User talk:Lar/Archive 43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 42 |
Archive 43
| Archive 44

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.

This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 June 2008 through about 1 July 2008. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives
My 2011 archived talk
Archive 74 1 January 2011 through 1 February 2011
Archive 75 1 February 2011 through 1 March 2011
Archive 76 1 March 2011 through 1 April 2011
Archive 77 1 April 2011 through 1 May 2011
Archive 78 1 May 2011 through 1 June 2011
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date

I suspect that the editor "Axiomatica" may be Amorrow[edit]

Hello –

I've seen you raise concerns about banned User:Amorrow and I'm contacting you because I suspect that an editor that I've been having a serious dispute with over the last 6 months may be Amorrow. The editor in question is User:Axiomatica and the dispute is over the article Melissa Farley. The talk page of the article and the archives detail what has been going on.

So what has me so strongly suspecting that "Axiomatica" is possibly Amorrow? Several things – in several cases, "Axiomatica" has accidentally posted as an IP user, before logging in and re-signing his/her comments under the name Axiomatica or otherwise mentioning that the comments by that IP user were from Axiomatica. This has allowed me to compile a list of IP addresses associated with Axiomatica:

<several IPs redacted> ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When I began searching for similar IPs that have edited articles on like topics, I quickly came across a number that were associated with Amorow. This list of IPs associated with "Pinktulip", another one of Amorrow's names, shows a number of IPs similar to the above: [1]

What really has me convinced that it may be him is the above in combination with the fact that the Melissa Farley article was first added to Wikipedia by User:OlympiaDiego, who happens to be another sock puppet of Amorrow.

At first it seems unusual that Axiomatica, who is basically pushing the POV of a feminist writer, may be Amorrow, considering Amorrow's anti-woman history on Wikipedia. However, Amorrow has in several places spoken of an admiration of radical feminist writers like Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Nikki Craft, and Melissa Farley ([2] [3]), and I believe has inserted himself into controversies around User:Nikkicraft on a number of occasions. This is telling, because the first time there was an argument over article content, it involved Nikkicraft, and its very telling that "Axiomatica" popped up some months later making basically the same complaints that Nikkicraft did.

Several other things fit the pattern – Amorrow and Axiomatica's fixation on the biographies of living women and the extremely abusive manner in which both conduct themselves toward other editors they target.

Anyway, if its not too much to ask, I'd like you to take a look at Talk:Melissa Farley and User_talk:Axiomatica and see if you get the impression that this is Amorrow. If so, steps should be taken to block the Axiomatica account, plus the above IP addresses. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I dug in somewhat, and I sense there may be more here than you are telling me, was there an arbitration case involving you and this user at some point? Can you give me additional background? ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there was an arbitration case between the two of us, and several attempts at mediation as well (not completed because Axiomatica simply walked away from the process). At the time of these cases, I was not aware of the possibility that this user might be a sock puppet of an earlier banned user, and if that is the case, that changes a lot of things about this editor's claims. In spite of this editor's often abusive behavior, I have been willing to try and attempt normal dispute resolution is this is just simply somebody who has come to Wikipedia over a genuine concern on their part. However, if it turns out that Axiomatica is simply Amorrow reappearing to continue abusive behavior, I see no reason to pursue dispute resolution at all. (Axiomatica has not been active for several weeks, but may be active in the future, as it is this editor's pattern to disappear for weeks or months at a time and return.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
On further investigation and review, I think it is unlikely this user is Amorrow. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. I'll continue to pursue the dispute resolution course I was pursuing. Thanks for looking into it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries. Please do continue to try to work this matter out and best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Croton Dam[edit]

If you have time, and can start gathering sources for Croton Dam (Michigan) to put on User talk:Rootology/Sandbox 4, I was going to work on it after this. :) rootology (T) 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly well sourced already, I did a lot of searching at the time it was up for GA. I think mostly what it needs is a different pair of eyes to copyedit and tighten it up... but what else do you think it needs? ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I was thinking of maybe it could be expanded, too, but I'll dig into it this week. :) rootology (T) 05:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh it absolutely could be expanded... I just don't think there are very many online sources I am not already aware of (not already in the article). One direction to go in perhaps, is more on the significance of the dam to electric generation/transmission technology and to the Foote's efforts to build a big company. I actually think some of the latter belongs in the Consumers Energy article, which is rather thin on history, or was last I checked. Or even in an article on the Foote brothers.... ++Lar: t/c 11:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: recusal request[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:Ncmvocalist per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Refactored back, since Ncmvocalist "binned" it with the edit summmary "Recusal request.: moving along; binned waste of time, effort and space". I tend not to archive things quite so vigorously, so I'm preserving the conversation here. The diff just before the one given above will show the original.

Original convo[edit]

Regarding this removal [4] I think you may have done matters a disservice. Arbitrators have in the past said they would be out, inactive, whatever, and then returned and participated, as is their perogative. I think the request for recusal is perfectly valid, especially given some of the diffs and talk page messages that were presented... and you should not have used terms like "move along". Way too snippy, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) Look at the diff more carefully, particularly, all of the comments I have made rather than my first alone. You'd observe I lost my patience at first, and I made a "suggestion" it can be removed "for now", particularly given FloNight is unavailable (it was thoughtless to make a request while she is for quite some time!) If FloNight possibly returns before the case is closed, and/or possibly shows an indication of voting, the request can be made again - but I seriously doubt that will be necessary here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I think the request is justified. Arbs sometimes come back quite abruptly, at the very end of the case. The request should be left in the record so she is aware of it, and I have encouraged Cla to undo his strike and delete. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It was not a matter of being justified or unjustified - actually, scratch that - there's no point trying to explain to someone who refuses to get the point. Little wonder these pages turn into such a mess. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"refuses to get the point" Eh? That's snippy too, I think. But no matter. Let me try to state your point to see if I get it. You think the request is not needed because the arbitrator that it is made to has marked themself as inactive, and that it only should be made if and when that arbitrator returns. Is that correct? If not, how so? I think I absolutely get your point. I just don't agree with it. My counter is that because arbitrators come back, sometimes late, it's not a bad thing to get into the record, in case this one comes back with insufficient time for the request to be made again. Better that a superfluous request be made needlessly then that a request that should have been made is missed because of tight timelines at the very end of the case. ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If a party wants an assurance that an arbitrator will not vote on a case, that's fine - but making a request for an arbitrator when she's clearly stated she will be unavailable for an extended period of time is unnecessary and causing the page to clog up with an unnecessary mess of more responses (which you clearly wanted to contribute to). As you should know (as it has been indicated even in a message you left for one of the arbitrators on their talk page), there is no intention whatsoever for this case to be rushed or quickly decided in tight timelines - rather the opposite. Given this fact, and given that arbitrators still respond to questions even before the case is formally closed, your claim that there is insufficient time to make a request again is not valid. There is also no obligation to formally say "I recuse" - they just shouldn't vote, and there's no indication whatsoever that she has an intention of voting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A case can close (and some have in the past closed, IIRC) within 25 hours after it looked like there was no motion in it and it might stagnate for quite a while. People have lives and could miss that... I think the question is valid. I think the community is justified in raising the issue. I think there is a significant issue there to be concerned about. You may not agree, which is fine. But I'd rather not see the matter not presented. I think we should at this point agree to disagree, I think we both understand the other's position but don't find the arguments compelling. Best wishes in any case. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, "I think we should at this point agree to disagree, I think we both understand the other's position but don't find the arguments compelling. Best wishes in any case." Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

after "binning" follow up[edit]


[5] ... It is never a waste to try to understand the issues or reach an agreement on them, even if the agreement is to disagree. Your edit summary was "a waste of time, effort, and space" although the discussion wasn't. You need to work on your collegiality. Good day to you, sir. ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it not always (if at all) "a waste to try to understand the issues or reach an agreement on them, even if the agreement is to disagree." But it can, in my view, be a waste when one has clearly missed the point but insists he gets it. In such circumstances, there are 2 alternatives; to continue trying to make the other understand, or to stop and let the other believe what he wishes. I opted (and opt) for the latter given the lack of progress and the level of importance I personally put on this particular discussion. And as a hint, modifying your approach to be less of an annoyance might be more beneficial in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA - indented and then unindented vote[edit]

[6] This is further to your comment here. If you believe you have identified the principal account, I urge you to consider notifying that editor of this policy. I am somewhat flabbergasted that someone feels the need to use a sock to vote in an RfA - what are we coming to? Risker (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reindented by WJBscribe. Daniel (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have mailed the user about this, as was suggested to me offline. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)[edit]

The May 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) 01:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you remember the old discussion[edit]

Lar, maybe you have a recollection of the old discussion somewhere in the Wikipedia project-space I cannot find. It could have been ANI but I can't tell now for sure. This is in connection with the conversation I am currently having with Keeper76 in the bottom thread of my talk.

There was something I said about creating the most comfortable environment for the content writers being the foremost task of admins. Sure enough, this very blasphemous idea of myself prompted a lot of ridicule from... non-writing admins and some even inquired whether I meant also foot massages or such other stuff. If I remember correctly, you were part of this discussion but I don't remember what was your position anyway. In any case, what I am looking for is the discussion itself since someone asked. Can you help me find it? If not, no biggy.

Thanks, --Irpen 16:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That piqued my interest enough to go search. here I think, is what you were referring to. The MW search has gotten a lot better recently, I found it with this search: [7] Hope that helps.
Note: I'm not sure I completely agree with everything I said in that discussion any more. Subsequent events lead me to think the real situation is a bit more nuanced. (Free foot massages? maybe not. Freedom from fear of intimidation? yes.) Consider, for example the current Cla68 case... ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding it. I honestly did not remember what position you took back then. I simply remembered that you were part of that conversation but not what points you argued. I am glad you reconsidered your position. From more recent events, I knew that anyway. Actually, the editor who formulated this being the main task of admins was not me. I stole this idea from Alex Bakharev who described this way how he sees his duty wrt to user:Halibutt, quite an opinionated but very prolific and, IMO, honest editor who frequently clashed with others, including Alex' friends. I had my own share of conflicts with Hali as well. Anyway, freedom from intimidation is not the only thing the content editors are entitled to here, but certainly not free drinks and foot massages, you and I agree on that. Regards, --Irpen 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No worries, glad to have found it. Alex says some pretty profound things sometimes. And if you learn of a project that does come with free drinks and foot massages, please let me know, will you? My feet will thank you. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No foot massages? Sheesh, clearly I am in the wrong project. Risker (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure, but those making it to the Board of Trustees may actually get expense accounts. So, there is a way to get it all and stay in this project. Just a suggestion. --Irpen 22:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
And here the election just started. Guess I missed my chance, drat. So we should choose our board candidates based on who we most think deserves foot massages? Just want to be clear that's what you're saying... because I heard somewhere that massages, or rumors of them anyway, got some board member or another into some sort of trouble. The details are very hazy. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess as long as I don't have to give any foot massages, I'm not in any worse position than I was a month ago. I think I'll skip that whole expense account thing, though. Someone might actually expect me to do something then. Risker (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I believe you. You seem to have turned up here at my talk rather unexpectedly, Risker. Perhaps rumors of such things draw you? ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Much simpler explanation...I keep forgetting to clear my watchlist, and there was this really fascinating edit summary.... Risker (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Suuure it was. That's what they all say. Really, don't you have some articles to write? Vandals to block? or something? Shoo. ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
On the question above, that kind of "trouble" some board member got into due to massages was all bullshit, if you ask me. And I was not alone thinking that way ("no story" post by someone with more fame than myself said it all.) I would prefer that the board members are both trusted and able to decide what they need for themselves to serve the foundation in a better way and if a massage or a laptop with a German keyboard helps them being more effective in the next fund raiser, I say go for it. This sort of expense would benefit the project in a much greater way than a donation to Freenode. I can see that the board member massage for the donation of schoolgirl's launch money does not look good but this is only because schoolchildren should have no business donating money to the foundation of the WMF statue and these solicitations on the top of the mainpage are very outdated. Personally, I stopped donating directly ever since I learned of the freenode transfer. But corporate money is a very soft cushion. Massage or a fancy bottle of Collector's wine, be their guest for what I care. --Irpen 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You would have to go back to being serious. :) Your points (about relative seriousness) are well taken. I think US media make more of this sort of thing than European ones do, perhaps. But it's important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And that's as far as I want to go in seriously commenting. I avoided it during the outbreaks for the most part and would like to continue. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of "appearance of impropriety", the Freenode transfer "appears" much more improper to many of us with the stake in the project unlike the side observers. But, getting back to an only ha-ha serious tone, the massage parlors in Moscow are just what they are elsewhere. You do go there for massages and there is nothing about their being in Moscow that makes them more susceptible to fronting for different kinds of institutions. Sure, there are those parlors there too. Just the same way as there are in Berlin or London. But the massage stuff seemed to have been made look such that the board member went to that kind of a parlor (not that I care.) Anyway, most importantly, we seem to all agree that creating a comfortable editing environment should be everyone's first priority. I will try to do some editing now, and enjoy that comfort. --Irpen 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The argument advanced,IIRC re IRC, was that the projects use the facilities Freenode provides rather extensively and that the dollar amount was a standin for the utility received. (I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and hazard a guess that you think the net value is negative rather than positive :) ) But even if it was positive, it's not necessarily on-mission to transfer donations that way, I think those questioning it had a legitimate concern... Better if Freenode just put something in the banners or whatever pointing out they could use some cash and let the IRC users donate directly, perhaps. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up - Message at Commons[edit]

Hi Lar, just a heads-up that I've left a message for you over at your commons talk page. Cheers, TalkIslander 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have mail notification turned on there, so I got notified via email. I will look into the matter. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy first edit day![edit]

Nuvola apps cookie.png Happy First Edit Day, Lar/Archive 43, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

-- RyRy5 (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day[edit]

Nuvola apps cookie.svg Happy First Edit Day, Lar, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~~~~

Idontknow610TM 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser activity[edit]

Would you be able to comment at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Activity levels of individual Checkusers? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have commented there. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons request[edit]

Aloha, Lar. I had a quick request for Commons. Would you mind creating my account for me? I tried to register, but got the dreaded error message: Login error:The name "Ali'i" is very similar to the existing account "Ali 1" (contributions • logs • user creation entry). Please choose another name, or [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard|request an administrator]] to create this account for you. (which by the way has a couple of formatting/linking errors). You can email me using the email this user function with a password or whatever (or do you need my email address to create the account?). Either way, please let me know. Mahalo, Larry. --Ali'i 14:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and there's no real rush, and you can answer here... I'll keep an eye out. --Ali'i 14:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Created, sent password via email. Advise of concerns or issues. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Everything is the bees' knees now. Thanks for the note about unified login too. --Ali'i 14:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
NP. ++Lar: t/c 14:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[8] rootology (T) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans, thanks! So ... think it's anywhere near FA yet? I need to write Hardy and Rogers soon, I suppose... I have the pics for them. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well... I think its a bit short? I'm not exactly an expert (yet ;) ). I just crammed as much good info as I could into my FAC and then started hammering it into what seemed best. I was reading Giano's essay and looking at all the recent FAs. I think someone'll complain about swaths of unsourced text, but I'll see what I can do. Most of the recent ones seem to be cited on each sentence. It may take a while, but I'm game to help take it all the way. rootology (T) 03:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert either. My only one so far is SS Christopher Columbus ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

J. A. Comment[edit]

You have worked on this case case and because we are having problems from similar IP addresses and similar style of editing can you please look Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment. Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. It may not be right away, feel free to nudge me in a couple of days if I haven't gotten to it. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
2 articles under attack has been protected until 25 June so it will be OK --Rjecina (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like Thatcher handled this, did you need anything more from me at this point? ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am mistaking but because of his demand: "Merge with Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff" in my thinking he has not looked for connection between this user and Velebit (I do not believe that he is having old Velebit data). Can you please look for that ?
In the end I will ask for block on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets because of WP:DUCK rule. We are having editor which is using Verizon IP [9] like user Velebit (edits from IP), which is writing article of user Velebit and which is writing on talk pages like user Velebit, but it is much easier to block him with checkuser find --Rjecina (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I've contacted Thatcher. ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input.[edit]

I have asked Neil not to discuss me personally on Wikipedia Review. I don't think this request is out of line - I find that wikipedians I respect engaging in an examination of my character at that site is very difficult for me to deal with directly - it makes it extremely difficult or me to continue to operate in a calm and reasonable matter. What are your thoughts? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WR should be used as a substitute for calm and reasoned dialog, warnings, dispute resolution, etc. here. That's what I think. It may not be a universally held view. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...[edit]

:) Rudget (logs) 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why thanks! I don't mind at all. Very thoughtful. I keep forgetting to keep that page sorted. (it's all over the map as far as commons and meta go ;) ) ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious?[edit]

and Mussolini made the trains run on time •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Was there something substantive you wanted to say? I'm always serious, except when I'm joshing around with my friends. This is no joking matter. I think it is possible that Moulton did not know what he was doing. It's also possible he did. What I see here is a rush to judgement, almost gleeful. That's not funny at all. The question really is, are YOU serious? ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible he didn't know what he did? WP:AGF does not mean to assume that the impossible is possible for the sake of giving a misenpedian ten thousand benefits of misguided doubts. •Jim62sch•dissera! 21:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that he did not know what he did. I'm not well acquainted with "misenpedian". Nor is Google. What does it mean? As I've counseled you before, you would be well served not to be so obscure that your meaning isn't plain. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is your example of Jim62sch being offensive? Oh brother...--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the edit summaries. Consider what " and Mussolini made the trains run on time" is trying to say... Further, I find starting a thread out "are you serious?" to be rather non collegial, rather lacking in the assumption of good faith, in fact rather presumptive and abrasive. Taken as a whole I find it to be seriously deficient in approach. Whether you find it offensive or not, I could not say... you may well find it perfectly acceptable, since you use terms like "oh brother" and worse with hardly a blink of an eye when you are apparently disparaging others. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. I think a comparison would be quite telling.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Pot, meet kettle." ?? I think you're confused. But as far a comparision being telling? It might at that. Like I said, our standards differ. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe at some point I will try that exercise. But only with a goal in mind. I hope it does not come to that.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope so as well. I'd note that there has already been effort to resolve issues around your behavior which you might want to take some cognizance of before you get too concerned about others. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight. I am well known as a terrible ogre. And never apologize. And never care if I offend anyone. Yep. Awful jerk. --Filll (talk | wpc) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're that bad, and certainly not irredeemable, don't be so hard on yourself. We are none of us perfect after all. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"But ArbCom has made this remedy. We must try our best to make it work."[edit]


It's a historic day! We disagree!! ^_^

My take on this would be "ArbCom has made this remedy. We individually are under no obligation to listen to it, if we think it stinks. While we're morally obligated to talk about it, Gandhi-esque protest is emminantly reasonable."

The ArbCom can tell us what to, it cannot make us.

I am now officially nominating you for the next ArbCom spot, they ha' lost thier way. I'm nominating myself to, as soon as I think more about what a functional Commitee would look like...

brenneman 23:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Long live administrator nullification! Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, this must be bigger than I thought to get your attention, Mackensen. Hmmm. Risker (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Party on my talk page! Let me get some snacks.
  • Brenny: You are right, no one can be forced to enforce this. I gave a rather thorough analysis of why it is likely it would be enforced though... it would take tumultuous upheaval for it not to be. But while you can choose not to help, you can't choose to hinder it, for that way lies losing your bit. That's the mechanical part. As for the "we must try our best to make it work"... what I mean there is that we shouldn't just kvetch. We should try to, within what we've been given, make it work, even if we don't necessarily agree. That's what we signed up for, after all. As for history... we've disagreed before. Finally, you better not nom me for arbcom...
  • Mack: Where'd I put my FIJA pin? ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Risker: Mack just supported my nominee :)... he's lurking effectively I'd say :) ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Well, I can sleep on it for a night or two. Or pretend I didn't see it. Or something. Maybe Mack is turning into an agent provocateur, he !voted for me too... Risker (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Risker - that notice at the top of my watchlist is tough to ignore, but I don't know enough to go beyond irreverent quips ;). Seriously though, I gave it a scan and it didn't seem like a big deal, post-BDJ. BLP enforcement is certainly trending in that direction.
  • Lar - aye, and I'd just read On Bullshit, which got me in a fighting mood. Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dangerously for me, I may actually make a substantive comment here. If I'm reading Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement properly, it's the logical progression of BLP enforcement, starting with the Siegenthaler business and continuing on through the various wheel-war cases and BDJ. We can boil it down to a few points:

  • BLPs are a special category of articles to which we apply the very highest editorial standards
  • Administrators are granted the extreme benefit of the doubt in enforcing these standards

This has been the case previously methinks, but the sword of Damocles never looked quite so sharp. I'm not familiar with the specifies of the current Arbitration case which provoked the ruling (nor, that matter, for any other recent case), so I can't comment on whether justification for it exists in the case, but the outcome doesn't strike me as all that revolutionary. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why "dangerously"? :) Yes, I agree. I too think this is further evolution of something that has been around for a while. Oddly, that's the point Ant/Tony is making as well... ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a segment of the community which has never accepted the outcome of BDJ, and for that matter never grasped (or chose to ignore) the implications of the BLP policy. BLP is nothing without special enforcement provisions. That being said I'm sure there will be the usual jeremiads against the "Arbitrary Committee," or whatever the term of abuse is these days. Love to see the peanut gallery shoulder that kind of responsibility.Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The majority of the remedy causes me no concern,nor did the BDJ decision. Blocks, page protections, revision and deletion are all standard equipment in the admin toolbox, and I am all in favour of using them. You might remember that I was recently being (gently) hammered for being too deletionist :-). What worries me is the idea that one administrator can impose a sanction, even if the edits involved were accurate, referenced and made in good faith, and the editor involved has to somehow motivate either Arbcom or the community to come to his or her defense in large enough numbers to gain "consensus". It's easy to forget that about 80% of our editors never go near the administrative end of the encyclopedia, and have no idea how to conduct themselves there; they are more likely to just fold up their tents. I am worried that the editors who've been willing to work on contentious BLPs will show up at articles and see editing restrictions like this, and then be treated like this when they comment on the article and/or the restrictions. We cannot afford to alienate the writers this way, and it is already happening. There is no reason why sanctions on an individual editor can't be discussed within the community before they are imposed; if the problem is severe, then keep them blocked while the discussion goes on, but have the community input upfront rather than having to come afterward. That gives the transparency needed, and the sanity/power check to the admin involved. Problem admins will be identified more quickly, before they drive good editors from the project. Giving this degree of power to individual admins...well, even before they had that power, there have been plenty of admins scaring people away from BLPs and other pages. And I bet you know their names as well as I do. Risker (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This should be circulated among the Committee - and kept well away from the BLP discussion pages - as a very accurate depiction of the likely pitfalls for both non-aligned (and I do not need to spell out where the lines are drawn) admins and unwary editors. I like to think of myself as fairly robust in the handling of my sysop bit, but I have never felt the desire to involve myself in the bearpit that is BLP. With the apparent autonomy and increased individual perception of what may be a violation and how to handle it that appears to be now sanctioned there is even less chance that I am going to involve myself in such matters. I haven't followed the discussion too closely, and I certainly am unaware of any increased checks and balances to go with the increased permissions of sysop tool use. I hope that I have missed them, but fear that there were none to be missed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
(Mackensen) Can I nominate you for un-resigned-ship while I'm handing them out? If we'd had those two succinct points as a finding, we'd be apples. Instead we've been handed down a by any means necessary style edict, which is badly out of touch with the actual state of affairs.
(Risker) You've got the bit now? Woe is me! ;)
(General) Looking at the revision history of the BLP noticeboard is good start at understanding the problem: Only two arbs have edited it since 7 April, and one of those was just placing a notice. Bunfights over what is and isn't a BLP issue are commonplace across wikipedia, and complying with "the letter and spirit" appears more theory than practice to those who are imposing this.
In short, this solution does very little to solve the actual problem and goes a long ways towards creating or entrenching other problems. To list a few:
  • It's concerning that the Committee chose to forge this in a backwater decision,
  • It's concerning that the Committee chose to push forward when there was ongoing discussion on the talk page,
  • It's concerning that the enforcement/log page was created before the case was closed, and
  • It's concerning that I've received feedback that (some) stewards are acting as rubber-stamps.
To ask a leading question: What was the emergancy that these changes had to be pushed through by ArbCom as opposed to having them discussed in the normal way?
brenneman 02:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Running late so, more later... but briefly, which stewards are acting as rubber stamps? Stewards are not to decide matters for themselves, yes. But when a duly constituted arbcom (or representative thereof) asks a steward to do something, that's legitimate... it is one of the ways (the other being a clear consensus in the community) to identify an action that a steward "should" (is approved to) carry out. If a steward chooses to honor the request, that steward is hardly rubber stamping anything (as I said before, a particular steward may "take a pass" and leave it for someone else to do, but should not ever act in contravention/opposition to the request)... Or am I missing what you are talking about? ++Lar: t/c 11:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdenting here; I think we can all follow the flow well enough. Risker rightly brings up the perennial issue: not all administrators are sane (for given values of sane), and we don't have a good low-level review mechanism. RFC is ineffectual and Arbcom is ponderous. Moreover, I think we can all agree (at least, in the relative quietude of Lar's talk page) that the tremendous community attention which gets focused on these processes does not aid the overall cause of justice. Any administrator haled before Arbcom can attest that; I've presided over several such blood-lettings. Maybe a rotating panel of administrators to review a situation, with the power to ask an administrator to dis-engage or something. Mackensen (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nod. There are, to me, two different areas where something special (beyond what we have now) might be needed... the content related questions along the lines of what is the correct application of the BLP policy in this case, what needs to go, what stays, what needs rebalancing, should the article live at all? and the like, and the procedural related ones along the lines of was this administrator correct in this action? could it have been done differently? should it have been? and the like. ArbCom has already introduced (in the Homey case) the notion of a special master board to deal with content related questions. FT2 and others and I were talking in IRC two evenings ago and perhaps for the first class of matters, if there is not a clear consensus, or if consensus apparently got to the wrong answer and an appeal is launched, that there be a binding arbitration mechanism to sort the content question... You're proposing something similar for procedure. It all makes sense when you put it this way but we also have to watch out for expanding powers, new satrapys, fiefdoms, and the like if we construct things like this. ++Lar: t/c 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's a choice: I think these fiefdoms will develop regardless, the question is whether we create our own, resting on policy with oversight and control mechanisms, or we accommodate ourselves to whatever groups come out on top. Having spent plenty of time dealing with administration by clique, I would favor a formal mechanism. Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
We already have fiefdoms, we already have chilling effect from admins who OWN articles, admins skilled at using BLP to bludgeon their POV in, and so forth (see some current arbcom cases if you don't believe it, although I am sure I don't need to remind you). If this new thing breaks the power of those fiefdoms, which operate via clique power, and replaces them with things more like the "rule of law" (yes yes, I know, we're not a legal system, 'tis an analogy), that will be goodness. If this new things entrenches those fiefdoms further (because they figure out how to play the game faster and better than those who want good government) that will be badness. How it comes out is up in the air. But if those of good character wash their hands of this because they are convinced it cannot work, then those not of good character will win. Hence my belief that we MUST try to make this work. Or else let it be subverted, because it surely will be. One cannot leave a tool this powerful lying around, or it will be siezed. That's a harsh black/white assessment. The truth is grayer of course. But I am reminded of what happened in Russia in the early nineties. The forms of government were subverted by oligarchs. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
But the feeling is that this action is the action in support of one of the fiefdoms: the one which will call the BLP Maximalists. Perhaps it's more of an attempted fiefdom than a fiefdom, as many of the Maximalist proposals have been defeated by the community--this seems like an attempt to reverse via arbcom what it failed to attain in an open discussion. The arbcom decision means reversing the position of the community, by titling the playingfield towards removal of material any administration finds objectionable, by increasing the barriers to overturning that decision--requiring in effect a super-consensus of administrators. DGG (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

<- two quickies in this illustrious company - firstly, you may be interested to hear a few wikipedians chat about this, amongst other topics over at 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' this week. Secondly - I noticed you mention that you and FT2 and few others were chatting on IRC about related issues.... I wonder if you guys would consider public logging next time maybe? - I think openness and the chance to see what currents are flowing around the place could go a long way. Your 'buy two get one free' extra thought which you didn't ask for, and are getting regardless is that this is a bad idea. I believe injecting more 'power' into this system (wiki culture, I guess) at this stage will have unintended consequences which could well be fairly extreme. I share your hope that they'll be extremely good, but I'm not so sure... I the the net result will be harmful destabalisation. Now, immediate semi-protection for all BLPs and an optout for non public figures..... that would be a good thing! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask FT2 about logs, he was the inviter. He was seeking feedback on a draft that was not publicly ready, so making the log public may not be necessarily desirable. But I have no objections. On 2+1, I really hope you're wrong. You may not be. But I think we need to try this. you and I both know there is a BLP problem. ++Lar: t/c 11:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that some people take the internets too seriously, that is why there is this perceived problem. Here are some ideas on how to deal with BLP and the nonsense that sometimes accompanies it:
  1. WP:PANIC needs to be cited more, because it seems every time there is an article found with BLP issues, everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Wikipedia is a good resource, but people need to get some perspective. Inaccuracies in wikis are not equivalent to inaccuracies in print publishing. It doesn't matter how much googlejuice we get, it can be fixed easily. I'm tempted to start using lolcat templates in some of these discussion, because the end-of-the-world hysterics surrounding it are out of control. It only serves to feed the trolls and critics to elevate the seriousness beyond actual reality.
  2. While I respect PM, I think WP:BOO is a patent violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The more we entertain requests for special treatment from subjects of biographies, the more we will slip away from WP:NPOV. I think it is better if we ask people who object to their biography to provide their side of the story. What we need not do is delete it because they don't like it. Perhaps we can amend WP:OR and/or WP:V to allow for this?
  3. We need to stop letting OTRS force us to bend over backwards to please everyone, because that will never happen no matter what we do. Somebody needs to draw a line in the sand and basically tell frivolous OTRS complainants politely to get lost (like that idiot who wanted his role in a movie removed from his biography). If that means setting up a legal fund to defend our right to publish accurate, verifiable information, I'm ready to open my checkbook.
  4. WP:BLP has become a coat-rack for all sorts of goody-goody nonsense by people who wring their hands too much. Why do people forget that it isn't our job to be taking sides in biographical subjects' lives? We're supposed to be the impartial observer, like a camera man who films a fox catching and devouring a mouse. It's rather childish to say otherwise. Ironically enough, the essay WP:HARM is doing more harm than good, not to mention is in direct contravention of WP:NPOV since it core principles amount to establishment of a Sympathetic Point Of View (SPOV). If people want SPOV, Fred Bauder's wikinfo is ready and waiting for your contributions. I say this this because those two POVs are, at their very basic core, mutually exclusive. If we are going to stand for WP:NPOV, then we should stand for it. But let's cut out the slow undermining of it by people who don't understand or don't like it. If people want to change to SPOV, I imagine that will take an awful lot of community and foundation consensus.
  5. We could probably drastically reduce the hysterics surrounding WP:BLP by assimilating the core, vital portions of WP:BLP into the existing WP:FIVE policies so that WP:BLP could become a disambiguation page. By doing this, we can end the unhelpful paranoia that Doc Glasgow and others helped to perpetuate by continuing to overstate the actual seriousness of the problem. It would take the blinders off some and allow people to see the bigger picture, or the forest for the trees. It would also ensure that policies for biographies are consistent with non-negotiable foundation principles.
  6. Lastly, people who do significant OTRS work should not be directly editing our policy pages. What I've observed is a kind of reverse Stockholm Syndrome in these folks. They are much too emotionally involved with the complainant to be able to rationally modify our policies in a careful, thoughtful way. They tend to be highly aggressive and seem to be very unwilling to listen to other editors' points, even if they are totally valid. This may be unpopular, but for drama reduction I think it would be useful to consider.
Anyway, that's my thinking after a few days of reflection. Feel free to disagree. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Word cloud[edit]

As requested! Neıl 07:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, really cool, Neil! Now all I have to do is decide if I should be excited or concerned that my username has a place of honour in the wordcloud... Risker (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
@Neil: Thanks!!!! I'm glad you picked up my hint.
@Risker: You came out bigger than "please"... that's scary. You need to stop hanging out here, it's a bad influence, or so I am told! And I came out "bigger than Jesus" :)
I think it's nifty that "think" is the biggest word other than a username... except, is it because there's a lot of actual thinking going on here (good) or because I say "I think" a lot (wishywashy)? :) ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to it this *page* that is the bad influence, or is it *me* who is the bad influence? Risker (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Hopes he says it's me, I've always wanted to be the bad inflence...
You. Mos def. especially your influence on spelling norms. :) NOTHING bad ever happens at this page and NO ONE ever causes any problems, and NO ONE is ever corrupted by things that happen HERE. Glad I could clear that up for you. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I want one! ...and there had better be an easier way of constructing one than the one at Wordle. (thumb|1px|Here is my reason for desiring one - I think it is a fairly conclusive argument!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not exactly a mop top, dude... Are you trying to scare people into making you a wordle? ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • If I wanted to scare people... I would have a picture of me smiling. It might be amusing, if someone were to wordle my talkpage, to transpose the word cloud onto the above image. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Purdy! How do you make one? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

oh Kim, you're getting behind the times! head over to (you have to make one, and do a screen cap.) - it's the latest wiki craze! ps. both your, and Lar's, opinions would be most welcome on this completely unrelated question... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what the upper limit on text is. I've a mind to feed it my entire talk page archive. :) Oh, and... Answered there. ++Lar: t/c 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
*cough* - I can't make the word cloud thing work at all on the horrible connection I'm currently on - but look forward to playing with it when I'm back in the office... ps. how much do you (or anyone here really) charge for mentoring? - Privatemusings (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) (with myself!) You're heaps of trouble, I hear, so triple my usual rate!!! (let me see, what is 3 times zero???... um... can I get back to you on that?) Don't feel bad about the cloud thing, it doesn't work for me either, I have the wrong JVM and I do not want to change it, as I have a product dependency... ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
hmmmm.. if my 'cough' didn't make much sense, it's because it should have pointed here - I'm a bit bummed that this got archived, or maybe just a bit bummed in general.... advice or thoughts from any direction most welcome. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I commented on the other place, it seemed to make sense. I don't always agree with Ryan but he's right. Your time will come. And I meant what I said about being remarkably impressed with your contributions and resiliency and general good cheer... be of good cheer, for I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed. These things take time, the wiki institutional memory can be remarkably long I think. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Are you volunteering? What would such entail? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you think needs mentoring, if anything. Voluntary mentorships would need a careful outlining of what issues needed addressing, and how, as well as agreement on the approach and acceptance by both parties. And trust in both directions. Involuntary mentorships are rather different. There is still a need of outlining and clarity of intent and approach, but less need for agreement, and less need for bidirectional trust. The mentoree is typically in a take it or leave it situation. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe that I sometimes state my case in a manner that individuals find offputting. I'd like to fix that. I leave the approach up to you, since I can always just declare said mentorship unhelpful and ignore it. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
We'd need to work out how best to approach this. I don't enter into mentorships lightly, especially not voluntary ones, and if I wasn't convinced that we had a basis to make progress, it would be a waste of my time and yours. I especially would not want to dump effort into something that was "declared unhelpful and ignored". Once we agreed on the approach, I'd want it to be somewhat binding. So if you're serious, let's work through this... if not, no worries. Best. ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Define "binding." What would I be bound by? What would you be bound by? What are the benefits to you? What are the benefits to me? I am perfectly serious, but I am loathe to enter into binding agreements without a bona-fide exchange of value. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
As to why I bring this up - while I initially believed your offer an AN was there to score points, I believe that it was not such, and am interested to find out what exactly you propose. I do not intend to waste either of our times lightly. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
well with an involuntary, "binding" comes from the "or else" part... if you don't good faith try, you get blocked (again?). That of course doesn't apply with voluntaries. After I wrote "binding" I realised I didn't quite know what I meant either!!! ... and mulled a bit. I'm thinking "loss of reputation" perhaps, in the sense that there is a statement somewhere (once principles are agreed to) of what the principles and mechanics are, and if either party reneges (according to the other) throw it back out there to the public record, attached to the statement and let the record be there for those who later are interested. It could be a significant loss of reputation if the evidence of bad faith were damning. Or not much, if it was a mutual genuine good faith inability to make it work. Musing out loud but there you go. BTW full marks for perceiving there might be an issue. That's always the first part of the work, and the hardest. We are all of us not perfect. Including myself. Heck maybe there is a Mentorship Cabal in the making here? dunno. need to do some research.++Lar: t/c 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to be bound by the threat to go public with the fact that you believe I am acting in bad faith, since I'm not. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well "threat" is not the best word... it is more of a mutual thing, if I didn't in good faith try to help that ought to be exposed as well... ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that it's not. I didn't quite know how to phrase it, but whatever. Since I have no question that you are, and will continue to act in good faith, I feel no need to comment on the implied mutuality. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me try to restate this, correct me if I'm wrong. (a bit of a ramble follows) You said "I sometimes state my case in a manner that some find offputting" and are requesting mentorship for what? To address that narrow communication issue? Wider issues but restricted to communication only? I'm assuming relatively narrow. If that's it ("offputtingness") I may not actually be the best mentor because it is a problem I have myself, at least to some degree. Communication is a very wide topic really, no matter how narrowly you try to scope it.

Why do you think you're offputting? Maybe analysis of some of the situations where you felt you were, and where they went into the weeds might bound this better? ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we start with as broad a scope as you want, and I will preemptively narrow it if I think that it's unproductive. Probably better than starting with your excellent questions which will require more reflection than I have the time or mental capacity for right now is for me to state my goals, which will also take me time to enunciate. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. Fair warning, I am not "fast". Ask some of my coachees. :) So you have all the time you need. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely this is a mistake[edit]

[10]. How am I not Filll?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely a mistake. I've put in a null edit apologising and stating it was a mistake. Apologies again. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


You have mail. :-) Risker (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


As you may be aware, Lawrence Cohen retired from Wikipedia today. His parting request was for the RFC that had been in his user space since March to be moved into Wikipedia namespace and brought live. The underlying work had been in preparation for several months.

It was partly at my request that the RFC didn't go live long before today. Also at my request, it went live about two hours later than it otherwise would have. I offered to do the move myself in the hope of giving it an appropriate tone: by setting aside any personal grievance and focusing on process level matters, I aimed to set an example that would discourage others from exploiting the page as a soapbox to rehear their own cases or to settle scores.

If it had been entirely my discretion I would not have opened RFC today, although I probably would have supported it soon. Lawrence's request was going to be honored; the only question was how. When ArbCom was established in early 2004 Wikipedia was a much smaller site. Things are very different now and the Committee faces challenges that could not have been anticipated when its mandate was originally created. The strains of those changes have been showing for months. Now we have an opportunity to reassess the Committee's role, and to clarify and improve the situation. I ask that we move forward in a collaborative spirit toward improving a situation that has been stressful for a lot of the site's most dedicated editors. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting sock case[edit]

I just blocked two obvious IP socks of User:Atari400/User:Kirbytime. User:Chris G refactored my first softblock to a hardblock because it was within a Grawp range.[11] I am wondering if there might be a link between Grawp and this other group of accounts. Is this worth a look? Trail begins here: [12]. Jehochman Talk 08:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I will try to take a look at this soon. ++Lar: t/c 00:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you. Antelantalk 14:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And multiply that "thank you" by the number of arbitrators that you are "hounding" (to use your words) to clean this issue up posthaste. Regards, Antelantalk 15:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Clarity needed in the OM/FT2/Policy situation[edit]

(Refactored to User_talk:Thebainer per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Check mail[edit]

I almost tripped and said something I wasn't quite ready to say quite yet. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at RFAR[edit]

Hi Lar,

I was all set to add this to my statement, but then decided I actually don't want to get more involved with that page. Still, so it doesn't go to waste, I'm putting it here, because I am curious about your response; I just don't think it will affect whether the case is accepted, so won't clutter the RFAR up more than it's already going to be.

What I was about to comment there is:

Comment to/re Lar:
I wouldn't say I'm asking for dismissal on "procedural grounds"; I'm asking for dismissal on anti-procedural grounds: WP:IAR. It would be in the best interests of everyone if this was not taken up; therefore we shouldn't take it up, regardless of normal "procedure". I would have supported bringing this up "the normal way". But suggesting dismissal now is not suggesting dismissal "based on a technicality"; it's suggesting dismissal based on new facts and new occurances. --barneca (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
mmm... Except that I think there still is basis for OM's behaviour to be looked into. Maybe the ID RfC should run its course? Maybe there should be a specific RfC for OM? I dunno. But just forgetting the whole thing I think leave something that will be worse to sort out later. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
At this stage, I think an RFC (or adding to the ID RFC) is much more appropriate. Yes, forgetting the whole thing may, indeed, leave something worse to sort out later, but taking it up as an RFAR at this point will definitely create something worse to sort out later. IMHO, anyway. Thanks for the reply. Good luck to you all; I'm winding down participation for 3 weeks, so probably hopefully maybe there's a slight possibility that this will be resolved by the time I return. --barneca (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Lar, looking into OM's behaviour, objectvely is fine. However the real issue here is the required sanctioning of FT2, who, by his actions, was far more uncivil than OM has ever been by a power of ten. You and OM don't get along. So what? Focus on the real issue. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
FT2's actions in this matter? a red herring. Or at least a different issue. I "don't get along" with a fair few people (although a far shorter list than yours, I expect)... The basis for DR here is that OM acts in ways that are beyond not getting along. I suspect that many will feel that there is basis for this case, whether you and the rest of those popularly referred to as the "ID Cabal" think so or not. Just as there was a basis for the case against you previously. You've improved your behaviour somewhat... perhaps OM will too. Or perhaps not. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
You think that FT2's behaviour and gross misconduct is a red herring? Incredible.
We won't get into your snarky comment re lists. See, that, I have improved.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering if you were going to turn up again (to the point of being about to ping your talk to see if you wanted to say more) and here you are. Thanks! I think there are serious issues around FT2, other Arbitrators, ArbCom in general, BLPs, civil POV pushers, interminable consensus discussions, community sanctions, how policy gets made and changed, and a raft other large topics... I don't think that's any secret. But in the case of OM... in that narrow issue? They all are red herrings. Even the matter of FT2 and how this went down. They divert from the issue of OM's approach and behaviour. OM has acknowledged the issue, and endeavoured to try to change, and I've applauded that, in more than one place, and offered in good faith to be of assistance if I could. I still think there is need for a case, and I explained why on the case request page. But all those things are red herrings. Does that mean they should not be looked into? Not in the slightest. They all should be. But separately. I'd reference GRBerry's comment on the case page: [13]... Take a look at it, in good faith and with an open mind and see if you don't agree. See... I do think the way the OM case started has issues. I said so from the start, I did not care for in-camera, even before we learnt that maybe it wasn't really unanimously decided... I do think those issues need looking into. But not conflated with the OM case. There is too much conflation of cases as it is.
As for my comment that you found snarky, if you have an issue with any of my comments, let's discuss it... which commment did you have in mind? ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)