Jump to content

User talk:Lord Roem/Archive5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Data set

Do you have the original dataset you used to create this graph? I want to relabel the axises and take the mean number of cases per month during the the time period. You can email it to me if you want. thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 03:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I made that on Excel with an old computer that I've replaced. :-/ Lord Roem (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I will need to extract it myself. Thanks. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for !voting

at my successful RFA
Thank you, Lord Roem, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me, and also impressed by your work with the Signpost. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Crisco. I appreciate the kind words. Best of luck in your new admin duties! -- Lord Roem (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Question

  • Why did you remove what I wrote about Mohamed Morsi's opinion about the 9/11 attacks? I properly quoted it from a Foreign Policy article? 8 June 2012

I didn't think there was anything unsubstantiated. The only thing that came close was my claim that the ED page is harassment (which seems pretty obvious). As I supplied a link that agreed it was ridicule (and the same link is on the evidence page) is fixing that enough? I put (way too much) effort into that and I think it adds value. Just let me know what to fix. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Or, if the issue is the claims with Fae, can I just cite the links made by others (also on the evidence page)? Just trying to figure out to what you are referring. Hobit (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You are free to post on the evidence section links regarding the central issues in the case. You need to ensure though that every single accusation is linked with a diff illustrating the behavior or issue you're criticizing. You can use your post, sure, but it needs to be 1) condensed into a more factual (less exposition) form, 2) needs to have diffs, originally had a single link, 3) needs to avoid speculation, only containing incidences of specific events, not broad and vague, possibly 'casting aspersion' type of language. This not only ensures your evidence complies with the rules, but also increases the chances that what you have to say will be thoroughly considered by the Committee. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to leave another note here or contact me by email. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I didn't feel I was making accusations that weren't documented by links on the evidence page. Would it be enough just to include those same links in my comments? Can I just link directly to the evidence page rather than copying those links?
        • The ED page I _can't_ link to, so I'm not sure what to do with that. Is it casting aspirations to claim that I think the page is an attack page? I mean, I've no idea how to prove that (diffs or otherwise) but it would be deleted in a second as an attack page on Wikipedia, I don't think anyone would debate that. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
        • And commenting on the evidence, on the evidence talk page, is traditionally what the talk page is used for. I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Any guidance?
If I have time to update that, I'll e-mail it to you first. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
If you are uncertain about posting the evidence, feel free to email it directly to the Committee. Just let me or NW (the lead clerk on the case) know so we can alert the Committee to be on the lookout for your evidence. As to your other question, you do need to link directly to the edit by the user you're critiquing. This ensures an easy to see thought process from your statement and the incident cited. Lord Roem (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hummm, I guess the root problem is that I'm not trying to post evidence, I'm trying to comment on the evidence. Is there any place I can do that? Hobit (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You're certainly free to do that on the page you were trying to edit on. I think it was very clear though that both the nature and form of your post was like a long evidentiary statement. If your purpose is commentary, be sure to keep it commentary, not arguments. Lord Roem (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give that a shot. The boundary here is a bit fuzzy. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm finding your clerking here fairly far out of the norm. I responded on that page to you, but perhaps your talk page is a better place for the discussion. I feel people are claiming the ED page isn't an "attack page" and I'm trying to establish that DC and Michaeldsuarez (both of whom have indicated it is not an attack page) would agree that by the standard we use for Wikipedia pages they agree it would be an attack page. I think I've done that in a civil tone. If instead you could ask them the question and get a "yes" or "no" out of them without caveats that would be fine too. I don't need to be the one writing the words, but I do think it quite reasonable to understand what they mean by "attack page". Hobit (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I do not see what good will come from getting into an argument with another editor on the case talk page. You both have the opportunity to state your positions in either a workshop discussion or through evidence linking to Wikipedia behavior on the evidence section. Whether or not they think its an attack page is immaterial to how the Committee will make its decisions. There's simply no use in getting something out of another editor here - it's just not the point of the process. Lord Roem (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
      • They are using a term that is used as a term of art on Wikipedia. I'm trying to establish what exactly they mean by that (the term of art per G10 or a more generic term). Again, if you feel I'm getting too hot on this topic (as you indicated on the talk page) I'd be pleased to have you or someone else pose the question. As far as being on a different page, I'd assumed discussing the terms used in the evidence page and the talk page would belong on the talk page. That seems the traditional and expected place for such a discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
      • [EC]Eh, looks like SirFozzie agrees with you. Given that (I've learned to respect his opinion and that gives me two independent people with the same opinion) I guess I was out of line. Still don't see it, but that's they joy of taking things too personally, you often don't see it. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Notes

Just wondering what was the reason for this edit. The article seems to have been using the "references" subheading since the beginning so is there some guideline to use to notes subheading I'm not aware of? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi SunCreator! As per a guideline, I'm not entirely sure. The reason I made the change was because those first two appeared to be specific citations while the latter (bulleted) points seemed to be books or scholarly work that was generally being used for the article.
I'll try to find the guideline. One minute. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I found the reference here. It's just something I've seen used on some Supreme Court/law articles. I feel it tends to sort the references better. Lord Roem (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the link and explanation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick chat?

Would you be available on IRC or Google chat (if you use that) for a quick chat about my evidence? Prioryman (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think its generally fine. I just think you need to rephrase your statement. Rather than "XYZ has an attack page", make it "XYZ follows the page closely" or "XYZ did nothing about categorization into a bad/negative category". Its an important distinction, one that I want you to make if possible. Lord Roem (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Much better, thank you. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually I wanted to discuss evidence I haven't yet posted, so the question stands. :-) Prioryman (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Feel free to email me. But, please note that if I am unsure of a reply, I may forward your email to the Clerks list. Would you be fine with that? Lord Roem (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. It's something I contacted NuclearWarfare about earlier but he's not replied and he doesn't seem to have edited today, so there may be a bit of overlap. But if it's something you can advise me on in the meantime, that will help, given that the cutoff date for further evidence is not far off now. Prioryman (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Sounds good. Send away! Lord Roem (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. :-) Prioryman (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ta

I can understand why he's getting cross - and I'm trying to get through to him about copyvio and advertising. Thanks for reverting, but I was actually amused. No-one's ever called me fat before - I'm one of those infuriating people who eats full fat, non-diet full sugar (and chocolate) things and doesn't put on weight. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha. I need to steal your genes. Lord Roem (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mailing list

Hey Roem, way back in April you asked me some questions for the Signpost. I must have missed the initial posting--is it still relevant or have you already dispensed with that story? :) Apologies again, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the beginning of clerking, User:M.O.X has taken over the Arbitration Report at the Signpost. I'd ask him if he wants your answers as I think he'd still be interested.
Best, Lord Roem (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fæ's answers

I've been patiently waiting for Fæ or someone else to remove the two long quotations in his "answers" which serve no purpose other than to attack me. I've asked about them on the talk page twice now. What do I have to do to get the stated rules of evidence to be applied? My patience is wearing thin, but I thought I would approach you directly before taking more drastic measures. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a look. Lord Roem (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you clarify as to what specifically is distressing you? Lord Roem (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
DC may well mean Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Unsupported_claim_4 and following, which look like they are as yet unattended by a clerk. JN466 01:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right. I'll check it out. Lord Roem (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Just checked, seems he has a series of cites that follow that claim. Lord Roem (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Really? Did you bother to look at the links he provided? Only a single one is to Wikipedia and the is absolutely no connection made between the comment in that statement and WR. Do you have any comments on the other six very specific issues I detailed on the talk page for you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
As NYB said on the talk page, some of these issues are just irrelevant. However, from your line below it appears you want quotations of you removed? Things he claims you said? Is that more accurate? Sorry, but you need to be explicit. You raised a long series of issues on the evidence talk page, and I'm just not sure which specific one you're bringing here. Thanks for clarifying, Lord Roem (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand the relevance of NYB's statement. I have made specific requests about 7 parts of Fæ's "answers" - as clerk, please address them (on the talk page at the very least). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
More specific than asking for the long quotations to be removed? How much more specific can I be? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This quotation of Russavia is an attack on me personally: "This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already. Editors should know that DC posted Fae's home address and phone number on WR, on a thread which was discussing Fae in a manner which can only be construed by any reasonable person as harrassment, so their claim here that they are only interested in Fae's Wikipedia activities is absolute and clear BS... It is obvious it is, because they made a point of including a photo which Fae had taken at this beach in their statement; obviously hoping to play in homophobic feelings which some editors may hold. It is absolutely atrocious and disgusting behaviour to be engaging in...". Please remove it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This quotation of 28bytes is an attack on me personally: "The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and clear WP:OUTING violations by Delicious carbuncle are simply appalling, as many of the participants in this discussion have noted. DC seems to have participated in an "ends justify the means" campaign to bring the alleged wrongdoing of another editor to light. Well, the ends don't justify the means here, and it is simply unconscionable to publicly post private information taken from an e-mail sent in presumed confidence, and further use that information to play detective in an attempt to "bring down" that editor." Please remove it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It isn't a numbered cite, oddly enough. Let me know if you have any trouble locating it - perhaps I can draw you a diagram. On what basis is the second quotation acceptable? It makes untrue claims of a violation of WP:OUTING, and speculates as to my motivation and actions with no attempt to support those claims. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I mean, this isn't an exact science. I just feel the tone of the first one seems much more personal compared to the second which could be explained as just making a argument (albeit in a form I wouldn't prefer). But yes, if you could tell me where the cite is, that would be helpful. There are over 100 diffs on the page. Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it might help to review what the question being answered was and ask if that second quote is actually relevant or necessary to present some particular fact. I think you will find that Fæ is not answering the question at all, but instead making a case against me based on an erroneous supposition which I have already asked to have corrected. See the history of the evidence page for your diagram. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Fae is entitled to quote one of the more popular opinions from the RfC/U. Collect's "46-versus 34" vote also excludes the 29 who favored this draft, some of whom did not sign on with Hobit's 34. It is important to represent the RfC/U fairly. Wnt (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Lord Roem, the quote from 28bytes is highly relevant, as it reflects the opinion of many editors and administrators in closing a thread that I started on AN/I back in January that's of central importance to this case. Further evidence is in preparation that will demonstrate the significance to the disputed RFC/U of the comment from 28bytes - an admin who is, as far as I know, not currently involved in issues concerning Fae and, again as far as I know, had no previous involvement at the time of the thread. The quote is not a personal attack - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Avoiding personal attacks: "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U)." Please keep the quote in place. Prioryman (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DC, if you wish to get a second opinion on the second quote, you are free to message either SirFozzie or send an email to the clerks mailing list. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hi, Lord Roem! I think that you will make a great admin and therefore have supported you. Congratulations on your (current) 97% support, I have no doubts that this one will go down as successful. Regards! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Electriccatfish2. I wish you the best in your own content work. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, you have done a lot of good work in your time, and you have not lost all potential. Bearing that in mind, my advice is that you should avoid making the foolish mistake of sticking to one area - you may be tempted (even indirectly) to follow examples which will eventually not help you too. The negative feedback provided by users in your RFA is a lot more useful than what some other RFA candidates or even Arb candidates receive; it is up to you to make sure it does not go to waste. Best, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick question about your username

Hi, I didn't want to raise this at your RfA since it's largely irrelevant and just for my personal peace of mind – but how does one pronounce the second word of your username? Like "Rome"? Like "rain", but with an "m"? Thanks. It Is Me Here t / c 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha! First time someone's asked me that!
You would say "Row-em" like Row as in rowing a boat and then the letter 'M'. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Question re:Commons

Would it be acceptable in my evidence to link a comment of Fae's made at Commons that I referred to in my initial submission to Arbcom? Would it be acceptable to reference the existence of an email sent to me and characterize how I interpreted it? Thanks. MBisanz talk 03:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel that both are ok, but let me confirm via the clerks list so I can give you a definite answer. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a response on the list yet, but you have safe harbor to include the evidence you want to include above. The Commons link didn't raise concerns when first posted, and I see no reason it should now. The discussion of the email needs to be careful to not disclose anything private, but if it's about how you "interpreted it", that sounds fine as well. Thank you for asking before posting. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Done, thanks. MBisanz talk 05:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I intend to post some links to Commons as well. Based on other links already present, I am going to assume that this is allowable, but if not, feel free to remove them and let me know. I asked about scope on the evidence talk page, but no one has answered as yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You're fine in posting such links, as I told MBisanz above. Lord Roem (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Rfa and my removal from opposition

I look for any evidence of maliciousness or incompetance in admin candidates and in your case I see no prior history of either. Therefore, since my only reasons for opposing were due to a low edit count and the 8.5 month hiatus from which you returned and resumed good work, I have retracted my oppose. Good luck.--MONGO 01:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MONGO, I appreciate your courtesy message. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Lord Roem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 05:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Steven. I'm a little backlogged at the moment but will get to your email later today. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. Gchat is fine today as well - but this is a bit time sensitive so as soon as possible :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you ....

... comment here if you have the time. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 13:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Noticed that you're up at RfA - Good luck with that! --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I've responded there. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence length

Thanks for the notification. I've reduced it to 548, still slightly over but only by 48 words. I've asked SirFozzie if this is good enough for him to accept (see User talk:SirFozzie#Evidence length). Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think 548 is within a margin of reasonableness. Thanks for trimming! Lord Roem (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Request to clarify RFA evidence

Very late last night, just before the evidence phase closed, another editor noted a potential error in the evidence I posted. I did not notice the problem until this morning. The problem results from imprecise language condensed in order to meet the 500-word length limit. I can resolve the problem without violating that limit, and the language would not have been quite so drastically condensed if I had known of the leeway subsequantly recognized by your response to Prioryman on your talk page (but not by the boilerplate bot language). I therefore request permission to add brief clarifying language to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Off-wiki_commentary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Go ahead. Lord Roem (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads-up

Could I ask you to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop‎#Sections of Prioryman's workshop entries need to be stricken before it devolves into yet another futile argument? Prioryman (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've compromised by removing the section that seems to be prompting the most comment, but I won't be removing the other one ("Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention") since it's an important point and one would think an uncontroversial statement of fact. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RfA

I see that you have withdrawn from your RfA, which was probably good timing as you have received as much good information as you were likely going to. While I don't think you are quite ready, I can see possibly supporting you in the future once you have had time to address the issues brought up. Without rehashing any individual items, I thought you handled the overall process better than most candidates. It is a trial by fire, to be sure, a painful but necessary ordeal. I don't see anything here that would prevent a successful RfA in the future when you are a bit more experienced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis. I too appreciate your thoughtful remarks. Opposes can sometimes be incivil or argumentative, but yours was thoughtful and offered good advice. I will take it to heart. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lord Roem,
I want to repeat that I have a favorable impression of you, and would just like you to get more experience. Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That's an odd thing to say after your comment that you couldn't support him because his writing level was below that of a junior high student. Nathan T 20:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It sounds to me like Kiefer has faith that Lord Roem is capable of correcting any shortcomings in 6 to 12 months. I guess it is all in how you look at it. RfA is the proper place to be honest and air out any concerns, after all, as adminship is forever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nathan!
As Dennis surmised, I preferred to speculate, to myself, that Lord Roem's RfA writing was not a fair or representative sample of his ability to communicate with readers, perhaps because of other demands on his time or his being tired, I thought. At the RfA page, I volunteered that some mistakes of verb-subject agreement are common among Swedes, for example, when throwing a hardball (following an unsatisfactory response to my softball).
Since you have raised the issue, understandably, let me affirm that I expect a better RfA performance because of (a) more careful writing or (b) an improved record of editing or both. When he has 4000 edits with no disasters or with another good article, then I would be inclined to support even if a few grammatical problems remain.
Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Nathan, Kiefer is opinionated but he's a softy. He doesn't mean anything maliciously. In my RFA there were issues with my spelling and grammar as well.--v/r - TP 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

drat

I am sorry to see you withdraw - I had the page on my list to edit as a "support" when it happened :). Please do try again -- I suppose once you hit 5K edits some of the "opposes" will evaporate! Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I was sorry to see you withdrawing as well, and frankly it goes to show how insane and out-of-control RFA is these days if an obviously suitable candidate can't get through. Please don't give up on it though - give it another six months, reflect on the feedback you got, and I'm sure you'll sail through next time. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry you received so many opposed for my question. Your answer was satisfactory to me. I was more concerned that you have a vague idea of the forces at work in the scenario rather than that you knew a textbook answer. Apparently others felt differently. Had I known the question would tank your RFA, I would've just left it be and stayed in the neutral section. Sorry again.--v/r - TP 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Argh

Apologies, just saw the bit about not editing the page. :/ My edit was just to change "above" to refer to what "above" meant after the move to the case page. Orderinchaos 17:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your withdrawal statement

Impressive. Please make sure you let me know if/when you run again. --Dweller (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note

I meant what I said at your RfA—both the (hopefully constructive) criticism and the praise, and I think you have the potential to a bloody good admin in the not-too-distant future. I hope you won't feel too down that that day isn't today, and if you're going to Wikimania in DC, make a point of bumping into me and I'll buy you a drink. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I didn't like seeing the Perth pages marked as needing to be patrolled, so I added autopatrolled to your rights. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Next time

Well...next time they will surely support in droves. I was saddened to see several editors use your Rfa to take potshots at each other. However, it was great seeing your calm and reserved reactions. Best wishes.MONGO 18:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatting

I strongly object to your hatting of that section at the evidence talk page. I asked a legitimate question, and it relates directly to what is unclear in the evidence. You made a serious mistake there, and you need to correct it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The hatting is not due to it not being a legitimate question, it very well may be. But the responses will be based on pure speculation. You asked "What, then, does it come from" in reference to potentially vitriolic remarks about Fae. There are may possibilities; I won't speculate myself now. But, others would, and that's strictly against the rules.
If you are unsatisfied by this, then please keep in mind one thing: the proposed decision will include a long timeline leading up to any remedies the Committee feels is appropriate. It may even provide an answer to your question. But right now at least, it isn't appropriate. Lord Roem (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If you object to any of the answers, then perhaps you could hat the answers. But I was providing an opportunity for those who know the answers, the ones who actually made the comments in question, to explain themselves. The proposed decision will be based upon what is presented to the arbitrators, and you have taken it upon yourself to censor what is presented to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
In fairness, I think the discussion is more suited to a user talk page, and goodness knows the evidence pages are long enough as it is. We can continue the discussion on your (Tryptofish's) talk page, if you like. Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
In fact, the discussion has continued to my talk page. But the reason that I am still not satisfied is that I think that this discussion is one that is appropriate for the Arbitrators to be able to read. I really think that in this instance it is a mistake to move this discussion to my talk, where the Arbitrators will not see it. I'm not asking the question for my personal curiosity. I asked it because it addresses a gaping hole in the evidence that has been presented so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you have a valid point about the hole in the evidence. There is a big political picture here which has not been raised at all but which is very relevant, though frankly it's so big that I don't really know how or even whether to introduce it. I'll write to the arbitrators to ask their advice. Prioryman (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Six months

Hello, and I want you to know that I am sorry about how things turned out. Based on what I've learned about you, I believe that you will make a good administrator some day. I feel very confident that you will learn from this experience, and I look forward to the opportunity to speak again in your favor half a year or so in the future. Thank you for the tough but important work you are doing for this magnificent project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Head down and produce some good articles and examples of great editorship and I'll support another RFA in the new year. I have 400,000 odd edits and still don't need admin tools.. Its not essential that you become one and its not a promotion of honour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld makes an excellent point. While I think you'll do fine as an admin right now, you'll find it much harder to work in the DR area as an admin. You're doing a good job there and seem to be enjoying it and that's what Wikipedia is about! --regentspark (comment) 16:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Word limit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michaeldsuarez&diff=497734396&oldid=497661918 – Can you please tell the bot that I'm now a party to the case? I'm also finished presenting evidence. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A Comment

Your withdrawal at RfA was classy and appropriate. Work hard for six months and try again, I can't image you having any trouble then. Best regards, —Tim. //// Carrite (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth

If this is in order, could you please do the needful with respect to this? Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You want his remarks to be in the 'party' section? -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes; he is a party after all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Then yes, I can move it back... Lord Roem (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

"kits if" = "lots of"?

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth, Courcelles wrote: "There are kits if conduct issues". It just occurred to me that "kits if" = "lots of" when touch-typed with the right hand shifted one position to the left. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. He must have been tired. -- Lord Roem (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review started

Hello, Lord Roem. You have new messages at Talk:Washington v. Texas/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
On getting 5,000 edits! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taylor v. Illinois

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold . For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 (talk2me) 00:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response; I was busy in real life. All issues have been addressed, so I passed the article. Keep up the good work! Rp0211 (talk2me) 04:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Please comment on Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hi. I've sent you an email and really could use a reply. Can you please have a look into it asap? Cheers. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 03:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Note

I'll be out this coming Tuesday and Wednesday as I'll be traveling to D.C. for Wikimania. However, during that time, I'll still be reachable via email.

Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Typo fixing

Thank you for fixing a typo in one of the proposed decisions that was posted tonight. There's nothing wrong with the case clerk fixing an obvious typo and in fact we appreciate it. I also appreciate that you wanted to assure the arbitrators and other readers that the typo fix was the only change that you were making. However, it's possible to do this in a less obtrusive way. When I was a clerk, I would do it in the edit summary—something like "typo fix only; no substantive change." Thanks again for all your help. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Brad, I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It was fine. It's a train wreck of a case and was handled much better than the RFC/U; best to shrug off the out of the blue criticism. Nobody Ent 02:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

comments requested

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_interaction_ban_violation Nobody Ent 15:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Casenav/data

Hi. Sorry about this. I thought that was supposed to be the final decision date. I guess that date isn't known/included in the template? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, we only recently changed the template. The final decision date is just whenever the case is closed, which could vary.
Also, on a different subject-- I didn't get a chance to tell you there but I thought you did a great presentation today with HaeB! Very cool stuff. Lord Roem (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Redactions requested

Please see my comments here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi DC --
You want me to redact SilkTork's comment on the proposed decision? -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. They do not follow the stated rules of evidence. SilkTork can re-add them with diffs or links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm still asking for those comments to be redacted. Do you intend to act? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I think SilkTork has sufficiently addressed your concern already. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" request for formal mediation

Please don't suspend the mediation. This has been discussed ad nauseum. There is no need for another RfC IMO. We have gone through all the processes and no clear consensus has been reached. Please, we need more than just vote counting, we need someone to weight the strength of the arguements. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has decided to suspend pending the closure of the RfC. The mediation process is for when such processes fail, not as a way to pre-empt such efforts. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I see now. I'll come back after the RfCs close, if indeed mediation is still needed at that point. Thanks! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I was alarmed to see that User:GabeMc opened a new poll on this page, which seems to ignore your advice.--andreasegde (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Andreas, I am not ignoring Lord Roem's advice, I am taking their advice, and I will complete a straw poll and RfC at each page in question before I return for formal mediation should that still be required. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I have you asked you before, and I ask you again; my name here is Andreasegde. Please use it, unless you are trying to provoke me. As for "ignoring Lord Roem's advice", you certainly are doing that, by creating a new poll before the present one is finished. Please do not ignore sage advice, and stop trying to move the discussion elsewhere.--andreasegde (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
We're not having this discussion here. Let the RfC take its due course. Make a real effort to find consensus absent mediation, which sometimes can be an exhausting process. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you be interested in collaborating to get this to FA status? I'm not committing to same at this point, but I've skimmed the article and the FAC, and I'm definitely interested. Let me know. You can reply here.--Chaser (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I would love to work together with that article. However, I've moved to a different attempt (Washington v. Texas) before I go back to LSC. When I do though, I'll be glad to ping you on your talk page. If you want to help with the Texas article, I'd also love your help. -- Best, Lord Roem (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Polka dispute

Thanks for your message. I took a look at the dispute resolution page and it looks pretty daunting. I suppose I'm willing to go to the trouble of writing the whole thing up there if you think there's a serious likelihood that the responding editors would be aware of the superiority of the OED to a century-old Czech dance book as a source for etymology and judge accordingly; frankly, I was disheartened by DocRock's readiness to accept the latter as a valid source and would be extremely depressed to go through all the effort involved only to have a consensus decision that left the waters as muddy as they are now. I realize you can't see the future or make any guarantees, but you are obviously far more experienced in these conflict resolution situations than I (I tend to avoid all the insider stuff), and I would welcome your thoughts. Languagehat (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I know it may look daunting, but it's definitely worth a shot. Best of luck and remember to keep an open mind, always. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You have mail

Hello, Lord Roem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NewtonGeek (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Pointy section

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#WP:Office_revision is simply pointy and should closed. Nobody Ent 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching the talk page all day and I'll act if there's an issue, but I don't see one yet. Arbs have engaged in the discussion, so it seems at least somewhat substantive. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Asking about use of ArbCom talk page

Since I'm not a party to the case, what are the rules that I have to follow to provide input there? How can I improve my behavior there? NewtonGeek (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think taking a break from the discussions wouldn't be a bad idea. They can get heated really quickly, and it doesn't persuade anyone when it gets to such points. Lord Roem (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes to DRN

Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

should recheck use of green checkmarks on the infamous Perth case

Unless my eyes fail me, I think a couple of failed remedies in that case [1] have green check marks. Not affecting anything in the long run, and not presented as official results, but I tend to find such stuff <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently (I'm told), when we change the casenav template to "lock-in" the numbers, it totally messes up the implementation notes section. We're trying to find a way to fix it, but for now... it will remain annoying. Lord Roem (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse!

Hi Lord Roem! Thank you for signing up to be a future host at the Teahouse. Well, great news - the future is here: we'd love you to be a Teahouse host! Teahouse hosts do more than just answer questions. A few things we'd love to see you do as a Teahouse host:

  • First, declare your Hostness! Add yourself to the Host page! This page is where new editors and your fellow hosts can learn about you and get in touch with you easily if needed. By signing up here you declare that you know how to serve up a great cup of tea. Add yourself here.
  • Invite new users with our invite guide. Please invite new users to the Teahouse! At that guide you'll find some tips on how to invite. It's super important; we have plenty of Wikipedians answering questions, but not enough asking the questions!
  • Visit the tips page. The tips page provides you some basic tips on how to engage with visitors at the Teahouse. We have a special way of doing things - unlike other areas of Wikipedia! (Such as greeting new editors with a simple "Hi!" and being as easy to understand and friendly as possible.)
  • Join the conversation by participating on the host lounge talk pages. We also have an IRC channel now for hosts to get to know one another, develop your skills, and eventually the channel will serve as an additional help space for new editors!
  • To visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-teahouse connect (Feel free to ask me for help if you're having trouble connecting!)
  • Participate in developing the Teahouse further by getting involved in phase two. Learn more here.

I'm so happy that you volunteered to lend a hand at the Teahouse. I look forward to following your contributions and invitations, and your assistance in making the Teahouse a great and warm place for new Wikipedians. See you there :) Sarah (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fae case formatting error

Hi, Your last edit to the PD page for the Fae case has resulted in the table getting mucked up and some of the remedies not appearing in the visible table.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually trying to resolve that now. :P
I'm trying to figure out what exactly I did that messed it up. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't sure you had noticed. Thanks for fixing it. In the mean time I realise that due to the lateness of when I mentioned it I mistakenly interpreted the cause of the error as a cock up, when any fool knows that any problem in an Arbcom case is due to a conspiracy. As it is now even later, I haven't been able to work out what conspiracy you were hatching but I shall be sure to accuse one once I have invented unearthed it.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was once a member of the cabal... Lord Roem (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=503373626&oldid=503372768 – You accidentally closed that note with <ref> instead of </ref>. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm Thank you Michael. :) Lord Roem (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Substituting the hidden signature

Instead of this, you need simple to type {{subst:hes}}. That substitutes the hidden signature correctly. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Lord Roem (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Georgia events

It was great to meet you at the meta:WALRUS get-together at Wikimania! Thought you would be interested in this upcoming event: Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 4.--Pharos (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It was great to meet you as well. - Lord Roem (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

SightWatcher's page

Roger's question pertained to why they would support restoring comments from sock editors. As Sight has not restored any such comments, the question is not something he can reasonably be expected to answer regarding his own actions. He clearly either does not want to restore such comments, or does not care.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The merits of the issue as you see it are irrelevant. A message from a Clerk, by direction of an arbitrator and clearly labeled as such should not be reverted. Any questions, comments, concerns may be directed at the questioning arb; in this case, that is User:Roger Davies. I am just the messenger and that should be respected. Lord Roem (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Committee - Bulgaria dispute

Hello Lord Roem,

I see you've mentioned the sockpuppet investigation in the Bulgaria dispute, where I'm also mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ceco31

How, can I help this investigation? I have no connection what so ever with Ceco31 and am more than willing to cooperate, with whoever is investigating. Please, note that the opposing side of the issue on Bulgaria is the one that started this investigation. Again, more than willing to assist, just tell me how? I want to avoid, this unjust accusation to have any effect on the Bulgaria dispute.

Ximhua (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a good guide on responding to sockpuppet investigations. If the allegation isn't true, that will be the finding. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I pasted the below on the investigation page, as I want to disclose everything obviously.

After reading more about this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims, I'd like to state, that prior to registering I've been also using Wikipedia (as stated earlier) and editing without a username, so naturally this is via IP and I don't think this is a violation. However, once I registered I started using my username ximhua. Again, I have no relation what so ever to Ceco31 or Drustur90. (Ximhua (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC))

Hello again Lord Roem! I'm happy to report that on the sock investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ceco31 "Ximhua edits from a different continent, and is therefore technically Symbol unrelated.svg Unrelated. AGK [•] 12:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)" can you kindly reflect this on the mediation page, as I feel it is important that this information is distributed in the same way as the information about the investigation. Best (Ximhua (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

Thanks Lord Roem! Now I'm waiting for a mediator :) Does it usually take long time to have the case assigned? Best (Ximhua (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

The case must be accepted first. If accepted, a mediator will be assigned. Lord Roem (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! How long does it typically take for a case to be accepted/rejected? I keep asking as I see you are on the committee. Just trying to educate myself. If I ask too many questions, let me know and I'll stop. Best, Ximhua (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries, questions are always welcome.
The time for accepting or rejecting a case varies, from a few days to as much as a month. You'll recieve an automated message on your talk page once a decision is made. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Best, (Ximhua (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC))

Hi Lord Roem, just checking on the Bulgaria dispute. Any update? Ximhua (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lord Roem, I'm very disappointed in the rejection... reading Tourbillon's talk page adding additional users who did not agree (false positives) were encouraged. If you see the talk page on Bulgaria, you'll see that there are even new users who have posted in favor of 681 as a date. Can you advise on next steps please? Ximhua (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord_Roem/Archive5&oldid=1148823591"