User talk:Lord Roem/Archive4

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Hi Lord Roem. I hope I didn't screw up too much with the Arb report this week as I covered for you :), feel free to make some edits if you'd like. Good to have you back. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You did a fine job! :) Lord Roem (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Northern Ireland
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Northern Ireland. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade FAR
Hi Lord Roem - The Roe v. Wade FAR has been ongoing for a while and has been moved to the FARC section. It could use some comments on whether the article should be kept or delisted. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost questions
Happy to answer questions anywhere - just point me at them :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Me as well. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom e-mail list
I read your recent request for more information on this topic elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I know some victims of that kangaroo kourt. I find it troubling that such an off-Wiki deliberation vehicle formally (secretly?) exists.

I don't believe "e-mail list deliberations" is mentioned on any of the ArbCom procedures and policies pages. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello IP address. The Committee explicitly discusses their mailing list here. Its far from a secret. Lord Roem (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt and thoughtful reply.
 * Given that the reference comes under the heading of "Contacting The Committee" rather than "How Some ArbCom Deliberation Is Off-Wiki, and no one else has any way of knowing what, or how much", I disagree with your evaluation of transparency, simple awareness, or widespread understanding. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think they've hidden in secret that they have a mailing list. They're quite open about about it and that discussions are held there. But then again, I'm not really sure why an IP address cares so much about ArbCom dealings...but thanks for the inquiry. Lord Roem (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there must be *something* of interest regarding the e-mail list for ArbCom deliberations. After all, you posed the question in the first place.
 * I think you are conflating "establishment" knowledge with "community" knowledge regarding the awareness of this off-Wiki process. Maybe it should be part of the information provided to each invitee? Because regular editors start with the presumption that the various steps of the process, as described in the policies, and with deadlines, rules of engagement, etc., are where the action is. Not some private conversation taking place elsewhere. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this statement supportable?
 * "They're quite open about about it and that discussions are held there."
 * Because this is news to me, and no one else has ever discussed it within my Wikipedia circle. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Individual behind the IP appears to be User:Glkanter. Go figure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Infamous Canada Music bit
Whilst I would not like to be part of any formal mediation on this, I would ask that you note as indicating what I think the problem is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Committee Nomination Result
It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is for co-ordinating our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats ;-) Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 23:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, congrats from me too. It seems that you'll be mediating the case that I put before the Mediation Committee. Good luck =) Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Committee
Thanks for taking on this case on such short notice. I was the one who notified Xavexgoem to accept it quickly. Just a minor note that you may already know: please ask the parties about any further disputes that they are involved in and try resolving them because there's more disputes than I listed on the case page. I tried at MedCab and thereafter to resolve all the disputes, didn't have much luck. But hope you're more successful =) Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Appreciated! Lord Roem (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for an ArbCom Analysis topic
Hey there, I enjoy reading the Arbitration Report, and I thank you for it. I'm fairly interested in the demographical representation of the Arbcom. I wonder who they are, not personally, but as a group.

For instance, I wonder how many are English Second Language Speakers, how long are they wikipedia editors and/or community participents, ages, occupations, gender distribution, geography, timezones. I wonder whether there was any change in the "compilation of the court" through the years.

I know that one of the biggest virtues of this virtual land is that we can communicate through content and our blank wikipedian identity, but I do find it compelling in a sociological sense. I'm not interested in individual identity, as it might result in outing of individuals.

Does that interest you? Drorzm (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It does! That would make for a great article. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll see what I can do. Lord Roem (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Thank you for looking into my Dispute Resolution Request. As you noted, "Not all parties agree to mediation. Additionally, no sufficient and substantive prior DR." Although I obviously cannot influence User:Dave1185 to agree to a mediation request, I am still unclear regarding the second part of the rejection.

My attempts to resolve this matter only resulted in him closing such discussions, stating that "the following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section."

I have tried to resolve the dispute with User:Dave1185. He replied to my attempt by threatening to ban me, stating "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Falkland Islands, you may be blocked from editing. NOTE: I'm willing to overlook your mistake once but twice? While continuing the same topic and attacking others won't win you friends, take heed because you need to take a long hard look at yourself again before you speak."

He falsely accused me of being a sock puppet.

Finally, he reverted to racism, in an attempt to scare me away, stating "these socks are mostly editors of Latino background/IP and it shows on the multitude of Wiki-article pages here which they percieved as biased/unfavourable towards their POV (nationalistic or otherwise)." Such overt racism is contrary to [Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility]]. He continued, by calling me a "f(r)iend.". Such name calling is rude and insulting.

The sum of all of the above seems like harassment.

Some users disagreed with my suggestion; others agreed. If I wasn't afraid of being harassed or banned, I would be glad to provide several sources from well-respected peer-reviewed journals that discuss the subject in question. User:Dave1185, however, insists on blocking such discussion, citing violation of NOTNEWSPAPER and NOTFORUM, neither of which apply to my suggestion.

Given the totality of the situation, my question is how can I move forward without being harassed? All attempts that I have made have resulted in being accused of being a sock puppet, being threatened to be banned, being threatened that I will be friendless, being threatened not to speak, being subjected to racism, being subjected to name calling. I don't think my suggestion warrants such harassment.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter. --Lacarids (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lacarids! I'm always welcome to answering questions! You have a few, so let me answer them in turn. First, the second part of the rejection message on the formal mediation request was due to the blank section on the request, where it said "previous attempts" at resolution. On its face, there was no prior forms of DR used, so that was added. However, it is important to note that the more important issue is a party to an RfM refusing to participate. If that occurs, the request must be rejected outright.


 * You asked about what the next step is. If you think there is a legitimate conduct issue (i.e. disruptive behavior), I would consider going to the Incident Noticeboard here to get community input. If you want resolution on a sincere content matter, I would try an Request for Comment. If that doesn't work, message me again (but RfCs have a good record of resolving simple disputes).


 * Lastly, you asked about harassment. Please be aware that such a complaint is a serious thing to say, and is not taken lightly. If you think that truly is happening, despite your good faith efforts to avoid it, read the policy here for what to do.


 * I hope I've been of help. If you have anything further to ask, I'm glad to answer here. Best wishes, Lord Roem (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom
Funnily enough I have only just started looking at the detail of the arbcom proposed decision. The headlines "desysop" and "ban" rather took my attention over the last 72 hours of so. Some of the diffs cited make me feel ill, they are so far from being supporting evidence. It is not helpful that I was forbidden from commenting on most previous Signposts where the case was covered. I will try to put together a statement tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC). (Using some automation)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by being "forbidden" from commenting. All editors are free to comment. If a decision is passed this week, that will be the focal point of coverage for the next edition. You are free to email me or leave a message here, and I will consider its inclusion in the article. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was blocked by Elen of the Roads, unblocked by another admin to take part in the Arb case, an Arb later made it clear I was only to edit the Arb case until the block would have expired. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank God, a Lawyer!
Dear Lord Roem,

I am having difficulty with the editors who guard the 2nd Amendment page and I'm not sure how to proceed. I don't know any other editors here and I wonder if you could give me some guidance. I have chosen to approach you only because your name happened to appear on the formal mediation request page I created, which indicated you are a member of the mediation committee.

I suspect I may be on the receiving end of so-called "tag teaming" or "tendentious editing." This may be related to POV issues. I am not sure. Although I have made edits successfully to Wikipedia articles for some years now, this is the first time I have become embroiled in such a situation.

What follows is a detailed account of my experience, narrative organized. Please bear with me, I have taken pains to make this as concise as possible, while still addressing what I perceive to be the salient points.

1.  REJECTION OF INITIAL EDITS

I tried to insert the following text towards the end of the second paragraph in the lead, which discusses Supreme Court cases:

"These 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent[1], and were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon[2]"

My edit made two claims, each supported by a reliable source. My edit was rejected by North8000 as "unsourced" and "implausible"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=489782964&oldid=489780658

A brief revert war followed. After the third revert I desisted and focused my attention on the talk page. The revert war was precipitated by what I perceived to be inaccurate claims by North8000 regarding *why* my edit was rejected:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=489784988&oldid=489784236

I tried discussing the change with North8000 on the talk page. I felt like I was being treated dismissively, and that the editors were tag teaming me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_team

2.  FIRST OUTSIDE OPINION

I therefore sought an outside opinion on an informal notice board:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

On the notice board, the user TransporterMan indicated the following issues with my edit:

"Part of the disagreement between the majority and minority in Heller was whether Miller was, indeed, precedent and whether the lower courts had misinterpreted Miller as being precedential."

TransporterMan also said that "While I think that the statement, 'and were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon' is relatively accurate and harmless, I do have to say that neither the NYT article or the quoted selection from the Wills book quite says that"

In the talk page for the Second Amendment article, user Bbb23 clarified the point that TransporterMan identified:

"this looks like a backdoor attempt to criticize the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment and has no place in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC) "

So the first half of my initial statement looks like POV to the editors because of how they interpret the technical LEGAL meaning of "precedent" (rather than, for example, the *chronological* meaning: it is indisputable that Miller took place before Heller), while the other half is more or less accurate.

I would add that the reasons why TransporterMan characterized the second half of my statement to be only "relatively" accurate seemed like splitting hairs. For example, here is some text *verbatim* from the Wikipedia article on the Heller case:

"This represented the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.[17]"  The statement is sourced to the second page of a Washington Post article published before the Heller case was decided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Supreme_Court

3.  REJECTION OF SECOND SET OF EDITS

Nevertheless, with this feedback from TransporterMan, I attempted the following compromise edit, modifying the first sentence of the second paragraph to read:

"In 1939, The Supreme Court ruled that a shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon.[1] The next major rulings came in 2008 and 2010,[2][3] when the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions."

I changed the location of my edit for stylistic and chronological reasons. This edit seemed straightforward, factual, uncontroversial, and related to material already in the lead. It is in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for including a statement. The entire second paragraph is already devoted to Supreme Court cases; additionally, the existing text seemed already to allude to Miller in *two* different places.

First, where the existing text of the lead mentions "longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment," this seems like an allusion to Miller because one such prohibition mentioned in Heller concerns "dangerous and unusual weapons," presumably such as a sawed off shotgun, as discussed in Miller.

More specifically, in Heller, the court found that: "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56." Four sourcing, see point 2 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

Second, the existing text *also* stated that Heller upheld "an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia." This would seem to be a SECOND allusion to the 1939 Miller case which concerned militia weaponry.

More specifically, the justices in Miller found: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." For sourcing, see point 3 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller#At_the_U.S._Supreme_Court

My modified edit was rejected because it didn't "make sense in the lead," though nobody would tell me *why* -- thus precluding any consensus -- and nobody attempted to improve on my "relatively" accurate statement. The editors seemed mostly interested in shutting me out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=490128328&oldid=490126109

My reasoning at this point suggested that, if Miller doesn't "make sense" in the lead, by the same logic, perhaps controversial Supreme Court cases generally don't belong in the lead. There is nothing controversial about stating that Heller is controversial (I seem to be embroiled in that controversy now), and perceiving a controversy does not necessarily entail a POV (I know people who own firearms and hunt and I have no fundamental problem with that). But this was beginning to look like an attempt by the editors to use the lead to endorse a particular POV and, by extension, a particular theory of constitutional interpretation.

4.  REJECTION OF THIRD SET OF EDITS

I therefore moved the text from the lead -- unmodified -- to the sections of the article ALREADY devoted to those cases. I inserted the text from the article's lead into the lead of the relevant sections. This seemed like a reasonable way to maintain the equilibrium of the existing text while allowing contentious textual details to be worked out within the relevant sections of the article (by such means as the creation of subsections, for example).

This edit was rejected due to lack of consensus. There was no discussion on the talk page indicating what the consensus was. Additionally, I was told that I erred while making the edit, though this error was corrected before my edit was reverted, and could have been fixed just as easily as reverted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=490156264&oldid=490145010

5.  EVASIVE BEHAVIOR BY EDITORS AND POV ISSUES

There is something wrong when these editors will skirt around a fact, but refuse to allow the issue to be addressed directly, and use procedural means to suppress substantive discussion of the issues involved. Indeed, it seems verboten to even make too explicit what the issues are.

All parties (other than myself) rejected a formal request for mediation. One party never responded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/SECOND_AMENDMENT_TO_THE_UNITED_STATES_CONSTITUTION

There seems to be an unspoken consensus to use the lead to endorse a particular POV regarding the 2nd Amendment and the legal reasoning behind its most recent interpretation by the courts. The POV deems that any statement which can -- even on the slightest grounds -- be construed as implying any other legal theory is "implausible." This endorsement, by extension, endorses a particular legal theory of Constitutional interpretation, colors a reader's view of the rest of the article, and seems intent on suppressing certain historical facts based on obscure reasoning. This has caused me to question the credibility of Wikipedia.

I am also disappointed because Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Thank you,

Jones Inijones (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Inijones appears to be trolling Wikipedia looking for support for his position and accusing editors on the article talk page of "tag teaming" him. I thought all discussions on this topic where to take place on the | article talk page or other formal dispute resolution pages.Grahamboat (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Inijones, thank you for your message. If you are in a content dispute, just remember to keep an open mind. If another editor asks for a better source (as an example), do your best to find one, or if another editor thinks something is giving undue weight, offer compromise texts. My advice is to keep a cool head. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done everything you just suggested already and I don't think I'm being given a fair shake. All the mediation pages are confusing and I don't know which one is most appropriate to my case.  Grahamboat has followed me here and has suggested formal mediation (which I invited him to participate in already) or the talk page (where I already think I'm being shut out). Inijones (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you've already tried the noticeboard, open an RfC. This is a method for gaining broader community input on a dispute. If more editors come in to comment, a clearer consensus can be formed. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'll try that. 72.131.43.253 (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Inijones has cut-and-pasted the same lengthy argument to the following places so far:


 * Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution


 * Dispute resolution noticeboard


 * Requests for mediation/SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION


 * User talk:Lord Roem


 * Upon seeing his request on the dispute resolution noticeboard, I went to the article talk page to offer an outside opinion. Other than responding to Inijones request, I have no involvment or interest in the topic.


 * I carefully read the arguments on the talk page and determined that the changes Inijones wishes to make are against Wikipedia's policies on consensus. I saw no evidence of Tagteaming and no evidence of Tendentious editing or POV Pushing by anyone other than Inijones himself. All I saw was several editors making a good-faith effort to improve the article and one editor -- Inijones -- ignoring consensus.


 * What I have seen is a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. All of Inijones arguments were addressed in the first two forums he cut-and-pasted his lengthy argument to, at which point he went silent on those pages and cut and pasted them to two additional locations, ignoring the arguments several editors have made that he is trying to insert material that is original research that is not found in the sources and that he is making the article a battleground.


 * I suggest that, rather than looking for a fifth or sixth place to cut-and-paste the exact same argument that has convinced nobody, that Inijones go back to the article talk page and seek consensus by responding to the arguments other have made opposing his proposed changes. I also suggest that other involved editors stop playing Whack-a-Mole with Inijones and instead respond with "Please see my response on the article talk page". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture in signpost
In this week's Signpost's Arbitration Report (not yet published), which you wrote, there's this image in it with the caption that that was where the Rich Farmbrough procedings took place. I was under the impression everything happened on-wiki...? Can you clarify, please?  Rcsprinter  (speak)  15:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, everything happened on-wiki. I'm just trying to lighten up the report with the occasional picture of a courtroom. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good that you're trying to lighten it up, but it might cause some confusion to unwitting editors like me who think they actually have a court case. I like the idea but the misleading nature is a little much.  Rcsprinter  (gossip)  20:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

R&I Review report
Hi!

Just had a look at the report, couple of comments:
 * It's worth looking at exactly who was commenting to create the appearance of "a great deal of controversy".
 * At time of writing, the case is still open. Trevelyan and SightWatcher have had a week to respond. Notifications posted on 5 May: ,
 * I've replied to some other points raised on the case page here.

Best,  Roger Davies  talk 21:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm listing it as 'closed' since it will likely be formally closed by Tuesday when the Signpost is published. As to your other comments, I have revised the article to reflect your newer response. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt response ;) It's looking like it will close tomorrow now,  Roger Davies  talk 22:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Libyan civil war
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Libyan civil war. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ping! Mediation question
The question was posed by Equazcion in this section. where he asks: "This is an example of a common point of contention in this dispute: Whether not only publications, but author credentials as well, should be researched and subjected to some validation standard first. I've never heard of this requirement. But since this is one of the arguments that never gets anywhere, the mediator's input would now be helpful before this turns ugly yet again. Equazcion (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)"

and I then replied and asked: "I think we need a clarification from the mediator on this point. Does the Author and their expertise have any bearing on the source being "relaible' for use on Wikipedia. I see this as a non issue myself as we have already established that much as a framework for determining what is RS as established within policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)"

--Amadscientist (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been objecting to Amadscientist marking things done, but I guess it doesn't matter as long as his assessment is only taken as his opinion. So, sorry for reverting.   Be— —Critical  03:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I can understand your reaction to my first attempt, but I am really just shooting for an unambiguous end to these two sections to know that it can even be done before I move on. Equazcion has some concerns that "my" formatting is being adherred to? I really don't know how else to do this...we are still using Wikipedia right? We do have criteria, section headers? The use of the done on my part is basicly staing unambiguously that the criteria is not met and I see no further fruitful discussion left. It is not to "Close" the discussion only the mediator can do that with a collpase or hatting. It is a challenge to the other editors to simply fulfill the reguirements or the criteria or conclude that section. The mediator will decide if the discussion has come to an end and as I see with this mediation, will show us the "middle ground" and "compromise" that we either mention or miss. But we do have a bit to discuss and I see another editor already concerned about the length of time this may take discussing "if" we discuss each and every source to each criteria. I understand that and came into this with my eyes wide open to the process. One editor has stated that I need to explain why not. OK....well I am. And I intend to follow the mediator's lead and listen to the other editors, but we are working within a framework created by two of the editors involved and my suggestions were lifted straight from WP:RS as to adhere to Wikipedia standards to which I am applying my opinion on the sources, authors, and publications being discussed and the other from the actual prose the information comes from - The prose or text along with all references.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) I think marking things as 'done' should be discouraged...but honestly, it doesn't really mean anything until we get consensus on a point. I think Amadscientist is acting in good faith with his efforts, but I don't see it as a problem. He is correct that only I really can 'close' a discussion. I'd leave it be.


 * (2) As to the other question, author qualifications do matter, if the statement to be used is a statement-of-fact. If it is just an opinion piece (i.e. "some academics have argued that XYZ...") then the qualification is probably less relevant. But, if we are looking at an economic question, such as a statistic, a politician would be less preferable to an economist - just as a rough example. I'd be glad to find the lines in the RS policy to support this, if you would like. -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
My comment about a missing (major) issue with the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Goals section is part of mediation
Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Occupy Wall Street--Amadscientist (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

...yes...and...? Lord Roem (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK, for us to be editing sections of the article at Occupy Wall Street that are in dispute at mediation? Is the Mediation still on going?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I am going to go ahead and withdraw from mediation. I think you were incedibly patient and mediation is a good ideal. Unfortunatly this one has been a little bit odd in my opinion, but then I think that about all the mediation I read sometimes. LOL! Thnaks for taking the time to deal with it all.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All I can say is that I strongly encourage you to change your mind. Mediation is the last step in the content resolution stage. Any RFAR would likely succeed with this much background to the case. Mediation avoids the troubles that go into that, and looking at recent cases, they can be harsh. On all parties. Lord Roem (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Despite the result, which can hardly be attributed to you, I wanted to thank you for all your effort and patience at a rather difficult mediation. It was most appreciated. Since kittens are all the rage these days in place of cookies and barnstars, I offer you my talk page kitty, who I think is particularly cute. Feel free to resize/reposition him as you see fit, he doesn't mind.  Equazcion  ( talk )  03:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Thank you Lord Roem for all your efforts! Be— —Critical  03:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbitration Committee clerking team
Dear Lord Roem,

We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Please choose a two or three letter initial to represent your username, and add it to the list of digraphs. These are used to abbreviate arbitrator and clerk names in certain templates.

Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the team -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Email
-- lTopGunl (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've replied. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Native American women of the United States
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Native American women of the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal
Isn't this up to the arbs to decide? Block me if you will, but I don't think you have a mandate to remove evidence that is supported by diffs, as that is. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "If your evidence is being posted against one or more editors, you must fully back up your comments with explicit diffs and/or links. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've said above, unsupported attacks on other editors will be removed and warnings/sanctions will be issued." (emphasis added)
 * The conversation in question was already hatted as broadly unfounded. Just as we removed an assertion in an opening statement that, while a diff was cited, completely unfounded, the same is done to this broad list of statements by other editors. If you would like to cite specific and egregious instances, that would be fine. But your assertion that editors who were critical of Fae were being attacked as "homophobic" can't be substantiated by the diffs, which barely seem to scratch the surface of civility problems or the like.
 * I've left you an avenue to include extraordinary claims. Use that process - of explicit diffs in explicitly egregious situations - in your statement. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that anything was found "unfounded". That list contains diffs and specific allegations.  It is ok to link to it.  You are incorrect to remove it, so I will be restoring it.  Again, block me if you must, but I don't agree with your interpretation of the case rules. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68 -- an arbitrator, and two clerks have told you not to include the link. I have offered you an alternative that not only avoids the "kitchen sink" approach of the original statement, but also makes your claims stronger (if anything, having more explicit diffs would help your cause). You have been warned. Don't force further confrontation. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to read my comments here.--v/r - TP 02:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Motion
Hi Lord Roem, thanks for notifying me of the successful motion. Could I ask you to remove the related template at the top of Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) for me? I think that's the only article that had one. Cheers,  J N  466  16:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Best, Lord Roem (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Best, Lord Roem (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Banned user's intervention in Fae case workshop
I'd like to bring to your attention that a banned user (User:Vigilant) has intervened in the Fae arbitration case via a proxy, User:The Garbage Skow. This message was posted in fulfilment of a request made by Vigilant in this off-wiki post. This is clearly meatpuppetry and not permitted by Banning policy, and seems to me to be against the spirit and possibly the letter of the "important notes" posted by SirFozzie at the top of the case pages. Could you please look into this and take action, as it seems very inappropriate and counter-productive for banned users to participate in the case via meatpuppets. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I will relay this to clerks and arbitrators in a moment. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment has been removed and editor has been warned. Lord Roem (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing it so quickly. By the way, if you're up for a bit more clerking, I believe Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment has now passed. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware ;-) Motions are being processed as we speak. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)