User talk:Lar/Archive 73

Hello Lar, i need you to use your admin powaz
I'd like to ask Sophie two questions:

1 - "What text-to-speech software do you use to record the spoken pages?" 2 - "How did you find 4chan?"

I can't post them on her talk page because it's protected. Thanks! Chairstyle101 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is semiprotected. I'm not going to post anything for you, because if you work diligently for a few days and make good contributions, you'll be able to post there yourself. And if you don't, well, it wasn't that important, was it? (question 2 is kind of a giveaway). ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked now. Thanks for playing, Johnny ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Snowded
I actually finally have filed a WQA on a person! I guess Snowded finally reached my limits. Collect (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno if you want my input but here it is anyway. Snowded wasn't showing finest behavior (nor were the rest on the other side of that divide) but you're tilting at windmills. What does it matter, really, as long as there's a redirect. Enhance the LeftWing stuff to point out which groups are formally communist (maoist is a pretty good giveaway, no?) and leave it at that and the redirect will help readers find what they need. The WQA crowd missed the mark in analysing this but that's because they see what I saw, tempest in a teacup. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially the one who back Snowded's edits in the article are backing Snowded -- Petri Krohn is basically barred from doing much on any page titled "Communism", but is free to edit "Left wing" as a result of the odd Digwuren stretch (for fun - you might look at Holodomor which he has termed a "hoax.)" The grouping on Communist Terrorism was balanced until 2 editors got banned for(IMHO) not all that strong reasons.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note also the new AfD, as predicted, on the article. Collect (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Email
I assume I know what you're reaching at anyhow, but I wanted your feedback before proceeding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * replied. You can assume if I email you I'll be watching for replies. At least for a while. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

David Fuchs
What do you think of this Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/David Fuchs? Polargeo (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you ask a more specific question? ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. Polargeo (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then. Generally, I think it looks like you were badgering David, repeatedly, to the point that other people told you to lay off, and he responded calmly and accurately, without rising to your baiting. He's not my favorite candidate in this very weak field but he just went up a notch in my estimation. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm about to start a userspace draft to help me track the questions I've asked so far (and it might develop into a guide of sorts), but I can't resist commenting on this now, as I'm the candidate that had it pointed out in the December 2008 election that I had only carried out 2 blocks and one unblock (and one of those was a 'notation' block). I think that is still the case as well. Though of course, non-admin candidates won't have done any blocks whatsoever. Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that not having done a lot of blocks is a bar to a successful candidature. But I don't think that was what Polargeo was driving at. I could be wrong, it's often hard to tell what point he's trying to make. Isn't the election almost over now? I've lost track, I've been in the hospital since Monday. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw you comment elsewhere about that (the hospital stay). Was unaware you were still there - I had thought you were recovering at home. Hope all is OK soon. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still struggling with complications from appendicitis. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, I wish you speedy recovery. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do too. Mine was removed, when I was 16 years old, so I know how it feels. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, J tipped me off that you are in the (if I may indulge a family pun) "horsepistol", I too hope you get well soon, though I'm also immensely amused that you're on wifi in there. From your sickbed, you edit wikipedia!  I'm not sure if it's devotion or madness, but either way, good for you!   Montanabw (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Boredom, mostly. I'm not much of a TV watcher, besides the dramah here is better. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just stalk me if you like that. Despite best efforts, I seem to kick up dust clouds wherever I go. Jehochman Talk 14:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you get better soon. You are also right I am not a big fan of blocks on non-vandals I think they are used far too much. What I was trying to highlight is David Fuch's lack of a track record at good dispute resolution. I cannot imagine how we could have an arb with such a poor record at dealing with disputes no matter how much low level vandal fighting or FA contributions they make. But yes we are in the final days and wikipedians will get whatever they have voted for. Polargeo (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you subscribe to Somey's theory of Wikipedia evolution/progression? As for what you were trying to highlight perhaps you should have said what you meant. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden RFC/U
FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. Snotty Wong  spout 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me and my TPW's know. I have commented. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I'm in the process of thanking everyone who supported my reelection in a voter guide, but I think those who opposed me are entitled to feedback as well, especially when they put as much thought into it as you did. Thank you for your careful consideration, for your observations about the committee's work overall, and for the positive things that you did say about me. I hope that my responses to both the general and particularly the two specific questions you posed to me may have alleviated at least some of your concerns about what to expect if I were reelected. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. One of the things that caused CC to go in the weeds was the big lag in the middle. Over the years I've tried to get better at not over committing, and if I get to where I'm actually a factor contributing to delay, to holler and say "I can't do what I said I was gonna", early when recovery is still possible. I think if right after you realised there might be a delay due to your situation you'd hollered, that might have helped a lot. Just something to consider. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom sets policy
Really? Two years ago you wrote, "...the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will...". When did that change?  Will Beback   talk    05:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It hasn't changed. You're wikilawyering and your approach to this matter is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 06:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If so then WP:BLP is the applicable policy, not Badlydrawnjeff. Wanting to enforce WP:BLP according to its language and intent is not WP:wikilawyering.    Will Beback    talk    06:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Badlydrawnjeff established that BLP policy will be, must be, enforced strictly. This requirement comes down from the foundation. Subsequent ArbCom decisions reinforced that and are in accordance with policy rather than are setting it... Temporary local consensus does not trump BLP policy. You're wikilawyering to avoid acknowledging that. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 07:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am saying that BLP is the applicable policy. Scott is saying Badlydrawnfeff, decided four years ago, overrides the current BLP policy. I am in favor of enforcing BLP and Scott is saying that it may be violated.    Will Beback    talk    07:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott is saying no such thing, you are twisting things around to leave red herrings and construct straw dogs. I believe arbcom interpret the point and policy of this project more wisely and authoritatively than you do Will. Or to put it another way: Your interpretation of policy is wrong.  ++Lar: t/c 07:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm asking the ArbCom to say whether their motions create a binding precedent that cannot be changed by the community and must be followed by admins who were not even parties to the relevant cases. In this case, the community has amended BLP to place additional requirements on admins who wish to summarily delete a BLP article outside of the normal deletion policy. You seem to be saying that the community is unable to change policies once the ArbCom has determined what they mean.   Will Beback    talk    07:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that at all. Either I'm not being clear enough, or you're so sure of yourself you aren't reading carefully enough. The community can modify policy, including BLP policy, but only up to a point. It cannot make BLPs un-special. ArbCom is not changing policy so much as affirming that the foundation mandate takes precedence over weakening. Imposing a restriction that, for exanple, one has to try to source something (that perhaps has been unsourced for years), rather than just removing the offending material when it's found, is an unacceptable weakening of BLP policy and consensus cannot override foundation mandate. Scott is right in his actions, and you are wrong. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the foundation mandate: wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people. I don't see anything in there that requires en:WP to allow unexplained, out-of-process deletions. Instead, it urges projects to create policies to ensure special treatment for BLPs. This project has a detailed policy that should be followed unless there is a situation so extreme that IAR prevails. Considering the many legitimate ways there are to delete articles, there are very few cases where IAR deletions should be necessary, and the ones Scott deleted summarily could have been handled in other ways as called for by WP's BLP policy.   Will Beback    talk    21:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you wouldn't be on the other side of this question if the bio was on the other side of your POV? But in any case I think your reinserting material via discussionless reversion is problematic. We should err on the side of safety. As I said before, I trust Scott's judgment more than I do yours. He seems willing to engage in discussion. You seem willing to engage in wikilawyering rather than meaningful discussion. I'm not sure there's much more to say here. I'm hopeful that ArbCom will continue to vigorously assert the principles they have in the past. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please remember that AGF is a policy, not just a suggestion. What POV am I supposed to have about these BLPs?   Will Beback    talk    22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remember that AGF is only a starting assumption and once disproved, no longer applies. Your POV on Scientology is fairly well known I think. Perhaps not quite as well known as on LaRouchism but nonetheless. Was there anything else? As I said, I don't really trust your judgment much. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? Where have I ever expressed a POV on Scientology and what does Scientology have to do with violating policy to delete articles summarily? You accuse me of acting out of bad faith but your comments about me, and your involvement in the clarification request, appear to be based in personal animus rather than policy concerns. That clarification request doesn't concern judgment, just the simple question of whether Wikipedia policy is set by the community or by the ArbCom.     Will Beback    talk    23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

undent While largely ignorant of the facts of this case (Goodness, there's a lot of reading to been done before I can comment intelligently.) Beback's question as statd above is, to date, not clearly answered. And I would very much like it to be answered in general, rather than getting caught on the sticky wicket of the specifics. - brenneman  10:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Brenny, long time no see. What is it exactly that you think needs clarifying? ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Um -- in the case being spoken of, I rather think that a deus ex machina gave word of its desires to ArbCom. I suggest that ArbCom erred in not so acknowledging that fact directly, as its actions certainly did appear to "set policy" as a result. The "d e m" certainly has the right to enact such rules as it may have delegated to ArbCom to enunciate, but the enunciation day would have been as well served by having them make the official statements. Collect (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * D.E.M. == the WMF board? ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Petri
I understand "Petri" means "rock" but the latest incarnation at seems quite beyond the pale, involving, as it does, a blatantly false set of accusations. Have you run into him prior? Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To be pedantic, petri = stone e.g. to be petrified is to be turned into stone, made immobile with fear... Carry on! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen him around, but not dug in deeply... and my shallow evaluation based on not much other than impressions was that... I wasn't impressed with his approach. I do think that "blatantly false" may be a bit strong of a term. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

casting aspersions
Casting aspersions without any evidence is forbidden. If you have diffs showing me to be involved in Scientology editorial disputes, please post them. Otherwise, strike your inaccurate, inhospitable, uncollegial, unwelcome, and uncouth remarks about me. That's what I'd like for Christmas. That, and for habitual opponents to stop needling each other for a week or two. Jehochman Talk 17:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the diffs that I dislike: Jehochman Talk 20:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this looks like a case of casting aspersions of having made allegations of having been involved in Scientology editorial disputes, Jehochman, I think you should retract or substantiate your allegation. un☯mi 18:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't parse your grammar. I think Lar is quite capable of answering for himself.  Jehochman Talk 20:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I must object to "Casting aspersions without any evidence is forbidden". as well as the use of the terms "inaccurate, inhospitable, uncollegial, unwelcome, and uncouth", which really go too far in characterizing my expresing my view. Please retract those remarks and try again. Further, I've expressed my opinion, I don't think you should be the person passing judgement in this matter. Would you prefer if I used the term "too biased" rather than "uninvolved"? Per the findings of the CC case, it seems that if you have too strong an opinion on a case, it disqualifies you... ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record: Per ARBSCI it is clear that JEH is not involved under that definition and I have struck my previous assertions of involvement. I remain concerned about bias, but that's not at all the same thing. I apologise for any confusion that not hewing to the formal definition may have caused. It would be good if this definition is applied consistently. ++Lar: t/c 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Lar. As for bias, well, that's a debatable point.  Who is the best administrator to resolve a question?  Who is likely to get a peaceful result?  Who is likely to provoke more controversy.  I'll take your advice under advisement... Jehochman Talk 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly? I suspect neither of us is at the very top of that particular list. Perhaps both of us should step aside if we can identify some folk more likely to be viewed as neutral? I will if you will, but I won't if you won't. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving others comments
One does not usually move another users comments on the talk page. Cheers -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you an admin, and uninvolved? If so feel free to move the thread back. If not, you are posting in the wrong section, and by long standing precedent at AE, your comments get moved. HTH. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Domai.com
Hello, I agree that Domai.com is notable enough for an article. It is definitely not a porn site, and I don't think an article about it would be a joke. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it is a joke or a porn site, this is wikipedia :) Polargeo (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cullen328: You might be right! You certainly have my blessing (not that it's needed, this is a wiki after all, but thanks for mentioning it) to write it up if you're so inclined, with my best wishes. P: you may not have the context, long long ago someone dared me to write that article and I put it on my to-do list where it has languished ever since. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your comment at ani
I am a bit confused this comment of yours. I can't quite read if you believe that the current concerns are unwarranted, or strictly that future behavior may be rewarded with harsher sanctions than they may otherwise deserve, or something else entirely. It doesn't strike me as an entirely helpful remark given that the editor has espoused the view that they are the victim of a witch hunt. I think that if you believe that they were treated unfairly you should straight up say it so that discussion can be had. u<b style="color:#814">n</b><b style="color:#714">☯</b><b style="color:#614">m</b><b style="color:#514">i</b></i> 02:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor has a behavior problem. It is exacerbated by the fact that they have been treated unfairly. Why? First impressions... Because we get set in our views of people based on first impressions. My advice (off-line) to that editor was to either behave perfectly, (way better than those that they work with, and way better than the admins that pass judgment on that editor) or give up on WP entirely and find a new hobby. It's a sad state of affairs, but way too common here, once you get a reputation as disruptive, you're done for. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you believe that they were treated unfairly, there have been 2 interaction bans so far as I can tell 16 March, 24 hours where Mbz1 argues for an indefinite interaction ban, 21 March, 3 months, though consensus was for indefinite. The interaction that precipitated the latest round of ANI drama seems entirely instigated by Mbz1, by commenting out of the blue on a thread regarding Daedalus, where she even mentions the previous interaction ban, and then after Prodego asks her to leave well enough alone, she files a SPI. There are obviously other concerns as well, but frankly I think such behavior alone should not go without asking her to accept that this is unacceptable by our standards. Towards a resolution; I have previously stated that Mbz1 has much to positively contribute to the project and I still believe so - but there are areas where the contributions are largely negative and is cause for needless additional friction. I believe, as I have previously stated, that as long as Mbz1 is involved in I/P or involves herself with editors contributing to the I/P articles we run the risk of losing an otherwise valuable contributor. How would you feel about becoming her mentor? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#956">u</b><b style="color:#855">n</b><b style="color:#755">☯</b><b style="color:#655">m</b><b style="color:#555">i</b></i> 03:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not disagreeing with any of what you say about the facts on the ground and yet, I still think she's been wrong-footed. Sonething that gets her out of the areas where she goes into the weeds would be helpful, yes. As for mentorship... I have a terrible track record as a mentor. She communicates with me off line which is of some help I expect. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that she was wrong-footed, apparently she was led to believe that she could act in an unbecoming manner without sanction, and worse, that the actions themselves are justified or to be blamed on third parties, clearly that kind of 'help' is unlikely to lead to a positive outcome. As I understand that you, as I, would like to see her continue to contribute positively, would you mind helping in finding a better way forward? Wait and see is not such a better way forward and the result is utterly predictable. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#684">u</b><b style="color:#583">n</b><b style="color:#483">☯</b><b style="color:#383">m</b><b style="color:#283">i</b></i> 06:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd exactly characterize things as "she was led to believe that she could act in an unbecoming manner without sanction". It's more complex than that. I'm not sure how familiar you are with her history on Commons, for one thing. As to your request for help, I don't have easy answers.... partly because I see this as an endemic problem with the project, people get wrong-footed all the time, not just Mbz1. In this particular case more topic/interaction bans seem a better approach than a community ban. There are a few admins I think should be asked to step aside at this point as they may have lost their objectivity. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see many calling for a community ban, at this point, but I think that Mbz1 deserves to know that it could possibly be an outcome, anything else would be wrong-footing her. Which admins are you referring to? Gwen Gale or? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#942">u</b><b style="color:#841">n</b><b style="color:#741">☯</b><b style="color:#641">m</b><b style="color:#541">i</b></i> 14:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat perhaps, but I'm more thinking of Sandstein's involvement in past incidents. There are others as well but I don't want to enumerate an exhaustive list because I myself have some involvement and would need to step aside (from making any decisions). ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a fair bit of respect for Sandstein, while he could be characterized as "hard but unfair", and in quiet moments I have thought that myself - I think that he earnestly tried to establish a framework of respect for the rules. The I/P area is so sensitive and there is the constant 'threat' of being seen as taking sides or not showing sufficient compassion with either side that in the end it became 'a pox on both your houses', as his recently overturned 1 week block of Nableezy may exemplify. I don't envy Sandsteins position in this and I have earlier literally pleaded for more admins to take part - some of which we are now seeing, but the more eyes the better. I believe that Sandstein has taken AE off his watch list and is enjoying turning to other matters than ARBPIA, nonetheless he has valuable knowledge for having taken part in the, uhh, discussions at AE.
 * I think it is a shame that there is the sense that we can not talk openly about our concerns, how else could we hope to have the discussion that brings the information that we all need for a full picture to light? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#950">u</b><b style="color:#849">n</b><b style="color:#749">☯</b><b style="color:#649">m</b><b style="color:#549">i</b></i> 14:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Commons, I am not active there, I did notice that she had been blocked from there for awhile and that she attributed her unblocking to "a brave admin". While I am not sure that what happens on Commons shouldn't stay on commons, if you have links to reading up on the background there I wouldn't mind reading through it. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#950">u</b><b style="color:#849">n</b><b style="color:#749">☯</b><b style="color:#649">m</b><b style="color:#549">i</b></i> 14:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, Unomi, this is an example of wrongfooting. Mbz1 has uploaded vast numbers of great images on Commons, more than 100 of which were featured, but all you know about it is some drama stemming from her attempt to remove a few cartoons she found insulting. Sorry, Lar, for intruding into your user space. Cheers and Happy New Year! - BorisG (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, like I said, I am not active there so I don't really have a full picture of what went on. I have always been a fan of Mbz1's photographs as well as her articles pertaining to photography and visual phenomena and I don't doubt that she has made many valuable contributions over at Commons, from the context of the discussion I didn't think that they were the "history" that Lar++ alluded to. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#651">u</b><b style="color:#550">n</b><b style="color:#450">☯</b><b style="color:#350">m</b><b style="color:#250">i</b></i> 15:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For you

 * Thanks, and you're welcome. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sent you a question
Silver seren C 08:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I check my mail more than I check my msgs here. Replied already. (maybe I should add that to my edit notice? :) ) ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Question
Can checkuser prove conclusively that two users are not the same? Jehochman Talk 09:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think checkusers can prove conclusively that users are the same either anyways, unless they are the same exact originating IP. The same goes for concluding they are not the same. It's just extremely unlikely that two IPs are the same if one is originating in Los Angeles and the other is from Russia or something. That's generally how it works, along with the actions that the two accounts have made over their Wiki life, which can shed a good deal of light on their connection or their lack of connection. Silver  seren C 09:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When an http request comes in it caries a variety of "fingerprints": the IP, the browser version, software platform. Problem is, there are lots of remote desktop tools available, both legit and black hat, that allow a user to remotely operate a computer.  So while I might be in Connecticut, I can fire up a browser on a computer at my office in Argentina, and start editing Wikipedia.  Or I might be on a trip some place else.  Or I might have a corporate VPN account which routes all my IP traffic through a server in a different city.  Or I might use an open proxy.  There are lots of ways to fool checkuser. Jehochman Talk 09:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. But, if you knew all that, then why are you asking that question? Silver  seren C 09:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I'd like to hear Lar's opinion, as an experienced checkuser. Merely knowing the answer is not sufficient.  I would like to be able to the best possible answer, one that it is easily understood and convincing. Jehochman Talk 18:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No. ...  ... What CU can do is suggest, based on the technical evidence, that two users are the same, or that they are different... sometimes with very very high probability of correctness (in which case CUs use things like ✅ or ❌) and sometimes with less certainty (in which case CUs use things like  or ) But the CU tool is just a tool. It can be misused, and it can be fooled. However, that's an acceptable tradeoff to keep the project running smoothly, as editing here is a priv, not a right, and this is a wiki, not a system of government or social experiment in fairness, so we accept that mistakes are sometimes made. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking that we could put a finer edge on the templates, such as ❌ or ✅. (I was the original creator of /me wiggles eyebrows up and down.) Jehochman Talk 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)