Misplaced Pages

Forking from DRV

1) Why no edit of the year 2006? → I've yet to find anything funny enough. Sorry.

2) DRV isn't supposed to be MFD II → That's a common meme at DRV, and it's there for the good reason that it can be used to foreclose discussion of questions that don't belong at DRV. These are the boring questions. But the interesting questions at DRV are the ones where the consensus at the XfD was wrong. Consensus at XfD can be wrong, and DRV is the place to fix it because there's nowhere else. When there really is a credible argument that the consensus at the XfD was wrong, we tacitly ignore the meme that DRV is not XfD round 2. Oddly enough, it was arch-deletionist Stifle who began that practice with his brilliant closure of the DRV for Category:Senior Wranglers. You can read it here, if you're interested.

3) how do you tell when (fiat based) policy must trump consensus (or the clear lack of it, as in this case, which is a special kind of consensus, the consensus to do nothing) → That's very much a matter of opinion and the threshold varies depending on who you ask. I can only give you my personal view, which is this:-

I think a local (talk page or AfD) consensus can agree to suspend a global consensus in the case of one particular article. I think anyone who does not understand this has failed to think hard enough about WP:IAR. Where consensus conflicts with policy, and the consensus is one of good-faith editors presenting well-reasoned arguments, I feel consensus should as a rule prevail.

However, equally, I think that although a local consensus has the power to do that, it is not to be exercised lightly; and a subsequent consensus can overturn it. I also think the strength of local consensus required varies from case to case. So for example, I think a local consensus to suspend WP:PROF and allow an article on a full professor at a major university to be kept would require two or three well-reasoned !votes from editors in good standing; but a local consensus to suspend WP:BURDEN and allow unsourced allegations of child abuse against a living person would require such a vast consensus and such overwhelmingly strong arguments that I can't foresee it ever happening in practice.

Finally, I think it's in the encyclopaedia's best interests that we don't pin down the rules about this too specifically. I think that if we create clear rules on how consensus can trump policy, we will thereby be creating clear rules on how to game the system, and the result is that the system will be gamed. So I am reluctant to be pinned down very closely on how strong a local consensus needs to be, exactly; I feel that's a decision to be made from case to case on the merits of that case.

I hope this answers all the questions you raised. Cordially—S Marshall /_Cont 22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting reading. When you said at the DRV you were going to take it here, I was about to fire back "no, these questions matter to this DRV", but perhaps not. Must think and respond in more depth. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nod? Yep?

I'm just wondering, have I ever had any encounters with you that would cause you to "Nod" in agreement with Ottava Rima's personal attacks on me? Do you have any reason to believe I am lying about who I am, or what my background is? Do you have any basis for implying that I "make a lot of todo about credentials but doesn't have the writing/research skills to make good contributions?" If not, why are you saying such things? john k (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect he was agreeing to the principle, not as applied to you personally. Read it in context of trying to advise someone and defuse tension. Nathan 02:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Compare this with ::saying no. The original claims of the blanking was that there was consensus on the talk page or even a discussion. If you follow the first link, you will see a long history of operating in such a manner. If you expand it to this self admitted list, you will see years of edit warring, POV pushing, attacks upon editors, and just all around corruption. Just taking a glance at how they operate at the POV board is utterly frightening, as they are the ones that seem to be pushing some of the worse POV out there. I think this is a very serious situation and that this little group needs to be broken up. Any advice on how? RfC? ArbCom? AN? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a good example of rather blatant tag teaming. There are many, many books devoted to calling it a Christian epic, yet Folantin insisted simply because it was a page that I worked on. Funny how that happens. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I prefer not to get enmeshed in the actual dispute. My purpose in coming by your talk page was to caution you against outing people, or threatening to carry out real life actions that some might consider harassment (such as calling the workplace of someone), whether on purpose or inadvertantly. You responded with what I felt were good points about credentials and arguments from authority so I agreed with you, even though they were tangential to the caution. That advice about actions to avoid stands. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would still like advice on what would be better, RfC, ANI, ArbCom, or the rest on the matter. It is not a content dispute but a group of editors that have caused a systematic problem (technically, two groups, but Alefbe and Kurdo777 have their own issues separate from the above group). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, and don't have the deep background. A well thought out answer would take more thought than I care to devote right now and I'm not sure a flippant answer would be a good idea. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

tall story

passed through germany lately? come on.. own up...... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

not lately... besides ... 15,000 elements? Who cares! why steal milk when you own the whole cow? ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: biting newbies at ITN

(Refactored to User_talk:Ashishg55 per my policy) ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of talk page harassment

Let's see here. First you asked me a question that was clearly intended to be an outright accusation instead of an honest question. I answered and then removed it from my talk page. You restored it and repeated yourself, claiming that my answer was unsatisfactory to you (if it were a genuine question the genuine answer should have been sufficient), and I removed it again. You put it back and called it a full fledged warning, as if somehow the prior post was anything other than an obvious warning based upon the view you hold and already articulated. This is not the way people are supposed to act here when they are trying to resolve a perceived problem. The action of mine you called "disruption" was done once and stopped. The disruption of my talk page you are doing is ongoing. It's bordering on Misplaced Pages:Harassment at his point, and you need to stop. For specific details you can see Misplaced Pages:HUSH and Misplaced Pages:Don't restore removed comments, but someone with your background here really ought to know all that already. DreamGuy (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One great way not to feel harassed is to actually engage in honest and open dialog, so welcome to my talk page, where things almost never get removed. Unfortunately, it's possible that you seem not to actually like to have open dialog though, and further I think you're misapplying the guidance on comment removal. I asked a legitimate question (your characterization of it is incorrect), which you reverted immediately after answering (One wonders what did you have to hide?). Then I explained why I didn't find your answer satisfactory, inviting further dialog, which you again reverted (again, what did you have to hide?) That you choose to remove questions instead of answer them is not a shield against a warning or even a block, should you choose to not heed the warning. You still haven't satisfactorily addressed why you tagged something as a CSD that was going through deletion discussions. But as long as you realize that doing that again may get you blocked, we can be done. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, that page IS good reading... you should review the whole thing. Especially where it says "Note: If there are concerns over your own editing, then you will quite likely gain attention from administrators and other concerned users as a result. Provided this is civil and addressed appropriately, and for valid purposes, it would not be considered 'harassment'." Best. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• As the person who removed the disruptive tagging you did, DreamGuy, I echo Lar's concerns. I see little point in what you did other than intentional disruption. UnitAnode 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WH and his SPI request

Please see my talkpage where we conversed earlier. Break a rule and remove this once read, as you wish. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria

You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Misplaced Pages talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear why this is being run again. 50 participants to decide about an experiment seems plenty. Were you hoping for a different outcome than last time? ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Has it occurred to you that repeating an argument word for word is likely to be interpreted as an indication of either lack of thought or deliberate contempt? Assuming you agree with the earlier argument exactly, wouldn't it at least help to have added some more detail to the cursory argument? DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thanks for stopping by. It hadn't previously occurred to me that someone might actually take a simple repeat of an argument as "deliberate contempt", any more than just saying "per so and so" would be deliberate contempt. But on reflection, is this a specific issue, or do you think that repeating things in general is a bad thing? I think the main part of my input to that page as of that edit (there are two things with that same timestamp, not just one) was a refutation of the somewhat tiresome (and highly repetitive) incorrect assertion by A Nobody that notability is not a deletion criterion. That is manifestly false, something that is not at all notable doesn't merit an article here, as we are not limitless in scope. Perhaps you could speak to A Nobody about his repetitiveness. He regurgitates the same stuff word for word, and evinces little or no thought in doing so... almost deliberate contempt for those he engages with, don't you agree?. I suspect I'm not the only person tired by it. But all that said, thanks for your input, I'll take it under consideration. ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Haverstraw post office DYK

Thanks. I appreciate someone else making the same point. We seem to be losing a sense of institutional memory over there at the same time as that page has become a lot more efficient. Oh well. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list.  --Lambiam 12:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcomm enforcement

Hi Lar. We have never met before but I saw your comments here about your hope that the arb comm enforcement for the I-P case would be applied evenly. It seems that there is a perception that it is not in fact being applied evenly. See here and follow the links there to the AE and ANI requests on the latest issue.

I'm sure you are aware of how the uneven application of these restrictions works to foster the perception among editors that there are one set of rules for one "side" (or for admins and their friends) and another for the "other" (mere editors, who were banned for no good reason, in my opinion, but that's another issue). The lack of clarity here has prompted many editors sanctioned to avoid editing altogether in fear of being swept up in sanctions. Perhaps you could help in clarifying the inconsistencies and ensuring all the animals on the farm are treated equally? Tiamut 10:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned about uneven application, and about potential chilling effects of even the perception of uneven application. I'm not sure how much good I can do but I've commented on the premature close. I'd also point you to this WR thread if you were not already aware of it. Uneven application, or the perception of it even if unjustified, and closing ranks to defend the inner circle, or the perception of it even if unjustified, gives those who frequent sites like WR merely in order to take shots at WP the very ammo they need. ++Lar: t/c 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your opinion on the matter. Here's hoping the future will be more fair? My experience to date doesn't really lead me to be optimistic, but on the other hand, given that the only constant in life is change, there may just be a chance. Happy editing Lar. Tiamut 16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it did any good. Apparently the bot archives threads on his talk page if they are older than 1 hour (!!!) when it comes by. That seems daft. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it did some good, now that he's seen it. Weird those bots! It didn't seem to archiving at 1hr intervals earlier on. Looking at time stamps between comments in the section opened on Meteromaker shows that. But hey, these tech things never make sense to me. Anyway, thanks again and happy editing. Tiamut 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of MiszaBot is that it archives but once a day but the parm controls how old the oldest thread can be (measured by the newest comment in the thread). Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

sock I suppose

Hi Lar, long time... As you may have noticed I just handled in all my brooms and made my already four month long wikibreak official, which may be a sign that I'm actually returning ;) Anyways, noticed these on my watchlist here , the edits are not very controversial I guess, but I strongly suspect this is yet another sock of sju hav (talk · contribs), rather obvious this one, as 7=sju in Norwegian. All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, long time as well... Hope life takes you nice places. The older user's contribs are too old at this point to draw meaningful conclusions, suspect it's best to just hope for the best. However I do see signs of new multiple account use. So I'm not sure what to do. Do you have time/interest in looking into the user's contributions under the multiple guises? I'd be inclined to block if they are problematic. LMK. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alaska Road Commission

On September 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alaska Road Commission, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

A request

Lar, if you don't stop posting snide remarks about me, I'm going to approach the ArbCom for relief. You've been asked many times to stop by several editors. There's no call for it, and I won't respond in kind. It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved (and in such a way that any reasonable person would see was an improvement). If you have a low opinion of me, just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you. Or we should seek private mediation, as I suggested in a recent e-mail to which you didn't respond. But the current one-way public sniping is not acceptable. SlimVirgin 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and bringing your concerns forward. Let's unpack some of the key themes as I see them.

• "snide remarks about me" - The user raised a legitimate concern about free passes, or the perception of them. This is something I've been concerned about for a long time, and have commented about for a long time as well, in many contexts. "Free passes" for anyone is against the spirit of the wiki. Surely you agree that there may be a perception among some that some users do have free passes? (if not, see a few threads up, right here on this talk, for just one example of many) So, not a snide comment and not directed specifically at you. Not everything onwiki is about you, believe it or not. But let me apologise if you think it was directed specifically at you or was intended to be snide.
• " It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved" If answering a question is "lending support" in your view, I think you're not seeing things clearly. Perhaps you should step back from the conflict at that bio and leave it to uninvolved editors.
• "If you have a low opinion of me - My personal opinion of you is irrelevant. As should be yours of me. What matters to me is whether your actions bring harm to the project. If I think they do, I will speak out about it. I won't be constrained by any previous history we might have. Nor should you be.
• "just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you." - Our current difficulties started when you made a number of unjustified and unsupported allegations in an inappropriate manner in a number of venues, something which you were sanctioned by ArbCom for doing, and something for which you've never expressed any remorse, regret, or even acknowledgment that you erred in any way. It's ironic that now you want to stay away, as the damage you did with public invective was done long ago.
• "we should seek private mediation" - I don't see that as particularly useful yet, given that in our prior communications, you've not been willing to acknowledge that you erred in how you raised issues or how you approached conflict resolution. Mediation requires an honest willingness to start afresh. Perhaps at some point in the future, though, if you're now willing to acknowledge what you did was wrong? I remain hopeful. You can start the process by apologizing.

I hope that helps address your concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes

1. quoting: The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct.

Template:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America

Hi Lar- On your user page, could you update this template that has been renamed: "Template:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America" to Template:User WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America 2 ? I renamed it due to the fact that the original name should be a redirect to the project banner (as I found a few article talk pages that were using it, instead of {{NorthAmNative}}), as the userbox or messagebox should have the "user" word in it somewhere, and I'd like to redirect the original to the project banner. Thanks much! --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've made the change you suggested. If not, please advise. Thanks for letting me know of the need for a change. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post

The answer to your question is "no." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)