User talk:Roger Davies

ARCHIVES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

A-Class discussion

Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hello Roger: I'm not a registered user in English Wikipedia, but I am a contributor in some articles wich subject sometimes provoques many discussions. However, I try always made good contributions. Now, I'm asking your help because User talk:History2007. He is destroying all of my contributions, he just accept their information and not information added by other users and he delete important images or, sometimes, include images where they are not related, etc. How can I still contributing if he is always destroying my work, specially in Marian apparition, Visions of Jesus and Mary, or related articles? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Academy

Nice work; it looks really good, and will hopefully become an excellent resource. EyeSerene^talk 12:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk

There has recently been some conjecture as to how to describe the victory by the German forces. Can you or other members of the project group please assist in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to call for a consensus decision in order to establish the infobox statement regarding the outcome of the battle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

Protecting against Vandalism

Howdy,

I am thinking about becoming an admin and would like to begin reverting vandalisms. You are an administrator and I was wondering if you could lead me to something that could start me to reverting vandalisms. Thanks and Have a Great Day! Lord R. Oliver I ^{His Lordship's Court} 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't do a great deal myself but it just involves undoing the vandal's changes. It's explained here in more detail. There are some javascript add-ons, see WP:TWINKLE, that make life easier by adding templates and so forth from a menu on your desktop. WP:ROLLBACK is handy too. – Roger Davies ^talk 05:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Try recent changes patrol. Tiptoety ^talk 05:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Contest

I'm in the middle of compiling scores off-line to make only one edit to update them, but I need a second opinion if some of Piotrus' articles fall in the scope: Eryk Lipiński, Tajne Wojskowe Zakłady Wydawnicze and Holocaust in Lithuania. He himself expresses some doubt about this so... -MBK₀₀₄ 05:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, yes, maybe. (I always include the holocaust, but others may not. We should clarify this.) – Roger Davies ^talk 06:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind scoring those three? -MBK₀₀₄ 06:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. All Bs. – Roger Davies ^talk 06:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. I excluded the last two. :O Fixing now...but the Halocaust is not in our scope, so I assumed that the Lithuania one was not. :/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think inclusion depends on the military component. Holocaust in Lithuania was largely run by the SS, as were the camps but let's discuss it here. – Roger Davies ^talk 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Out and Back Again

Well, I guess I spoke too soon. A few days after I said I was back, I got mono :P. Gotta love it. So, now I have a huge amount of schoolwork to make up, so I guess I'll have to turn in for a full-fledged Wikibreak. Thought I'd let you know. Once I get back, I'll see if I can finally finish that A-class review that was closed. Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Good luck with the school stuff :) – Roger Davies ^talk 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Wallie

Thanks for the block, Roger (I was heading there myself after that last comment). EyeSerene^talk 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ta! – Roger Davies ^talk 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Coord-ship...ness...thingie...

Wow, thanks Roger. That means a lot to me. Can you point me to a page that outlines the tasks that a Coordinator undertakes? I know mosy of it is opening/closing reviews and that sort of thing, but I'd like to refresh my memory! Skinny87 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, between you and the missus, I've been persuaded. I'll put myself up as soon as the page is created, and then let the community decide. Do we get a secret decoder ring and flashy cape, or is that only Arbitrators? Skinny87 (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There was a suggestion a year or so back that coords start wearing their Y-fronts over their trousers and a tablecloth safety-pinned to their shoulders, but it didn't catch on. – Roger Davies ^talk 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer - I've just started a new job and my time is severely limited so I'm veering towards a no this time (although I'll think quite hard about it, I'd like to take up a more active role in the project).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps I could be persuaded. I don't have to be an administrator or anything first do I?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You most certainly don't have to be an admin :) – Roger Davies ^talk 05:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do I sign up?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Derrick

Thanks, Roger! But the same goes for you as I said to Nick; you were instrumental in the article's promotion to FA, and I thank you sincerly for all of the time, effort and skill you put into the article, along with taking all of the nagging by me. ;-) Now, you better add Tom Derrick to your list of FAC copy-edits or there will be trouble. :))

I'm a little split on standing for a position as coordinator. I would like too, but I have school factors to consider, and whether or not I would be an asset as a coord. Thanks for the nudge, I'll give it some though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, good. I'm aiming to take Joseph Maxwell through FAC next (which EyeSerene graciously accepted to copy-edit some time ago), but it still needs a bit of work first. Alternatively, I could look through my list of completed Aussie VC articles, but whether any of them are up to scratch I don't know. Although I suspect Edgar Towner and James Newland are the closest of these. I do have a few other plans running though... ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Following quite a bit of umming and arring, I have decided I will stand for election. Whether I am wanted and suited for the position I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

coordinator elections.

I am honoured that you think I would be an asset, however I don't think I have the temperament having a short fuse at times --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the amount of traffic we are getting here I created a new section on the coordinator academy page dispelling some common myths. Its written by "the coordinators" as a whole, so we should all feel free to edit it accordingly. My hope is that this helps answer some common questions that seem to reappear with every election. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool :) Thanks, Tom, – Roger Davies ^talk 08:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I created two addition pages sections; one concerning the election process and one discussing co-option. Both are at the academy, and with luck will help us help the community better understand coordinatorship and some of its finer points. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

...Kirill's trimmed some of it, but the important stuff should still be there. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I'll look at it later :) — Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead Coordinator

Howdy,

I would like to make sure (even though I'm sure you are) that you are running for the position of Lead Coordinator of the Military History WikiProject and if you are not I would strongly like to influence you towards running. You have done such a great job and have kept the WikiProject if not the greatest one of the greatest WikiProjects in the whole of Wikipedia! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Block

I was very annoyed that you blocked me, and extended the block too. I was never given any warning. You just did it. Please do not block me again for harassment. Thank you. Wallie (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(i) I didn't extend the block: it was always forty-eight hours. (ii) You had already been warned by EyeSerene and you have been around long enough to know the ropes. (iii) The block was reviewed by two admins who saw no reason to disturb it. (iv) I didn't block you for harassment: I blocked you for incivility, personal attacks and failing to assume good faith. — Roger Davies ^talk 13:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not know who EyeSerene was. I'll be frank. He came across as being very rude, flamed the situation, and made me very annoyed. He never said he was warning me as an administrator. I think it is most unfair. As for being reviewed by two admins, I did find out that once a person is blocked, it is hardly ever overturned. Wallie (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My take was he just said what needed to be said but I don't expect we'll see eye to eye on that :) — Roger Davies ^talk 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we will. It is me who will have to live with the shame, not you. :( Wallie (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - March 2009

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad

Hi Roger, the edit war over this article has broken out again. I've got now idea what's going on in the article - could you give it a look? Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got a nagging suspicion about one of the IPs. Does checkuser have the ability to trace the national location of the IP? Cam ^(Chat) 02:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

S/he is apparently editing from California (Google "whois" and then enter the IP address) though it may be a proxy. I think it's the same person I blocked on this article a few times last year. — Roger Davies ^talk 06:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you don't need to go to google to whois, the footer of IP contributions pages has a link found in MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was another of the great many things about Wikipedia I'd never noticed before. I sometimes think I sleepwalk through most of my time here :) — Roger Davies ^talk 13:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK might also be helpful ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[chuckle] — Roger Davies ^talk 12:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Adil your

Hi. Can you take a look at this guy's edits to variuos subcontinental war articles. I don't rate him as anything more than a vandal with the sources he is using, and in any case, he is reverting against a consensus, in my opinion, eg see Khemkaran, and the ridiculous "source" that he is using. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Still no sign of him. — Roger Davies ^talk 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He'll be back tomorrow. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And back to his usual tricks. I'll leave him a message and if he doesn't heed it he may well find himself adopting a lower profile again. — Roger Davies ^talk 07:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST elections

Are you going to fill out your statement and answer the questions or are you just running on your name recognition? :P -MBK₀₀₄ 16:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think brand recognition will get me very far :) In fact, I've already started off-wiki and was going to sort it either this evening or tomorrow. — Roger Davies ^talk 16:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick interjection: My decision not to list a support for you or other candidates in the current elections shouldn't be construed as to demonstrate any failure on my part to support you or other coords in your actions. In coord elections this year, I supported youth and high activity, as opposed to experience. I still love ya'. BusterD (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Operation Crossroads

Hello,

FYI, on November 20, I tripled the length of this article. It may not be good yet, but I think it's better than it was. HowardMorland (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I've had a look at this and think it's a great improvement! If you could use collaborators to take it to the next step, you might want to consider joining one of the our task forces. Several may be of interest:

• United States military history (talk)
• Military aviation (talk)
• Military technology and engineering (talk)
• Weaponry (talk)

You're also very welcome to join the main Military history WikiProject itself. the sign up page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Active.

All the best, — Roger Davies ^talk 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hello Roger, I am in a bind. I suspect a user and a number of anonymous ip addresses are acting as sockpuppets for User:Rockyobody. I request you checkuser on User:Rockyobody and User:Eaglesfan619. Rockyobody has was accused by another user of using several anonymous ip addresses as sock puppets.[1] The other ip addresses have made similar edits as Rockyobody and appear to be from the same or similar locations. Eaglesfan619 was made days before Rockyobody temporarily retired from wikipedia. He has since come out of retirement to fight the sock puppet investigtion. Rockyobody and I were engaged in an edit war regarding the article Larry Elder which was never fully resolved. After the admin edit protected the page, the day the protection expired, Eaglesfan619 edited it and apparently is acting in a way opposite to his previous position to either make my position look bad or just to cause controversy. Eaglesfan619 and Rockyobody have both made edits to Larry Elder, Michael S. Steel, Steve Laffey and various United States elections for 2010. On top of that, Rockyobody has previously mentioned he is an Eagles fan.[2] Eaglesfan619 has claimed innocence, yet is already very knowledgeable of wikipedia policy such as edit summaries and commenting on talk pages. His longwinded style writing on my talk page is very similar to that of Rockyobody. I don't know what else to do but ask for the help of someone who can checkuser him. Thorburn (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thorburn! Although I have checkuser permissions, I hardly ever use the tool and I am a novice at investigations. Your best bet is to report your concerns at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, which you do by completing an online form. They've geared up for this with specialist admins who do the work and handle any necessary follow up. It takes a while but they're very thorough and much better at the interpretation than I am. Thanks for the message and all the best, — Roger Davies ^talk 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Roger. I appreciate the help. I'll just let the sock puppet investigation take its course then. Thanks again! Thorburn (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure, — Roger Davies ^talk 12:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Howdy

Howdy,

First off I'm very excited to see that you are running for Lead Coordinator again. Secondly I wanted to know if you could check out my article Uniforms of the Confederate States military forces, I was wondering if it was ready for the Wikipedia:Good article nominations or if it needing more work. Thanks and Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an exceptionally handsome article, of which you should be inordinately proud. I know very little about the current GA requirements, I'm afraid, or how they're interpreted, but nothing strikes me as being flawed about it.

Otherwise, thank you very much for your kind words and have a great day yourself :) — Roger Davies ^talk 12:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SO Much and Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 21:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

MILMOS ammendment

Well, I think everybody involved in the discussion expressed their vote and there is enough consensus to adopt "Option 2". Cheers, -Eurocopter (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's barely been up for 36 hours and Options 1 & 2 look awfully close to me :) Let's leave it a day or two longer? — Roger Davies ^talk 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the majority for adopting the guideline is quite clear (option 2+3). Nevermind, let's wait another 36 hours to be sure. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I'll close it tomorrow if nothing dramatic happens ... — Roger Davies ^talk 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion we should consider Option 2 & 3 together when we establish consensus to adopt the guideline, and only afterwards confront them to see which version should be adopted. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting user talk on request

This should not be done. Many editors contributed to that page. Also in the case of disruptive editors the user talk serves as a useful record of past events. Friday (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, nevermind- looks like it was only deleting select edits. As long as there's a legit privacy reason for it, no problem with that at all. Friday (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Luck

Good Luck on the Election for Coordinator! I Hope you Make It! You have been such a Great Lead Coordinator. :) Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 00:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems we have our first official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages and your good wishes :) — Roger Davies ^talk 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466's ad hominems

Apologies, but this is not the first time Jayen466 has used ad hominems to attempt to discredit me and as a distraction tactic. Please see the proposed finding of fact (with diffs) that I've added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop#Jayen466 has repeatedly engaged in unprovoked ad hominems. I note that you've already added a principle on decorum, but given Jayen466's tendency to use ad homs against those with whom he disagrees, I think it would be useful to explicitly warn him off using this tactic in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WWI

Hey, Roger, could you take a look here to ensure that my redrafting of "background" hasn't missed any huge details. It cuts the "causes of the war" section to about 30% of its current size, and I just want to be sure that I haven't missed anything really important in it. Thanks, Cam ^(Chat) 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks good and reads well. You might want to tidy it up when it's all finished for consistency of variant spelling: mobilise v. mobilize for instance but that's trivial. Really excellent work so far, Cam. — Roger Davies ^talk 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Aitias

Are you aware that he is retiring? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd heard rumours but thanks for the info :) — Roger Davies ^talk 16:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

With Thanks

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your leadership of The Military History WikiProject from September 2008–March 2009, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. Cam (Chat) 00:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Jefferson Vaughan, Jr.

Good day Mr. Davies! Have a request that I need an admin for I think. I have just finished this general's page and making the redirects to it, and one of them (Alfred J. Vaughan, Jr.) came up as deleted on 27 May 2007 by User:Irishguy. Because he has since retired, I was hoping you could either compare it to the current article or un-delete it and I'll take a look to see if anything's of value. Here's the edit history for the deleted page:

• 21:03, 27 May 2007 Irishguy (talk | contribs) deleted "Alfred J. Vaughan, Jr." ‎ (CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance)
• 20:57, 27 May 2007 Irishguy (talk | contribs) deleted "Alfred J. Vaughan, Jr." ‎ (blanked by author)

I'd appreciate anything you can do! Kresock (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the look. There are little bits in it that I'd like to include, but as you say the lack of citing is a problem. I'll toss the text into one of my sandboxes for now. Again apprectiate you supplying it to me. Good day! Kresock (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure. Good luck! — Roger Davies ^talk 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looong time, no talk

Hey, Roger, remember me? How are you and all things military? I've been busy with life and school and work and home improvement; for a while I even ran out of back burners for Wikipedia. :) Anyway, I've noticed lately that the natives are getting restless over at Arthur Rimbaud, so I was considering restarting the project. I'm currently collaborating on Oliver Wendell Holmes (a doctor poet!) with Midnightdreary, but when time permits I aim to gather up my Rimbaud library again. Perhaps in the next couple months I'll be able to dedicate myself to all things sullen, French and poetic. Just letting you know, in case you wanted/were able to jump in! Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was thinking about this a couple of weeks back. I've recently acquired a biography of Rimbaud and separately his collected correspondence by Jean-Jacques Lefrère, a French academic and Rimbau-phile. This coincided with getting a new biography of Rimbaud by Edmund White. I've read both biogs but am very short of time just at the moment. Do get the White book: it's very insightful and our sense of humour :) I hope I will be able to jump in when things quieten ... — Roger Davies ^talk 16:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do! A couple years ago, White wrote a great novel (Hotel de Dream) about Stephen Crane, his brothel-running ladylove, Cora, and a rumored/lost Crane story dealing with male prostitution. I read it over Thanksgiving break, soon after bringing Crane's article through FAC. Great fun. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not read that but will seek it out. I like EW. — Roger Davies ^talk 07:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: You must "The Alienist" by Caleb Carr. I read it a few years back but a friend visiting in January read it while she was here and left it out. Which prompted me to re-read it. Outstanding stuff. There's also a sequel; which is less good. (I'm trying to get L'Awadewit to read it too; to drag her kicking and screaming into the early twentieth century :)

Can you help me?

Hi Roger.

If you get a chance, can you look at Special:Contributions/John_Tyuts and Special:Contributions/4kjn5tb? They are obviously the same person, and I think that it is likely that Special:Contributions/Tggurb_o_selt is also another of his socks. I was hoping that possibly you could nuke some IPs or catch a few sleepers.

Thanks for your time.

Regards,

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

These seem focused on the South Vietnamese Coup article. As you know, front page articles always attract a load of drive-by vandalism. Let's see if these are disposible accounts for the day or whether more return tomorrow with the same editing pattern. Thank you for the very good thought and the swift blocks. — Roger Davies ^talk 16:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They're using dial up, so they're probably throw away vandals. And it looks like you've got the ones we can be reasonably sure of. — Roger Davies ^talk 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for information, some related problems were reported overnight and have now been dealt with by my colleagues. So, a clean sweep :) — Roger Davies ^talk 07:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Call for evidence

With regards to your 'call for evidence' on the Scientology case, I have something which I feel is cruicial to the case. It has to do specifically with the behaviour of one editor in particular. I have not gotten involved with the case as part of the conditions of my unblock are that I try to stay out of matters concerning Scientology articles (I am a member of 'Anonymous ). The admin who unblocked me said he would look at what I have and see if it was suitable to post, but since you specifically requested any evidence, I thought you may also like to take a look.The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that this involves me? --Justallofthem (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement - Cirt

Regarding Proposed enforcement - Cirt - As this is implicit in WP:UNINVOLVED, and I have made a statement agreeing to this anyway at [3], is a formal Proposed enforcement ruling on this by the Arbitration Committee needed? Cirt (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've been at the very heart of great controversy in this case and so it's the obvious place to note it. — Roger Davies ^talk 07:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also related to this case, the notifications are done. I hope the text of the notes was what you were looking for. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a return to the same type of problem Jehochman protested against so strongly during the early workshop phase:

• Do you not see that a mob is after Cirt? Are you trying to encourage them? Jehochman Talk 00:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• When a hatchet job is ongoing, it is most useful to tell the hatchet wielders to stop, rather than to say, "No a hatchet is too strong, use a club instead." Jehochman Talk 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Kirill may have fallen for the old ploy--throw enough mud and some will stick--but I've seen it too many times before, both here and in meatspace. Jehochman Talk 02:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Roger, your reasoning here appears to be that when a critical mass of mud gets thrown, a remedy must follow. That would be a very damaging route for ArbCom and its chilling effect would extend past this case.

Cirt is the highest featured content contributor on Scientology-related topics. Policy already states when administrators must remain uninvolved, and Cirt has followed that policy. He has even gone beyond it with a voluntary pledge to avoid use of the administrator tools on this topic. If ArbCom sanctions him regardless, it would become ammunition for disruptive SPAs to use against him later on, and productive Wikipedians would have yet another reason to stay away from controversial areas altogether.

If - in addition to relentless attacks by POV-pushing SPAs, frivolous administrator noticeboard threads getting raised against oneself, and drawn-out Arbitration cases - ArbCom ultimately validates the mudslinging, then no sensible editor would even bother trying to improve controversial articles. ←Spidern→ 17:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Having had a look at this guideline, it appears to say that editors should not continue to edit in support of something already decided against. It seems to me, that if it is thought necessary to have a vote on an issue, then obviously the issue has not been decided nor even a consensus formed, else there would be no need for the vote. In this particular case, there may be a consensus amongst mil hist coordinators against the use of C-class. However, obviously even these people do not consider the issue settled, else once again there would be no need for a vote. The vote is presumably intended to draw in new contributors, since the existing ones were unable to settle the matter. wikipedia in general frowns upon votes to settle issues, preferring debate. yet in this case a vote has been initiated divorced from the debate which lies behind it. You and I and others who have regularly contributed to this discussion presumably understand the issues involved or have at least formed their opinions. However, the simple fact of presenting this to a wider audience makes it clear that others who have previously not been involved are being asked to comment, and this is being done deliberately without presenting the arguments involved, nor even pointing out where they might be found. Can you honestly say that is an impartial way to conduct a vote on an issue where the main parties hold themselves unable to make the decision? Sandpiper (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)