User talk:Roger Davies

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Who was she trying to do right by? It didn't seem like a fair shake to TKOP. I won't repeat the accusations though, once is enough. I will excuse myself for the rest of the night so I don't pop off at the mouth any more tonight. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably wise,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please consider the merits of Salvio's oppose. I think it's the best idea in front of the committee now for this situation and will help vastly address both peoples complaints. Nothing say it has to be a popular result but a fair result that benefits the encyclopedia that stops disruption is the way to go. Those sanctions of admin boards removal is something that has seemed to work well with Tarc. I would ddefintely sacrifice my pride for such an equitable result. It doesn't address the off wiki issues butI don't follow people on private websites and can easily ignore the attack page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I do see the merits and support what he says. I said as much earlier when I opposed the motion in its current form. I'll raise some practical options for discussion,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, please please do. I really think it is a great great great solution. The encyclopedia wins, it's why we're here anyways so I am completely at peace with something like that, it acknowledges problems on both users. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, how do you feel about a topic ban? I think it would help you (and others) move on. I have in mind the standard GGTF one.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd first like to point your attention to User:Jehochman's threat [[1]]. I find that innapropriate as I am not trashing anybody in my post and think it is constructive. Please address this with Jehochman who apparently not even concerned with the due diligence before handing out an ultimatum. As for the topic ban, I will explain why more when I get home in a couple hours but I am against the topic ban. An Iban amd the other restrictions should be sufficient and I will explain why. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me. The motion page would have been the appropriate page. It's on my watchlist of course, so I don't even have to be pinged. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No complaints from me about Jehochman's note at all and I agree with Doug. Frankly, HIAB. you were lucky not to be blocked. Next, I've just caught up with all your comments last night/this morning and a t-ban is likely inescapable whether you like it or not. Finally, if you can't trust yourself to respond calmly and quietly, don't respond at all.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it doesn't count when arbs comment. Good to know. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a word or two about the "spamming". Simply put, arbitrators are already following cases and sending them pro forma messages only adds to the clutter. It can also provoke side-disputes. Also, if everyone did it, we'd spend our days reading our talk pages. That's the rationale behind Jon Hochman's notice to you, and it is one I endorse.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the reasoning he left on my page although not to my particular preferred vision shows enough insight to a few of the things he said that I modified my claim. I had to give him credit for a valid rationale. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions, comments

Since Hell in a Bucket is posting some questions and comments here about the ARCA proceeding, I'm going to assume it's OK for me to do the same.

I asked a question there that you haven't responded to that I can see, so I'd like to ask here:

Can you clarify? Do you propose that I would need to get permission to go to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:NORN, WP:RSN, and so on? As I just suggested, I am open to being banned - say for six months - from ANI, as Salvio suggested, if HIAB is banned, too (based on the evidence that he used that forum at least as often as I).[2]

It appears that we're talking about conduct disputes rather or more than content disputes. Lightbreather (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The DR fora are basically WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:ARCA, and WP:AE,  Roger Davies ^talk 02:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to ask to remove the two May 2014 items listed by Karanacs yesterday,[3] as everything else is from Aug/Sept. 2014 to date.[4] Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs requested that I add these to your case, Lightbreather.

From Wikipedia Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement plus a long comment on an SPI

1. Request agains Eric Corbett, initiated 24 January 2015 by Lightbreather, resulting in a 48 hour block of Eric Corbett[5]
2. Eric Corbett (2), [6] initiated by Rationalobserver, long comment by Lightbreather on 28 January 2015[7]. Case closed and deleted shortly after.
3. Lightbreather commented on an SPI of Darknipples. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darknipples/Archive EChastain (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you added those, but those are recent, which I don't mind. It's the two from May of last year that I'm asking about, since all the other diffs are from Aug/Sept. to date. Lightbreather (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the data. I'll be going through these in close detail if the current draft is scuppered.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

question about deleted discussions that are still relevant

hello, since you commented on clerk Lixxx235's talk, I'll ask my question here about deleted pages, such as [8] ‎and [9] These discussions are still relevant to current requests. But since they are deleted, there's no way to find these motions and requests. Is there anyway that this practice can be changed, as important info is lost? EChastain (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

How are they deleted? Both those links work.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the link to Eric Corbett 2 only works because I linked to a diff. The link to Eric Corbertt 2 doesn't work, as the request has been deleted .[10], so there's no way for someone to know it ever existed.

What will happen to [11]? I tried to put it into a arbitration category, like Liz was doing, but was reverted. EChastain (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

proxies

Lightbreather has used proxies in two cases that I've seen. One, when TParis initiated a SPI against me when Lightbreather was blocked. (Lightbreather opened a second one with the same evidence 10 days after.) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive. The second is the initiation of Eric Corbett 2, (which I currently can't find). Here is the first one opened by Lightbreather,[12]. Anyway, it was initiated after a posting by Lightbreather on a mailing list naming Eric Cobertt and giving a link. It was opened by Rationalobserver. Please consider this as a modus operandi of Lightbreather. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)