User talk:Lar/ACE2008

This is the talk page for the table page showing my opinions. Please keep it non technical. If you want to discuss the markup, or the row template used in it, please use the row talk page instead. Thanks.

My (Coren's) stance on opt-out

To clarify things, my position against opt-out is accompanied by the position that WP:BIO needs to have the bar raised high enough that no subject who meets it would have been considered for opt-out to begin with. In other words, I feel the problem is with the notability requirement for BLPs, not with allowing opt-out as a safety mechanism. — Coren ^(talk) 03:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting way to look at it, and it does change how I view your answer. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A thought occurs to me that there is, in fact, a trivial fix (I'm not sure how likely it would be to fly): disallow news media as reliable sources for BLP. It'd require some agility in defining "news media" suitably, but it gets rid of BLP on nonpublic people brought temporarily to the forefront because of a single event, fixes the problem with recentism, and gets rid of a large fraction of marginally notable subjects who have never been the topic of more than press clippings. Combine that with a "waiting period" for BLPs (I would say that one year would do), and you've pretty much entirely removed the problem that caused people to come up with out-out to begin with. — Coren ^(talk) 16:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, really? Have you thought through the consequences at all of what you just proposed? --JayHenry (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although I should have probably specified disallow news media as reliable sources for the purposes of determining notability. I have no problem with news media being used as sources for article contents. — Coren ^(talk) 00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned you've not really thought through what you proposed. To take an extreme example: it's not clear to me when Kay Hagan could have an article under this sort of system, she indeed was brought to the forefront by the news media only recently (for winning some sort of contest). This proposal would potentially destroy tens of thousands of articles, if adopted. You're right it would get rid of a large fraction of marginally notable subjects; I'm profoundly concerned you don't see that it would simultaneously hatchet off a vast number of blatantly notable subjects. --JayHenry (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(I have no objection in continuing the discussion, but we should perhaps remove elsewhere than on Lar's page for this?) — Coren ^(talk) 03:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to stay, or go, as you like... this sort of give and take was exactly what I was hoping for, so I hope you stay. Just note that the "some principles" section of my User Talk applies here too. (but that's not at all onerous I don't think) ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the soapbox, Lar.  :-) JayHenry, there are already subjects who get an automatic article, those would not be affected. Chiefs of state, governors, major religious figures, etc. Nonsensical exclusions can be taken care of with common sense and consensus; I'm talking about moving where the presumption of notability lies (that just being in the news is not enough). At any rate, that particular idea is fresh and needs refining— and you have to remember that this is one editor to another and not ArbCom material. Writing the notability guidelines isn't within the purview of arbitrators. — Coren ^(talk) 13:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. But I ask because I want to know what people think. Further, this isn't the Supreme Court where litmus tests are not universally esteemed. If someone thinks there is no problem about something that most people think is a big problem... that's concerning and it's something to dig into further to see why. If someone is wrongheaded enough about enough things, that's a reason for an oppose, for me, even if they're a nice guy, etc. This idea you've come up with... JayHenry's right, it needs work, but it's a novel idea and ought to be teased around a bit more to see if it would work or not. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly forum, Lar. BLP is always a tough balancing act between people's privacy, on the one hand, and the idealistic role of being that sum of all human knowledge encyclopedia. BLP misapplied can be put to unencyclopedic and even evil purposes. I saw this with an editor who tried to delete an article about the scandal that led to the resignation of a member of the US Congress. That's dangerously close to the nightmare scenario: a BLP policy so stern that public officials can use it to cover up their malfeasance or likely crimes--Robert Mugabe would love it! And it would be evil. Now don't get me wrong! I don't think there's any evil intent at all behind Coren's idea. But there's incredibly important moral principles in both directions, and I've seen a lot of editors, who might be termed "BLP Hawks", who forget that. --JayHenry (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Side point: "Writing the notability guidelines isn't within the purview of arbitrators." Regardless of whether or not this ought to be the case, as a point of fact, the ArbCom does occasionally "legislate from the bench" particularly when it comes to BLP. I actually tend to think it might help if the ArbCom stepped in a bit more strongly in terms of clarifying policy. I don't think this would be overstepping their bounds (though certainly I think it's possible they'd make bad decisions). I notice at the WP:zDOTW some people are objecting to ArbCom potentially clarifying ArbCom policy. That seems like a really reasonable thing for the ArbCom to do (irrelevant to the specifics of the case). --JayHenry (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is one of philosophical principles, really. In theory, having ArbCom with the ability to plug holes or make fixes in policy is a good thing; but it goes against the foundation of "the community makes the rules", and touches upon the dangerous mixing of judicial and legislative powers.

I've suggested that ArbCom should have the explicit power of making temporary policy changes (that explicitly times out unless coopted by the community) to fix pressing problems; and if elected that's the kind of guidance I would like ArbCom to start giving in the more difficult areas. It is, however, the community's choice whether that's a reasonable use of ArbCom "authority" or whether that's overreaching. Certainly, the past BLP guidance is an example of what I mean, and has been generally well received by the community since it did clarify application of what was originally a policy that was wide open to gaming. — Coren ^(talk) 03:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This harks back to my central theme: Wikipedia needs to look seriously at governance. You can expect me to harp on that whether elected or not. Perhaps the solution is as simple as electing a body with the explicit mandate to oversee policy derived directly from the community, allowing returning the focus of ArbCom itself to dispute resolution and application of policy. — Coren ^(talk) 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My (Risker's) points about checkusers on other projects

Hi Lar, I note your query and have expanded my response to this question. This information is taken directly from the policies of these other Wikipedias, and I can only assume that their CheckUsers act within those policies. Feel free to add another question if I haven't provided you with sufficient information. :-) Risker (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a checkuser on multiple projects, administrator of the CU mailing list, and a steward as well, I think I have some fair idea of what the ratios are, and further, what works well and what does not. While it is true there are some projects that have greater strictures on the use of CU (in some cases even requiring discussion of every check beforehand), the vast majority use the foundation policy as written, which is a bit less verbose than en:wp's. Also, the percentages of checks that are publicly discussed varies. On en, I've heard others say that WP:RFCU sees about 1/3 of the total checks. But on both Commons and Meta, (the other projects where I hold the permission specifically rather than by dint of being a steward) the vast majority of checks are run to combat vandalism and occur behind the scenes. Often it's crosswiki or something said on the mailing list. "uproars" about CU usage are few and far between. But that's because all the Commons (and all the Meta) CUs trust each other, and we don't ever even hear the suggestion that anyone is using CU for political reasons. That's a statement of what is, and it's true for the vast majority of wikis.

I can't speak to how well CU works as intended on wikis where it's more restricted, except anecdotally... and that suggests "not as well". So I'm not sure I agree that CU usage here needs to be more restricted, per se, which is where I think you're headed with this. But I think there may be some CUs we should ease out of the position. Because I believe there have been some regrettable instances of CU being used for political advantage in the less recent past. But that's really a symptom of this wiki being more political than the average one (but not necessarily more political than every wiki... I could, but won't, tell tales of some of the problems on some smaller wikis) rather than of a need for change in policy. Politics has a way of trumping policy. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My (Hemlock Martinis) answers to your questions

Hi Lar! I noticed under your comments that you saw my answers to your questions as dismissive or even worse as indicative of a lack of deep thinking. I assure you that's not my intent, although upon reviewing the answers I can easily see how they give that impression. My intent was to use a more casual and friendly level of dialogue, one that reflected my spirit rather than my letter policy-wise. It appears I failed at both. I'll be rewriting my answers to more fully address your questions. In the mean time, please read my my MBisanz voter guide. It should contain some indications as to my policy positions. Thank you! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reanswered your initial questions, found here. Thank you for your consideration! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the extra effort. Obviously I thought these questions important, since I asked them. You got mixed reviews on WR for your rewrites, what (if anything) do you think about that? ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just created an account there so I can respond and am awaiting administrator approval to post. Their focus on my anonymity stance is hilarious, since that's definitely not where I thought they'd attack me. Of course, I'm just flattered they're talking about me. I never get talked about there. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just don't forget... WR is not WP. Take everything you read there with a grain of salt. Or three. But keep an open mind, there is much wisdom (and vast, vast expanses of chaff) there. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Colour comment and BLP essay

For some reason I left out the link in my reply to your colour question. See here. I've now added it so hopefully no-one else will be confused. "Locally Adaptive Resolution offering advanced scalability at different semantic levels" - I might make that my motto. And that's quite enough time spent on that! :-) I'll try and gather my thoughts on BLP into an essay at some point in the not too distant future. Must dash now. Busy in real-life until Thursday or Friday. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha. That's a codec, not a colour. Have you cited anything from HAL? Seems a neat resource. ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. Need to evaluate HAL for reliability. Found some more of my BLP views, including the DNB "dead people" criteria. See this archived thread from the BDJ case. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Much reading! :) ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A see also...

Risker and I have engaged in rather a long back and forth here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Risker/Questions_for_the_candidate#Additional_questions_from_Lar those of you who are reading this page might find that of interest. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarify

Hello Lar, just to clarify I didn't revert Gwen Gale's candidate statement, I just question whether it was valid or not on the talk page and quickly apologized to Gwen in case I'd caused offence. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I'll correct that. However I question if even questioning it was a good idea... arbcom members ought to be particularly sensitive to avoiding even the appearance of unfairness. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Are you not put off at all by his unwillingness to disagree with the sitting arbitrators? "nor will I be cricitising specific decisions/arbitrators in this questionnaire. Neither encourage the atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation essential for the smooth running of arbCom." Hard to imagine how he's going to do the job at all if he's elected and continues that approach. 217.28.13.175 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, not that hard to imagine - everything discussed in secret and no individual accountability. 217.28.13.175 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit put off by it, yes, although I didn't remark on it directly. I do think there is merit in being able to say what you agree or disagree with. Hence I'm not as enthused as some. But I think the caliber of people saying good things about him carries some weight. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but as the subject of this discussion may I please clarify something before I'm dismissed out of hand :) I express my opinions all the time without fear or favour. Check for example WT:MHCOORD and my responses there on all kinds of issues. My objective is to be incisive and direct but scrupulously civil. However, I see no benefit whatsoever in criticising sitting arbs in an election manifesto. First, much of the information I have about private discussions is based on Chinese whispers. Second, the criticised arb is in no position to respond. Third, it has the potential to cause subsequent further bad feeling in an already dysfunctional committee. The objective should not be pointing fingers but working out repair strategies and to achieve that will require cooperation from all sides. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)