User talk:Lord Roem

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Archives

Admin statistics
Action	Count
Edits	10896
Edits+Deleted	11064
Pages deleted	640
Revisions deleted	15
Pages restored	2
Pages protected	177
Protections modified	27
Users blocked	167
Users reblocked	7
Users unblocked	3
User rights modified	78
Users created	1

Hello! Welcome to my Talk Page!

Leave a message or shoot me an email if you need me! -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PA at talk Trump

Since you had some contact with this user before I post rather here than start big drama at ANI. User:Ihardlythinkso is repeatedly making personal attacks at talk:Donald Trump like linking an editor's name to jackass, calling another a troll in the edit summary and tells them to "go fuck yourself". They're aware of the DS sanctions (you posted them on their talk) and received a fair warning just a few days earlier, acknowledged when removed. Could you please look into this? Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've dealt with the situation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw it. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landerman56

Seems to be in "any edit I want is gonna be in the BLP" mode again on James Watson]

His summary is "This has indeed been thoroughly discussed. This edit is more than overdue"

And his talk page comment is "The edit is completely reasonable change based on consensus on this page. Please do not revert thoroughly discussed edits. You may suggest an edit and we can then talk about it. The article as it stood was clearly misleading and a disservice to wikipedia readers. This change is more in line with other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)"

The edit changed the consensus version "when he resigned his position after making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and geographical ancestry."

To his perfect version (which lacked consensus before and still lacks it): "when he resigned his position after making widely repudiated comments saying Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent than others."

This edit war mentality is now past ludicrous. Sigh. Collect (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate, especially after as many warnings as they've been given. I've imposed a short topic ban on the article for the time being. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appeal this sanction you have imposed. You seem to be abusing your power. I request a review from another admin on your action or a lifting of this sanction immediately. In this review it should be clearly stated what I did that is wrong. I expect an immediate response to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landerman56, the basis of the sanction was in the text below your topic ban. "You have been sanctioned for continued edit warring after receiving multiple warnings prior," this on the James Watson article. The way to appeal is listed here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA archived

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second ARCA archived

A second clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa

Hey, your name popped up on my watchlist. Nice sight to see. Hope you stick around again. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo, Ed!! RL has only gotten busier, but I do try and peek in every once and a while. Nice to see ya' again!

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! Hope busy = all is well in RL. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Life's progressing along smoothly, haha. Wishing the same to you too. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1RR Clarification

I see you have closed the issue (with a topic ban for Kamel and nothing else), but you never did answer my question. If you don't mind: I was referring to this sequence of edits:

01:45, 8 August 2016 - [1] -you will note it is described as "(Reverted 1 edit by Epson Salts (talk) to last revision by Malik Shabazz. (TW))"
01:47, 9 August 2016 - [2] , this, too , is described as "(Undid revision 733526348 by Mizuki84 (talk) not a reliable source, never in a million years, no)"

These two are spread exactly 24 hours and 2 minutes apart - if Debresser's sequence of edits was , in your words, gaming of the 1RR restriction, why isn't this one? Epson Salts (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Debressser was gaming the restriction, only that I had concerns. They weren't sanctioned because of the reverts alone; it was their behavior on other pages in the topic that brought that on. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You actually said your were concerned because "Debresser appeared to be gaming the 1RR restriction", but fair enough. Do you/did you have similar concerns that Malik appears to be gaming the restriction? What would be, in your opinion, a clear case of such gaming? I am not asking for any sanction, mind you (so I am not really interested in why Debresser was sanctioned) , just for clarity.Epson Salts (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My short statement here explains the Debresser stuff.

I don't have any similar concerns with Malik. The two reverts you link to above appear to be reverts of different content. Also, "If Americans Knew" probably isn't a reliable source, at least at first glance. If nothing else, that revert seems reasonable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, like, the page has an article called "HILLARY CLINTON: ELECTING A FOREIGN SPY FOR PRESIDENT?" So, yeah, probably a reasonable revert. Certainly subject to debate on using the website as a source, whether the information it cites is or isn't true. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i appreciate you going to the trouble of explaining your reasoning. But honestly, this explanation leaves me even more puzzled. Yes, the second revert is of different content, and is of a source that is likely not reliable. But, so what? are you saying that for a revert to "count", it has to be of the same material? That seems to run counter to the language used at WP :EW to define a reverts, which says "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." And, while WP:EW lists a number of exemptions (i.e - BLP violations, vandalism etc...), there is no exception that I can see for removal of unreliable sources? Epson Salts (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, we're not dealing with someone breaking 1RR, we're dealing with someone getting close to the line. If the edit they're reverting is something clearly positive--removing a source that is likely not reliable--I'm going to be less concerned than if it's POV-y material being inserted. I probably won't be concerned at all if I can see the reasonableness of an edit. Either way, both this and the Debresser edits were outside 24-hours, and it's the broader context that helps determine whether an editor needs to be temporarily removed from a topic area. At worst, maybe Malik's trigger finger was a bit too quick, but is that alone a basis for kicking them out of the topic? In my opinion (and the consensus at AE), probably not. Yes, you're right, it doesn't technically matter whether a violation of a revert restriction is/was 'good' or 'bad' or the same or different content. But that's not what happened in this case. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we're talking about whether or not gaming occurred. Based on your penultimate sentence, I hope we can agree that if he had made that revert 3 minutes earlier (i.e, within the 24 hour limit), then a 1RR violation would have occurred? If so, are you saying that making a revert that would have been a clear 1RR violation had it occurred 3 minutes earlier is NOT gaming? if so, I don't understand what you could have possibly been concerned with in the case of Debresser's edits, spaced 24 hours + 2 hours (again, I am not asking for Malik's topic banning- i just need to understand the rules here, and whether or not they are being applied even handedly). Epson Salts (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Debresser wasn't sanctioned for 'gaming.' Debresser was sanctioned for re-inserting poor-quality sources, in addition to trying to control pages' content, all bookended by stonewalling on article talk pages. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not interested in why Debresser was sanctioned. You said you were concerned the 2 of his edits, spaced 24 hours + 2 hours are gaming- what was the basis for that concern? Are you saying that making a revert that would have been a clear 1RR violation had it occurred 3 minutes earlier is NOT gaming? i Epson Salts (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik's reverts only minutes outside 24 hours are certainly a concern, but upon inspection they appear to be fairly reasonable, i.e., removing a really bad source is not on the same level as re-inserting something unreliable. That's the difference. Either way, 'gaming' is really hard to define (and perhaps, in retrospect, I should've used a different term). I think the only clear-cut case of gaming would be someone reverting the same material a few minutes after the 24 hour rule. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. I appreciate your patience. Epson Salts (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting clarity

I have two questions: 1) Can someone please explain what I did that earned me a one month Topic Ban? 2) May I edit on Kibbutz Beit Alpha, information such as things about kibbutz life and people as long as any of my edits do not come close to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 03:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamel Tebaast, you were topic banned for your reverts on Yasser Arafat and the other concerns listed in the AE request. Your topic ban includes any article or section of any article relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I would advise staying away from articles in the Israel-Arab category broadly so there is no question regarding your conduct. A rough glance at the Beit Alfa article shows there's some history that includes elements of Arab-Israeli wars (since it's a northern kibbutz). Again, my strong recommendation is to edit in a different area entirely for the duration of your ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You never responded to my email asking for clarity about my edits, so I'll try to get it here. I'm afraid that I don't understand why I received a Topic Ban. My "reverts on Yasser Arafat" did not violate the 1RR, I thought that I was working properly within WP:BRD, and I discussed those edits in the Talk page. Also, can you please give me detail about what "other concerns listed" means?

Also, why didn't you follow Wikipedia's guidelines:

Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community.

Administrators should follow a preventative model for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them. Topic bans, page protections and so on are in some cases more helpful to the project than indefinite blocks or community bans. Short blocks may easily be interpreted as gamy slaps on the wrist that just serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. If you have a problem with the actions of a user, why not try to discuss the matter with her or him before blocking?

The reason the above is applicable is because you haven't yet said to me what specific policies I violated. Even regentspark wrote that my reverts on Yasser Arafat are "concerning" with no detail as to why. You've pointed to edits and wrote about "other concerns", but I, as a new editor, am in the dark. Further, the editor who brought most of the complaints against me even suggested "Probably a week or two in porridge would get the message over", yet you went with a one-month Topic Ban. Why didn't you, or another administrator, speak to me about the specific problems that you saw or give me a warning before prior to banning me? I would appreciate responses to my questions. Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 21:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts showed signs of POV pushing and tendentious editing. That kind of editing conduct isn't allowed. The topic ban is preventative, that's why it's been imposed; the other admins at AE, including myself, believe it necessary to prevent future disruption. To the extent this is an appeal of your sanction, your appeal is declined. You are free to appeal further as provided in the message I left on your talk page. Please remember that, in the meantime, the sanction remains in place unless and until it's lifted. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an appeal, but thank you for the clarity. It is interesting that my attempt to balance a sentence about Yasser Araft that is heavenly weighted toward the Palestinian POV is considered "POV pushing", but, from what I've witnessed, it seems par for Wikipedia. Kamel Tebaast 23:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Do me the courtesy of acknowledging that you saw my query, above (User_talk:Lord_Roem#1RR_Clarification), which is a repeat of the identical question you ignored here, and have simply decided not to address it. Epson Salts (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I wasn't ignoring you, I honestly missed the header when I went to reply to the other section on my talk. Apologies. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's why I pinged you and asked that you acknowledged that you saw it. Epson Salts (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Love this edit summary. Of course, as a techie, I know that the cause of any computer problem truly lies somewhere between the keyboard and the chair ... ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; this made my evening xD --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

The moment you closed the WP:AE report, User:Athenean shows up at an article he's never edited, which is outside his usual topic area of interest, and immediately inserts himself into the middle of a disagreement between myself and another user.

This is a clear cut case of WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT. It's prima facie evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It also shows that the whole purpose of that WP:AE report was to pursue a grudge, as I've maintained from the beginning. The only reason for him to come to that article is because he wants to pick a fight (which he probably thinks he can turn into another spurious WP:AE report down the road). The intent of his actions is clearly to make editing Wikipedia as unpleasant for me as possible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I saw the diff posted by D. Creish at the AE [3], where VM removes a huge chunk of well-sourced text on flimsy grounds, and I found it absolutely outrageous. Yes, the timing looks bad, but sometimes these things happen. It's not like I'm going around following VM to every single article he edits (nor do I intend to). Athenean (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, the timing looks bad, but sometimes these things happen" <-- That's funny.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not harassment and 'stalking' is way too harsh a word here. Just as MVBW is free to edit articles they previously didn't edit, so can Athenean. It makes sense they followed the link on AE, probably after seeing my close. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind (of course they followed the link from AE, right after your close. The problem is with *why* they did that).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem, I would like to draw your attention to this [4]. Athenean (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can always run back to WP:AE and see what other editors think about your behavior Athenean. I was really hoping that everyone had enough of those hi-jinks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taunting me with AE now Marek? Do you really think that's a good idea? After your gross personal attacks and edit-warring [5] [6]? Do you, really? Athenean (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Lord Roem, VM is doubling down on the personal attacks [7]. Please advise. Athenean (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... what? Another user inserting a POV tag into an article is... me "doubling down on personal attacks"? What the Gertrude are you talking about? You are obviously making a series of edits which are meant to provoke me, which then you hope to use in another WP:FORUMSHOPPING exercise at some drama board. I am calling it out right here right now, that that is what you are doing in a perhaps vain hope that you'll abandon that battleground idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: I put in the correct diff now [8]. Athenean (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You both need to stop this and focus on content. This personal squabble is not helpful for anyone. I would also advise against wholesale removal of article sections. Quick glance suggests it contains reliable sources (NYTimes, Bloomberg, etc.). There's certainly room for debate on what's included, how it's included, whether the sources support the written text, how big a section it should be, and so on. Gutting the entire "criticism" section of the article though? There has to be a better way to approach your "agitpop" concerns. Please move the merits of that to the article talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem, I was led here quite innocently after seeing your close at AE, of course--I think you are correct with "personal squabble" (and I'd add something containing the word "hotheads"), but I'm giving the benefit here to Marek. I cannot escape the impression that Athenean really followed Marek there to lay it on.
In addition, I think Bloodofox was seriously out of line earlier on on that Clinton Foundation talk page ("We all know that the Clinton Foundation is most famous for one thing and that's accusations of corruption via quid pro quo donations"--that's an almost automatic disqualification based on POV). That comment is from last month, and if I look at the whole discussion charitably I could say they toned it down a little bit, but that's looking very charitably. Marek warned them for AC/DS, which is fair, but the bigger problem is that they don't seem to be addressing the comments on sources and sourcing, never mind the other arguments (about separate sections, etc.). So while a large removal may look drastic, given Quinn's detailed commentary there is ample justification for it, but there is nothing this detailed coming from the other side. Looking at this, certainly a case can be made for keeping the first paragraph (and I think that was already made earlier on the talk page), but there was already consensus to remove that list of donors, for instance, and Schweizer's relevance/reliability is still not adequately maintained by anyone on the talk page; his book seems to be mentioned mostly by Breitbard, followed by WND, with reliable sources paying it almost no attention (I say this after going through 70 hits from this Google News search). So on both sides I see hot air and personal attacks (though less from Marek than from Scjessey, I'm afraid), but I see real detailed arguments only from one side. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, I see that the list of names was removed somewhere along the line, which is good--see Talk:Clinton_Foundation#Contributors_section for the earlier discussion. I removed a bunch of (promotionalish) namedropping from the article as well. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not one bit, I went there after seeing this [9], which I found outrageous. Volunteer Marek does not have a monopoly over American Politics articles, nor am I under obligation to recuse myself from them because of the AE. By your reasoning I could just as easily assume you followed me here. Athenean (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or that, like you, I follow Marek. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Or, like Lord Roem, you could WP:AGF. Athenean (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Lord Roem, I sent you an email pertaining to Arb Enforcement, Steve Quinn (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Steve, nothing came through yet. I'm not sure if it usually takes that long? Try sending again, please. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sanction after month

In accordance with your stated willingness to review my editing after the first month of my topic ban, I would like to remind you that a month has past. In this month I have edited some interesting fields, like numerous articles in Category:Italian painters. I have asked for protection of articles like Mizrachi Jews and Sephardi Jews, where IP editors have tried to change population figures without indication of sources and without coming to the talkpage, and these articles were protected for a while. My few interactions with Nishidani, one of my opponents in the discussion that led to my topic ban, have been amiable from both sides. As an editor with over 1,300 pages on his watchlist, I have done my share of reverts, including the not always positive reactions to that, but I see that as positive and necessary for the good of the project. As far as the issue of the topic ban, which is still open on WP:ARCA, I must admit I am not much repentant, as I have stated and explained there. At the same I have duly noted that the consensus seems to be the sanction as imposed by you was commensurate to my behavior. I would appreciate it if you could review the need for my topic ban, and the possibility of shortening it to "time served", in view of all the above. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]