I had thought the discussion on Lar s UT page was clear The principle defining involved appears to be contradicted by the result especially since no remedies mentioning Lar were passed at all Thus the existence of an RFC U which was at best inconclusive and where one of the prime movers has now been blocked for having more than ten socks and the short list of Lar showing exasperation at most becomes involvement for the purpose of the decision Which I found anomalous absent any other indication of involvement Is that more clear I trust as a query Cheers