User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 2010

Your edit

Sometimes I use images metaphorically during discussions. The other day I used an image to express the opinion that the climate change dispute has become what is idiomatically known as a train wreck: a threshold quantity of experienced editors on both sides have pursued short term advantage in ways that render the dispute impossible to resolve on the community level. It is more a matter of when climate change returns to arbitration than whether it gets arbitrated again, and I am relieved to see a request filed before the situation degenerates into a wheel war. That's my opinion. Yours may differ, but I would appreciate it if you refrained from editing the content of my statement in ways that alter my meaning. I do think that dispute is a train wreck. Because of your alteration my statement no longer says so.

Customarily, the respectful thing to do is discuss another person's Wikipedia namespace edit if you perceive a problem with it. My post was civil. It made no threat and revealed no personal information. It was within the word limit. There was no urgent problem that required immediate remedy. If you do not understand a statement I make you are welcome to ask for clarification, and if you perceive a problem then you are welcome to discuss it with me. I'm a reasonable person; I'll refactor statements when people supply good reasons to do so.

The image I used was a restored historic featured picture, which you may recall because it is within MILHIST project scope and was promoted during your tenure as that project's lead coordinator. This was your alteration to my comment.[1]

Wikipedia administrators have been known to block editors for changes as minor as altering another person's section header. I have contributed 275 featured pictures to Wikipedia; that's one out of every eight featured pictures at this website. My media work for WMF is currently being shown at a museum in a European capital and is scheduled for inclusion in a WMF chapter press release that is due for release two days from now. Please explain the threshold of credibility where incorporation of media into a comment merits the courtesy of good faith and discussion, rather than getting summarily removed as presumptive disruption.

A media editor's quest for respect from text contributors:

• 1–10 featured media credits: no reaction.
• 11–25 featured media credits: "Yeah, but it's just media."
• 26–99 featured media credits: "Why aren't you writing featured articles?"
• 100–199 featured media credits: "Do you ever write anything?"
• 200–299 featured media credits: "It can't be that hard; look at how many she has."
• 300+ featured media credits: unknown territory; chasing the receding horizon of respect.

That's a statement at the top of my user talk page that I wrote as ironic humor. It is not pleasant to interact with an arbitrator who behaves as if it were literally true. Durova³⁹⁰ 18:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Durova!

I removed the image because it had no evidential value and, as the only image in a wall of type, was drawing undue attention to the statement below it. Arbitration cases have long contained a template stating, among other things, "Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment".

I must say that I am completely confused by your remarks and little chart about your featured picture content. What is its significance? Are you suggesting that this buys you the right to behave in wholly unrelated fora in a way that others do not? Otherwise, I fail to see its relevance. Your allied suggestion, incidentally, that my removal of this image was the opening shot in a campaign by me against your featured work is a world-class non-sequitur.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Durova, you're fast losing the respect you gained with posts like these. A single sentence asking for the restoration of the image would have been sufficient. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There wouldn't be so much reason for concern if it weren't for his edit summary. Did you read it? Currently I am in two different negotiations for museum exhibits that would fall within MILHIST project scope. Roger may know something about one of those negotiations; the only thing I can say about the other is that it would involve the donation of a previously unpublished private collection of historic material. For reasons that aren't very hard to understand those negotiations have not included Roger, and I am more than a little bit worried about how he may interfere at the point where I ask the MILHIST article writers for assistance in preparing for a partnered exhibit. Whatever Roger's strengths may be, media is not among them. His occasional input inspires no confidence. Durova³⁹⁰ 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I read everything. Removing an image from an arbitration page does not indicate that an editor is going to start to interfere in projects far removed from that, in fact, outside Wikipedia altogether. Awadewit (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Durova, what does the quality of your restoration work have to do with RfAR, or with climate change disputes? Nobody here is disputing the excellence of your work with images, but this recent fad of including images in dispute resolution threads including RfAR pages is not appropriate. Not that anyone claims you are the first, or that your own use of images is especially egregious. Your image wasn't removed because it was your image, or because you have x amount of featured media credit to your name: it was removed because it was not appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The question ought to be, what relevance does WP:UNDUE have to Wikipedia namespace? It looks very much like Roger Davies made an incorrect reference to an article space policy in his edit summary. There was nothing disruptive about my edit; it didn't attack anyone or post in anyone else's section. If an arbitration policy exists that requires opinions to be expressed only in text then I have violated it and will withdraw this complaint with apologies. Otherwise, my contention is that Roger Davies inappropriately altered the content my edit. I am here at his user talk page to discuss that with him, and with no one else other than him. If this were an invitation to free ranging commentary I would have posted within arbitration talk space.

You are welcome to discuss my restoration work elsewhere if you want to, Coren, but the most productive line of dialog would be to follow up with the Montréal Museum of Fine Arts before their historic photography exhibit gets too old for their staff to remember that their official program for this autumn's historic photography exhibit incorporated information that I discovered from work on the Wounded Knee Massacre. My hard drive has two digitized scans from manuscript maps of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham which are each over half a gigabyte, and if there were a realistic chance of building an institutional partnership from that connection then they would be getting prioritized. Durova³⁹⁰ 01:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Durova, I realise I'm butting in here (and I have no idea why I have Roger's page on my watchlist) but you are coming over as completely ridiculous. Your work with images is not being impugned here. Just that in Roger's opinion the image was ill suited to the location of the post - like adding smiley faces to committee minutes, there's a time and place, and that wasn't it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does count as being impugned to see Roger treat my work with images as barely a step above vandalism. He didn't have enough respect it enough to discuss it and he cited a policy that was inapplicable. Shall I count myself grateful not to have gotten a block warning into the deal? Seems better to remind him that, yes, his action is off-putting. More to the point, edits such as that one cast serious doubt upon his ability to interact collaboratively on museum collaborations that are in the works. I am deciding whether this is an obstacle that can be overcome, or whether he needs to be avoided at all costs. Now I would appreciate the baseline respect of holding that discussion with Roger, without additional interruption. Durova³⁹⁰ 02:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I remain puzzled about why you think it is appropriate to add hyperbolic images to arbitration statements as there is no hint whatsoever in any of your remarks above that you have any understanding of what this particular arbitrator action was about and, frankly, your observations about image restoration and museum collaborations are utterly irrelevant to this core point.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Dog pic

See my user page with me and Skip hangin' with Cell Phone Sanata! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For copy editing The Bugle before its release this month I hereby Award you The Copyeditor's Barnstar, which incidentally happens to be my first issued Barnstar of 2010. Here's to a good year for all of us. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tom. I missed this earlier. Happy New Year to you,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Roger, I know that you are quite busy and haven't undertaken these duties in some time, but you might want to help here. I have noticed an established editor with prior FA/GAs to his name about to leave the project over frustration with the FAC system of drive-by opposing for "needing a copyedit" but not suggesting any help with assertaining the copyedit, especially since the formal copyedit requests process outside of MILHIST is largely useless. He is currently on his fourth FAC for a vital article (International Space Station). Would you be willing to help out? -MBK₀₀₄ 23:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, MBK. I've been monitoring this and there are plenty of editors now working on it, with the number of supports is creeping up. My copyedits tend to be slow and labourious and I'm not sure it would help much if I got involved at the moment.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Milhist task force reorganisation

Following the project's recent discussions, I've now merged the Indian military history task force with the Pakistani military history task force to form the new South Asian military history task force. Because you were a coordinator of one of the two defunct task forces, I've transferred your coordinatorship to the new task force; you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. Your thoughts on a new image for use in the task force banner and userbox, and the creation of Indian and Pakistani working groups under the new South Asian umbrella, would be very welcome (discussion currently taking place here). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ES. Fine job :)  Roger Davies ^talk 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Email

I don't know if you reieved my email yet. Thanks Secret ^account 23:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletions case motion

I was expecting more of honesty and fairness from you. Is fighting on your side of the battlefield all that matters? --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint but I voted according to my conscience and in the best interests of the encyclopedia. YMMV.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Refusing to open a real case makes me think you want to avoid having to deal with evidence and facts, preferring rhetoric and posturing. What is so dangerous about letting people present evidence in calm and having time to consider? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read my argument, just added there. [2] You are moving much too fast. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is always a pleasure to see someone use history didactically. However, it might be a bit much for me to claim to be a wikipedian MLK? Still, since I expected to be desysopped over this and instead got the (qualified) support of a majority of arbcom and the thanks of a grateful Jimbo, perhaps I can be excused for being a little light-headed right now. Whilst I want to eschew any triumphalism, it has gone some way to reduce my cynicism about wikipedia’s capacity to do the right thing. I do hope that what we did might be an example and encouragement to others to move things along. There’s still quite a way to go here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United States) Copy-edit

Hello. I am in the process of pushing the 7th Infantry Division article to Featured status, however it failed its most recent review because one user requested a copy-edit. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide a copy edit for the article or if you knew someone else willing to do so. Thank you, —Ed!^(talk) 23:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I can probably get this done by the end of the month. Is that any good?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine. I would appreciate it a lot! —Ed!^(talk) 12:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf

I've replied on Clerks-L, I've had contradictory instructions. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Roger Davies. You have new messages at Ikip's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

x2 thank you for your service. Ikip 03:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's snowing

Hamlet, what's up! Go to my user page and check out Skip and I playing in Skip's first snowfall. There's a pic of us with Valentine Teddy too. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

I forgot to ask, but did you email cbrown concerning the newsletter or was I suppose to do that? It occurred to me to clarify this so he can get the newsletter out asap, but I got wrapped up in reviews this morning and it slipped my mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I assumed you'd do it when you asked him to send out The Bugle.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For all of your off-wiki help with some much-needed copyediting. I cannot thank you enough! Cam (Chat) 06:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cam. It was an interesting subject too and I enjoyed doing it.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I should add, just for the sake of bragging rights, that Team Canada just defeated Team England in the Final of the World Schools Debating Championship in Doha. Cam ^(Chat) 00:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent

Hello, Roger Davies. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Major_milmos_incident.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian

I don't have the time to search through these at the moment to see exactly what and when they are, but since you and a couple of others have mentioned it, he has been the subject of numerous threads at AN/I and other noticeboards as seen here. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Both NuclearWarfare and Master&Expert asked why I did not take the matter to ANI, so I provided a brief response in Master&Expert's section. Is this acceptable? I then scrolled down and noticed you asked the same question. Is this all right, or should have posted that somewhere else? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Just a quick, belated congratulations on your becoming an Arb'. I've been semi-inactive for a while and was unable to participate in the voting process. It's comforting to see so much of Wikipedia's.....organic element remains as familiar as everything else. Hope you're enjoying the expanded responsibilities on Wikipedia! SoLando (Talk) 17:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AN

There is now a thread about you at WP:AN. Regards. Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roger, can you explain what's going on here? This looks serious. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies, your prompt reply is essential. 140.247.38.208 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This entire issue should have played out here first. And Jehochman jumping in less than a half hour after it was posted, fanning flames, doesn't surprise me. I am surprised he didn't threaten to block you using lame Jack Nicholson quotes. Tan | 39 00:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Community - my apology

It seems possible(even likely) there is an appropriate reasoning to all the plagiarism concerns. I have in no way been involved in this situation except reading the events on the AN unfold today. Unfortunately it appears to have become the culture of Wikipedia to undergo such mishaps, where the accusing side snowballs into a cynical frame of mind, upon which even to question it's basis is seen as being somewhere between being awkward and being disruptive. It is with good fortune that you where in such good standing with the community before and have been promptly available is easy the tide, otherwise I suspect you would of undergone much penalty against yourself which would of permantantly damaged your good standing amoung editors and your enjoyment of being in the community. With all that being said I feel the need to apologies to you, because being a member of this community makes me responsible at least in part for the situations, chaos and sometimes injustice that it creates. My hope is that you get further sincere apologies and are able to enjoy your trip away tomorrow. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. I can understand some of the concerns because of the grey areas/overlap between the policy requirement to accurately source and the competing guideline about plagiarism. I do though greatly appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to write.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I think some people forgot to switch their brains on. There are tests for copyright and permissible excerpts which are well understood; it is perfectly legitimate to quote or paraphrase sections of sources as long as the excerpts are not excessive and do not comprise more than a small proportion of the work. How many ways are there to say these things? Guy (Help!) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles

Hi Roger, first off thanks for being quick to respond to the concerns expressed on AN. There were a couple of fairly serious problems, but most of the other problems being pointed to seem rather borderline or simply not problematic at all in terms of plagiarism. I've been checking through some of your articles and have not come across any real problems as yet at least from what I can check online. I'm guessing these were likely a few isolated incidents.

It seems that many of your articles (most of the ones I've come across) were created back in early-mid 2007, a number obviously as "starter articles" with minimal sourcing that haven't seen much attention since then (which is fine). While it's not a priority and obviously you have ArbCom duties to attend to, it might be good to check back over those eventually, particularly looking for dead links and the like (though we all have articles that we created which need work, of course). The one thing I would strongly suggest that you take a look at is any BLPs you may have created, particularly from years ago when our BLP sourcing standards were less strict in practice than they are (thankfully) becoming these days. I did not go through all of these by any means, but the articles on Gabino Diego, José Sanchis Sinisterra, Piet Chielens, and Peter Hofschröer are all currently unsourced to my mind. You probably have not thought about them in awhile and they were not tagged as unsourced BLPs, but I've gone ahead and added tags to those. If you can you should try to do a bit of sourcing work on those obviously, but if you don't have time in the near future at least the tag will let someone else get to it. It's probably best to check all your BLP articles when you get a chance since there could be others which are unsourced but also untagged such that you would not have received a message from a bot to work on sourcing. Obviously this is a separate issue from the plagiarism concerns and I think any easy one to fix.

Anyhow thanks again for promptly speaking to the concerns at AN while working to improve the articles identified as problematic. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm sorry about the delay in getting back to you but I've been abroad. I've now looked at the articles and while there's abundant sourcing for the individuals' creative output, there's nothing reliable for the biographical details (which were in any case minimal). So, broadly, three meet the notability criteria but not really biographical verifiability. The fourth probably doesn't even met notability standards. I've added a ref from a reliable source to the Peter Hofschröer article but it only really establishes that he exists. I'll have a look at other BLPs in due dourse: thanks for the reminder :)  Roger Davies ^talk 06:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem as to the delay, and hope you had a good trip. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

inwiki copying; lyrics?

Hi, Roger. Given my background in copyright issues, the recent concerns were mentioned at my talk page. I have been just poking about your contribs a bit, and I have not found any sign at this early stage of systematic confusion on importing text. Given the ever-mounting backlog at WP:CCI, I expect I'll be just spot-checking unless that changes. :) One thing I did find, though, was some early splitting without attribution. I've repaired this at Characters in Hamlet and Literary influence of Hamlet. I'm sure you know at this point that text copied from one point of Wikipedia to another has to be attributed unless you are the sole author. (I haven't checked Literary influence of Hamlet, since attribution is appropriate either way, but I did verify that text in Characters in Hamlet predates your contribution to Hamlet.) I know when I first arrived at Wikipedia, I copied content from one article to another without realizing attribution was required myself. This seems still to be a common point of confusion. This is just an FYI in the remote chance that you haven't encountered this requirement and still were not aware.

I am also a little concerned about the music lyrics in Peat Bog Soldiers. Unfortunately, the dates don't comfortably clear Wikipedia:Public domain (the magic number of January 1, 1923), and I'm not sure the origin of the translations, which may be subject to their own copyright. I'm trying to find out if these lyrics are PD and so can be retained. I know at least one version of the song was registered, in 1944. I haven't been able to determine yet if copyright has been renewed (such a pain in the neck with smaller items, like songs and poems :/). Can you by any chance provide more information? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Scuse butting in - I believe I may have a book at home with these lyrics in, which may shed more light on the copyright. I'll pick up on this later this evening. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Any help would be appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, now that I've poked a bit more, that it's obvious that inwiki and interwiki copying is not any kind of an ordinary issue. You obviously know all about attribution and routinely do it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Peat Bog Soldiers. The source I have is "The Ballad of America", John Anthony Scott, copyright 1966 to Bantam Books, published simultaneously in the USA and Canada. It includes the shorter form lyrics (Far and wide as the eye can see) in both English and German. Significantly, while it gives a history of the song, it gives no copyright accreditation - in contrast to for example Partizaner Lid, which is credited as copyright to Schocken Books in 1950 (I presume that represents the first point of publication in the USA), and the English translation (the song is in Yiddish) is copyright John Anthony Scott. This does suggest that the short form song in both english and german was pd in 1966 in the USA. I'm no copyright expert, but it's hard to see how it could have gained a copyright status in the 40 years following. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a genie, once it comes out of the bottle, doesn't easily go back in (though sometimes can be dragged in kicking and screaming). I've got a query out to a friendly WikiSource admin who is a wizard at digging up copyright renewal. But I'd agree that the lack of copyright notice in your book is a good sign. In this case, no news should be good news. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Will keep fingers crossed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• My take that this is in the public domain. The sleevenotes to the 1961 recording, re-issued by the Smithsonian Institute say (on page 5): "Die Moorsoldaten (The Peat Bog Soldiers). A true folk song, in that its music and lyrics are anonymous, came out of the Nazi concentration camps before the Spanish War and became world famous". The first known recording, by Paul Robeson in 1942, has no copyright accredition other than "Arr. by Hanns Eisler" (which obviously doesn't apply to the lyrics). Amazon's listing for this has the authorship as "Anonymous".

  The sources agree that the German original was first performed in a concentration camp concert in 1933, and that Johann Esser, Wolfgang Langhoff, Rudi Goguel, Hanns Eisler and Ernst Busch had a hand in it, though none of these individuals has ever apparently asserted authorship which was a requirement for copyright protection at the time. I have though no strong feelings on this either way and I'm very happy to defer to your judgment. The lyrics are widely available on the Internet, in numerous languages.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm still waiting to hear if any renewed registration is found. I find determining copyright status for this kind of thing a total pain. I don't know who registered the copyright in the US in 1944 or which version was registered, because I can only see the snippet, but those Wikisource people are good at what they do. Based on what Elen says and now you, I'll be surprised if a renewed registration turns up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(od) Following up on Peat Bog Soldiers, itt occurs to me that there may be copyright queries on Jarama Valley (song) too. This again is a song which developed on the frontlines (in 1937-39) and in the political undergound in Germany (1939-1945) and Spain (1939 til the death of Francisco Franco) when such songs were banned by the Nazis and the Spanish Government respectively. The original "early" English version was first published in The Book of the XV International Brigade, (p. 97) issued by the Commissariat of War, in Madrid in 1938, and republished in facsimile by Frank Graham in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1975. It is attributed to Alex McDade (who died in 6 July 1937) but neither edition asserts copyright. The "reunion" version heavily derives from the "early" version and is therefore not protected by its own copyright (even if intectual property rights were asserted, which appears not to be the case). The "three verse" version seems to be a composite of the "early" and "reunion" versions, with British Battalion replaced by Lincoln Battalion. Copyright is not asserted on either (i) the labels or sleevenotes for the 1961 Folkways recording of the "reunion" version or (ii) the 1999 re-release by Smithsonian Folkways (Vol. 1).  Roger Davies ^talk 11:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of old, foreign stuff is by no means my specialty. There are so many open questions. I looked for and failed to find any evidence of copyright registration of that one, while I did find that the "Peat Bog Soldiers" had at one point been registered, as I noted above. I didn't find any sign of renewal, and I still haven't heard back on that one. Slipped my mind, I'm afraid; I'll go run down somebody else at Wikisource and see if I can get help on both of these. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)  Roger Davies ^talk 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Roger. I have not found any sign of systematic plagiarism or copyright issues in poking about your contributions. But you know that, because I've been annotating my opinions at User:Roger Davies/Plagiarism evaluation. :) We've got nearly thirty CCIs where a pattern of problems has been established, and I'd like to turn my attention to those. Digging through a haystack feels much more productive when you have reason to believe that there are needles to be found. At this point, I'm just waiting to get feedback on the song lyrics. My most recent request is with Billinghurst, who thought that User:Prosfilaes might also weigh in. Since he hadn't responded to my note of the 11th, I've queried again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the update and for your on-going enquiries with the Wikisource people. Good luck with the backlog!  Roger Davies ^talk 08:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Relucio (talk · contribs · count) probation violation?

Looks like he's violated #3 of his ban suspension conditions, including uploading images that have already been deleted (presumably because of licensing issues) and one currently up for deletion because of copyvio problems (again). I'll leave it up to you to make a decision regarding how to proceed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries on missing this note; however, this report may be in error in that I missed the year of the last upload (see my last post to ANI). That said, I'm still very suspicious about Nash17 (talk · contribs · count) (blocked for recreating material originally created by Relucio that had been removed from the edit history), and the subsequently ducky sock I just noticed Nashalonto (talk · contribs · count) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

golden wiki

Thank you so much Roger. It's been an absolute honour to serve as a coordinator with you! Thank you again for suggesting it to me in the first place :) Cam ^(Chat) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS Unicorn (I72)

Two years ago, you assessed this article. I've done some changes and your opinion would be helpful. Thanks. Folks at 137 (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No comparison. Now comfortably B-Class (ships and Milhist). Well done :)  Roger Davies ^talk 12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Gibraltar arbitration request

Hi Roger - I notice you've recused on the above; does that mean I'm allowed to ask your advice about something? If so, what's just occurred to me is that I'm not actually involved in that dispute at all (by which I mean that, other than taking admin action via ANI once or twice, I've never edited the article or conversed on the talk page). Should that have precluded me from filing the request? I'm posting here for full transparency, but feel free to ignore/remove if my question is out of order. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Have no fears on that :) It is far better to have an uninvolved party file the case as it is more likely to be neutrally framed. (The initial framing usually sets the scene and has a big impact on how the subsequent evidence/submissions are framed.)  Roger Davies ^talk 16:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, that's helpful. It's the first time I've been involved with arbitration and I wasn't sure about the protocols :) EyeSerene^talk 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Precepts on the secret of success in life drafted by Tokugawa Ieyasu. Calligraphic original in the collection of Nikkō Tōshō-gū.

Roger Davies --

As you already know, during the Edo period of Japanese history, the hortatory precepts of the founder of the Tokugawa shogunate were widely known. After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the aphorisms of Tokugawa Ieyasu faded from public prominence.

In our unique "mentoring" relationship, perhaps it may be construed as helpful to recall these words:

"One who treats difficulties as the nomal state of affairs will never be discontented."

I hope this becomes a helpful reference as we continue to work together and face whatever lies ahead.

Sincerely,

Tenmei (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.

One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.

Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.

Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.

Blame yourself rather than others.

It is better not to reach than to go too far.

— Tokugawa Ieyasu, 1604

7th Infantry Division Copy Edit

Hello. Just checking to see what your progress is on copy editing the 7th Infantry Division (United States) article I was seeking volunteers for last month. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 01:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry Ed, I've been tied up with other things (both here and in RL). In the meantime, I have been poking it in a desultory fashion in Word and I'd better get serious with it if it's to completed any time soon. Please give me a week.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)#

No problem. Thanks again! —Ed!^(talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mail

Re the email I sent you over the weekend; the first part is partially irrelevant now (though I seem to be hung up in the arbcom 'awaiting moderation' queue). Best, EyeSerene^talk 08:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll be replying shortly. My internet access has been very patchy over the last couple of days (I can log on but then it freezes) and, additionally, my email server is on a go slow :( Normal service will be resumed shortly (I hope).  Roger Davies ^talk 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I won't have email access until this evening anyway. Thanks for the quick reply :) EyeSerene^talk 09:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I heard that you helped RichardRelucio get his account ban lifted. Actually, I'm Nash17. You se, i want to ask a question...

How can i have my 3 other accounts unblocked (Nash16, Nash17, Nashalonto), so I can cancel them and I can focus on my current account...

Hope for your answer... and more power...

Nash18 (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Email arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org with an explanation and a complete list of socks.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked all of these accounts for block evasion (behavior was similar to Relucio); regardless of whether they are socks (or meatpuppets) or Relucio, they keep creating new accounts when and old one is blocked. I haven't blocked the current one; I'll leave it up to you and arbcom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've now blocked Nash18 and tagged them all as Nash16 socks for the time-being.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

re: Silver Wiki

Thank you very much for the wiki, Roger, it means a lot to me. I have enjoyed every minute of the time I served as a coord, and all the time I worked with you. I must say, it was a bit of a difficult decision to decide whether or not to stand again for the new tranche. Depending on things, however, I may stand again at some point in the future. :) Only time will tell how well I go at university, though! :) Thanks again, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Diversity is good! Lol. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research about Dili flag and coat of arms

User J. Patrick Fischer (talk) is owning the article of Dili, capital of East Timor. He is removing systematically the symbols of the city alleging they are not used anymore. The problem is that he doesn´t quote any relevant source to remove the symbols and prove they are not used anymore, despite there´s a law supporting them.

Domaleixo (talk)

Per Honor et Gloria

Hi Roger. Elonka's accusations against me demonstrably come to nothing, as you can see in my response [3]. I would then really like to know what you actually consider worthy of a renewed ban. My contributions to Wikipedia are top-notch accross the board, and I believe my contributions to Mongol-related articles have been truely examplary in the 2 weeks or so I was able to contribute again, before Elonka again went into a drive against me. I would like to understand... Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

E.D. redux

Hello, Roger! It's been quite a while since I've had an Emily quote on my talk page. :) Last month someone posted a link on the talk page about the newest bio by Gordon, but as the book won't be available in the States until the summer, I admit I forgot about it. It'll be interesting to see how plausible her thesis is; epileptic genius further perplexed by philandering brother? Can't say I would blame her. Hope you're doing well, María (habla conmigo) 12:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Welcome to Milhist

Thank you for your kind welcome. I hope that whenever I have time, I can contribute to this great project. I hope that I haven't overstepped my rights as a new member by voting in the elections. North North-West (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Interested in your POV

Hello. I'm an Italian Wiki user. I know that each wiki has different policies about blocking and banning, but I'd like to know the point of view of an administrator and arbitrator of the biggest wiki existing. The tale goes on like this: let's assume that a guy, nickname Goofy, makes some action that lead to an infinite ban. Let's say this guy is a hot head, but in time he become a good contributor. So he creates a new account, say Pluto, and begins contributing positively to the project. Noone notice anything strange, so this guy goes on editing and discussing without any problem. One day, for a strange coincidence not related in any way with his work, someone finds out that Pluto is out Goofy reborn. Action taken: immediate ban and reversal of all edits. My opinion: even if Goofy did something wrong enough to be banned, but as Pluto he showed up to be a positive contributor to the project, no action should have been taken. Goofy is dead and buried, and banning someone again even if there are no motives for such a measure, is a damage to Wikipedia. I mean, even a lifetime imprisoned has a hope for parole, if behaves well. But I'm not an experienced user and I'm probably wrong about this. I'd like to know your opinion on such a scenario. Thanks for your patience. --Webwizard (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Clueful users routinely ignore recycled banned editors who don't return to the problematic behaviors that caused them to get banned. It is better to have the user channel energy in productive directions rather than socking and disrupting. I don't understand how Pluto could have been outed as Goofy. The answer to your question would hinge on that fact in my opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a sockpuppeting problem. It may have been both a malicious behaviour as well as a lack of security procedures on "sleeping" socks created earlier (and then stolen by someone). In both cases, this isn't the cause of the last ban, since there aren't any comment about possible SPs of Pluto. The only cause is the previous infinite ban. --Webwizard (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi there, I'm not terribly familar with the CheckUser facility or how it works, but I have an issue which a CheckUser expert like you might be able to advise me on. Recently, there has been a considerable amount of racist IP editing on various articles against racing driver Lewis Hamilton. Mostly they consist of this kind of thing, this, the hoax "death" of another racing driver Felipe Massa here, user talk page vandalism here etc etc. IP addresses are many (I count 12 so far), and three have been subject to blocks - [4], [5] and [6] - the last two are still blocked. All the addresses emanate from Malaysia.

Today I noticed this edit [7] from User:Gokul009, a Malaysian editor who edits motor racing articles. He quickly undid his edit with an excuse, but I am wondering if this is the same user, who made his vandal edit without realising he was logged in. I am wary because I don't want to accuse someone of racism where it is unfounded, but I thought the matter serious enough that someone like you might want to check it out. Is there a way of finding out whether all these IP addresses and Gokul009 are the same person? Thanks for reading and I look forward to your reply. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now filed an SPI. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the best way forward. I'm sorry not to have replied earlier but I've only just seen this. I'm having terrible connectivity problems and get only get on when the line permits. Hopefully, it'll be fixed soon.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I certainly know what connectivity problems are like. Hope it gets sorted out soon, and thanks for replying. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What internet provider do you use? It isn't BT is it? I've heard nothing but bad things about BT...Cam ^(Chat) 05:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is BT. This has been going on since mid-March and is characterised by the line freezing after a few minutes online for hours on end and not unfreezing with reboots. After: four line engineer and six network engineer visits; literally days spent on to the phone to help-lines and various diagnostics; replacement of the line socket at the exchange, associated surge protection fuses at the exchange, cable from the street to the master socket within my house, router, network cards, and internal cabling; plus updating drivers/versions of every bit of comms software, resetting the internal TCP/IP stack; etc etc, the line is improved but not perfect. It's been quite entertaining. I've had to finish a couple of jobs using medieval methods (print it out, post - yes, post - the job to the client, take corrections by phone, repeat) as my fax machine decided to barf at sending more than four consecutive pages. Unsurprisingly, I'm looking at moving ISPs :)  Roger Davies ^talk 03:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Big surprise. Given your experience, you'll get a kick out of this. Cam ^(Chat) 05:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! The problems have returned (though on a smaller scale). I'm looking to move now, just as soon as I've got compensation sorted out.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

TM case sock

You'd be interested in this: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Rlevse — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Very interesting indeed.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian English?

Hey there RD.. Long time no talk. I hope all is well. I've been asked to have a look at Gough Whitlam, and since it's about an Australian person, it makes sense to use whatever Australian variants are appropriate. I found American and British English differences, which I believe you worked on? Do you know of resources for Australian-specific differences? (I'm immediately thrown by "grew to maturity" in the lead, since my gut says "grew up". Maybe it's a national variant, maybe it's wordiness.)

Thanks in advance for your help! Scartol • Tok 19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Scartol, these two phrases have a slightly different meaning (and "grew to maturity" is rather elaborate in any variety). I don't think it's an engvar issue. The article should be written in standard English. There are so few differences between BrEng and AusEng (programme/program) that they are overridden by individual differences in style. Tony (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scartol and thanks Tony!  Roger Davies ^talk 08:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So then I'm left with my inadequate deficiency with BrEng. =D Can I take "rather elaborate" to mean "generally not preferred"? Sorry to hijack your talk page, Roger! Scartol • Tok 18:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

can you help me?

hi.this american man(Chris (クリス • フィッチュ))　added ({3RR}) on my page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iceiscoldnothot). i asked him to delete, but he always ignore, and deleted my message(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo)... He has no sense of responsibility whatsoever, so i what should i do? could you please help me? we had a problem here(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurara_Chibana).　 if this guy wrote me beforo about " Also read Eye color, there is no black.", then it wouldn't be such a problem... thank you. --Iceiscoldnothot (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Roger Davies -- I have posted something new at Response to Roger Davies:

I wonder what distinguishes the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread from "Strategic default"? If this is not "Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Roger Davies -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to your further comments; and I continue to hope for action. --Tenmei (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger speak

See [8] — Rlevse • Talk • 15:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A question

I appreciate all the time and attention you're putting in on the TM case. Some editors are suggesting that evidence of misrepresentation of sources be further examined. Should Arbcom decide to look at that more closely, would I have the opportunity to show that various assertions on the evidence page may be false by quoting the sources? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's a specific FOF concerning your use of sources, which is far from certain at the moment, you will get an opportunity to respond.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. That's good to know. TimidGuy (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I support and recognize the need for communication and discussion by the community at every step of the RFARB process. However, I also have concerns about the continued presentation of evidence on the PD talk page. I may have inadvertently encouraged this process with my single, PD page post linking to a talk page entry with several diffs, on May 12th. At the same time I wonder where we draw the line. One editor has made 22 posts (2803 words or six pages in MS Word) and included 21 diffs, plus a link to 56 more diffs and an indication today that they are preparing more diffs for posting. This presentation of evidence on the PD page includes personal accusations against individual editors. So I would respectfully request that if there are additional FOF's as a result of the PD page lobbying, that there also will be an opportunity for workshop and rebuttals by involved parties before the Committee voting takes place. Thank you, to you and all the Committee members, for your time and attention to what has turned out to be a very long arbitration process.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WOOF! New article

• J. K. Ralston, western artist — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 17:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for Shamir1

Hi. I can't find any record of the topic ban for Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that you referenced in your unblock. There's an active discussion that this is relevant to at Wikipedia:Ani#User:Number_57. Your input would be appreciated. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good!  Roger Davies ^talk 06:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding sanctions

Greetings R. Davies!

Reading your comment on the ArbCom appeal, I'd like to know your opinion on 1 thing, if I may. Can you please tell if you think that such sanctions are not discouraging Wikipedists to contribute to WP and aren't turning them away from it (my appeal is not against him but to be "rehabilitated" as Emilio stated). I am asking to know your opinion on that, because your comments were mainly on the conduct of Stifle.

Thanks Aregakn (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the request page, I see no grounds to interfere with the spent sanction as it is within administrator discretion. There is certainly no basis for concluding that it was excessive, which is the standard I'd be looking at if I were contemplating an overturn.

Turning to the larger issue, the percentage of Wikipedians (new or otherwise) who are subject to administrative sanctions is so small that the prospect of administrative sanctions having a chilling effect on the population as a whole is probably slight.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As I am aware, sanctioning on discretion with no wrong-doing of an editor is an abuse of administrative rights and not a right of an admin.

About the larger issue, as I can figure, you do say, that it might be discouraging editors but you'd rather disregard it if the overall community is not much impacted. Did I understand that correct? Aregakn (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't understand me correctly because the sanction was not an abuse of admin privileges.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Then, if you read the original case that I was sanctioned for, maybe you can explain the reason. Please do, because that's the only problem I am experiencing. Aregakn (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Travis

Hi Roger, thanks for the copy edit/assessment etc. For the life of me I can't seem to get the specific url for the entry on the DNZB website. I hadn't realised that I'd copied it from an article I was working on for Fred Baker, but now I try to get the url for Travis, the website doesn't want to cough up its secrets. Have you got any ideas? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I appear to have found it. Had to dig it out of a cached version but it seems to have done the trick. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't work out how to do it either. Glad it's fixed now though ... :)  Roger Davies ^talk 10:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has mail...

...and if you check yours it might be you!. Basically I need the Arbitration Committee to look into something private. Mr. R00t ^Talk 16:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Pollard (Scouting)

New article and DYK if you care to help improve. Up on July 6th, anniversary of the court ruling! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edward L. Rowan

New article on a Scouter, psychiatrist, and author. Very interesting. Pls help improve. Up for DYK too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence pages

What should be done with evidence sub-pages once an ArbCom case is over? I've got this one, and I'm concerned about this one which contains misrepresentations; I'd like to see it deleted or at least courtesy blanked. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 00:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As they're technically eviudence pages, they need to be preserved somehow (even if they're incorrect). Perhaps the best route forward here is to ask Will to courtesy blank. I doubt if he'll object; he's a reasonable guy.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry about the typo in the ES.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC))

Thanks Roger, I'll ask Will! Dreadstar ☥ 15:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL about the ES! I've actually addressed that in the first bullet point at the top of this page. Funny! Dreadstar ☥ 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WBB is refusing to courtesy blank the evidence page, claiming it might be useful in the future unless I restrict myself to some kind of exception that "might be made if the party committed to not being involved in the topic in any way again." [9]. Is there such an "exception"? Dreadstar ☥ 00:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know there was a back-discussion. I asked Dreadstar why he wanted the material blanked and he didn't answer. I haven't refused to do anything. We were discussing it and then Dreadstar gave a sarcastic reply and banned me from his talk page. Whatever problem there is, this doesn't seem like a productive way of resolving it. If there is a general blanking of the ArbCom case then of course I'd be happy to blank all of the relevant evidence pages.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See my post on WBB's page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, if you have a message intended for Dreadstar I suggest you leave a copy on his page.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My last post here was for Roger. As for not posting on Dread's page, I didn't see the need since you two are obviously keeping close eye on each other's talk pages and I've already posted on yours. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I gave WBB a sarcastic reply, I asked a simple ‘yes or no question’ involving a concept known as “courtesy” and instead WBB answers by trotting out a whole dog and pony show replete with McCarthy-era style questions and accusations – so absolutely I responded sarcastically to that BS, what would one expect? Meh, he can keep the page un-blanked, it’ll never do him any good either way. My question was one of courtesy, not re-igniting the entire TM ArbCom case again, ridiculous. WBB didn’t really ask me why I wanted it blanked, but if he had, the answer would have been, ”Um, well, something called ‘courtesy'’”: “(2 b : consideration, cooperation, and generosity in providing something (as a gift or privilege)”.[10] I just don't need WBB's kind of behaviour on my talk page. Sorry to have brought this to your page, Roger, my bad. Dreadstar ☥ 19:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is still being pursued. I did ask politely why Dreadstar wanted the page deleted.[11] In response: he banished me from his talk page.[12] (I also don't understand Dreadstar's need to delete comments from his talk page immediately, or to archive it so strangely in two places,[13][14] but I don't criticize him for it - he shouldn't be complaining about my preference to respond on user's talk pages.) I haven't engaged in any inappropriate behavior, nor has Dreadstar to the best of my knowledge. I'd be happy to let this drop, and I hope Dreadstar will let it go too.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I must say I'm rather disappointed by how sour this discussion has become, especially between admins. What happened to AGF?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry to disapoint you by pushing back against ... Will Beback. No worries, I won't bother again. Dreadstar ☥ 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dreadstar says he retired [15] — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems so. I do hope he reconsiders.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? This was inevitable. Either he was going to leave, or he was going to be forced to leave by cooler heads when his continual misconduct and abuse of Admin privileges could no longer be papered over. This has been painfully obvious for months, if not years, judging from the archives. This blowup and noisy resignation over percieved injustices and affronts is a transparent pretext at best. Fladrif (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Be aware you're on very thin ice, Fladrif.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh never mind - I unretire

• Well, I guess I'll have to un-retire, since Will so kindly redacted the item that so vexed me. Thank you Roger, I guess I should have been more specific from the start.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For helping me understand the core of the flame, and convincing me to put it right out. Dreadstar ☥ 21:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(althogh I still don't see the problem with courtesy blanking the whole evidence page...but this is ok too...:) )

Though all, as they say, is well that ends well. Thanks!  Roger Davies ^talk 06:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It'd have been better without the drama and name-calling.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, I guess. Apologies to all. Dreadstar ☥ 21:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Gurkha

Hi, Roger the Gurkha article appears to be going through what could be vandalism, with a lot of unexplained edits by IP addresses. Could you look at it and if deemed suitable semi protect it ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim:

Thanks for the message. It's a bit early to consider semi-protection as if it is vandalism is neither blatant enough nor persistent enough at the moment. I have though added the article to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. Best,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

French general officer ranks

Thanks for assessing the Battle of Hohenlinden. I have struggled with the problem of abbreviating (or not) French general officer ranks since I've been writing military history articles. I try to avoid simply using "General" when more specific information is known. After some experimentation, I settled on my current system (MG for General of Division, BG for General of Brigade). GdD/GdB or GD/GB seem like too much of a stretch for English-speakers. For some reason I have no problem using FM, FZM, FML, and GM for Austrian generals, but I always specify, for example, "Feldzeugmeister (FZM)" the first time each is used. Of course, there is always the option of using the full title and avoiding abbreviations! Djmaschek (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Tricky one, isn't it? As far as I'm aware, histories tend to refer to generals of the period by their noble titles rather than their military ones (they were nearly all nobles) and thus avoid the rank problem. It's just a bit jarring (anachronistic) to see the modern NATO-style abbreviations used in an historic context. Perhaps, as you say, the way forward is to spell them out in full on first introduction of the individual and then not use them at all. Very good article work, by the way :)  Roger Davies ^talk 04:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Travel update

R is at the first airport layover waiting for the next flight. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 12:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei's violation of ArbCom conditions

By ArbCom's ruling, I believe User:Tenmei is instructed not to interact with me, but he has done so here 1 and 2. I hope this issue can be remedied soon. In case you forgot what case this is about, link is here: 3.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. He is explicitly permitted to comment about you in "legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others", which is what he is doing here. As he is editing within the scope of his restrictions, no action is necessary.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Duchamps comb

You may remember this user, who you unblocked from an indef block over a lot of things, germinating with his uploading of a copyvio image. He has reuploaded that image, and is again wasting contributors time regarding copyvio images, again. I have notified you and Jayron32 about this. Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dark

Sitting at the airport at zero dark thirty. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Flight at second airport got cancelled. Damn airlines. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Gunther Specht

Hi RogerDavies,

Thanks for cleaning up this article. I also noticed you added the templates to talk pages. Sorry I should have remembered to look into that before requesting review. Thanks. '  Perseus 71 ^talk 18:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory

Here's a new article I created. Please help improve it. It's also up for DYK for 24 July. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Gurkha

First of all thank you for placing the Gurkha article on semi-protection, however, it seems that the IP editor has taken the edit war to the next level.

I would sincerely appreciate your help since I won't be around for the next little while due to my licensing exams.

Sincerely, Gorkhali (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

QVC Vandalism

Hi,

Sorry to bother but I've been reverting the edits of several anonymous IP adresses on the QVC page for awhile now. The article is clearly biased, and going back in the article's history you can see these anonymous users omitted details about lawsuits against QVC, false claims about weight loss products etc. without giving a reason. I've tidied up the page and got rid of some of the more blatant advertising but they keep reverting those edits, as well as the advert tag I placed on. According to Wikiscanner QVC have made about three dozen edits to their own page (as well as mentioning QVC in a few other pages), however I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and am unsure of what to do apart from keep reverting their edits. There is also a user called Murphy86 who does the same thing and his only edits have been to the QVC article. Thanks. Deftera (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've been monitoring this and now, as a first step, I've semi-protected the article for a month. This should prevent further POV-pushing/spamming from the IP editors, at least for the time being.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread. I reverted another Murphy86 (talk · contribs) edit here. It is similar to the IPs' edits removing the advert tag. Willking1979 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent revert to WP:AE

Hello, may I ask why you reverted Georgewilliamherbert's recent comment to AE? I can't immediately see an obvious reason. Regards,  Sandstein  07:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I had. I'll restore it immediately. I think my mouse is malfunctioning (cf BioPhys). I thought it was just the batteries but I probably need to get a new one.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandman1787

Sorry to bother you again so soon but the user Sandman1787 has vandalised a couple of pages (marking them as "minor"). Again, I'm not that skilled with wikis so I'm not sure of what action to take. Thanks again. Deftera (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Privacy

Hello Mr. Roger Davis, I have opened up an account for the sole reason of privacy and to avoid having my ip address shown to others. Today, I accidentally edited an article without realizing that I wasn't signed in. I would like to hide my ip address from the history. What can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcserendipity (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your feedback at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0). Could I ask for some elaboration? The issue is not a lack of opinions but an inability to avoid an edit war (i.e. there is effectively an edit war going on but most parties have chosen not to keep reverting edits hoping that a discussion will happen). I am not sure that I see the value in fielding more opinions until we can get all the parties already doing the editing to come to the table and discuss.

Thanks again. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You're getting good feedback about your options, I see, on the arbitration request page. The favourite is probably a request for comments, though something lighterweight, like informal requests for input made on related wikiproject pages and linking to the talk page, might do the trick instead.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor comments on Arb Com case

1) Thanks for taking my comments into account with regard to the focus of the dispute. I think your latest version is much better. In fact, the only quibble I have is with this phrase: "incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources." Unlike the mentioned of edit-warring and pov-pushing, this one is not phrases in a neutral manner. The precise focus of the dispute is how much emphasis to give these sources. So a finding that asserts "incessant over-emphasis" is essentially saying that I am wrong. A phrasing like "incessant disputes about the proper weighting of certain controversial sources" would be more neutral.

2) In your enforcement section, you mention "participation in the featured content process." I have no idea how one would go about doing this. Perhaps you can provide some links? I know about participation at, say, BLPN, but I don't think that that is the same thing. Clarifications much appreciated. David.Kane (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

2) You can start by going to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria to familiarise yourself with the background, then start looking at the various article candidates here to get a feel for how people go about this.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Construing Tang Dynasty restrictions

I want to post on sentence at User talk:Teeninvestor. I have already posted this one sentence message on the talk pages of every other contributor at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. It is seemly for me to include Teeninvestor among those I've contacted today; but I'm uncertain about how to construe ArbCom's Tang Dynsaty restrictions. Please advise me about this one noteworthy diff; and I will act accordingly. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

==RfC Teeninvestor== Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask someone to notify him for you? Perhaps one of your mentors?  Roger Davies ^talk 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Yes, thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Offliner

Hi there. I have just seen this. Would the ArbCom consider putting him on an EEML interaction ban (like this one) rather than lifting the ban completely? I think there are sufficient grounds for this. We don't need this never-ending battleground anymore. Colchicum (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Various

Don't worry about the head start; as they say: no harm, no fowl. More important that the deserving are rewarded then to nit pick over who gets to hand out the awards. I merely asked for the task since I feel responsible for not having taken the initiative in getting these out sooner.

On the matter of condolences: it wasn't actually anyone in my family that died, it was the father of a friend of mine named Noah who passed away after a long battle with cancer. Noah, another friend of mine named Danny, and me were actually in the hospital room when Noah's dad died, and being that he was a good friend I felt compelled to be there for the funeral service. The trade off is that because this is a hard time for Noah I've been busy helping him the last few weeks. Not that I mind of course, but it has kept me away from the computer. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Go Team!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your help in getting the reviewer award list up, as well as your assistance in handing out the reviewer awards, I hereby award you The Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for the help, and keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom  Roger Davies ^talk 04:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Making you aware

Since you were the one who made the change to the ChrisO remedies, I wanted to let you know that I've raised questions about why this change should happen here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Is this really appropriate as an amendment? To the extent it has any validity, shouldn't it be under Request Case? Or even just AE?radek (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why this is disruptive

You voted on a finding that this diff [16] is disruptive. Please explain why. ATren (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change arbitration: Nota bene

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

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

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

WikiChevrons

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

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

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

See [17]. I would like to inform all parties that could provide useful information, but I am not sure what is the best way. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there seems to be a plan or suggestion to close my appeal even before there has been any discussion among uninvolved editors [18]. I read the policy and my understanding is that it is my responsibility to let uninvolved editors know about the discussion at appropriate locations. However, I am looking around and cannot determine which are the appropriate locations. In fact, I would have asked this question in some other location instead than here, but it is not even obvious to me what is the appropriate location to ask a question about appropriate locations. I know, it is a kind of funny situation. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain

This troubles me. [19] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please see my explanation/response

Roger, I read your answer on the CC PD talk page, and I went back and looked at the diffs you cited about me. I have responded to you there and would really appreciate you taking a look, because it appears you missed something on the Booker analysis (which wouldnt have been obvious just from looking at the diffs). My response is found here [20]. I would really appreciate if you would take a look and respond. I see that you added a section about "topic bans" and I'm worried I'm about to be topic banned when there is still some misunderstanding. Anyway, thanks. Minor4th 19:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• Here are the diffs to my complete response on the PD talk page. Please read [21], [22]. I sent you an email laying it out as well, and you may forward it to the committee. Thanks again. Minor4th 21:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Remedy 3.1

Currently, it is worded as such:

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

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

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

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

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

CC - Proposed FoF and remedy

Roger, please note [23]. I want to make sure it's looked into before it is archived. --JN466 13:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

A fine hat

This is in regards to this edit.[24] I'm not sure you saw this, I prepared an FoF in my user space.[25] I know that it's not what ArbCom was asking as far as battlefield mentality, but I think an appropriate sanction would be that Tony Sidaway is not allow to collapse discussions in the CC topic space for a period of 6-12 months or whatever you think is appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

New evidence

I have added new evidence regarding AQFN, BLP, and battlefield conduct from June-July of 2010 showing a continued pattern of tendentious editing consistent with the evidence from December 2009.[26] Please review it and let me know if there are any issues. Additionally, I have added more diffs illustrating the problem lower in the thread. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Jumping the gun?

I see that you voted to support the FoF against me.[27] Are you at least going to give me a chance to explain myself before making up you mind? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I've posted my response.[28] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste error?

Roger Davies: Is the last diff[29] in the "incivil or promoted a battleground mentality" a copy and paste error? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

More QVC vandalism

Hi again,

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

Hi Deftera:

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

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

The Milhist election has started!

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

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

Tks for the msg. I wasn't aware. The political poster I added was a humourous ref to the A-class reviews. I believe I must have been disqualifid :P YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, YM: it went right over my head. Duh, 06:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:TruckCard

Hello Roger,

Per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Explanation_of_blocks

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

I would like to see the five blocks recorded in the block log of User:TruckCard [30] reviewed and to see for every one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I'm not the arbitrator dealing with this" - who then is? I shall not use IP addresses? But this is the only way to contribute, except for creating a new account. Do you want me to create a new account? Isn't that ruled out by WP:SOCK? Or do you mean the indef block was against WP policies, so I am entitled to create a new account? I responded to the email, with CC to arbcom-l but still got no delivery notification. If you have no time, why don't you appoint the four blocking admins to give for each block 1) /reviewable evidence/ 2) invoked WP policy 3) how that policy justified the block. (reasonable judgment)? User:TruckCard 79.193.151.189 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Broadly, you have utterly ignored consensus and continued to push a point of view. You first did this in category names for transport -v- transportation and then again with residents' cards.

You first block was as the result of a community discussion[31]. You dove straight back into edit-warring as soon as the block expired and then appealed it here. That, combined with the socking report, led to an indefinite community ban. Your case has been extensively reviewed by individual admins and by the community. Their conclusions are unanimous. There are no grounds for ArbCom to intervene. Any further posts here from you will be summarily reverted.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

CC case

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

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

CC, Blog remedy

Roger, the wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Use_of_blogs currently singles out blogs. In our policies and guidelines, blogs are listed as one type of self-published source, all of which should be treated the same:

• "self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets" (WP:V),
• "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." (WP:RS)
• "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person" (WP:RS)

Please consider whether it would not be better to say "blogs and other self-published sources", to reduce the likelihood of arguments later on whether a particular SPS is a "blog" or not, and to bring the remedy wording in line with policy. --JN466 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for sending out the election notice, I appreciate it very much. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm commenting here - since the signal to noice level is rather high

On the PD page. You state in your finding that and, more recently, has continued to interpret sourcing and BLP policy selectively.. That demands (imho) an explanation, especially since i've just gone through all of your links, and comparing each and every one of them with my checklist here[32] - it is everything but selective.

Now if you in the finding had said that i interpreted policy wrong - then it would have been different, perhaps i have. Clarification of interpretation of policy and clearer guidelines in the grey areas (no matter who it benefitted) was my goal for the ArbCom case - but unfortunately it was relayed to me rather early that such a goal was incompatible with how ArbCom works.

Could you clarify? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Another note: i'm not contesting that there is a finding against me, just that if you do so, that you actually get it right. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the noise level is high. Part of the main problem I'm seeing is that you exclude blogs/sps as sources in some contexts but include them in others. Elsewhere, you say it's okay to include blogs/sps about someone's work, within a BLP, but not about them. Some of these calls have been very odd indeed and have contributed to the general mayhem. I'll be tweaking one of the principle to restate the basics on BLP/SPS shortly.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My view is simple: Blogs about the person (never). Blogs not about the person fx. about published works (only if passes WP:SPS). Person's own blog/sps (Ok), except when unduly self-serving. And if you check the links, then you will find that every one of the links are explained by those 3 sentences. Thus i still object to the "selective" claim. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please: If you cannot substantiate the "selective" part - then you should remove it or amend it. I have pointed out that these aren't "selective", i've even done so with a specific description in terms of policy/interpretation of policy that has been followed by me, rigorously (or as rigorously as is humanly possible). These aren't new, i've "lived" by these for years, if the interpretation of policy is incorrect, then so be it - but "selective" it ain't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to "idiosyncratically" :)  Roger Davies ^talk 19:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that a violation of policy, is it battlefield conduct, or what? (btw. i do not believe that i'm the only one holding to these simple rules) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The idiosyncratic interpretation of policy in this edit [33] resulted in a BLP violation (Real Climate is, in fact, prohibited by WP:BLP and the last sentence of WP:SPS, since "dishonest" can't be a criticism of Singer's work without being a criticism of Singer [actually, I think it was an attack on Singer]). But that's my interpretation. Roger has that diff listed under edit warring. Compare with these first two diffs from the "idiosyncratic" list in the Fof, where a blog is used to source a running joke about Al Gore. [34] [35] Somehow the joke, which no one considers descriptive of the actual Al Gore, is a BLP vio when sourced to a political magazine's opinion blog [36] (because the blog is "unreliable" since the blogger is not an expert [about what?]), but "dishonest" isn't meant to characterize Singer. "Idiosyncratic" is one way of describing KDP's actions, but it boils down to violating WP:BLP or using wild interpretations of it in order to use the policy as a tool in a POV fight. [37] Hope this helps. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it incredible how certain you are of your interpretation of BLP, considering that the last time this was up on t:BLP[38], opinion was very much diverse on the subject. And that in the very similar situation[39], opinion was just as diverse. I'm certainly not the only one having this view, or views very similar to this - and asserting differently is strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Another diverse one from WT:BLP[40] (which btw. addresses this particular context Realclimate in Singer's article). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to address this: A blog talking about Gore - is talking about the person (without any questions). Thus the similarities stop. Blogs and situations are not created equal - there is always context. We can never get information about living persons from blogs, that is and has always (at least for as long as i can remember back) been my opinion - and also one that is non-ambiguous in policy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a quote from the page you were linking to on the Fred Singer article (I'm having trouble following the link, [41] but this is cut and pasted from an earlier discussion): S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed by the notorious “Heartland Institute” we’ve commented on previously) served up a similarly dishonest ‘assessment’ of the science of climate change earlier this year I don't think we need to care how expert the authors of that may be on climate science. It's a partisan attack on a group blog. Therefore it's a clear BLP violation. Whether or not "dishonest" grammatically modifies "assessment", rhetorically and for all practical purposes it modifies "Fred Singer", the lead author of the document. Singer is clearly being called dishonest, just as I would be calling someone dishonest if I said, "I must criticize your statement: It is a lie." Yet you have repeatedly argued against this commonsense conclusion. You are pretty consistent in arguing abstract policy. You are inconsistent in applying policy to particular situations. The example I've just noted is a very loose, while the example of "The Al Gore Effect" is extremely "tight", where you see a BLP violation where none exists -- and where certainly no harm to Al Gore exists. The National Review blogger, a professional opinion journalist, said Al Gore said a certain thing at a certain time, then a certain weather event happened. The blogger repeated a joke about that kind of thing happening after Gore says the kind of thing he said. Any "expertise" needed to relay the facts is an "expertise" the writer is fully qualified to publish in a magazine blog (not an independent blog where he would be self publishing -- that is, his editors have enough supervision over his blog to ensure that a correction will be published whether or not it embarasses the writer). That source isn't even in the strict sense saying something actually negative about the BLP subject Al Gore, since everyone knows the purpose of the statement is to joke, not to reveal a single fact about Gore. Even though I saved that article at AfD by rewriting it, I have nothing to do with it any more (except for one talk-page edit today at the request of another editor) because I'm tired of arguing about such an insignificant topic. In that sense, your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior was quite effective (not that it was you in particular that drove me off). Sorry to go on at length here, but I think Roger Davies' proposed finding is a little unusual and the problem with your conduct should be explained as clearly as possible. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry John - but i'm going to ignore you here. You seem to think that repeated assertions equals truth, which i do not. I can't see our discussion getting anywhere, and i'm not willing to rewind-and-replay the same arguments. We disagree - and apparently vehemently. I have to say one thing though, which is an observation that i've drawn from the topic area, the CC board and the Arb process - there are some people, editing in this area, who are unwilling to let go of a gripe they once had with an edit (and editor/editors), and they then accumulate, and repeat, that gripe every time they can. This in my opinion is not healthy, nor good for any editing environment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your behavior, Kim. At times, irritated, but mostly just concerned. Since the behavior has continued and shows every sign of continuing further, I remain concerned. This ArbCom case is the best place to present those concerns. Believe it or not, it isn't even personal, and if you don't mind my complimenting you, I've found your participation always civil and knowledgable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Does Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History fall under the CC umbrella? I now have a copy of the book and was going to expand upon the article once i had received it. The book itself is about organic chemistry and does not really impact upon the CC articles, thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If the article avoids rehashing CC controversies, it's probably not within scope. But if anyone starts using it as a backdoor for CC POV-pushing, it will fall within scope (that's the practical interpretation of "broadly construed" usually means.) It's worth remembering that ArbCom retains jurisdiction on all its cases.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, rest assured i shall not be adding any CC related content to the article mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just noting that there are a couple of diffs in the CC finding about me for editing this non-CC article. Yes, I know Arb has "jurisdiction" to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants, but still thought it was worth noting that my editing on a non-CC article is being used to support a "battleground" finding within the CC topic area. Minor4th 00:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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 [42]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [43]. 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 [44]. 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[45]. 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 [46] 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)

Reminder: this wasn't a rhetorical question. I'm still hoping for an answer William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

PG is not being blamed for ATren's comments: it shows a conversation including his input.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, this is harder than I thought (helpful hint for the future: you can tell the bits which are questions, becuase they end in "?"). Let me try again. The question, as I stated it, is: This [47] is listed as a BLP-violating edit by me. Can you explain in what way it violates BLP? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not listed as a BLP vio, per se, but could have been. You removed the only explicit statement in the article that he is/was a scientist (neutral descriptor) with a subjective metonym (global warming sceptic) on specious grounds.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are ew reading the same diff? I removed "scientist and". I added nothing. I'm also puzzled as to why you think removing "scientist" was specious - the current state of the article supports removal. I also don't understand your Actually, it's not listed as a BLP vio, per se. Its in a FoF titled "William M. Connolley BLP violations". Are you suggesting that some or all of the diffs there are not supposed to represent BLP vios? William M. Connolley (talk)

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

Ongoing problems can be handled by discretionary sanctions. [48] 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)

Lesson learned workshop

I saw you note about a workshop post CC to discuss lessons learned. Assuming it is an open workshop, I'd like to participate, with some thoughts that can be summed up in two words - "expectations management". Given the large number of places that things like this can be announced, can you tell me what I should watchlist so I don't miss the announcement?--SPhilbrickT 15:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:34, 30 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)

Are we getting anywhere with this interaction ban concept? If it isn't going to happen, I'm keen to start working my way through the vast body of JWB/Noroton diffs because they go back years (I don't want to waste my time with this if JWB is going to agree to the ban). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:44, 1 October 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. Polargeo (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: First, collapsing threads does not mean they'll be ignored by my colleagues but we are fast approaching the time where further enforcement will be handled by admins using discretionary sanctions. Second, I really don't see the point in trading insults; it's demeaning, achieves nothing, and plays into the hands of others. Third, it is not staleness but lack of clear evidence that's the issue with FellGleaming and the proximity of the ANI discussion which covered some of the same ground. Other dispute resolutions are open, an RFC/U, for instance but I suspect this will all come to a head shortly anyway. Finally, I have noticed the restraint that you and others have shown, and that is commendable.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. I disagree with the some of your statements (except where you call me "commendable," of course :) ), but I don't think it's worth arguing over at this juncture. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (and I like Dylan Thomas too).  Roger Davies ^talk 21:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei

Re this motion re Tenmei: I was a little taken aback by the motion at the time, because I had already said here I wasn't willing to be Tenmei's mentor, but voiced no objection because I was still giving Tenmei advice. However, the situation has now changed: I'm no longer providing Tenmei advice, and am no longer acting as Tenmei's mentor in any way, so I'd like to be considered as removed from the list of Tenmei's mentors. I'm about to send a link to this comment to Tenmei and to each of Tenmei's mentors by email. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Note

[49] 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)

Roger, i had hoped to have a reply to my e-mail. I should like to know if it is acceptable for me to create a new account so as to leave the stigma of the CC articles behind me? Or will i be accused of socking and banned as one editor said? I would like to be able to continue to edit but i do not wish to get a ban if i start a new account. mark nutley (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This depends on whether you use the new account to avoid scrutiny; see also cleanstart.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Scrutiny is not an issue is it as i shall be letting the committee know of the new account? Of course i would like to be able to edit without users accusing me of pushing fringe theorys on a regular basis, under the clean start thing i am unable to as my previous sanction in CC articles is still valid, but as i am not editing CC articles and you guys are about to topic ban me from them i asked that those sanctions be lifted but was told it was down to the arbcom to decide on this. So am i allowed to create a new account to begin afresh? mark nutley (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Scrutiny is still an issue (if permissions are requested for example). It will also apply if you participate at all in the Climate change area, broadly construed, at all.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i shall have to continue with my old account then, and hopefully people will not continue to attack me over the past, thanks anyway mark nutley (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably best. I have now read your email, by the way, but have nothing to add to my previous comments here.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Findings?

Are more findings on CC battleground editors forthcoming? It seems there has been a lull for quite a while and the current list is incomplete. ATren (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why there was not a finding regarding ScienceApologist or even any commentary about it from you or the other Arbs. There were specific proposals with diffs that were in line with the behaviors for which you have made findings -- more actionable in some instances. Would you please address this. Minor4th 21:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because ArbCom don't find it as compelling as you evidently do?  Roger Davies ^talk 00:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't just me. In fact, I don't think I made a proposed finding about him. Interesting though and something to ponder. Minor4th 08:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I just want to know if you would consider unhatting this. You say to your mind, which is fine but I had to stop for the night and wanted to add some more difs to that section. If it's better to keep it hatted that's fine, I just thought it wouldn't hurt to ask if it could be unhatted for a few days. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Update to this; Shell just added an FoF on this editor, so can I remove the hat for this? I know under normal circumstances I am allowed but not sure about this in an arbcom case when a sitting arbitrator is the one who did it. Thank you Roger for considering this, I also appreciate the hard work that you and the other arbitrators are doing on this case, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just add any comments underneath.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious

It is stunning how you are able to turn an admin who has never been previously sanctioned into Olap the Ogre. I hope you are proud of yourself and your hardline tactics. Re Fellgleaming, are you still protecting him or would you like me to waste a day or so of my time to provide you with the diffs? Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, diffs please.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

He recieved a fairly severe warning for contentious edits in climate change in April [50]. When a second case was poorly presented against him and better arguments against him were presented on talkpages he quickly left the topic area. He has recently returned. Your dismissal of the case against him is therefore not supportable by myself. Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are allegations of problematic behaviour in many topics but his conduct needs to reach sanctionable levels within the scope of this case for us to deal with it. We've always operated like this to stop every case being totally open-ended. An RfC or a RfAr specifically about this editor is the way forward.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The second case that was poorly presented was closed as allowing further evidence [51]. Further evidence was not presented bacause he ceased operating in the topic area (he has now returned). The evidence that has been presented to date is easily sanctionable by arbcom if you play by your own rules. Just look at the CCRFE cases and the issues that were brought up there against FellGleaming. His actions surpass those of most of the editors you are currently sanctioning. I will present more and more if needed. Olap the Ogre (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can produce clear-cut evidence of activity with good diffs within the topic it will be carefully considered. Yes, it's a lot of work but there's no way round that. I'm afraid I simply don't have time to investigate myself but will of course carefully review any proposals.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to take into account his block log [52] where he was blocked in April 2008 and May 2010 for edit warring in the CC area by two different admins or do you wish me to force feed every diff? Olap the Ogre (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It should ideally be presented like this one, for ZuluPapa5. I don't have time to research diffs so I'm afraid you'll have to force feed them,  Roger Davies ^talk 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added my presentation to you here to the PD talkpage. If a few incivilities are taken above the two edit warring blocks FellGleaming has recieved (along with the community sanctions) and FellGleaming is still not topic banned then this is a poor show for arbcom. It shows a tremendous bias against constructive editors and a wilingness to facilitate unconstructive editors so long as they do not appear on your radar in a specific case. Olap the Ogre (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please get off your high horse. There is no bias against against constructive editors. If people present coherent compelling evidence – note: not rhetoric which adds to the noice, but evidence which adds to the light – it will normally be acted on. I have now added a FoF.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. I suppose I saw that diffs had already been provided and that an editor who had been blocked and also strongly warned by consensus of several admins on the CCRFE was managing to go under the radar because nobody had spent the time resubmitting all of the evidence that got him both blocked and warned in the first place. I personally don't think we should have to do this as arbcom can look at the previous blocks and warnings and see that this is not a constructive editor in the CC area. Your remedy 3 is heavily sanctioning constructive editors who are willing to listen so I am happy to see some more obviously unconstructive editors there. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Collapse...

I think [53] is a bit hasty. Please consider letting it run a few more days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? No comments for nearly 36 hrs (I've usually been collapsing stuff after 24 hrs) and by the fast-moving standards of that particular page, that's a lifetime :)  Roger Davies ^talk 09:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Check again..I added two comments less than 3 hours ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I missed those. However, that kind of meta discussion is veering beyond the scope of the page. I'll de-hat for now but will collapse it again without warning if continues off-topic.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, and on re-reading, I'll keep it hatted. It is off-topic.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a content decision that Arbs are not supposed to make! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL!  Roger Davies ^talk 10:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Sockpuppetry_in_the_Climate_Change_topic_area

I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see that a couple of my colleagues are looking at this and I'll keep an eye on developments.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

John Jervis

John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent has just been rated as a good article. As I was the main contributor to the article, several people have suggested that I put it up for Featured Article status. As I'm relatively new to Wikipedia I really don't know how to do that. Could you, if you have the time, point me in the right direction. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good and interesting article. Well done! Before going to FAC, you may wish to put the article up for a Milhist A-class review. You don't have to be a Milhist member of course to nominate, it's the article itself which has to be within scope (this one clearly is). The review covers much the same ground as FAC (a sort of FAC-lite) and will improve your chances later. The whole process takes about a month but is well worth doing. If you decide to skip the A-class review step, you'll find directions for nominating for FAC here. Good luck!  Roger Davies ^talk 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for such a prompt reply. I shall certainly follow your advice and head over to the Military A-Class review panel. All the best and thanks again, Corneredmouse (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the stripes Roger. I feel really guilty about leaving this to you again, but I'm so pushed for time at the moment that I know if I offered to help it just wouldn't get done. Speaking of which, I'm supposed to be teaching 5 minutes ago.... :) EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to echo similar appreciation. I'm really suprised, though. I know I've added a bit on input when other OMT members called for assistance, but I never really thought I had much to bring to the table for article improvement. I suppose this makes me feel... validated. I might take some time and lend my voice to reviews more often now. Thanks. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know...

Hi, you were correct to hat that discussion. I just saw the third account show up, sorry, I was wrong here. Please except my apology for this matter that I unintentionally helped to contribute to. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's as well to note that the blocking admin has expressed doubt as to whether the latest account was really Polargeo. I had a bit of spare time this lunchtime and took a look at the account's earliest edits, and my subjective impression was that the claimed identity seemed unlikely but I would have to look closer to be sure one way or the other. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please drop it Tony. This matter has been resolved. Risker (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider it dropped. I'm not advocating any course of action in any case. We're all getting a bit tired so it's easy to misread tone. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Thank you for your note. I am uncertain how to proceed at this point. I see that JohnWBarber is now the subject of a Finding of Fact, so perhaps I should put my proposal on the back burner until that has been resolved. Since I have voluntarily removed myself from the topic, I shall not be adding to the JWB FoF. Besides, the problems I have with JWB are not topic-specific (although many of the diffs presented in the FoF against me were a direct result of his attack upon me in this topic). Unless you suggest otherwise, I am going to wait until the CC-related ArbCom case has run its course before going any further on this matter. I hope, at that time, ArbCom will not view any CC-related diffs I may present in any sort of action against JWB as a violation of my voluntary withdrawal from the topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hit us with them. He has goaded me into a FoF even if most editors on either side of CC regard me as a fair unbiased editor arbcom has listened to JWB. If it seems that he has displayed a similar pattern in other situations which may be described as trolling then it should be presented. Olap the Ogre (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

←This is why an interaction ban is needed. JWB is attacking me again, and this time he is doing it in a forum I cannot defend myself in because of my voluntary withdrawal. This is personal for him. If it was a wider problem, he would've opened an RfC/U about me. Instead, he has saturated places like WP:ANI with mentions of my username, presumably in the hope that if he can sling enough mud some of it will stick. Please give me guidance in how to handle this situation, or point me in the direction of someone else who can. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Put together a rationale for a mutual interaction ban, supported by diffs, on your talk page, ensure that JohnWBarber is aware of it and it can be copied across to the PD talk page.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I can't be bothered. We are talking about sifting through literally thousands of diffs over an almost three-year span. Most of the difficulties can be found in various discussions at WP:ANI (example where "Noroton" attacks me for trying to defend Wikipedia against a massive sock farm), but it is hard to express them in terms of diffs. JWB/Norton is adept at gently poking me with a stick over and over again. No single diff will show a problem, so I'm not going to waste my time. I will begin documenting every edit that JWB/Norton makes that includes mention of me or my username, and then bring this evidence to bear on the next occasion he tries to wikilawyer me into a box. I am forced into this in order to protect myself, but I'm sure JWB/Noroton will frame it as "stalking" or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty. Unfortunately, without consent, that is the best option in the curent circumstances. Take comfort though from the thought that if the behaviour continues, now that you've diengaged from the topic, it will be much easier to prove.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I am (more or less) going to stick to my interaction ban pledge I have made previously, despite it being one-sided. I will not be interacting with JWB/Noroton in any way other than to collect any diffs that mention me in some way. The next time I mention him will be in an RfC/U or some similar mechanism, but hopefully it will never come to that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dropping this

I've been reflecting on all that has happened. I have written to JWB in the hope that we can put our difficulties behind us. Thank you for helping me work through this. I appreciate it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for considering the request

Today I opened my Wikipedia page to find: Hello Milogardner. Please see the result of the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner. A community ban has been enacted. You are banned from editing articles about Egyptian mathematics, broadly construed. You may not contribute on their talk pages either. Your options for contesting the ban are listed at WP:UNBAN. The ban may be enforced by blocking if necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The ban has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be contacting Ed Johnson shortly. Is it premature to request an appeal to disclose the 'false' set of conditions that have been associated against my name in this case ... directly to you?

I would be pleased to discuss this case in Wikipedia generalities, and/or specific scholarly aspects of Egyptian mathematics that are being distorted by a 'band' of Wikipedia smart editors that post via an unclear pedagogy related to scholarly attested Egyptian mathematics.

Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've just looked at the RfC/U and the AN/I discussion and it looks fine to me. There's no obvious reason for ArbCom to intervene.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look

I'm trying to focus on my own part of this, but I had a moment and looked at the CC case talk-page history, saw AQFK's comments, then saw your discussion with him on his talk page. I'd thought about this a lot before, and so I added a comment there that I think is worth your time to read. I won't have time to discuss it more, but please take a look at it. [54] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've looked.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Even more QVC vandalism

In the past couple of days two users (presumably also controlled by QVC) have made blatant POV edits to the QVC article. I personally think if this continues we need to appeal for a range block or at least block all IPs that belong to QVC if an indefinite semi - protection is impossible. Either way we can't just let this continue as is. Deftera^talk 14:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected it for three months. I don't think range blocks are the answer: the ranges are too diverse and the level of disruption too low.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and a note

Thank you for the reviewer awards. I understand you do a lot of this maintainence checkup for the project. I want to say thank you for myself, and also, I assume, the project as an entirety, for helping with this lot of 'dirty work' nobody wants to do. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 03:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much though I really cannot take much credit for this. AustralianRupert did the heavy lifting assembling the data: I merely dished out the gongs! :)  Roger Davies ^talk 06:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha. He seems to do a lot of reviewing himself. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 01:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for voluntary restriction for William

See here on NYB's talk page I also notified William, he would have to accept this, of course. Knowing William a bit, he may not be someone who takes the initiative himself to propose something like this, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't accept something along these lines when proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to discuss this via an intermediary. If WMC has something to offer, I suggest he makes a proposal himself. My view though is probably that it would do him the world of good to withdraw from the topic entirely for a while. He is the focus of too much bad feeling and that must be exceedingly wearing.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What *is* rather wearying is the failure of the arbs. In comparison to that, everything else is roses William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change proposed findings 25, 25.1 (JohnWBarber)

It looks as if the present status is that 25 is passing with 1 abstention and 4 supports. In the circumstances, and considering your reason for proposing 25.1 was the possibility that 25 might not pass, you may want to withdraw 25.1. --TS 11:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review and comment

Please read my recent section on the PD talk where I discuss the context of several of my diffs, particularly regarding 2/0, and tell me where I went wrong in questioning those admins. Thanks. ATren (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you had just called out one sysop, fair enough, but there's a clear and extended pattern here. The strong inference that can be drawn is that you are attempting to influence the process by neutralising administrator involvement and to an extent which is disruptive. That's how it strikes me anyhow, and that's why I support the finding.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, yes, it is a pattern, but a pattern of what? It could be one of two possibilities: (1) that there was a pattern of unfounded accusations on my part, or (2) that there was a pattern of problematic behavior by the admins enforcing this probation board. You took much of this evidence from 2/0, who (of course) believes the former and is going to present it that way, but isn't it possible that it was the latter? If you don't examine the context, you can't really know which it is.

In that vein, I'm asking you now to review that section, where I present the context of almost half diffs you voted on, involving three of the five admins I warned. I'm asking you to review that evidence and comment whether my complaints against those admins had merit. I believe the evidence is quite compelling. In the meantime, I am continuing to collect evidence on the others and I will present them in the next few days. ATren (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a third possibility: that you are unable to edit collegially in a controversial topic, that you needlessly personalise disputes, and that you stick to your guns come what may. In this example of this type of conduct, your focus was administrators. There was no need for you to warn five admins: if their conduct was as inappropriate as you claim other editors, less invested in the topic, would have picked it up unprompted. It's the fact that you warned five admins that is concerning and also the fact that you still don't seem able to acknowledge that what you did was inappropriate.

There's a widespread and incorrect belief that ArbCom requires proof to be beyond reasonable doubt. That is not so: we operate on the lower civil standard of balance of probability. In other words, it is likelier than not that such and such happened. My view is that in this instance this standard is comfortably met and, while you can proceed with your analysis of the diffs if you wish and I will read what you say, a series of mini-trials on the propriety of each diff is unlikely to make me change my mind.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, did you read my evidence? I've collected them and presented them, all you have to do is read them, and you can decide for yourself whether the evidence shows my complaints had merit. ATren (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've listened to a word I've said.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And did you read what I wrote? In particular, did you read the diffs in 2/0's hatted section, where 2/0 defended a dozen clear battlefield edits by WMC? 2/0 presented diffs where WMC mocked one editor's intelligence, accused another of being dishonest, and called opposing editors idiots, yahoos, trolls and the mob, and made several other clear battleground edits -- all of this in the span of two days -- and after presenting all these, 2/0 actually said "this is not the portrait of an editor we should be topic banning." and "WMC has been markedly more diplomatic" and "If he starts attacking other editors then we should do something about it." Ask yourself, what is wrong with expressing concerns about an admin who not only noted, but defended, nearly a dozen battleground and attacking edits from a single editor in 2 days? And that's just 2/0, there is also evidence for 2 of the other admins. I am asking you again, please read the section. It will take about 10 minutes, in a case that's dragged on for many months, and I believe it is compelling.

In other words, yes, I realize that you don't need legal levels of proof to issue a finding, but in this case, I am presenting evidence for you to read and asking you to simply read it and comment. This is evidence that is relevant and compelling to my situation. It's one thing to make a decision based on "balance of probability" when evidence is lacking, but now I am providing you evidence which you clearly have not read. It's perplexing to me that you would not address that evidence. ATren (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have been reading it (I've been closely following the talk page for the past twenty-four hours) and note that it is a series of assertions from a single perspective. I see no benefit in mini-trials on each of the diffs, which is what is needed if all the parties were to input on them, as it doesn't address the core issue. Incidentally, many people would consider that your tenacity on this point is itself tendentious.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, if you read those diffs, please tell me: was the behavior of those 3 admins (representing 5 of my 12 "battleground" diffs) so beyond reproach that my response was not only ill-advised but actionable? Because that's what you seem to be saying here, that not only was 2/0's defense of WMC's dozen battleground diffs correct, but that it was beyond reproach. Is that what you are saying? Otherwise, why would a good faith editor be sanctioned for simply raising what can be rationally construed as valid concerns? ATren (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not me, though. I just looked at the diffs that were claimed uncivil and saw no such thing, which I find quite worrying. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've received your message, ATren, and am responding here to keep the discussion in one place. During the course of reviewing this case, I've read a couple of hundred articles and their talk pages, and read over thousands of diffs. The objective of providing example diffs is not to summarize all that an editor does that is problematic. In situations where the editor exhibits chronic low level combative issues, the diffs are but snapshots that must be read in the context of entire discussions, or even entire talk pages. I have no problem saying that you've been part of the problem in this topic area for quite a while; your manner of participation here has not been the worst, or the most volatile, but it's time for you to start looking to participate in some actual editing of the project, in an area that is noncontentious. Risker (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't the charges say that then? --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@Risker, I have never had a problem being removed from this topic area. I was one of the strongest proponents of SirFozzie's "scorched earth" approach, which would have removed pretty much everyone, including me. But if I am to be removed, along with others like JWB whose evidence is extremely mild, then there is a whole bunch of editors that were missed. For example, on Shell's talk I identified nine combatants that were not dealt with in the battleground findings:

• Three of them (SBHB, Stephan Schulz and Guettarda) were involved in attacking Lar, frequently in a mocking tone. Cla68 documented the abuse in Lar's RFC and the arbs were aware of that evidence. Yet no battleground finding on any of them. See here.
• ScienceApologist was highly combative on a BLP issue during the case (and he was misrepresenting sources) -- no finding.

And there were at least five admins who were problematic and are not part of these battleground findings:

• 2/0 and TOAT for their efforts to protect WMC (whose actions this committee has now acknowledged as being problematic) even in the face of extremely hostile behavior by WMC, and even as they were coming down hard others for much less. And recall, 2/0 not only defended WMC, he actively undermined the only other admin who did address the problem, reversing Lar's 1-hr block with minutes to go.
• NuclearWarfare - for a very serious BLP violation that he not only endorsed but enforced with a block of the editor who tried to remove it. The material in question was a link to an unpublished presentation and was the subject of threatened litigation between the parties. This was a very serious transgression, but the committee has not said a word about it.
• Other admins who not only exhibited battleground behavior, but used or threatened to use their tools in support, such as Fut.Perf and JEH (see my section for Fut.Perf's evidence, and Jehochman's is coming soon).

Some of these editors were presented on the PD talk, but Roger archived most of them. Others were available in the evidence presented. I assert to you, Risker, that the evidence on every one of these editors meets, and usually exceeds, the level of disruption from people like me and JWB, and in the case of the admins it was even worse because of the use or threatened use of tools.

How does this add up, Risker? How can the bar be so low for editors like me while so many other combatants whose behavior was worse are not even dealt with? And why am I sanctioned for my responses to many of these obvious transgressions, responses that were far more civil and impersonal than the original aggressors, while the aggressors themselves are not? Again, please read the evidence I just posted (did you?) and tell me that I was not justified in addressing those admins. I really believe you have misjudged the root cause of many of these conflicts. ATren (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments only as this is getting circular. (1) I do not see 2over0's comments at the RFE as actionable. No admin is required to enforce anything and I can see where they're coming from. (2) I have commented about NW, citing WP:NOTPERFECT.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) I didn't ask if they were actionable, I asked if they were beyond reproach -- which is what this finding implies. You are effectively saying that merely challenging admins who were misrepresenting facts and attacking editors is itself worthy of a sanction, and that's such an extraordinary position that I no longer value anything this committee says (with the notable exception of Brad and the recused). (2) Right, not perfect. NW was warned about this particular BLP situation repeatedly, yet he not only ignored it, he blocked the lone editor who made it right and created a situation that put the foundation in legal jeopardy -- and you'll let that slide as a mistake; but an editor telling clearly disruptive admins to "step back", well no siree, that's not tolerated here! If this is your definition of even enforcement, then I'll accept my sanction happily and display it proudly. I will not respond further on this thread. ATren (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This was already discussed, I had thought. It would have been nice to have been informed of this thread. Any other threads that I should know about?

WRT Mark's block: Consider [55], which is what I blocked Mark for edit warring over. Abraham's original presentation linked to, but so is an article at The Guardian. Reverting the entire paragraph when there clearly is a reliable source means that it is is no longer a BLP issue, if it ever was one to begin with.

So two things to take away from this: (1) Please contact other users when you are discussing them so that they have the opportunity to defend themselves. (2) Enough with the hyperbole. If you felt that my actions truly put the project in legal jeopardy, you should have (a) contacted the OTRS administrators and immediately tried to ensure that my access to all OTRS channels (which is basically all of the English ones except for oversight), (b) filed an ArbCom case then and there. NW (Talk) 01:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: there you go -- NW still thinks he acted appropriately here, equating a Guardian link with a professor's home page. So much for NOTPERFECT, eh? Good thing you never bothered to even ask NW if he knew his actions were wrong. And thanks, NW, for reinforcing my point. :-) ATren (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a progression here. Brow-beating editors gives way to brow-beating administrators, and finally brow-beating arbitrators. See my talk page for further comments on this pattern. --TS 12:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow! The level of begging the question is incredible. Have you considered that ATren's suggestions of when admins were overstepping the mark might actually be, well, .... reasonable? Or if not that he is entitled to make them without being topic banned? And BTW there was no "progression"; ATren was intially complaining about admin misuse of tools. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony, is that a constructive comment? How do you distinguish "brow beating" from "vigorously defending oneself"? I strongly suspect that if ArbCom members have a problem with the way ATren is defending himself, they'll let ATren know, although if you wanted to give ATren some friendly advice, AT's talk page would be the place to do it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've said this on the P.D. talk page and I'm very serious about it: If it can be shown that other editors have behavior as bad or worse than any editor sanctioned on the P.D. page it would be very useful to arbitrators to have those edits shown side by side with edits of yours, ATren, or mine. Then we'll see if arbitrators can either tell us how our conduct is worse than theirs or sanction those other editors. I think that's the constructive way forward. Arbitrators, in looking over the comparisons, could decide that it's not worth sanctioning any of us -- but arbitrators haven't shown that level of flexibility so far and I don't have my hopes up. It might be done with short quotes in a table or two. I'm guessing that quotes from the edits where I've acknowledged I've made mistakes would look interesting right along side quotes from some other editors (context should always come into play, of course). I think we only have a short period of time before this case closes (NYB and Risker are saying on the PD page that the case should close 72 hours after 20:31, 10 Oct). I first need to wrap up my defense, probably tonight, and then I can put something together based on some already-shown evidence and some new evidence (few people gathered evidence as small-bore as the evidence gathered against me because few people thought ArbCom was going to raise the standards so far up towards the saints in heaven, but I'm sure evidence can be found relatively quickly). I say we should get evidence on as many people as we can, and if it's late in the case to do so, well, I'm not the one who set ArbCom's new standards for sanctions so late in the process -- that was all done by ArbCom. If the standards are newly set this way, there should be a lot of editors who get sanctioned. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about doing that, but what's the point? They've clearly already made up their mind. Look at that section I posted on 2/0, TOAT and FPAS, and tell me how it can be that reasonable arbitrators can look at my diffs compared to those and sanction only them. The only answer that makes sense is that these arbitrators have made up their minds, dammit and no amount of evidence will change it. So why spend the time collecting diffs which they will ignore? I'd rather just take the sanction, which I will post proudly on my user page along with permalinks to the evidence which they ignored. I've quit this topic area anyways; it was never about the sanction itself, it was about righting a wrong. At least these threads demonstrate how wrong this decision really is, how ridiculous the finding against me is, and for that at least it was worth it. Now I will go back into my hole. ATren (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ATren and JWB are correct. There has been ample evidence presented about other editors and admins who engaged in far worse behavior than ATren and JWB. To overlook it is unfair. But ArbCom isn't fair, that's not the function. ArbCom is here to ensure the smooth running of the project. Sanctioning that many members of that faction and their sympathizers would be terribly inconvenient, and would disrupt things. Hope you understand. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey voluntary restriction

I noticed that in Kim's voluntary restriction you specifically mentioned the completion of a two-month, self-imposed editing restriction from the topic. Would it be possible for you to do the same on my own voluntary restriction remedy, since I abided by exactly the same pledge as soon as I learned of it? I specifically referred to this pledge when we began discussing a voluntary restriction. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, done. I've also rejigged slightly the wording of the restriction in response to Coren's comments to make it closer to what you originally proposed.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The other change makes sense as well. The point I wanted to make in our earlier discussions about RCP was that I wanted to conduct RCP edits without having to check to see in which topic I was performing them. In all likelihood, the number of CC-related RCP edits I make would be insignificant in comparison to the total number of RCP edits I would make. I think Coren was more concerned about how some editors might misconstrue RCP edits as violations of my voluntary restriction, but I think it unlikely given the nature of those kinds of edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Closing comments

Maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but the "closing comments" thread at the proposed decision talk page looks like an excuse to get in a few free eye-gouges under cover of arbitration. I suggest closing it with prejudice as it serves no pressing legitimate purpose. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

[56] Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Writing in PD tak page after the collapsing

That was an edit conflict, not intentional. Feel free to delete. Ironically, I was suggesting the page be archived. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

[Chuckle] No worries. I'm trying to wind down from it too so I probably won't bother :)  Roger Davies ^talk 21:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Such a pleasure to see the carpet rolled up on this one. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom/CC

Thank you for your hard work on the CC case, and with the help you gave me in particular. I accept full responsibility for my actions, and I will do my best to show you and your colleagues that your faith in my ability to restrict myself voluntarily has not been misplaced. I think the Committee has done a pretty good job considering the complexity and scope of the matter. Please accept my thanks, and kindly extend them to your colleagues on the Committee on my behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind comments. I shall pass them on,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The status of Lar

A question has been raised on User talk:Lar concerning his status under the climate change arbitration. I'm not sure I understand what is unclear about the result but perhaps a comment by an arbitrator from the case elucidating the intention of various remedies might be helpful. --TS 13:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I had thought the discussion on Lar's UT page was clear. The principle defining "involved" appears to be contradicted by the result - especially since no remedies mentioning Lar were passed at all. Thus the existence of an RFC/U (which was, at best, inconclusive, and where one of the prime movers has now been blocked for having more than ten socks), and the short list of Lar showing exasperation, at most, becomes "involvement" for the purpose of the decision. Which I found anomalous, absent any other indication of "involvement." Is that more clear, I trust, as a query? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Presented to Roger Davies for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia. Defteratalk 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Deftera, very much,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rules

If we are going to be all wikipedia rules about this. You cannot refactor your statement some considerable time after people have replied to it. [57] please use proper process. Thank you. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have convinced me that honesty is not a virtue on wikipedia, rather that rules compliance is. Good work. So please comply. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We probably need a record somewhere as people are casting doubt on the accuracy of the ArbCom motion. I don't agree that the edit wasn't kosher, but if you'd like it clarified, I'll add a note underneath. I was about to refer to it anyway.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I had already directly responded to your talkpage comment. Therefore your refactoring was about as Kosher as my supposedly horrible socks were. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As to the arbcom motion I had made it plain before this even happened that I voluntarily agree to running an RfA if I ever wish to have the tools again so the motion is a little redundant. I just think the wording of the arbcom motion is poor and hasty and punitive. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You've also said that you'd given up editing ... To be honest, this would never have arisen if it wasn't for all the socking (two of which turned up after we'd created Polargeo 2 for you) because I, for one, was deeply sympathetic about your present circumstances. However, there's only so much we can tolerate and the motion tells it like it is.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and the moment that I realised Polargeo 2 had been set up I ceased activity on any other account but I was still blocked by Hersfold. I am sorry I also missed your voluntary restriction offers because I didn't check my email, it was not my main email. This is all tragic but not grounds to hammer me by. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's hammering you, far from it, but some people seem to be out to create maximum drama from this which will inevitably draw attention to you and your activities.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Remedy 3 hammered me. A topic ban on CC across wikipedia hammered me. I returned from paternity leave to find that you and Shell had taken over from all of the drafting arbs and bundled me into a topic ban. No evidence of any problem article editing but some incivility was found over the course of an extremely long arbcase and RfC/U where I had been goaded and attacked. I found myself mixed in with all of the edit warriors and POV pushers. Any offers you gave requiring voluntary restrictions on article editing were therefore ridiculous. Why would you push for me to not edit articles which I had never had a problem editing? Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban was right because you were contributing significantly to the battlefield atmosphere, it's as simple as that. You can't go around sniping, making strident comments and highly polemic remarks, on Wikipedia generally, let alone in a highly contentious topic, without sanction. Insisting that none of this is your fault, but somehow ArbCom's, seems to me to be missing the point.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And there you show that you don't understand. I don't really blame you. Do you think my criticism of Lar was sniping? Do you think my pointing out the fact that JWB popped up out of nowhere to attack me was sniping? (no you probably think that just because I mentioned him it was a personal attack) Even so you seem to think my actions are sufficient for an indefintite topic ban on CC. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say that if I had any doubts beforehand they have subsequently been replaced by certainty that we did the right thing. Your behaviour since the Remedy 3 was passing has been extraordinary and continues to be ... Please heed some advice. Take a break and come back when the dust has settled. It'll be easier for all concerned if recent events are viewed with a little distance.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a shame because you were wrong, you are wrong and unfortunately you think you are right. You will make a great politician. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo: Haranguing Roger, carrying on, and making these sort of sarcastic remarks ("honesty is not a virtue on wikipedia", "You will make a great politician" and so forth) about Roger and the project is just not going to help, and instead will convince folk that you can't change for the better. (I think those people would be wrong, I think you can change if you want to... do you want to?) I think you should stop discussing this until you are calmer. Take that advice as you like. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Songs of the Spanish Civil War

Category:Songs of the Spanish Civil War, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ucucha 20:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of evidence subpages

Per the arbcom case decision, would you please ensure that this is deleted? Thanks. ATren (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't an evidence subpage. Can you not stop meddling? The case is over William M. Connolley (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear

What's your opinion of Top Gear (2002 TV series), the show, not the article? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. (sorry for butting in on your public conversation). I love Top Gear so much. Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, think carefully, I and likely many others may have to change our ArbCom votes based on the answer to this question ;) NW (Talk) 12:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, we're waiting, enquiring minds want to know. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Some say he only knows two facts about Ducks, and that . All we know is, he's called The Stig. --InkSplotch (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I love it but don't watch every episode. Or not.*  Roger ^talk 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

* For NW's benefit. There are only limited ways I can hedge bets here. :)

And I deny any rumours that I'm the Stig. I always drive like that.

And talking of the devil...  Roger ^talk 13:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat amused. It isn't like Ofcom is ever going to be able to do anything to Top Gear, not to their greatest revenue earner.

And Roger, don't worry. I discovered Top Gear perhaps just a month ago, and I am very much in the same boat as yourself :) NW (Talk) 14:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahem

How does that work?

)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, indeed. :)  Roger ^talk 06:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI re: Ronz

Could you get someone to help us with a block? Thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments: User talk:BadBabysitter. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

An admitted block evading sock, hmm. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Of a user blocked for socking. Hmmm indeed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

NF blocked him. See my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo

Hi. Before I go and do something stupid, can you clarify something for me? Stevertigo was banned by ArbCom for 1 year as a result of an arbitration case. It was my understanding that a banned user, as opposed to an indef blocked user, cannot edit anywhere on Wikipedia, including on their user or talk pages, and must communicate with ArbCom, if needed, via email -- am I correct in that? I ask because Stevertigo is editing his talk page - the indef block administered to enforce the ban apparently left his talk page access open. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering the drama that's gone on over his user and talk pages and which notices have to go where, it's no wonder the poor guy felt the need to speak up. I'd say this would be a case where a little understanding would be best. Shell ^babelfish 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Shell. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. He brought this on himself, and has no one else to blame. I think he should be treated like any other banned user. Is it or is it not policy that a banned user cannot edit their talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Kicking editors while they're down is very unbecoming. Shell ^babelfish 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And treated banned users as if they were not banned is very unfair. If you didn't want him to be treated as a banned user, why did you ban him? I fail to see why he earns favorable treatment, considering his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, there's no hard and fast rule for how the talk pages and user pages are handled. Since this isn't a case where an editor tried to continue a dispute over content or with other editors, it doesn't fall afoul of any policies. Given your strong feelings about this editor/his behavior, it might be best to leave these kinds of questions/monitoring to others who can be more objective. Shell ^babelfish 22:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not touching his page again, no plans for that, but you folks ought to re-evaluate the message you're sending here: "Hey, if you're an old-timer, you can behave like an ass and be sanctioned and banned, but (wink wink), you're still one of us, mate."

No. Stevertigo is one of us when he returns from his year of being banned (or sooner, if he exhibits good behavior elsehwere and petitions ArbCom for early return) and begins again, and his behavior is acceptable. Until then he's a banned user nothing more, and nothing less. "Stevertigo is banned from Wikipedia for one year." You didn't send him to the grocery store to buy a pie, you sent a message "Your behavior is unacceptable", a message you are now undercutting by showing leniancy where none has been earned. It's a mistake, all around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And, if I may, last thoughts on the subject, it's no wonder that people have trouble paying strict attention to topic bans, for instance, when arbitartors themselves don't take their remedies seriously. If you feel sorry for the guy, fine, but bring that into play when he comes and asks you all for probabtion, not at the beginning of the remedy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm actually it's pretty standard. There are a lot of banned editors (community or ArbCom) out there with access to their talk pages. It's only when they cause disruption by repeated unblock requests, continuing content disputes or attacking other editors that their talk pages get blocked. You're suggesting we treat Stevertigo differently and in a manner that makes it clear you're emotionally invested. Not sure what else to tell you. Shell ^babelfish 22:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Ok, then. Ah, a simple statement to that effect up at the top might have been useful, but better late than never.

Now, where do I go to propose that the loophole is closed, and banned users be, you know, actually banned? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a community discussion, so maybe the Village Pump would be a good place to start or the talk page of WP:BAN? Shell ^babelfish 23:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay-doke. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegations

Hi Roger: Please help me with this [58]. I'm not repeating the entire section here to avoid duplication. Thanks. EngineerFromVega (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

Roger, would you please explain how this warning from Hans is OK but the warnings listed in my finding are not? ATren (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In the same way, I suppose, that one revert is usually okay but five is persistent edit warring.  Roger ^talk 19:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not quite. My warnings were to 4 different admins spread out over months. There is no analogy to edit warring. And besides, the editors who pursued Lar did so repeatedly and they were not sanctioned. Your explanation holds no water. Would you care to take another crack at it? ATren (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Motions you have posted

Mark wanted me to let you know that he accepted the amended terms. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) See my other note also.

Thanks for the message. He'll need to accept it as currently drafted, I'm afraid.  Roger ^talk 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I came here to ask about:

Proposed: That provided they unequivocally accept the spirit and the letter of the amended terms above by message on their talk pages, User:Marknutley and User:William M. Connolley will be unblocked upon the passing of Motion 1 above.

Support:

1. Roger talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assuming that's what this section is about, can any editor post a reply, or is that only for Administrators and Arbitrators? Thanks. --Yopienso (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Any editor can make a statement in the "Statement by XXX" section about the motions. Alternatively, a section can be started in the talk page for something less formal.  Roger ^talk 21:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the proposed motions have some problems.

• The actions of MN and WMC were not identical. It is hardly obvious that everyone will reach identical decisions on both editors. It would have been better to make them as separate motions. (Perhaps all arbs will reach the same decision on both, but it is clear to me that MN violated the woridng of the ban, and WMC did not, so if I were an arb, I would not be able to vote cleanly).
• Participating in a legitimate dispute resolution forum, such as an appeal of the ban, can be an exception to limited ban. However, this motion does not invoke the topic ban wording per Wikipedia:Banning policy, thus it is not obvious that the exceptions still apply. Presumably, the reason for crafting specific wording, as opposed to simply referencing Wikipedia:Banning policy, is because the wording there is deemed deficient. Why on earth should it be obvious that while the topic ban wording has been replaced, other provision still apply? In addition, the general page says "exceptions to article, topic and interaction bans are usually recognized:" (emphasis added). How do we know when they are or are not recognized? One possibility is that the exceptions are always recognized unless explicitly excluded, but why not spell it out?--SPhilbrickT 20:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. These are best brought up on the case page, so my colleagues are also aware of them.  Roger ^talk 21:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I needed a smile. [59] --BozMo talk 22:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed

I'm fairly disappointed by this opinion. It seems clear to me that the word "processes" in the ArbCom decision was understood by all involved to be the kind of formal and semi-formal discussions that take place in the Wikipedia name space. Your reinterpretation looks like an after-the-fact wikilawyering rationalization to me. As mentioned by many others, comments on a user's own talk page have not, so far, been interpreted as violating a topic ban. If this is to change, I would very much wish this change to be explicit and transparent, not retroactive and per a discussion with unclear consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan: If people who are topic-banned move discussion that belongs on article talk space onto their user talk pages as a proxy for the article talk page, they are circumventing the ban. It's a simple as that really.  Roger ^talk 12:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that is not what happened here. No discussion was moved, or even took place. William had the audacity to point out sock vandalism and BLP violations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Or, looked at from a different prespective, used his talk page to proxy edit articles covered by the his topic ban ...  Roger ^talk 13:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Proxying is a problem of the user who makes the edits, not the user who suggests them. And there has been a long-standing consensus that users may make edits suggested by blocked and even banned editors if they take responsibility for the edit. But I'd avoid repeating the whole discussion here. Sphilbrick below has expressed it well. If you want a certain result, find a clean way to achieve it. Don't use bogus arguments that create very problematic new precedents. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Stephan, you're wrong in your analysis.  Roger ^talk 14:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the specificity of your statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a very clear statement. Unfortunately it's not a very convincing one. It's not an argument, it's just plain contradiction. Hans Adler 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, clearly WMC is gaming the system by creating an alternative process on WP for influencing the topic area. So, I agree with Roger and a few other editors that have pointed out that it does fall under the letter of the ruling. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You defended following the spirit, not the letter over at AE. Stretching the letter of the ruling is exactly the kind of Wikilawyering I would not expect from Roger (or from you, to be honest). I can't help the feeling that this debate is not concerned with precedence and fairness, but with justifying a predetermined result and getting it over with as quickly as possible. We probably disagree on the desirability of the (very intermediate) result. But I had hoped that we would agree on the value of a fair and open debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've given up trying to get the community to understand that the WMC block did not properly follow process, but this opinion is far-reaching, and ought to be reversed. No one thinks Wikipedia "processes" means user talk pages. Everyone knows that WP processes refers to AN/ANI/RPP/etc. Redefining the term to include user talk pages is a stretch, and a stretch too far. As evidence, I can quote the esteemed Roger Davies, who refers to the edits on talk pages as "circumventing the ban". You can't say that the edits are both covered by the ban and circumventing the ban.

They were circumventing the ban. The solution is simple - either get ArbcCom to revise the ban generally, or remind admins they can warn, then block when someone is circumventing a ban inappropriately. The wrong answer is to declare that the ban really did include talk pages. I do not understand the reluctance to follow the procedures set out in the decision. They made sense. Re-defining "process" to include talk pages is not the right way to go.

(I promised myself last night I would let this issue go, and I am resigned to the fact that the community won't reverse the WMC block. However, justify it by saying enough is enough and IAR. This new definition of "processes" is not limited to CC, and should not be done this way. If the community really wants such a redefinition, let's do it properly, not as an offhand comment by a single Arb member.)--SPhilbrickT 13:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the short answer is that the prohibition applies to "participating in any Wikipedia process". It doesn't much matter for the purpose of the topic ban where the participation takes place. There's nothing sacrosanct about user talk pages where, for example, the community makes no distinct between, for example, personal attacks on article talk pages or user talk pages.  Roger ^talk 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But he did not participate in any process. He highlighted edits he thought were wrong on his talkpage with no commentary. You are redefining what most people understand by process no matter how skillfully you work your way around it. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that initiating or instigating a process is not participating in it?  Roger ^talk 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am seriously suggesting that you are redefining the term "process" against what is commonly understood on wikipedia. Process on wikipedia is generally understood to mean ANI etc. but I really shouldn't have to tell you this. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What other word would you use to describe a series of actions? That's all a process is.  Roger ^talk 15:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand you are using the word "process" generically rather than in the generally accepted wikipedia sense. That is fine until you start to use the term in a rule defining wikilegal sense. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Polargeo, but I don't accept I'm using it in any strange way. If I had meant it to carry a special meaning, I'd have linked it or qualified it.  Roger ^talk 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I obviously understood the word differently in wikipedia terms. If someone like me is having trouble understanding what you mean then this is something I think you should clarify better when you use the term in future. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Something to consider for future cases using this penalty is to be very simple and clear with the language. "User XYZ is banned from commenting about ABC in any form, on any page on Wikipedia." If you mean everything, say it. The current wording leaves some gray area. Ravensfire (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A change in the policy is being worked on, here, to do exactly that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If users push the envelope and attempt to say involved with the topic then there will be grey areas no matter what wording is used. Despite the block and the clearer explanation to WMC yesterday, he again edited his talk page today with an link to a CC article that he wanted his tpw to see and take action. So, this confirms that confusion over the use of talk is not at the heart of the issue in this situation, and not worth all of the various talk page comments and objections. And the wording that you suggest would leave loopholes, too, since it only mentions comments and not actions which also would be covered. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your interpretation of the word "process". As far as I know this interpretation is unprecedented, but I guess you are in the best position to prove me wrong if I am wrong. I note that there was a related discussion, involving NewYorkBrad and Carcharoth, neither of whom clearly contradicted the emerging consensus that what WMC was doing was technically OK although very unwise. (The page structure of everything surrounding Arbcom is so chaotic that I regularly don't find such things, but I guess you know what discussion I am talking about.)

Any block that leads to much more extensive discussion afterwards than preceded it is in some sense a bad block. This is particularly true if a block exacerbates the main problem, which according to Arbcom was polarisation, IIRC. Such bad blocks should not be encouraged, it must be made clear that contentious blocks must be preceded by extensive discussion and ideally also warnings. Hans Adler 15:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans: Let's look at the bigger picture here for a moment.

Virtually everyone accepts that WMC has engaged in conduct that was, depending on your perspective, either at least pushing the envelope or wilful wikilawyering. He was offered a chance to "cease and desist" shortly after the block was placed by an administrator who was clearly interested only in defusing the situation. WMC ignored the offer. Since then, and during the site block, he has not only repeated the complained of conduct but has also steadily escalated the situation with a series of remarks, which are at best inappropriate and at worse deliberately inflammatory. Additionally, a steady stream of editors who frequent his page have protested the block with varying degrees of civility.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the wording of the topic ban, there was undisputedly widespread discussion of it and it is clear that the AE action has wide consensus among admins working there. It is equally clear that WMC has, to great measure, brought this on himself.

I disagree with your suggestion that this issue has been polarising. What we are seeing is a continuation of deliberately polarised battlefield conduct that is best summarised as "either you're with us or against us", which started many many months ago, which hamstrung the community sanctions regime, and which turned the topic into the powderkeg it is today. This unremitting manoeuvring succeeded in turning everything into "contentious"; with argument, counter-argument, and personal attacks designed to discredit. This pattern is continuing, even as I write. This must all stop. A good start point would be WMC genuinely disengaging: that means no more pointy comments; no more ingenious wriggles; no further attempts to poke people with sticks. Once we've seen genuine commitment to disengagement, I'm sure that everything else will fall into place.  Roger ^talk 16:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The "either you're with us or against us" attitude used to be a really bad problem around the pseudoscience topic, but it's much better now than it used to be. (Most notably, ScienceApologist is no longer part of the problem and as far as I am concerned that seems to have been a huge success of Arbcom.) I don't see much evidence of this problem in the climate change area. What I see is communication disasters between Arbcom and the community of editors with scientific qualifications. So long as not just WMC believes that Arbcom is part of the problem, but also SBHB and others of a similar calibre, you must be much more careful with sanctions. If the target of a sanction believes that it is unfair, and if all their friends agree, then it will have only negative effects. I hope that at some point Arbcom will understand that the problem with the Giano civility probation wasn't just that it was a civility probation. The problem was that the civility probation was a licence for admins to poke Giano. Under the circumstances of the CC case, you had a choice between poking WMC directly (with an unambiguously worded sanction) and encouraging admins to poke him (via an ambiguously worded sanction and support for what WMC and his friends see as unfair treatment). Of course WMC also had the choice to turn this sanction into something constructive, but it appears that like Giano he won't do us the favour of going to a physician and ask for mood-altering drugs for Wikipedia's benefit.

Personally I have never been a fan of WMC and probably had some forgotten conflicts with him in the past. But like many of WMC's friends I am concerned about the quality of our coverage in the face of a continuous stream of throw-away accounts and a substantial percentage of blog-programmed editors. In the CC decision I did not see any acknowledgement that Arbcom was aware of this problem and the fact that qualified editors are harder to replace than unqualified ones, or indeed any acknowledgement that the situation is asymmetric. Since a rational, informed observer can have no doubt about the underlying content questions, I felt that this left only two interpretations: That Arbcom officially stayed clear of any content questions in order to have more informal manoeuvering space, or that Arbcom genuinely doesn't care about content at all (i.e. the really big picture) and would be happy with a totally misleading encyclopedia so long as the social side is harmonious. I assumed good faith, but sadly it appears I was wrong. Hans Adler 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This case has highlighted the fundamental problem that some scientists have with the Wikipedia model. That is the tension between NPOV and scientific consensus, and the respective weights that should be placed on scientific consensus and on opinions/theories outside of that consensus. This is essentially a content issue, over which ArbCom has no jurisdiction. The only longterm solution is for the community to reconcile NPOV and SPOV, and either say that SPOV trumps NPOV (which it has never done to date) or to find ways of accommodating SPOV within NPOV.

I fully understand how difficult it must be for any expert in any field to have their views/research/life's work repeatedly but for controversial subjects that too is the nature of a wiki. The same arguments have to be made out over and over again; the same issues explained; and that is undeniably frustrating, but that too is the nature of a wiki. I can easily understand too how over time these discussions become personal and embattled but that also is the nature of a wiki. Against all this, we have policies in place to facilitate article creation and maintenance, and spare the community from the ravages of warfare: these are ArbCom's domain and it is ArbCom's role to enforce them.

Against this backdrop, you will see that neither of the "only two interpretations" you refer to are applicable as they do not include the reality of ArbCom's position.  Roger ^talk 15:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So according to you, Arbcom's position is a postmodernist one? For example, until relatively recently Wikipedia would have had to say that there is no scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer, simply because there was a huge political campaign to create that impression? Or for an even clearer example, consider the article Sam Blacketer controversy, which at some point stated, based on "reliable" sources that contradicted what we all know, that the "Labour leader" (this actually didn't make it into the article) known to us as Sam Blacketer had made "many unfavourable" "alterations" to David Cameron. If you missed the extreme wikilawyering that went on at the time in order to use Wikipedia as an instrument to libel a former Arbcom member, have a look at WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy and Talk:Sam Blacketer controversy. The situation with global warming is very similar, and there are plenty of academic sources describing not just the scientific consensus but also the purely political methods used to create the impression that it doesn't exist.

I really hope that you are not speaking for Arbcom as a whole, since such a fundamentalist postmodernist position would be completely at odds with the first pillar: That Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are about knowledge, not belief. They are deeply rooted in the French enlightenment, and they are built on rational thought, not on following powerful authorities. Most readers of an encyclopedia hope to find the best available approximation to the truth there, rather than the most popular belief. Some readers have different priorities, but that's a niche market which is served by Conservapedia and similar projects. Hans Adler 16:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that ArbCom would probably not make rulings that smoking causes cancer, or that the earth orbits the sun, because it is not within our jurisdiction to do so. And it certainly wouldn't rule that anyone opposing that position may be reverted/blocked on sight or that any conduct no matter how egregious by anyone supporting the SPOV position is acceptable. Instead, the usual view taken by the committee is that once conduct issues are resolved, normal consensus editing on content prevails. The cases you mention are slightly different because they involve BLPs, where different and stricter rules apply.  Roger ^talk 17:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom would presumably not rule that smoking causes cancer. But what about an account whose edits largely or solely promote the view that smoking is harmless? Would that conduct be seen by ArbCom as problematic per se, on behavioral grounds, even if the account in question was superficially polite and did not edit-war? Or is that just a "content issue"? What if there are dozens of such accounts, interwoven with numerous sockpuppets? Is that a content matter? Would the relatively small number of reality-based editors be responsible for dealing with this onslaught while simultaneously maintaining a perfect success rate in identifying socks, unfailing civility, and avoiding anything that might resemble edit-warring or even isolated "drive-by" reverts? MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone, of course, who "promotes a view" falls foul of the WP:NPOV policy, no matter which side of the smoking is harmless/dangerous divide they are on. The second point is that while the view that smoking is dangerous is widely supported not every sub-position which has informed that view will necessarily be universally and uncritically supported by the scientific community. The more complex the position, the greater the opportunity for genuine dissent on the sub-issues. Especially in hot topics, it doesn't take much for the sides to polarise and a battleground to form. While not policy, and perhaps a little Utopian, this essay and especially the graphic, offers ways forward.  Roger ^talk 13:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read Junk science#Use as corporate PR and note how some of the climate change "sceptics" and organisations come up there in connection with smoking. This includes the Cato Institute and Fred Singer. That is, your "second point" is being exploited to create the illusion of scientific doubt on the main facts of climate change by much the same people now who were proved in court to have done the same for the smoking and lung cancer connection.

SPOV has been rejected in general because it is inappropriate for non-scientific claims and just common sense for most scientific claims. That doesn't make it the wrong approach for articles on scientific topics about which misinformation is being spread systematically by PR agencies. Note that the big PR companies advertise "real grassroots campaigns" as part of their repertoire nowadays. (E.g.: "Do your PR initiatives sometimes look too much like PR initiatives?" See Social Issues Research Centre#Criticism.) This requires the same kind of determined response as do spam and other other systematic attempts to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia. Editors who are dealing with the steady trickle of misguided SPAs are under significant stress. Even if they are not working optimally, the still need support, and any measure for encouraging them to be more efficient must at the same time make it clear that the underlying problem is understood and taken seriously. Hans Adler 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The classic wikipedia position is one of slight detachment; that people without a dog in the fight are more likely to apply policy objectively; are more likely to respond calmly; and are less likely to be uncivil, or to edit-war, or to sock. The feuding at Climate change has driven these good people away. We need them back to restore balance and common sense to the whole sorry mess.

You suggest that Climate change is a special case. I disagree strongly. I can think of at least a dozen large topics which have been/are being targetted by vested interests: by conglomerates, by covert governmental organisations, by wealthy faith groups, by well-funded political parties, and by nationalist factions.

You suggest that Climate change needs special rules. The logical conclusion of your position is that the community should hand over complete control of content to groups of editors on the "right side" of the debate and give them carte blanche to do as they will. How is it healthy for the project as a whole to legitimise battleground positions? To create autonomous city states within the greater structure; to revert whatever content they dislike, to protect articles when it suits them; to apply policy selectively in their cause; to block whichever editors fail to meet their requirements; to find fault with and harass administrators; and to denigrate people opposing their position in, for example, BLPs?

Finally, and contrary to your view, both the community and ArbCom has provided support and encouragement. No one has been site-banned yet, though there are/were strong arguments for doing so. Through a nuanced appeal structure, it is encouraging good conduct and offering rewards for it. Editors have been told to leave the topic and find other areas to edit in until their batteries are recharged, their war-weariness has passed, and they find themselves once again able to comply with site policies. Many people might well see that as tough love.  Roger ^talk 08:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not telling you how to do your job but

A general warning to all editors [60] (which includes me by the way) without attempting to address the specific issue is rather annoying. I was already pissed off at being lumped into remedy 3, I am now becoming more pissed off by being lumped into statements like this. Surely if you have an issue with a specific statement then that should be dealt with rather than firing some general warning shot. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, do you get angry at a building manager if you see a "no smoking" sign posted, but you don't smoke? — Coren ^(talk) 12:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If I'm just generally pissed off with the building manager already and he slaps a no smoking sign in my office maybe. All because someone lit up but the building manager has taken no steps to deal with the person who lit up but just slapped the sign in my office. Polargeo 2 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

An important difference is that smoking or not is a clear yes/no matter that does not require reading the building manager's mind to understand what you can do and what you can't. A better example would have been "Everybody is reminded to take the utmost care not to bring any dirt from the street into the building." Someone may have inadvertently distributed dog shit on the floor recently, but if the building manager (or the other related people with authority) has a history of treating normally acceptable behaviour as offensive if it can at all be argued to be in contradiction to a recent warning of that kind, then you simply don't know whether it's enough to bring your slippers from now on and put your street shoes in a plastic bag at the door, or whether you must also disinfect your slippers each time. Hans Adler 12:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. What part of "No" don't you guys understand? If you're topic banned, drop the topic at WP. What the sign says is, "No dog poo." If you can't walk in without spreading it on the floor, stay out. If you accidentally track some in, clean it up and be more careful. --Yopienso (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a long history of bad formulations coming out of Arbcom. It appears that generally only little thought goes into how to express something unambiguously, and sometimes even the Arbs disagree about how a formulation was meant. Given the extent to which many Arbcom decisions are subject exegetical disputes, this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. The sign didn't say "No dog poo". The sign said "No dogs: Unusually big dogs, dogs of known dangerous races and hunting dogs must stay out. Any dog excrements found will lead to prosecution." Obviously it comes as a surprise when it later emerges that the sign was intended to keep house-trained Pekingese dogs out as well. Hans Adler 20:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it may not be bad formulations. It may be that a lot of Arbs simply don't read what they are voting for, so that in the end a majority of Arbs actually meant something other than the plain text that made it into the decision. Hans Adler 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

More wikilawyering. Again, what part of "No" don't you understand? No dog poo in the foyer? none on the main floor? none on the stairs? none in the basement? "No dog poo" means nada, zilch, none, anywhere. If I tell you no, not in the foyer, no, not on the main floor, no, not on the stairs, no, not in the basement, you'll be asking about the balcony. --Yopienso (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that you are an Arb and I am topic banned. To the best of my knowledge neither is true.

My point is the principle known as enumeratio ergo limitatio in German theory of statutory interpretation. (I am surprised I can't find an article for this.) If you want a law to hold in general you must not enumerate special cases without marking them explicitly as only examples. More importantly, once you enumerate special cases the law is not applicable to unmentioned special cases for which the applicability is a priori less clear than for the enumerated cases.

This principle is just common sense and therefore also applicable for Arbcom decisions. Arbcom has either violated it or has changed its mind after the decision. Neither is a good idea. Hans Adler 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Hans, will you be running for ArbCom this year?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not before I am retired or the position comes with a decent salary. Thanks for asking. Hans Adler 21:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In english law, that's Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which should have an article. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's not as broad as what I described but still fits the situation perfectly. Hans Adler 21:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I think you get my point but just disagree. Your logic eludes me, but then mine eludes you. :) Of course I know I'm not an Arb and you're not topic banned. However, I'm standing with the established WP authority and you're standing with the topic banned. Just one more time, and I promise not to offer my perspective again: The fact that you must refer to an obscure point of law to evade the clear common-sense meaning of the ban, which has been spelled out and reiterated and interpreted by the Arbs (some of them) again and again, suggests you're wikilawyering on behalf of others. Please, just let them suffer the consequences of their actions, change attitude and course, and try to do better in the future.

Thanks for letting me take this tidbit away from the discourse: likening WMC to a house-trained Pekingese! :) He doesn't seem so very house-trained, though...

I've seen you make lots of productive comments in the past and don't want to sour what has been a very occasional and tangential but cooperative working relationship. I need to drop out of this now but will be back to read your last word. Best wishes. --Yopienso (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate for you to actually read and understand what you are commenting on? The warning that is questioned here has nothing what so ever to do with WMC, since he hasn't (can't) in fact commented on that thread, and thus cannot be the person (or one of the persons) warned by the comment in question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This stuff doesn't belong here but on the clarification talk page.  Roger ^talk 12:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I was avoiding that page because of my topic ban. I was specifically commenting on your personal actions which apply to me here on your user talkpage, I cannot help how the discussion evolved. Polargeo (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This was an arbitrator action not a personal one but thank you for your comments nevertheless.  Roger ^talk 07:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

On a BLP issue

Shortly before you commented at the talk page of Alexh19740110 (talk · contribs) (Alex Harvey), I expressed my concern about a BLP violation in his searlier comment on his talk page.[61] After some clarification, he responded "As I said, I think it is nonsense but you may clean it up if you think there's a problem."[62] As an involved editor I'm reluctant to redact the words of another editor on their own talk page, even with that invitation – the alternative would be a report to BLPN, or potentially to WP:AE though that would seem rather excessive. Your advice on how to proceed will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the answer lies in policy. If you believe something is a clear BLP violation, you can remove it yourself, whether or not you're involved, and whether or not you're an admin. If you're uncertain whether something is a violation, WP:BLP suggests leaving a note at WP:AN/I (though, as you mention, WP:BLPN is probably a better option).  Roger ^talk 07:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger, on reflection I've accepted the invitation to redact the relevant part of the comment.[63] In view of the sensitivities in this area I thought it best to ask your advice first rather than going ahead with normal procedures. . dave souza, talk 08:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Roger Davies. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Rehman 13:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked and can't see it. Can you resend using the "Email this user" function please?  Roger ^talk 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. That's what I did, but let see if it works now... :) Rehman 00:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

They've both turned up now :) Must be a glitch in my mail queue or something ...  Roger ^talk 07:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I am not sure whether I am on the right place or not, however, I think I need some help from some other wiki editors. Please have a look at Talk:Boxer Rebellion, and I strongly feel that user:.Дунгане is simply over the top in this discussion, and some kind of comments (preferable from an admin) would be welcome. Arilang ^talk 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, admin, I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.

Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro

Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons

Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric

I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.

User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [64]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here

Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem Straw man attacks, claiming that the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see western sources in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China".

in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removed

User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)"

Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."

In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.

Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.

Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.

Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war

arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".

Quote from Arilang1234- " have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic."

Since when are wikipedia users allowed to insert their own personal opinions and use wikipedia as a soapbox?

I also do not appreciate the threatening tone Arilang1234 is displaying in this question against me.Дунгане (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you guys take this to dispute resolution or a noticeboard please?  Roger ^talk 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo

Please could you unblock User:Polargeo. I have no access to that account and I would be only too happy to have the account reblocked if it ever edited again. This is just a technicality because certain users are protesting that I cannot post an election guide whilst Polargeo is blocked. There should be no reason for Polargeo to remain blocked anyway. I am so sorry that this is a general waste of your time, thanks User:Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've unblocked Polargeo, which is largely symbolic as the password has gone, but you're on your honour to let us know if the password ever turns up. The blocking admin (Coren) is cool about the unblocking too. If you go ahead with the election guide, don't forget the topic ban. Comment on the candidates, if you think it will help voters, but not on the topic. On the broader issue of whether the guide meets the requirements for inclusion, that is an entirely a matter for the community to resolve and this note is not intended to endorse either inclusion or exclusion.  Roger ^talk 20:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. I understand. There is no way the password could turn up but you only have my word on it. As for CC of course I will follow the topic ban but I have never been a CC evangelist, in fact I am the most skeptical scientist I know, (I also support both polar bear and whale hunting and believe they are not all close to extinction, I have cooked with whale meat, a whale my wife helped to hunt, and worn polar bear fur). The findings against me were essentially incivility in the WP talk namespace, it was quite inventive to "throw me out with the bathwater" per remedy 3. All the same you might be surprised at just how reasonable I can be if the community were to accept me as a guide writer, in the same way as if you had looked at my limited article and article talkpage interactions in the CC area you would have seen how non-partisan and reasonable I was instead of focussing on my frustration with the car crash that the arbcase and the Lar RfC were. I found in many aspects arbcom are extremely myopic and that is not a good thing with editors getting disproportionately sanctioned for what are essentially minor incivilities that the arbitration committee or indeed AE sees in front of it. That is surely not what arbcom are for. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Polargeo (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

ACE voter log – any use?

Hullo Roger, just wondering seeing as you supported the idea last year if you'd care to weigh in on the matter of whether there ought to be an on-wiki voter log for this year's ArbCom elections? The discussion is here. Cheers, Skomorokh 19:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wording in the Climate change decision

Hi Roger, I asked about this at the clerk's noticeboard and was advised to track down the drafting arb, which appears to be you. [65] In the enacted wording of the discretionary sanctions here, the HTML anchor "#Area_of_conflict" underlies two blue-links "Climate change topic, broadly construed" and "area of conflict". This anchor doesn't go anywhere so it leaves the reader somwhat guessing if they are missing something important. If you could look at it when you get a chance, most appreciated. (I hope it doesn't mean you'll have to re-open the case ;) Franamax (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Franamax: I've simply removed the underlying links, which seems the best way forward. Thanks for mentioning this,  Roger ^talk 07:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As Franamax will testify and probably users such as himself should have done during the case, editors such as myself being banned from commenting on glaciology is nonsense as not a single finding of fact against me pertained to article or article talkspace. Should I appeal? Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is unlikely to be a problem working on glacier articles generally though you would need to avoid any that contain climate change components.  Roger ^talk 08:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why won't User:Roger Davies respond?

Honestly, this is not a sub-topic I've followed closely, but I am troubled by your lack of response.[66] Considering your importance as a member of ArbCom, I think you should attempt to address the issues raised. AFAIK, you have not done so. Can you please address these issues?[67] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Both I and other arbitrators have already addressed this on many occasions and what we are left with is an irreconcilable difference of opinion between this editor and ArbCom. Repeating the same arguments at greater length will neither help resolve this nor help him disengage.  Roger ^talk 10:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies: An uninvolved editor said something similar:[68]

"You completely failed to answer my question. And that's why questions and often repeated. So, let me ask again, Roger, what you are saying is that anyone who repeatedly alleges admin misuse - no matter how well founded - can be sanctioned for breach of WP:CIVIL (or WP:NPA). Do I misunderstand?"

I don't think you answered his question either. I know that this was a long, complicated and difficult case, and that it doesn't strain anyone's imagination that mistakes might have been made. By repeately refusing to answer these questions, you give people the impression of being evasive, which is not a quality that an Arb should have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Digital DNA Deletion

Hi,

I wrote the article on Digital DNA, a public art sculpture in Palo Alto, CA. (It was linked under Notable buildings and other points of interest on the Palo Alto, California page.

I see that it was deleted by you in April, 2009. The [summary] says that the article was created by a banned user in violation of ban, but I am not a banned user (I even checked the list!) so I don't think this is possible.

I would really appreciate an explanation of why this article was deleted. I hope to see it back up again soon.

Thanks! Naomi

Deputamadre (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it seems to have been a false positive for which I apologise. I have now restored the article, but excluded the many edits by the banned editor from the restoration, to the last version you edited. Thank you for bringing this to my attention as well as for your input so far and happy editing in the future!  Roger ^talk 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Deputamadre (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)