User talk:Paul August

I'm sorry, you have reached an imaginary number. If you require a real number please rotate your telephone by ± 90° and try again.

Archives
Complete archive Individual archives: Jul–Dec 2004 Jan–Jun 2005 Jul–Sep 2005 Oct–Dec 2005 Jan–Mar 2006 Apr–Jun 2006 Jul–Sep 2006 Oct–Dec 2006 Jan–Mar 2007 Apr–Jun 2007 July–Sep 2007 Oct–Dec 2007 Jan–Mar 2008 Apr–Jun 2008

EB 1911 stuff

Well, it is nearly four years later, but as a follow up to this, I thought you might be interested in this. Some interesting EB 1911 stuff there. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth, unfortunately my interests lie elsewhere just at the moment. Paul August ☎ 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Motions

Hi Paul, I saw you were online; would you be able to vote in the motions at RfAr? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)

I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot for signing up as willing to answer a few questions, Paul - it's much appreciated. I mentioned to Kirill a short while ago that I don't see any urgency in rushing through this process, but getting the ball rolling will help enormously, I think. I'll drop a note in here in the next few days when the page has had a few more eyes and ears, and there's something of substance you'll be able to respond to. Thanks once again, Privatemusings (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Email sent

Further to my posts at this Arbitration Committee case and its associated workshop, I have emailed you evidence that includes private information. As I have noted at the workshop, I will leave it to you to share with fellow arbitrators active in the case. Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've forwarded your email to the rest of the committee. Paul August ☎ 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July arb stuff

• 2 arb-clarifications have been waiting on the discretionary sanctions wording. There are 4ish votes in support of the wording like in the homeopathy case, with 1 in oppose. It's nearly been 2 weeks since it was ready for voting. Can you please vote? I don't know why the rest of the Committee refuses to go near it, but if it's because they don't want discretionary sanctions enacted at all, why won't anyone just oppose and explain why it's not needed in their opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• I've asked a question here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The detail in the elephant

The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors".[1] Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room".[2] I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant"[3] before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Elephants are known for something else beside brute strength. The Arbitration committee would do well to rememeber that. I am getting very tired of their behaviour and Wikipedia in general, and while I'm sure their wish is to see the back of me, it would be nice, in their acheivement of their goal, to see some common decency and honour exhibited from them. Giano (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the
	Wishing Paul August a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the

20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cantos

Please revert this, as the word "much" is extremely sloppy and very inaccurate. Furthermore, not having the subject in the beginning is very improper. Also, the word "controversy" has to repeat based on standard nominalization principles. This is basic English, and I can provide you many texts on the necessity of this repetition. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ottava. Sorry you didn't like my edit. I am not a Pound or The Cantos scholar, so I can't say how accurate the word "much" is here, with any authority. Have you read the relevant sources on this point? Another concern I had with your edit is that it introduces a change of meaning that I'm not certain is supported by the sources. The original sentence was describing "critical discussion" about the relationship between four things, A ("the economic thesis on usura"), B ("Pound's anti-Semitism,"), C ("his adulation of Confucian ideals of government") and D ("his attitude towards fascism") and another thing, E ("the passages of lyrical poetry and historical description that Pound performed with his 'ideographic' technique"). This is clearer in an earlier version of the sentence, by the original author:

"Much critical discussion of the poem has focused on the relationship between, on the one hand, the economic thesis on usura, Pound's anti-Semitism, his adulation of Confucian ideals of government and his attitude towards fascism, and, on the other, passages of lyrical poetry and the historical scene-setting that he performed with his 'ideographic' technique."

This was changed into an assertion that the poem contains "controversial topics" A, B, C, D and G (the relationship of A, B, C, and D, to E). But I wonder if there are sources for each of these five things being "controversial". I've now restored the earlier version of this sentence. Do you like this any better?

As for the need to use the word "controversy", I don't understand it, can you elaborate?

Paul August ☎ 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not your "edit". Its the original language that I do not like. The topics are all controversial (especially anti-seminitism and economic topics). If the topics themselves aren't necessarily controversial (like Confucian ideals), his support for fascism combined with them is. My rework was a patch work and not the best. I welcome you to tighten the language accordingly. But please don't put that word "much" at the beginning. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Also, some notes on the section - "one hand" and "other hand" for such a long list gets confusing. The section is about controversies, but not an in-depth analysis. It would be out of place to say there is "critical discussion" in a "controversy" section, because critical discussion could be on non-controversial topics. Hence the need to identify the list outright. "Controversial topics" introduces this idea. The problem is the repeat of variations of "controversy". The first sentence can be removed as contributing nothing to the paragraph, which limits the repetition. Also, here - the ref is to verify the "anti-semitism". Without it, there is a possibility of an edit war. Such descriptives have been subject to conflicts in many pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed language:

Sentence a) The Cantos always provoked controversy over the experimental nature of the writing but this intensified after 1940 when Pound's public approval for Mussolini's fascism became widely known.

Sentence b) Critical discussion of the poem has focused on the relationship between Pound's controversial beliefs (his economic thesis on usura, his anti-Semitism, his adulation of Confucian ideals of government and his attitude towards fascism) with passages of lyrical poetry and the historical scene-setting that he performed with his 'ideographic' technique.

Justification: Tightens the language, removes the repetition of controversy, connects all the ideas together. For "b", the paranthesis emphasize the relationship of the topics while not confusing people with a long list that is separated by commas merging into a comparative clause that is separated by commas.

Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, the proposed new language is fine with me — with one caveat. I think that "Crtical discussion" needs to be quantified, otherwise the implication is that the majority of "critical discussion" has focused on these points, which I doubt is the case, and certainly not what the original was saying. Would "considerable critical discussion" work for you? "significant"? Although to my ear "much" sounds better than either of these. Otherwise, I think the tightening is good. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Would you mind copying this discussion to Talk:The Cantos? It is really best there. Thanks.

Done. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a chance, could you look here and use oversight ability, unless someone beats you to it? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It has already been taken care of. Paul August ☎ 02:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats good. :) By the way, did you have a chance to look at the Cantos's talk page? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment.

Hey Paul. I'd like to request that you show me how my comments are unhelpful please, either here, or privately. It's the bare facts of the matter. SlimVirgin is running a one man crusade to smear both Lar, and Alison publicly, where their hands are tied due to checkuser privacy policy. Even regarding this, the consensus is markedly against SlimVirgin, which is why she continues to try to find new places to try to forum-shop her smears (Got told that ANI was not the place and if she had a problem with Lar's actions, to file a complaint with the Ombudsmen, or with ArbCom. Instead, she brought it to EN-L and continued to make these smears). She has a habit of doing so (when the first ArbCom got opened, she attempted an end-run around English Wikipedia and it's proceedures by trying to rally support for a BADSITES-like proposal on the FOUNDATION-L list). Even if my comments are "unhelpful" they are completely accurate. SirFozzie (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

At the request of another, I have restated my feelings, but I completely stand behind what I said. SirFozzie (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul August ☎ 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review

Paul, sorry to bother you. Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you were one of the editors who agreed with the idea of bringing this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad, and so I hope you'll be pleased we've come this far. We'd appreciate a peer review from you if you can find the time, to help us iron out any flaws before we go to FAC. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't know that I will be able to be of any help, but I'm very pleased at what you've done. Good work. Paul August ☎ 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman-Persian again

Hi! I know you're occupied with all this Arb stuff, but I'd be grateful if you could have a look here. I'm really angry with all this edit-warring which has suddenly erupted, and I really feel like wanting to kick some asses. Sorry, but this situation has annoyed me a lot. Cheers and thanks in advance.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism

As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :

• Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

Alan Sun --203.194.98.177 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to the arbcom mailing list

Paul, would you pass on the message below to the arbcom mailing list, please? Normally of course I wouldn't comment on a user without informing him/her about it, but this is a special case, in that Ncmvocalist deleted my last two posts to his page. (He also removed a number of posts he didn't like on the admins' noticeboard thread that my links below refer to.) I hope somebody passes on this one to him...but I'll be darned if I post another message on his page. Deleting civil, informative messages from respectable users (=er, that would be me) is...well... let's just put it that I'm not about to give him a third chance to do that.

Message:

I'm rather shocked that Ncmvocalist has apparently been invited to clerk the RFAr, after this lot (see especially WJScribe's trenchant comment: "one of the more ill-advised discussions brought to a board where ill-advised discussions regularly abound"), and this deletion, too, and this comment by Carcharoth.

I've seen people ask how to become arbcom clerks and be told that the way is simply to start clerking. Therefore I fear being told here that "nobody invited him, he just started." (Told in good faith, needless to say.) But Kirill did, specifically, invite Ncmvocalist, as specifically "perfectly suited for the job": [4] Well, I don't agree that he is. He has shown poor judgment and isn't suited for the job. If Kirill invited him before being aware of these things--for instance, before WJScribe had made his comment--then Ncmvocalist can and should be un-unvited, surely? Clerking is an important job. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

I've sent a message to arb mailing list containing a link to this post. Paul August ☎ 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess printed out would be more inviting, but I hope they read it anyway. Bishonen | talk 23:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

Well I will send the text if you like, but since your message included links I thought it best to simply link to your post. Paul August ☎ 02:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, good thinking. No, thanks, don't send another e-mail to the list, I don't want to bore people to that extent. Do you have any comment yourself on what I say, Paul? For the ordinary user, the list is a mere black hole, so it's a bit boring to post to it. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC).

Well I don't know what you mean by "Ncmvocalist has apparently been invited to clerk the RFAr"; what RFAr are you talking about? In any case Ncmvocalist is not a clerk — the process of becoming a clerk is described at WP:CLERK. I expect that Kirill's post is related to the fact that Ncmvocalist has been acting the gadfly, buzzing around pestering various arbs to do their jobs (e.g. see this very page), a role eminently suitable for a clerk. Paul August ☎ 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean: to clerk the RFAR pages. To become a clerk. People used to be encouraged to simply begin if they were interested in doing the job, but I see from WP:CLERK that that's not the case now—"Clerks are appointed by the Arbitration Committee"—so I should rather have advised the committee against appointing him. (Perhaps you'd like to reply to my message and say so?) He's obviously practising for it, as WP:CLERK advises people to do if interested. The specific reason I thought he had to already be a clerk was Kirill's invitation [5], plus Ncmvocalist's post here. See how that's posted in the area for non-recused clerks? Bishonen | talk 09:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC).

Goads are alright, if they're delivered by a drover. Is this creature a parasite or a guide? Given his highly emotional display and his lack of dispassion, merely telling arbs to do something may not be enough to indicate judgment. Geogre (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that Ncmvocalist is not allowed to clerk anything related to ArbCom. I do not think his approach is suited to the task, and some of the things done already by Ncmvocalist have been, in my view, rather counter productive... (in particular "pestering" arbs is not what is needed...) If there is a better place to give this input please advise and I will do so. ++Lar: t/c 14:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, we all need something (pestering? goading? bugging? prodding?)) now and then. Of course there are good ways of pestering and bad, Newyorkbrad's methods were the acme of the polite but persistent nudge. As for proper venues, this is probably not the best. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, since you say you all need pestering, here's a little more

Paul, this is totally absurd, what's going on at WP:AE right now. See [6]. Please step in. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

I've commented there. Paul August ☎ 13:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And a very nice comment it was. I laughed out loud. Thank you. Tex (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What a great comment. —Giggy 06:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Hold this very tightly in your hands when you go to sleep tonight. Have garlic soup for supper. You are mixing with forces we do not understand

Hello Paul. I'm a little concerned with this comment you made earlier today. It's one thing saying that Giano's comments weren't civil in your opinion, but others obviously disagree with that. For you to go and insinuate that you also believe Chillum is a useless twit, when you were voicing your opinion as an arbitrator is unacceptable in my opinion. I hope you consider an apology to Chillum for the way your comments have come across. ^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with above) It doesn't matter if you are an arbitrator or not - this comment was completely unacceptable, and contained a personal attack. You should definitely know better. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've offered my apologies to Chillium there. Paul August ☎ 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a terrible thing to say Paul, I was quite shocked. I should imagine that IRC#admin's are having the vapours left right and centre. They are not used to being treated like that. They are very important people, who have earned the respect of the community. Shame on you. You are lucky it was only Ryan they sent to sort you out, it could have been someone far more sinister. I shall say an Ave Maria for you, perhaps even two. Giano (talk)

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it entirely necessary to give a longtime contributor a templated message that begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia"? Other people left more sensible messages about the same issue already. We need more personal communication and less mindless button-pushing. Friday (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone, assuming you think I'm new to Wikipedia, thanks for the welcome. But I'm afraid it's a bit late, as I arrived in July of 2004 ;-) You don't say, but I assume you are referring to this edit. My comment was not intended as (and I don't think it was) a personal attack. In any case I've offered my apologies to Chillium there. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony! Bstone's talk page prominently displays the following:

If your message is rude, templated, and/or begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia!", it will be reverted upon me seeing it. Note: Thank you notes are not included in this warning.

 :--C S (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the edit I made help?

Mr. Opensockpuppeter (talk • message • contribs • global contribs • deleted contribs  •   • user creation • block user  • • count • total • logs • summary • email | lu •    •   •   •   •   •   • | rfar • rfc • rfcu • ssp • search an, ani, cn, an3 | current rights • rights log (local) • rights log (global/meta) | • • • • • • rollback • admin • logs | UHx • UtHx • UtE) 18:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Help what? I've restored the original comment; I would prefer that you not change other folks posts, thanks. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Request removal of Oversight access

This is to confirm that I'm requesting the removal of my Oversight access. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Resignation from the Arbitration Committee

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, [I'm] free at last.

I've resigned from the Arbitration Committee — except that I intend to remain active on all cases in which I am currently participating. Thanks to all those who voted for me, and to all those who have supported me in doing this very difficult job. I apologize for not serving out my full term. Three years is a long time.

Since this is a valedictory of sorts, permit me the vain indulgence of sharing some thoughts.

In my candidate statement I wrote:

... it has not been the ArbCom's job to decide content, nor to write policy, nor to govern. There are those who feel that ArbCom's role should be expanded to include these things. I do not. As a member of ArbCom I would work to keep its power properly circumscribed.

The fundamental virtue of Wikipedia — the reason for its amazing success — has been its egalitarian bottom-up organization. The Arbitration Committee has been an unfortunate though necessary exception to this. Aristotle has told us that man is by nature a political animal. The Arbitration Committee has to some extent shown a natural and increasing tendency to extend its power and scope — we should all guard against this. Power is sticky, it clumps and accretes. Be careful of giving power to those who want it for its own sake.

Factionalism has been an increasingly worrying issue. I also wrote in my candidate statement that:

There are plenty of people, who go out of their way to attack and disrupt, more of us need to go out of our way to cherish and support. It is probably not enough for us to simply be polite, reasonable and constructive. We need to do more. We need to actively cultivate, nurture and sustain our fellow editors.

This need has never been more urgent. We are fortunate to have many dedicated editors, who care deeply about our encyclopedia and who obviously share a love of knowledge and the belief that making knowledge available to all can make the world a better place. Unfortunately, some of our most dedicated editors are also our most divisive. We should let our shared values unite us, rather than our disagreements divide.

One final self-quote:

For me, contributing to Wikipedia is a noble act. Knowledge is power. We can all feel justifiably proud that the words we are helping to write, will help to empower untold millions of people, all over the world.

This is why I contribute to this project, and why I will continue to do so -- my dedication to this noble endeavor remains undiminished. I'm very much looking forward to the pleasures of being a simple editor again, to once more experience the joy and satisfaction of writing the encyclopedia.

Best wishes to all,

Paul August ☎ 17:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes to you, too, Paul, and thank you for your efforts on the Arbitration Committee. You will be sorely missed. Risker (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Paul - all I can say is best of luck in the future. You've done a really good job in your role - I still remember encountering you in the first Betacommand case, and your judgement and ability to analize evidence amazed me - this has continued to the present day. I'm sure you'll keep working on your math related articles - enjoy life in the background. All the best, ^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You were certainly not a member of ArbCom I thought should or expected to resign. I do hope you might reconsider in the future? --Barberio (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Barberio, I greatly value Paul's work on ArbCom and asked him to delay making this announcement, hoping he would change his mind after a break from ArbCom. But after thinking it over he decided to resign. I still hope that he changes his mind. If so, then I would strongly lobby for a place for him on the Committee. But for now, I want to join in others thanking him for his work. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul, you have done wonderful work with the Committee. Thank you, and enjoy normal editing! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish you all the best and I think you know we all give thanks for your wise counsel as an arbitrator. Good quality writing and editing is the greatest service to the encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You did some awesome work, Paul, over the past three years and you'll be sorely missed as an Arbitrator. Best wishes for the future - Aon ^❤ 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Paul on your liberation. I'm glad someone who truly cared for the project tried. I hope your efforts prove not to have been all in vain. Yours is a marvellous sentiment: "We should let our shared values unite us, rather than our disagreements divide." It was once mine too, but, the problem is, sadly, as I suspect you now realise, that there are no shared values, none at all - none whatsoever - between the Arbcom and those working to build/write an encyclopedia. It is all about gaining power, and at the end of the day power over who? Someone, one has never met, never likely to meet, and could be gone tomorrow and probably will be. Far better to write a few pages and leave a mark here that way - even this rotten Arbcom cannot take that away for their own ego-improving ends. Giano (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work as an arbitrator, Paul. You have performed your duties better than anybody could have asked, and your presence will be sorely missed. Just try and not feel too bored when mainspace editing. There's always plenty of Arbcom-l discussions if you have a spare hour. :-)
All the best, 02:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I noticed this. While I'm disappointed (there are several arbitrators whom I have been very glad were on the committee, and you are indeed one); I so understand and am empathetic. I wish you well : ) - jc37 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sad to see this, though I certainly can't blame you for not wanting to do it anymore. Have a great time in the mainspace. May we all read what you wrote above. We need to take it to heart. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

When the person who got the most unanimous support of all the candidates has resigned, and when persons little supported remain and increase involvement, the instrument is sick. I concur with your warnings, Paul, and I rather think that self-selected power is the [cross of iron] of Wikipedia. As those who believe in themselves rather than the group push forward to take power ("did you know that no one is in charge? cool!"), there is more than a nuisance involved. The ultimate price to be paid will be to make statutory the bleeding out that we've seen accidentally over the years. People will join for the opportunity, stay for the validity of the promise, and then leave. This is the end, and it will be an end brought about as testimony to what T. S. Eliot said, "The majority of mankind is lazy-minded, incurious, absorbed in vanities, and tepid in emotion." Geogre (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul, that's a big loss for the community at large, but I surely missed working alongside you. Welcome back to the fun bit. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Freedom is valued by oneself. You can be free and poor as well as rich and constricted. It all depends on how you treat it. Sometimes we do need to take a step back so that we can be more true to ourselves. I do not know what your intentions were to resign, but as long as it is what you really want, then may it be the right decision when you look at it sometime down the road. Been a pleasure working as a AC/C for you. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I cast the first vote for you back in 2006. Sorry to see you go, but I trust your judgment, and decision. Best wishes. Jd2718 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone very much for all the kind words. Paul August ☎ 17:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's bittersweet for a few of us, and indeed, you will be sorely missed. Your committment, wisdom, as well as the tremendous amount of work you've put in the ArbCom has been almost too valuable to lose. To that effect, like FloNight, I do hope you'll come back at some point. That said, I recall you earlier expressing how much time has been consumed by ArbCom work (even through emails), that you have almost no time for the article space - this should no longer be an issue now. To this effect, I can appreciate your decision and I do think you'll be happy with it for some time at least. In any case, thank you, and wishing you all the best - Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Came here from the Signpost article, and I wish they'd included the paragraph of your statement before what was actually quoted. The paragraph before was good things for all editors to keep in mind. (As was your whole statement here.)  :) Hope to come across and work with you on articles someday. Best, LaughingVulcan 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul August ☎ 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise from the Signpost article. Your work was appreciated. Welcome "back". :) 86.44.24.95 (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a shame. Your voice on Arbcom has been consistently raised for restraint and against extreme and tenuous applications of policy. But do have more fun actually editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo

Stay out of this. This is between me and Jimbo. peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.155.22 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Help request

Hi Paul, I was wondering if you can take a look at my recent interactions with User:Mathsci and give your opinion? I have basically already stopped actively contributing to wikipedia because of his overbearing behavior; now it appears that he is willing to go even further and has started issuing me ultimatums, [7]. Thank you very much in advance! Arcfrk (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am going to leave a similar request at Charles Matthews' talk page.

I'm very sorry about all this. You have certainly demonstrated considerable expertise and have made many excellent contributions. It would be very unfortunate for our encyclopedia not to have the benefit of your continued contributions. I will see what I can do. Unfortunately I have been temporarily reduced to being a one-handed typist, so my activity here will be limited for a while. In addition to Charles, three other mathematics editors whose opinions in such matters I would respect are Oleg Alexandrov, Jitse Niesen and Trovatore. I'd be willing to ask them to lend a hand, unless of course you'd rather I not. Regards, Paul August ☎ 19:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I would very much appreciate it if you do contact them (I discussed similar problems with Oleg in the past). Sorry to hear about your hand — I hope that it is nothing serious. Best wishes, Arcfrk (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the comments on Charles Matthews' page. I spoke by telephone to User:R.e.b. about Arcfrk's problematic behaviour yesterday, before he contacted you. User:R.e.b. is one of our top mathematics editors: he is the editor who asked me to contribute to WPM. Charles knows our real life identities. Arcfrk's contributions seems to have degenerated to low-level trolling. He consistently refuses to provide sources and is more often than not wrong in what he claims. He is extremely problematic in his interactions with other mathematics editors. Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that use of the word "trolling" is helpful here. Your description of Arcfrk, is not in accord with my experience. I've written a bit more at Charles' talk page. For the sake of centralization of discussion, I suggest we continue there. Paul August ☎ 14:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved opinion

There is a discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks regarding:

1. Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
2. Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article

I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is a serious accusation

No problem w you changing 'writings' on Socrates, and I do confess to some ignorance on the subject, but it doesn't look like vandalism to me. Anarchangel (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The "vandalism" I was refering to was this edit. Paul August ☎ 04:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems 75.164.10.218 did vandalism, 208.48.205.170 replaced that text with 'writings' when it had been 'dialogues', and you reverted the whole thing back to the original 'dialogues'. I looked at your revert on Changes and it looked like you were changing 'writings' to 'dialogues' and calling it vandalism. Solved. Hopefully this won't come up very often, it is just the sort of thing I would forget to check for even now that I know of itAnarchangel (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Paul August ☎ 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Returning vandalism: 69.213.37.242

Hello there. I am contacting you because you were the last administrator to deal with the problematic edits from 69.213.37.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- they have returned (not surprisingly). RFerreira (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

H.D.

Hi Paul, I just nomed Filiocht's article on H.D. at FAR and was hoping you might have time to take a look and comment. A FAR on a '04 promotion was going to happen anyway, so I'm acting preemptivly at a time when I will be able to respond. The page remans fairly heathy since the FAC, it is reasonably well cited, but just needs a little polish here and there. I remember the work you did during the Yeats FAR, and was hoping you might be able to help out here as well, even if only offering suggestions or fighting against the 1 cite per sentence police. Either way, best. 22:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Fair enough, as long as reasonable comments will at some point again be allowed. Mackan79 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR

I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

I have unblocked 8 IP addresses that you indefinitely blocked. Per WP:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Additionally, "Vandalism-only account" should never be given as the reason to block an IP address, as IP addresses aren't accounts. Most of the IPs in question had never even been blocked before, so an indefinite block was particularly inappropriate for these cases, especially for run-of-the-mill vandalism. Finally, I find your block of User:71.201.234.208 particularly problematic. This user had his first edit (minor vandalism) in over 8 months, had never been previously blocked or even warned, and no notice of the block was given after your indefinite block of him. I realize these blocks occurred quite a while ago, so I hope that you have refreshed up on the blocking policy since. If not, I strongly encourage you to read up on its changes, as indefinitely blocking IP addresses, while it used to be a somewhat common practice, is virtually nonexistent now. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (slightly edited from original to better convey my intent).

VegaDark, I am not seeing the problem here, and am concerned with the tone that you are using towards Paul August, who has been a member of WP:ARBCOM. Even just looking at the history of 71.201.234.208 (talk · contribs), the IP had been used for nothing but vandalism for years, so there was no reasonable assumption of good faith, so I'm not understanding why there was a need to unblock without consultation. We routinely place longterm blocks on anon accounts, for example see {{schoolblock}}. We also routinely place indefinite blocks on proxy IDs, and these blocks can be done "on sight" with no need for warning. VegaDark, it would have been better in this case, and more collegial, if you asked Paul August for his reasoning, per WP:BLOCK#Unblocking. For example, you could have said, "Hi, I was reviewing indefinite blocks on anon IPs, and I saw that you'd blocked the following IPs indefinitely (list). I found this curious, considering that there were no warnings, and that IPs are not normally blocked for long periods. Could you perhaps help explain? I look forward to learning more about blocking procedures on Wikipedia, thanks." --Elonka 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review my response on my talk page. VegaDark (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The blocks in question are, well ... questionable. The tone of the message is ... questionable as well. Oh well, live and learn. Paul August ☎ 17:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you took any offense to the tone of my message, as that certainly wasn't intended. Mea culpa if so. VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't fret. The patient may have been cured but the bedside manner was lacking. This patient didn't really mind, and took his medicine, however ill-tasting. The next patient might not be so agreeable ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)