User talk:Roger Davies: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:49, 20 September 2010

This user is lead coordinator of the Military history WikiProject

This user is an administrator

This user is a member of the Arbitration Committee

ARCHIVES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24

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 (~~~~)

Made an appeal to a collective 1RR limitation sanction which you previously commented on

See [1]. I would like to inform all parties that could provide useful information, but I am not sure what is the best way. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there seems to be a plan or suggestion to close my appeal even before there has been any discussion among uninvolved editors [2]. I read the policy and my understanding is that it is my responsibility to let uninvolved editors know about the discussion at appropriate locations. However, I am looking around and cannot determine which are the appropriate locations. In fact, I would have asked this question in some other location instead than here, but it is not even obvious to me what is the appropriate location to ask a question about appropriate locations. I know, it is a kind of funny situation. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway's hatting of discussions: Collapse - not really sanctionable

This is in regards to this edit.[3] I'm not sure you saw this, I prepared an FoF in my user space.[4] I know that it's not what ArbCom was asking as far as battlefield mentality, but I think an appropriate sanction would be that Tony Sidaway is not allow to collapse discussions in the CC topic space for a period of 6-12 months or whatever you think is appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did see it. Collapsing discussions is not actionable. Any editor may remove hatting. Roger Davies ^talk 12:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB:hatting discussion was cited as an actionable edit against me. It was Tony Sidaway who gave me the idea -- saw him doing it and thought it was acceptable or even encouraged. Interesting how this case is playing out. Minor4th 06:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not cited as actionable against you by me. The hatting would really have be extreme, probably for example combined with edit-warring to keep the hat in or personal attacks against the de-hatters, to reach the level where it would sanctionable. Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, you voted in support of it. There was no edit warring on the the hatting and no personal attacks. Did you even look at the diffs or was there some other reason you made up your mind about me? I think there's more going on here that has nothing to do with these CC pages, as was mentioned by others to you privately. Maybe you should have recused in my case. Minor4th 07:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I'm sorry but I must be missing something here. As far as I can see, your FoF doesn't mention hatting, nor are their examples in any of the included diffs. Can you point me please to where I've voted to support a sanction based on hatting? Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email. Minor4th 08:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change arbitration: Nota bene

This note of a duplicate discussion of the GregJackP disruptive editing case. --TS 06:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it. Actually this long discussion now seems to have ended so it's probably another candidate for collapsing to make the page more readable. --TS 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will do shortly. Roger Davies ^talk 12:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiChevrons

Thank you very much! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTRC) (UTC)

Pleasure. Roger Davies ^talk 12:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the gun?

I see that you voted to support the FoF against me.[5] Are you at least going to give me a chance to explain myself before making up you mind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly normal to sign by supporting the FoFs that one drafts. In any case, it was based on the extensive discussions which have already place and in which you have participated. Roger Davies ^talk 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My participation was minimal. The evidence presented against me is so poor, I honestly didn't anyone would take it seriously. But I guess I'll have to issue an explanation. I hope that you will keep an open mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an FYI. I am planning on posting a full response to the FoF. It's mostly typed up, but I'm trying to understand the two BLP allegations. Hopefully, it will be up there in a day or two. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is another FYI. I will be helping my brother move Saturday during the day and then will attend the Naperville Independent Film Festival at night. I probably won't have much time to edit tomorrow. I hope to post my official statement to the proposed FoF about me on Sunday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted my response.[6] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste error?

Roger Davies: Is the last diff[7] in the "incivil or promoted a battleground mentality" a copy and paste error? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More QVC vandalism

Hi again,

The IP address 207.140.171.127 has been repeatedly removing the advert tag from the QVC page again. According to his talk page the IP is registered to QVC and had also removed the tag several times before. I think a more long term solution needs to be put in place to stop these edits. Deftera (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deftera:

I COI-templated the IP's page a couple of days ago. Since then, all seems quiet on the western front, though it may kick up again during office hours Monday. I have the article on my watchlist but do let me know if this restarts. Roger Davies ^talk 05:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that. Deftera^talk 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

This troubles me. [8] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Roger Davies ^talk 08:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain it. It happens for the same reason that I was sanctioned for 1 revert. He's not on the "right" side and he's not an "admin" so two is edit warring, while one on the "right" side and who is an "admin" can revert seven times. GregJackP Boomer! 05:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can only act on the evidence put before us, which I believe we do without fear or favour. How else should we operate? If we passed findings solely to ensure that equal numbers of editors on both sides of a dispute were sanctioned, we'd be accused of ignoring the evidence and operating an unfair quota system (and indeed such accusations have been made in the past). Your comment about admins surprises me as ArbCom has no qualms whatsoever about removing the sysop bit where appropriate. Roger Davies ^talk 08:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my explanation/response

Roger, I read your answer on the CC PD talk page, and I went back and looked at the diffs you cited about me. I have responded to you there and would really appreciate you taking a look, because it appears you missed something on the Booker analysis (which wouldnt have been obvious just from looking at the diffs). My response is found here [9]. I would really appreciate if you would take a look and respond. I see that you added a section about "topic bans" and I'm worried I'm about to be topic banned when there is still some misunderstanding. Anyway, thanks. Minor4th 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. The essence here is that four reverts in ten hours is by the prevailing community standard santionable edit-warring; whereas two (of which one was to include a requested reference) isn't. Roger Davies ^talk 20:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the diffs and my explanation. There were not four reverts, there was one. I'm aware of the 3RR rule, but that does not apply to these edits. You are listing 3 edits as reverts when they weren't reverts. Please, Roger. Minor4th 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the diffs to my complete response on the PD talk page. Please read [10], [11]. I sent you an email laying it out as well, and you may forward it to the committee. Thanks again. Minor4th 21:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a timeline, if that helps. GregJackP Boomer! 22:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 3.1

Currently, it is worded as such:

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from editing: articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles.

Although it is really rather redundant to the specific remedies, which clarifies this in any case, if you want to pass it, perhaps it should be reworded to something like this:

3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under the following remedies are prohibited from editing Wikipedia pages within the scope of this case, which is defined to be all articles, talk pages, and any Wikipedia process relating to climate change, broadly construed.

Also, 3.1 and 3.2 ought to be split into remedies X and Y, as they should not be mutually exclusive. In addition, both the "Climate Change topic bans" and "WMC bans" are under #3 right now, which ought to be fixed. How do you want to go about fixing that? (see Paul August recent post to clerks-l, which is related). NW (Talk) 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this, including renumbering with a horrible huge document in Word. I'll look at this more closely when I'm through :) Roger Davies ^talk 20:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence

I have added new evidence regarding AQFN, BLP, and battlefield conduct from June-July of 2010 showing a continued pattern of tendentious editing consistent with the evidence from December 2009.[12] Please review it and let me know if there are any issues. Additionally, I have added more diffs illustrating the problem lower in the thread. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll review it very soon. Roger Davies ^talk 05:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies ^talk 19:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:TruckCard

Hello Roger,

Per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Explanation_of_blocks

"The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested."

I would like to see the five blocks recorded in the block log of User:TruckCard [13] reviewed and to see for every one:

the action(s) of User:TruckCard (reviewable evidence)
the invoked WP policy
how that policy justified the block. (reasonable judgment)

Should be easy as it seems it all stems from a limited set of activities performed within less than 48 hours and all related to National identity cards.

User:TruckCard 79.193.155.128 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your email. Roger Davies ^talk 05:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. The email contained only an /opinion/. There was not any diff of what action I have done that merited invoking which WP policy. The explanations of the blocks and the explanations of the declines fail to meet the requirements set forth in Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Explanation_of_blocks. User:TruckCard 79.193.135.8 (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the arbitrator dealing with this and I have my hands full with other things at the moment. Best is to respond to the email by email and stop using IP addresses to evade your block. Roger Davies ^talk 21:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not the arbitrator dealing with this" - who then is? I shall not use IP addresses? But this is the only way to contribute, except for creating a new account. Do you want me to create a new account? Isn't that ruled out by WP:SOCK? Or do you mean the indef block was against WP policies, so I am entitled to create a new account? User:TruckCard 79.193.151.189 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CC - Proposed FoF and remedy

Roger, please note [14]. I want to make sure it's looked into before it is archived. --JN466 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! and request for help

Hi, Roger! :)

I sent you an e-mail yesterday asking for your help, and I just wanted to alert you to it, in case you don't check that e-mail address very often. Hoping all's well with you, Willow (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CC case

Please do let me know if you are considering entering a Finding of Fact about me. I didn't think that making a fuller statement would be necessary, but I feel that I should if you are thinking about doing so. Thank you, NW (Talk) 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. Roger Davies ^talk 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 :: Thanks for the pointer. The email contained only an /opinion/. There was not any diff of what action I have done that merited invoking which WP policy. The explanations of the blocks and the explanations of the declines fail to meet the requirements set forth in [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Explanation_of_blocks]]. [[User:TruckCard]] [[Special:Contributions/79.193.135.8|79.193.135.8]] ([[User talk:79.193.135.8|talk]]) 14:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 ::: I'm not the arbitrator dealing with this and I have my hands full with other things at the moment. Best is to respond to the email by email and stop using IP addresses to evade your block. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 21:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
+:::: "I'm not the arbitrator dealing with this" - who then is? I shall not use IP addresses? But this is the only way to contribute, except for creating a new account. Do you want me to create a new account? Isn't that ruled out by [[WP:SOCK]]? Or do you mean the indef block was against WP policies, so I am entitled to create a new account?  [[User:TruckCard]] [[Special:Contributions/79.193.151.189|79.193.151.189]] ([[User talk:79.193.151.189|talk]]) 00:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 == CC - Proposed FoF and remedy ==