As a actual .en steward who dares to post on WR, even if he never expresses a strong opinion about anything, Lar has been under survailance and scrutiny at WP. And yes, in this case we do expect the spammish inquisition; just a matter of time. But you can't just fuck with stewards for petty reasons like incivility, as you would with the powerless, and Lar's never incivil anyway. So, how to get at the Infuriatingly Bland One?

Lar's recent use of checkuser has given the Cabal an opening, and now they're in.

Reqest for arbitration#Lar

Fix the link, Milt.

Maybe I'm missing something. If anything, this arbitration should END the inquisition. Right now, Lar is being subjected to claims that he cannot answer without violating privacy. This would provide him with a forum to answer the claims and with a (theoretically) neutral body that can (theoretically) definitively state whether or not Lar has abused his privileges.

Did you try it? The link worked if you clicked it; it just looked like it wouldn't. But okay, I took out the ellipsis.

Actually I fixed it, I don't know why, but once in awhile when the hyper link becomes long, it can get screwed up.

Ain't theories wonderful?

That's a "glass half full" thought, but you have a point.

Remember that poor Jimbo was thinking about the possible commentary on WR if he fixed Rachel's bio himself (so he told her on chat), and so WR's opinons actually screwed up Jimbo's sex life. Man, they hate us. Apparently the standard at WP for identified users is that you must ignore WR completely, or else launch into WikiDefender type tirades about us (except that you're serious). To the untrained eye, however, Lar appears to feebly defend WP only about 50.0% of the time. Not enough.

It comes to me that a scientific instrument is needed, perhaps the Wikipedia Lar Anisotropy Probe. It would look for miniscule variation in the Cosmic Lar Opinion Background, in order to see if there is actually any Dark Matter in Lar's uniformly beige heart.

What Lar labels as "dirty pool" I would simply call a corrupt practice by an ethically challenged character.

Lar, is that an unfair description of what you're dealing with?

Lar say's it's frustrating. I say it's beyond frustrating; to my mind, it's exasperating.

These perplexities have vexed me for nigh onto a year now. And I daresay Lar, Alison, Cla68, Random832, Gnixon, UserB, and many others have wrestled with comparable intractable problems far longer than moi, and with far more at stake than mere defamation of character of an identifiable living person.

To my mind, these problems call for Action Research.


This same corrupt practice also arises in the recurring conduct of the principal actors in the WikiClique on ID.

I think that you guys maybe have it all backwards.

Thatcher filed this case...and unless I'm missing something, Thatcher is on Lar's side.

SV was offered the possibility of filing an case with the ombudsman commission or Arbcom, and she chose not to, probably so she could continue to wail and gnash her teeth...

So, what's happening here? It seems to me that somebody's ace was just trumped....and I don't think that it was Lar's card...

Regardless of how this turns out, I would like to voice my support for Lar, who's one of the few voices of reason who posts both at WR and WP. Hopefully, this will turn out....the way I think it's going to turn out....

....oh, and....kudos to Sir Fozzie for sticking his neck out.

I hope that he still has his head when this is all over!

I hate to wiki-lawyer, but isn't CheckUser on a different level? I mean, I don't think the ArbCom would have the ability to look at CheckUser data or scrutinize the evidence per the Foundation's privacy policy. If there's a case of privacy violation via CheckUser tools, shouldn't the matter be brought to the attention of the Foundation's Ombudsmen Committee who would be able to determine whether the privacy policy was breached. CheckUser, I would think, would be on a Foundational level and not on a local community project's level. It would actually invade SV's privacy more if Lar were ordered to produce the CheckUser evidence, even in private, to the ArbCom.

Eleven of the fourteen sitting arbitrators are checkusers, and the other three would also be accorded that status if they requested it. From time to time the arbitrators do receive confidential access to checkuser data, typically in sockpuppetry cases, which is why the requirement of providing identification to the Foundation as well as the age minimum were extended to arbitrator positions last year.

(I am not expressing a view on any aspect of the merits of the matter, in this or any other post.)

I am: this is SV's worst nightmare. Somebody is finally officially asking her to "show her cards". And the other Arb-com case is still open.

This is a calculated risk on the part of Thatcher, but I think he's got a few cards up his sleeve anyway.

Once again, folks, nothing is as it seems here...

SlimVirgin tried to use the ombudsman to smear me when I checkusered her (and she found out, almost certainly via Jayjg). Steve Dunlop (the ombudsman at the time) categorically cleared me of any wrongdoing, an act for which Slim has almost certainly never forgiven Steve. She (and others, Irpen amongst them) continued to allege that I abused checkuser even after I publicized the decision clearing me.

She's not going to file a complaint with the ombudsman because she doesn't expect fair treatment from them, and is afraid that the ombudsman will just clear Lar. So instead she uses her usual smear tactic strategy of publicizing the conclusion she wants as broadly as she wants in the hopes that enough people will believe it that it becomes true.

Thatcher's action gives the ArbCom the opportunity to, first, determine who is leaking checkuser logs to SlimVirgin (and determine if such action is appropriate) and, second, determine if SlimVirgin's actions against Lar are inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor. I would think both of these matters are obvious and simple, but this is the ArbCom we're talking about....

Yes. Nobody (with any sense, at least) makes any sort of public move in wikipolitics without making sure that his (or her) back, side, top, bottom, and any other applicable sides are covered. Substantial political maneuvering went into Thatcher's act there.

I agree with UserB on this one. I think Thatcher's intentions are benign. That doesn't meant that the ArbCom won't find a way to use the case maliciously, but this does present an opportunity to clear the air, while requiring Virginia Slim to put up or shut up.

Neh. He was off spreading his 'wikilove' elsewhere by then.

But that he worried was somehow satisfying.


Lar is indeed beige.

Lar was too willing to let the ArbCom "midnight express" Orangemarlin. At least he'll get the benefit of presenting a defense.

See we're different.

I *love* to wikilawyer, and as per the new FISA 2008 Amendments, anyone born outside the United States has no right to seek penalties of any kind.

Especially under Arbcom for violations against their person, nor ego, nor their haughty countenance. Neither against their poodle.

The poodle clause got chucked in the thick of the telecom immunity negotiations. It was poodles or privacy.

Neither survived.

That reminds me - when I was looking at Poor Man's Checkuser, I ran across this charming edit by Jim62sch -


That's our crack Intelligent Design Team.

OK, I've researched Action, and this is what I come up with:

Well, meanwhile this thread is in need of illustration!
[imgx]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/107471929_ab71c6f195.jpg?v=0[/imgx]

It sounds great but in practice, it's used to cover a lot of sloppy academic practice - I didn't realise it was still big in the states.

I got laughed out of town when I suggested it for my PhD.

LOL! -No, I mean, Look. How exactly does posting an image representing the likely remedy of Lar's arb case below "Well, meanwhile this thread is in need of illustration!" which in turn is directly below a post linking to a comment of his labeled "midnight express"... how exactly does that help matters?



Brave words from Lar. But pictures of legos representing Lar in a Turkish prison? HA HA HA! -"No. Certainly not in my name at any rate..."

What makes you think I'm trying to help matters? Bad premises.

I guess I've been spending too much time in the "shifting mess of crazy and often malice" that is Wikipedia -no, I mean the Wikipedia Review! Listening and engaging with paranoids and obsessives can affect one's thinking, you know.

Removed image? Well let's see it again.

[imgx]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/107471929_ab71c6f195.jpg?v=0[/imgx]

Indeed it can, but paranoids and obsessives are with you always. We have no cure here for them, at WR. But one can cut the incidence of these things somewhat by building an environment which doesn't reward these behaviors. WP has an environment which does reward these behaviors. We don't-- but on the other hand, we're on vacation, and under less stress. These behaviors exist for a reason, and it's generally not to allow humans to survive while relaxing on vacation, on the beach, with Mai Tais and Cervezas.

This is not a site which claims to have The Answers as to just how you can make an encyclopedia of quality using just the general population, and without craziness. Perhaps it cannot be done. But burden of proof is upon the positive claimant. Jimbo and crew said they could do it. If they're producing pathology (which they are) they might look elsewhere for some new ideas. That may be here, but isn't necessarily here. It's a big world out there, and it's not run by random teenagers with some time to burn, supervised by the mentally ill who don't have anything better to do. So look at how things are done already. Only a narcissist would ignore what works. WP is run by narcissists.

We do have some opinions about "fixing" WP. The flagged and sighted stable versions stuff has been long discussed (and wasn't invented totally at Wikipedia, but has long been suppressed there, in one form or another). Other obvious things that need fixing are WP's BLP policy, its anonymity, its lack of due process and Bill of Rights, and so on. These are all tied together. But again, not our invention. These things are all problems of governance and epistemology which have already been solved to a better approximation in liberal democracies in the "real world" than on WP, and their absence on WP is due to the name random nature of that site which embraced vandalism and the power of the ignorant-but-convinced. And which has led to the social evil and the quality suggestions. We serve as a reminder not to reinvent the wheel. If we don't have answers, we can at least point to them, and laugh like hell at WP for not paying attention, or not caring.

We are a mere way-station, where people who've been caught up in the madness of WP, may rest a bit, joke a bit, and say what's on their minds, without fear (which does not happen at WP). No more, no less. We're not the Red Cross. So try not to expect more of us than we claim to be, and on the other hand, try not to miss the extra stuff that we actually have.

Milton

Seems you are not at all about "justifying the ways of God to men," then? A pity, you certainly have the rhetorical skill and a well-chosen username for the task!

Although in your schema, WR would be akin to purgatory, while in their's (that of Morven et all) it is Pandæmonium. I haven't quite identified anything resembling Heaven in any of these set-ups, though!

Yep. As I've said before, actually malt does more than Milton can, to justify God's ways to man. But take it: If the smack is sour, the better for the embittered hour...

Yes, WR is much more like Dante's Purgatorio. Where is Heaven? Why, that's the real world. Hell is (obviously) Wikipedia. WR is the place where you pay for your sins in the one to get to the other-- to get back to life.

And I am less Milton sometimes than (please ignore the severe conceit of comparison) Dante's spirit of Virgil, which leads the way through Hell and Purgatory. I sing of arms and the man! Look for Beatrice (the guide for Dante's Heaven) elsewhere!

MR

Oh, the verses that you make... They give me the bellyache.

If WP were Heaven, Alison would be Beatrice!

If the metaphor extends the other way, then wouldn't a soul in Hell be able to ascend to heaven by ... just deciding to quit Hell? "I'm tired of burning for my sins. Gimmie some wings and a harp already."

It makes me wonder how accurate that might be.

"All right, then, I'll go to hell."

---Twain, Huckleberry Finn

The Arbs have accepted the case.

For God's sake Arbcom, don't you think the substantially bigger case of far greater importance that is nearing three months without having a decision is a higher priority?

What makes you think they'll do anything with the case for the next six months?

And at the end of the day, what can they do to Lar? ArbCom can't sack a steward, and even if they ban him from WP I'm sure he has other things he can do.

Losing privileges on his home project is a pretty huge black mark for the next steward election.

The more relevant issue is that come the next elections, Slim and her cronies will pack the vote against Lar; even if he comes out of this conflict nominally intact his days are almost certainly numbered.

Isn't there some law against harboring venomous snakes?

Everywhere except in SlytherinVenerean's House.

Jon

Noting that Crum375 still hasn't edited since mid-July, my suspicious mind wonders if the noise that Slim is making is because she does not want Lar checkusering to find Crum's new account (not that I would expect Lar to go fishing like that, simply following Slim's logic).

Of course, Crum might be human after all and just be on a month long vacation.

I doubt that any Crum account could be kept secret for long, as he would not be able to resist his old topics. Perhaps he has already brewed his alternate account seeing how he was being aggressively disruptive with his Crum375.

Methinks this would indeed be the wrong time for Lar to go fishing for Friends of SV (FoSV) with checkuser. So yes, this could be what the military calls a spoiling attack.

BTW, here's a clear sock or alternate account (he knows all about WP editing right away), and one treated with amazing lack of suspicion by SV (i.e. strangely, the dog does NOTHING in the night), either due to his co-interests, or else due to her knowing who it is, from the Animal Rights community. He apears just about the time Crum goes, for what it's worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/Eazyskankin

If Lar can't checkuser him, I'm sure somebody ought to.

Well, no reason to check as nothing abusive. But how about this for a user's 7th & 8th edit!

According to Wikipedia's draconian username policy he should've been blocked.

I thought of that, but look at the dab page for skank. You haven't spent much time in mosh pits, one supposes.

The Crum375 account stopped editing after it was blocked for 48 hrs. for edit warring.

Yes, but of course the editor behind that account has come back as some other identity. We're just waiting to find out what that identity is.

Keep an eye on the admin-rights log. He won't be interested in coming back without the tools. If someone gets them without an RFA, it'll be Crum.

I thought that name was taken from Bob Marley´s 1977 song?

As noted, clearly experienced with WP: Creates a whole short article de-novo, complete with properly linked sections, in two edits.

And yet, jumps right into the animal rights article to argue with SlimVirgin about the size of the history section which he thinks should be spun off, and tries to do so (she reverts him, even though there actually is an appropriate history article already, which some of the material could go into).

A combination of savvyness about WP with no fear of SlimVirgin on one of her favorite OWNed articles means just one thing: they're aquainted outside WP. Anybody else would know enough to be afraid, and this guy isn't. True strangers get into a immediate argument with Slim on the Talk page, as editors just above Skank do. So the interesting thing is not what is happening here, but what is NOT happening. Slim is not giving this guy the "newbie-pass," that's for sure.

Nothing abusive? A single-purpose new account created by an old WP hand, to push POV on one page? Notwithstanding the new-article tossed off right away, to deflect attention? Looks like something I see people checkusered for all the time.

Personally I don't give two shrew-turds if somebody creates a sock to do this kind of thing. What I do care about is when Slim participates, since she's burned too many people for just yhis, and is now acting like a black widow spider who is entirely unconcerned when that little brown white-spotted spider enters her web. She should have eaten Eazyskanin by now. Why hasn't she? Particularly when it's apparent to everybody what he's an old user with a new name, and thus vulnerable.

So inquiring minds want to know what's going on. With Crum375 missing (whose own appearance, BTW, was also of similar instant maturity), it's doubly interesting. No, I doubt Crum is Eazyskankin. But there's something fishy here. Whoever Eazyskankin is, it's somebody we know.

And yes, Easy Skanking is a Bob Marley song. But Easy Skankin' is also a comic strip: http://easy-skankin.com/comic.php. With a rather SlimVirginish heroine.

Prob not Crum: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=229690263 - on the other hand it could be a giant con

I don't think Crum, either. But this guy's an old hand at the circus. If he sticks his head in the mouth of the lion, he knows that lion personally.

Or not aware that that is a lion.