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User talk:Swidagdo


 * Left a note. Back to playing with my new LEGO. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw; terima kasih. Enjoy; choo, choo, choo! Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Positive note from Swidagdo. I pointed him here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * K... LMK if I can be further help. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe the (unemployed)
Joe the Plumber has been unlocked for under 24 hours -- and already the gaming is going on to declare that he is not a plumber but that his occupation is either "author" rr "unemployed" ---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260243489 Mattnad http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260242541 Mattnad

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260240691 ism schism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_the_Plumber&oldid=260239538 ism schism

and a bunch of other changes. See also the Talk page for the comment that a person who is unemployed has no occupation at all . I will not use the wrestling analogy. Collect (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, this slipped through the cracks. Is there still an action item for me here? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin editwarring
Guess how I feel about using flagging on BLPs? 

02:15 02:11 02:03  All from User:Factchecker atyourservice

3RR Warning at 02:19 from User:Ferrylodge

We need real flagging implemented, IMHO. Collect (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured that, instead of seeking compromise, you would just edit war and simultaneously also seek to have me blocked for edit warring. And not on a noticeboard, either -- once again you appear to have handpicked an admin. As I've noted before, tag-teaming is not a way around 3RR, and neither edit warring nor 3RR warnings are a way around consensus and compromise. You're just seeking this block as a way of putting a rubber stamp on Ferry's deletion of material that is not only notable and relevant, but was added by consensus among editors who disagreed on many subjects but were able to compromise on a brief NPOV wording.


 * Lar will do as he sees fit, but obviously I have to put in my $0.02. By the way, when you seek a block, aren't you supposed to warn the person in order to give them the chance to respond to your accusation? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I did not say anything whatever about a block, but referred to an ongoing discussion about the flagging of BLPs, I wonder what your problem is? As for accusing me of editwarring, I would suggest that I am nowhere near the levels you reached (one edit or so per day on my part?) .  Is there a reason why you follow my comments on flagging articles the way it is done on the German WP? Collect (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm probably not the right person to bring this stuff to right now, at least not if you want fast turnaround. Plus b) I've a tendency to suggest blocking everyone. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Harass accounts ?
If you look now and my edit history I am having lower number of edits but ....... Yesterday on 08:11 I have given demand for full protection of article Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara. Around 2 hours and 20 minutes latter new account user:OdVardara is created. 1 hours latter article has recieved semi-protection and during next hours user:OdVardara has made few very "interesting" edits (example) to solve question of 10 edits before revert of semi-protected article. It is funny to say that but I and Ricky agree about this article :)

Then we are having user:EbaZdameNeBaBdokiN created on 25 December to play with me in article Foreign relations of Croatia. All his other edits are in reality nothing.

I know 1 or 2 accounts which are 1 revert account and after that nothing, but this are active.

My question is if this accounts are Washington IP or Belgrade IP ?--Rjecina (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not noticed newly created account user:Pressume. His only edit has been revert of my edit ????--Rjecina (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, this slipped through the cracks. Is there still an action item for me here? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ya seen...
...this ?  MBisanz  talk 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wicked cool. (ha, I crack me up). I've seen similar stuff, even bigger stuff but not that particular thing. Thanks for sharing! ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Noindex
You generally seem reasonable. What do you think about indexing pages like User:NE2/valuations/Illinois Central Railroad, a partial transcription of a report by the Interstate Commerce Commission? Would you classify it as "baby" or "bathwater"? :) --NE2 06:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Baby. This is an exception to the general rule that nothing but articlespace should be indexed, because, at least in a way, it's not really user material, it's work in progress, or background source, or something. But really, this text, since it's a transcription of a PD source (writings of the ICC, as a US federal government agency, are PD) belongs on Wikisource, where even partial work is welcomed... you should move it there, where it will be taken on board with open arms and you will be able to work on it as you have time and interest... (or others may well work on it). So I don't see it as a counter example or refutation... nothing in this world is perfect and even the best thing sometimes has less than optimal side effects. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with Wikisource, in addition to the transcriptions being incomplete, is that you lose the "what links here" functionality, which I have used many times. --NE2 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example, specific to this transcript, of where the what links here function is needed? Also I'm not clear what the issue with incompleteness is. Much of what is on WS is incomplete. But in any case, while I might agree that this particular item, in user space, will marginally suffer from not being indexed, it is vastly outweighed by all the items that clearly should NOT be indexed, and further, there are ways to work around this particular item suffering not being indexed, while there are not, by and large, easy ways to work around the rest of the stuff (that should not be indexed) being indexed. The needs of the many sometimes need to outweigh the needs of the few. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now I noticed that someone wrote Danville, Olney and Ohio River Railroad. (I noticed it because it was a blue link on the transcript, but I normally would have found it be spidering Category:Defunct railroad companies of the United States with AWB and checking against other lists.) Now if I do "what links here", I see that it appears on not only that transcript but also User:NE2/valuations/Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Western Railroad. (Both refer to the same company, which was apparently split at or after foreclosure; presumably this is what "fourth parcel to nonaffiliated carrier" refers to in the IC valuation, line 54.) This greatly simplifies what I do next, adding categories and sometimes information.
 * As for preventing things that should not be indexed from being indexed, presumably removing INDEX from a page with possibly disparaging but relevant information would be protected under BLP? --NE2 22:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Couple broad comments. INDEX and NOINDEX are disabled in the article space.  All articles are indexed with google and cannot be turned off with any template.  While there may be a valid reason to have your page indexed, the large number of pages that should not be indexed generally outweighs the benefit of making it "Opt-In for NoIndex" as opposed to "Opt-Out for NoIndex".  Put differently, there are hundreds and hundreds of user pages that list a person is banned, etc, but probably only a couple dozen like yours that have a reason to be in google.  So it is far easier to set the system to "NOINDEX" and let people like you add INDEX to their pages.  For instance, right now RFAs are NOINDEXed by the software, but I am proud of my RFA, so I have added INDEX to make it appear in Google.  MBisanz  talk 22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that, but I get the impression that it will not be possible to add INDEX to override the default. --NE2 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as far as I can read the proposals, everything will be done at the local level with MediaWiki:Robots.txt and the way the current software is set-up, any change made to that page can be override with INDEX.  MBisanz  talk 22:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2, the proposer, says that he "would be wary of allowing INDEX on user namespaces". Even if it works technically, that might be seen as a loophole to be patched ASAP and in the meantime kept off, through force if necessary. --NE2 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it
... and I've added a paragraph to User:Dank55/Admins; let me know if you think that improves it or dilutes it. (Watchlisting here for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... RfA as job interview. I'm not sure. I think maybe dilutes it a bit. But maybe I'm different than many here, I don't really need the help with job interviews that some might. (I'm certainly in the top decile here by age) ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm 51. What would be a better way to get across the idea that even if you're the perfect candidate, the position that some take is not unreasonable that what you say during the RfA counts, since that could be an indicator of how interested you are in the position, or how you deal with stress? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question! Because that underlying idea is one that I myself hold... we can't predict the future accurately, but I believe that RfA behaviour, imperfect predictor that it is, does give us some foresight. And yes, you have me beat, agewise. Barely :)... I'll be 50 this year. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken that my last paragraph might be better as advice before an RFA than advice to someone who's feeling bruised, I should probably keep it short. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)