Misplaced Pages

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Misplaced Pages 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.

Here about accountability? see my accountability page.
Note: The apparent listification of the category does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way

Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active...      (my status is believed to be: Template:Ustatus)

My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns. I will archive this page if/when there is a need but will not delete comments. I reserve the right to refactor by moving comments under headings, adding headings, and so forth but will never change comment order in a way that changes meaning.

Note: I archive off RfA thank yous separately, I think they're neat!

Archives

I suspect that the editor "Axiomatica" may be Amorrow

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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. However, Amorrow has in several places spoken of an admiration of radical feminist writers like Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Nikki Craft, and Melissa Farley ( ), 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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

(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

Regarding this removal 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

waste?

... 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

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)

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

Lar, maybe you have a recollection of the old discussion somewhere in the Misplaced Pages 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: 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

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!

Happy First Edit Day, Lar, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Happy First Edit Day, Lar, from the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ~~~~

Idontknow610 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser activity

Would you be able to comment at Misplaced Pages 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

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 ] 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)

psst

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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets because of WP:DUCK rule. We are having editor which is using Verizon IP 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.

I have asked Neil not to discuss me personally on Misplaced Pages 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...

:) 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?

and Mussolini made the trains run on time &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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."

Lar;

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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

As requested! Neıl 龱 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 clarify...is 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 wordle.net (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)

Mentorship

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

. 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)

Ping

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

RFC

As you may be aware, Lawrence Cohen retired from Misplaced Pages today. His parting request was for the RFC that had been in his user space since March to be moved into Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Durova 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting sock case

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. 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: . Jehochman 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)

Arb

Thank you. Antelan 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, Antelan 15:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Clarity needed in the OM/FT2/Policy situation

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

Check mail

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

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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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: ... 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)

What the....

Seriously Lar - you want to put me on a community restriction? I haven't spent the last 6 months commenting on Peter on WR - I highlighted a concern, that's it. I'm shocked, I'm tempted to walk now, I really am - if this goes through, or even nearly goes through I'm out of here. I haven't called anyone dog lovers of threatened to call animal welfare organisations about other editors, yet I suddenly turn into the criminal. Not impressed, not impressed at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps an enforced community restriction is too harsh a term... if so, sorry! Can you suggest another that conveys you should just walk away and leave this to others?

Because... I think you have a blind spot there. There are how many other admins, again? People suggest to me I have blind spots and I don't typically threaten to stalk off in a huff. Maybe I'm wrong. But if you call for an indef because of something going down offsite, that's a blind spot. (not a "criminal" just a blind spot"...) Now, this editor is fulminating over there about some sort of plot to subtly vandalise... if he follows that up with vandalising here, block him and throw away the key. But over there? Let him fume. For now, he has NOT done stuff here to deserve an indef. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to lift the block, on the understanding that he agrees not to interact with, or mention FT2 here or on WR. Then I'll walk away and never look back - but for that to work, he can't comment on me either. I'll lift the bloody block myself, no questions asked. The way you worded it wasn't that I had a blind spot - I'll admit that the indef wasn't the best course of action, but that doesn't suddenly mean I need a "topic ban". I've worked my socks off for this project and when someone starts suggesting restrictions on my editing, I suddenly turn into a disruptive user so apologies if you think I've gone off in a huff. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Lar, you really need to reconsidier you proposal to sanction Ryan. I think the block was well deserved, Peter's shit is still smeared all over FT2's talk page. This guy is a real TE, especially when it comes to pedophilia, FT2, and NLP. I think we should topic ban him in all three for at least 6 months to see if he can actually contribute productively without being a wikiwarrior. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't supposed to be a sanction per se... I replied back there. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Something else is fishy. Have you seen User talk:Hinnibilis? Why is Hinnibilis speaking as if he were PD? Interesting, I wonder if Somey knows he's socking on WR, too? --Dragon695 (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He is PD - it's his alternate account. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I think this is why people don't understand, they are looking for edits by PD not this other account. Notice the account name that Geogre uses in the original post. You should clarify. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The user pages of each account identify the other as alternate accounts and identify which areas each edits in. Risker (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So I don't get it, if that is the case, then why isn't the harassment that User:Hinnibilis leveled against FT2 on FT2's talkpage a violation of WjBScribe's parole terms? --Dragon695 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They weren't his parole terms per se, it's his understanding that when some arbcom members agreed to the unblock of his new account, he was told to stay clear of FT2. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

<--(unindent)Thanks for clarifying, Ryan. I could not recall or locate any parole terms, and Thatcher (the unblocking admin) said that he was unaware of any. I'm hesitant to take it as gospel that PD was told anything, even though it is possible that WJBScribe may have been, erm...told that PD had been told...given recent evidence of communication difficulties. Risker (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and this is a concern that I have as well. The unblock reason was something along the lines of "per discussion with arbcom". I'm not sure it was even this - From what I can gather (and don't hold me on this) from thatchers comments on the situation, there was just discussion with a couple of arbs on IRC - certainly not a collective decision, and that increases the probability that PD was told to stay away from FT2. That's why I would certainly unblock with an explicit ban on commenting on FT2 both here or on WR, likewise probably commenting on me now as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and sorry for intruding, this has gotten a bit too convoluted for me. And here I thought Tony's use of socks was annoying...--Dragon695 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh trust me. Peter Damian isn't even in the same hemisphere as Tony when it comes to use of socks. Risker (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Before I depart, I would urge Ryan not to go down the WP:BADSITES route. It really did not go well for SlimVirgin and you'll only be attracting more attention by fighting it. It'd be best to just deal with on-wiki harassment ad let PD troll over at WR. I assure you, I'm not the only one who's got him in their ignore list there. Just a thought. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't use socks. I just changed my username because somebody said my old one was too long and I agreed. --Jenny 04:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I (think) I getcha....

when you refer to problems with 'due process' - I think you make a valid point, and one which I agree with, but I also see many using 'due process' in a sense that renders it synonymous with 'fairness' (is this a US thing? dunno....) - by conflating things in this way, folk may well be muddying the waters, but unfortunately your point can't really get through without an interpreter being willing to make the separation... it's a wiki trait (that I've noticed) to be either unwilling or unable to do so, and I reckon it's handy to understand that when evaluating our own communications.

Just sayin' is all... Privatemusings (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ps. per the advice I've had to "to seek a mentor, someone who does gravitas, measuredness and "clue" well." - if you can think of anyone, let me know ;-) I'll be here all week, thanks for coming, try the veal.....

Not a lot of that going round. ++Lar: t/c 12:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

sure there is! (be of good cheer! :-) ) - besides I need a mentor in order to convince a recalcitrant arbcom to eventually lift my rather silly blp restriction to better myself as an editor, learning how to apply moderation and balance to my approach in order to contribute as best I can to this project....

actually I mean this in all seriousness - I respect you greatly, and would be very happy if you'd be prepared to offer advice or guidance in any way - I've no idea what being a 'mentoree' may involve - but I certainly am up for it! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd be willing. For what it entails, see just above. However please note that I apparently have rather an abysmal record at this. If you note WHO the last person was, you'll also note that PoT was recently blocked (for unrelated reasons, but still). Most of my other mentorees also end up indef blocked... fair warning. So what exactly do you think needs mentoring? That's a place to start I think. ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

well to be honest I'd see the start of such a relationship as being a sort of agreement to discuss aspects of my wiki behaviour in a bid to improve the net result for the project - things I do poorly, things I do well, things that I may do well but which don't help, things that I may do poorly (or mighn't want to do) but which do help etc. etc. - That may or may not include chatting about past behaviour, stuff like what motivates me to be here, or even the nitty gritty about how I decide what to post, and where - starting points could range from the concrete - ie. examining a particular issue (or even page?) to the more abstract - ie. a bit of wiki-philosphy... I guess that's up to us, and I'm open to your advice on that too! (these two approaches aren't exclusive, of course!).

talking with someone a (little bit ;-)) older, and certainly smarter, has got to be a good thing - and I'm really pleased you're willing - I'm really just here to learn. One small thing is that I'd actually prefer to keep as much as possible 'on-wiki' - really just because it feels like that's where it should largely be... on the other hand, I'm certainly up for hearing your thoughts on that too! - I'm off for the weekend now, so happy 4th July to you! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. So you want my advice then nevertheless? OK. Probably should do this on a subpage somewhere. Perhaps in your user space. Let's try to structure things a bit, eh? And make sure I don't have to do a lot of homework but can just blather on and look profound ok? Let me know where and I'll turn up. :)

The Beatles Newsletter

Beatles editor, Dendodge, wants to start sending out The Beatles Newsletter again. If you would like to receive it, please leave a message on this page. All the best, --andreasegde (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might be able to help?

If you get the chance - could you take a look here? - I'm very pleased that three current arb.s have signed up, and I really do think it could be a fantastically useful page - I've got a few questions I'd like to submit - but also thought that you might be a really good person to come to, to help get everything that should be out in the open clearly communicated... thoughts / advice most welcome.. Privatemusings (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)response to the mentor thing is forthcoming... I'm a slowcoach too!

I am not exactly sure what you mean... can you elaborate? It sounds like not just asking questions but something else? I might ask a question or two... ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - as we do the mentor thing you'll unfortunately come to realise that I'm rubbish at saying simple things simply - I just meant that I think the quality of questions you would ask would be high - and that this could help! sorry for being verbose (and a bit inarticulate!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well of course everything I say is absolutely crystal clear! Ok, I'll have a go. ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

<tangent>

The discussion about splitting the workshop page into unusably small per-editor sections occured at this location. like so many other things, it now appears that a random "theoretical" change now has the full weight of The Fez behind it. No room for thinking, it appears. Colour me unsuprised. - brenneman 07:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Far out I was being a nasty-pasty (which rhymes in Australian, by the way) wasn't I?

I've just left a comment (hopefully a nicer one) at D's talk page about the level of judgement I had thought that clerks were to use. It's quite similar to the decent discussion I had with you about stewards, in fact: Serve as checks and balances or just do as told, etc.

While I'm a big beleiver in "process creates stability which makes adding content easier" I feel like there's a trend toward beauracracy underneath all this that (in the long run) will probably stifle content-adding.

Anyway, I'd appreciate if you could look over what I've said and provide some input.

brenneman 01:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

where? ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

here, I think. Privatemusings (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thx for the -> ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent statements

Your recent statements here appear to me unnecessarily personal, and frankly a little venomous. I've taken your misstatement of my views in good part, and corrected them. Why are you acting so belligerently? In particular I'm worried by your accusation of "manipulation", which you must know to be completely false. --Jenny 04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No personal slight intended, and certainly no venom. I apologise if you took it that way. But really, Tony, I just don't see your participation helpful. You are so far out of the main stream of consensus and so insistent. Do not confuse not being helpful with not being allowed to participate. You have not, yet, reached that point... continue to participate, continue to make your voice heard, just do not be dismayed when others call "poppycock" on you. I'm not the only one to have done so.

As to manipulation... As I told Filll in another matter, I calls them like I sees them, and WP:DUCK does not only apply to socks, it can apply to cabals, discussions, whatever. In particular, "manipulation" can be done by what is said, how, and by whom, without use of any tools. Just like poisoning wells can be. That discussion was indeed manipulated by a minority belligerently insisting they would wheel war to keep MM unblocked, and rather than coutenance that, the majority conceded that there was, at that time, no consensus to block despite it being the majority view (majority != consensus, the minority needs to be far smaller than 49% or even 33% (which is my estimate of what it was then) for consensus to be clear) and let it be rather than start a war. ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, you know WP:DUCK's an essay, right? Moreover your description of how the minority's dissent ended in the failure of the proposal is somewhat slanted--you speak in terms of wheel warring and the like. If a sizeable minority of the community dissents, that's what we call "no consensus", and of course action in the event of no consensus could have led to inappropriate action, which is why we discuss these things instead. The consensus requirement in the case of a community ban is particularly stringent, as I've noted above. Those opposing the ban were members of no cabal. Sam Korn, for instance, had been away from Misplaced Pages for about a year. Does this cabal include DmcDevit? Theresa knott? Zocky? WJBScribe?

I've no problem with my points being dismissed as "poppycock" by other editors. You went a bit further than that when you made accusations of manipulation. --Jenny 05:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We're conflating... let's let the poppycock slide. IIRC there were definite statements made by several people that they would repeatedly unblock. That's wheeling, or threatening to do so. I can dig up the diffs if you like. To the recitation of names of some that opposed the sanction at that time: I did not say that every single person who felt the block was unwarranted manipulated that discussion. Merely that it was manipulated. I will say this. I think it is an exceedingly good thing that consensus is not "bare majority" but instead requires subsantial concurrence. For every time when a discussion is manipulated to thwart a large majority and make a minority bigger, there are 23 times when the requirement for a very small minority prevents some sort of bad thing from happening. Hence, consensus, not majority, rule is the better choice. ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should, as you have suggested, dig up the diffs. Our memories diverge considerably on this, and you're making a rather serious claim. --Jenny 05:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I shall regret entering into this particular fray, but why should I learn from experiance!

Forgive me for being dense, but Tony can you be specific on what exactly is it the "rather serious claim" being discussed here? - brenneman 06:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are two, but I'm concentrating on the most recent one for now: that during the community ban discussion concerning Mantanmoreland "there were definite statements made by several people that they would repeatedly unblock." We'll talk about that first and then I'll move on to the earlier statement. --Jenny 06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lar, if you've done a search now I think you know what I, having done a similar search, also know: that your memory was in error when you spoke of administrators threatening to repeatedly unblock Mantanmoreland. It was a preposterous claim on the face of it, but I wanted to give you time to certify that for yourself.

I want to move on to your other claim, which you've only made in the vaguest terms up to now, but which is somewhat more personal because it is an attack on my honesty. In recent comments, you have directly claimed that I acted manipulatively. Here, addressing me, you say "That you and others were able to manipulate the discussion on a community ban to prevent the proper outcome until more time was wasted... well, I won't say you SHOULD be ashamed, although I could." Here you repeated the charge of manipulation in less personal terms "As I said on my talk, conversations can be manipulated in many ways. There was a failure to reach consensus, but that does not mean that the process was not somehow manipulated."

Now your accusation that I, personally, had somehow been involved in manipulation of the community ban discussion really worries me, because I don't know how you could have got that idea at all. Why do you make that claim? --Jenny 23:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the arbitration page where you equated making lots of comments on a discussion to manipulation. I think that's a ridiculous suggestion but as I've seen several people comment on my tendency to make lots of comments on a subject of interest to me I'm adopting this rule. It applies, as far as I'm concerned, to Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk (community space). I have absolutely no intention of ever manipulating any discussion on Misplaced Pages. The idea is repugnant to me and I will not allow even the suspicion of such manipulation to fall on me. --Jenny 23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I carried out a review of the discussions relating to the proposed indefinite blocking of MM and SH, which can be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion and at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion/Part 2. What I found was disturbing and depressing. I was concerned about the tone and form of that discussion at the time, but at three months remove, if anything, I think it's worse than I remember. While my specific memory of "administrators threatening to repeatedly unblock Mantanmoreland" was incorrect, I did find administrators who did "threaten to unblock Mantanmoreland" repeatedly, meaning that they said more than one time that if MM was blocked, they would unblock. In more than one case, that statement was made not in the form of "I do not support a block" or "I do not feel there is consensus" (things that I say myself) but rather in a way that left the implication that they would unblock even if there was a consensus for the block. Exactly what a "community ban" is has underwent some considerable morphing... and I'm not sure I know exactly. At one point it apparently was that not a single admin was willing to unblock. At another point it was that there was not broad consensus. So arguably saying that one would unblock in the face of a consensus is a form of wheel warring, potentially (at least it is under some interpretations of matters... for example Geogre is being currently charged with wheel warring for just such an action). Later, after the block was actually implemented, there was an unblock, and arguably that too was a minority action, although the margins had drifted downward by then. (not that we vote).

Worse than that, there was a significant amount of edit warring over tags and the like that went on during the episode. Again, in large part, this edit warring was done by the minority (numerically), but by folk that perhaps have some considerable power, or influence, either overtly or behind the scenes. The examples set were not good. I would say that seeing powerful people working to contravene what was at that time a consensus or a large majority has a chilling effect on the further discussion. That is, to me, a kind of manipulation.

Finally, to your role: I think you too influenced the discussion, and not just by the strength of your argument. You did so not by overtly underhanded techniques, but rather by repeating the same things, even in the face of refutation, a considerable number of times, and by using pejorative terms similar to "lynch mob" and "witch hunt" (you were not the only person to use pejorative terms, on either side, to be sure). I think having 20% of the total contributions has a somewhat dominating effect on the discussion. A manipulate effect, if you like. Now, do I ascribe bad faith to you? No. I think you truly do not realize that you sometimes do have that dominating effect, and that it's a bad thing. Or at least you did not. But I see you've instituted a new self check, of only commenting once per day on any given project space discussion, and confining further remarks to your own talk page (or presumably the talk pages of others). I think that's a good idea but perhaps going a bit too far the other way. It's not an almost complete muzzle of you that the community would benefit from... rather it is a moderation of your input to the point where your ideas come across, your points are made, but you do not take up a disproportionate share of the discussion. If there are dozens of participants on a sustained basis, your contribution should not be 20% of the total. I would stipulate that this is an issue that I am not completely immune to either, I do tend to sometimes get overly involved.

The takeaway from all of that analysis is this: As a community we do seem to have trouble handling contentious cases and their aftermath. Our norms do not always hold. Our presumptions of good faith sometimes break down. You knew this already, and have stated it. I knew this already, and have stated it, but to reread the historic record of that affair reinforces it. Surely in rereading it you became just as dismayed and depressed as I did?

I hope this is a satisfactory clarification. If not, let's discuss further. I will update the project space discussion in due course but wanted to reach concordance or agreement to disagree here first. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A simple apology would have been better than this attempt to salvage your false accusations with further false accusations. We're at the point of diminishing returns, here. I'm finished with this. --Jenny 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way. I admitted I erred and am prepared to clarify that on the case page as well. But I stand behind the rest of my analysis. If I was remiss in not apologising to your satisfaction, I apologise for that too. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony's contributions to discussions: frequency analysis

I have to admit, I was taking this seriously at first. I got as far as having looking through "Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland ban discussion" parts one and two. Then I noticed that over 20% oof the contributions to those pages were yours. At least thirty people took part in that discussion, but you made twice as many comments as the second highest contributor.

I'm going to repeat myself, in bold and italics with underline: You made twice as many comments as the second highest contributor.

I forgot for a moment that the weight that should be placed upon high volume/low fact contributions is equal to the smartest comment made divided by the total number of times it's repeated. That you've chosen to draw out this petty sniping contest in this manner serves mostly to illustrate my point. I'm withdrawing from this conversation before it wastes any more of my time.

brenneman 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I popped this into a thread by itself. I'll transfer it to my talk page if Lar wants, as it seems to have nothing to do with the current discussion. --Jenny 08:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has a great deal of relevance, actually. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lar

I'm taking your page off my watchlist, if you want to say anything to me you know where I live. - brenneman 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tonny and you

(Refactored to User_talk:Everyme per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 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) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikicode

(Refactored to User_talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Accepting your offer

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:ANI#Uncle_uncle_uncle_and_PouponOnToast

I'm still willing if he is, and if the community decides that is an appropriate course of action. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept your offer. I will edit nicely. I will not be abusive to others. I will only use one account, this one. Upon agreeing to mentor me, I will log in to my other accounts to declare them close. I can't do this before then because then it would be a ploy to get me to do this and then refuse to mentor me. I'm excited about coming back to Misplaced Pages and doing good! GoodWikian (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Realise please, that the terms will have been changed by events a bit. This would no longer a voluntary mentorship, subject to negotiation about what behaviours were subject to review. You'd have to be OK with my being a bit more firm about what was and wasn't on the table. (subject to the community's will, not merely mine, of course, but less so yours...). But yes, under those provisions, I'm fine to go ahead. Needs to be blessed by the community first and foremost though. ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

With your willing to go ahead, I am willing to present full disclosure. I will release the names of approximately 150 socks upon being allowed to edit (referring to your mention of the community's will). (Incidentally, some of sock accusations are wrong but I won't argue about that point) I will also log in to the blocked accounts to declare them retired and this will prove that I am a former sockmaster and not someone else. I will state that I will edit well and for the benefit of Misplaced Pages from this point forward.

Usually the community bans, they don't say "you are ok". So do we let this sit for 3-4 days and if there is no community ban, then I will begin mentorship? GoodWikian (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note that my new focus is article writing, not policy discussions (though any Wikipedian can do both). GoodWikian (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But I'm willing and maybe this will be the one to break the jinx? ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Reproduced from ANI

I promise you that I will break jinx. I will edit nicely. I will not throw egg on your face - I am a nice person and I will prove the naysayers wrong and do nothing to embarass you. GoodWikian (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. There are two things that are needed. You need to establish that you are indeed PouponOnToast. Please edit on that talk page as PoT to say GoodWikian is you. The other is that the community needs to agree, which they have not, yet, last I checked. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait on the community. So when the community finally allows you to mentor, then I will confirm my identity on the Poupon socks page. I am not Poupon but I AM a confirmed Poupon sock. (You see that's the trouble with sock accusations, checkusers and accusers hurt innocent people. I have been called a Poupon sock and I agree to mentoring and to retire the real socks but I cannot control the one main Poupon account because I am not that account. Still, this helps WP because you will be able to end a feud and get part of Poupon socks to start editing constructively). So let's hope the community will agree to mentoring and I will present you 150 Poupon socks - I guarantee it. In other words, I am willing/I want your mentoring and will take your mentoring on the condition that I expose approximately 150 Poupon socks under my control (some caught, some not caught - I'll mark them retired and let you know once mentoring is started). GoodWikian (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

mild trepedation......

^ I see you weren't kidding about the 'Lar effect' on folk you mentor! (although I did also see that the chap above turned out to not be who he said he was?) - anywhoo... here we go... - I wouldn't blame you one bit if your first advice were to be a recommendation for a page rename!

Any and all lurkers are most welcome over there too - there's even a small prize for first talk page post :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of interesting questions and musings there but my issue is that I'm not sure exactly what to comment on, advise, interrogate, etc... ++Lar: t/c 16:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put a bit more concrete down, Lar - and hope that helps... equally - if you fancy just asking any sort of questions on the talk page, go ahead - I'm sure we'll find the ways in, and there's no rush.... cheers Privatemusings (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New user award

		Home-Made Barnstar
		Hey Lar, it's time you had one of these for your intelligence, integrity, and good common sense. Here's to you, and keep up the good work. John (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you... not sure what I've done lately to deserve a star but this is a nifty one indeed! ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"roposed principles/findings/remedies" aptitude tests

I don't think we administered very many "proposed principles/findings/remedies" aptitude tests during the elections, if I recall correctly. ++User:Lar t/c 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing exactly that, off wiki, for the last month. "What I would have done was..." I'm going to write them on-wiki from now on (with datastamps) and when election time comes around I'll be ready... - brenneman 01:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying my notes to User:Aaron Brenneman/Wanking/Arbitration Committee/Requests for arbitration:C68-FM-SV but find them more shot-gun than I had supposed. While this is intended as an eventual supporting document for my run at ArbCom (did I just say that out loud?) I'd appreciate any input. I'm trying to really break apart what happens in arbitration, and look for not just how I'd do it better, but how the community can do better as well. Your input as always is appreciated. - brenneman 05:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are being serious about this. You'd make a great arbitrator. The lack of clue shown by them, in light of Sam's can't we all get along motion, has been stunning. We so need someone of your caliber on the committee. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this product or service. I think Brenny would make a good arbitrator as well. Brenny, you'd have my vote. I read your analysis. Needs more cowbell, but other than that seems a good start. Please continue for other cases. Maybe I should do the same.... ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes you should. GTBacchus, too. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Beatles Day!

Happy Beatles Day! Just a message from the Beatles WikiProject! Have a great day, Lar!

Disgraceful

I can't understand what Sam is thinking. This is outrageous. I'm going to go back to do more move to commons work, this is really just disgraceful. >_< --Dragon695 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, it's just one arbitrator. If in a weeks time we've got a collective failure by the committee and the motion gets accepted, we can look at things again. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

@D:I undestand where he's coming from, I think. I just don't think he's right (as of when I last checked, anyway, perhaps more has been added). I won't go so far as to say it's disgraceful, but it's disappointing. There are endemic problems that a forceful resolution of this case would help resolve by setting some precedent and principles.

Participation elsewhere

@R: Nice of you to pop in... while you're here I have a few bones to pick with you :) (start by carefully reading this and internalising what NYB is saying ... ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I read it, and I think I understand the point you're making - before you go further, I seriously think me and you are going to have to agree to disagree on this one :-S Ryan Postlethwaite 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have read it, but did you understand it? Sometimes agreeing to disagree is a good approach, and sometimes it is not. In this case, I'd rather you saw the light, actually, because I see some of your actions in this area as seriously counterproductive and/ or damaging to this project.++Lar: t/c 15:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

and I'd like someone with access to sensitive information not to be posting to such a site and discussing things with people that are solely there to harass members of our project (not all of them are there for that of course, but there are some serious bad apples), but that's not going to happen. But please don't worry - I've decided to stay well away from anything related to WR or any other "attack site" for that matter. I think you gave good advice last week when you said there's plenty of admins here and if something needs doing, it'll get done by someone else - I no longer think I should get involved because I have clouded judgement when it comes to things related with that site. Strong views on a subject means that you can't honestly make rational and neutral decisions and actions. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In the latter half of the comment, I am talking about myself - after re-reading it, it doesn't look very clear. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Eminently wise, prudent and sensible. Knowing where your blind spots are is one of the very best kinds of vision to have. (I'm certainly not perfect at it, but then who is?) In view of that, I do think that agreeing to disagree will work out. (but mind you, I don't disagree with you as much as you might think I do...) Best of luck, it's not easy to stick to the advice you've just given yourself, and I wish you every success. Please don't hesitate to ask if there is anything I can be of assistance with, regardless of whether it's related to this or not. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"and I'd like someone with access to sensitive information not to be posting to such a site and discussing things with people that are solely there to harass members of our project" - pardon my paranoia, Ryan, but I hope that's not directed at myself here - Alison 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Or at me. But I can't really think who it's directed at if not you and I among others... This sort of innuendo is far from collegial, and far from acceptable. I chose to overlook it if it was directed at me alone, but since it has given offence to another, I think a retraction and apology are in order, Ryan. ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. To be honest, Lar, I'm not so much looking for an apology as a clarification. There is a strong insinuation that I (I can only speak for me), by posting to "such a site" and discussing things, am somehow divulging confidential and trusted information. That is absolutely not the case, and I seriously resent the implication. We've had arbitrators (Newyorkbrad, Deskana, UninvitedCompany) posting over there without privacy nor confidentiality issues, and indeed, since I've been a regular contributor there, have been entrusted with oversight privileges by ArbCom. It's obvious that they don't see it as being a problem. I don't like being painted with the big wide Dishonesty Brush, Ryan. You have no justification whatsoever in making that insinuation here - absolutely none. I discuss privacy matters with nobody', Ryan, so please stop banging that drum here - Alison 01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I hate to butt in, but I was just reviewing the disgraceful thread that led to Everyking loosing his administrator bit. It's breathtaking to see how far we've come, yet some resentment still remains. As I recall, both MONGO and SlimVirgin were none to pleased when you got CheckUser and Oversight. Still, I have to say that Alison and Lar both do wonderful things by at least trying to dialog with aggrevied users there. It's also nice to be able to chat in a manner that isn't as discombobulated as wiki talk pages. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yayy!! Someone who actually 'gets it'. Being an admin here mandates that we deal with all sorts of people and not all of them are happy with what has happened. It's vital to listen to everyone and not just those we deem "acceptable". Posting on WR is posting on their turf, and listening to banned editors opining on what's wrong with Misplaced Pages. I consider that useful Thank you, Dragon695, for saying what you did - Alison 01:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well someone has to, otherwise they stew and fester until they start taking it out on the project using vandalism and socks. Now that isn't to say that all can be reasoned with, there are some incorrigible types, but I've seen some useful dialog. Also, for better or for worse, they are a pretty good early warning system for potential problems. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm being perfectly honest, it does upset me when I see two well respected Wikipedians posting at the site, and getting involved in the general banter there. Given that you both have CU access, it does get to me somewhat. I don't think it's right one bit if I'm being honest with you. My snide remark was out of order, so I apologise for that. One of the things that get to me is this principle from the MONGO RfArb - "Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Misplaced Pages can expect their Misplaced Pages activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored." How do you honestly expect the average user know what's going on? We haven't got access to CU logs. Fair enough, I'm 99.9% sure you guys won't have done anything wrong, but we don't know that and it's bloody tough for the majority of the community to moniter activities on the site when we don't have access to any of the logs. I've already said I don't wish to talk about WR here again - I've stated my opinion of it, probably used my admin bit inappropriately over it and that's the end of it for me. Please don't force me into discussion about this - you'll obviously disagree with me, but I want to leave WR well behind me here. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec on my own talk page!)You've said something that I think is worth refuting. I'm sorry if you don't want to talk about it, but it's in the very recent past. Once we've worked through this then that's fine but I think you need to either make an explicit allegation that some specific person (you can choose from Raul, me, Flo, Uninvited Company, NYB, Allison, and I don't recall exactly how many more, but it's rather a considerable list, just of people who have CU on en:wp) has in some way violated the trust the community placed in them in some way related to WR, or explicitly retract that statement of yours and apologise for it. "99.9% sure" isn't good enough. As for the MONGO RfAr, that whole thing is discredited in my view. You're welcome to closely monitor my activities as much as you like (as I am of yours, and you certainly have some activities that do raise some eyebrows, you know) but do drop the insinuations. Review this again, please, and really think about it. Nothing has changed my fundamental view that burying one's head in the sand about criticism is a flawed approach to improving something. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I've been ignoring you all day, keeping out from under your feet after yesterday's debacle yet here I find you banging on about it again? What am I supposed to think at this stage? "I'm 99.9% sure you guys won't have done anything wrong, but we don't know that" - do you know how nasty that sounds? As regards the MONGO rfarb, trust me in that I'm one of the most scrutnised admins on the site; not just because I have cu/os, but because I post on WR. Did it even occur to you that this set of circumstances means that I have to be impeccable in everything I do, given that there are an entire army on both sides of this inane situation who'd be only too happy to see my head on a platter?? Thus, your nasty comments are all the more hurtful, and you remain unapologetic throughout. Ryan, I have lost a serious amount of respect I had for you over the last 24 hours - you have no idea.

And in conclusion, if you have any issues with me and cu/os, or anything you can find that I've done wrong, bring them out into the sunlight now. Or stop the smear campaign. Better still, bring it to ArbCom, but just don't pretend that you represent the community at large, because you do not - Alison 01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't at all - it's an ethical concern and that's it. My personal opinion is that I don't think it's right, that's all. Not for one second trying to suggest it's a community opinion. No smear campaign intended for one second. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You, Ryan, have not been listening to a word I've been saying - Alison 01:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Alison and Lar are being coy of course, Ryan - both will run a checkuser for 50p and a packet of crisps - and I heard Lar will make you an admin for a bottle of cider..... you obviously have strong issues with WR, and in my view the irony is that it's the power of these feelings (the enemy within type stuff) that, whilst understandable, actually causes the most trouble... even WR love their children too, you know!

I'd encourage you to join Alison and Lar in shining little lights here and there over at WR, but totally understand that you don't want to. What you do have to do however, is resolve some of the anger / fear / annoyance you feel to the point where you don't lash out 'on-wiki' at all.... not engaging in any conversation about it is probably a great start (though easier to say, than do...) - and with that, I return to sitting on my hands! cheers, :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• sighs*. Ryan.. nah. I'll drop it. Enough is too much already. But.. what she said definitely applies to me too. SirFozzie (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me a thesis to do on Aspergillus niger and it's prevelance on ancient Egyptian remains and I'll ace it. Put me in a situation like this, and I'll goof it every time. I've re-read everything I've said in this thread and it's just wrong. It sounds like I'm suggesting that you've used CU or oversight against policy, or that I even think that. I don't for one minute. Yeah - I'm crap with words, I really am. I've made so many insinuations without even meaning to imply them. I do admit, I it does bother me any user in good standing posting there, but that's slightly hypercritical given I do as well. I apologise to you both - my stance has come across in completely the wrong way I intended. In a nutshell - Do I think you've abused any powers? Nope, not for one second - I know you both too well. Seriously guys, I'm sorry if I implied that. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Say no more about it then, we're square. Just please do be careful about the effect words can have, eh? Best. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan. I don't think you realise just how hurtful this stuff can be - Alison 01:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put the last couple of days down to a huge learning experience - I've certainly learnt a lot here. I am honestly sorry from my heart - I didn't mean to upset two good guys. You work your arses off and you didn't need any crap from me. Just carry on doing what you do best! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, definitely, off-topic

• "...and I heard Lar will make you an admin for a bottle of cider....."

Despite the seriousness of the discussion, I just have to admit that that made me laugh : )

(And, sigh, looks like I better go find someone to nominate for adminship, since, admin or not, cider sounds rather good atm : ) - jc37 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lar, make me a 'crat, please? I've got a whole case of Beaujolais here with your name on it :) - Alison 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer Merlot. Or call me a cab. ++Lar: t/c 06:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this an auction? Or can we all just get in line? : ) - jc37 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No way am I paying for anything - I'm a student, so I expect a crate of White Lightning on my door step ASAP! Let's celebrate that we're all Wikipedians! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a can opener for this tin of worms?

I dunno... should I be more upset that someone thinks that I shouldn't be engaging (I can't help it, it is genetics) over at WR, or that no-one cares because my standing at WP is pretty abysmal...? Talk to me, people, because this question taunts and haunts me for several seconds every day... or so. Eh? Sorry? What was I wittering on about? (/joking) LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair warning.

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

(made with {{WP:TPS/userbox|stalkee=yes}} ) ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just between us, Lar...given how a certain administrator responded when being called a stalker by a certain editor who wound up blocked, and the hypothetical reason for that reaction - I wonder if you might rethink? Mind you, I could envision a really good userbox for talk page "watchers"...eyes to binoculars or something like that... Risker (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I was thinking similar things about the essay myself, earlier. "Ruthless talk page editors" is closer, I suppose, but has its own issues. "Lurker" doesn't describe the act of editing, just of watching. So I dunno. Something related to m:Metapedianism, I guess. - jc37 02:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh now...here would be a good image: Image:Navy binoculars.jpg - put it in the place of the predator in the box above, and it would be positively scary. I know absolutely zip about code though. Risker (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice image, but it should be something that implies taking action, especially without being "invited".

Hey that's in the right direction: "Uninvited commentator" : ) - jc37 02:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We just call them nosy parkers where I come from. :-) Risker (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

a talk page stalker refers to a specific type of person- people such as me lol:) I'd rather keep my cider than be an admin though. Sticky Parkin 02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! No fair mixing threads : ) - jc37 02:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "lurker" sounds nicer. The term always was somewhat of an oxymoron; even in the bad old days of Web 1.0, a true lurker, by definition, would leave no trace. As soon as you post, you are no longer strictly lurking. Nevertheless, I think someone who watches others' user pages and occasionally comments, is more of a lurker than a stalker, which to me implies some sort of malevolent or obsessive quality. Sorry, I'll get back to my lurking now... --John (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New and improved;

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page watchers. With long range binoculars, in case Lar doesn't archive!

As requested by Risker. Well, mostly; try and guess what I added... —Giggy 04:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A) Yes I need to archive this page. I got lazy. At around 250K or so... at least it's shorter than your

average ArbCom case. So sue me.

B) I like how people come by here. Lots of interesting convos... It's the cool place to hang out (after Giano's)... call them watchers or stalkers or lurkers, as you like. But ya, Risker has a point.

C) There is no C. Deal

D) I can be bribed but you lot are way too cheap... think mass quantities of LEGO... ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I may be able to meet that standard - there is a whole lot of LEGO hidden away at my house. Not that there's anything I really want, but it's handy to keep in mind. I have made a little modification to Giggy's new and improved userbox and have now applied it to my own talk page. (Thanks Giggy!) It will explain some of the odd things that happen there. Risker (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A) Viewing diffs can be deadly. And yeah, it's over 250K I believe. They have bots for a reason! (I would sue but I might get blocked :-(.)

B) Have you seen WP:AN/K?

C) Deal.

D) I'm sure my sister wouldn't mind in the long run if I used her LEGO (which used to be mine!). Would she?

—Giggy 05:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A) When someone makes a bot that archives on perfect one month boundaries, but with tweaking so that the newly archived page starts with a "nifty-ish" convo, I'll think about it. Till then, by hand

B) Seen it? I stalk there mysekf! SRSLY. Ok, not really.

C) Dealt out.

D) That's not what she said. ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• What's wrong with The Lurkers? LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  Well, hmm...

  I suppose there's always (among others): The Watchers; The Watchers; or even Ye Watchers (and ye Holy Ones : ) - jc37 08:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy

Do you beleive that Philosophy is really of Greek Origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navelio (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no detailed knowledge and no opinion on the matter. Why do you ask? ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just curious —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navelio (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cross-wiki checkuser

Hi Lar. Could you take a look at this thread on Commons: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#New sockpuppet activity in conjunction with Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum? This seems a good opportunity to make use of your having checkuser on both projects to determine whether Commons:User:Yuckycurry is indeed a Jvolkblum sock. WjBscribe 16:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Answered... Yes they are. See on commons, and on en. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. WjBscribe 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony

Have you seen his evidence section lately? --Dragon695 (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been watching it really closely in the last day but when I last checked it was an amazing piece of work. Someone ought to spend the effort to go through it item by item and do a thorough analysis. ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean the part where he lists all of our names and links to our userid's on WR. Then, oh so cleverly, he poisons the well by saying we are on a campaign to destroy SlimVirgin because of the Slimvirgin sub-forum. You'll note the extra snide remark where he questions your and Alison's status as CheckUsers by saying "who claim to be", as if he wasn't perfectly aware of Special:ListUsers! I'll admit I don't buy a lot of the SV conspiracy nonsense, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Yet Tony points to my criticism as being some plot against SlimVirgin. Yes, you're damn straight I'm going to ask someone to post to foundation-l calling her out for trying to use "stalking" in a manner to disrupt her moment of accountability! Where's the justice for the lowly editors SV has no doubt abused in her obsessive ownership issues with all things PanAm 103 and Animal Rights? Who will speak for them? The evidence is clear and damning, no administrator should be allowed to engage in such behavior, even if no tools were involved. I'm tired of him continuing to make the most absurd statements all the while playing like he doesn't understand what's wrong with SlimVirgin and FeloniousMonk's behavior! Even after SandyGeorgia laid things out in a crystal clear manner, he comes back to say the only one who is possibly at fault is Cla68! I don't even need to WP:AGF to know that he can't possibly be that stupid, so I have to assume he is doing this on purpose. With Tony, I can no longer WP:AGF anything he says or does. He's the reason I quit back in 2006 but I'll be damned if he drives me away again! --Dragon695 (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I read it, laughed and ignored. It's a typical Tony smear campaign and I'm pretty sure the arbitrators are smart enough to see right through it. I'll probably leave a followup on the talk page later today but honestly, it's just more BADSITES fever. A quick check of the eeevil forum will show that I actually spent a lot of time defending SV over there, and we're not exactly inseparable friends or anything (au contraire!). Still, the truth does have a habit of ruining a perfectly good fairytale - Alison 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You can always redact any personal attacks, you know. rootology (T) 17:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any "personal attacks", per se. Just veiled comments, insinuations, the usual - Alison 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain, on responding to tony's comments. I try and try to restrain myself, but let it slip a bit. I live in hope that the Omnibus Administrator and Longtime Editor Review and Civility Patrol Act of 2008 will end with some kind of resolution to the problems, but every day I my rational (read: cynical) mind tries to shoot it down. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

On 13 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Epes Sargent (poet), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Commons

Hi Lar! Sorry for the delay in replying to your message - it's been like Four Weddings and a Funeral here in the last two weeks, except with some comedy. But now, with a broken foot and off my face on painkillers, the promised reply.

The issue with Commons is something I've noticed over the past three years. At first it was a fun place to upload to, somewhere where people who enjoy categorizing and creating lateral links could meet with people (like me) who don't enjoy such things and aren't any good at them. The two types of editor worked well together in a collaborative environment. But then something started to change. I'm not sure exactly when it happened - it was subtle at first - but the "atmosphere" at Commons started to sour. Instead of encouraging new uploads and trying to seek out new talent in both categorizing and imagemaking, it felt like the categorizers were suddenly in control. The purpose of Commons shifted, from building a repository of free media into cataloging a repository of free media - not the same thing at all.

Well, that's fine. Our projects can and should keep their processes and purpose under review and are free to change emphasis. Those who don't like it can try to change it back or leave. I chose to leave - switching to uploading run-of-the-mill encyclopedic images directly to Misplaced Pages (via this account) and stopping altogether uploading my more whimsical or artistic ex-commercial images (via another account in my real name). Now, this is fine. We don't force people to upload to Commons, although we encourage it. But then the categorizers started spreading from Commons onto Misplaced Pages. They brought with them the new Commons culture - people upload on sufferance, by permission, should be grateful for the opportunity and should do it right first time.

This crept into Misplaced Pages's processes slowly. I used to clear the {{nowcommonsthis}} backlog. I went to do it one day and the rules had been subtly changed. You can't now just check all is correct and delete: now you must go to Commons and not just check all is right, but find the correct category at the correct level in the hierarchy and add that before you do anything here. But I'm no good at that and don't want to learn (I'm entitled to be both rubbish at and willfully ignorant of the system on a different project if I want) so I stopped doing that - previous experience shows that categorizing is not only beyond me but also beyond most people - look at my Commons uploads as Redvers and see them being shunted endlessly from one category to another (not my problem, and no, I didn't have email-reports enabled, as I don't care). And I know that if you get categories wrong, people are direct and vocal that you're not doing a good enough job (item 1 for "things to change about Commons", if you're interested). Stopping clearing the NCT backlog wasn't a hardship - I enjoyed it, but the world didn't end in not doing it. But the culture clash with Commons continued to spread across Misplaced Pages, aided it seems by SUL.

Commons users and Commons admins - those who primarily edit at Commons - started to come across to Misplaced Pages, declaring that they could deal with Commons' problems 'at source'. I watched as clashes happened across the 'pedia, as people with good uploads, well enough done by Misplaced Pages standards, started to get into scrapes with Commons people enforcing Commons policy on Misplaced Pages images and Misplaced Pages editors. I'm sure you can think of one in particular that I'm thinking of, but there were others. These Commons editors, aided and abetted by the more authoritarian Misplaced Pages editors who just like the opportunity to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules (a Wiki disease, rather than a 'pedia or Commons one), were bombarding people with multiple talk page messages and templating people who had been here since the 'pedia started - because Commons has no tradition of not templating regulars... because categorizers love nothing more than a good template!

None of this really affected me - I continued to upload to Misplaced Pages rather than Commons, as is my right and my choice, generally stayed away from the Commons-derived rows mentioned above and got on with editing Misplaced Pages. Then, one day, this arrived. Ouch. Assuming Good Faith was difficult, given what had come before and the fact that, typical of Commons (in my experience), the message didn't even bother to say "thank you" or anything - just the Commons-style demand that I use Commons. Now, I over-reacted to this, I know. It just really pressed my buttons. But there we are. I gave a foul-tempered reply. I got silence in return. I deserved nothing less. But then it became obvious why I had got silence. I'd been given a template, not a talk message. The template had been left and, confident of the righteousness of their actions, the leaver had moved on and instantly forgotten me. How very Commons, I though. So I put a little notice up. It's the type of childish thing that amuses me, purges superfluous annoyance and lets me get on.

People started to appear asking what the issue was and I explained. Some people had noted similar issues. But it was all a bit nothing really. And then my little banner came to the attention of Commons editors. Now, this is where it gets really interesting and, to my mind, starts to prove my point that Commons editors operating on Misplaced Pages operate like jerks. For instance, seeing my opinions, one Commons editor says s/he will stalk my contributions and immediately transfer Misplaced Pages uploads to Commons. That's not really helping matters at all. So, childishly but deliberately, I promoted the reply to a userspace essay. There are thousands of these things on Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages editors rarely pay them any attention: even when they are racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic. But Commons editors (and, as mentioned before, the rules-lovers already on Misplaced Pages) don't like it up 'em. So along people come saying that it must been deleted. Some Commons people, like yourself, seek to work with me. Some, however, seek to work with me, but then immediately revert to type, playing to the stereotype I've already got for Commons editors in my head. Watch how an offer to work with me on the Commons issue quickly turns into a WP:POINT crap-flood of my talk page: . I express displeasure, but offer to work with you as soon as my life (which had, at that point, started to go all John Cleese on me) calmed down. The result? The Commons-treatment again - a further, targeted crap-flood:

That having failed in whatever its objective was, Common-treatment goes to individual images: for instance with a pointless and sharp debate that again proves the point: Commons editors throwing their weight around, but not actually understanding the issue they're dealing with (the "it should've been uploaded to Commons in the first place, so it doesn't matter about the treatment of it now" idea that is common in Commons-led debates). Then a bot is pointed at some of my images, transferring them to Commons and marking them for deletion. Again, really helpful. By this time, I'm not editing due to the aforesaid Four Weddings and a Funeral scenario (actually two weddings, one funeral, a moved-up deadline at work and a broken foot). So my essay, one among thousands, one that is quite mild compared to many, is sent to MfD. That helps. A debate finally breaks out at Commons - thanks for being a (somewhat lonely) sane voice there, by the way - where my motives are debated and I'm accused of probably not understanding copyright (good accusation, but very wrong and completely unrelated to the matter at hand, but throw enough mud...) but few people - yourself excluded - look at the substantive point: is Commons working properly with Misplaced Pages? And those that do address this point take the view that Commons works well with Misplaced Pages, but Misplaced Pages doesn't work well with Commons... which is roughly were I started this essay and the crux of the problem.

The MfD is, of course, very properly speedy closed as a keep. The Commons response? Renominate it!. Oh yeah. Helpful again. In the meantime, there is discussion of the essay... some of it oddly taking place on the essay itself, rather than the talk page, with Commons editors complaining when comments are moved to the talk page. Commons usage of talk pages must be different to Misplaced Pages's: but Commons editors must edit Misplaced Pages as Misplaced Pages is edited rather than extending Commons practice to Misplaced Pages. Honestly, this is just commonsense. But the discussion on the talk page doesn't get very far either: "rubbish", says one Commons editor (helpful again). Without full possession of the facts, Commons editors opine that I have nothing to base my essay on and should leave Misplaced Pages if I'm unhappy. I'm not unhappy with Misplaced Pages, but there we go. More debate of my motives carries on on the page, but again, nobody except you is willing to work on this: the Commons wants me to shut up, withdraw the essay and give in quietly to the extension of Commons attitudes to Misplaced Pages's pages. And I remain mystified as to what this was meant to mean, but perhaps it's just that the intellectual depth of the comment is beyond me.

So, to summarize, if you're still with me: Commons' way of working is different to Misplaced Pages's way of working. The attempt to impose Commons' officious-sounding, template-driven, Asperger's-style communication and categorisation methods to Misplaced Pages is causing trouble on Misplaced Pages. It probably should stop, as Misplaced Pages editors are being made unhappy and even admins have recently left because of it and related issues. Uploading to Commons is something to encourage, but not something to demand or require, especially when the system on Commons requires extra steps - like categories - that Misplaced Pages does not, and whilst Commons templates people and niggles over categorization. Putting ones own house in order before setting about righting another's is much recommended. Misplaced Pages has upload facilities and people are entitled to use them and Commons editors should accept that. There is a difference of culture between Commons and Misplaced Pages. Because of that difference, I choose not to contribute to Commons. Commons should respect that choice and, especially over my essay, cease the hounding and the complaints about my motives and instead look at the points I'm making rather than trying to find the super-secret reason I'm making them. Cheers. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 16:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, thanks for answering. Is this the best place? Maybe the talk page of your essay so more can find it? There's a lot to digest and think about there, which will take some time. I would ask you to maybe next consider what specific things should change at Commons so others don't get frustrated too? Thanks for taking the time to write this out! ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this is the right place to discuss it... or, at least, the talk page of the essay is the wrong place (it's a road accident at the moment, full of Commons editors making nasty and/or evidence-free assertions: as is happening here, of course, with this Commons thing of examining motives but not addressing the points, but it's worse on the essay talk page). I note you would like some more verbage from me, giving you specific things that should change (TL;DR above? ;o) but perhaps it could be the other way around: would you like to identify the points where you think I'm right and wrong and we'll go on from the basis of your reply? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

First, after reading this, I think there is absolutely no reason for ЯEDVEЯS to change his essay nor is there any reason to delete it. It is legitimate criticism, some of which I strongly agree with. I'll especially note how our more WP:TE image specialists tend to be Commons imports. They come on here like they are on some George Bush mission to spread freedom by wiping out the evil fair-use. Thus, I see them as being the driving force behind the current War on Fair-Use. As NYB pointed out over on the BADSITE, these people refuse to compromise and just scream foundation resolution as a basis for such refusal. Misplaced Pages is not Commons. Misplaced Pages's goal is to write a high-quality encyclopedia that is free and fair-use is a freedom which the bulk of the English speaking world enjoys. They have no right to come over here and demand that Misplaced Pages adhere to the Commons policies. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, after reading this, I guess I can see where Redvers' point of view (and I have unwatchlisted the essay and Redvers' talk page, will leave that to others - it was a bad idea to renominate it again so soon) but I don't agree with it, or even really comprehend it. Even the MECU comment cited as the catalyst for the essay says "please" and "thanks", and it wasn't a template. (I do resent the "crap-flood" statement above - if you look at the diffs, I didn't post any of those messages to Redvers' talk page.) I guess after reading that whole thing I still don't see what needs to be fixed at Commons. Stop categorizing? Stop moving free images to Commons? Or something else? And Dragon, please don't generalize like that. Kelly 18:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

<-As much as I'm grateful for Dragon's support, I have to admit that I'm cool (not anti, just cool) on Fair-Use. We handle it badly almost every time, being lenient in obvious abuse cases and coming down very hard on images in the grey areas. The policing of NFC has become such a minefield - and I agree that the influx of Commons culture has a lot to do with it - that many of us stay away from it... leaving the field open for warriors from both sides to go head-to-head without the voice of reason between them. As for Kelly, well, I've been trying to disengage from Kelly since roughly our third or fourth exchange. Since then, they have edited my talk page at least 9 times, often provocatively. Luckily, I've been away so haven't been able to rise to it. But the argument "if you look at the diffs, I didn't post any of those messages to Redvers' talk page" is laughable: they clearly went through my Fair-Use uploads, in editor order, not alphabetical or date or anything logical, spending time and energy orphaning the images and provoked a crap-flood of BJBot messages to my talk page, directly after I asked them to disengage. This was not helpful, didn't improve my view of Commons editors' tactics and was noticed by others. I'd ask, but fear the answer, what would be solved by removing my little, not-much-linked, essay. But, as I say, I'm trying but failing to disengage from this person. And now for bed with these rather fabulous drugs. I'm sleeping with Prince Valium tonight! :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a response, I've tagged hundreds of images by dozens of uploaders with {{ShouldBeSVG}} or {{ShouldBePNG}} per WP:IUP#Format as purely routine housekeeping - a look at my contribs would show that (though I don't do much of that any more, I mostly upload images now). I didn't orphan the images, and I don't really have any control about what other users' bots do. Kelly 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, yeah. Every time someone has called you on the crap-flooding and the WP:POINTing, it's been someone else's fault. That's fine. Some people don't mind. Me, well, I just don't trust Commons editors any more and I'm not having my trust rebuilt. Now, I really must continue with my promise to try to disengage from you. Bed, with these glorious benzodiazepines, will help that. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

HI-"Я", I suppose that all those pretty nice people here are mostly talking about COM vs. enWP, right?

I'm told there's more than just THAT, out there. &Best, &eod. --WeHaWoe (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the smaller Wikipedias, oft-quoted as a reason why Commons must be used? @Lar, another example posted to my talk page today is this - a Commons editor saying that the choice is to upload free images to Commons or to not upload free images at all. Now, that's really, really really Not Good, I'm sure you agree. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Briefly, I haven't forgotten about this, but it's rather been overtaken by other events. I guess I want to go back to first principles. Commons has as a mission (subject to clarification, there is work underway now to clarify it) the hosting of media that are likely to be of use to multiple projects, likely to be of use in an educational or informative way generally. Not to be a free hosting site or flickr but to host images. The rationale behind setting up commons in the first place was to make things easier for multiple projects... one image hosted one place can be used by many projects. That seems goodness to me. But is Commons filling that mission? Is there a place for individual hosting on individual projects? Is it easy to use Commons, and easy to find out that there are things that might need fixing? It should be. Because if it's not, that's against the mission of Commons. That's where maybe there are loose ends... More in a bit... ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand entirely: you were one of the few people not calling for an immediate reply whilst I was sat in the ER and taking my silence as some sort of admission of guilt. I think I can extend the same leeway to you, especially given the drama of late.

Clarification of the mission of Commons is a good idea. I believe, and I have messages to support this, that the Commons has one view of its mission, whilst en:WP has a completely different one. That is probably a fundamental crux problem in interaction between C and en:WP. A clear mission statement from C, or a list of goals, would be very helpful to editors in both camps. At the moment, we have a big problem where editors upload images to WP, have them removed to Commons with a surly message and then get them deleted as not being suitable for Commons in the first place. These are volunteer editors, spending time and money making freely available what they could be charging for and making money from. We shouldn't be treating them like this, it's bad for morale - the only currency we have here.

A global repository is, of course, a good idea. In an ideal world, we would only have a single upload point for all our projects. That single upload point will, of course, develop its own bureaucracy. But that bureaucracy needs to be either confined to Commons (where, if it runs away with itself, it will damage only one project) or needs to sync with the other projects (meaning that Commons editors will need flexibility - not something that wikicommunities do well). I'm aware that these are mutually exclusive, but the essence of wikiediting is compromise and consensus, so there must be a path through. Whilst a situation exists where perfectly acceptable images are moved to Commons and then deleted, or where Commons editors instruct people to upload to Commons or not upload at all, or (and I will be attacked for this and people will say it's my main point when it's actually a minor one) where people feel they have a degree of control of their uploads on WP but are disenfranchised on C, then there will be problems that are now coming to a head. On a related point, the highly-suspicious proposal to give Commons users semi-admin rights on other projects is entirely the wrong way around: if anything, Commons should be giving users on other project semi-admin rights on Commons. After all, is Commons there to serve the WMF projects or are the WMF projects there to serve Commons? Commons editors argue that it's the latter. They're wrong.

So, is Commons fulfilling the current mission. I'd say, yes with a but, or no with an and. Certainly more no than yes at the moment. Is there a place for local uploading? No, not in the ideal world. But we don't live there, so yes, there is. Ideally, people should want to upload to Commons. But you've seen from me and others that a considerable and vocal number of people, including WP admins, don't want to. That's something Commons should address: how to win back the trust of those who don't want to upload there. Clue: attacking them, editing their userspace to attack them, and discussing them with off-wiki sociopaths is probably not the right route to go. (Also, please tell Rob Boy or whatever its name is that it owes me a month's rent money. It can donate the cash to the WMF and send me the receipt by email. Fair's fair).

On the final points: no, it isn't easy to use Commons. It is unwelcoming, ill-communicative and over-bureaucratic compared to the (slightly-over) freewheeling Misplaced Pages model. On WP, you upload a free image, put it in an article and get on with your life. On Commons, you upload a free image, categorize it, have someone recategorize it and template you for being an idiot, have someone else recategorize it and template you again, have it nominated for deletion because there are "enough" of such images, have someone turn up on your WP talk page to spread the misery by pointing out how much of a dunce you are with uploads, have it deleted, reupload it to WP and then put it in an article where it sits fine until someone moves it to Commons and the entire cycle begins again. That's not "easy to use", in comparison. But Commons then presents its methods as not only ideal but the only way to do things. Wrong again.

To me, of course, it's easy to see what's wrong. But it'll take a reasonable insider in Commons to know how to fix things. And, of all the Commons editors who have had a go at me for complaining, you're the only one who hasn't had a go at me for complaining. As much as you wanted to! So you've got an uphill battle ahead. I'm not confident you will succeed. Although if anyone can, it's you. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

bit more

G'day Lar - hope you're good... I've culled some old stuff, and put a bit more in here... let me know if you think this is useful stuff! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ps. there a conversation I'm seeking feedback about here.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to put some thought into the first and get back to you... as for the second, I thought this went round before? I personally still think it's a good idea but it seems not to be able to gain consensus. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

'seems not to be able to gain consensus' is a bit of an understatement currently! - It's an issue I feel is important enough to want to keep plugging away on, and I thought my 'conversation' was a new way of explaining things which was worth another look. Only 26 wikipedians have thus far gone on the record, and to be honest my feeling is that this warrants the attention of many more - and if you do agree, 6 of us would sure love the company! :-) I look forward to reading more feedback on all the other stuff! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

On 15 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Josephine Clifton, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Kirill_Lokshin

Hi Lar, rather than start a threaded discussion, I thought I'd bring this here - hope you don't mind! With regards to arbcom running smoother since Kirill joined, I actually meant that the process works better than it would do without him. If Kirill wasn't a member, I suspect the community would have even less confidence in the committee. In some respects, I think the committee are a lot open than they once were, and it's in part thanks to Kirill for offering more explanation when asked and using the workshop. Obviously the OM debacle shook the community a lot, but Kirill was there to set the record straight, and was willing to do so despite knowing the problems it would cause - that takes a lot in my opinion. Hope that clarifies my stance a little, probably not best clarifying my comment now since people have already endorsed it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What a lovely theory Ryan! wil you be running for Arbcom (again) in December? Giano (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah - I've realised what a thankless job it is and there's plenty of people that would give a better service than me. I'll certainly try and convince a few people that I know would do a good job. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Who did you have in mind? ... ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a few people that spring to mind from my work on MedCom - WJBscribe is an excellent candidate in my opinion. He's not scared to speak his mind, but he's very respectful towards those who he's in discussion with. He's neutral and doesn't judge - two very important qualities. Another is Vassyana - tremendous mediator and knows a lot about the dispute resolution process. Like WJB, he's not scared to get involved with controversial issues, but always comes off as calm and collected. You of course as well - you obviously care about the wiki and know all about it. You step into controversial areas and try and calm them down and people respect your opinion in them - something which an arb must have. There's a few others I'm sure, but they're the ones I've thought a lot about. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nod... I rather don't like his summary presentment of evidence in Giano's case... (Hi Giano!)... rather don't like it a LOT, in fact... but all in all, Kirill's far from the worst arb we have. Which is why I endorsed. Note that you can always clarify a comment and add a parenthetical that "people endorsing before time X are only endorsing the original" or something. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll probably take a stab at clarification sometime later then. I certainly agree that the way he went about the Giano evidence and proposed decision was wrong - it looked like he had an axe to grind somewhere, and that's not a good thing in arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere.else.opedia

If you are editing Misplaced Pages but feel that it's all become too much, join a group outside Misplaced Pages that develops Misplaced Pages articles. Every week or so, a robot copies content into the history on Misplaced Pages. It ignores obvious vandalism. If your site becomes a persistent source of vandalism your site will eventually be blocked and blacklsted, but that won't happen because you want it to work.

I actually do have a workable method for forking. Please email me if you think there exist people who would like to contribute content without the politics. --Jenny 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm baffled by this... are you saying you have one of these sites? that you have a bot? or something else? ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Navel gazing?

Aren't Misplaced Pages Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Wikia a bit higher on the naval scale than a site that has nothing to do with wikis and has been around at least a decade before Misplaced Pages ever existed? MBisanz 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"navel scale" rather than "naval scale" I think you mean... :) I don't think it's so much a matter of how long things have been around, as what their focus is. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

fancy reviewing a difficult situation?

If so, would you mind taking a look here (and attendant statement, arb comments etc.) and here.. I'd be really really pleased if a way forward were found which represented appropriate resolution...

Sometimes I think it's worth applying rigour to try and find ways around obstacles, particularly when a 'closed door' solution is also on the cards - your thoughts on my approach are of course also welcome!. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

the arb case has now been rejected, so I've updated the link above... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Has the user put in an unblock? what was the other wiki? I don't have time to read shedfuls but if the user retracted the legal threat, I'd be willing to entertain an unblock, unless it owuld be in direct contravention of ArbCom. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lar, you might be interested in reading my comments at the bottom of my talk page as it gives a slightly briefer overview. Actually, I'd be kind of interested in your perspective on what I think is the crux of the issue. Risker (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for looking at this, guys! - The other wiki was nl - this link is actually quite important... and Guido has put in many unblock requests - they're all in the collapsible bit of his talk page.... the arbcom request was formally rejected about an hour ago.. as I said I think this represents Guido's position best at the moment (- and thanks to Risker too, for her comments... :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

<- Risker has raised some important additional points, and I've replied a bit here... just fyi... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

friendly poke re: the above - here's the thread to review... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is much I can add. I did review it. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Disingenious?

You dropped your good faith, you may want to pick it up. As SlimVirgin says, this isn't a chat forum for little children. Using the word shit isn't uncivil, and neither was his comment. I don't appreciate you calling me disingenuous, practice good faith please. Just because you disagree with someone's opinion does not make it disingenuous. Beam 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was just going to swing by your talk page to raise this very matter. The lack of good faith here is not on my side, it's, in my view, on yours. Let's unpack... Is NewYorkBrad a troll? Is Allison? Am I? Answer precisely please, and let's see where that takes us. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief Beam, you are taking this issue a little too seriously. How many times have you repeated your comments at ANI now? You are assuming bad faith on those who actually endorse the block. seicer | talk | contribs 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not bad faith on others, they just don't understand the comment in the way I do. The kid, who may be a jerk who knows, is saying that the TROLLS from that site (troll site or not) are pieces of shit. Who can deny that trolls are pieces of shit? Beam 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think many people do understand what Tony (who is no kid, believe me, he's been around on the internets for well over a decade) meant to say. I think you've been defending something you haven't parsed correctly yet yourself. Let's go back to my unpacking... Is NewYorkBrad a troll? Is Allison? Am I? Answer precisely please, and let's see where that takes us. ++Lar: t/c 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh let's unpack the first order. Are trolls pieces of shit? Beam 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No. No one is, actually, and to say differently is to fail to assume good faith. But that's the wrong question to answer, the right one is the one I asked. ++Lar: t/c 06:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, your question doesn't make sense. I don't know any of you with any significance. In fact, due to AGF, I like all of the people you mention. I've browsed WR, and that place seems a cesspool for gossip and the like. And Trolls, whether from /b/ or from WR are worthless. Beam 15:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So apparently you want to disparage people but you're not sure who exactly you want to disparage, as you can't actually name anyone one way or the other. Right. I think we can discount your input. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Discount my input? Go check the history of my talk page. Go look at what the WR Trolls did at my first mention of WR on Misplaced Pages. What the hell is wrong with you? You haven't apologized for calling me disingenuous and now you're acting like...well you're just acting. Good job!! Beam 16:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with YOU is the question that needs asking, frankly. (along with whether you're actually someone's sock that's playing at goodhand/badhand here) You were disingenious, as well as lacking in good faith at the start of your participation in this matter and I've seen no change in that behaviour pattern. I apologise if pointing that out gave offense, but sometimes I favour WP:SPADE. People WILL discount your input if you foam too much, you know. Per your request, I'm looking at your talk page history. Who were the trolls there? Name names. Or better yet, give diffs, because you are making no sense with that line of reasoning. Why is it I feel like I'm being trolled right now? ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit. Now you're accusing me of being a sock!!! Chill out. Go look at the anon contribs yesterday or the day before. The two paragraph rant threatening to find out where I live and etc. That was posted as a direct result of the whole mess regarding trolls and WR. Beam 16:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll say to you what I say to those asking for any other sort of investigation. Diff link please. What other people do is not a free pass, though. And yes, I think there is reason to look into whether you are a goodhand/badhand account, based on your actions. That's not the same as an accusation, you know. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Goodhand/badhand? What does that even mean? And it is the same as an accusation. It's bullshit, is what it is. I'll go grab the diffs. Beam 16:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC) diff Wasn't hard to find, you didn't even look. Beam 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks more like a generic vandal or an ED troll - Alison 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you still going to defend the pieces of shit from WR? Really? And if you do find out who did this through your use of WR, tell them I have no problem with them coming to meet me, I'd love a personal meeting with them. Really. Beam 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You seriously need to take a chill-pill, sir, a nice cup of tea, and a read of WP:DEADHORSE - Alison 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Allie. But I suspect Beam doesn't quite get it yet. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're here trying to make points. The diffs are therefore yours to supply, not mine to go mining for. Now that you supplied that diff, yes, I agree that particular anon posted something reprehensible. And was blocked for it, rightly so. If other anons turn up and pull stunts like that, they should be blocked too. I'll be happy to do so if a diff is supplied to me.

But was that someone actually from WR? Who knows. People troll for all sorts of reasons. (If I said I was from the FBI, or from Mars, or from the New York Times, that doesn't make it true, especially if I'm posting anonymously). As to what goodhand/badhand means, see Misplaced Pages:SOCK#.22Good_hand.2C_bad_hand.22_accounts. In my considered judgement, a significant fraction of your recent contributions are in fact "artificially stirring up controversy". Especially your second paragraph. Calling anyone a "piece of shit" is not acceptable. My pointing that your behaviour is unacceptable is not "defending" anyone. Discontinue that phrasing, please. Now, who exactly is it, other than anons, that you have issues with, that you are willing to actually name as a "troll". If you won't raise issues about specific users, but just keep repeating these polemical statements, I suggest that this entire thing is just you disingeniously "artificially stirring up controversy" ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What don't you get? Trolls from WR are bad. I'm not saying that there is a specific person acting like a troll. I am saying trolls, trolls from mars or the FBI to use your analogy, are bad. Keep accusing me of stuff too, it's nice. Beam 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, enough. Do you think you're going to convince anyone of your point of view here? For the love of all that is holy, drop it or take it elsewhere. Kelly 16:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

More fool me for continuing. :) Beam: No one is saying trolls, or trolling, are not bad. What I'm saying is first: "bad" != "piece of shit" ... that sort of language is unacceptably not civil... second: muttering platitudes is meaningless potstirring... you're smearing people without even having the courage to say who you have an issue with. For the last time, either make specific your issue and stop with the allegations that add no value, or drop the entire matter and stop stirring things up. Or I will work to make you stop, using the processed and procedures at my disposal. Those are your choices ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't threaten me Lar. I may be new at Misplaced Pages but I know enough that you shouldn't be threatening me. And to Kelly, I don't care what you people think. I'm sorry you enjoy the gossip fest that is WR. That's swell, it really is. Doesn't change my feelings on trolls. At all. Good luck in the future, threatening people and making accusations seems fun. Beam 16:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I am not a WR contributor. Now please, I am asking you stop this before it escalates. Kelly 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been clear. By "you people" I meant anyone who reads my feelings on trolls. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and further believe everyone has their own opinions, and prerogative and more importantly a right to them. And even if Lar thinks I'm a sock and I'm being disingenuous, I'm not. And Lar's threatening of me isn't right. I'm sorry to see you stand by and let that happen Kelly. Beam 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your point is taken. Please consider this a warning, though. Either stop harping on this point on Lar's talk page, or I will take this to dispute resolution. Nothing personal, honestly, but this isn't getting anywhere. With respect - Kelly 17:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing! I'm not trying to prove a point. I just didn't like being called disingenuous. Further I really don't like being accused of being a sock, and being threatened with Lar's "powers." That's abusive. Beam 17:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand. However, I don't think further conversation here would be productive. I'd be happy to continue the discussion with you on my talk page. Kelly 17:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

An exiting moment

Congratulations , but before you get too exited, remember . Well done! Giano (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I had not even suggested it yet, because I was planning on suggesting Columbus Day as the date. I don't see the nom for it but wow... I'm happy. Nice way to counterbalance some of the current AN/I dramahs... I guess I better get busy and get another one to FA! ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, er... I hope you meant "exciting", and not not "exiting" :) ... I have no plans to exit any time soon! :) ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh congratulations Lar! I'll stick this on my watchlist for July 23rd. Every once in a while, vandal-whacking is quite refreshing. Risker (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to get busy though... I have several candidates but nothing solidly in FA territory yet. Maybe Croton Dam (Michigan) ??? ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work! Jehochman

RE: ACC TOOL

(Refactored to User_talk:Mww113 per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Renegade editor

Have you been following the discussion at User talk:Koavf concerning the editor who is staging a one-man edit war concerning The Beatles? As an administrator, can you add your input? Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not. I will go take a look though, when I get a chance. Thanks for the heads up. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

IRC help *URGENT*

Hello lar you just talked to me on irc. I have an emergency, I was testing a tor server on my computer and somehow irc.freenode.net picked it up. I am now k-lined. Please contact a freenode staffer to get there nickname typr /stats p. I constantly use irc.freenode.net to further the progect. I will disclose my ip adress to you via email one you reply on my talk (or use the {{talkback}} template. Thanks so much, Mww113 (Talk) (Review me!) 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sent you an email. Thanks so so much Mww113 (Talk) (Review me!) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

en.wiki mailing list

Hi Lar. You may want to be aware of this thread on the en.wiki mailing list: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/thread.html#94535 Cheers, --Iamunknown 01:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. An interesting thread. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping. Risker (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Risker... when I'm online I check my email approximately every 5 min, that's how obsessive I am. And when I'm not, a ping isn't gonna get me online any faster. :) But I like pings. I should start collecting them like I do RfA thank yous (which I never seem to get anymore... maybe I should start !voting in RfAs again?) ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What? You mean you don't have a tab open to your email account 24/7? And I suppose I should vote in more RfAs too...I'm just not up to spending a couple of hours reviewing contribs for everyone lately. Ah well... Risker (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No comment. :) Well, almost no comment. (kind of like how "this page intentionally left blank" is actually false) ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean that this page was intentionally left blank? Titoxd 04:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes... IBM is famous for making a great deal of use of these pages (back when IBM published all its manuals in hardcopy form). They would carry a footer with the manual name and the page number of the manual where they belonged. I can recall inserting them into manuals on my desk, many a time. (Periodically one would receive packets of pages in the post containing fixes to manuals, which one duly inserted into the manual binders, hopefully in the right places. Sometimes some of the new pages would be blank, to replace a page that described something that had been obsoleted, and sometimes some of the new pages would be non blank, but would replace a page that had previously been blank, as they described something new which space had been reserved for in the organization of the manual) There is an apocryphal story that there was an APAR opened against the entire publication group, requesting that all pages which said "THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK" be replaced with pages which said "THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK" on the grounds that was a more accurate statement... Needless to say if there was such an APAR, it must have been rejected, as the cost of the PTF to identify, produce and print all those (thousands of different) pages (properly numbered and with proper footers, since that is how things were done), mail them out to every manual receipient, and so forth, would have been enormous. Even for IBM. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Besides, the civil thing to do if we find a page with an erroneous statement like that is to add a cn tag. :-) Actually, pedants are often wrong. "This page intentionally left blank" refers to the state of the page before the notice was added. If it were "This page is intentionally blank" it would be the oxymoron. However, there is another alternative now, with modern technology, and I typed it accidentally. "This page intentionally left black." This comment is intentionally silly. Warning to pedants: don't read this comment, while it is rare, your head might explode.--Abd (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

... see also here ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Poke on a difficult unblock review

G'day Lar - hope you're doing good (I'm tempted to go find the lego scream again... but p'raps it's calmer in the eye of wiki storms?) - I wonder if I could give you a gentle poke about reviewing a difficult block. It's probably best to simply review this thread - and maybe ask any questions that I might be able to help with? - I chatted with three admins about this in the unblock channel too - which you can review here (admins names changed just because I'm not sure of the protocol.. and I'm not sure if it really matters? - all were certainly uninvolved in my view, and willing to talk through the issues).

I believe there's a chance of helping Guido contribute usefully here, and I'd be really pleased if that could be the outcome... your thoughts would be appreciated - and yours, Steve..... and other admin.s.... ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)ps. I took your name in vain on the mailing list today, then thought a bit further about the context that may mean you are unable to respond, even to tangential points that I may have been making... I don't think that's right, and I hope I didn't mis-speak....

I looked at it already. As I (meant to?) say above, I'm not sure what additional value I could add... ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lar - and sorry for not keeping up - it's my own stupid fault for splitting the thread, and not paying attention! - sorry...

by my reading Guido has committed to comply with the WP:NLT policy, and further committed to not engaging in any way with any aspect of the dispute - a commitment I'd certainly support any re-blocking admin in interpreting broadly.. I also had a very helpful chat with Sam Korn about this, and he's now emailed Guido... I wouldn't be massively suprised to see a noticeboard discussion on this one at some point, and I'd hope you might support an unblock either then, or sooner! :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I gave this a cursory review only, so may have missed something here, but my view of what this user said was that he's saying so rather grudgingly, and with rather snide commentary about everyone else's bad faith. I'm not sure that's condusive to a long term successful experience. I see no reason to unblock at this time but would not oppose one if consensus formed for it. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On another matter. You asked me to mentor you. Here's a piece of advice. Avoid getting involved in every cause celebre’ that comes along. Focus on making positive, unremarkable contributions, and don't see every controversy as a way to push your own agenda. I think that is a better way to rebuild your reputation, long term. Easy advice to give, hard advice to take, drama is such a draw... but try. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

that's good advice - and I've tried to be mindful of it. I'm trying to focus my efforts in areas where I both genuinely care about the issues, and believe that I might actually be able to help - on the other hand I totally understand that at the end of the day, one has the reputation one deserves... it's always gonna be a question of balance, I guess... I'll try and restore it a bit... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you take a look at this discussion and give your opinion?

Would you look into this discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Boy2Boy? I do think it stinks that a new editor with an announced gay agenda is making worse-than-inappropriate edits to an article about a Catholic saint, but I think I'm arguing in favor of his indef block on the basis of Misplaced Pages policy. You know your policy and you're levelheaded, so if you have the time, I hope you'll weigh in. And if you disagree with me, that's more than all right with me, as long as the discussion can get away from You're all homophobes. If the user is unblocked, this might be a case for WP:UAA. And if you do have the time and interest to look at it and see that I've said anything inappropriate in that discussion, please tell me. Regards, Noroton (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, events moved too fast and it's been closed as resolved already. I think the outcome of LHvU having given a final chance unblock seems prudent to me. I personally would probably have blocked the account for the name, but I'm rather prudish that way. Consensus seems that the name was OK... so be it. I think you raised some valid concerns. Perhaps 4 posts in a row wasn't the best approach, but I didn't see anything really awfully dreadful. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request opened.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Lar. Thatcher 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the attacks. You've been subject to allegations for no other reason than where you post. BADSITES failed; the tactic is now to attack individuals. Hopefully, you'll be exonerated as far as possible. Minkythecat (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and don't forget the helpful advice you gave me =). --Dragon695 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Video tour inside the Lego factory

I figured this would be right up your alley. gizmodo Kylu (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I wonder if he bought the 2500 USD tour package or got a special one... Thanks for sharing. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also up your alley: album covers recreated in lego. Kylu (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this panorama... beautiful model work, and very nice work on the photography as well. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Beatles newsletter July 2008

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 013 – July 2008
Beatles News A nine-minute interview with Paul McCartney and John Lennon has surfaced that had been lost since 30 April 1964, after they returned from their first American tour. Paul Weller played an unexpected cover of The Beatles' "All You Need Is Love" during a gig being staged as part of London's iTunes Festival. "Beatles Day – Imagine The Concert" will be a part of this year’s Summer Pops Festival. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has revealed his favourite Beatles song - "All My Loving" - because he played it on the piano as a young upstart. McCartney and Starr will be among the stars to honour Sir George Martin at USC Representatives for The Beatles, Activision Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI), and MTV Games are in talks about developing a Beatles-themed video game versions of Guitar Hero (series) and Rock Band (video game). McCartney talked about his last moments with Harrison, just days before his death. Rare photos of The Beatles are to go on display in Little Chalfont next week. Yoko Ono plans to appeal a failed lawsuit against a filmmaker who used a piece of footage from the Imagine (film) without permission. US District Judge Sidney Stein found in favour of the filmmakers based on Fair use. (Interesting for Misplaced Pages editors...) Ringo Starr's new album, Liverpool 8, only sold 7,000 copies in its first week of release. Project News As you may have seen, the talk page banner changed a bit. It has a couple of bugs (most notably the categorisation problems), but the {{WPBannerMeta}} standardisation was long overdue. Thank you to Dendodge for sorting it. The newsletter's back after a very positive reaction, and thanks are again due to Dendodge. Article adoptions: Heather Mills will be a hot topic next month, as the truth will be referenced. The hottest Project page this month has been The Quarrymen (now a GA). It reveals the most accurate history of their early days, because so many other web pages tell a completely untrue story (one web page said they lost a Carroll Levis competition to a woman who played the spoons :) Other Project news The project now has 5 FA articles, and 33 GA articles. George Harrison, Ringo Starr, and Klaus Voormann are still B-class articles, as is Yoko Ono (will she ever get a GA rating?) Member News New members to the project (since the last issue, which was a long time ago) include a lot of names, which can be found here.... Project member news:	Issue of the Month Apart from the usual vandals, there is an ongoing problem with Misplaced Pages editors deleting free and fair-use photos because they don't think they are of any value to articles, even though this sometimes leaves articles with no photos at all. These editors do not leave notes on talk pages, so if you see that a photo has vanished, check the talk page and the history log. From the Editors It's been a while, but the newsletter's back! After a short discussion on the project talk page, seemingly unanimous consensus to bring it back was reached. This issue, and subsequent ones, will probably be shorter - as we kept running out of things to say before! There's a lot to say this month, purely due to the long absence of a newsletter, but we'll keep it as brief as possible. In order to get delivery by Denbot sorted, the special delivery interface has been changed slightly - but existing delivery options still stand. Inactive participants who want delivery should place their names on this list. If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 014 – August 2008). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Contributors to this Issue Dendodge (Lead Editor & Distributor) andreasegde (Gossip and lie-detector editor)
Complete To Do List Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. To-do list for User:Lar: A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles. Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood. Verify : Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

{{../Issue-nav|013}}...... Densock .. Talk 10:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Stormy seas

Congratulations on SS Christopher Columbus appearing on the Main Page! It really is a great article. (Just think, more people will read the article today, than sailed on it in a day during the Columbia Exposition) And I have read it (twice now!), so I know it sailed the Lakes! The Stormy seas is because, well... I almost never comment at RFAR, but I do read it. And I can only hope that the satisfaction of seeing your magnum opus up there takes some of the edge off the outrageous and unfair invective and aspersions that have been cast your way on the mailing list. I'm as frustrated as I've ever been and wish there was something meaningful I could do in your defense -- and this coming from the guy who you met when I opposed your Steward candidacy! Just keep in mind that outside the 600 or so Wikipedians that care about ArbCom, the rest of the world barely knows all that garbage is happening; tens of thousands of people, however, are going to read your fine article. Hopefully that's something of a safe haven right now. Best, --JayHenry (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

dammit someone beat me to it! - It's an awesome article, Lar, and congrat.s for your moment in the spotlight - I hope all the other stuff sorts itself out as smoothly as possible... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

She looks very good on the Main Page, captain. Congratulations. Risker (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all, and thanks in particular to those of you busily keeping the edits flowing smoothly at SS Chris. One blanking so far, one POOP, one AW SHIT, one eheheh ... not bad. (what this town needs is a better class of vandal... but I don't intend to give it to them!) I rather like the article, even after leaving it be for a while. Alexander McDougall really needs an article of his own though. JayHenry, I think the truth will out and it all will be sorted. Wikien-l is not the right place for arguing the case. Kelly, I just gotta ask, what exactly is that cheerleader doing? Some sort of odd motion. Not exactly a whale back I don't think... She looks more like a minnow, and probably could stand to get on the outside of a few fish dinners... ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I was wondering about the cheer-contortionist too, but I bet Petty Officer 1st Class Scott Cohen enjoyed himself immensely during that photo assignment. Risker (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh - you're probably right! A PO1 is an E-6 and he is probably the person in charge of his section - I can just see him handing out the assignments for the day. "OK - Seaman Johnson, you take the photos of the corrosion repair on the submarine. Seaman Smith, you handle the change of command on the cruiser. Jones, put on your whites and take care of the consul's reception. Oh, crap - there's nobody left to cover the USO tour with the Dolphins cheerleaders. Well, I suppose I can do that myself. Dismissed!"

Agreed she is a little anorexic-looking, but I liked the smile. Kelly 05:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That was all you liked? Well, that doesn't really help the peanut gallery figure out if you're a boy or a girl, Kelly... at least not these days. ++Lar: t/c 05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations, indeed! Sorry about wikien-l, tho. It is disheartening to read some of the crap being said there :-/. Well, cheer up! Now's your time to shine! --Dragon695 (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes for parties

These notes are detailed guidelines for the case, agreed by the ArbCom.

1. Please be aware in submitting evidence that it may be shared with other parties to the case, on a confidential basis, at the Committee's discretion.
2. Our intention is to circulate the leading points, but not full background detail, unless there are good reasons to do otherwise.
3. If there is a particular reason not to share some part of your evidence with other parties, please flag that clearly in your submission.
4. We will be open to all requests for further clarification.
5. To avoid any further risk to the privacy of third parties, the parties to the case are strongly requested not to make any further public statements concerning the matters under review by the Committee.
6. The Committee will understand participation in the case by a party as assent to the principle that the information circulated is confidential (cf. Misplaced Pages:Mediation#When should a mediation be held confidentially? for some good reasons).
7. The administration of the case will be by emails sent to active Arbitrators; please send mail to an Arbitrator of your choice (preferably CC another), and not to the ArbCom list.

Charles Matthews (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

I know that you have in your heart, the interests of the project. Keep your head up, and keep up the good work you do. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

but where should Lar keep his head up? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)/me runs and hides.....

Hopefully not the same place you've been keeping yours! ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping redux

Hey Lar, you might want to take a look here. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly odd. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I admit I find much of what Jim62sch does to be quite mystifying. I think Kelly has clue (if not always the deftest of touches) so I guess the one that doesn't is me? :) ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'll keep that one to myself ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this I have 1800 edits to my own talk page. That's scary. Someone should run one for me and E. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when you look at it, there's loads of overlap! Lar, any chance you could run a CU on these and see if they're socks?! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, you want me to run a CU on myself because you suspect I'm a sock of Kelly? I'll get right on that! (actually I run CUs on myself a fair bit, truth be told)... ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I ran it mainly cause I knew it would show you guys weren't socks, otherwise there would be far more votes in the common contribs, instead of talk page posts, most of which come from Kelly's image tagging I think. Glad we got that out of the way though. Now to convince Simple-en I am not grawp... MBisanz 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should be flattered that someone thinks I might be you. :) I'll be off to try to find a clue now... Kelly 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

...MBisanz isn't Grawp? *hits the stop button in the other window* ... I mean, I knew that... Kylu (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Truss bridge reference discussion

Hello. Please review the discussion going on at Talk:Truss bridge#Use of the HAER Publication on Truss Types as a Reference Document. Input from members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Bridges would be appreciated. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have commented there. Thanks for helping move the discussion from edit summaries to the talk page. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Improving my ArbCom statement

Hey, not that I don't agree with you or value your opinion - I'd even let you speak for me on a lot of subjects - but zOMG you erased my ArbCom statement and replaced it with your own. Just a heads-up - I'll go fix it. MastCell  19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oi! I have NO IDEA how that happened. Thanks for fixing it. Certainly wasn't intentional. ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. At ArbCom what I actually said was, "Sockpuppetry has never been proven to the satisfaction of the community." Please don't edit my remarks out of context. There's already more than enough of that sort of thing going on.

I really don't know what I can do about the sockpuppetry accusations. Millions of people use this ISP, and it's clear that another user of this ISP was voting on this page. I have no way to control that. What do you recommend? How can I get rid of this cloud you keep pointing to, that's hanging over my head? WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy. There are 2M articles so far. Almost all of them have nothing to do with Barack Obama, or even with American politics. Every single one of them... even the WP:FA class articles, has areas that need additional work. Go work on them until you have a respectable body of work, and have the respect of your peers as a reasonable contributor. THEN come back to Barack, if you're still interested. There is no rush. There is no deadline. The Barack article will still be here next year, and the year after next and the year after that. Now, if you say "but... but... Barack is up for election THIS YEAR... something has to be done!"? Why then, you've tipped your hand. You're an SPA, essentially, a POV pusher, concerned with the truth about some issue, rather than the project as a whole. We have enough of those already. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)