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

Gary Lynch deletion

I am absolutely appalled by the poor judgment and carelessness shown in your actions with regard to this article. Lynch is one of the most prominent, highest-profile attorneys in the United States. He was, undeniably, chief of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the most important (if least glamorous) regulatory jobs in the US government. The person who currently holds that position, Linda Chatman Thomsen, is the subject of a Misplaced Pages whose notability is unquestioned. Despite your comment that the news articles cited refer to Lynch only "in passing," he is the central subject of no small number of them, often mentioned in the headline in major publications like the New York Times , the Wall Street Journal , and the Los Angeles Times . He is also a central figure in the very-well-known book "Den Of Thieves," by Pulitzer Prize winning author James B. Stewart. I think that being well-known for leading the civil prosecution of notorious miscreants like Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken would certainly provide "prospect for future expansion," but you rather summarily dismiss this possibility. It is extraordinarily difficult to believe that anyone could review the articles in the Times listings or the general Google news listings and not recognize these points. (Forgive me if I sound harsh, but Lynch is a figure of exceptional stature in both the American legal and business worlds, quite well-known and almost universally held in high regard.) I also, quite frankly, think the standards you applied -- requiring that an individual be the subject of a book-length biography or "multiple substantial" biographical articles -- do not accord with Misplaced Pages policy. Most of the more than 270,000 articles in the "living persons" category would fail that test, and I believe that the simple fact that more than 99% of those articles would fail your test demonstrates that Misplaced Pages policy is not what you believe it is. Finally, I take offense with your use of the word "deceptive" to describe my comment regarding news articles regarding Lynch. I reviewed the search results before making my statement; on my spot check, for the focused search I cited alone, on most of the search pages at least half the references were to the appropriate Gary Lynch, often many more; and the listing of articles on "Gary Lynch" with the SEC acronym excluded, while not so focused, still yields several hundred additional hits. I wish you had had the courtesy to at least ask me to expand on my comments, rather than being so curtly dismissive, making a deprecatory reference, and implying a lack of skill in evaluating web sources. If not strictly uncivil, it was certainly unpleasant. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of the close. I'm sorry you feel that way, but in my view the article did not contain anything to establish the notability of Mr. Lynch. (certainly none of the points you make here were made in the article) It had been at Articles for Deletion for some time, so you had a chance to add the sources that you refer to that establish notability, and enhance the article to elaborate on the events of his career that were significant. You still could, if you want, I'll be happy to undelete and userify the article for you to work on. But if that is not satisfactory, probably the best thing would be to take the article to deletion review and make the case there that my evaluation of the arguments presented was incorrect, if you feel strongly about it and aren't prepared to enhance it yourself as I suggest. As for the argument that other articles are similarly non notable that there is an issue with A is typically not justification for keeping B. If you're not sure how to raise the matter at DRV let me know and I'll try to help you do it, should you decide that's the approach you wish to pursue. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. First, the article stated "From 1985 to 1989, Lynch served as the Chief of the Enforcement Division of the Securities Exchange Commission." That is, simply put, sufficient to establish his notability. That is a position of exceptional importance in business regulation in the United States; that you did not recognize this (despite the hundreds of references I provided in the AFD discussion, is utterly baffling. Second, I notice that you do not dispute that you were in error in evaluating the many news references I pointed out. Fourth, I see that you are unwilling to apologize for your unpleasant if not uncivil description of my comments as "deceptive." Finally, I believe your reference to other articles are similarly non notable simply evades my point. If 99.99% of the articles in Misplaced Pages in a given class fail the test you choose to apply, it is clear that what you are doing is defying policy, not implementing it. The notability policy, phrased simply, states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." There can be no doubt that Lynch meets this criterion. No book-length biography is required (even though, as I noted, Lynch has been profiled in a major book with a Misplaced Pages entry). Finally, I note that no substantive arguments for deleting the subject were made in the AFD discussion, only insubstantial, unsupported (and objectively false) statements that the subject was "not notable." I made a reasoned argument, and provided sources. I think you should take responsibility for your own errors, and failure to properly evaluate the claims involved rather than post deprecatory comments about me, as you did here. That simply repeats your earlier incivility. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The references need to be in the article, not the discussion, which is why time is given from the nomination until the decision is taken... so that interested parties in favour of retention have time to add them. Please consider reviewing the guide to deletion for more on that. I believe the deletion was sound, this is not my first AfD close by any stretch of the imagination. If you do not, you should take the matter to deletion review as I suggested, that's why the process exists. Or, alternatively, take me up on my offer to userify the article to your user space... you can then work on it at your leisure, adding the appropriate supporting material and references, and then move it back to articlespace once you have done so. A note: Trying to impugn my integrity and reasoning on my talk page is not likely to be an effective approach, and that I did not rebut you point by point does not necessarily mean I concede any of them. The considerable energy you have expended on making your argument now would have been better spent improving the article when it was up for nomination. But again, ask me to userify it, and I shall, and you can expend the energy improving it, instead of casting aspersions... if it then, after you're done, is clearly notable, I'll move it back to article space myself, and gladly. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: your argument for keep said "One of the most prominent lawyers in the USA. Dozens of articles in the New York Times . Over a thousand Google news hits . How can there be a question here?". It provided none of the references you cite in your discussion here, and made none of the points you have made. Again, the closer goes on what the article has, and on what is said in the deletion discussion... the closer cannot read minds of the supporters (or deletion advocates) and should not be expected to do more than a few minutes of checking. Please give that some consideration and try to be more collegiate in your discussion and approach. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging by your actions my wife is quite right. You falsely personally attacked me as "deceptive," based on gross factual errors (at best) in considering the underlying matter. Someone who makes unfounded accusations like that has no business lecturing anyone else about civility or collegiality. Saying that I should not "impugn" your reasoning is entirely inconsistent with your comments about collegial discussion; your notion that pointing out the defects in a poorly reasoned argument is somehow inappropriate behavior is completely inconsistent with the Wikipedian ideal of reaching consensus by discussing issues. You have made it clear that you have no intention of apologizing or retracting your false personal attack on me, and that on its face does more to impugn your integrity than anything I have said, and most likely could say. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As you like. I take it that taking personal umbrage for perceived slights is more important to you than working to resolve the notability issues with the article, then? In that case, I'll consider this matter closed. However, my offer to userify the article to your user space so you can work on it still stands. As does my offer to assist you in raising the matter at DRV, if you like. Just let me know. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Minos, you silly fellow, you are arguing substance with a middle-aged man who plays with Legos and shows no interest in substance. You should realize that shortly he hand his friends will target you, repeat his canards, and do their best to make you an object of ridicule, for your effrontery in insistenting on grounding in the real world. Misplaced Pages has little to do with the real world, and is not an encyclopedia; all yoiu can hope to do here is to prevent the more venal users from using it to harm their randomly chosen real-world targets. I told you when you started this would come to no good. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. But not very enchanting, I'm afraid. I gave Minos serious advice... what he chooses to do with it is his affair. As for my substance or lack thereof, I do have an featured article under my belt, if that counts for anything. Oh, and it's "plays with LEGO brand building elements", thanks. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created a deletion review for this article seeing as a mailing list discussion has started. Catchpole (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was coming here to warn you that I am being critical of you off-wiki :) --Relata refero (disp.) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've commented on the DRV. I'll have to decide if it's worth the bother on wikien-l... others seem to have addressed most of the points I would have made. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A little debate to start the week off. Relata and I may have to agree to disagree. Are there other AfDs besides this one where some admins have taken the opinion that the WT:BLP default debate came to consensus for change? I've proposed a few AfDs on the basis of marginal notability and no good references, but wasn't aware until now that anyone was interpreting this sort of discussion with a new default. Avruch 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there are quite a few closed that way, lately, and not just by me. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've been bold and done the history merge and restored the article in mainspace, hope you don't mind!. I shall close the deletion review in a minute without saying anything either way on endorsing or overturning. I still feel the best thing to on the AFD would have been to relist the discussion so others could comment on whether sources really were available or not. However its just a process matter, the article has been sorted now so see no need to drag it out any further. Also the NYT article Fred pointed to is in the article (its source number 3). Anyway thanks for the message and glad it should be resolved now. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the recreate is fine, awesome actually, and thanks for doing the merge, but I'm not so keen on the close. I'd have preferred to have a clear outcome (either be endorsed, or if not, have a clear consensus about what was wrong with the close). ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want I am fine about reverting my closure of the deletion review if you would like more people to comment on the close there. If anyone wants to revert my close I don't mind in the slightest. My thought was just that as the article was back the deletion review did not need to continue but if you feel a clear outcome is better then that's fine by me. Davewild (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I've reverted the close but put your closing remark at the bottom, as a comment. I stated there that i wish more input on the matter, it would be good to see if there is a consensus about whether the AfD was proper or not... if you didn't like my moving your closing remark to be a comment please feel free to refactor as needed. Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How you have done it looks fine for me, thanks. Davewild (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I made this comment in the DRV and then ran into an edit conflict with the closure. I'm placing my comment here where I hope it may be of benefit to Lars, who, in my opinion, did make some mistakes here and who would become a better administrator if he can recognize them and stop defending himself. He's not on trial, and one of the most powerful things one can do to defuse arguments is to admit mistakes. Sure, one should never admit a mistake that one did not make, but, even then, one can stop arguing. If someone believes you made a mistake, it's not the end of the world. But if you keep arguing with the person, things can, in fact, get quite nasty. It's one of the biggest mistakes that spouses make, actually, bigger, by far, than the original small mistakes....

(original comment from DRV:) This is not the place to defend or attack administrative actions, rather, the subject of this process is whether or not to sustain or overturn an XfD. Inherently, then we must allow that an administrator made a mistake as a possibility, and administrators should not face serious criticism for occasional mistakes. Even if there were no mistake, subsequent evidence could arise or become better known that would change the outcome. Nevertheless, the closure of the AfD as Delete was problematic, and I'm concerned that the closer continues to defend the decision. The closer stated specifically that "For a marginally notable BLP, with few or no sources, and no prospect of further expansion, the default outcome failing consensus (we had 3 commenters) should be delete." It is news to me that the default has become delete! The only situation I've seen where that might be the case is when some continuing harm is alleged, as with a BLP that the subject wants deleted, which was not the case here. The closing admin is assuming "marginally notable," "few or no sources," as well as "no prospect of further expansion," all of which were contradicted, at least to some degree, by the only evidence presented by commentors, excepting the closing admin himself. And that the closing admin essentially presented a new, independent argument, contradicting argument presented in the AfD, but closing off the possibility of rebuttal within the AfD by closing it, my conclusion is that the closure was improper for several reasons, but this may well not be the place to discuss it. While it's a good thing that a closing admin presents his reasons, if those reasons were not presented by others, the closer is, in fact, involved, and should instead simply comment based on the evidence -- or lack of evidence -- he found.

Yes, the admin made an offer to userfy the article, showing good faith, and that would have been a more efficient way of dealing with our goal, which is a decent encyclopedia, not perfect administrators. However, one point should stand out: when one makes a mistake that offends someone, if one tendentiously argues that it wasn't a mistake, a common human tendency is to insist on personal freedom from error. We are well-advised to avoid that, and, in fact, quite a few admins have been desysopped because they made a (more serious) mistake and then stubbornly defended the error, which quite naturally gives rise to a fear that they will repeat it. Given the differing levels of experience among the parties, and that I expect more from admins than from non-admins in terms of ability to defuse arguments, I'm suggesting to Lars that he might have simply made the offer to userfy with no personal defense at all, no claim that his action was correct. Or, once it was plain that there *were* reliable sources establishing notability, he could have reopened the AfD and then let someone else close it. Deleting articles in order to motivate people to properly source them is poor policy; hence the tradition in AfDs is to keep articles based on evidence that the article *could* become notable, and, if necessary, one can always quickly stub an article so that what is stated is clearly sourced and without problem. And this sets up much less wikifuss, it's far more efficient than what we get through an delete AfD and DRV and the rest, and it is closer to original wiki practice, where many articles were started as unsourced stubs. I'd suggest not arguing with inexperienced editors unless one expects results to improve as a product of it. Just be helpful! "Want the article back? The only problem for me was that notability wasn't shown in the article. Here, I've placed a copy in your user space. Fix it and I'll look at it and presumably, then, won't object to simply moving it back to article space." And then if the editor continued to insist that the closure was incorrect, simply apologize and do nothing. Don't try to force the point of having been correct. It almost never does any good. (You will *really* need to learn this if you are married!) The "aspersions" cast were mostly claims that the closing was deficient, pressed, to be sure, beyond necessity, and, I must say, I agree with the original opinion (improper closure) but not with the fuss made. It's much simpler to fix the problem than to argue over it. We are not here to grade administrators on their actions, we are here to build the project. --Abd (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I make mistakes all the time and I think I'm pretty good at admitting it when I do. So, I'll admit I didn't think of just actually userifying the article to Minos's space when he first turned up here, instead of merely offering to do so (and saying I was "sorry you feel that way" in my first message). That's a pretty good idea and one I'll remember in future, thanks for the suggestion. But I don't agree that it was a bad close, sorry. Belabouring the point, though? maybe. As for mistakes made by others, you may want to consider that 1) my userid and nickname is Lar (short for Larry), not "Lars" and 2) I've been married longer than probably half the admins here have been alive so giving me advice about marriage may not be very helpful, if I haven't got the hang of it by now, I probably never will. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you might forgive me if I tend to assume that Misplaced Pages editors are young. Many admins are well under half my age. The comment was really general about how people work, and marriage is just one application. If someone criticizes me, and I argue with it, it's extraordinarily common that they try to set the nail with a hammer, after all, I'm obviously not getting it. If I listen to them, acknowledge what I can, and remain silent about the rest, they often go away satisfied. So ... what can you tell us from your marriage, which must have lasted at least ten years or so to qualify as you describe, about this listening to criticism thing? Or do you have a wife who doesn't criticize, and, please tell me, does she have an unmarried sister? By the way, I've been married, on paper, three times, the last one is ending, having lasted fifteen years -- and we did some fantastic things together. My first marriage lasted ten and produced five children and as many grandchildren, so far. And if we count marriages by declaration that weren't ever registered with the state, add three more that lasted about three years each. Ah, beautiful women, each in their own way, and that's where they decided to go. Most of the mistakes it's possible to make, I've made. I don't like to make the same mistake twice, though, I keep inventing new ones I'd never dreamed of before. --Abd (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say basically, you haven't done the necessary research about me and how I do things that would give you the basis for this feedback of yours. Go review my edit history, my admin candidacy, my barnstars and why I got them, and my WikiMatrix and how I got the roles elsewhere thatin I have. Then, perhaps, you can lecture me about my approach, or perhaps instead you will realize that you've made an incorrect snap judgment. But barring that, I'll reiterate, while I'm imperfect, as are we all, I think I do a pretty fair job of listening, accepting feedback, compromising, building consensus, checking with others, and all the rest of the skills needed to operate collegially here (as well as stay happily married to the same person for over a quarter century). One skill that I think you may want to work on is the tendency to lecture others, perusing your talk page suggests you've received such feedback in the past from others as well and haven't yet internalised it. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You may think that if you like. I simply say what I think, I have no presumption that I'm right, though I may be right more often than some think. When I'm wrong, I get to learn. What you call "lecturing" is, for me, exploring a topic, which, in some cases, involves what I see -- or imagine I see -- in the behavior of others. Let me put it this way: frequently, those who have lectured me about my lecturing of them don't tend to look very good when I come back years later and read the material, which I do. If you look at who attacks me, you might start to suspect that I'm in some way on the right track. I don't see you as attacking me, by the way, just as defending yourself unnecessarily and in a way that I saw, when it happened with that user, caused unnecessary flap. Take it or leave it, and I have no opinion on whether or not it was even wise for me to respond here. But you notified me of this, so.... response was invited and I have a certain level of obligation to accept invitations. --Abd (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the default to delete, Abd - you apparently missed the huge discussion WT:BLP regarding a proposal to make that specific change. It achieved a majority, but whether there is a consensus was the subject of dispute. I don't think Lar was really continuing an argument - he presented the options, and made his argument basically once here and once in the DRV. That is more than acceptable for me - expected, in fact. Avruch 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The situations which I was aware of, on this point, had to do with articles where the subject wanted the article deleted, which was not the case here. But there may be more that I didn't see, for sure. --Abd (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

and where might they be? I looked, and I don't see any sign of a change from "no consensus, no delete," though it was proposed, in fact, that where there was possibility of harm to the subject this might be done (and I agree that such is within a closer's discretion, which can disregard apparent consensus in any case, based on cogency of arguments). And that's what I said, essentially. As i recall, in the case before us, it was basically, No consensus that subject is notable, therefore Delete. No suspicion of harm was raised, therefore no deference was in order to BLP special policy. But perhaps I've forgotten something. --Abd (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Milhist Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 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) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

(Refactored to User_talk:Anonymous Dissident per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful post!

Oh! Wonderful job! Very good and helpful post. Thx, your blog in my RSS reader now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.221.227 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure which post you liked but thanks in any case :) ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg

Orphaned non-free media: Thanks for uploading Image:LOVE PSYCHEDELICO Greatest Hits album.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content guideline

(Refactored to User_talk:Staka per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem editor

I received the following from an editor who repeatedly places the names of persons who were speculated to be or declined to be candidates for public office and never declared their candidacies on the same footing with actual candidates on candidates' lists. It goes:

Your to Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 removed cited references to once potential candidates. This is the 3rd page that I have seen where you attempted to do this knowing it goes against wikipedia policy. Considering the volumes of discussion you and I have had with regards to this, please refrain from doing so in the future.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Such speculation only belongs in the body of articles and never on candidates' lists. Can you mediate the dispute? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at Dr who1975's talk. I'm willing to try to help. I would ask what the right venue for discussion is though... ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Steelberd seems to have forgotten this compromsise which he agreed to both on United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 and

I notice Steelbeard didn't ask you to teach me a lesson like he did Markles. Interestingly, I had had 2 disagreements with Steelbeard where his views had prevailed... but it was only after this issue, where he was forced into a compromise that he asked for me to be blocked. He is not interested in improving wikipedia... he is only interested in getting his way.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard has now done it to another page I have summed up the history of this disagreement atMisplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Template:Elections are historical.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard and I have put this issue up for mediation before (which reulted in Jayvdb's compromise) and he didn't stick to the resolution. He just waited a few months and carried on as though nothing had happened.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to stop and let steelbeard respond after this. Steelbeard1 s contention that "Such speculation only belongs in the body of articles" does not match his actions... he didn't put it in the body of the article, he removed it entirely and we've had this discussion numerous times as outlined by my explanations above. So the question is... is he lying... it's certainly deceptive and misleading. Steelbeard... is it your contention that you've forgotten our previous discussions? Lar, who's really the problem editor here? I went directly to his page to address the disagreement directly... he goes to Markles and your pages with headines like "problem editor" in the hopes that you will block me from wikipedia.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to put the info in the body of the article, background is needed. Some of the citations have become dead links. I'll be asking Dr. Who to write the text in the body of the article as he knows more than I do. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar... what information do you need to mediate this dispute?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but this is a matter of what is the correct principle in this area, rather than a matter of specific articles, right? So I would think some pointers to previous discussions would be helpful, if I don't have them already. If I understand the dispute, you're saying you think that there is a compromise already reached, which is that the information about potential or speculated candidates who are not eventually confirmed, or who eventually say they are out, should not be in lists, but it is ok, if properly sourced, and significant, that it be in expository material about the election? Further, you're saying that you think Steelbeard1 is not abiding by this compromise? Why do you say that exactly? Steelbeard1 on the other hand seems to be saying (if I understand correctly) that you're adding material to lists, rather than to articles, and that there has been edit warring about it? Both of you, is that correct? If not, what am I missing about the nature of the dispute? A statement of it that you both agree to would be very helpful I would think. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that non-candidate speculation can be included in the body of articles (with linked citations to back up the speculation), but never in candidates' lists as Dr. Who had been trying to insert, thus causing the edit warring. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr Who, do you agree with that characterization, that the compromise relates to exposition not lists, and that you have been inserting material in lists? Or is that not correct? If not, why not? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not been inserting material into lists. They were there since the pages were created.

Here is the summary I asked you to read a few days back... as before...the links are clickable to diffs that verify the statements...

• Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Months ago, Steelbeard and I had a disagreement over candidates listed on election pages. I was of the belief that properly cited speculation (for instance from local newspapers' web sites) regarding potential candidates was noteworthy enough to bear mention in the article (keeping in line with user:Markles template Template:Elections are historical which states that "This (election page) is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet."). Steelbeard felt that such potential candidates shouldn't be mentioned at all. User:Jayvdb proposed a compromise where the names would be mentioned in the text but not in the bullet point lists. Steelbeard agreed after I impemented the compromise. More recently, we had the same disagreement on Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008 after he did the same thing there. I reminded him of the compromise and implemented it myself after which he agreed with the words That's a good compromise in his edit summary... just click here to see it, that was a little over two weeks ago so I was surprised when Steelbeard removed the cited names from Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008. I do not want to spend the rest of my life cleaning up after him so I put a warning on his talk page and simply reverted his change. He went on to edit war with me. I again reverted his changes on Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 a 2nd time with a more specific message about the compromise. Steelbeard only relented after this discussion on your page began... and he still refuses to acknowledge that he is not following the compromise. BTW... have you asked User:Jayvdb about any of this... after all... he mediated the situation the first time.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Who is clearly missing the point which I believe you fully understand, Lar. In the recent revisions, I had deleted the speculation in the candidates' lists, but couldn't insert it in the body of the articles because in one article, two thirds of the citations had become dead links and the other one, concerning Ben Nevers, had no citations at all. When Dr. Who inserted the Nevers speculation in the body of the article, the citation he gave was from Nevers' official state senate web site which, by its very nature, could not back up the speculation because it would be unlikely that Nevers would give his congressional ambitions in his own web site. That's why I deleted the Nevers speculation from the body of the article.Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ben Nevers has nothing to do with any of the pages mentioned in my summary, in fact, we have obly discussed him the last 3 days or so. Steelbeard... please stop changing the subject and give Lar an oportunity to review my statement and click the links.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot about the talk page discussion at Talk:Louisiana's 6th congressional district special election, 2008 which I previously stated that I had problems with the citations because 2/3rds of them had become dead links which delayed my inserting the material in the body of the article and due to the lack of currenly verifiable citations is not a satisfactory edit, but because the links once existed, I decided to let it slide. Steelbeard1 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Dr. Who either forgot about or intentionally overlooked an earlier edit I made to the Mississippi special election article about Jamie Franks when I inserted the Franks speculation in the body of the article at and Dr. Who inserted another passage about Franks elsewhere in the body of the article which he mentioned above. That's when I removed the now redundant passage and said it was a good compromise when I had created it earlier and he missed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this talk page discusssion, Dr. Who had tampered with my rebuttals then changed his mind. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure he knows that it's not on to mess with other people's words on talk pages to change the meaning or intent (refactoring is ok) so ??... Was that on purpose or maybe by accident or because of an edit conflict?? ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar... how do I e-mail you?--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

By clicking Here -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Avraham. Both of you: I'd prefer to keep as much of this public as possible, but feel free to mail me if you feel the need... I am sorry if I'm a bit slow but I'm at my client today and a bit heads down. My comment right now is that both of you are convinced the other one is not quite living up to the compromise, but that you both agree that the compromise is the right way to proceed. (that's from a skim, not a detailed read, I promise to read more closely later).What I see now is that maybe there is some difficulty with sources in a few of these? Why not stick to one specific article/list and work through the specifics there? I think you're both good guys who mean well, honestly, but both of you maybe aren't assuming quite enough good faith from the other? ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda#ongoing elections and prominence given to candidates. As the issue has arisen again, it is time to involve more people and start to write some guidelines. --John Vandenberg 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have lost all respect for Dr. Who. See the latest postings in Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder if I can be effective in mediating this. It may be beyond my feeble powers, because it looks like, as I said before, you are both not assuming enough good faith in the other one. I see a lot of sparring in a number of places. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying... I'm sorry to have caused this to even come to your board. Other's have taken up the various content disputes on apropriate project pages as a result of this so maybe some good has come of it. I only wish I had had the patience and (more importantly) the knowledge to take it to the apropriate place. Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda#ongoing elections and prominence given to candidates--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be the place. I have held back speaking out there about my views because I was trying to stay impartial enough to mediate but perhaps that would be the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

VK's proposed return

Your input and comments are welcome on the talk page here User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. Giano (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I was curious, in your comment here, to whom were you referring? seresin ( ¡? ) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone I'd prefer not to identify. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please weigh in

Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback#User:Sceptre. Danke. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFR

Lar, a note of clarification. I agreee with you that roll-back should only be used for certain clear cut cases. I disagree that the community feels otherwise. Apologies for troubling you, but otherwise my remark at the dialogue concerning Sceptre is possibly unclear! Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the discussion was closed already when I got there I went ahead and clarified. I can't quite tell where these get archived to so I can't give you a pointer except into the history. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 4

Hello, Lar. A new edition of the USRD newsletter may be read at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Volume02/Issue04. Apologies for the late delivery; my internet connection went down halfway through the delivery process. --Rschen7754bot (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Payback time

Hi again. Please refer above; there's a checkuser issue in a closely related area here. It means a lot of work for somebody, but I think it's in a good cause. Feel free to tell me to get lost and file a regular report, but it would be much appreciated it if you could have a hack at it. Thanks, --John (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I started digging. This is a mess. And I'm late for bed. Someone with a fair bit of time will need to dig. The IPs you give are not the only IPs editing in those ranges. I'm tempted to suggest blocking some of the obvious ranges set to anon block only, account creation not prohibited, but the collateral damage would be high, even with narrow ranges. So the best I can suggest right now is block FaithChecker, block all the IPs that have a history of reverting out the category removals and read your email. I'll dig further tomorrow to see what I can do to narrow this down. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Namecheck in an AN thread

I seem to have given four people, including a current arbitrator, a former arbitrator, and a steward, a public ticking off. <looks worried> So I thought I'd better let each of you know about it. See here. Thread is here. Apologies in advance if this irks you, but I feel strongly about how some of these threads end up poking fun at individuals. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what the issue with my clarifying remark is. Deskana said there were no objections. That's not true, there were. Kurt objected (whether to the appointment or the process, it was an objection). I pointed that out... no commentary on Kurt was express or implied. The smiley? Is that the issue? If so let me apologise to whoever necessary for putting a smiley after I corrected someone. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I seem to have rolled you in with Relata refaro, who's remark was more in the "let's caricature Kurt" mode. It was your smiley as well that annoyed me (I was unsure whether it was a friendly smile or a laughing at Kurt smile, if you know what I mean), but I've made my point so I'm going to drop this now. It was embarassing enough that I missed Kurt's "Arbitrary Committee" remark - my eyes glided over that and read it as "Arbitration Committee". :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at this time

Hi, Larry. May I know why, or is it just a gut feeling. You don't have to post there, here my talk page, or e-mail is fine. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded my opposition at the nomination page. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I have responded there, and, as I requested there, I would appreciate the opportunity to follow through with you on this, as in my mind, it is much more important that the RfB. Thank you for your honesty and clarity. -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss further and work with you as our time and schedule permit... Today is not a good day though. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, contact me on my talk page or via e-mail when you have a chance. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Lar. FYI, I responded to your thoughts under Herby's opposition, regarding the self-nom and also the time differential, which I based on Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Redux 3, as I referenced in the initial statement way at the top. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

CAT:AOR

Having just commented on a DRV, I'd like to stop by to say that I actually appreciated your not so recent post about the AOR category. I'm just continuing to postpone to do something around it, but still hope to get around before it is 'too late'. Best wishes.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My ongoing wish

I think one way to deal with the "searching" concern would be to implement something I've wanted to see for awhile.

An "MoS" namespace. It would include all content/style/naming convention pages. MOS: is already an existing shortcut similar to how WP: is for Misplaced Pages: So this would include the "big three": NPOV, OR, V; as well as related pages, the MOS pages, etc. It wouldn't include the so-called "behavioral" pages. What do you think? - jc37 01:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A new namespace is interesting indeed but maybe it should be "Policy:"? MOS fits into policy better than V and OR fit into MOS, no? ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you use the word "policy" you'll get into all sorts of debates.

If you're concerned about NPOV "fitting" with "style", how about Manual of style and content? (MoSaC)

Though to be honest, I'm not really concerned about the name, as long as it's easy to type and accurate as to its contents.

Noting too that if we do this here, it's possible that other language Wikipedias might follow suit, each with their own name for the namespace.

So, besides the name, what do you think? : ) - jc37 02:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, assuming that this is so that everything else that DIDN'T get moved from Misplaced Pages to Policy/MoS will then be not indexed, I think it's great. If it's to achieve something else then I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Though I also like the idea simply due to navigability : )

Now all we have to do is get a few hundred other editors on this bandwagon, and we're all set : ) - jc37 03:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the easy part. Convincing me was the hard part. Or something like that. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Bows to your benificent grandeur)

If that's all it took... : )

That aside, what would you suggest as the "next step"? (Or are you doing that now?) - jc37 03:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Dunno. This is the sort of policy that isn't descriptive, so just starting to do it won't work. Maybe...

1. Talk about it here
2. ... ??? ....
3. PROFIT!!!

No, that can't be right. Maybe float the idea past a few more people, then start a page to flesh out which pages go in which, and the float it to the VP to see if it gets buy in, then open a bug once it has wide consensus? ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least for now, talking about it here isn't bad (I have a feeling your talk page has more lurkers than the VP : )

But that aside, let's see if we can come up with a list... (Looking over Template:Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.)

1. Article standards policies
2. Classification guidelines
3. Content guidelines
4. Style conventions
5. All MoS: sub-pages (Category:Manual of Style)
6. All WP:NC sub-pages (often done parenthetically)
7. The contents of:
   1. Category:Misplaced Pages content policy
   2. Category:Misplaced Pages content guidelines
   3. Category:Misplaced Pages editing guidelines
   4. Category:Misplaced Pages naming conventions
   5. Category:Misplaced Pages notability guidelines
   6. Category:Misplaced Pages style guidelines

The more I look into this, the more I like that behavioral guidelines would be separated from the content/style/editing guidelines. I also didn't include WP:NOT since it covers more than just mainspace. (I wonder if it should be edited to resolve, or at least clarify, that?)

Anyway, how's this for a list? - jc37 04:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad list. But allow me to play devil's advocate. How is this notion of creating a new namespace, and placing some but not all of the current content of WP namespace in it, then doing the norobots thing to WP but not this space better than just doing the norobots thing to WP namespace but giving everything on your list the exemption via magic word? Just curious. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Navigation, for one thing. Clarity in naming. Etc. All those things that we claim we do for the readers : ) - jc37 02:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All the stuff in the Misplaced Pages namespace is for us, though. A test of a new namespace to me is, it should be obvious what goes in it and what does not. I think this proposal has a way to go yet. ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I think that Misplaced Pages space is quite the hodge-podge. If I had my drothers, I'd actually like to see an MoS namespace (policy and guidelines which deal with style, content, and convention), and a "behavioral" namespace (hoping for a better name, but essentially policy and guidelines which concern editors and editing and interaction). The latter two being set up as "help" namespaces, since that's what they are. I'd like to see "projectspace" (Misplaced Pages:) focused to be a place for collaboration and discussion. Is that clearer? - jc37 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I see you're off to bed. I'd best be getting some shuteye too.

It was great fun sparring with you on this issue this evening, and I hope we can sort out a good compromise on this matter. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) It looks like I lost track of the time too, wow it's early!

Agreed, I do always like working with you even if we don't agree. Avb is way off the mark, I think, about us. Yes, lets see what we can come up with. I'm off to my client so it probably won't be for a while that I contribute more. ++Lar: t/c 10:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an example, even though we disagree on the interpretation. Do you have more where that came from? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Shedfuls. Once we've established the validity of that one, I'll trot them all out, if you insist. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid application of BLP, that much is true. To predicate the logging of data on mutual agreement on whether it shows a particular position would introduce clear statistical bias, so just log any application that looks like it's BLP, that's fine.

As to things being BLP 3RR Exempt. I think you would rationally agree that to show that 3RR exempt applied in a case, there would have to be (a) It has to be a BLP case (or claim to be one) (b) 4 or more reverts by one party, and (c) no adverse actions against that party in any administrative log (blocking, protection on "Wrong Version", etc), and (d) no other escalation up the dispute resolution chain (If the situation is resolved by a different dr method, then it was resolved by a different dr method, not by blp 3rr exempt).

I don't see many cases meeting (a)(b)(c)(b) at the moment. I think you are saying that (1)obviously the BLP 3RR exemption exists, so (2)lack of observation of (a)(b)(c)(d) so far must have some external cause.

Is that a correct representation of your position? Or do you have issues with the definition of (a)(b)(c)(d) that I've been misreading or missing?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I'm just going to slow down and take my time figuring this... so no hurry answering! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to agree whether data shows a particular outcome, but we do have to agree that data is in the correct population. Since for the datum I presented (b), (c), and (d) do not hold, then no, I don't agree. To me the BLP 3RR exemption applies to all actions that are BLP related (condition (a)). Regardless of what happens next. The red light exemption for ambulances applies regardless of the vehicle type through the intersection or the current state of the traffic signal. So... until we can agree on what the correct population to sample from is, I won't be providing more data, because providing data that ultimately isn't in the sample set (hey, I may be wrong, I doubt it, but maybe) is a waste of time, I have more important things to do. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For ambulances, the analogous list would be: (a) it must be an ambulance with blue lights and a siren on (b) it must run the red light (c) No accident must ensue, because drivers should be getting out of the way (d) no one gets arrested, there is no court case, congressional inquiry, B2 surgical strike, etc...

If (a)(b)(c)(d) hold for some sample size, then we can say that the de-facto law of the land corresponds with the written law of the land (to wit, ambulances are exempted from obeying a red light, provided they have their lights and sirens going)

(If an ambulance does not operate lights and siren, they will crash, and none of (a)(b)(c)(d) holds).

we might accept a slightly raised accident rate due to the inherent danger of the maneuver involved, and driver inattention.

A different example: in the late 1920's the law of the united states was that it was forbidden to drink alcohol.

(a) someone must have access to alcohol (b) They must sell it. (c) every time they sell it, people must protest, act against them, or report them (d) They must be arrested and taken to court.

Now in reality, people did get arrested for selling alcohol occaisionally, but in a very significant number of cases, they did not (in fact, they might end up shooting the police officers and getting away, even if an arrest attempt was made). Many people also bought alcohol, and very few turned in the "criminals".

so (a) (b) held, (c) often didn't, and (d) even less.

In this case the de-facto law of the land differed significantly from the written law. So much so, that the government finally capitulated by mid 1930's and changed the written law back the way it was before.

A third example, for the road: All countries ban murder

(a) someone must have means, motif and opportunity to kill someone (b) They must attempt to kill someone (c) any eventual witnesses must attempt to protest, act against them, or report them. (d) they must be arrested, tried in court, imprisoned and/or executed. (or be killed due to the self-defence exemption ... but that's for another day, if we need it :-P )

In this case, in reality, we do see that (a)(b) hold for some percentage of the population, newspapers sometimes tell of heroic attempts at (c), and the number of anecdotes about (d) is also quite large .

So here in most countries, and most of the time, (a)(b)(c)(d) hold, and the de-facto law and the law of the land are in agreement.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, just checking, do you agree that the above approach is indeed a correct approach for assessing whether a de-facto practice coincides with documented procedure? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No. :) Sorry, lost the thread here, got sucked into something else. Let me come back and elaborate in more detail but I think this analysis misses the gist. ++Lar: t/c 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I got interested in the one topic, due to the other. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to put your oar in on that one, it could use some fresh perspective. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done per mail. Please reply to the above too, at some point! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong way round ?

I keep seeing this discussion in various places, and it seems to me that Kim (whom I respect greatly), is coming at this one backwards. WP:IAR suggests, somewhat, that strict absolute rules don't exist. However, for simplicity, a "bright red line" was painted for 3RR violations. An admin can block anyone for 3RR. Hold up a hand and blow the whistle, hold on, no more editing until the smoke clears! Otherwise many 3RR violations would be accompanied by arguments that "I was just enforcing WP:NPOV," etc. NPOV is a crucial policy, actually, but it isn't considered an emergency. BLP violations are. So, whether in practice or in theory, an exception was carved out: 3RR does not apply to removing defamatory material. I ran into this myself, though not at the 3RR level. I reverted a few edits of an IP editor clearly a block-evading sock, without regard to content. And I very nearly got blocked for it, based on a prima-facie appearance of restoring defamatory material. (It actually wasn't, but that was an appearance crafted by the sock, and some noticeboards aren't known for subtlety of judgement.) Removal of defamatory material is considered so important that it overrides block policy. And, quite properly, it overrides 3RR policy, which was an unusual thing, a "bright line."

Essentially, the "3RR exemption" is not some new thing, but a return to the older situation where 3RR doesn't exist, the rule is "no edit warring." Except in emergencies. Except to enforce policy. Except, except. The 3RR exemption isn't a carte blance. It is simply *removing* a rigid rule in one narrow area. The underlying rules and guidelines and policies still exist, the bright line just has a bump in it. The 3RR exemption would not apply to someone, on their own, using reversion to protect a BLP article, for days, without at least making a good faith attempt to bring in administrative attention. If many reversions are necessary, the article should be protected, for starters. And broader attention should arise, so that it is not only the judgment of a single editor that another's edits are defamatory. But the editor taking the material out should not be blocked automatically. The one putting it in (or perhaps even the multiple editors putting it in) might be blocked. We should, as a default, feel safe removing defamatory information where there is no community consensus to keep it. That's special to BLP, in other articles the situation isn't automatically biased toward inclusion or exclusion. While documenting actual practice is interesting, actual practice is not the only source for guidelines. Community consensus (a real consensus, not the transient consensus that sometimes passes for it) is another source. Both. They interconnect, and they move each other. --Abd (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Abd - you've got to stop telling lies about me - it does you no favours. It was not a matter of me "crafting an appearance", it was you repeating reverting in claims that a woman had aids and had passed on aids to multiple other living figures because of your obsession with "punishing me". What you seem unable to accept (and this was explicitly explained to you by various admins plus a member of arbcom) is that it's irrelevent to us if the material is "true", because we don't deal in truth - we deal in verification. It was a) unsourced and b) in breach of our BLP policies. The frankly obsessed manner in which you seem unable to make make any policy related statements without mentioning me is starting to creep me out. You were in the wrong, regardless of my status, multiple editors told you were in the wrong, you were threaten with a block if did not cease and desist. How many more times are you going to bring this up before you accept that you were wrong and nobody agreed with your course of action. --87.112.79.25 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My, my, my. Speak of the devil. Folks, you can tell by the sulfur that we've had a visit from User:Fredrick day. Given that I did not allege that I was not "in the wrong," that I was giving the incident as an example of how strong BLP policy is, it's really moot. However, the AIDS incident described is well-known, is sourced multiply if you look for it. I'd actually heard of it years ago, even though I have practically no interest in porn stars. Well, no encyclopedic interest, and I restrain myself, otherwise. Multiple editors told me I was wrong *on principle*, not about that specific edit, and because several admins warned me, including one that I respect greatly, I wasn't going to be the one to restore sourced, well-known material to the article. Essentially I don't care *that* much about articles on porn starts being complete, and I did not want to do more than the most superficial research. My, my, look at that! ... But it is the thing that woman is most famous for, now. Fd set this up specifically to attempt to trap me into restoring defamatory material, but he picked an example that only looked defamatory. I'm not the one obsessed and I abandoned, immediately, doing what encountered admin criticism. Now, 'nuff said, or even more than enough. Back to our regularly scheduled programming. Sorry, Lar. --Abd (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You still entirely miss the point - it doesn't matter than it CAN be sourced, it doesn't matter that you had your own personal knowledge about the matter, it doesn't matter that you were in dispute with me, it doesn't matter that (if your claim is true) that it's the thing that she is most famous for. The only point, we as wikipedia, are concerned with is that as presented, the material was unsourced - that's the start and end of our interest. You've been told this repeatly but don't seem to get this - wikipedia is not interested in 'truth', it is interested in verification - that's why you were wrong, that's why you were warned off. BLP violations and their ramifications are one of the most serious threats we face and we don't get to pick and choice how we enforce them (porno stars or not). You were explictly told this at the time. --87.112.79.25 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Abd, thanks for turning up. I think you've got something there with that perspective. It's a different way to think about the matter, and a useful one. I won't comment on the particular matter that you and IP are disputing, I don't have the context, except to say that it clearly illustrates that not all BLP matters are cut and dried, sometimes it's not clear what version is defamatory and what version is not. maybe in some cases both versions are? Or neither? Hence, I think your suggestion that someone bravely using 3RR violating reverts to combat something indeed does need to ask for help as soon as it is practical rather than soldiering on solo... and then needs to explain that they in good faith were reverting beyond 3RR... it doesn't matter if it turns out they were wrong, the admins at the 3RR board should be giving them the benefit of the doubt on that, I would say, unless there's some pattern. Much of what Kim fastened onto, I think, is the fact that this process of asking for help, informing that you had to exceed the norms, and getting evaluated... seems to be coming out with wrong answers a fair bit. That seems a process problem, not an exemption problem. Unless as Kim alleges it's just impossible to do because the concept itself is broken. I just don't think so. Your reasoning above also supports that it's not conceptually broken. Again, thanks for turning up. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

it clearly illustrates that not all BLP matters are cut and dried, sometimes it's not clear what version is defamatory and what version is not. maybe in some cases both versions are? Or neither Lar the answer to that one is really really simple - if you look at an article and it's unsourced and you cannot tell what is right or what is wrong - you stubbed it and then you rebuild from scratch, line by line with sources. I've done this many many times, I've reduced some articles to literally the name of the person - because that is our responsibility to living figures, because it is better to have imcomplete articles on living figures than articles that are wrong --87.112.79.25 (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that when in doubt, stubbing is the right thing to do. See, for example, Mike Cox which I recently cut back a lot because when I removed the unsourced/copyvio stuff, what was left, even though sourced, was unfairly weighted, the article as a whole was no longer NPOV, so I stubbed that out too. I would defend that decision if I was challenged. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Larry.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As per our discussion above, I am waiting on an e-mail from you, at your earliest convenience. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome... You have my sympathy and respect even though I did not support you at this time... it is surely an unpleasantness we foist upon those who volunteer here, is it not? ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not fun, that is certain, but it is a learning experience, and it provides lessons for life—not just wikipedia. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Lar. I am still interested in discussing your concerns with you when you have some time. -- Avi (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi... my, where has the time gone? I'm sorry, I'm not deliberately ignoring you, it just slips off the bottom of my todo list. I'll try to make the time and connection soon. Perhaps we should do it via email after all, asynchronous might work best. ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me; at your convenience, Larry. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Lar, if I didn't respect you that much, I wouldn't care as much, but since I do, I'm still interested in having that conversation; email is fine. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Argh. Another 2 weeks ++ has went by. sigh. I will try to make some time. I really am sorry. ++Lar: t/c 19:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonymous editing

Hello Lar, I caught your comment at one of the noticeboards where you mentioned a possible change of policy away from anon- and pseudonymous editing. This is a topic I would like to follow and keep on my watchlist. Can you point me to a central place where it is being discussed? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not, as far as I am aware, up for serious consideration anywhere. It just happens to be an opinion of mine. (see ) I would predict that it would never come to pass, or if it did, there would be so much discussion first that it would be impossible to miss. It is, after all, a foundation principle of the WMF projects that "anyone can edit". ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Just to make sure I understand the concept, would one's name be known only to the Board of Trustees or another select group within the project (and provided to interested parties on demand, when accountability is required), or would it be known, accessible, and googlable to the entire world wide web community? (I'm not trying to draw you into a discussion here, just trying to understand, and not very knowledgable about these things.) ---Sluzzelin talk 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder, this is my opinion alone. I would have it be like Citizendium... your real name would be known to all and sundry, and searchable by all. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

with, I suppose, the provision that Citizendium has for allowing pseudonyms on special request for good reasons--though I am not aware whether or not they have ever had such a request, let alone accepted one. DGG (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Carefully controlled pseudonyms? Probably not. Better to make it crystal clear that editing the project puts your name, reputation, everything... on the line, out in the open and unprotected from casual passers by who may well do whatever they wish with the data, and that the project makes absolutely no guarantees whatever that you will be safe, protected, indemnified, etc, as it has no powers to affect any matters outside its servers. If you could not edit under those conditions, don't. There is no overriding NEED for any one particular person to edit, after all. Radical? Absolutely. But it's my personal opinion of what is necessary. Meanwhile I absolutely support the current policies even if I think they're not right, because that's what we sign up to do, support them. Or leave. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid response and food for thought. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Demn you, Sirrah!

... and your virtual cloth in a box with a fan! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone else, much cleverer than me in the ways of Flash, wrote it. I just found it. But just keep clicking the ads, that's all I ask :) ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I love Kim, but...

This. It seriously is unacceptable to me, as I'm seeing now on two seperate key policy discussions the equivalent of discarding and maiming consensus to advance one's personal stances. The governence reform, I now believe, he worked to sink because it would have made "senior" people like him irrelevant to the grand scheme of things, and with no more weight or individual authority than any other user, and this attempt to cripple BLP is just baffling. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 04:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you ask Kim a very valid question. I'm hoping he'll stop with the recasting everything and the socratic method... Just like when he's good, one of the key things he does is call other people on bad assumptions... when he's not quite as good, it's the others that need to keep him honest. We'll see. ++Lar: t/c 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've backed off on the BLP talk page, at least for the next week or so. What I was trying to do clearly wasn't working. Then some folks tried a similar approach on NTWW chat, and we saw exactly how badly it wasn't working (even though logically it ought to, but there you go.) I can't be hypocritical and not fix my own procedures when there are issues with them.

One thing apparently got you angry where it wasn't intended: A comment I posted about the log being empty? It was true at the time. When you put a data-point in the log 2 hours later, you apparently read the comment as saying I'd rejected your log entry (which is obviously not true, as it hadn't been made yet at the time of the comment). Apologies for that misunderstanding. I appreciate your attempts at gathering data.

I hope you have a nice morning! --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, long-term, we're not here to just discuss policy. We only should be here to make encyclopediac content. But if policy needs to be discussed, or anything, if people have faith in their views, those views should be able to stand on their own without having to defend them religiously. More importantly, if consensus needs to be hashed out, I think you'll find many people (myself as a prime example) will take any offense at that consensus having any appearance of scripting or manipulation. Only a natural honest, un-gamed, unmanipulated consensus has value. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem here was that people kept misunderstanding each other! Something like this:

• I say "X"
• person 1 says : "I don't like Y"
• I say "But I said X!"
• person 2 says : "I agree with person 1, Z sucks"
• I say "Huh?! But I said X, and Person 1 said Y!"
• person 3 says: "Don't be disingenuous! I heard you say W all along!"
• I say "but but but!"
• .oO(ARRRGH!)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC) omg wtf, bbq! YUM!

You can claim to be misunderstood, I suppose, but I don't think so. The major issue I have with this is that during the course of this, you were asked many clarifying questions which you did not answer, and had many of your assumptions challenged, which you did not address. I find myself agreeing extremely strongly with FaithF here. You need to either admit that FaithF's view (and I suspect, the majority of the other participants as well) of what transpired is correct, and understand why it is unacceptable to act that way, or determine why so many people perceived your approach to this matter singularly unhelpful, and why they did not understand what you really were trying to do. I think it is possible that there is some self delusion involved, your perception of what you were doing may not match what you actually were doing. I'm sorry to speak so harshly but I feel a fair bit of time was flat out wasted in this matter.

To be crystal clear, it is my view that:

• You do not admit the validity of the notion that BLP policy is prescriptive but instead act as if there can be no doubt it is descriptive and persist in using descriptive methods against near universal local consensus that you are wrong without addressing the issue.
• You have not shown that there is a basic problem with the exception itself because your sample set is too small. When it has been pointed out to you that the methodoligy is flawed, at length, you have given the impression you are going to define things as you wish to get the answer you wish. I gave what I feel is a very apt analogy, with some very clear correspondence of pieces and you engaged in sophistic attempts to define the pieces otherwise than I intended. It's my analogy, after all, so it's rather insulting to do that. You did that same sort of redefinition on what people said to try to turn "I support the policy exemption but think there is a problem with admins at the noticeboard not heeding it" into "I don't support the policy", even in the face of repeated explanation.
• You wanted more data, yet repeatedly refused to address the basic questions asked about the first data point I supplied. My later annoyance came from the perception that you were dodging the point that you yourself should supply some data about your own BLP actions... or admit that you have not actually yourself carried out any edits in support of BLP.

I'm really sorry to say this Kim, but you did not at all acquit yourself well here, and your attempts to reframe what happened after the fact contribute to that assessment. I'm surprisingly disappointed in you. You need to internalise that what others are saying may actually be an accurate assessment of what transpired.

I suggest that while you are going off and thinking about what happened, that you spend some time doing some actual BLP work. Your article namespace contribs show less than a dozen edits there in the last two months, and I'm not seeing any of them (on spot checking) as BLP related. To have standing in this matter, it may be helpful to spend some time at the coalface, seeing the magnitude of the problem. Go find some BLP problems and try to fix them. They won't be hard to find. It is depressingly easy, actually. Most people find one within the first 20 times they hit "random article". I feel that while I am not the most diligent, I do have some standing, as reviewing my article namespace contribs shows 150 over the last two months, not less than a dozen (still in dilettante mode, to be sure) and with a predomination of BLP related ones recently (all those AfD related removals and the like are BLP AfDs) So while my standing is slight compared to the really hard working folk who deal with this more often, it is non zero. ++Lar: t/c 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite claiming to be misunderstood (far from it). What you're saying may or may not be true, but what really got to me was the NTWW chat discussion. That discussion proceeded in a very similar manner, including specifically X, Y, Z, W sequence. I was just watching, and Faith and yourself weren't participants (and the policy under discussion was a hypothetical policy "WP:FLOOFYPOO"), so whatever happened in the NTWW chat must be due to the kind of questions or the way they were asked, not due to anything else. Well, *THAT* was rather odd and unexpected, and that's what caused me to decide to step away from the page.

My last involvement with a BLP issue was where I was mediating off-wiki between several different parties on Rosalind Picard. User:Ottava Rima was "the man at the keyboard" for that particular case. (so you'll find them in his own style and in his edit history, not mine. And rightly so. Note that this is fairly typical when mediating). He was really pleased with his role for having edited straight through a BLP edit-war without getting involved, and we solved most of the WP:UNDUE issues with that article. I became interested in 3RR-exempt, because one of the participants had emailed Rosalind Picard and invited her to come and look, and the edit war was still ongoing. That definitely was not a good thing.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Something in which you may be interested

You are a steward are you not? (Well, I opined that you should be :) )

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#the undertow

--Avi (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am a steward, see my WikiMatrix... At this time I don't see a formal call for desysopping by ArbCom (that one former member commented is not a formal request), nor a request for it by the user, (the two things that would trigger a desysop request to be acted on) so there's no action item for me as a steward, but I'm naturally concerned about this, regardless of who did what, as it seems troubling. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know that there is no call for anything now, prior to a RfAr, but this event looks like it may have legs, so I thought to give you the heads up. -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nod. Much appreciated. I went on IRC to keep an eye on things and see what was what. If there is a proximate call for a desysopping, there are plenty of stewards around to handle it, so it would get handled very swiftly. I better get back to my SQL hacking... :) ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ey oh, wassup?

I was a bit bothered by this the other day, and then I noticed this. Perhaps it would be best to chat about this in email. You know how to contact me, tonysidaway@gmail.com if you don't. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We can if you want, but here's fine too. The two edits seem only mildly related. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Voluntary vs. mandatory recall

Lar, your name came up on my talk page, if you want to take a look. Regards, Tim Smith (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Answered there, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token a6b43f4322f4bbdfa09a724d0ac9b8ab

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you are so sure you want to do it

I would suggest you read User:Filll/Moultonunblock. All of it. Carefully. I added more to it, but there is still lots more.

Such as evidence of past disruption of other online communities. And evidence of trying to cause disruption on purpose so he can write about it as a research study to see how we react. Now, I think it is ok to give people a second chance. However, I think people who do this should go into this with their eyes open. And fully aware of what might await.

If you want to take him under your wing and try to educate him, go ahead as far as I am concerned; just keep him away from me. You can see more details in that link above. If you are successful at reforming him, I will take my hat off to you.

Of course, a lot of the information derives from private emails and other private records. But it exists. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am, never said I was. My expectation is that either there won't be consensus to unblock, or that if there is an unblock, he won't edit at all, but yes, I'll take him under my wing. And block quickly if it's not working out. I'm aware of a fair bit of past history. But "Should we block/unblock?" misses the point, or at least part of it. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If, knowing what you do, you're willing to take him under your wing, then, to quote the Yarbirds a bit out of context, "Mr., you're a better man than I". And I mean that sincerely, not with the sarcasm of the Yardies' version. I know I've been snarky over this whole thing -- my memories of interacting with Moulton are not pleasant ones -- but, since I too like experiments, I'll support you as best I can. I suppose time will tell how it'll go (although, I'd lay odds in a certain direction). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your change of heart, even though I share your dubiousness (I know you may not believe it, but I do...) Best. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking back on this, it's the research study part of it which struck me. a declared attempt to edit disruptively in order to see what will come of it is not good faith. It may be an interesting research project from an outside perspective, if he can get away with it, (though most ethics committees would have some doubts), but we have the same right and obligation to keep such people out--just as if they wanted to do an experiment and see how much spam they could add, for their own private satisfaction. But perhaps you are right, that it was intended to be provocative and won;t happen again. May we all come out OK. DGG (talk) 07:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. editing disruptively to see what will come of it is a kind of "breeching experiment", and I've in the past come down very hard on anyone that I thought was doing that. This would be no different, if I see signs of it, I will not be at all favourably disposed. ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sunholm

See you weighed in pretty well on previous dicussions on Sunholm socks, would you mind looking at User_talk:Dmcdevit#Sunholm? and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1qx_and_DUCK? I believe that he's back. Also, MrBigBux (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) may be of interest. Thanks, Metros (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you check that AN/I link, seems wrong to me... Do you think MrBigBux is related or were you just asking about that one too? ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it got archived: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive418#1qx_and_DUCK. As for MrBigBux, he's shown up before (including today) tagging these socks in different ways, so I was wondering if there was a connection there. His only contributions have been to tag these socks. Metros (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this has been handled, near as I can tell. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush Street

I don't know if you noticed I added some Rush Street information to SS Christopher Columbus. I also put a note on the talk page about finding more images. You may find the current Rush Street FAC interesting. I have just added some new image formatting that I need feedback on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've commented at SS Chris's talk, please take a look. I'll try to make time to take a look at Rush St... an article about a street up for FA! cool. BTW what do you think of SS Chris being on the main page for Columbus day? you can't suggest more than a month in advance, so... have to remeber to suggest it mid September. ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would of course be a cool date. If you nominate it drop me a note and I will support. I just noticed that the WP:USRD/MTF has finally gotten around to a request of mine for a map of Rush Street without informing me. I think their map is better in some sense although it is imprecise. I have swapped images and commented on their map request page with my quibbles. I will check the SS CC talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate account

Hi Lar. Sorry to bother you since you probably have more pressing things to do, but, as you are the admin who unblocked me when I was accused of sockpuppetry, I wanted to clear my creation of a second account for use on public computers per WP:SOCK#LEGIT with you. I'll name it something obviously related to me ("Doctorfluffy2" or similar) and will tag it with one of the appropriate alt account templates. Naturally, it's possible that both accounts might edit the same page during the course of a debate, but I would think with the above measures it would be apparent to all that I am not socking in a malicious or collaborative manner. Would you have any problem with this? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's properly tagged, and isn't used in violation of policy I have absolutely no problem, thanks for notifying me. Using a name like Doctorfluffy2 or DoctorfluffyPublic is a good idea. The first name you may have trouble creating because of how close it is, if you decide that's what you want and it is so, let me know and I'll create it for you. (the second name is marginally better I think, but it's a personal preference matter) ++Lar: t/c 10:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, you may want to link the signature of the alternate to the main... that's the easiest way to use both in a discussion without anyone being accidentally confused. See for example how I set up my alternate account User:Larbot to sign as in this diff. Hope that helps. Best. ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I went with your recommendations on both the user name and the signature. Thanks for the tips. DoctorfluffyPublic (alt account for Doctorfluffy | talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you're welcome. One thing you may or may not want to do is redirect User talk:DoctorfluffyPublic to your normal talk. You can leave the current warning you have there too. A nice thing about an alternate account on other wikis is that you can set the account's prefs so that every time anything on that account's watchlist is changed, you get a mail. Then on the alternate account, only watch things you actually want to get mailed about. (I use larbot that way on multiple wikis... you have to log in using that account to reset the notifier though) en:wp doesn't support that, too many accounts, but it is great on smaller wikis. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lar

Thanks for the suggestions regarding my accountability page. I've updated it, clarified my terms, and posted the updated page. Since there's two weeks lead time (to be fair), would you mind looking it over and giving it the up or down for me? User:SirFozzie/Accountability. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far, one loose end I spotted, is it original recaller (the one that gets the recall certified as started) plus 5 more, or does the 5 include that bloke? It's a bit vague there. Also ", any new attempts to recall for the same issue/incident"... means? What if the issue is that you are an abusive admin? No one can ever recall you for that, ever again? Or just that they need a new incident that shows it, not the old evidence from before... Also, "clerk, Any" we don't typically capitalise subordinate clauses. Ok that was three loose ends. tough noogies!++Lar: t/c 22:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bettor? :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things. 1) There's still a loose end around the original requestor bit... do they have to recertify on the page, like the other signatories, or is it sufficient that they asked it be started? 2) Same same gets removed by clerk... does that mean whatever poor schlub you get to clerk the first one is stuck clerking your user page until some recall that raises NEW material actually gets started? :) ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. Ever think of going into wikilawyering ;-). I've made it clear on 1)... and put in something for two, but not sure how to do it SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ever think of going into wikilawyering"... that cuts me to the quick. Besides, have you read mine? Some say I have! Or at least wikilawclerking. As to how to fix the clerk is beholden forever bit, try saying that at a certain point, the clerk certifies it's OVER, and then is done with any obligation, and then YOU remove stuff until a valid one starts. (If someone has a problem with that, hey, this is voluntary, ArbCom is thataway) ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Greeting to you, and notice of resignation

Hello sir. As I write this, I grow tired. Just for identification, I am someone who you have fought with in the past. I have been reflective in the last few weeks, since the last church service with the sacrament of Holy Communion (I'm a Congregationalist Christian, United Church of Christ). To keep this short, I am sorry to you, and those administrators I have wronged and other users as yet unnamed here. I have not only wronged you sir, and those named here, but I have also violated the Word of Christ, who I swore on a sacred oath to follow for all my days, how many I have left. I come seeking forgiveness in His spirit, but don't expect it and won't force the issue. I don't seek to be unblocked, and I won't force it. To conclude this, I hereby withdraw my threats of legal action against the project and Mr. Wales and all the administrators. I seek to just be at peace, and with that spirit, I resign from Misplaced Pages. God Bless you Lar, you and your family. Keep safe will you? ForeverSearching (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am not sure exactly how we have encountered each other in the past, thanks for your thoughts, your apology is accepted, and best wishes to you in whatever the future holds for you. Best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI. — Scientizzle 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose I could have CU'ed the account to learn that but didn't have probable cause so let it be. I expect you're right though. 'preciate the info. ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, check out User_talk:Scientizzle#Greeting. — Scientizzle 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite amazing, really. I think you've adequately bounded the problem. Please advise if you need assistance. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Steward question

Hi Lar - Have been trying to do the whole SUL thing, and unexpectedly discovered that there is apparently a user named "Risker" on Japanese wikipedia. Well, sort of...their name is obviously in katakana first and then letters, so I am half wondering how it could be considered the same "name", but I guess that is neither here nor there. I'd like to usurp the account, which does not appear (from what I can see) to have had any more than a handful of edits some years ago; however, I have no idea how to communicate with Japanese bureaucrats, or how to read Japanese to find out if they have any special rules. Can you help me out here? It would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What error are you getting? Can you give me a link to the ja:wp account in question? There is an algorithm that is used to prevent names that are "too close"... that would prevent for example RIsker here.... Any admin usually can override it and create an account for you. If the account is not exactly the same you just need a ja:wp admin to create the account and send you the pw. There are many that speak english, to find one, find out who the admins are using the same URL you use here, and then find out who is in the en babelbox setup category, intersect, and ask for help. That's what I would do. Alternatively, get on the #wikipedia-ja IRC channel and ask for help there. (note, since the project has local admins and local 'crats, that's the route to go to get help... stewards never intervene if there are local folk to help, except in dire emergencies) BTW I use this tool to check for account names: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Lar&lang=en (just change the Lar to Risker.) Works a treat. (if the toolserver is happy, works not at all if the toolserver is sad... :) ) LMK if you need more help. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

PS .. this should help.

• all admins on ja:wp: http://ja.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=sysop
• all self designated english speakers on ja:wp: http://ja.wikipedia.org/Category:User_en

I spotted several admins I know speak english, but which ones? left as an exercise to the reader. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is supposedly the userpage here (it's just boxes on the screen here at work, it's katakana on my better setup at home); interestingly when I use that search, the ja:wp doesn't show up at all; in fact, when I went to set up the SUL, I was rather shocked to find out the Japanese account existed. Thanks for pulling those links, I'll work on that little project when I get home. Risker (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused. Tell me again, what exactly were you doing and what error did you get? When you go to unify, what should stop you is if there is a local account that is spelt EXACTLY the same as yours but that has a different password or email associated... the characters before "Risker" in the URL you gave are just "user" in a different format. But compare this

http://ja.wikipedia.org/search/?title=%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Lar&page=&year=&month=-1 to this http://ja.wikipedia.org/search/?title=%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Risker&page=&year=&month=-1 That says to me the account (which has no contribs) doesn't exist... Try doing the SUL unify from your home wiki again and this time, paste in the exact error you get?... ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, when i go to m:Special/CentralAuth I do see that the ja:wp is an "unattacked account" ... can I muck about? I can go onto IRC later and ask some more sage people. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I unmerged them so you can try the merge again and this time tell me what it said. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. This is what I get when I try to do the unified thing: Earlier today, the en.wp, commons, meta and en.wikt accounts were up at the top and all in fact have the same username and password; only the jp.wp was at the bottom and needed a password match. Now, all but the en.wp are at the bottom, despite the fact that all but the jp.wp have the same username and password. (after putting in the password, it looks like this) Never a dull moment around here. Please feel free to muck about; I'll trust you on this, and should be home at about 5:30 EDT on gmail or on-wiki. Haven't quite worked up the energy to do the IRC/cloaking thing yet! Risker (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That link takes me to MY SUL status, not yours :) Can you get into your commons/meta etc (except for ja:wp) ok? I have to fly soon, so I won't be around on the nets till late tonite. You may want to work with someone else if it's urgent... More later. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh geez, that penny should have dropped, sorry. Yes, I can get into all of my accounts - commons, meta, en.wikt, and obviously en.wp. I'll be around until late tonight, I am determined to do some copy editing for fun and profit (as if), and might even do some research on this whole IRC thing. Thanks for your help. Risker (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think that (barring me going in and renaming that account to move it out of the way (which just isn't done on a wiki with 'crats)) you're going to have to ask to usurp that account. I am sorry if I wasted your time. As I suggested before, find an admin to try creating the account for you, or if that doesn't work, a 'crat who speaks english. Sorry for confusion! ++Lar: t/c 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problems, Lar, and thank you for your assistance. I had just this moment emailed a ja.wp admin who also has an account here, requesting assistance and guidance in usurping that account. From what the google translator tells me, the account has no contributions and no user page and no user talk page, so it does raise certain questions as to whether it is even an account. Let's hope this is fairly straightforward to get through. I can struggle my way through many European languages, but I am completely hopeless trying to figure out languages that show up as squares on my screen, if you understand what I am saying. ;-) Risker (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. A really good person to reach out to if you get stuck is User:Kylu who knows an amazing number of languages well enough to get messages across... ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Recall ideas

Lar, seeing as your the "grandfather" of the recall idea, I wanted to run my newest expansion of my recall criteria (to include my BAG membership) by you at User:MBisanz/Recall. MBisanz 19:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "godfather" but ok. Um... I've never seen BAG folded in that way but it seems eminently straightforward and reasonable. Please update your entry on Misplaced Pages:Administrators_open_to_recall/Admin_criteria to note that you've added BAG stuff, it may be of use to other BAGgers... PS good luck on your candidacy. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

evening gramps....

(hope you don't mind my small tease per the above thread!) - thought I'd drop a note in here rather than reply to your message in the An/I thread...

I was supporting the 2 week ban only on MM, and not the straight to indef. in my comments - though I did think about re-wording to "I'm happy to agree with Lar" which perhaps better reflects the bit of ambivalence / doubt which remains. Actually - and I've considered the possible harm in saying this openly - and discounted it - I think there's also a 'better the devil we know' argument in there too. It's worth remembering that it is nigh on impossible to prevent someone from editing wikipedia if they want to (and I was a bit surprised in my case at the advice I got from some quarters to do just that - both the advice, and where it came from raised my eyebrow a bit).

Further to my comments at AN/I about the arbcom being not fit for purpose - I've been having some interesting conversations, and trying to think through a few ideas, and wondered if you might have any advice as to the best 'on-wiki' next steps? - are you interested in this aspect at all? hope you're good Lar - and here's a completely random comment for you - I was tempted to illustrate a post at 'that' current arb case talk page with this pic... fortunately I didn't find it sooner, and the post is probably better unsaid anywhoo....!

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Love the pic, PM! I've moved it up so it looks a bit better, hope you don't mind. Risker (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

PM where did you get that pic? Your own artwork? You've a talent I wasn't aware of... (and some you do. I may start calling you Thirg...) I dunno about getting into any sort of dissection of arbcom's shortcomings at this point. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Obscurantism

Why, thank you. :) I was searching for the pithiest crystallization of the frustration that Moulton's style seems to inspire on occasion, and that's what I came up with. I seem to recall seeing it described as "condescending, self-indulgent bullshit" on the Site-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named, which is caustic but also perhaps more accurate. Anyhoo... keep up the good work. MastCell  18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

:) ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland at ANI

Hi Lar. I just replied to you here -- just a heads up so you don't miss it! Sam Korn 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like it is closed. At least for now? Appreciate the heads up. (and no, I'm not Lir, but still :) ) ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvass

Consider yourself to retroactively canvassed.Balloonman (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fat lot of good it does NOW. Some cabal ringleader you are. Turn in your secret decoder ring at once! ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Secret decoder ring...d0H! I knew I forgot something!Balloonman 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Query

"I suggest that you are not the person here with the most moral standing to speak about corruption or fraud or favoritism. Put your own house in order first."

What does this comment mean, Lar? SlimVirgin 20:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what it says. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an explanation. If you accuse a good editor of corruption and fraud, you have a duty to explain what you mean. SlimVirgin

I agree. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Then please do explain. It can't be because he voted one hour and whatever after me, because your wife voted 13 minutes after you, and I am certain she didn't do it just because you did. It can't be because you think he was canvassed (which he wasn't, at least not by me), because you have several times canvassed people by e-mail for votes, both in RfAs and in your own stewardship. So please say what it is, Lar. SlimVirgin 21:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My mistake, I thought you were referring to Crum375 needing to explain what he meant when he accused a good editor of "corruption and fraud"", because he absolutely does need to explain that. He hasn't. Instead he has been attacking those who point it out.

It is absolutely not corruption or fraud to communicate with other editors about matters of mutual concern, which is what Giggy did with those GAs, which is presumably what you and Crum do all the time, and which is what I did when I turned in my chair and mentioned to my wife that Giggy was running for admin. If you think I'm saying that mere communication is evidence of corruption, I think you need to read what I've said more carefully. Giggy didn't tell people to pass things, and I don't tell my wife how to vote (as if she'd listen anyway). Communication by itself is fine, as far as I'm concerned. After all, you and I were on a private list together for some time, communicating about matters of concern. Nothing wrong with that. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, so I'll word my question more carefully. What do you mean exactly when you refer to Crum375 as being involved in corruption and fraud? SlimVirgin 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You may want to clarify your remarks on the RfA, then, since you now apparently agree you misstated things there. What does Crum375 mean, exactly, when he refers to Giggy as being involved in corruption and fraud? And what did you mean when you said "too many concerns"? I see several people are waiting for clarification on that. Also, have you asked Sean William what he meant by Tu quoque yet? ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Slim. It is what it is. ps: "hi there". Miss you. See you soon. (mwah). 85.3.218.119 (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to talk about this particular issue Lar. I know this is a particularly heated topic at the moment, but could I please ask you to focus your comments on the candidate, rather than the history and relationships of the people who have commented. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree but I find the use of the terms "corruption and fraud" in regard to this matter so pejorative and so "well poisoning" that I find myself with no choice but to point out how inappropriate it is to attack a candidate that way, and why. I've said my bit though, unless there are further attacks of that nature in that RfA. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, your restraint is much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, are you aware of this?? I wonder if it's appropriate to consider saying something is "fallacious" as a personal attack... there does seem to be a lot of that going around. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit odd. Maybe he didn't mean it in the policy sense? Anyway, I'm off to have a beer. Talk to you later. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that someone doesn't know the difference between fallacy and fellatio - which further leads me to suspect that said person isn't married... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Lar? Could we resume that chat in email? This is a very worrying turn of events. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mailed you. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Aaron's opinion of Tony's contributions to discussions

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)

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)