Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 21 August 2008

I'm sorry, you have reached an imaginary number. If you require a real number please rotate your telephone by ± 90° and try again.

Archives
Complete archive Individual archives: Jul–Dec 2004 Jan–Jun 2005 Jul–Sep 2005 Oct–Dec 2005 Jan–Mar 2006 Apr–Jun 2006 Jul–Sep 2006 Oct–Dec 2006 Jan–Mar 2007 Apr–Jun 2007 July–Sep 2007 Oct–Dec 2007 Jan–Mar 2008

Watchlist request

Could you keep an eye on edits by Mrg3105 (talk) at the article Prophet? In late August 2007, Mrg3105 radically altered the article to reflect his own POV on the subject, something which was corrected in early November 2007 (see discussion page section entitled "What Happened?"). While many of his recent edits can be called improvements, Mrg3105 succumbed once again to the temptation of extensively revising the article to reflect his own POV, one effect being a sort of mass confusion in the lede. 70.243.229.217 (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My Neighbor Totoro

You called what I did vandalism. I don't believe it is. Please read Talk:My Neighbor Totoro. Totoro has nothing to do with Shinto. The Catbus, which appears in Totoro, looks very like the Cheshire-Cat in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. But do you say Totoro is something to do with 19th-century England because of that? To say Totoro has shintoist themes only because there appears a shrine is the same as to say that it has something to do with England only because of the resemblance between the Catbus and the Cheshire-Cat.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Michael, I was trying to revert what I took to be vandalism by IP 67.161.32.117 and others and your edit got caught up in my reversion. I have no opinion on whether the section you deleted belongs in the article or not. I notice that you have given your reasons why you think the section should be deleted on Talk:My Neighbor Totoro, and have stated that you intend to delete the section provided that no one objects by Apr 24, that seems reasonable to me. Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Thank you very much. --Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

forgotten signature

You forgot to sign your vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Induced homomorphism. I could sign it for you but it always looks better if the vote is signed by the original poster. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've signed on the dotted line ;-) Paul August ☎ 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism on your User page

Reverted vandalism on your User page, just to let ya' know :-) . see ya'. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Grant Napear Protection

Thanks for the protect on Grant Napear. That poor page was sitting right at the threshold where I thought it might be worth going through Process to get it protected, but the typical 3-days wasn't likely to do much to stem the long-term bleeding. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogre lawless (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case on Homeopathy

In this case, FloNight and Kirill have supported the proposal of a Sourcing Adjudication Board remedy. I think there's significant enough opposition (on the talk page, and workshop) to this idea by the general community, excepting editors involved in the particular dispute. Though your name is marked as inactive or away in this case, would appreciate it if you could look through the alternative (and I think more effective) proposal of clearly delineating between content and behavior issues, devolving responsibility on the community. It would be great if this is added as a proposal on the proposed decision page too so other arbitrators can share their thoughts in comparison to the suggested SAB remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

Why do you keep on reverting my additions to the invalid proofs page?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.38.243 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't make any sense to me. They look like vandalism. Paul August ☎ 03:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm they were a new a new proof that X=Y based upon the sumation of all numbers from x to infinity

something like ${\displaystyle \sum _{n=5}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}=\infty }$
${\displaystyle \sum _{n=6}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}=\infty }$
${\displaystyle 5+\sum _{n=6}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}=\sum _{n=5}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}}$
${\displaystyle 5+\sum _{n=6}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}-\infty =\sum _{n=5}^{\infty }{\frac {n}{1}}-\infty }$
${\displaystyle 5=0}$

Proposed decision

Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that the Tango case has a 9.1 principle proposed by Kirill. Would request your vote on it, as well as on Fof 3. Please also note that FloNight and Jpgordan are reconsidering have changed their votes on the remedies after checking the talk page - the discussion there is eye-opening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)  Done

This isn't a reminder or anything, but just a random comment: I'm a bit startled and curious at the abstain on the 1.3 "desyopped" remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy case

This case should be closed on your return. But I'd like to remind you that 2 arb-clarifications have been waiting (for ages) on the discretionary sanctions wording - they can be closed once voted on, sometime soon hopefully. Kirill has already posted the 3.1 version for voting on the requests page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests page

Particularly from clarifications, amendments & appeals, the requests page has been clogged up recently. I'm going to remind you (or inform you) of some cases that may need your attention, views and reasons, or further discussion to try to fix this problem. Once the page is less clogged up, then that's that :) You may find the links to the cases mentioned at {{RfarOpenTasks}} - created by one of the clerks, AGK.

Currently, there are 2 requests which require arbitrator attention, one involving IRC voting, while the other involves "Episodes and characters". Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't notice the 2 recused - although, I can only see Sam as 'recused' on the case list. There's 2 considered inactive, but that's different. Anyway, cheers for the note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Boston Massacre

Why the quotation in the Depictions section are in bold letters? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The long bolded text begining "THE HORRID MASSACRE ..." is apparently the title of the pamphlet being quoted from. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Active or inactive

Are you active or inactive on the Homepathy case? Please respond at WP:AC/C/N. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Active. I've responded there. Paul August ☎ 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

I am an administrator open to recall. I started a page regarding the subject at User:John Carter/Adminship, indicating that when three editors filed complaints within 90 days, I would ask an uninvolved admin to review the material and make a recommendation. Three such complaints have been lodged. I initially posted this request to the User talk:UninvitedCompany#Request for review, but have since noted that that party is now inactive. I am thus requesting a different party, you, to review the comments and make any recommendation regarding my continued status as an admin that you might see fit to make. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, please be so good as to review User:Sarvagnya's recent edits, as I believe he is once again displaying the kind of behavior which prompted the wikiquette alert and failed RfC. Also, the now-deleted Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya should be of interest regarding his earlier activity. John Carter (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but I don't have the time at the moment to look into this matter. I did read the comments at User:John Carter/Adminship, and without knowing any thing further, they do not make me particularly concerned about your use of administrative tools. My only recommendation is that, whatever you think of the editors who have commented, you take to heart the criticisms they give. None of us are perfect and we can all strive to be better. Best regards, Paul August ☎ 13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - PLEASE HELP

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to you as Arbcom member to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter.

This is a massive injustice, and only allows others to continue to assert factually incorrect, malicious, offensive and POV items about my country.

Many thanks

Would like your view on this recent request for arbitration

titled "Attachment theory". I agree it should be rejected, but I'd like the Committee to make a solid and definite statement that is more or less saying "profanity, particularly when directed against another editor, is unacceptable and should not ever be condoned." This will acknowledge the fact that there are a few cases that do unfortunately slip through without any sort of action (despite needing it), and hopefully sways reluctant admins to step in with education and warnings or any other necessary action (rather than silently watching). Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I noted your vote on the Episodes and Characters clarification, and appreciate the breath of sanity. If it's possible, I would really appreciate someone explaining to your fellow Arbcom members that the request for clarification itself has never been answered: instead of explaining what was originally meant, they decided to reopen the case and introduce new sanctions. Kww (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

EB 1911 stuff

Well, it is nearly four years later, but as a follow up to this, I thought you might be interested in this. Some interesting EB 1911 stuff there. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth, unfortunately my interests lie elsewhere just at the moment. Paul August ☎ 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Motions

Hi Paul, I saw you were online; would you be able to vote in the motions at RfAr? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)

I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Misplaced Pages Weekly team, or the 'Not The Misplaced Pages Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot for signing up as willing to answer a few questions, Paul - it's much appreciated. I mentioned to Kirill a short while ago that I don't see any urgency in rushing through this process, but getting the ball rolling will help enormously, I think. I'll drop a note in here in the next few days when the page has had a few more eyes and ears, and there's something of substance you'll be able to respond to. Thanks once again, Privatemusings (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Email sent

Further to my posts at this Arbitration Committee case and its associated workshop, I have emailed you evidence that includes private information. As I have noted at the workshop, I will leave it to you to share with fellow arbitrators active in the case. Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've forwarded your email to the rest of the committee. Paul August ☎ 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July arb stuff

• 2 arb-clarifications have been waiting on the discretionary sanctions wording. There are 4ish votes in support of the wording like in the homeopathy case, with 1 in oppose. It's nearly been 2 weeks since it was ready for voting. Can you please vote? I don't know why the rest of the Committee refuses to go near it, but if it's because they don't want discretionary sanctions enacted at all, why won't anyone just oppose and explain why it's not needed in their opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• I've asked a question here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The detail in the elephant

The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors". Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room". I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant" before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Elephants are known for something else beside brute strength. The Arbitration committee would do well to rememeber that. I am getting very tired of their behaviour and Misplaced Pages in general, and while I'm sure their wish is to see the back of me, it would be nice, in their acheivement of their goal, to see some common decency and honour exhibited from them. Giano (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing Paul August a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee

SchfiftyThree 20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cantos

Please revert this, as the word "much" is extremely sloppy and very inaccurate. Furthermore, not having the subject in the beginning is very improper. Also, the word "controversy" has to repeat based on standard nominalization principles. This is basic English, and I can provide you many texts on the necessity of this repetition. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ottava. Sorry you didn't like my edit. I am not a Pound or The Cantos scholar, so I can't say how accurate the word "much" is here, with any authority. Have you read the relevant sources on this point? Another concern I had with your edit is that it introduces a change of meaning that I'm not certain is supported by the sources. The original sentence was describing "critical discussion" about the relationship between four things, A ("the economic thesis on usura"), B ("Pound's anti-Semitism,"), C ("his adulation of Confucian ideals of government") and D ("his attitude towards fascism") and another thing, E ("the passages of lyrical poetry and historical description that Pound performed with his 'ideographic' technique"). This is clearer in an earlier version of the sentence, by the original author:

"Much critical discussion of the poem has focused on the relationship between, on the one hand, the economic thesis on usura, Pound's anti-Semitism, his adulation of Confucian ideals of government and his attitude towards fascism, and, on the other, passages of lyrical poetry and the historical scene-setting that he performed with his 'ideographic' technique."

This was changed into an assertion that the poem contains "controversial topics" A, B, C, D and G (the relationship of A, B, C, and D, to E). But I wonder if there are sources for each of these five things being "controversial". I've now restored the earlier version of this sentence. Do you like this any better?

As for the need to use the word "controversy", I don't understand it, can you elaborate?

Paul August ☎ 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not your "edit". Its the original language that I do not like. The topics are all controversial (especially anti-seminitism and economic topics). If the topics themselves aren't necessarily controversial (like Confucian ideals), his support for fascism combined with them is. My rework was a patch work and not the best. I welcome you to tighten the language accordingly. But please don't put that word "much" at the beginning. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Also, some notes on the section - "one hand" and "other hand" for such a long list gets confusing. The section is about controversies, but not an in-depth analysis. It would be out of place to say there is "critical discussion" in a "controversy" section, because critical discussion could be on non-controversial topics. Hence the need to identify the list outright. "Controversial topics" introduces this idea. The problem is the repeat of variations of "controversy". The first sentence can be removed as contributing nothing to the paragraph, which limits the repetition. Also, here - the ref is to verify the "anti-semitism". Without it, there is a possibility of an edit war. Such descriptives have been subject to conflicts in many pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed language:

Sentence a) The Cantos always provoked controversy over the experimental nature of the writing but this intensified after 1940 when Pound's public approval for Mussolini's fascism became widely known.

Sentence b) Critical discussion of the poem has focused on the relationship between Pound's controversial beliefs (his economic thesis on usura, his anti-Semitism, his adulation of Confucian ideals of government and his attitude towards fascism) with passages of lyrical poetry and the historical scene-setting that he performed with his 'ideographic' technique.

Justification: Tightens the language, removes the repetition of controversy, connects all the ideas together. For "b", the paranthesis emphasize the relationship of the topics while not confusing people with a long list that is separated by commas merging into a comparative clause that is separated by commas.

Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, the proposed new language is fine with me — with one caveat. I think that "Crtical discussion" needs to be quantified, otherwise the implication is that the majority of "critical discussion" has focused on these points, which I doubt is the case, and certainly not what the original was saying. Would "considerable critical discussion" work for you? "significant"? Although to my ear "much" sounds better than either of these. Otherwise, I think the tightening is good. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Would you mind copying this discussion to Talk:The Cantos? It is really best there. Thanks.

Done. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a chance, could you look here and use oversight ability, unless someone beats you to it? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It has already been taken care of. Paul August ☎ 02:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats good. :) By the way, did you have a chance to look at the Cantos's talk page? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment.

Hey Paul. I'd like to request that you show me how my comments are unhelpful please, either here, or privately. It's the bare facts of the matter. SlimVirgin is running a one man crusade to smear both Lar, and Alison publicly, where their hands are tied due to checkuser privacy policy. Even regarding this, the consensus is markedly against SlimVirgin, which is why she continues to try to find new places to try to forum-shop her smears (Got told that ANI was not the place and if she had a problem with Lar's actions, to file a complaint with the Ombudsmen, or with ArbCom. Instead, she brought it to EN-L and continued to make these smears). She has a habit of doing so (when the first ArbCom got opened, she attempted an end-run around English Misplaced Pages and it's proceedures by trying to rally support for a BADSITES-like proposal on the FOUNDATION-L list). Even if my comments are "unhelpful" they are completely accurate. SirFozzie (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

At the request of another, I have restated my feelings, but I completely stand behind what I said. SirFozzie (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul August ☎ 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review

Paul, sorry to bother you. Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you were one of the editors who agreed with the idea of bringing this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad, and so I hope you'll be pleased we've come this far. We'd appreciate a peer review from you if you can find the time, to help us iron out any flaws before we go to FAC. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't know that I will be able to be of any help, but I'm very pleased at what you've done. Good work. Paul August ☎ 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman-Persian again

Hi! I know you're occupied with all this Arb stuff, but I'd be grateful if you could have a look here. I'm really angry with all this edit-warring which has suddenly erupted, and I really feel like wanting to kick some asses. Sorry, but this situation has annoyed me a lot. Cheers and thanks in advance.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism

As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :

• Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

Alan Sun --203.194.98.177 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to the arbcom mailing list

Paul, would you pass on the message below to the arbcom mailing list, please? Normally of course I wouldn't comment on a user without informing him/her about it, but this is a special case, in that Ncmvocalist deleted my last two posts to his page. (He also removed a number of posts he didn't like on the admins' noticeboard thread that my links below refer to.) I hope somebody passes on this one to him...but I'll be darned if I post another message on his page. Deleting civil, informative messages from respectable users (=er, that would be me) is...well... let's just put it that I'm not about to give him a third chance to do that.

Message:

I'm rather shocked that Ncmvocalist has apparently been invited to clerk the RFAr, after this lot (see especially WJScribe's trenchant comment: "one of the more ill-advised discussions brought to a board where ill-advised discussions regularly abound"), and this deletion, too, and this comment by Carcharoth.

I've seen people ask how to become arbcom clerks and be told that the way is simply to start clerking. Therefore I fear being told here that "nobody invited him, he just started." (Told in good faith, needless to say.) But Kirill did, specifically, invite Ncmvocalist, as specifically "perfectly suited for the job": Well, I don't agree that he is. He has shown poor judgment and isn't suited for the job. If Kirill invited him before being aware of these things--for instance, before WJScribe had made his comment--then Ncmvocalist can and should be un-unvited, surely? Clerking is an important job. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

I've sent a message to arb mailing list containing a link to this post. Paul August ☎ 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess printed out would be more inviting, but I hope they read it anyway. Bishonen | talk 23:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Well I will send the text if you like, but since your message included links I thought it best to simply link to your post. Paul August ☎ 02:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, good thinking. No, thanks, don't send another e-mail to the list, I don't want to bore people to that extent. Do you have any comment yourself on what I say, Paul? For the ordinary user, the list is a mere black hole, so it's a bit boring to post to it. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC).

Well I don't know what you mean by "Ncmvocalist has apparently been invited to clerk the RFAr"; what RFAr are you talking about? In any case Ncmvocalist is not a clerk — the process of becoming a clerk is described at WP:CLERK. I expect that Kirill's post is related to the fact that Ncmvocalist has been acting the gadfly, buzzing around pestering various arbs to do their jobs (e.g. see this very page), a role eminently suitable for a clerk. Paul August ☎ 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean: to clerk the RFAR pages. To become a clerk. People used to be encouraged to simply begin if they were interested in doing the job, but I see from WP:CLERK that that's not the case now—"Clerks are appointed by the Arbitration Committee"—so I should rather have advised the committee against appointing him. (Perhaps you'd like to reply to my message and say so?) He's obviously practising for it, as WP:CLERK advises people to do if interested. The specific reason I thought he had to already be a clerk was Kirill's invitation , plus Ncmvocalist's post here. See how that's posted in the area for non-recused clerks? Bishonen | talk 09:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

Goads are alright, if they're delivered by a drover. Is this creature a parasite or a guide? Given his highly emotional display and his lack of dispassion, merely telling arbs to do something may not be enough to indicate judgment. Geogre (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that Ncmvocalist is not allowed to clerk anything related to ArbCom. I do not think his approach is suited to the task, and some of the things done already by Ncmvocalist have been, in my view, rather counter productive... (in particular "pestering" arbs is not what is needed...) If there is a better place to give this input please advise and I will do so. ++Lar: t/c 14:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, we all need something (pestering? goading? bugging? prodding?)) now and then. Of course there are good ways of pestering and bad, Newyorkbrad's methods were the acme of the polite but persistent nudge. As for proper venues, this is probably not the best. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, since you say you all need pestering, here's a little more

Paul, this is totally absurd, what's going on at WP:AE right now. See . Please step in. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

I've commented there. Paul August ☎ 13:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And a very nice comment it was. I laughed out loud. Thank you. Tex (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What a great comment. —Giggy 06:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Hello Paul. I'm a little concerned with this comment you made earlier today. It's one thing saying that Giano's comments weren't civil in your opinion, but others obviously disagree with that. For you to go and insinuate that you also believe Chillum is a useless twit, when you were voicing your opinion as an arbitrator is unacceptable in my opinion. I hope you consider an apology to Chillum for the way your comments have come across. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with above) It doesn't matter if you are an arbitrator or not - this comment was completely unacceptable, and contained a personal attack. You should definitely know better. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've offered my apologies to Chillium there. Paul August ☎ 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a terrible thing to say Paul, I was quite shocked. I should imagine that IRC#admin's are having the vapours left right and centre. They are not used to being treated like that. They are very important people, who have earned the respect of the community. Shame on you. You are lucky it was only Ryan they sent to sort you out, it could have been someone far more sinister. I shall say an Ave Maria for you, perhaps even two. Giano (talk)

August 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it entirely necessary to give a longtime contributor a templated message that begins with "Welcome to Misplaced Pages"? Other people left more sensible messages about the same issue already. We need more personal communication and less mindless button-pushing. Friday (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone, assuming you think I'm new to Misplaced Pages, thanks for the welcome. But I'm afraid it's a bit late, as I arrived in July of 2004 ;-) You don't say, but I assume you are referring to this edit. My comment was not intended as (and I don't think it was) a personal attack. In any case I've offered my apologies to Chillium there. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony! Bstone's talk page prominently displays the following:

If your message is rude, templated, and/or begins with "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!", it will be reverted upon me seeing it. Note: Thank you notes are not included in this warning.

 :--C S (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Request removal of Oversight access

This is to confirm that I'm requesting the removal of my Oversight access. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Resignation from the Arbitration Committee

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, free at last.

I've resigned from the Arbitration Committee — except that I intend to remain active on all cases in which I am currently participating. Thanks to all those who voted for me, and to all those who have supported me in doing this very difficult job. I apologize for not serving out my full term. Three years is a long time.

Since this is a valedictory of sorts, permit me the vain indulgence of sharing some thoughts.

In my candidate statement I wrote:

... it has not been the ArbCom's job to decide content, nor to write policy, nor to govern. There are those who feel that ArbCom's role should be expanded to include these things. I do not. As a member of ArbCom I would work to keep its power properly circumscribed.

The fundamental virtue of Misplaced Pages — the reason for its amazing success — has been its egalitarian bottom-up organization. The Arbitration Committee has been an unfortunate though necessary exception to this. Aristotle has told us that man is by nature a political animal. The Arbitration Committee has to some extent shown a natural and increasing tendency to extend its power and scope — we should all guard against this. Power is sticky, it clumps and accretes. Be careful of giving power to those who want it for its own sake.

Factionalism has been an increasingly worrying issue. I also wrote in my candidate statement that:

There are plenty of people, who go out of their way to attack and disrupt, more of us need to go out of our way to cherish and support. It is probably not enough for us to simply be polite, reasonable and constructive. We need to do more. We need to actively cultivate, nurture and sustain our fellow editors.

This need has never been more urgent. We are fortunate to have many dedicated editors, who care deeply about our encyclopedia and who obviously share a love of knowledge and the belief that making knowledge available to all can make the world a better place. Unfortunately, some of our most dedicated editors are also our most divisive. We should let our shared values unite us, rather than our disagreements divide.

One final self-quote:

For me, contributing to Misplaced Pages is a noble act. Knowledge is power. We can all feel justifiably proud that the words we are helping to write, will help to empower untold millions of people, all over the world.

This is why I contribute to this project, and why I will continue to do so -- my dedication to this noble endeavor remains undiminished. I'm very much looking forward to the pleasures of being a simple editor again, to once more experience the joy and satisfaction of writing the encyclopedia.

Best wishes to all,

Paul August ☎ 17:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)