User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 2013

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Roger Davies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Arb amendment

And [1] according to AGK, the amendment it pretty much dead in the water. So any effort spent on trying to convince them that saying "<sigh>" when someone has announced they are taking you to AN/I and seeking an editing restriction, does not rise to the level of "gratuitous incivility" would hardly have been well spent. I would be interested to know how AGK is counting six "declines". Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Hi Rich: You'll have to ask AGK how he's doing the sums I'm afraid. Any attempt I made would be pure conjecture. Roger Davies ^talk 05:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio/plagiarism/rewording issue

Iirc, you were part of the discussion some time back when a long standing admin was found to have committed several errors in judgment (which is put it as mildly as possible) in regards to the above subject over a host of articles. After some editing to plot sumaries, I am getting a bit wobbly on what is and isn't an instance of copyright violation, plagiarism or just simple rewording. If you want an example of my concern, the last 4-5 edits or so in the Tron: Uprising article. I've initiated discussion after some revert back and forth, and am not - repeat, not looking for an admin hammer to weigh in. I just want to make sure I'm not making huge errors in understanding here. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The very best person to ask is probably MoonriddenGirl. In addition to having an enviably light touch, she is also the closest we have to a resident expert. Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

About blocking

This discussion is closed. Further enquiries about this matter should be addressed, via email, to the arbitration committee.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

May I ask you why you blocked this user?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Without going into specifics, it was based on the grounds discussed in WP:CHILD. Roger Davies ^talk 14:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But when I opened an account it said that I don't need to provide my Birthday. And also last year somewhere I can't remind saw people from any age can edit WP.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What you say about birthdays is true but it's equally true that there is a lower age level, below which the editor is simply not making a net positive contribution. This will vary considerably, from person to person. Once they're a bit older, or a bit more mature, they can contribute productively. Roger Davies ^talk 08:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. FYI, Curtaintoad and a possible block evasion are currently being discussed at ANI. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) Pratyya, as a parent of two myself I can see the rationale for the action Roger's taken. Without trying to second-guess too much on the specifics, I would say that sometimes children don't have the experience of the wide world that adults do, and just need to be protected. In this respect it's not too dissimilar to the "Never go with strangers" public information films that were shown when I was a kid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that block was premature and seems to reflect that it was done because it became known the user had Autism and not because of their age. The user has only been here a couple weeks and seems to be doing fine. I also think its innappropriate to block it stating they need to contact Arbcom. I know you are part of Arbcom but the last I checked the Arbcom members cannot make a unilateral decision using their admin powers and then force the user to go through arbcom. I don't really care how old the editor is, if they are making positive contributions it doesn't really matter. I see nothing in this users editing that makes me think they are not capable of making positive contributions yet. Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kumioko: thanks for your note. ArbCom is responsible for resolving matters "unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons". Which is what happened here. In general terms, the block was completely consistent with the WP:CHILD guideline. Roger Davies ^talk 11:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

With respect Roger I'm not buying that. First the users mother also edits here and I have to assume that she was watching his edits and activities. Secondly it wasn't a secret this editor was a kid and it wasn't an issue until the mother asked a couple users to be nice because he has autism. Then the user was quickly blocked. Lastly this is not the first time an editor proclaimed being a kid. There are several on here at least 3 of which I know of are below 13. One is very active. My son has even edited a few times and he's only 11. He rarely changes anything but he also has a named account and generally asks me if its ok first. I just looked and he has a little over 100 edits. Although he doesn't have any Personally Identifiable Info (PII) on his account he does have an infobox saying he's a kid. There have also been a lot of folks who put personal details and been asked to remove them. I have told several myself over the years. I think it would have been better to remove the info and tell the user it isn't acceptable as well as probably the mother. Now what I envision happening is this kid is going to want to edit, will create another account or edit from an IP, be labelled as a sockpuppet and be blocked because they want to contribute. Perhaps it will even drive them into being a vandal, it happens a lot. The bottom line is I think this could have been handled better but this unfortunately is the type of action that I have grown to expect from the community and from Arbcom and this is what drives editors away. Perhaps we also need to start blocking all the accounts from students who are editing as part of a class project. Some of these are under 16. I would also note that WP:CHILD is not a guideline its just an Essay and Essay's should not be used as justification for a block. Even as a lowly regular editor who can't be "trusted" with the admin tools I know that. That is also what that Essay is about and doesn't even pertain to this case. Kumioko (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I support Kumiko with my heart for his doings and thinkings. Yes I beleive Curtaintoad should be unblocked. Because you can't block a user who does good edits. I saw Curtaintoad from the first and was in contact with him. I saw no or very very low vandal edits. Everyone make vandal edits Me too. But in mistake. So he did that also by mistake. He was doing great at WP and his contributions was also great for WP. SO I don't think being child or WP:CHILD can not be the only reason to block this good user. Also when his mother keeps watch on him and his edits he can't be a child now as he's editing under his mother's guidance. I beleive you understand me. So I request you with due honor please unblock Curtaintoad. At the end I want to say if he was in autism you please don't block him or don't make something which hurts them. It's really hurts them. I know cause one of my cousin is in autism. And he is my freind. So I know how that feels.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 04:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation and have been trying to stay out of it, but I'm annoyed enough to comment now. The reason this is an ArbCom block is because apparently there are private matters here that should not be discussed on this site or on any other WMF site. Over the last few days I've seen way too many community members bringing way too much scrutiny into this matter and drawing way too much attention to this block and thus potentially violating Curtaintoad's privacy. Please, stop discussing this matter onwiki. Further inquiries should be directed to ArbCom via email as an arbitrator has said here. [2] As a matter of principle, I'm thoroughly against editors insisting on discussing private matters in very public forums because they Demand an Answer(TM) - because real people can face real-life consequences if their privacy is violated. --Rs chen 7754 05:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Rschen I think its important to note that I never at any time "demanded an answer". I voiced my opinions that a block was made for the wrong reasons and that the timing of said block appeared to be due to the discovery that the user has Autism. I never asked Roger to explain himself and I even stated somewhere that I knew I didn't have all the facts. The bottom line is I have seen editors do the same thing this user was Arbcom blocked for be allowed to continue to edit, I think the use of WP:Child as blocking justification was wrong and I think that blocking someone for being a child editor or for having Autism or a combination of the 2 is extreme. Simply telling the user not to do it and revision deleting the aggregious info would have been better. Perhaps the user would need to be blocked at some point but I don't think we were close to that yet and this action was a knee jerk reaction. Kumioko (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As you freely admit, you don't have all the facts. You are therefore in no position to judge whether it was a good block, or whether the time was ripe for it.

This has not stopped you engaging in wild speculation and making extravagant accusations, or drawing attention publicly and stridently to intensely personal matters concerning a very young editor. Simply put, you are in no position to judge, Kumioko, so I ask you to stop doing so. Roger Davies ^talk 09:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

May I ask you why was Curtaintoad blocked and asked to contact ArbCom, when the same issue could have been dealt with by simply contacting his mother, who is also a Wikipedia editor? I am pretty sure just explaining the entire issue to her would have been a much better way to handle it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my links. :-/ Killer Chihuahua 06:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You should see mine ;) Roger Davies ^talk 07:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Briers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

ACP

Good call on this edit. I was actually a little perplexed by those diffs after realizing that each entry was a verbatim decree of the Commitee. We should have an editnotice on that page. — C M B J 07:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We've sort of got one at the top ;) It's not ideal but it's a bit of a balance between being informative and appearing heavy-handed, I suppose, Roger Davies ^talk 07:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a little open to interpretation just floating atop the page there, at least in terms of non-controversial edits anyways, since it looks a lot like the usual "don't-touch-this-unless-you're-walking-on-eggshells" note on regular policy pages. I agree that it's always good to maintain balance, though, so maybe just an edit notice with the existing table would be best. That would allow for transclusion as well. — C M B J 08:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Idle thoughts ..

I'm honestly not trying to make light of an obviously serious situation, but I do have to say that when I first saw the "Free Kevin" logo - my first thought was of Mitnick. Not sure why, but I was surprised that the pic was actually taken from that very article. I guess sometimes that "Wiki is stranger than fiction". Know you guys are extremely busy, so I'll let it go at that. Best of luck with all the many things on your plate. Both individually, and collectively. — Ched : ? 08:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see Hex originally put it on Kevin's talk page though, which perhaps makes that interpretation unlikely ... Thanks for your good wishes. Appreciated ;) Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Putting your behind in your past

Regarding whether Doncram has moved on, please see my comment on the PD talk, and his reply there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: move warring diffs, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Girls'_Domestic_Science_and_Arts_Building&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Architects_of_the_United_States_Forest_Service&action=history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's probably best if you put these comments on the PD talk where everyone can see them. Roger Davies ^talk 06:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Copied the one that wasn't already there. For the record, I agree with your copy edit of the edit warring finding -- I could hardly disagree, since it was my own evidence you were quoting.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say that I love the header here. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, isn't it? Roger Davies ^talk 07:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Right up there with "Bowling for buzzards, I love it!" :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you can use a snack.

Plip!

for confusing everyone in a posted motion :d - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

True, Roger Davies ^talk 07:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, next time you do this, could I have a few fried potatoes with it please? Roger Davies ^talk 07:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas^t 07:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't but thanks for the heads up, Roger Davies ^talk 07:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Open letter to 5 randomly selected Wikipedia big shots

If you check user me, and it is very common for curious Wikipedians to do so even though it is wrong, you will see that I used to be a frequent editor several years ago. Some of my edits were from this computer.

Wikipedia is a very hostile environment. After being attacked, the natural reaction is to leave, vandalize, or read but stop editing. I have done the latter. I hope that you will consider the following ideas.

1. It should be deemed a personal attack and a reason to ban an editor if they, lacking the ability to discuss things in a civil and convincing manner, then start to accuse another person of being a sock. This type of behavior is highly effective, showing how juvenile Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia would be far more effective if editors were not allowed to continue to edit if they cannot calmly and rationally discuss issues in the talk pages. This is a far better way to improve an article than to falsely accuse someone of being a sock.

2. Everyone should disclose conflicts of interests. There are plenty. Wikipedia is quick to block someone if their name is a corporate name but allows POV pushers all the time. The most common POV pusher is in biographies of politicians. Some will always push for inclusion of favorable material and exclusion of unfavorable material. They will use excuses such as "undue weight" or "trivia" or will call the other person a sock.

It should be automatically assumed that one is a POV pusher if all their edits are one sided or if they always support a partisan viewpoint in the talk pages. Wikipedia should be neutral.

One way to do it would be for people to disclose possible conflicts on their user page and update them as they edit articles. For example, one could disclose that they are American. Later, if they write about politics, they could disclose that they are a registered party member or a government employee. If they don't want to disclose this, they can stick with botany and animal articles. In academia, people do make disclosures when they give lectures.

3. The last point is not as critical. Wikipedia should try its utmost not to be hypocritical. There have been several cases of unfavorable information about Wikipedia removed from articles and favorable information included. Examples include reporting when entities' own articles have been edited by the entity and then reported in the news. This helps Wikipedia and is included several times. Yet when Wikipedia has egg on its face, like false deaths, even if reported in a news article, is always removed from the article by other editors acting as censors.

Finally, I disclose that I have started an account because I have not edited for so long and do not have my password or even my exact name. It's been years since I edited. VDAWP (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ban violation

Russavia [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc1948 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Addressed at User_talk:Abc1948 NE Ent 14:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers

Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [4]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions? Giano 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Giano. I actually saw a bocca di leone (and other preoccupations of the Nobiltà Italiana) on my last trip to Venice. Anyhow, to answer your questions .... I don't think serious crimes were committed. I haven't counted but I guess I've voted down about a dozen motions on this. I didn't support a motion to NFA it as it had no realistic prospect of passing. Roger Davies ^talk 18:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roger Davies. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 15:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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

IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see this

Please take a look at this. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

BASC talk page

Hi Roger, I've responded to you here in case you miss it. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from a long way back

		The Special Barnstar
		I am in the middle of copy-editing the Honours Research Essays of several colleagues, and the clunkiness of the prose is horrific. Thank-you for teaching me - all those years ago on Verrieres Ridge, Tractable, and so many other articles - the value of fine prose in writing. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, Cam, for the barnstar. It's very kind of you. I hope all is well and you're enjoying your studies. Have you read any Che yet? Roger Davies ^talk 12:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

note

hi there. there have been some comments recently at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests regarding the Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion. I noticed that you were one of the original people who participated in the discussion of that item. we would like to get your input if possible. we have been finding it a bit difficult to obtain any input or even any replies from any of the folks connected with this. we really appreciate your help. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Warblers

Hi Roger, I noticed your move of grass warbler, which I have now reversed. This article is about a group of birds, not a single species like Grasshopper Warbler (same as owl, but Barn Owl, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for picking that up. I hadn't noticed. I'm sorry I put you to unnecessary work ;) Roger Davies ^talk 10:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

hey can you check this page its important.

please check relations of am not new with child star.

listion the ip of child star is 182.188.190.59 taken from its investigation page and my ip is 119.154.4.48.there is absolute no relation between range.the only relation which is visible is relation between location internet service provider and location.and it is because there is only one ISP in Pakistan that is PTCL.i request another clerks to please check my relation again.Dil e Muslim talk 06:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

please i request you to see "am not new" and child star relation once again.please its importantDil e Muslim talk 14:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catharism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, Roger Davies ^talk 13:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catharism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, Roger Davies ^talk 13:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catharism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Catharism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tenmei → Enkyo2

Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Arthur Rimbaud

Hello. Can you provide me with the source for the statement that Rimbaud's mother complained to his schoolteacher Georges Izambard about his gift to the boy of a copy of Les Miserables? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also be interested to learn the circumstances under which Rimbaud was described by Hugo as "an infant Shakespeare" (with the source of course.) Rumiton (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I was glad to see the Shakespeare reference dismissed as apocryphal, it never felt right. In fact I can't think of two more dissimilar poetic MO's. Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I have another question...the strange issue of the switched baby clothes. Was this a mischief on behalf of the nurse, or further evidence of Rimbaud's precocity? (Did he switch the clothes himself?) What does Robb say? Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's complicated. It's a comparison to the precocity at birth of two literary figures, Pantagruel and Merlin. It'll probably take more space in the article to explain than it's worth. I'll mull over how best to deal with it. The best source for this stuff is Lefrère, because he doesn't hesitate to go into enormous detail both in his biography and in his commentary on the letters, which followed later. Roger Davies ^talk 12:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no hurry. For the record, I am a sometime German-English translator but rather ignorant of French lit. I just looked up Pantagruel and found that "Pantagruelism" is rooted in "a certain gaiety of mind pickled in the scorn of fortuitous things". You can't not be lured by something like that. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSky talk 21:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid real life events rather dominated things at the weekend, preventing me from participating in this RfAr. However, given the many concerns about involvement from so many people, I am surprised by both the committee's position and the absence of explicit pointers/warnings regarding future conduct. Roger Davies ^talk 08:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:German materiel of World War I

Category:German materiel of World War I, which you created, has been nominated for possible 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. DexDor (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

KW-IH case - emailed evidence

Hi Roger. I'm not sure how, whether and where to request this, but please could you or another arbitrator on arbcom-en-b confirm that you received my evidence email regarding the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case, sent Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:11:11 +0100

Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we have indeed received it thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 07:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello|salam|سلام

Hi I'm Persian Wikipedia users. Complain I'm a bureaucracy and a user. They did not respect the rights of others., Please investigate this issue. I could tell you what is my problem? (Translated by Google Translate) ((Note: I'm sorry if I do not speak good English because my native language is Persian))--Boyabed (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case

I received a notice from Callanecc today that there was a proposed motion on an ARBCOM case that affected me.[5] Penwhale notified me of the case 16 July.[6] I did not reply because no comments were made about me. AGK, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Silk Tork have voted to ban me. Could you please explain why I am part of this case. TFD (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"have had time to respond"

I had already responded many hours before I was "notified." The "official response"? Time for the "bickering" to end. Discussion in this section is closed. Editors ignoring this closure may be restricted from participating on case pages without further warning.

If my response is "bickering" and I may be barred from any further comments on that talk page without any further warning, and the evidence page is closed, and the workshop page is closed, where do you think I can "respond" and why do you think anyone will dare to "respond" after that warning that they will simply be barred from participation at all? I have written "good articles", participated in many Wikimedia areas, created articles, participated in projectspace and mainspace work, and made over 30,000 edits without making "50 edits in a row" edit puffing, or "greeting 5,000 editors" in userspace or similar puff. Cheers. And if this be "bickering" then make the most of it (historical allusion). Collect (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Delicious carbuncle

Roger, I'm tired of having this hanging over me. It's been open for nearly two weeks now - do you think you could manage to vote on whether or not to accept the case? Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank You!

For showing some common sense - and noting that the ills perceived are not served by using the Raleigh "sure cure" solution which is more like cutting the aorta and cutting a "Gordian knot". Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Ironholds

Roger, as someone who has supported you in the past I'm deeply disappointed by your support for a motion to ban prolific content authors for what amounts to a bad joke years ago. To be frank, this looks like nothing more than a lynching by people who wish to push agendas in the movement - and appears to lack any relation to the context of the events. To accept one part of the action (Ironholds bad joke) but discount the other (accusing Ironholds of paedophilia) is inane. It is like presuming if I shot you across an international border then I can't be charged, because the events originated where you had no jurisdiction. There will be some in the movement, petty little people, who will cheer ArbCom for this rather cowardly move, do not think for a moment I will be among them. And to casually toss aside an editor who has done as much for Wiki as Ironholds without even so much as a rationale? I expected much better from you, Roger. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to FoF

Hi Roger, you made the comment that you had changed "often uses" to "has often used" but didn't actually change the FoF. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed decision

Hello Roger, would you be kind enough to review my comment regarding the FOF on me at the PD talk page before you vote? I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Roger Davies ^talk 15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Edit-warring

I've opened an RfC regarding a discussion that you were involved in.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough

You voted "Fair enough" for a proposal to restrict me. The proposal is very general and would include to restrict me from adding infoboxes to my own articles and to articles in uncontroversial areas, the majority that is, - classical music and architecture are rather exceptions. Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of "fair". I listed a few cases and ask you to please comment what I should avoid in the future. You don't have to look at the "reverts" for me. I would always try to improve something in place in the article, for the readers to see it, instead of a complete revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just been back and fixed another anomaly, with a copyedit to the basic finding. I think the point here is that adding infoboxes may in and of itself be controversial, even in articles in uncontroversial areas. Controversial meta activity has a great capacity to disrupt and that is undesirable in a cooperative venture. On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial. Finally, in this context, by "fair enough" I simply meant "that's reasonable". Roger Davies ^talk 04:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see that adding infoboxes is controversial, even in articles in uncontroversial areas. How to handle that is the question. The easiest solution would be that authors who think an infobox would "damage" "their" article make a note in the article where an infobox would be added. - How would I know that Sparrow Mass is such a case, after infoboxes for all Schubert masses were well received? I love a piece, I want to serve the reader: I add an infobox. By now I understand enough to walk away if it is reverted, and then will try to avoid a similar case. - Can the "territories" of those who go for reader information and those who want to protect articles be defined better, to avoid battles? That was (and is) my question. - I understand "fair" better now, thank you. Next word question: "meta activity"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain: "Gerda's recent comments on the talk page suggest otherwise," Are you referring to my DYK nomination from 21 August (of not even my article, nor my infobox), and one from 30 August? - I did not say I step back from infoboxes, but from the projects that find them controversial, to not cause more problems there. Why infoboxes on compositions and especially operas are controversial is beyond my understanding, and why there is no apparent consistency - Bruckner's symphonies have infoboxes since 2007, - the same. I tried to find out We need to know what to do in the future, with no answer yet. Would you please look at a few cases? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much the topic itself that makes infoboxes problematic but parachuting into a well-established and mature article and suddenly adding one. This comes with the risk of causing avoidable controversy because the inescapable fact is that people either love them or hate them, and absent community consensus, both positions are fine. If an article has been around for some time without an infobox, the chances are that this is because of a conscious decision by the main contributors, which may or may not have been articulated on the talk page. My best advice for you is to accept that some people simply can't stand infoboxes and bear than firmly in mind in all your article activities. In other words, try to move on from thinking that infoboxes are automatically a Good Thing ;).

By "meta activity", I was referring to activity focused on Metadata. I'm sory if that wasn't clear. Roger Davies ^talk 09:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Metadata is no topic I am interested in, - what I want to provide in an infobox is at a glance information for time and place of an article. Did you see my compromise proposal for The Rite of Spring?

"love them or hate them", no, I don't love them, I find them useful, but an editor only has to tell me that he doesn't like them, and I drop the topic, ask Tim riley for Benjamin Britten. - I keep asking - and got no answer yet: where did Andy or I add an infobox in a well-established and mature article in 2013? I know Andy did that before, and it was not a good idea, but not recently. Please look.

"Parachuting" is a term I read before. SilkTorn mentioned it in a comment voting to ban Andy. The diff shows that Andy did no more than move an existing collapsed infobox from the bottom to the top, in an article that I created and where I wanted an infobox, not contentious at all. Horror is growing in me that he ultimately may be banned because he tried to help me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Roger, I am quite concerned about this restriction on Gerda and have no idea where to call for a timeout to discuss. I am active on wikiprojects outside of classical music that almost ALWAYS use infoboxes, (see horse articles I've done such as Oxbow (horse) and Paynter (horse). What if I'd like her to help me with such articles? I'm not good at the syntax or design and often call upon other editors to clean up stuff I do. Seems we are using a sledgehammer to bat a gnat here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Checking to see if I can help

About what you were planning to draft about the ArbCom mailing lists, please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning naming dispute

Are you active in the case? Just curious. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I decided I had too much catching up to do on it. Roger Davies ^talk 00:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, I see the text has been updated thanks for letting people know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban appeal

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Ban_Appeal_of_AKonanykhin where you've been mentioned. Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 15:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Please say precisely in the Arbcom clarification regarding infoboxes, if I may add an infobox to an article in which I created 80% or more of the content. If I am not the one to make that content decision, then who? What sanction will have to face who decides for an infobox in such a case? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Native language box

Just puzzled - you speak quite a few languages, but none natively? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

An interesting thought though I instead focussed on competence and fluency, which isn't the same thing ;) Roger Davies ^talk 02:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Squiggles

[8] Then shalt thou count to four, no more, no less. Four shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be four. Five shalt thou not count, neither count thou three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Six is right out. NE Ent 10:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A Holy Hand Grenade would be very useful on occasion ;) Roger Davies ^talk 02:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ACE

As one of six sitting arbitrators whose terms are expiring, have you decided whether you will be running for re-election? 50.45.158.239 (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

note

you need to be on the committee. — ChedZILLA 11:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message ;) I've just stood, Roger Davies ^talk 14:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Music

In case you missed it then: responsorial music, with thanks for answering my questions well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Davies ^talk 06:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I like that you said "Yes, I agree that ArbCom's role is preventative." I thank you for the clause that permits me to add infoboxes to articles I create: there's no conflict with another user, and I am not in conflict with myself ;) However, the same is true for Andy, no? He wrote several articles since, the latest Mark Williams-Thomas. There's no other reason for that article not to have an infobox but his restriction, which I fail to see as "preventive". I am looking for an honest way to have my suggestion moved from the talk to the article. Could we install a page where let's say two or three arbs approve that the addition is no danger for Wikipedia? Ideas welcome, - and here's the optimistic music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the relevant articles have had infoboxes added by participants in the case (whether under their usual accounts, or not). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

New DS procedure

Hi Roger, I haven't discussed this with the other clerks, but we (clerks) are probably going to need to discuss the implementation with you/the Committee at some stage (perhaps a role over the almost never used WT:AC/N#Long term projects. That would probably be better at a later date when the full picture is plain, just suggesting it now so hopefully one of us remembers before it gets too close. I haven't suggested this on the mailing list (obviously) but I'm happy to spearhead this (and by then, hopefully, I'll be able to edit the protected pages) for the clerks' as I think that's probably going to be easier for something this big. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about the clerks earlier. It's probably best if they individually chip in to the existing discussion (though we've already had some input). Feel free to publicise ;) Roger Davies ^talk 07:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more just in terms of the technical implementation, unless that's what you're talking about too? Which pages need to be updated, how are they to be updated and who is going to do it, that is going to be difficult on the mailing list but we could always do it in the moving forward section - though it's mainly a matter of working out what needs to be changed and how. I'll send an email about looking for pages which will need to be updated now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry, crossed sires. Yes, you're absolutely right. It supersedes some existing procedures and those need linking too. I'll start sorting this out later today (if I get time). Whatevewr you can do to help would great ;) Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

draft wording left in saved edit?

With your edit to the Rupert Sheldrake authors request for arbitration, you have after several blank lines included the context-free words "make a case agains , please" [9]. It looks like an alternate form of wording you were considering for your comment but ultimately rejected, but whatever the origin you probably want to move or remove them to avoid confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Duly vaped. Roger Davies ^talk 10:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked IPs

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.

The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.

Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this and agree that bulk deletion of the older ones is the best idea. It might be better to delete cautiously - say in batches of two years at a time, with a gap of a week or so between starting the next batch - just in case it causes sudden problems. Having said that, I'm not clear whether jurisdiction for this is ArbCom's or the community's. That needs some thought. Roger Davies ^talk 11:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's more a checkuser issue than an arbcom one. I've been chipping away at it and will give it more attention in the new year. However, many, many of them remain open proxies. Contrary to the belief of some people, some organizations have held the same IP addresses practically since the internet was created, and others for more than 10 years. It will take a lot of time and effort to get this right. Risker (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I received a copy of the same message Risker and Roger have been given. My response was, The most sensible thing to do is obtain a consensus at, say, the administrators' noticeboard for mass-unblocking these IPs. This isn't a problem that would fall under ArbCom's remit. If you open a noticeboard proposal for this matter, I'll happily comment – but as a checkuser and administrator, not an arbitrator. Thanks. AGK [•] 12:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you hear

It was good value meeting you yesterday evening. Did you hear that Jimbo is due to get an honorary knighthood in the New Year Honours List for his philanthropic work? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not the first person to have mentioned that. Good meeting you too, Roger Davies ^talk 10:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your endorsement. Now we'll wait and see if the hat got stuck on a peg, or just flew out of the window, like Spencer Tracy's in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World... Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Roger Davies ^talk 10:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it flew out of the window. Reading the results table, I suppose I should, like Floquenbeam, have ignored half of the questions and thus doubled my support.

But then, there's always next year... Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Arb elections

Congrats Roger! Malke 2010 (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Roger Davies ^talk 06:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! :-)

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)

~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Roger, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)