User talk:Roger Davies
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 (~~~~)
Re: enforcing as written
Is that not what the underlying case request was all about, after all?
Arbcom set such a restriction against wheel-warring that the community *can't* enforce it as written. The rules form an unsatisfiable paradox. The only way out of this is either Arbcom step in proactively - somehow - or get out of the way, i.e. let a little wheel warring happen when admins do something wrong.
I know why you're reluctant. But if not now, when, and the phrase "Pour encourager les autres" becomes more necessary the longer this can is kicked down the road.
If this continues, forcible desysops will become necessary for one of these incidents. Guiding hand now, or hammer tomorrow?
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- (note: also copied on case page Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC))
- Thanks for your note. I entirely agree that this is all profoundly unsatisfactory but the great difficulty is getting a proposal together the bulk of the committee will support. I've started writing up some thoughts (in response to Wehwalt's comment on the request page and Eraserhead1's comment on the AC talk page) but I won't get that finished until tomorrow at the earliest as I'm afraid I have other things that need very urgent attention first. Please bear with me, Roger Davies talk 08:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Time, we have. Thanks for your attention and caring. I understand it's hard within Arbcom at the moment, as well as the community. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom election 2011
Thank you for nominating yourself and welcome to the election. I volunteered to pass out welcome messages such as this one. Your statement seems fine. It's under 400 words, and you've disclosed everything you need to disclose. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 November 2011
- Discussion report: Much ado about censorship
- WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections
- Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class
WebHamster
Have I missed something as to why his talkpage has been locked? All I can see is him responding to two editors that were trolling. Black Kite (t) 08:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You too, with the trolling accusations? The blatant personal attacks should be removed on WH's page at least: this isn't a freakin' popularity contest. Redirecting the talk page is what should be done. Doc talk 08:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Black Kite: I was in the process of writing him something but if you believe his comments are completely appropriate, feel free to unlock his talk page. My own view is that he needs to be more restrained in what he says, but YMMV. Roger Davies talk 09:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that Webhamster was back until I noticed in my watchlist: Roger Davies [...] changed block settings for WebHamster (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked). I took a look there and was very surprised. Webhamster was using his talk page to appeal for a very limited lifting of his indefinite block, and to argue back at those who argued against this. Now, you may say that arguing back is counterproductive, and that calling someone a "pompous ass" is more of the same. Even if that's so, I don't know how arguing for or about the lifting of a block, or responding to people who have chosen to write on his talk page, is an inappropriate use of his talk page. I'd agree with at least two people who've commented there that his visible irritation was provoked. And therefore I recommend that you allow him to use his talk page, and hope that all who wish to concern themselves take a deep breath and think thrice before posting there. -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Hoary: I was expecting BK to unblock per my earlier message above but I've now left a message on WH's talk page to the same effect. As for his ongoing appeal, what he's basically saying is if you don't do as I say, I'll continue to sock. Which doesn't bode well. Roger Davies talk 14:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Right, it doesn't. But from his PoV it is, I suppose: "if you treat me as a pariah, then I shall behave like a pariah". Which is hardly surprising. He's being more candid about this than most in his position. This is probably very unwise of him, but I rather admire his refusal to say the diplomatic thing merely because it's the diplomatic thing. ¶ I've only skimread the recent stuff on the talk page, but it seemed to me that he politely put forward a suggestion of a very restrictive set of conditions for an unblock. I suppose proposing can be termed "dictating", but this was one example of what looks like a set of edits intended to smash him down. ¶ I regard Webhamster as a long-term valuable contributor. This doesn't mean I'm blind to his faults or that I'm demanding that his block should be ended; it does mean that I find the baiting of him particularly unfortunate. (And as for the umbrage taken at "pompous ass", take a look at the nuggets about me that I happily display near the top of my user page.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If you "anti-block" guys think an indef blocked user "needs" his talk page just to post "not my IP" taunts and to continue posting characteristic personal attacks, resulting in the page becoming a non-productive channel, you need to think again. You guys say poking a blocked user is taunting – I say a guy who stands high out of reach and yells insults at the crowd is a pusillanimous fool – people in glass houses... If you also think "Anybody would think you'd been labelled as a sex offender" is an acceptable response, to anyone, troll or not, you need to read WP:CHILDPROTECT and consider that such remarks are not appropriate, whether implied, or directly applied. WH's enablers, supporters, and those who encourage his abuse and think he should be allowed to continue harassing members from his isolated channel, under the pretext "defending myself", need to read WP:COMPETENCE – he's blocked, he doesn't need to come back and read anything, never mind respond! The guy is deliberately malicious, and has stated himself that he is still socking – he's a predator, and the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour. As for admins like Black Kite and Drmie, sympathising, supporting and even supplementing his activity, I personally condone your despicable actions, which WH thrives on and ultimately persists on being an unwelcome and disruptive presence as long as you humour or sponsor him in any form. I hope, if this matter continues to spiral out of control, that you are each held to account for your actions and that your ability to sysop is reviewed, and withdrawn if necessary. I've already noted a number of open-minded detractors to your behaviour whilst looking across several talk pages, and it's clear to me that not enough is being done to rein you in and being law to your own actions – uncivil to others and then hiding behind mirrors and smokescreens to avoid exposure. Neither of you appear to represent the civility of other admins, and are a let down, the weak links, in the admin team and overall community spirit. Along with similarly ill-mannered members (akin to friends) such as Parrot of Doom and Malleus Fatuorum, like a band of vengeful vigilantes you seem to provoke more members through negative jibes than you aid through the trust granted adminship. WH was one of those on the same team, it would seem, whether from home or the luxury of a HMS Prison, and I notice a shared distaste for his block, and disreputable behaviour towards those who challenge any of you, resulting in mobbing of talk pages, attempts to intimidate and vilify, and pervasive wiki-lawyering to ridicule, belittle or mollify those who oppose your actions and threaten your group's longevity. Why anyone should want to defend someone who "spits on the jury" after he's been found guilty, is beyond me. I'm sure you guys will have your "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" showdown with your amassing detractors, in due course. I sincerely hope they win; an epoch in purging bad blood to maintain the overall health of Wiki. And for those of you consider this a PA – compared with WH's lengthy history of unjustified and crude PAs, this is a piddle in the ocean. At least my language (competent English which reflects a level of education superior to WH's gutter talk standard) is usually clean, civil and as directly worded as any compos mentis admin on AN/I might appreciate when looking for openness, as opposed to abrasive deception. Rather than beating about the bush, I call a WP:SPADE: Where trouble is allowed to brew, tyranny is certain to follow. I think Roger Davies has done the right thing – we should't feed the trolls, but a block isn't a "safe haven" from which to hurl abuse – WH has stated clearly that he's not obliged to conduct himself civilly under a block, so he shouldn't feel obliged to post, period. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I find this hard to follow. First, do you have anyone particularly in mind when you say that a guy who stands high out of reach and yells insults at the crowd is a pusillanimous fool? Secondly, you stress the importance of civility, but you say that the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour. Thirdly, you personally condone [the] despicable actions of a couple of admins; because yours is competent English which reflects a level of education superior to WH's gutter talk standard, I have to believe you when you say you condone, but then I wonder why you're writing much (or all?) of this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nice move from Hoary - his first admin action for three months to enable a disruptor from his clique to disrupt some more - Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)