User talk:Roger Davies: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:28, 6 February 2015

This user is lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject

This user is an administrator

This user is a member of the Arbitration Committee

ANNUAL ARCHIVES: 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015

If you are here about an arbitration matter, please - wherever possible - post instead on the appropriate arbitration page to keep discussion centralised.

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 (~~~~)

rhetoric

I've always wondered what people mean by rhetoric? I don't mean anything bad just asking if you can explain to me whaqt it is (not specific actions unless you wish). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, I guess it's reporting facts with links, rather than expressing opinions in dramatic terms based on those facts. Bit of a balancing act sometimes. I hope this helps, Roger Davies ^talk 19:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HIAB. As a follow up to this, no matter how strongly you feel, it's really not a good idea to bandy accusations of underhandedness and bad faith about. Roger Davies ^talk 09:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is a consideration of the evidence presented. I don't mean it as a personal attack but I think that her comments today show that she may not be thinking about this rationally. I can drag up the diffs as to why I am stating that, it's not meant for dramatic effect. II think in this area she may indeed have a COI. In the arbcase she told me to go to SPI when I reported the socking on the talkpage, i went then she denied saying that she said to go there or at the very least misinterperted it. Now we have her taking gender meanings to "Wail", Get wound up" and describing behaviors as "cute" of sexism. Then she starts a motino and hides it claiming that I thought the clerks would do it and didn't even have the consideration to do it herself since it was her motion. How long has she been on the committee is there a good reason to believe she wouldn't uhave a good understanding of the processes? Am I missing something here? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face the facts, I talk about accountability a lot. Here's mine, I am argumentative, I get hot headed. I have a difficult time with dishonesty, corruption and controlling my mouth when provoked or under stress. I do however accept and encourage disagreements as long as they are backed by a valid rationale. I am far far from perfect, but when I'm being portrayed as the problem when I present a huge amount of evidence of behaviors and I'm still the issue I have a problem with that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way. Everything to do with ArbCom is surrounded by masses of very un-wiki bureaucracy, mostly because of historic attempts to do right by parties who say they're not getting a fair crack of the whip. It's inevitable that arbitrators will make small procedural slips from time to time. It doesn't mean anything and isn't really significant. Roger Davies ^talk 09:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question about sanctions

Sorry to post here, (yes I read your note at the top) but I really don't feel like involving any of the other arbitrators in this question. You seem to be the owner of a rational & well-oiled noggin, and more importantly you don't speak down to other's with a mouthful of legalese; This is why I'm approaching you. From the GGTF case, I have an indefinite topic ban. I know what "indefinite" means, but I also noticed that those who were indefinitely banned are able to request their sanction being removed after a year. Does the same timeframe apply to topic bans? Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's about right. But unless the atmosphere around the topic changes significantly, I doubt the committee will consider relaxing topic bans that soon. Roger Davies ^talk 04:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typo'?

I think there's a word missing in there somewhere. ("Commentary – varying from constructive criticism to ad hominin remarks – about Wifione has posted in many forums on many occasions on many years without resolution.") --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and fixed. I'm rubbish at proofreading my own stuff. Thank you for telling me, Roger Davies ^talk 13:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

News and notes: No men beyond this point: the proposal to create a no-men space on Wikipedia

Op-ed: Is Wikipedia for sale?

In the media: Gamergate and Muhammad controversies continue

Traffic report: The American Heartland

Featured content: It's raining men!

Arbitration report: Slamming shut the GamerGate

WikiProject report: Dicing with death – on Wikipedia?

Technology report: Security issue fixed; VisualEditor changes

Gallery: Langston Hughes

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 :I think that it is a consideration of the evidence presented. I don't mean it as a personal attack but I think that her comments today show that she may not be thinking about this rationally. I can drag up the diffs as to why I am stating that, it's not meant for dramatic effect. II think in this area she may indeed have a COI. In the arbcase she told me to go to SPI when I reported the socking on the talkpage, i went then she denied saying that she said to go there or at the very least misinterperted it. Now we have her taking gender meanings to "Wail", Get wound up" and describing behaviors as "cute" of sexism. Then she starts a motino and hides it claiming that I thought the clerks would do it and didn't even have the consideration to do it herself since it was her motion. How long has she been on the committee is there a good reason to believe she wouldn't uhave a good understanding of the processes? Am I missing something here? [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 09:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 ::Let's face the facts, I talk about accountability a lot. Here's mine, I am argumentative, I get hot headed. I have a difficult time with dishonesty, corruption and controlling my mouth when provoked or under stress. I do however accept and encourage disagreements as long as they are backed by a valid rationale. I am far far from perfect, but when I'm being portrayed as the problem when I present a huge amount of evidence of behaviors and I'm still the issue I have a problem with that. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
+:Look at it this way. Everything to do with ArbCom is surrounded by masses of very un-wiki bureaucracy, mostly because of historic attempts to do right by parties who say they're not getting a fair crack of the whip. It's inevitable that arbitrators will make small procedural slips from time to time. It doesn't mean anything and isn't really significant. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 09:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 == A question about sanctions ==