Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lord Roem

Lord Roem

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (43/2/2); Scheduled to end 21:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Lord Roem (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors, it's my very great pleasure to nominate Lord Roem for adminship :). A fellow legal eagle, we first ran into each other in December 2010, when I provided sources so he could write the excellent Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez article. Since then I've watched him flourish; he's served as a Clerk to the Arbitration Committee, participated in both anti-vandalism and deletion work, and despite the constant and lamentable distractions that clerking brings, come into his own as an article writer - Velazquez, along with three other articles of his, are now GAs.

He's got a good head on his shoulders, he's got the experience and steady bearing to be excellent at whichever area of adminship he turns his hand to, and he understands content work as well as the next guy - the next guy being me. The only surprising thing about this nomination is that it hadn't already happened. Hopefully the community will feel the same way :). Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank Ironholds for his very kind words and I accept the nomination. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to take part in several areas where I have a great deal of experience. First and foremost, DYK. After 24 of my own articles up on the main page, a great deal of reviews, and work on transferring accepted hooks to prep areas, I feel I'm ready to help out in an administrative fashion. What triggered this feeling? There have been many occasions (like here & here) where I was online, there were empty queue areas, and the bot missed an update. There's seems to be a need for more help in that area, and I'm willing to lend a hand. Additionally, I would work in AFD and contribute to vandal fighting at AIV, places I've already contributed to in a non-admin fashion.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm proud to be writing in a content area that seems (if not is in actuality) less populated, both in writers and in articles. From the very beginning, my goal was to write an article for every single Supreme Court case in the past decade. While I haven't reached that lofty goal, my legal articles have filled an important gap. Along with Velazquez as noted in the nomination statement, I would pick Washington v. Texas and Taylor v. Illinois as my best content contributions. Not only are they, well, interesting articles about important cases, but they show my growth as a writer. I moved from short entries about boring cases to landmark decisions requiring a great search for resources. Even in that process, I was able to collaborate, as editors like NW assisted in gaining access to scholarly material. All in all, content is very important to me, and it will always remain my top priority.

Along with these article-space content contributions, I have done work as a writer for the Signpost Arbitration Report. In January, I collaborated on the report with Steven Zhang, and for the past few months I've been the sole writer. Specifically, I think my most useful Signpost work was on Arbitration statistics (found here) and the Arbitration mailing list (here).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been lucky enough to have escaped any conflict for me or involving any of the articles I work on. But, that doesn't mean I haven't dealt with stress or conflict. Far from it. I have had the privilege of working in Dispute Resolution for the duration of my wiki-life. Whether it involved handling a small dispute on the content noticeboard or a case with the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee, my involvement with mediating conflicts has provided me a great set of useful skills.

As I explained in my nomination for the Mediation Committee, "... if we can stop a dispute in its tracks, through consensus-building and cooperation between all parties, then we may just be able to stitch together editors in respect for each other so that the user conduct issues that evolve into arbitration-issues never occur." Even when mediation has been unsuccessful, I feel it is always important to ensure the parties themselves leave the process able to communicate. The source of most, if not all disputes on Wikipedia are from breakdowns in discussion which devolve quickly into edit wars or fighting. Mediation's goal is to restore that dialogue, bring the editors together, and (barring conduct issues) try to find a solution that has the consensus of all parties. As an admin, stress will probably come at one point or another, but I have seen what causes conflicts, what sparks a dispute. I know how to handle that stress, and how to elevate the discussion to the issues. It's a tremendously difficult thing to do, but I think I'm war-trained to handle it.

As one final thought to this question, I want to add a comment of fellow Mediator Sunray about the process of mediation. He said he saw "mediation as an evolutionary, learning process", one that both resolves the source of a dispute and teaches the parties how to avoid a future one. I think that is the most useful skill an admin can have. Beyond anything else, the mop should know how to clean effectively. I hope you place the trust in me to use that skill.

Additional question from M'encarta

4. What big projects do you plan to participate when you become an admin?

A: I'm a bit confused over exactly what you're asking. If you're asking about what admin-work I would participate in: I plan on working in DYK, AFD, and AIV. These are the three areas I have the most experience in and the most desire to help out. If you're asking about 'projects' in terms of other work: I plan on continuing my personal project of writing articles on Supreme Court cases from the past decade. I've started work on some cases at the beginning, but I have a great deal more to go.

I hope this answers your question. If not, please feel free to ask a follow-up. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Graeme Bartlett

5. Can you explain what happened with File:UK Supreme Court, in session.jpeg?

A: I was writing an article for the Signpost about an update in the pending cases. I wanted to include some pictures of real courtrooms to add color to the usually bland report. (I should note I agreed to drop the idea, after some thought it was distracting). I looked up a picture of the UK Supreme Court. The picture looked like an official 'in-action' shot of the Court, not something owned by Reuters. I used the upload file button to upload it, and it was quickly deleted. After reading the deletion message, I recognized my mistake. And it was an error. That's why I don't plan on uploading images until I get a better grasp on image policy (I think I've only uploaded 3 or 4); it also means I will stay away from that area of administrative work.

I do understand my mistake here. And I also recognize that this is probably my biggest. I believe though, that looking through my contributions, you find that this was an isolated event. Someone needed to slap me with a trout. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Steven Zhang

6. It's not uncommon for administrators to become less active in areas they used to participate after they have a successful RfA. If your RFA passes, will you still be active as in dispute resolution as you are now?

A: Dispute resolution, especially work in mediation, is something I have a passion for. It may be a nightmare for some, but I really enjoy being able to get warring parties to sit down and talk. And when those attempts are successful, it's just really great to see an article at peace. As I said at my mediation nomination (linked in Q3), I envision a Wikipedia where the Arbitration process is starved of cases because so many disputes are resolved at the lower end. It may be an idealistic vision, but it's an aspiration I hold to and one I will continue to strive towards even if this RFA passes.

Dispute resolution is just part of my wiki-genes. Lord Roem (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I wanted to hear. Good man :). Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 00:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from TruPepitoM

7. Do you believe administrators should be required to reach legal age in order to be one? briefly explain your answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruPepitoM (talk • contribs) 01:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A: There are some good arguments on each side of this debate. Those in favor may argue issues of protecting younger editors, while those against could say it's just not that big of a deal. Personally, I tend to side with the latter, those against such a requirement. Editors' and their maturity is not simply based on age. There are young editors who are very clueful and level-headed, while some may not always be said of adult users. In terms of what administrators do, those two qualities, along with a good grasp of policy, will in most cases reach a net positive. Only when it comes to handling sensitive information (like the privileges handled by CUs and Oversighters) should we be concerned about the age of the editor. In those instances, I believe foundation policy requires it. There probably are some legal issues there as well. But none of that business is handled by the average admin, and so I think the case for the requirement is not as strong. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Electriccatfish2

8. When is it appropriate to block an editor? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A: In short, an editor should be blocked when the admin believes the block will prevent damage to Wikipedia. On the converse, admins should not issue things like "cool down blocks" or use the blocking tool as a way to retaliate against other editors. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Dipankan001

9. Under what circumstances shall you a grant a editor IP-Block Exempt? If the user is your closest Wiki friend, and asks you not to ask a checkuser (privacy reasons), would you grant the editor IP Block exempt?

A: Hi, Dipankan001, I'm going to answer your question in two parts.

Firstly, I'd be concerned about why my "wiki friend" is asking me to avoid a critical role in IP-block exceptions (as CUs are utilized to confirm that the user's IP address is actually blocked by a range-block). If I can't confirm that his IP is actually being restricted, then the very first requirement for getting such an extraordinary exemption is not met. Even so, and this would apply to any editor asking about this process, I would assure him/her that CU results are strictly confidential, and the details of which can't be released to those who don't have permission to access private information.

Further, and this is just a meta-answer, I'd be very very uncomfortable acting on such a request on behalf of a "wiki friend". I would have to refer their request to another admin. As a request for an IP exemption takes the form of an unblock appeal, I feel I wouldn't be an impartial party (potentially involved) if this is acting on an editor I know really well. Simply put, if I know someone as a 'friend', I shouldn't be acting on their unblock requests. That would be inappropriate on many levels.

As to the first part of your question... I think I've generally addressed the context of an IP exemption in the discussion above... but, in addition to confirming they are a good-faith editor who is hampered by a range block, we need to confirm they agree to never edit through a blocked proxy. And finally, when the range block expires, they would lose the need for the exemption, an an admin would remove it. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

10. Do you operate, or have you ever operated, other accounts on Wikipedia?

A: No. I have never operated any other accounts on Wikipedia. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Dennis Brown

11. Comparing to non-admins, when, if ever, should an admin be exempt or held to a different standard of conduct or policy? This question would include the issue the paid editing, as well as any other examples you can provide.

A: Administrators are trusted members of the community and need to lead by example. When it comes to administrative decisions, administrators should be responsive to discussion of their actions and willing to accept criticism. You ask whether administrators should be "exempt or held to a different standard of conduct or policy". Well, administrators are bound by the same policies and expectations as any other editor, if not more so due to their position.

You mention the issue of 'paid editing'. I haven't been following those debates closely enough to really have a strong feeling on the question. I feel that if the community does come to the consensus that such behavior is wrong, as a formal policy, then both administrators and non-admin editors alike would be bound by it.

I hope you feel this answered your question, but seeing as I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, please feel free to ask a follow-up. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Lord Roem: Lord Roem (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Lord Roem can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Stats on talk Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong Support — Lord Roem may not have many edits, but is overall a great editor! ⇒TAP 21:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Of course My76Strat (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Seems like a good guy. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Roem is trustworthy, sensible, competent, and hard-working. An excellent candidate who I am pleased to support. AGK [•] 21:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Since he's not around anymore to say it, I'm stealing the line. "Why not?" Sven Manguard Wha? 22:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Qualified candidate Courcelles 22:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Why n...darn you, Sven. MJ94 (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
9. Exemplary candidate, with excellent skills in dispute resolution. Best of luck mate. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
10. Support Seems ready.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
11. Support per Cyberpower678 m'encarta (t)
12. Strongest possible Support LR has a great head on his shoulders and does wonderful work with the clerks --Guerillero | My Talk 02:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. Sterling work in dispute resolution, great content contributions, and a high all-round level of clue. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - I've seen this editor around the Wiki several times, never fails to lend a helping hand... seems like a great admin candidate. :) Theopolisme _{TALK 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)}
15. Support Nice range of solid contributions. Deserves the mop for that along with four barnstars. Minima© (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Obviously a valuable contributor. Low edit count is not a concern for me: the fact that edit count is a concern says more about RfA hoop-jumping requirements than it says about the qualities of the candidate who seems to be trustworthy at meta matters and experienced at content creation. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
17. T. Canens (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
18. Strong Support Experienced editor, knows was he is doing, as per WP:NOTNOTNOW. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
19. Support, per everyone above and the skill as an ArbClerk shown.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
20. Support I've seen Lord Roem about and always thought them to be clueful, intelligent, and sensible. Having looked at their contribs, I find nothing of concern. Slightly low edit count is easily accounted for by the fact this editor has made zero automated edits. LR has relevant experience in the admin areas they wish to work in and I have no reason to believe they are incapable of using the tools in other admin areas. Pol430 talk to me 11:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
21. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
22. →Bmusician 11:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
23. Strong support. Fully qualified candidate who has done good work in several areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
24. Seems fine, good article work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
25. Support Good work, I see nothing that might give me a reason not to support. The Determinator p t c 15:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
26. Solid work in several key administrative areas plus some good content work plus a collegial approach and willingness to discuss and not get hot-headed. I don't normally support users with less than a year's experience, but I do support those who have shown exceptional willingness to help out, and exceptional understanding of how Wikipedia operates. Yes, there will be mistakes, but I'd rather have someone who is willing to get stuck in and learn from their mistakes, than someone too timid to be bold, or who don't learn from their mistakes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
27. What I have seen of him has been nothing but positive. — foxj 15:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Look fine, good luck in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
29. Secret ^account 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. Has clue, will travel. Needs the tools, will use the tools wisely. Not much more I can say. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
31. Support - Eh, I though he already was an admin. More than qualified and an asset to Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
32. Support – their DR work is impressive. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - Candidate does a lot of good and I believe will perform well as an admin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
34. Support - looks like someone who can be trusted with the tools. While the Reuters issue is concerning, we all make mistakes, and LR appears to have learned from this one, which is about all we can ask. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
35. Support - thought he was already an admin, to be honest... Prioryman (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Lord Roem is an excellent editor, whose work here gives ample evidence that this editor will make a good administrator as well. While experience is important, an overemphasis on raw edit count is a mistake, in my opinion. One whose work here is devoted mostly to content creation and mediation will rack up edit counts at a much slower place than an ardent vandal fighter or typo corrector using automated tools. We need a wide range of productive editors, and any moderately experienced, productive editor with a clue ought to be eligible to become an administrator. Despite my deep respect for Jayen466 and Fetchcomms, I do not believe that a single copyright related image upload problem is disqualifying. Fetchcomms wrote that "I care that everyone understands copyright, admin or not". I would rephrase that to say that I care that everyone is committed to copyright compliance. It takes a specialist to understand image copyright deeply, and I said and did some foolish things in good faith regarding images in my early days as an editor. What is important here is that this editor immediately conceded the error, and has pledged not to get involved again in image copyright matters until developing a much deeper understanding. That is the mark of a mature editor and a good candidate for administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
37. Support. Trusted and respected by the most trusted and respected Wikipedians (i.e., the Arbs) - that's good enough for me. Solid contributions, sufficient tenure. QU ^TalkQu 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
38. Support. LR has an impressive track record for one who has been here such a relatively short time and has such a "low" edit count. I was amused to see that he and I interacted on his first day of edits. Apparently, I reverted one of his edits because he didn't cite to anything. He very nicely came to my Talk page to discuss it. As he is now, he was polite, interested in learning, and gracious. He already showed this apparent capacity he has to grasp things quickly and to interact well with others. A suitable temperament is important in an admin. I've also looked at some of the AfDs he's participated in. Although he doesn't seem to have submitted many nominations himself (one?), his behavior at AfD is clear, civil - and, remarkably for the somewhat contentious AfD world, he even demonstrates a sense of humor. His clerking, his involvement in mediation - all these things seem to be part of a piece, and they all speak well of him. Anything he lacks (e.g., the copyright policies) - and all of us are lacking in some areas - he can pick up if need be. We can't and shouldn't expect perfection in admins (or editors); nor should we fault people for being not completely well-rounded. There's plenty of work to go around (otherwise, why would there be backlogs?). He's done well in a short space of time and promises to go nowhere but up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Great work on law and DYK. —HueSatLum 00:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
40. Support - I'd prefer a higher edit count and not have such a recent, long editing gap, but his assets (such as his article creation) seem to make him an appropriate admin candidate nonetheless. Rlendog (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
41. Support - Yes, Yes, and for the last time YES! This candidate demonstrates exactly what Wikipedia needs in an administrator. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - Though completely unfamiliar with this nominee until now, I have complete trust in the nominator and was very impressed with answers provided by Lord Roem in the opening segment of this RfA. He possesses very good communication skills, good logic, and an attitude worthy of being trusted with the tools.  -- WikHead (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
43. Support I Like this candidate's answer to my questions. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)}

Oppose

Weak Oppose Relatively low edit count, plus user was inactive for about 6 months. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, some of us have lives outside Wikipedia and can't necessarily edit on some occasions.[1] If anything, I would hope having work outside Wikipedia would make one more qualified to be an editor than someone who is over-invested. I do share your concerns about edit count, though. →Στc. 03:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If anything, LR is a personification of the fact that we put too much emphasis on edit count. That number is so arbitrary it would be more responsible of you to flip a coin. My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the edit count, although the most recent 2 successful nominations had very high edit counts. I am also having my RFA in the Summer after I get 5-6K edits (I currently have around 2.5K. Plus, he has experience and knows what he is doing, and for this reason, I am changing my vote to Support. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Says all the right things. – I'd like to see a little more individuality, rather than a weave of calculated soundbites. Disagree with the response to the age question. Reuters upload shows lack of clue. Sorry – perhaps next time. JN466 12:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   A discussion of the age question is likely to turn into a distraction, but if it becomes a significant issue in this RfA, I'll be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, I'll wait till this one is over and then start a thread at WT:RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   So, Jayen, your issue is he sounds too good to be true? Have you considered the possibility that he might just be a very good candidate? And I agree, the reuters upload shows a lack of clue. The acceptance of this lack and independent judgment-call to avoid images until he understands them better shows a hell of a lot of it, though. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Editors who aren't happy with the perceived level of individuality from a candidate are free to ask their own questions designed to elicit an individual response. See the related discussion happening now at WT:RFA. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

2. I acknowledge that File:UK Supreme Court, in session.jpeg was an isolated error. But I have always held that all admins should have a good knowledge of how copyright laws and Wikipedia are related. From an ideological standpoint, I don't think m:Mission cannot be properly upheld by any user without a proper understanding of copyright on Wikipedia. This includes knowing why we use free content, how we define free content, and when we use non-free content. I don't care how many images the candidate uploads or doesn't upload. I care that everyone understands copyright, admin or not, and it doesn't set a good precedent in my book to grant admin tools to someone without this understanding. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   If your argument is effectively that someone who has made an isolated error cannot be considered for adminship, I suggest that you're setting the bar way too high. Nobody could possibly pass RFA with that kind of criterion - everybody makes mistakes. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Speak for yourself, Prioryman. As I recently noted elsewhere, I have never made a mistake. Seriously, though, I tend to agree with you about mistakes, but I believe that Fetchcomms is saying something a little different, that LR's lack of understanding about copyright is too important to grant him the tools. That said, copyright law is horribly complicated in real life. Understanding Wikipedia's policies, which aren't precisely the same, is not easy, either. Based on LR's obvious grasp of legal concepts, it seems unlikely to me that he wouldn't be able to come up to speed. I've seen current admins express some frustration and seek "advice" from others more experienced in Wikipedia copyright policy. I don't believe LR's limited understanding should be a bar to supporting his nomination. I do think he should reconsider his position and, rather than stay away from the issue, educate himself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   I agree with Bbb23. Also do bear in mind that LR did not show any lack of awareness or concern related to copyright, he said he incorrectly interpreted it as data within the public domain. It's really quite different than being "unaware" My76Strat (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Okay, agendum's done. I will vote for neutral with leaning oppose. TruPepitoM (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
2. The possible edit warring issue with User:Cla68 in the current Arb case concerns me. I'd like to hear from an Arb their take on the matter.--v/r - TP 02:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   See [2] (full disclosure: LR & I are the two case clerks for the Arbitration case you're referring to). NW (Talk) 03:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   I saw that, but as of this time, the information that was being removed by Lord Roem still exists in the evidence page. So my question is, was it eventually determined that the removal was inappropriate?--v/r - TP 03:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Speaking as an arb, but not for the Committee, I fully endorse Hersfold's statement linked above. LR did no wrong in that situation. Notice the version that exists now HAS diffs, not a vague promise of diffs some time in the future. Courcelles 03:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Not only did LR do nothing wrong, it is important to note that LR had the courage to do what was right. There have been significant decries that the committee has, up to now, been remiss by allowing weasel sentiments, fact synthesis an unsupported allegations to remain in the evidence section; with implications in tact. This is actually a very good development. It's sad when doing the right thing is so uncommon that people gasp when they see it. My76Strat (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Lord Roem's work as an arbitration clerk, in one of the most contentious cases the Committee has seen in a long time, has been sound and should not raise any concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   That's either complete garbage or an incredibly funny observation. The word for someone who argues vehemently at one side of the issue to remove evidence from one side and then, but a few days later, at the other side of the issue to keep evidence from the other side is not "sound".... unless you're Humphrey Appleby and all that entails. However, I agree that his choice of sides shows that he'd be an excellent, congruent addition to the set "wikipedia administrors". Fits right in.101.118.60.120 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you. But it still doesn't explain why, if his actions were correct, the diff he was editing out has been reinserted and not challenged. What am I missing? I believe you, I just feel like I'm missing something here that everyone else sees and it doesn't make sense to me.--v/r - TP 14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   As I am reading it, Lord Roem removed the section because an editor was making a broad allegation without yet having provided examples or diffs to support it. Some of those (alleged) examples and diffs have now been provided. (I would really suggest we not get into too much more detail about the back-and-forth in the case; it would really be a very bad idea for any part of the underlying disputes in the arbitration case to spill over here.) Please note that in this case the two drafting arbitrators asked the case clerks, in the context of an especially contentious case involving off-wiki considerations, to take more than the usual measures to keep order on the case pages; it is important that Lord Roem's actions on these pages should be viewed with that in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   • It's worth looking again at the two diffs - (this time, the information that was being removed by Lord Roem) as they are different. The difference, when considered carefully, should answer the question. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   So is the difference the amendment of additional diffs? I thought the original issue was the link titled "this section".--v/r - TP 14:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   This is the reason LR gave: [3]. I think it's because there is a difference between saying "you made a mistake: [4]" and "you made a mistake: [5]". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)