Misplaced Pages

CAT:AOTR

Hello, Lar! I read your message something like 12 times, and was utterly confused by it. Then I noticed the "" link, and all became clear. I must be drunk on V8 juice at the time. :-) Anyway...

In light of recent events, I agree with the sentiments you expressed in your message. I wrote out some procedures at User:XDanielx/Recall; please let me know if you have any comments.

Best,

— xDanielx /_C\ 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! I like having the "see also" links at the bottom, which is why I templatised them. Mayhaps I should add that to mine as well... for people that stumble onto my page without having gotten there the conventional way. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering...

how we first met, your kind words mean quite a bit to me. I would say my response is a "not now" rather than a "not never". I nominated someone for adminship once (Rigadoun, co-nommed with Xoloz) and I have to say I was a nervous wreck on Rigadoun's behalf the entire week. I wouldn't be as nervous in my own request, but I fear I would be unproductive. Although the concerns I expressed to Wizardman were genuine, I also worry of disrupting my creative energy. --JayHenry (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this situation?

There are some issues surrounding Barack Obama's article, regarding the whisper-campaign regarding his religion. This edit to the forked article on the issue (as well as others by the same user) concern me greatly. S/he has also followed me to the Village Pump, where I went to solicit an outside view on the matter, and harangued me there. Any assistance/perspective you could offer would be great. Regards, Bellwether _C 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is urgent I am not a good choice, I am off to my informally adopted daughter's wedding shortly, so you may want to seek someone else. If it can wait till tomorrow, I'll see what I can do. ++Lar: t/c 06:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall of Archtransit being suggested

See User talk:Archtransit, last 6 sections, may be the next one, you may want to take a look. We need a Batman-like spotlight for you. Mr. Recall-man ;) NoSeptember 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I did not think Archtransit was in the category in the first place. Given that the RfA was less than a week ago, an addition should have shown up here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators open to recall/Change records ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was still in the process of putting his recall ideas together, but that is a valid point. But then recall ultimately is a purely voluntary process at this point, whether one adds oneself to the category or not. Cheers, NoSeptember 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I said that before I looked into things a bit deeper, I see how that he committed he would join the category during the RfA (ask me sometime about why my view of that has changed over time, I used to ask the question, now I think asking or committing should be deprecated) but hadn't "done the paperwork" of deciding what criteria/process yet. I'll opine on his talk, because that's what I like to do. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, take a look at this and see what you think. The 30 days restriction is pretty clever, given the last few days. 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would have put that in were I he. I suspect it's not going to be received very well. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

here's the sandbox

Corvus Cornix made a big issue of the recall during my RFA (and others' RFA) so I pledge to work with him/her. Add your name too and feel free to place ideas here. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Archtransit/sandbox2

As far as the 30 days, that can be removed in the final draft. Archtransit (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FAR

You've already commented at the FAR of A Tale of a Tub. Would you take another peek at it, and slap me with a minnow (or a trout) if you think I'm being too hard on that reviewer? I had a big problem with the nomination when it popped up on my watchlist. However, I've tried to remain civil throughout. I'd appreciate your view on whether or not I've maintained that. I tend to get frustrated with the process wonkery that sometimes overwhelms the writing and editing of the project (as you know), so I'd appreciate being "pulled back from the edge" a bit, if you feel I'm approaching it. Regards, -- Bellwether _C 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to comment when I get a chance. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

If you have some time available can you please run a CU on User:32Ralmal, I'm under the impression that this is a user that I blocked yesterday for disruption, the problem is that this user's block is being discussed over and I want to know if he is related or not before shortening the block. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a rationale why you think this user is related? Some diffs showing a pattern would be good. I prefer not to run CU's just on say so because ...  CheckUser is not for fishing :) ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's first ever edit outside of userspace was on the blocked user's talk page , before going on a random edit pattern, he seems familiar with this case. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Then there is the fact that the mayority of his edits were on articles that deal with actors, exactly the area of work that Samuel has. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, having mail server troubles, which took priority, but I am running the check for you now (unless the log shows you got someone else to do it)... can you point to the AN/I thread I need to visit with results? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check your mail... I have mailed you something I prefer not to broadcast publicly, till more consultation happens. However, publicly, I see it as  Unlikely at best (more like  Unrelated, really...) that these two users are connected, based on CU analysis. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wheel war

Seeing as you participate on that talk page a bit, I've left a suggestion on it which might be of interest. I'm trying to get consensus to add it: feel free to have a look at my suggestion: it's small, but may be useful. Thanks, --Solumeiras 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying. I only wrote that to generate discussion, without making a WP:POINT. Thanks anyway! --Solumeiras 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Er....

You know when you say something, and then suddenly wonder if you said it in the wrong place...? Can you have a quick look over this in case it needs bringing to the attention of somebody? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC) (I've also bought it to the attention Alison.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What sort of attention does it need, do you think? That whole thread seems a bit of silly fun and harmless. (or else I'm in trouble too!) ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Um... Well, it just seems that there is still a way of deleting an article with over 5000 edits - not very easy to do accidentally (but not impossible, human nature being what it is) - and, er, I just wondered if there was a venue more suitable than WR to bring it up in case someone needs to know... The only Devs I've ever known where a bunch of lads from Hounslow whose parents were originally from the Indian subcontinent, so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the only person I know that might know someone in Misplaced Pages who might be interested in such a possibility.

Also, since Alison may be busy I thought I'd let you know too. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason deleting it is a problem is it breaks the wiki - if you redirect it and salt the redirect (and why an admin would do that, I dunno) nothing is deleted, and no wikidestroying problems ensue. 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion at WikipediaReview regarding the magical 5000 edit figure making an article impossible to delete (per last night). I think I found a way of making an article appear deleted by redirecting it to another name - and then deleting that. While the edit history remains with the redirected article the access to the article appears as if it is deleted.

There may never be a reason for doing the above, but at least it appears possible and without the need for devs - I was simply asking where I might post this, since some poor blighted souls believe they aren't supposed to read WR (and certainly not believe anything they read there.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it - nothing is hidden by a redirect, you just click on the "Redirected from blah blah" link and look at the original article. 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you find the link on a deleted article? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much completely lost here guys. :) If the redirect was deleted, I guess you'd have to view the deleted text and then follow that link back to the original??? But what were we talking about in the first place? I forget. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Me having inappropriate brainwaves? My point is that for the majority of editors and readers that an article, even with 5,000 edits thus making it immune to admin deletion, is rendered deleted simply by redirecting it to a new name which is then deleted per ordinary admin action - since sysops, stewpots and other encrusted editors have that facility already. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard: A broken redirect does not redirect, it loads itself. See? - Revolving Bugbear 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.

In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.

By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.

Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.

I would welcome the prospect of working with you, sir. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget

Rudget (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appears to have been compromised. Can you look at the AN thread and help him please. Jehochman 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this It's all been sorted now. Thanks anyway and apologies for any inconvenience. Regards, Rudget. 20:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, glad you're OK. Give your cuz heck for all of us, hmm? :) ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure will. Rudget. 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

recall

Just FYI, I'm piggybacking off your recall criteria until I devise my own.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 19:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1

The new volume of Misplaced Pages:US Roads' newsletter is out here.32 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Just a quick question before I go. Can bureaucrats remove +sysop flag? Regards, Rudget. 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not on WMF wikis (I am a crat elsewhere where it so happens I can, it's a configuration thing). For that you need a steward. See m:Meta:Requests for permissions which is where one requests it. Read the instructions carefully and put your request in the "removal of access" section. Hope that helps (and hope this was just a curiousity thing, not that you actually want to resign) ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments to IP exempt

I've replied there. I respect you a great deal, but the "are fooling yourself" remark seems off the mark for me. Forgive me if I misinterpreted but could you consider rephrasing? Warm regards, Mercury at 19:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Lar. Are you still admin coaching. If you are, would you be willing to take on a new coachee. I know that admin coaching takes alot of effort and is totally voluntary so you can refuse. User:Bluegoblin7 has asked me to find an admin coach for him. Also, I would be willing to help out where I can but obviously Im not experienced enough to do everything yet. User:John has said hes happy with it as long as the coachee isn't in a rush. Thanks very much. Tbo (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your post on John's page (I think it was). I am pretty busy. Maybe you and John could take this one as a team? I'd hate to commit and not follow through. Maybe you and I take the next one? ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thats fine. I'll talk to John about it. If you don't mind, we'll probably use your template coaching page as it was an excellent base for me to work from when you and John coached me. Thanks. Tbo (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. Best. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about recall from Jehochman

How do you feel about very simple criteria? Jehochman 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Subject to argument and contention due to lack of clarity... what does "If evidence is provided to me via this process that I have lost the trust of the community" mean? one person? 5 persons? A simple majority? an RfA majority saying you HAVEN'T lost it? That you HAVE lost it? Way too unclear. Simple seems a good idea except that it leaves too much up in the air, in my view, which is why I went the complete opposite way, spelling everything out. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaa. Complexity makes me unhappy. I think I prefer default policy rather than creating new process. Will think about it more...Jehochman 14:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no fan of complexity either, but in thinking about this, I came out with what I have as the simplest possible way to implement my objectives that removed all ambiguity. ("make things as simple as possible, but no simpler" )... Why did you delete the page? Why not slap a "I'm not doing this" on it? I think being able to see what DOESN'T work is as good as seeing what DOES.

I like the idea of a simple process. However, I agree that your process relies on you seeing things the way others do, that you see the evidence as showing that you have lost the community trust as they do. This is the issue I have been thinking about, and I have two possible ways to handle it on my page. Any old user who has 150+ edits or whatever is not necessarily qualified to make such a judgement. To me the key is finding good judges to make that decision, instead of either you or self-selected random users being the judges. I think you are getting close to coming up with a good simple process though. NoSeptember 15:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

While I have everyone's ear, what do people think of Radiant's campaign against this idea? Seems somewhat polemical, see for instance Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/MBK004. Also see the unilateral delete of WP:AAA, which I restored since I think Radiant doesn't own it, others commented too and it's of historical interest. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that admins can and should find ways to be accountable, and the accountability alliance was one of those ways (and an interesting idea). People also should be allowed to have their own opinions of it, and that seems to be the case with Radiant. Just my opinion. Keilana| 15:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you can see what I think of it from that RfA, although I'm not an admin so maybe what I think isn't relevant. People come up with processes in good faith - there is no set process, and no public consensus as to the best format, so folks wing it. An attacking oppose based on a particular formulation is a mistake, in my mind, as it doesn't contribute to any goal in a meaningful way. 15:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were writing a process, it would probably consist of something like 'Three admins in good standing ask for my reconfirmation within 30 days, I will list a reconfirmation RfA'. Admins are trusted users, so it eliminates the spurious recall requests more easily than edit count requirements. RfA is an existing process, so you don't need to invent something with new rules and clerks. 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, all admins are subject to recall. If there is clear evidence that the community has lost faith in an admin, the rational action is to step down. If the do not, they will become outcasts, and every action they take will be subject to doubt and criticism until finally they are forced to resign or desysopped. It is far better to resign with grace than to cling to power. That is the point I am trying to make at User:Jehochman/Dispute resolution. Jehochman 15:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about recall from Keilana

I just revised my (somewhat confusing) criteria and was wondering if you could take a look? Thanks so much. Keilana| 14:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This bit "if I refuse a good-faith request, please inform a steward with a diff and a citation of this sentence, and the steward will determine if the request was in bad faith. If it is determined to be valid, I will be immediately desysopped without discussion." is not good, because stewards don't do this We only implement consensus, not adjudicate disputes or make judgement calls. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC) The rest seems reasonable enough.

Pardon the butting in.. but along those lines- I've tried to convince crats to play a similar role a time or two, with no success at all. They're (understandably) reluctant to expand crat power that way. It's unfortunate- I personally think we should give the crats a clear mandate to go ahead and correct mistaken promotions, whenever they are identified as a mistake. It's rather bizarre (and has harmful effects) that in this ONE case, we make it easy to do something without making it similarly easy to undo. The entire rest of the Wiki depends on the idea that mistakes aren't usually very bad, because what's easily done can be easily undone. And, surprisingly enough, this approach works out fine on most of the wiki. Why do we see promotions as a completely different animal? Friday (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Friday. Lar, what would you recommend? Having a clerk do it? Keilana| 15:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would say that the idea of a pre-appointed "council" or "jury" (selected in advance is important I think) might be a way to have a way to decide. Or the clerk if the clerk is sufficiently highly regarded as impartial. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, should my side of the "board" (per se) be preselected? Keilana| 15:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Even a random jury might work. Select random admins from the active admin list and ask them to serve. As long as you get about 5 or more to say yes, you would have an adequate jury to decide if the complaint is worthy of starting a formal recall process or not. NoSeptember 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really - do you want to create a trial system? You're basically making an add-hoc recall ArbCom. We already have RfAs - its purpose is to determine the trust of the community. If some evidence is demonstrated that the trust may be gone, run through an additional RfA. 15:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The jury is only to decide if the petitioner is bringing valid and significant enough complaints (to decide if it is a "good-faith request" as Keilana says above). If they say yes, then you start an RfC open to the community to decide the issue, or else the admin resigns and does an RfA. NoSeptember 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer having a neutral, trusted clerk to determine such things. Who should probably be asked ahead of time. Thoughts? Keilana| 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Except that my neutral may be your hopelessly biased and vice versa. It may be an insoluble problem. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Just a quick note, I have replied. Regards, Mercury (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re. Pena pics

Hello Lar. Thank you for your efforts in promoting the pictures I took at the Pena Palace (particularly Image:Pena Palace back.JPG, of course. Needs a correction for the tilt, something I can't do coz I currently lack a decent image editor). I think that this one might just have a good chance. And it isn't tilted. I've recently started expanding Pena National Palace but I've been quite busy these days. Help is always welcome, so hop in anytime you feel like expanding an article about this amazing place. ;-) Best regards, Húsönd 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem editor

Hello again, Lar. We have a problem editor with Brwarrior2325. Check out the edits he made in the Debbie Stabenow article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steelbeard! I hope this finds you well... As for Brw... Looks like garden variety vandalism. Good revert, I'd say. I left them a {{test1}} to warn them. If the pattern continues, let any admin know (you can use WP:AIV) or if you think it's necessary that I specifically get involved, just LMK. Thanks for your efforts! ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Laker

Sorry about that, not from the Great lakes :). Mercury (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ore dock DYK

On 27 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ore dock, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal

A two year bout of temporary insanity ;) Mackensen (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So you tell me this HERE instead of there? :) Oh ye of little courage (or insufficient appreciation of the humor potential)... :) ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Not only wicked fast, but wicked useful. :) Keilana| 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was an Amorrow sock, just that the user's edits on Byrne were disruptive. I never noticed that there was no wikilink to the Byrne article. Cool Hand Luke 04:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser identification of Lumberjake

Hello Please see User talk:John_Reaves#Your block of Lumberjake. Could you please verify on-wiki that Lumberjake (talk · contribs) has been confirmed by checkuser to be the blocked user KONATA KONATA KONATA (talk · contribs)? Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Data is available to share with another CU for corroboration if neeeded. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

++

Apologies if I caused an edit conflict here. :) Regards, Rudget. 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 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) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Earl Newton

I started to propose this article Earl Newton for deletion but found it had previously been deleted via AFD and closed by you. I've placed a speedy tag since it doesn't look like anything has changed in the past year or so since it was recreated. If you want to take a look please do. Foghate (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I see no need for any different action... ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Recall

I personally subscribe to "easy come, easy go", and if I've bitten a newbie, they should have their say. What would you suggest? (By the way, I've sorted out all my confusing recall stuff right now on the talk page, could you drop by there and take a look? I've technically had 3 requests, one went through but I kept my bit, the other two failed to go through). Keilana| 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote out a quickie summary of all 3 attempts, would you take a look, please? Keilana| 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I did... I noticed nits of differing capitalization etc, and maybe the close dates might be good to add (like when Dreadstar deleted one, etc) but in general, good stuff. The less said the better. (Piotrus II is a model of how much detail NOT to go into :) ) ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to show everything, that would be a pain in the butt. I'm too lazy...and as far as I know, the only person to get two requests in 1 week. Not a good record to have, folks. :P Keilana| 01:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't blame you. One link, in that case, to the wrapup of the discussion is plenty I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that what I put? Keilana| 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. One more date (the "end" date) would be good, but no huhu. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, that was painful/confusing to wade through. Keilana| 03:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was for you, pity ME for thinking of trying. :) ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely cringe-worthy. Hopefully there won't be a listed "Keilana 4"... Keilana| 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your message regarding WP:POINT

I wasn't trying to make a point, but I thought the process should be deprecated, as all too often it becomes an excuse to criticize the admin (not constructive criticism). Anyway, apologies for that.. and I haven't edited the page since. --Solumeiras (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You certainly gave every appearance of POINTy behaviour... why on earth would you go round and mark a bunch of pages instead of discussing the matter? If it was a terrifically bad process (as so many people not in the category seem to think) it wouldn't have about 10% adherence. It's not for everyone but the process works. Proof is to be found on the past requests page. It's not perfect but by and large the trollish requests result in nothing bad happening. Where it has more trouble is with admins who get recalled for serious reasons but who have trouble during the process for one reason or another. Accountability is important. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are some people who think it should be {{historical}} (me included). Someone had suggested it be marked as historical, so I went ahead and did it, but now I realize that was stupid. I should have discussed it first though. --Solumeiras (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There are over 140 admins in the category, including some added very recently (as the automated tracker page shows). There have been recalls at a frequency at least one a month for several months now. There is active discussion in many of the subpages related to the category. Admins are adding their own personal criteria to the tracking list. Given all that, I don't see how anyone could reasonably suggest that this is a historical idea. It's active. If you had done a bit of looking about instead of listening to voices whispering in your ear (or whatever... who was it anyway?) you would have seen that. So yes, I agree with your self assessment as "stupid" and yes, I agree that you should have discussed it first. I'll ascribe this to carelessness rather than malice... :) Just do try to think a bit more before you mark things historical would be all I would ask. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've put myself up at editor review... if you wish to comment at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Solumeiras that would be welcome. I'll take myself to the talk page of the admin recall rather than tagging it next time. --Solumeiras (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hi Lar, would you be kind enough to checkuser User:The Blip, an obvious sock trying to cause even more trouble at this very late stage of what has been a very distressing time. It would be a shame if he were to cause the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to roam Misplaced Pages, just as I'm getting them back into their stables. Giano (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Very likely sock of Fratboy101 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) who is an indef blocked vandalistic user. Blcoked indef and tagged. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser on waterboarding RFAR

Hi Lar, Thatcher suggested I follow up with a couple of Checkusers directly. If you look here here, on this RFAR case I had put up a motion for a proper RFCU here. It's based on accumulated evidence here on the Evidence page that one or more users involved are the long-banned User:BryanFromPalatine. Thatcher has also weighed on on that Proposed Decision talk page, in the section directly above the one I linked. The evidence is based on a combination of IPs, geolocation (all the users appear to be within 5-15 miles of BryanFromPalatine's known location of Palatine, IL), behavior, and language. Any review would be appreciated. I apologize for the amount of evidence, but it was a complex one. Lawrence § t/e 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the urgency, can this wait till this evening do you think? Who else did you follow up with to request investigation? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Alison and FT2. It can certainly wait till evening, I just wanted to make sure anything that needed doing was done before the magical cut off, whatever that is, for information records. Lawrence § t/e 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I replied at the formal request for CU section of the workshop, acknowledgeing the request. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I looked at the evidence and it warrants some investigation. But rather than start from afresh trying to draw the same conclusions you already did... I tend to like "check this user against that user" sort of requests... I'm not sure where to start. I see from the links you gave me and ones i followed that Alison has done some recent work on this so I will ask her for whatevr she can share. But I'd really like to ask you to try to put this in more of a "please check users X Y and Z" format, using the templates at WP:RFCU even. Heck, make it a case there. and link to the arbcom, you can note I said I'd work on it. but right now it is too much to start. I will continue to look and ponder, but I also don't want to duplicate effort unnecessarily. ++Lar: t/c 04:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry its so much. I'll put it together tomorrow and Friday. Lawrence § t/e 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Lar, I'll be doing this tomorrow morning. Family getting sick and spitting up copious amounts of nasty brackish liquids are causing me to have a short amount of time today and yesterday. Lawrence § t/e 17:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds

I noticed that you have participated in Misplaced Pages:Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I need to listen to them first but I will definitely try to comment. I'm no expert, to be sure but yes, it's a worthwhile project. Looks like you're trying hard (along with others?) to get the project going again, props for that~! ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Favour

Hey Lar. I mistakenly started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Maeve O'Donovan without bothering to check for ghits. Improvements were made to the article such that I am now convinced that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an entry on Misplaced Pages and have withdrawn the nomination. I also removed it from the log page. Would you be kind enough to formally close the withdrawn AfD for me? Thanks in advance, and best wishes. --John (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. (the article itself is tagged... I so rarely close AfDs is there more I need to do? You yourself did the log removal...) I think you could have closed it yourself in this case but sure I was happy to... btw I think we may have a new customer for our very special admin coaching. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I will try to be more careful next time. I would love to work with you on coaching again, I learned a lot the last time and really enjoyed it. Just say the word. --John (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the user will be contacting you. For (their) privacy reasons I'll hold off saying who it is on wiki but if he or she does not fairly shortly, email me and I'll say who. And yes, I always enjoy coaching with you as well... it's just making the time that's problematic. Right now I'm trying (with a lot of help from Maralia, what a great editor!) get ss chris ready for FA. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I was a party. I don't appear on the list of involved parties at any rate. I predict this is going to end badly. ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No need for a crystal ball to know that. --Irpen 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested User:BryanFromPalatine sock abuse report

As requested by you. Thanks, Lar. Lawrence § t/e 18:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BryanFromPalatine

• BryanFromPalatine (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 209.221.240.193 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (RFCU Confirmed main IP of BryanFromPalatine)
• Neutral Good (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 76.209.226.118 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Neutral Good confirmed IP)
• Shibumi2 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Confirmed abusive sockpuppeteer, RFCU by Alison)
• PennState21 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Sock of Shibumi2)
• Harry Lives! (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Sock of Shibumi2)
• Samurai Commuter (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (Blocked by JzG, BryanFromPalatine sock)
• 68.29.174.61 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Shibumi2)
• 68.29.174.61 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.31.220.221 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.9.13.143 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 70.9.150.106 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: B - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

• Supporting evidence:

The sections below are broken down as straighforwardly as I could manage when detailing out all of this information for the RFAR, but some of it was added after the fact, as new connections and evidence were revealed. Note the references to hostipinfo, the website, below. Previously, BryanFromPalatine was an ultra-disruptive sockmaster that was dedicated to advocacy related to Free Republic, and then a whole laundry list of American Conservative political subjects, such as Peter Roskam and Rachel Marsden. He's played a role either directly or illicitly in several obnoxious RFARs and major messes for Misplaced Pages. As previously seen in various cases, he appears to have fairly wide access to a variety of IP ranges, but almost all of them are either in or directly adjacent to the small towns of Palatine, Elmhurst, and Hoffman Estates, in Illinois. All of these towns are within a 5-15 minute drive of each other, depending on whether you happen to look at Google Maps, Yahoo, Mapquest, or what have you. Trivial travel time. BryanFromPalatine, aka User:DeanHinnen, is openly 'from' Palatine, IL.

Here is where it gets interesting: based on the more detailed analysis below, virtually *all* of the IPs below are either from, or directly adjacent to, all of these towns in Illinois. Again, on the "worst kept secrets", if you Google around for Bryan or Dean Hinnen, "Bosch" (the owner of the 209.221.240.193 IP), you'll find a news site with a reprinted email from a Bryan Dean Hinnen emailing from a Bosch IP address. Specifically, 209.221.240.193. The insanely wide array of Sprint Wireless IP address (a forest of them on the talk histories of Free Republic and Waterboarding) seem to indicate that BryanFromPalatine has either a smart phone or laptop with an account on Sprint Wireless. If it's anything like my laptop, it takes all of ten seconds to disconnect and reconnect on wireless. If he has a dedicated wireless provider, its entirely possible that he gets a new dynamic IP each time. Some (mostly the people on the list of names/IPs above) have suggested that "anyone" in the world gets these IPs. However, that's shot down by the fact that only people who speak in a legal tone of voice, and all with the same exact interests, all happen to use Sprint Wireless, with the same narrow political focus and agendas.

I poked around on the Virgil Griffith Wikiscanner for these IP ranges, and couldn't find ANY evidence of wider usage that would indicate other users. So, the sock and abuse investigation here is based on equal parts IP technical info, and flagrant DUCKing of behavior, tone, and language. Please let me know how you need this broken down further or whatever else you may need. Note that a variety of the Sprint Wireless accounts, as well as Neutral Good, endless have fluffed and primped up Shimbumi2, to the point of giving him a now deleted RFA (detailed below). Shibumi2 was caught on that Goosecreek RFAR, and he mailed with Alison directly on that. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say that Alison alternately vindicated or exonerated Shibumi2 of any wrongdoing with legal language. Every time I've made these points, they have like clockwork. However, Alison pointed out expressly in the unblock and RFAR workpage that there was no exoneration. Please let me know what else you may need. For more technical evidence, I could gather more IPs from the talk pages, but take your pick, especially the Free Republic talk page history--it's all these same narrow Sprint Wireless ranges. Lawrence § t/e 18:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BryanFromPalatine sockpuppetry connection

Based on information from Black Kite's research in his opening statement. There is an extensive history of disruptive sockpuppetry related to conservative issues, and Free Republic happening here. User:BryanFromPalatine is still active on Misplaced Pages. Please review:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek

Consider:

• The 209 IP edits are being done from some location(s) controlled by this Bosch company in the Palatine/Elmhurst area. By editing "anonymously" this user can claim to be someone else, or multiple people, and then no one can realistically counter this without contacting Bosch.
• Neutral Good's declared IP is some other very close by location, in the immediate geographic area as BryanFromPalatine. Either BryanFromPalatine himself or a meatpuppet.
• The Bob Sprint Wireless IPs (which includes Shibumi2 and CU confirmed sockpuppets) are being done from some mobile device like a laptop or smart phone, by the same person, given the constant tone of voice, and intense focus on these conservative issues and Waterboarding. All from the same approximate geographic location.

Evidence that 209.221.240.193 is User:BryanFromPalatine

• BryanFromPalatine's Checkuser confirmed IP address of 209.221.240.193 is in South Bend, Indiana. That 209.221.240.193 user has stated that "all" global employees of Bosch Corporation use that as their "gateway" IP address. Bosch has offices in Elmhurst, Illinois. If you Google around for DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalatine, and this IP address, and Bosch, further evidence on a news site can be found, but that I will not link to here for privacy reasons, that apparently spawned off the previous Free Republic RFAR in news coverage. It clearly demonstrates the link between DeanHinnen, Bosch, Elmhurst, and this IP address.
• Note the editing history of User:208.250.137.2's talk page. Similar edits happened on other usernames here, here, and here. If 209.221.240.193 were not BryanFromPalatine, why go to the trouble of removing a false notice from some random IP or user pages that said that they belonged to BryanFromPalatine? 209.221.240.193 takes up a similar advocacy role as Bryan/Dean Hinnen did in regards to American conservative causes, and from looking seems to have a very similar voice to this "Dino".
• * Removing references to "User:DeanHinnen", a username registered in public, citing personal information.

Evidence that Neutral Good is BryanFromPalatine or his meatpuppet

• Neutral Good's IP (disclosed by himself willingly) is or was 76.209.226.118. This IP from using http://www.hostip.info doesn't appear to geolocate. The IP right before it though (last hop on a trace route) does happen to be 68.22.72.82, which geolocates to Elmhurst, IL, which is a 20 minute drive from Palatine, IL, where BryanFromPalatine operated from. Elmhurst as mentioned is where Bosch is, which has a demonstrated strong connection to BryanFromPalatine. Neutral Good takes up a similar advocacy role as Bryan/Dean Hinnen did in regards to American conservative causes, and from looking seems to have a very similar voice to this "Dino".

Evidence that the Cloud of Sprint called "Bob" and related accounts are BryanFromPalatine or his meatpuppets

• 68.29.174.61 was confirmed by Checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GooseCreek as being User:PennState21, User:Harry Lives!, and User:Shibumi2, who was began editing right after User:BryanFromPalatine was blocked. User:Shibumi2's contributions show an interest in Free Republic, BryanFromPalatine's main focus. 68.29.174.61 does not directly geolocate on hostip.info, but the IP right before it, 144.232.23.86, is from a nearby Sprint regional service it appears, located just over the Illinois border. Might be a coincidence, but the geographic closeness here is alarming. This contradicts claims that this IP address belonged to Pennsylvania State University, which is clear across the country. 68.29.174.61, 70.9.150.106, and 68.31.220.221, all detailed in Black Kite's opening statement and evidence, also come back to this Sprint geographical region. Bob takes up a similar advocacy role as Bryan/Dean Hinnen did in regards to American conservative causes, and from looking seems to have a very similar voice to this "Dino".

• Additional edits from the same "Bob" IP range can be found here on the Free Republic talk page, all from the same IPs, all going to back to the same location as "Bob" when checked on hostip.info and the hop before. Even more interesting: Bob on the Free Republic page is praising User:Shibumi2 with the same glowing tone and wording as User:Neutral Good, such as he used in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Shibumi2, now deleted. Admins can review it. I suspect that User:Shibumi2 is a proverbial "ripened sock" of BryanFromPalatine.

• There are more scattered throughout on the Free Republic talk history, all randomly changing Sprint Wirless IP ranges from the same geographic region, all "Bob's"/"BryanFromPalatine's" voice. The same legal tone of voice as BryanFromPalatine, and the same aims. He never left Misplaced Pages.

• At some point, the number of bald "coincidences" here passes by coincidence into fact. How is it so many random users, with similar political stances as BryanFromPalatine, similar legal tone of voice, and all from the same geographic region (if not the same neighborhood and corporate IPs) all arrive nearly at once to build up each other on both Free Republic and Waterboarding?

• Template:Ipcheck another. Doesn't sign as Bob, same IP range and location and ISP. If this wasn't the same person, why do ONLY Sprint Wireless IPs from this area contribute? Wouldn't we see IP editors from all over the place, country, and from different ISPs. Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that Samurai Commuter is BryanFromPalatine

• Note the Unblock request on this version of his talk page, where he says he is editing from 70.9.11.188. That is another Sprint Wireless IP address that traces back to the same geographical region as all the rest here, using the same methodology. It's even in the same subnet as one of the ones listed above. Samurai Commuter's sole contributions are Free Republic edits, and attacking Misplaced Pages editor User:Eschoir, in line with BFP actions of the past. Lawrence Cohen 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that The Friendly Ghost (talk · contribs) is BFP

• Blocked by David Gerard as BFP; first edit was to User:BryanFromPalatine. Checkusering this name may be helpful to work this all out. Lawrence Cohen 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Additional proof that Shibumi2 is tied in as Bryan Hinnen: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/The_Friendly_Ghost Note his contributions to the Japanese naval article. Lawrence Cohen 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More evidence they're all BFP

• here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. Lawrence Cohen 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Samurai Commuter is very worked up about WP:SELFPUB allowing for using forum posts on Free Republic as sources (note the talk page there). The 209 editor, suddenly and inexplicably, is pushing similar things on Talk:Rachel Marsden#WP:SELFPUB. Why is this user who is "not" BryanFromPalatine or Samurai Communter suddenly pushing the same thing to allow inclusion of a right-wing Conservative pundits' columns in this article? Lawrence § t/e 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats it

Let me know what else you need. Lawrence § t/e 18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he needs the truth instead. Neutral Good (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen is lying

Samurai Commuter wasn't banned as a sockpuppet. He was banned as a disruptive SPA. Lawrence Cohen lied about him when he claimed that Samurai Commuter was banned as a sockpuppet. That's just one of the many lies and distortions that Lawrence Cohen has posted here. Lar, please look at the evidence I posted on the Waterboarding RFAR Evidence page. I revealed two more of his distortions there. This is indicative of Lawrence's efforts here: lies and distortions. Neutral Good (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that Justin88 (talk · contribs) is BFP

• User:jpgordon said so. He went away when challenged, but Shibumi2 started channelling his Free Republic posts 9 months later. Noted in the interests of completenessEschoir (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr Who1975

I received the following message from Dr Who1975:

(start quote)

Bad Faith

I just noticed this request to Markles page from Jan 3 where you ask him to block me to teach me a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? I realize we have disagreements and sometimes I get annoyed with your heavy handed techniques (as I'm sure you get annoyed with mine). But I always assume good faith when dealing with you. I would never do this kind of crap to you in a million years. I'd ask for an apology but what's the point.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(end quote)

Dr Who1975 has a history of making revisions to articles without regard to consensus. What do you think? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to look more closely at the matter but I don't think we ever should be wanting to block someone to "teach him a lesson". That's just a very unfortunate phrasing at best, and very problematic if it's what you really meant. If Dr who1975 is making revisions to articles without consensus, there are ways of content dispute resolution I'd try first. Raise the matter on the talk page after reverting back, perhaps, and seek consensus from other article editors. Ask D to raise the matter on talk himself first, next time. A block, unless there have been serious attempts for working this out first which failed, is probably over the top. That's my view without looking into matters closely. Does that help or do you need more? (note, next time instead of copying the text you can just give a link to a diff.) ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not done anything against wikipedia rules. Steelbeard made an inapropriate suggestion and I called him on it. This message from steelbeard to you is another example of him trying to "teach me a lesson" It is true that, in some cases I have butted heads with some people. I refute your claim that it is always the consensus that I'm bucking. In the two most recent cases of this (and I bet all of them actually), it stsrted with a disagreement between only me and steelbeard. When confronted with a large amount of disagreement I have always backed off and gathered concensus. Steelbeard refuses to deal wuth me as a human being and instead runs to others instead of talking to me. I am actually quite reasonable and, unlike Steelbeard, perfectly willing to admit when I was wrong. I also advise both you and Steelbeard to read WP:BOLD. Steelbeard could've been a mature adult about our disgreements but he chose instead to in apropriatly ask an admin to "teach me a lesson".--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First, please consider using preview. 7 edits for one message might be a bit much. Second while you may be within the letter of WP rules, I stand by my comments that you could be more collegial in your interactions with others. "What the fuck is wrong with you?" is not collegial, no matter how much you may have been provoked. This response isn't helping you in terms of my impression of you. I have counseled Steelbeard as I see appropriate and I am counseling you as I see appropriate as well. You may do with that counsel as you like, but I think advising me to read WP:BOLD somewhat misses the point. I think you'll find I'm not a brand new admin if you do some research. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My cursing was in direct respons to Steelbeard's inapropriate suggestion.. ask yourself this... How would you feel if someone did that to you? I don;t intend to surse at him again.

Also, you said you can tell from some of my "article discussion" pages that I'm ignoring concensus... that doesn't make any sense... if I wasn't trying to discuss issues out why would I post to an article talkpage at all? Do you expect wikipedia to be a place without any disagreement. I have read your comments and will continue to think on them, I understand your concern but I promise you that I'm not a troublemaker. Steelbeard is making content disputes personal. As long as he refrains from keeping it personal in the future then we can focus on content. I'm not planning on making a further issue out of this subject. It will only continue if Steelbeard continues with it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)