User talk:Arcayne 

♦My Spellbook♦ (Or, "How I Learned to Stop Hatin' & Love All the Crazy")
Arc 001 Arc 002 Arc 003

What was archived

* What has gone before...

Re: please be considerate

In response to:

I made the subject boxs collapsible, not to hide them, but instead to allow otehrs to read the past discussions if they aren't familiar with the back and forth, and then close them to continue discussion. I would appreciate it if you would respect that intent, and leave them be.

As well, your edit to Dumbledore's Army, Luna Lovegood and Neville Longbottom, attempting to undo the merge using the very same methods which you are crying foul about is exceedingly poor form. If you feel the merger was done inappropriately, you should express your opinion in the same discussion you have already contributed to in the wikiproject. Reverting them, after the merge has already been performed is disruptive, and could be seen as edit-warring. I don't want to believe you are doing that, considering the quality of many of your other edits, but it is beginning to sound like sour grapes. Please use the discussion forum of the wikiproject to voice your concerns and argue to an undoing of the merge. This other way will only serve to reflect negatively upon you, and I don't want that to happen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Performing major merges when there is No Consensus to do so is what is poor form. Accusing someone of having "sour grapes" on their talk page is also poor form. I won't preform 3RR as I hope you won't. --Oakshade (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that falsely accusing me of WP:FORUMSHOP in the DRV talk page is also bad form and borderline WP:STALKING. --Oakshade (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, I happen to watchlist that page (the recent deletions of certain images have made that necessary), so maybe you might want to take a deep breath, a step back and do some serious rethinking before you reply. I am being polite, and if you wish to recevie a response from me in the future, you might wish to follow that example.

I submit that you are taking this all a little too personally. The very fact that you are considering 3RR an electric fence to avoid suggests to me that you are missing the point of 3RR; its to keep people talking in discussion, not trying to force a view that clearly isn't being accepted via edit summary. I am not going to violate 3RR,a nd I hope you don;t, either, as I would report you for it. You are coming dangerously close to it, and I would caution you to rethink your strategy there.

If you feel the consensus was not in favor of merging, you have a venue for expressing that: the HP wikiproject. Expressing it via revert or asking the other parent (ie forum-shopping at a place where you are experienced enough to know is the wrong venue for redress) is only going to foster some fairly negative opinions about you (trust me, I've been where you are at many times in my past), and build up some ill will in the ol' karmic bank. Stick to discussing hte matter in the HP wikiproject, and you might find that your statements might find some purchase there; playing the entire field is going to turn all opinions stony towards you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cookie

David Shankbone has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the Films 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) 01:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Perhaps some more discussion is called for

I'm rather confused about what you're saying. I don't think I needed consensus to revert non-consensual changes. Anyway, I just got WT:WPHP back on my watchlist today so I'll certainly continue to get involved in the discussion as I see fit. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As will I. We'll find a solution, PeaceNT. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Arcayne -- you've expressed interest in attending another Chicago meetup this summer. I've set up the skeleton of a page for organizing something this month. Take a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 -- let me know what dates you'd be available, how far you'd be willing to travel, etc., and maybe we can organize an event. best — Dan | talk 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Grint.weaseley.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Grint.weaseley.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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) 05:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the notice. I reworked the text to provide notability, which I suspect wasn't necessary, but added it anyway.

Possible path forward on JtR

I have posted a very rough idea of a possible path forward on stopping the fighting and personal arguing on the JtR page and JtR talk page. If you see possibility to the idea, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Please do not clutter up KB's talk page with discussion of this. If all the major players see potential, I will start up a page and talk page in my user area to flesh out the idea with all involved. If anyone wants to reject any possibility of the idea, please say so also, so that time is not wasted on something that will not work. This is an idea that can only work with the acceptance of all the major players at the JtR talk page, so if anyone rejects it, the idea is pretty much DOA. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read the proposal and I would agree to it in spirit. You are probably going to have to tie down the language a lot more. When DG gets winded up, he never seems to stop ranting about how it is all a big conspiracy to get him. However, the reasoning of your proposal is a good one. I would agree to it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The initial, rough draft of the agreement is up at User:TexasAndroid/JtR Battleground. It is availible for editing, and the linked talk page, while not currently in existance, can be created and used for discussions on the agreement. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack

Please don't repeatedly falsely accuse me of having "sour grapes," which is an offensive attack, and then put a civility official warning on my talk page. As you are capable of civil editing, pleas refrain from this kind of behavior.--Oakshade (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

the The

Yes folks, it’s the The time again. You might like to add your opinion (whatever it may be) on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have participated in discussion at either Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3 or Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as an active member. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now atrying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring in Jack the Ripper. Knock it off on removing (possibly duplicate) sources in Jack the Ripper. Unless the duplicate sources are not reliable, they should not be removed without discussion.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

It seems like a fairly civil removal, and an equally civil revert of its reinsertion. Where is the baiting you referenced in the block notice, and why does this merit blocking for 2RR? Avruch ^T 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Being blocked for removing multiple source - when they have been repeatedly added against consensus and against our own MOS is appropriate. Even so, I did not violate 3RR. I am not sure where the baiting charge comes from, as I haven't mind-controlled anyone to break 3RR. If folk are wrong, we trust others to undo the mistake. It isn't up to any individual to violate 3RR, and we are all grown-up enough here to avoid the claim of "he made me do it". Instead of again reverting the edit-warring by another user (and risking edit-warring myself), I followed the rules by properly filing a 3RR complaint against the person violating the rule and opened a discussion on the topic in the article discussion page. I wasn't edit-warring, violating 3RR or "baiting". I did nothing that deserves a block. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)}} {{

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): accepted his/her parole not to edit Jack the Ripper until the matter is resolved. Request handled by: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You've removed the sources 3 times today, although one of them was only a partial revert. If there was so much consensus, you could wait for someone else to delete it. I've reported the block at ANI, as I've been in disputes with both of you recently. Fairness suggests that both parties should be blocked for edit warring. I've been blocked for edit warring with only 2 reverts, so I don't see why other editors should be immune. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot address the circumstances under which you were blocked, Arthur. I can only address mine: I did not violate 3RR (ie, perform more than three reverts within a day), I was not edit-warring, and subsequent comments in the article discussion clearly indicates that a consensus exists for using a single reference (as well as our MOS). DG initially began the editing by adding five sources, which have since been pared down to one (just like the rest of the article, and most of the articles in Wikipedia). That DG has repeatedly chosen not to seek a consensus for his edits is pretty clear. I don't really care what DG does; my interest is in the article, and multiple citations in a WP:POINT debate are not improvements to the article. Furthermore, if a mistake occurs, I am most likely going to fix it, and not sit on my hands until someone else fixes it. That I haven't been blocked for over a year for 3RR is a pretty clear indicator that I am aware of the both the letter and spirit of the rule. DG has been asked many, many times to discuss his edits and seek a consensus for them. He chooses not to. Again, I broke no rule, and ask to be unblocked. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I only see 2 edits today, myself. I do see that he removed the same information yesterday. Not ideal conduct, but I don't think it warrants a 48 hour block. Avruch ^T 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And the ANI discussion gets to happen without my input? Gee, doesn't really seem fair, considering that you yourself have been unblocked in the past expressly for the opportunity to respond to discussions regarding you at ANI.

As well, I am unclear as to when we have had "run-ins", as I can only see us conversing once in October and once in November of last year; neither seemed particularly combative - of course, you might have had a different impression of it that you chose not to voice at the time. Of course, those discussions were regarding DG, so perhaps you might have been a little less than neutral in blocking. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else you have argued with?

Lastly, I am a little confused as to how I was edit-warring at all? I actively engaged in discussion and encouraged others to participate. No incivility was used on my part - no baiting. When the other editor violated 3RR, I reported it at the appropriate noticeboard. No bad faith reporting, as the user actually did violate 3RR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Following the discussion at ANI, I think some fairly significant points have been missed, namely that I haven't violated any rule or guideline.

I'm willing to manually transclude a comment section to the ANI page, if you want to say anything there. Alternatively, I'd accept a temporary parole of no edits to JtR, until the matter is resolved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in meetings, and missed the opportunity to respond expediently. Yes, I agree to not edit within the JTR article until the matter is resolved. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And again, I will point out that I never even suggested that you are biased against me, Arthur. I simply said your block was wrong, not biased. As well, this has never been about me and DG. I never have accused any voice of dissent as being part of a grand conspiracy to "get" him, as DG has on so many occasions that it would be silly to argue against it. Were DG to actually follow those rules that all of us have to follow, I would be happy as a clam. Unfortunately, he thinks discussion isn't important. We both know it is vital to the project working effectively. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked, per above. (And I cleared the autoblock, too.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, your way to slippery. You just said this to Arthur: "I will point out that I never even suggested that you are biased against me" and in the same discussion earlier you suggested exactly that to Arthur: "perhaps you might have been a little less than neutral in blocking". Can I hire you as my WikiLawyer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.128.238 (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if I was unclear. I don't recall any problem I have had with Arthur, but I was noting that he has had significant issues with DG in the past, so much so that perhaps he shouldn't have weighed in on a blocking issue concerning him. Sorry if you saw that as wiki-lawyering; it was simply a failure of mine to be more clear in my description; I was trying to avoid long-windedness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned on the admin noticeboard

Just a heads up, you've been mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arcayne RE: Civility & Good Faith. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth

Hey. I've been meaning to message you for ages but I kept forgetting: The Stolen Earth (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is on FAC again. As you opposed the FAC a month ago, could you have a look over the article and see if your objections have been adressed? Sceptre ^(talk) 02:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for the opportunity to do so. I am going offline for the evening, but will take a look tomorrow. Thank you for thinking of inviting me to look again. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

the The

Yes folks, it’s "the beatles" or "The Beatles" time again. You might like to add your opinion (whatever it may be) on this page.--andreasegde (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Just this once. This is the most notable time I have seen this policy come into effect. This is in regard to Jeff's memorial. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are speaking to the listing in Deceased Wikipeidians, I agree that IAR applies, but I've asked for input at the Admin Noticeboard.

If you are, however, speaking to allowing the banned user to post his "grief" ont he page, my answer is a resounding "nope". Not applicable. The banned user is using Jeff's memorial as a platform for showing how they have reformed, and I am guessing that Jeff would be so strongly opposed that the heat of that opposition could heat a small city for a week. I am not going to allow Jeff's memorial page to be used that way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The second one. Look, he is not asking for a block, he is not trying to say he has been changed in hopes for an unblock. He is sending his condolences to Jeff, Jeff's Family, and the family Jeff had on Wikipedia. Just let him go. He is not acting maliciously at all. WP:Ignore All Rules and Don't Be A Dick. Sorry but that is what I am getting from this. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tinleheimer here, and everyone else. Stop Arcayne. Just for the love, stop. Keeper ǀ 76 17:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Respectfully Tinkleheimer, if you call me a dick one more time, you and I are done talking. Capisce?

Secondly, a banned editor doesn't get to post. They had their chance, and they blew it, for whatever reason. Until they are allowed entry back into Wikipedia, they do not get to post. This is a no-brainer. The community is an encyclopedia, not an Irish wake, where the right bastard Uncle Tommy, who stole the decedent's life savings is able to come back, sobbing, and all is forgiven. The user is banned. They have no voice. At all. Not my rules. Ask an admin, if there is any shade of gray to this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the "ask an admin" shit too. I'm an admin. TravellingCari, who posted agreement with DuncanHill is an admin. These pithy "appeals to authority" are ridiculous. You are being far more insulting and disrespectful than "ben", and now you are trying to Wikilawyer your way around the rules. IAR IS A FUCKING RULE TOO, and ironically, the only one that wikilawyer's seem to have trouble defending. Keeper ǀ 76 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, calm the hell down. Secondly, ask yourself: were this any other article, would you allow a banned user to post? Of course not, and chances are, you'd be toting the guillotine with the rest of the mob. This is not wikilawyering - and shame on you for even using that term. IAR is not a coverlet allowing banned users to post. They had their chance, and failed to follow our rules. Again, this isn't an Irish wake, its an encyclopedia. The rest of us followed the rules, and are allowed to post within our community our grief. The banned user is not, and consequently, does not.

As for the ask an admin comment, it was an encouragement for you to find some emotional distance from this issue. As evidenced by your relative flip-out here, you need to take a step back.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are reading tone where there is none. I'm not upset or emotional. I'm a bit dumbfounded is all. If it was any other article, hell, if it was an article, you are absolutely right that I would revert and block. Absolutely. It's a memorial user subpage. You are defining Wikilawyering by enforcing every rule you think you need to throw at this, other than IAR, the only one that actually applies. Keeper ǀ 76 17:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Ignore all rules is simply WP:Consensus spelled differently. Avb 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) So, the consensus is to allow banned users to post? I am sure Thatcher and Grawp will be delighted to hear that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what the consensus is in this case. But I do know it trumps the opinion of Thatcher and Grawp, in the unlikely case that they would try and have their opinion trump editor consensus. If you want your opinion to prevail, you need to build a consensus in its favor. Avb 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I am not trying to call you a dick. I tried to explain myself in the last post. Let me try and explain myself deeper. A banned user who has had interaction with a deceased user is trying to send his condolonces. The user is doing nothing that is bad at all except stating that he was a banned user. You just note that he is a banned user and remove the comment, not giving any sympathy to him. The way I am seeing it is "Hey, you're banned, it's your fault." To me, that is dickish.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Okay, thanks for explaining. You might wish to consider your choice of words, T. As I see it, WP is a community. Those who follow the rules get to remain, and interact with one another. When one chooses not to follow those rules, they are expelled and banished. They have no more say in the community. Not contributions to articles (and when we catch them, we purge all their changes), not via socks, and not for condolences. I believe Jeff's email link is still working, so the banned user had the capability to send email instead of posting. A death in our wiki family isn't an opportunity for an outsider to weigh in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not see anywhere on the Memorial Page that said No Outsiders. This is just getting really stupid. Consensus seems to be against you right now. I am going to let it go for now. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you were looking in the wrong place, T. Our blocking policy states that banned users aren't allowed to post. We aren't talking about outsider; we are talking about outsiders we have specifically chosen to expel from our group. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is un-fucking-believable. Arcayne, just lighten up, listen to reason, and rise above your love of the rules. This is an exceptional circumstance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Your userbox says you appreciate third opinions, so I thought I'd pitch in here. You're acting alot like my little brother. :-) When my little brother screws up, he has a hard time admitting it. He gets really defensive, and puts on the whole "in your face" attitude. Mostly it's just because he doesn't want people to think badly of him for making a mistake. :-( So I'll tell you what I always tell him: the quality that impresses people more than anything else, is being able to say "My bad, sorry dude. Shibby!" and walk away. When you dwell on small mistakes, stand your ground when you really shouldn't, and say you're right when overwhelming evidence says you aren't, it really makes people take a negative look on your reputation and character, and could get you in trouble. All it takes is a few seconds to look the situation over from a third-person kind of view, with a bit of apathy, and you'll see it isn't as huge a deal as it seems to you. WP:IAR is a fundamental rule, after all, just as much so as the blocking policy.--KojiDude ^(C) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

With respect to your brother, Kojidude, no one has bother ed to explain precisely why IAR applies here. The banned anon is clearly trying to get reinstated, and it isn't too far to consider that the comment is a cynical attempt to show a rehabilitation. I think its important to show the dead respect, and using them as a stepping stone to reinstatement is in the worst possible taste.

When I am wrong, I admit it. No one yet has explained why I am wrong. Everyone is up in arms that I am removing a banned user's comments, but no one is telling me why we are allowing someone we removed from our community to contribute to our grief. No one is saying they cannot grieve. They just cannot do it here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, in this instance, to not take IAR into account. The banned user, in this instance, is harmless. In this instance, nothing that the user is doing, is causing fundamental harm to the project. That, I believe, is the entirety of the issue with regards to IAR. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I pointed out that the user is attempting (admitted here to be reinstated, and allowing him to use Jeff's memorial page as an example of his rehabilitation is not appropriate. How does IAR allow for that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment for content. In this instance the banned user is doing no harm to the overall runnings of Wikipedia... do you understand now why people are having an aneurism over this? Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I do. There is far too much emotion flying through that page, and they are seeing any deletion of comments as a proxy attack on Jeff. Unequivocally, it is not. It is an attempt to protect the page from being used as a platform for a banned user. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Is it tomorrow yet? Quick question, from your diff linked above. What part of ben's comment, quote You do also realize that I posted on his page and identified myself at my own peril, since doing this extends my ban by another 6 months. I could have easily just concealed my identity, but I was prepared to have my ban extended out of sheer respect for Jeff. do you read as someone "attemtping to be reinstated"? What a load of bad faith. Keeper ǀ 76 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay. I thought we were doing this tomorrow, as per your user talk page. Perhaps the assumption of good faith isn't supposed to overlook bad acts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(re to arcayne, purposefully put above QB's comment below which I have not read). I think that's the fundamental difference then. You are the only one (so far anyway) to see the IP post as a "bad act". Jeff posted Ben's stuff to his talkpage, himself. The "memorial" that Ben put there was heartfelt, sincere, risked extending the ban of his account (not "lifting it, as you seem to think it threatens to do). He gave jeff credit for saving his life through talkpages and email correspondence. He (assumedly) just found out that Jeff died. He came here to post his grief, like dozens if not hundreds of other human beings have done, including new users, admins, friends and adversaries. A tragedy happened that has nothing to do with fucking wikipedia and it's arbitrary ban policy. You don't get it though, at least not yet, but I think you are smart enough to come around and see past your own nose. That post had nothing to do with Wikipedia, bans, blocks, or rules. It was the essence of Ignore the Rules", and in fact, stood up right in the face of a "rule" handed down by our "highest authorities" (arbcom) at the risk of being even further outcast from our group. You don't get it yet, but I think you will. If that IP, self-identifying as iamandrewrice, showed up on an article talk, an article, or even a wiki-noticeboard, I would be the first to block. I enforce the rules, by obligation to the community and the admin bit they entrusted me to. I enforce all the rules though, Arcayne, including Ignore All the Rules. I apologize sincerely for being so dumbstruck by what I saw was an obvious guffaw on your part that I edited too quickly and with too much language and assumptions. I wasn't upset, I can see now that I was being emotional. The allcaps that I used, looking back, did not help alleviate that perception, but instead obviously endorsed the opposite, I can see. You need to see the overwhelming evidence of good sense that surrounds you in regards to this issue Arcayne, and choose to let it go, and let the post stand. Keeper ǀ 76 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - In the end, it really doesnt matter what anyone says to do to make you understand that IAR is envoked for specific reasons... usually in instances where doing so would cause absolutely no harm to the overall everyday maintenence of Wikipedia. Ask yourself, does complaining about this cause more harm to the project, or less? How much time has been spent by good people trying to get you to understand that you are being disruptive? It doesnt matter what any of us say today, tomorrow, next week. You have your ideas, as short sighted and authoritarian as they are. In the end, the larger number of folks always wins... and in this case, you are not of the majority. I'm going home. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the bad faith and faintly uncivil comment. It wasn't as if I called your mama a whore or something. Maybe you can be nicer next time you post to my page. Or, perhaps you were expecting that calling me "disruptive", "short-sighted" and "authoritarian" was supposed to elicit a more conciliatory tone. If a consensus of folk feel that allowing banned users to post is beneficial to the project, I won't fight it. I was simply noting the policy and the likely reasoning for the banned anon's post. Maybe you could stop attacking me for trying to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would be more inclined to take your comments seriously if you could convince me of your qualifications in mind-reading. Why not let a banned user express his condolence, even if it is against a strict interpretation of the rules, and move on? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Pithy remarks aside, Malleus, one doesn't need telepathy when the person actively declares their intent to seek reinstatement (I do believe I've said this, like, three different times before). Banned users surrender good faith considerations while banned. This is why we revert the additions of banned users who contribute anonymously; as banned users, they get no rhythm from us. This is why we set up a specific protocol by which they can seek reinstatement, and allow no other method of reinstatement. Again, I point out that these aren't my rules or interpretations, they are Wikipedia's. If I choose to prevent a banned user from using the memorial as a springboard to getting in good with ArbCom. Maybe that is an unfair characterization, but given that they are banned and not subject to good faith considerations, it is not inconceivable that they were posting towards that end. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, I archived it because the thread was digressing, and you had got an answer: It is appropriate, in this instance, to let a banned user post to such pages. As for the issues that were discussed further on, it's really not appropriate for discussion on the same thread as one used for discussing a deceased Wikipedian. Hence my archive. Also, I was not the only one to view it as such. Really, it's best to let it rest. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, if you are so worried about a banned user posting anything, anywhere, why have you only decided to revert this one high profile post, repeatedly? You haven't touched his other posts regarding this issue, including before and after his posts to jeff's subpage. I'm really having a hard time seeing past the "attention-getting" appearance of this. Have you read my post above QB's or should I repeat it? You've responded to the other, perhaps more convenient posts (meaning, they were more snide than my last, so easier to deflect). Keeper ǀ 76 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, yeah. Perhaps you might want to take the rest of that day to cool down, Keeper. This post wasn't much better than the emotional ones presented before. Accusing me of seeking high-profile attention is pretty low, and far, far beneath you. You do neither of us a service by claiming it.

In answer to your question, I didn't care about the user's other posts, as they weren't in such a "high profile" area. Speaking to that, if you were a banned user, and wanted to seek reinstatement, where other but a "high profile" area to parade your supposed rehabilitation for ArbCom deliberators considering your application for readmission to recall having seen? I guess I could be wrong. Time will tell. Perhaps we should watch the relevant ArbCom page see if I was exercising foresight, or if I was being unduly cautious.

Actually, in all the edit conflicts and massed, outraged posts to me, indicating my familial heritage to Satan Hisself, I missed your post. I appreciate you pulling back somewhat, but you seem to still (or, if you had this bad impression before, continuing) be assuming bad faith on my part for following our policies. Remember, it is not enough to simply declare "IAR!" One must explain why it applies in the case. As for Qb's post, I missed that as well (remember, this particular conversation was occurring on at least three different pages, if not more that I am unaware of). What Jeff allowed while alive is one thing. What one assumes they can do after his death is another altogether.

As everyone is so flushed with emotion regarding this, I had already let the matter go - I did not revert after your fairly unpleasant bad faith post, and wouldn't have, as I decided that posting to AN for guidance seemed a good idea. While Peter closed the matter a little too quickly, it is clear that folk decided that the post was okay. I was waiting for a little less impassioned responses to appear, to provide me with good reason that IAR was okay to apply in this case. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, please don't do this - please don't. Not now, please. This is one of those times to ignore the rules, to let it go. Both Jeffpw and myself were deeply involved in the iamandrewrice sock fiasco of last year - it's a somewhat personal matter and I happen to know that Jeff and the banned editor corresponded quite a bit afterwards and that Jeff genuinely liked the guy. Arcayne - Jeff told me this himself during a phone conversation. Honestly, this is one of the cases where I know Jeff would be cool with it. Please let this go ... - Alison ^❤ 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Alison. I wasn't trying to be harsh. I was acting to protect Jeff's page from being used. If you say it wasn't, then I guess he wasn't. I must say that I was entirely unprepared with the level of recrimination - you'd think that I was the banned user, and that I was crapping all over the page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hey :) I know you well enough to know better. Your heart was in the right place on this whole thing, and you meant well. I know this - Alison ^❤ 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison. I appreciate that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, Arcayne, you are right. I'm still posting "emotionally". Please understand though, that it's not "wiki-emotion", it's real emotion. I'm not sure where I went overboard, my reactions to you are emotional yes, but honest. I shoulda listened to my brain telling me to stop posting. All that said, I'm still right, as is the unanimosity of the community's response to you. I'm glad you're able to move past this, I will too. When I reverted you for the third time (DuncanHill had already reverted you twice), my edit summary was "arcayne you need to stop". I actually meant that as a non-templated 3RR warning, because I didn't want to see you blocked, having so recently come off a borderline block, for a usersubpage. I wasn't expecting this battle today either, I really wasn't. Actually, I had seen the IPs post a couple of hours before it was reverted. I saw who the IP self-identified as, and I almost reverted it myself, assuming it would be either ill-conceived, poorly motived, or an attack. But I read what ben wrote, and left it there, as it brought tears to my eyes. Once reverted (and then an edit war brewing), I flew off the handle. I will (promise) leave it alone this time. I actually respect you and your opinions (heck you're even in my "funnies" page, no small feat). I saw what you were doing as "blanket, blind reversion" when I was seeing "yes, blanket blind reversion, except...". I'm moving past this myself, I really don't need the grief, and it is a disservice to jeff's memory that I am not proud to be a part of. I'm going back into my little world of clearly out C:CSD and closing WP:AFD's, and chatty about idly on my talkpage. I hope you can see the "other side" of your (perceived anyway) legalistic approach to an uncommon page, and an uncommon post. Olive branches, a cold beer, and everything else, all around. To jeff, Keeper ǀ 76 20:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning understood, apology accepted and olive branch received. It was a failure of War By Other Means. ;)

You have a funnies page? I am on it? Where? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Keeper76/funnies. Creative title, I know! Something about santa claus, ironically. Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I may as well add, even though I didn't approach this with the right words, and the right attitude, you are still wrong in regards to your reversion, and I'm still right, as supported by numerous other editors (I haven't seen one yet support your removal of IP's comments). But still, that said, I mean no harm, I made my case, I made it worse in many senses, and my apology is sincere. But I'm still right, and you're still wrong, in the singular. Keeper ǀ 76 21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I understood that you felt you were correct, Keeper. I would hate to think that all of that was over something you weren't sure about (grn). Honestly, I do hope I am wrong, and that the post was made by the banned anon with the best of intentions. I would have been remiss had I not at least followed Sandy Georgia's lead by blocking the anon again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[out] I just saw this thread - I was also a bit involved in the iamandrewrice brouhaha - in fact that's in part where I got to know Jeff - and while I'm willing to believe that Ben's post may have been sincere, and I also know from Jeff that they had been in email contact, I share Arcayne's unease about Ben's motivation in posting. It wouldn't be the first time that this kid played Jeff, and was disingenuous, to be kind. But maybe he learned his lesson, thanks to Jeff's incredible patience and caring - it's certainly possible that his sadness at this loss is genuine. I agree with the overall sense here that this is a time for giving the benefit of the doubt, and I know with certainty that Jeff did so and would have again and again. So I'd say the right thing to do is to leave the post on the memorial page, even though it is in direct violation of a well-deserved ban (of a far-from-harmless user) - but be aware of the potential for abuse. Arcayne's gut reaction was, I think, not some kind of slavish adherence to rules (that certainly does not sound like the iconoclastic Arcy I know) but rather a recollection of the rings that this kid made a lot of people including Jeff run through, and a concern that it could be starting again. I am hopeful that we won't have to discuss this again - but I'm not holding my breath. Tvoz/talk 07:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

completely random observation

"Bad Choice (1989) - bad fiction (I will pay you to destroy any copies you find)" That really made me laugh- I know what its like to write something you think is perfect at the moment and then look back on it with nothing but regret. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The offer stands; I am truly regretful that I published such an albatross at so young an age. On the other hand, I had nowhere else to go but up from there. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles newsletter August 2008

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 014 – August 2008
Beatles News Meat The Beatles – and other photos. Rare and iconic images of The Beatles will be put on show in Wales. The Smithereens to release 'B-Sides The Beatles' Sir George Martin's advice to musicians McCartney Joined Billy Joel at Shea Stadium. Gallagher admits that Oasis had upset Abbey Road bosses by "blasting out Beatles records at four in the morning" and "doing loads of drugs" there. Matt Greenhalgh who wrote Control (2007 film), the biopic of life of Ian Curtis, is to put Lennon's early life on the big screen. The drumskin featured on the 1967 album "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was sold for £541,250 ($1.07 million). On a current tour, Neil Young is encoring with a Crazy Horse-ian arrangement of the Beatles’ “A Day in the Life". Yoko Ono loses court case of Lennon song in anti-evolution movie - Premise Media was likely to succeed on its fair use defence. Paul McCartney recently wrote a song declaring his past love for Heather Mills. George Martin holds the Guinness World Record for most successful producer ever. Beatles first contract up for sale. Project News Strawberry Fields Forever is now a GA, thanks to the always effervescent Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that). Other Project news Heather Mills is up for a GA review. Member News New members: SchfiftyThree, hornplayer2, and Betty kerner Project member news:	Issue of the Month The great 'The/the debates' return. Just a glance at The Beatles' talk page will show you the massive amount of space this trivial issue takes up. Some editors have chosen to boycott these debates entirely, and we now have two separate entries in WP:LAME - The 'The/the debates' and the 'member order feud'. Consensus to use a capital 'T' was reached in a straw poll. Editors are reminded not to change the case of the 'T' without first changing consensus. From the Editors In order to get delivery by Denbot sorted, the special delivery interface has been changed slightly - but existing delivery options still stand. Inactive participants who want delivery should place their names on this list. If you've just joined, add your name to the Active participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 015 – September 2008). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Contributors to this Issue Dendodge (Lead Editor & Distributor) andreasegde (Too much time on his hands editor)
Complete To Do List Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Open tasks for WikiProject The Beatles. Edit or discuss these tasks. To Expand: Apple Records See also: Adopt an article To Clean up: Apple Records discography (wikify). The Beatles' 1965 USA Tour. To Create: Phil McDonald (engineer). Lennon/McCartney song: From A Window. George Martin produced Billy J. Kramer song: Magic Carpet (song). Bag o'Nails, where Paul met Linda. Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Full list & instructions. Wanted Pics/Graphics: Jimmy Nicol, Alistair Taylor, Ivan Vaughan, Tittenhurst Park, Tony Barrow. Project Discussions: The Beatles history, Individual songs vs longer album articles, Beatle wives, Merge/split proposals Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.