Tue 8th September 2009, 10:18pm
QUOTE(Cedric @ Mon 7th September 2009, 7:02am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 7th September 2009, 8:53am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 7th September 2009, 3:37am)
Ahem, Lar did say something
, which SV apparently appreciated none too much
My, my, that's quite a tantrum, considering the ultra-diplomatic wording of Lar's post.
Nah, not really. Remember that Linda never forgets and never forgives. The mere fact that Lar commented at all is considered grievously offensive in the Slimmiverse.
The exchange was funny enough I think it should be preserved:
Leatherstocking defends himself, closing with:
QUOTE(Leatherstocking@WP @ 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC))
... I still contend, however, that SlimVirgin is outrageously flouting numerous policies, and no one seems to raise an eyebrow. Does she have a free pass of some sort? --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
to which Lar simply replies:
QUOTE(Lar @ 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC) )
An excellent question. The answer, of course, is that no one has a free pass here. Theoretically, anyway. ++Lar - 03:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Slim's shrill response on Lar's talk page is:
Lar, if you don't stop posting snide remarks about me,  I'm going to approach the ArbCom for relief. You've been asked many times to stop by several editors. There's no call for it, and I won't respond in kind. It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved (and in such a way that any reasonable person would see was an improvement). If you have a low opinion of me, just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you. Or we should seek private mediation, as I suggested in a recent e-mail to which you didn't respond. But the current one-way public sniping is not acceptable. SlimVirgin - 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Lar decides not to take it lying down:
QUOTE(Lar @ 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for stopping by and bringing your concerns forward. Let's unpack some of the key themes as I see them.
- "snide remarks about me" - The user raised a legitimate concern about free passes, or the perception of them. This is something I've been concerned about for a long time, and have commented about for a long time as well, in many contexts. "Free passes" for anyone is against the spirit of the wiki. Surely you agree that there may be a perception among some that some users do have free passes? (if not, see a few threads up, right here on this talk, for just one example of many) So, not a snide comment and not directed specifically at you. Not everything onwiki is about you, believe it or not. But let me apologise if you think it was directed specifically at you or was intended to be snide.
- "It's particularly depressing to see it extend to you lending support to a LaRouche editor who's trying to prevent the LaRouche bio from being improved" If answering a question is "lending support" in your view, I think you're not seeing things clearly. Perhaps you should step back from the conflict at that bio and leave it to uninvolved editors.
- "If you have a low opinion of me" - My personal opinion of you is irrelevant. As should be yours of me. What matters to me is whether your actions bring harm to the project. If I think they do, I will speak out about it. I won't be constrained by any previous history we might have. Nor should you be.
- "just stay away from me, and I'll continue to do the same for you." - Our current difficulties started when you made a number of unjustified and unsupported allegations in an inappropriate manner in a number of venues, something which you were sanctioned by ArbCom for doing,[see note] and something for which you've never expressed any remorse, regret, or even acknowledgment that you erred in any way. It's ironic that now you want to stay away, as the damage you did with public invective was done long ago.
- "we should seek private mediation" - I don't see that as particularly useful yet, given that in our prior communications, you've not been willing to acknowledge that you erred in how you raised issues or how you approached conflict resolution. Mediation requires an honest willingness to start afresh. Perhaps at some point in the future, though, if you're now willing to acknowledge what you did was wrong? I remain hopeful. You can start the process by apologizing.
I hope that helps address your concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
1. ^ quoting: The Committee reminds the users who brought the matter into the public arena rather than to a suitable dispute resolution process—in particular, SlimVirgin—that dispute resolution procedures rather than public invective remain the preferred course for addressing matters of user conduct.
I wish I could see Slim while reading it!