User talk:Roger Davies

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 (~~~~)

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)

Just a note to let you know that I sent you an e-mail, in case it goes awry. By the way, bon courage! I see how swamped you are here, and I'm grateful for the time you take out to help me. :) Willow (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Proposal Renumberings

Hi Roger. On the Climate Change proposed decision, F13 and F13.1 have comments referring to the old numbers F18 and F18.1. Paul August ☎ 22:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. Fixed. (I hope the numbering didn't break your stats too badly.)  Roger Davies ^talk 05:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. such considerations are secondary. Paul August ☎ 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review alternate proposed FoF re: WMC [1]. Thanks. Minor4th 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a notice

Hi, first thank you for letting me know about the new difs you had added regarding my question at the CC case on the PD talk page. I'm about done commenting I think since the latest round is just getting ridiculous in my opinion. I think I need guidance about whether I should leave or stay since I need to know if my comments/questions are useful or if they add to the problems going on now. I have to say that the last thread there about fringe vs science vs ... to me shows who is advocating, battling etc. and to me it's not the scientist. This is the conclusion I am about locked onto by what I've seen going on at multiple location like the PD talk page, the CC sanction board and multiple editors talk pages. I think I am getting disgusted by it all so I can imagine how the editors who have been dealing with everything for so long are feeling. I would also like to bring to your attentions and to the rest of the arbitrators if you would care to pass it along the new section about the FoF on Tony Sideaway. I think attentions should be taken to this section too. Finally I want to bring to your attentions a block for a month to marknutley from Vsmith that got overturned by another administrator about copyright violations which MN has been blocked in the past for. The administrator who overturned it said that Vsmith was an involved administrator though I did not see any conversations on this administrators talk page here about the block being overturned so I let them know. If you go to Marknutley's talk page you will see attacks going on unanswered or acted upon from other editors. I don't know what's going on anymore, the behaviors are just plain strange at this point esp. with a case linger in PD discussions. Anyways, you said if I had any concerns to bring it to your talk page instead of the PD talk page because of the noise so here I am. I'm not sure if my input is wanted anymore so if it's not please let me know. As I said above I'd like some guidance about whether I am hindering things. I am an outsider in this one who has tried to stay neutral and check out what is said prior to commenting. It is difficult as an outsider to understand a lot of the attitudes going on. The one section where I and Slatersteven are discussing thing we took it to my talk page and I think we worked it out, but it was just a case of not understanding what I said which you can read for yourself. Thanks in advance, sorry for taking up your time during this busy time for you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC) PS: it's late for me personally and I proofed this to death but please still let me know if there are errors, again thank you.

On the subject of the proposed finding concerning my conduct, I don't find any of the presented evidence credible so I'm not taking it seriously, but do please let me know if you think there is cause for concern. --TS 09:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey proposed remedy

I have very few edits in the topic of climate change. The only article to which I have made anything like a significant contribution is Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which concerns a matter of data theft and media exploitation. With this in mind, I was wondering if you could tell me why you have written a proposed remedy that indefinitely (and broadly) bans me from contributing in a topic with which I have virtually no footprint. I am also deeply concerned the issues I raised about the distorted, misleading FoF against me have been ignored, and that the Committee has chosen to accept it without proper analysis. I have opened a more generic discussion about proposed individual remedies on the corresponding talk page if you prefer to respond more broadly. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also worth considering is that it appears that I alone have adhered to my pledge not to participate in the climate change topic until the end of the ArbCom case. This show of good faith is surely a signal of my general non-involvement in the topic from which you have apparently voted to ban me. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you have not responded to my concerns (or even acknowledged them, for that matter). Is there any point in an editor defending oneself? It has become apparent that efforts to do so are ignored by the Arbitration Committee, which seems as odds with ArbCom's stated function. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) First, I offer my sincere apologies for not replying directly to you earlier. Your contributions, I'm afraid, are symptomic of the general malaise within the topic and while you are by no means the worst offender you have certainly contributed to the problems. I am not at all convinced that similar problems will not arise in the future within this topic. The topic ban therefore should not be seen as punitive but as one of a series of measures designed to wrest the topic out of the hands of those participating and back into the hands of the community, so that community norms might prevail.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are basically saying that you are lumping me in with everyone else, yet it is clear I have had very little impact in the climate change topic as a whole. What really frustrates me is that I have had very little interaction with the topic at all in the last few months, rendering any "problems" as stale. My only recent contributions have been to the case page in an effort to defend myself, efforts that have now been recast as personal attacks. I understand that it is easier for Wikipedia to "reclaim" the topic by handing out a fistful of topic bans, but for minor offenders like me this is grossly unfair. Topic bans should be reserved for those who engage in edit warring and POINTy edits that directly disrupt articles, not the poor saps like me who are trying to defend the integrity of the project from those seeking to promote an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

With respect, the great difficulty here is that everyone in the topic sincerely "believes they are trying to defend the integrity of the project from those seeking to promote an agenda". That, combined with a widespread inability to completely disengage, is what has got the topic into the unholy mess it is today.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand your point of view, but the point I made above is that I had disengaged several months ago. Only the sudden appearance of an FoF filed against me brought me back to the topic (and only to the case page). I continue to have zero interest in climate change - it was specifically the article related to the data theft at the University of East Anglia that I was interested in. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. How would you feel about formalising your disengagement with a FoF that says broadly that you've now disengaged and will not, with immediate effect, edit any CC-related articles and their talk pages; any related BLPs and their talk pages; or participate in any CC related process on-wiki? This would go hand in hand with a remedy noting a voluntary but binding retirement from the topic.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to do as you suggest with one small amendment: I often use Twinkle to revert vandalism, copyvios and similar transgressions by monitoring RecentChanges. I do this without concern for topics or article type, so it would be awkward to have to check to make sure I wasn't doing it in a CC-related topic. I would also need a little bit of guidance with respect to how broadly this would apply, since I am quite active editing politics-related articles (including BLPs of politicians) - some of which may include sections related to climate change. Wording could be constructed, for example, that allowed me freedom in such BLPs as long as my contributions did not impact sections which related to climate change? Perhaps something a bit like this:

Scjessey voluntarily withdraws from the topic of Climate Change, with the exception of cleanup-style edits and cases of obvious vandalism. Furthermore, Scjessey voluntarily agrees not to edit any CC-related section of articles not directly related to Climate Change, or any BLPs where the living person is chiefly notable for their prominence in the topic of Climate Change.

It's a bit clumsy, but I think you will probably see what I am getting at. No doubt you could come up with a wording more elegant than I. Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The principle seems fine to me but, as you say needs fine-tuning; I notice the disengagement from process has been omitted. This is important.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If by "process" you mean things like AfDs, renaming discussions, enforcement discussions et al, then I am in complete agreement. I assumed that such areas were covered by implication, but I would have no problem with it being stated explicitly. Please go ahead and use whatever terminology you think is appropriate. Not my cup of tea anyway. I have two requests that I was wondering if you would consider:

1. That at some future date, the voluntary withdrawal I make could be "gradually relaxed" - perhaps after a year. I would seek a nod of approval from a member of the Arbitration Committee before dipping my toes in the water.
2. That ArbCom (or "the community"?) consider imposing an "interaction ban" on User:JohnWBarber (formerly User:Noroton) and myself to prevent either one of us from mentioning or interacting with the other on any part of Wikipedia. I have suffered mightily at the hands of this user because I do not respond well to baiting, and I am fearful that I will remain the focus of his attention wherever I chose to contribute on Wikipedia. Such an interaction ban could be imposed entirely non-prejudicially.

These are simply requests that I hope you will consider, neither of which are "deal breakers". -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

←I saw the new proposed remedy, and that's fine with me. Feel free to clarify "he/she" as "he" (Scjessey = Simon Christopher Jessey). Any thoughts on the interaction ban I proposed above? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that someone should show diffs of me harassing or baiting Scjessey before naming me in some kind of interaction ban. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am proposing a non-prejudicial interaction ban on both of us. This simply protects us both from each other. The fact that you followed me here to add this comment is a sign that this is needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Does seem too bad to me, JWB? What do you think as a "voluntary interaction ban"?  Roger Davies ^talk 18:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer an actual interaction ban with penalties for violating it. This has worked before with remedies 11 and 11.1 in the Obama articles case, although the problem editor has since been banned from Wikipedia for good. I'm looking for something similar, but without affixing any blame to either party (unless the ban is violated, of course). Also, it would need to take into account all of JWB's accounts. I only have this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem to make a voluntary interaction ban enforceable.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey:

I hereby voluntarily impose an interaction ban upon myself. Henceforth, I may not knowingly have anything to do with JohnWBarber (or any of the other accounts operated by the same individual) in any part of Wikipedia. I may not knowingly reply to comments from this individual, or knowingly revert edits made by this individual, or knowingly refer to this individual in any part of Wikipedia unless reporting a violation of the ban. In instances where a potential conflict may occur (such as both participating in the same process discussion), I will immediately seek advice from an Administrator. If I should fail to observe this self-imposed interaction ban, I shall accept enforcement by Administrators as deemed necessary.

I will agree to this voluntary interaction ban iff JWB agrees to do the same. How does that sound? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a pro forma for this at WP:IBAN, which may be simpler but it is all entirely dependent on whether JWB is prepared to go along with it.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Found it. Yeah, it's basically that. Well I'm up for it if JWB is. Otherwise I'll just have to go diff-diving and do it the one-sided, less peaceable way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lar FoF

Roger, the first and fifth diffs in the finding of fact "Lar's comments, actions, and mindset" are duplicates of each other. --JN466 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

De-duplicated. Thanks!  Roger Davies ^talk 15:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure, and thanks for taking the SPS thing on board. --JN466 00:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Like your idea...

Per your arbitrator comment here...could you follow through and delete User:SevenOfDiamonds/Arbcom...I had my corresponding collating page deleted here...also I found an old page I had forgotten about regarding another editor that needs deletionhere...thanks.--MONGO 14:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, as SevenOfDiamonds is unlikely to request deletion themself.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good observation and thank you.--MONGO 15:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not your intention but

Hi, I noticed that you opposed several topic bans, in the hope of passing your new proposed version of topic banning, which incidently I do think is a good idea. I don't think it was your intention, but by opposing the original topic bans you may very well cause a split vote between arbcom members with neither topic ban passing for some individuals. Would it not have been better to vote, like "first choice", "second choice"? Just saying incase you hadn't thought of the possibilities of a split vote and its possible effects on the final decision.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of your concerns. These are bridges that can be crossed as and when necessary: votes can after all be changed. I have every confidence that the Committee will collectively be able to resolve this one way or another.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

topic ban

I'm not sure where this comes from but there is no history of problematic editing on CC articles by myself. Therefore I would consider a topic ban to be a ridiculous slap in the face and I would never edit Wikipedia again. Thanks for your time though. Polargeo (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree. Most of the difs of Polargeo are stale, I believe they end at 3/10. The others are from the PD talk page where he is trying to defend himself from John Barber and others. He does get a little hot under the collar but I think under the circumstances with the way behavior has been on the PD talk page, some leniency is needed and maybe just a warning is necessary instead of lumping him in with the rest. I am having a problem with editors being lumped together when like Polargeo and others who have civility and edit warring compared to those who have done egregious things like misrepresenting sources or copyright or plagerism problems. I think there should be a difference in the way these are handled for obvious reasons. Just my humble opinion, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There is a clear history here of personalising the conflict and, as you say, getting a little hot under the collar. There is no acknowledgement that I've seen that this editor now believes their remarks were inappropriate and there is no indication that they will cease making them. This is incompatible with the more collegiate atmosphere we aim to try to restore.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, fair enough. I didn't see the conversation above between the two of you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have not edit warred, therefore we are only talking about my comments in wikipedia talkspace. Now as to personalizing the conflict with regard to John W Barber. John W Barber appears to have a history of popping up seemingly out of the blue and attacking editors with long lists of diffs of supposed incivilities and it appears arbcom has fallen for this. When an editor such as myself has gotten a little hot under the collar on wikipedia talkspace I don't expect 3 or 4 out of 100 WP talkspace diffs to be thrown up as a case to get me desysopped, banned and blocked as JWB suggested. Unfortunately I took the bait and now my criticism of JWB and his motives is added to a list of diffs saying that I am promoting a battleground. Nothing could be further from the truth, I have done everything I can do to stop admins such as Lar turning this into a science cabal versus others situation. Therefore I regard being cited as a battleground promoter to be a terrible insult as this is what I have tried to argue against all through this case. Polargeo (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change proposed decision collapse

Would you take a look at that last edit you made on the page? It's hard for me to check at the moment but before I left the house it looked as if the collapse extended right to the bottom of the page including several active discussions. Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

I see you are putting recused for items about Cla68, how does the count work with you recusing from this? This is more for me to learn about things that arbcom does than a question for the PD talk page that would possibly cause problems that I would love to avoid. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It brings the majority down from five to four to pass. There's a table at the top of the /PD page that explains the maths.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that but I wasn't sure if your saying recuse made any difference to that chart. Now I see it doesn't. I've learned something more with this case. This case has been a big learning experience for me so whatever happens at least you will know someone learned something with it. :) Thanks again for your quick response to my question. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

• News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

• In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

• WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for moving my telephone comments to the right place. For technical reasons when I'm out and about I have difficulties doing anything except adding comments to the end of talk pages. --TS 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Collapse (continued)

Note: thread copied from Lamnkveil's talk page.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not convinced by [2]. In fact there are important issues of case management being discussed. Yes, you could say, they should be discussed outside the case. But no, it won't happen William M. Connolley (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. Given the history of the talk page, and the nature of the comments previously, I closed it. If you have issues with the conduct of the arb cases, I suggest either posting on WT:RFAR or contacting the arbs directly. That page is for discussion of that individual case only, and that thread was way, way, of topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

I suggest either posting on WT:RFAR or contacting the arbs directly - waste of time, as you know. As for OT: you might think so. But why is your judgement superior to RD's? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not. I concur with his capping. The OP was only partially on-topic and the thread swiftly veered right off-topic. For what it's worth, I'll probably hold a workshop after this case is closed to set what lessons can be learned from handling huge cases.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on what the topic was. If the topic was "arbs blaming the case participants for all their troubles", then yes it veered. If the topic was "discussing problems with the case, including that of arb conduct" then no: it remained quite on topic William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the topic was: hey guys, cut down on the volume of posts and cut the incessant warring.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that is what you meant, but it isn't all you said. You mentioned partisan. I replied, on topic. You've ignored that, presumably because you have no answer. But that is hardly to your credit William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have evidence about an editor's partisan stance, please just post it as a proposed new FoF, with supporting diffs, clearly illustrating the problem, on the /PD talk page. It will get looked at.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening. Please, read what I wrote. The section, since I've found it and you haven't even looked, is [3]. Only one arb bothered to reply, and that one (Risker) said that partial evidence was fine. So your subsequent complaints of partisanship are hollow. And as for further evidence: if you really haven't worked out by now who is partisan and who isn't, there is no hope for you. Since you haven't yet produced a FoF on JWB, the answer to that implicit question is all too clear William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) This is bewildering stuff, WMC. The entire case abounds with partisans: you don't surely imagine I was referring to comments you made about JWB four months ago or indeed that I was referring explicitly to JWB? I haven't put up a FoF about JWB because no one has yet come up with any evidence. And there is not enough in the diff you've supplied to justify one. Is that really all you've got?  Roger Davies ^talk 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

JWB has shown a history of clever baiting through the arbcom case and under his previous usernames. He got me, I fell for it properly and now you are endorsing all of my criticism of him in wikipedia talkspace as my battleground response and reasons to get me topic banned. This is from a topic neither him nor I have primarily edited in. Oh and you are right this case does abound with partisans but you seem to be completely unable to recognise when someone is not a partisan. Polargeo (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Per your statement, I have consolidated JWB's conduct both on and off the case into a proposed finding of fact for you. I appreciate any comments you might have. Hipocrite (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree with this, JWB is using a "repeat something often enough, and it will become truth" approach. I think i've answered JWB's comments about me and BLP rather a lot of times, JWB's claims are linked 2 times in the 22 section (one link to evidence, one link to your talk) but despite this, he is not repeating it again[4]. I'm damned if i don't respond, because there is a high chance that arbitrators either haven't read my earlier responses, or cannot remember them any more - but i'm also damned if i do respond, since it will then end up in yet another repeat of things, and that might end up looking tendentious or as wikilawyering - since there is a lot of context involved in each of his claims... So i'm rather at wit's end.... (though my default will be not to engage). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Kim, if I've made a point you've responded to, you can always just post a link to the previous response. I may have forgotten the response -- it's been a long case. Anyway, that should solve your dilemma. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Other users have more important things to do on wikipedia than respond to your baiting. Obviously I am not one of them because of the serious nature of the sanctions you have called for against myself. I do wish I could ignore your tactitcs though. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is bewildering stuff, WMC. The entire case abounds with partisans - too broad brush to be valid. I'm not partisan, for example (you may disagree if you want; I'm not desperately intereted in arguing the point, because I nkow you won't believe me; but I didn't want the point to go by default). But you miss my point: there was a chance at the beginning of the case for the arbs to say firmly that evidence should be presented in a non-partisan way. That all participants were obliged to attemtp to do so; and that "bug look, your evidence is clearly partisan, because you've failed to account for X" would be a valid complaint. Arbcomm didn't do that. The only arb to comment actually *encouraged* partisan evidence, and set the dreadful tone for much of the evidence that was presented.

Since I'm here, PG has noted the dreadful quality of many of the diffs: he is currently being blamed for ATrens edits. This [5] is listed as a BLP-violating edit by me. Can you explain in what way it violates BLP? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Note

[6] If i decide to return i shall inform you of a new username so s not to appear to be avoiding the committee`s sanctions mark nutley (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult, Rog' you're partly right

Ongoing problems can be handled by discretionary sanctions. [7] Way to go -- that is, out of your way to deliver a put down. If you really have a problem with my conduct in any way, you could always discuss it with me. Insulting me with a label on a closure bar shows how unserious your comment is. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you've dropped the crucial "To my mind, inconclusive on the evidence presented" bit. And, no, it isn't a label and it isn't an insult.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Well, partly. An equivocal statement is still damaging and you made it in a way that evades responsibility on your part for justifying it. "Ongoing problems" says I've got ongoing problems, but doesn't tell me what your concerns are amid the baloney in the discussion. If you're going to deliver what amounts to an informal finding against me, the constructive thing to do would be to tell me what the problems are and especially how that might be sanctionable in the future. The label on the closure is still unconstructive. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure, it wasn't damaging but I tweaked it anyway. On the broader issues, various concerns have been raised publicly enough on the PD talk page. It's entirely up to you how you react to them.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gentle reminder

Oops, sorry. I didn't realize that the case talk page was included in the arrangement, since I'm still listed on the case page for a punitive remedy, or that it was already a "done deal" (given that voting continues). Sorry for the confusion. I'll cease posting there immediately. I've been trying to convince Polargeo to talk to you about a voluntary restriction along the same lines. He would seem to be a good candidate for it, but I think he's upset about being lumped-in with the "edit warriors" et al. -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I guessed it was crossed wires and I should probably have headed it "Gentle reminder" really ...  Roger Davies ^talk 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. "Boot up the arse" would've been fine too! :-) -- I'm Spartacus! (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Concern

I get that you found my evidence regard JWB to be "inconclusive on the evidence presented," and that regarding FellGleaming to be dated. I have a few concerns, however.

Firstly, I provided consise and clear proposals - however, you collapsed those sections less than 24 hours after I wrote them. Are you sure all of the arbitors who might care had the time to review my evidence?

At the same time you collapsed my proposals, you chose not to collapse Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#harsh_but_unfair, Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Question and a score of other sections. Are you sure that any arbitor could ever care to read those sections (and the scores of other fillibuster-by-debate nonsense that you rightly called "systematic wikilawyering")? Why, then, were my tightly focused relevent sections early-archived while those meandering sections of tripe left to stew?

I appreciate that you reviewed my evidence and decided that two of the subjects were not ripe - I understand that is your judgement. I don't think it's appropriate, however, for you to prevent another arb from coming to a different decision and presenting a FoF.

Finally, I am incredibly concerned about the intense lobbying effort presented by a few individuals mentioned and not mentioned in the decision. I have decided to abide by my topic ban, however ill-founded and unhelpful I think it will be - and as such, I have hardly participated at all in the PD (partially due to the fact I took about two moths away from wikipedia when it became clear that individuals would be allowed to insult my disability without any reprecussion, what-so-ever, but partially because I'm willing to demonstrate that I'm not SPA).

The users who have constantly railed against their sactions, or possible sanctions, however, appear to have browbeaten you, and perhaps other arbitors, into giving them the soft-hand. For example - you said that any ongoing problems about JWB's conduct could be dealt with by the sanctions - and this was true. However, he, above, complained that this true statement was "Insulting." Instead of saying to him that he needed to grow a thicker skin, you caved.

Should I begin pressing my case in similar ways? It seems that individuals that are willing to admit they have done wrong and are making atempts to ameliorate their behavior are being treated worse than people who are going to rage, rage against the dying of the light. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering the dates of many of the diffs in this case to say that anything against FellGleaming is stale is completely unsupportable. It looks like FellGleaming is currently teetering on the verge of a comunity ban Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:FellGleaming, a few months ago he was teetering on the edge of a CC ban and then abruptly stopped editing CC but has started again recently hence avoiding any restrictions because his previous editing is supposedly now "stale". This is playing the system and if anyone should be permanently banned from CC then FellGleaming should be at the head of the queue. [[User:Polargeo|Polargeo] (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)