User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 2011

Third Battle of Kharkov
Please see Talk pageD2306 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Review awards
Hi Rog, Happy New Year... Was just looking at totalling up contributions to ACR/PR the last 6 months but I'm a little confused -- I have a content review award for Jan-Jun 2010, and another for Apr-Sep 2010. Given the overlap there, do you recall what time period we should be looking at for the latest round of totals/awards, Jul-Dec or Oct-Dec 2010? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian. Happy New Year to you too! The next period should be Oct-Dec 2010, and three monthly thereafter. (The long Jan-Jun one was to get back into step after a period of not doing them.)  Roger  talk 04:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the latter one was probably in fact for Jul-Sep 2010, not Apr-Sep, eh? Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Third Battle of Kharkov for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.D2306 (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FA
What happened there, did you hit rollback by mistake? There's a thread on my talk page-- you can install some code to keep that from happening ... Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Sandy, I guess so. I've got a soggy connection and my watchlist is taking ages to paint. I'll go look for that code as this is not the first time it's happened :(  Roger  talk 04:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That code works a treat. Thanks for the heads ups!  Roger  talk 04:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject Novels initiative
We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels and WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Recuse, please
Hi Roger, no hard feelings, but I am requesting that you recuse yourself from the SAQ ArbCom case. You have been named by user:Wrad that I was the reason you stopped working on Shakespeare articles. He backed up his assertion with this link,, which does indicate you blamed me personally. Since I am a party to the case, I feel oblidged to take you up on your offer "I will recuse if requested to by any of the parties."

As I recall, you were also the administrator who responded to my outing complaint, and I believe your words were "I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag." or words to that effect. Obviously, I didn't feel you were very compassionate about one of Wiki's most serious issues, at least where I was concerned. In any case, I harbor no ill will, and see you as a valuable wiki contributor. Your work on Hamlet was outstanding. But having you involved in this particular case would make me uneasy. I hope you understand. Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings at all, after all, I offered to recuse in my comment on the case. However, our disagreement was over cast lists, and that has no bearing on the issue in this case. Obviously, I'll recuse on any findings of fact or remedy about you and refrain from discussing your conduct in any context, except where I am discussed by you or others and explanation from me is necessary. On the other matter, my view was that it was already being handled appropriately elsewhere and escalation risked triggering the Streisand effect. Your response to me was "That sounds fine". While I'm genuinely sorry if that didn't seem very compassionate, it was probably the best advice.  Roger  talk 11:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger, I'm not questioning your ability to make an even-handed and fair judgement, but I note in your statement you said, "I will recuse if requested to by any of the parties" with no conditions. If you don't do so now that one of the parties has asked, I fear that will taint the process and cause one side to feel they're not getting a fair hearing, so in all fairness I have to side with Smatprt and ask that you recuse yourself from this case. (I hate that this is getting off on a bad foot; is that par for the course in these cases?) Tom Reedy (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was abundantly clear from the context that I was specifically talking about SAQ which crops up obliquely in Hamlet and on which I don't have any particular views. Still I should know better than not making that more explicit. My disagreement with Smatprt two years ago was about whether plays should include cast lists and that has no bearing whatsoever on this case. The notion that I would use this case as payback to do down everyone on his side of an unrelated argument is extraordinary and goes way beyond prevailing community norms for recusal, for admin involvement, and for assumptions of good faith. However, as there are already ample numbers of my colleagues participating, I will recuse from this case but am explicitly not committing to do from any related matter in perpetuity, which I will consider as and when on their merits. 05:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi Roger. Just to clarify things re:, I wanted to assure you that I was absolutely fine with your orignial offer ("Obviously, I'll recuse on any findings of fact or remedy about you and refrain from discussing your conduct in any context, except where I am discussed by you or others and explanation from me is necessary.") I thought that was more than fair. But Tom's further insistence that you recuse yourself completely caught me by surprise and I just want you to know that I did not endorse his demand, and thought it as ridiculous as you did.

I was recently informed by Bishonen that "both Roger Davies and I are on record bluntly stating that you're the reason we no longer edit the Shakespeare pages." In reality, I see from your comment to Wrad that I was "one of the reasons", not "THE" reason. In any case, I am glad that you have acknowledged that it was over cast lists, and nothing to do with the SAQ.

Regardless, I just wanted to state that even as only "one" of the reasons, I do regret that. I did not mean to cause you such distress and sincerely believe that your contributions to the Hamlet page were invaluable. And I'm very sorry that the whole cast list question caused such sturm and dram. I have no idea why it went that far, but I suspect a lot had to do with Wrad and I and our previous history over the SAQ stuff. In any event, you are a great editor and I would implore you to return to the regular Shakespeare pages whenever you see fit. I don't want to be looked at as THE cause, or even ONE OF THE casuses. That was never my intent and I apologize for the part I played. Best regards. Smatprt (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your gracious comments,  Roger  talk 05:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February
Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to WikiProject Novels/Members

Just curious
I normally read the Featured Article Reviews for the new featured article of every day. So, I ended up reading the review for today's featured article, Frederick III, German Emperor. While reading said review, I became interested in a removed forum-shopping comment that Karanacs took out. Following that trail to ANI, I found this discussion, which seemed to close with the OP being blocked as trolling and the evidence against the Featured Article nominator, User Banime, as inconclusive, considering the edits were made from Australia while he lives in Germany, according to CheckUser. Then, after that, I clicked into Banime's user page to find that he had been blocked by Arbcom during the exact same time frame that this entire ANI incident was going on. I did some more searching, but was unable to find anything on what exactly happened. Since you were the editor that added the ARBCOM blocking notice to Banime's page, I came to you. I'm just wondering what exactly happened there? It seems like a very complicated series of events went down and i'm quite surprised that a user who received an FA was blocked because of it. Is there any way you could explain what happened to me? Silver seren C 00:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. The editor was blocked for reasons completely unconnected with the featured article. I'm afraid I can't say more because of the highly sensitive issues involved.  Roger  talk 10:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be something to that effect. It's just rather strange that that would end up happening almost identically with everything else going on with the FA. :/ Thanks for your reply. Silver  seren C 14:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My ban
Hi Roger

I am Kehrli, a professional metrologist for more than 20 years. You have participated in indefinitely banning me from writing on metrology, my field of expertise. You have accused me of "improperly using sources to support my views on the use of Kendrick units". As a scientist in this very field for many years, I must take this accusation rather seriously. Could you please give me a hint where you think I used sources improperly?

In addition you voted "agree" for:
 * The focus of the dispute is a disagreement over the proper unit for measuring Kendrick mass; namely, whether to use Dalton or Kendrick units. and others say the Dalton unit is the most commonly used and accepted, while  asserts that the Dalton is not commonly accepted, and that its use violates Wikipedia's guidelines against inaccessible jargon.

Could you please show me where I stated that the Dalton is not commonly accepted?.

Then, assuming that I would have said this, what exactly is wrong with with "asserting that the Dalton is not commonly accepted"? Why is this worth a indefinite ban?

Please note that I asked several times for a definition of the term "Kendrick mass". This term seems not to be defined anywhere in literature. This is why I think it is a jargon term. If you do not agree, could you please supply a definition?

Do you think it is unfair to call a term that is not defined as "inaccessible jargon"?


 * Kehrli (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Per policy, if the source you are citing doesn't directly support the claim then it is being improperly used. In this instance, you appear to apply the principles from sources to the situation at hand and this is original research; doing so repeatedly is disruptive. I found the evidence of disruption persuasive and had no difficulty supporting the thrust of the case. Even if I did not necessarily agree with every single aspect of the proposed decision, I would not have disagreed sufficiently to oppose. If you wish to contest the decision, you can raise your concerns with the drafting arbitrator (in this case, David Fuchs) or file a request for amendment or a request for clarification.  Roger  talk 03:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Before I contact David Fuchs I would really like to understand where you think my citing does not directly support my claims. I am pretty sure this is not the case. Look, metrology is sometimes a difficult issue. I am professionally working in metrology for 20 years, therefore I am pretty confident that I know what I am doing. I have solid and direct sources for every aspect in my edits and I can prove it.
 * Beside this, I do not think that your claim is correct, namely that "applying the principles from sources to specific situations is OR". I did not find anything like this on the original research page. Nor does it make sense. Just to give you an example: from the "general principle" that no pair number is prime, I can easily conclude that the number 2803850392 (representing the specific situation at hand) is not prime. It says: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research". Now, there is of course some room for interpretation what "evident" means. For somebody unfamiliar with numbers it is maybe not evident that 2803850392 is pair. For somebody not familiar with metrology, some of my statements may not be evident. So please help me find out which statements are not evident. Thanks in advance. Kehrli (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to reconsider if you make a request for amendment or clarification, submitting such fresh evidence as you wish, but I cannot really guide you on how best to present that request, especially when we differ on basic issues like interpretation of policy.  Roger  talk 06:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if I need to make a request for clarification to learn where you and the other arbitrators think I made a wrong use of a source then I probably need to do this. How do I do a request for clarification? I could not find any procedure for this on Wikipedia. Kehrli (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here, then follow the instructions on the template.  Roger  talk 19:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * :)  Roger  talk 04:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reinforcing suspended ban
Hi Roger,

I've been running WP:DACIA project for a while but I am still relatively new to Wikipedia and all the rules and committees. The articles related to the project came under attack by Anonimu no longer after the project got started. I noticed you lifted a ban imposed into him, under certain conditions that he recently violated and I reported to WP:AE. But I am told that is not the right forum. Could you please helm me make sense of this as you been involved at some point with the case? Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the AE discussion and the edits, and I'm not seeing anything that might justify summary action. Your best route forward, if you wish to pursue this, is that suggested at AE, i.e. open a Request for Amendment.  Roger Davies  talk 06:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

RMHED
An edit war has broken out at. I was about to step in, when I realized that I can't explain this edit of yours either. Why was the page blanked?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * They often are after six months or so has elapsed. Memorialising conduct issues often makes it difficult for the editor to disengage and/or provides an incentive to seek notoriety (cf deny.  Roger Davies  talk 05:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA
This shortcut did not work because you forgot to use capital letters in the anchor. I have corrected that now. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the anchor myself but thank you very much for fixing it :)  Roger Davies  talk 11:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's ban
Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC):

RfAr/Noleander voting
Hi. I just noticed that in the Noleander case, you skipped over voting on proposed finding 3. (It was no. 2 before you added yours.) If you had some reservation about it or anything, that is certainly up to you, but I thought I'd mention it here in case you skipped over it inadvertently. Thanks for all your input during the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Green box of death
I've been meaning to look into an alternative way of presenting the ugly green messagebox that is used on all open cases to note that changes to the preliminary statements and such are prohibited and that evidence should go to the relevant subpage. How does this look? The ivory messagebox is used on a couple of Committee documents and on some pages elsewhere in the project space, and is noticeable enough to do what we need it to but not so distracting as to be an eyesore. I also moved its location so that it will display at the top of open cases, because with the recent migration to editnotices, that seems to be where readers expect those kind of notices to be. If the new format is not acceptable to you, could you look at some further options, because that green box really has to go :). On another note, I wonder what your thoughts are on this way of arranging the final decision page. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 19:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer ivory as a background too. The other changes also seem sensible but you might want to run then past Kirill, who's something of a templates guru.
 * While we're at it. I've never really liked the following, because the construction is so complicated:
 * This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page.
 * and would much prefer something simpler like:
 * As this case is currently open, only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page. Other additions will be reverted. If you wish to add to your statement, please do so on the evidence page.
 * Thoughts?  Roger Davies  talk 20:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Administrators instructed
NW has a good point on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop. At the risk of making this remedy look even more like a statute, perhaps we could add some subsections explaining what we mean by "groundbreaking." I am more concerned about novel views about what constitutes sanctionable behavior rather than new sorts of page restrictions&mdash;as long as these restrictions are not draconian. Cool Hand Luke 00:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling remedies and preference counting
Hi Roger. I would appreciate it if you could comment here at your earliest convenience. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to check my email before I posted that. It's also being discussed on clerks-l, so your choice on where to continue the conversation. NW ( Talk ) 17:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
Hi Roger. It was recently suggested, at WT:AC/N, that the Committee's documentation on discretionary sanctions and related procedures were confusingly located across multiple pages. This is an assessment that I agree with, and, if you also do, then I would invite you to examine my changes to the discretionary sanctions guidance page linked to in the headline of this post. The thinking behind my changes was that, although there was no substantial amendment to the process effected, there now is a more centralised body of reference for those new to the process, and especially for administrators who want to double-check their understanding of the discretionary sanctions process in light of the recent review in the AESH case.

The standard notice at the top of the page notes that Committee authorisation is required for major changes, so please do look at my changes at your first convenience - and do feel free to amend what you find dis-satisfactory, or, of course, to entirely revert me :). Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 18:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work! Just one minor tweak for clarity. Thank you very much for doing that :)  Roger Davies  talk 06:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of International Brigades data for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Brigades data is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/International Brigades data until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh frabjous day!
Roger! I saw you sneaking about. I hope you're doing well. :) María ( habla con migo ) 12:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am doing well as I've just come out of a very busy period and my life feels more like my own :) How goes it with you? Developing a new enthusiasm for Carroll?  Roger Davies  talk 16:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad! I've been a little more active lately, mainly due to an untimely death two months ago, which caused my overprotective, Mommy-bear mentality to go into hyper drive.  Now an article I recently overhauled is at FAC, my first in almost a year.  I'm contemplating other projects.  As for the Jabberwock springing to mind, there's not enough calloohing, callaying and/or chortling in this day in age, if you ask me. María ( habla  con migo ) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbPoll Vote
That is my point exactly and the written scope of the committee should reflect that. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 19:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding its always a very nice feeling to know that one has been heard The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You advise is needed
Hello Roger,

This is not about arbitration because to be honest with you, I have passed that point. I will be closing my account in Wiki and stop contributing because of certain actions by certain people.

What I want to know is what would happen to an administrator who make it their mission to target a particular group of people and advocate the deletion of any articles related to that particular group regardless of the number of verifiable sources produced etc?

Can such administrator continue with such behaviour with no recourse or would there be an investigation and possible revokation of their title as administrator?

Also, how do I permanently close my account with Wiki?

Thank you Tamsier (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U: Cirt
Roger, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N  466  13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Battleground mentality
Hi Roger, I am concerned about your battleground mentality. I am looking for somebody to go diff diving to build a case against you.

Now, let me ask you a question. Does the above communication seem fair? It's shit thing to do to slander somebody's reputation with no evidence whatsoever -- none -- even if you do it on a supposedly private mailing list. Do you see what I am getting at, or do I need to pull up the relevant email from Wikipedia Review.

What do you plan to do to make this right? Jehochman Talk 22:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jon: All the case evidence was reviewed afresh in September. The review included this and this, which had been posted in late June/early July 2010, complete with diffs. For a short while, an individual finding was considered about you but as, on closer scrutiny, the evidence was unpersuasive no finding was presented for voting. It is unfortunate that a stolen copy of an email appeared out of context on Wikipedia Review, which has created a false impression. Feel free to quote me on this if needs be.  Roger Davies  talk 23:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for setting the public record straight. For the future I suggest writing all private correspondence as if it were for public consumption to minimize the risk of thing being taken out of context.  Anything written can, and eventually is likely to, become public. Jehochman Talk 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat
Hello, FYI I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping proposed decision
All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash  have a chat 08:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Delta motions
Hi Roger. Could you please clarify your preference order for the motions you proposed on Delta? NW ( Talk ) 22:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

delta motion
I wish this motion wasn't the right thing to do for the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish there were other approaches too, but this does look very much like a repeat of the events that lead to trouble before he was community banned and the options are limited. A topic ban is probably best to quieten things down in the short term.  Roger Davies  talk 08:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OTRS mail
Asav (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage alert
Your name has been mentioned in a discussion on User talk:Bishonen. Regards, Bishonen | talk 15:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

Truth Time
look we are cluttering that silly thread up. We both know that their are communications I have sent Arbs and Jimbo which almost certainly never found their way to the assembled Arbcom. Interesting which mails I have sent Jimbo he chose to send to the arbcom - how many of the others has he sent you? However cherry picking or not, one only has to read the leak where Elonka infers that I am a mysogonistic woman hater to realise that certain Arbs were salivating at the thought of blocking me. We also see Jimbo gagging in his eagerness to have me blocked, and as for last December's fiasco ("Did Giano hack the Whateveritscalled") the Arbs stuidity then was beyond comprehension, they were talking as though they were the plotting inquisition dreaming up traps to ask me question the answers to which I had posted on wiki days before and emailed the Arbcom about. Then we have Coren and Shell Kinny posting that I am paranoid and then others trying to oversight them saying so. It's not a pretty picture is it? So please do not ask me to like and trust Arbs. Giacomo Returned 19:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose the point here is that if you wish to be fearlessly and aggressively outspoken, sometimes to the extent of being deliberately insulting, then there will inevitably be push-back. If, on the other hand, you attempted actual dialogue - instead of relying heavily on poetic licence and graphic imagery to make your points - you might find it paid dividends.  Roger Davies  talk 19:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, according to the Arbs I'm paranoid, didn't you know? You certeinly did not lift one finger to refute Coren and Shell Kinny saying so - did you? You talk of insults - put your own house in order, then you may lecture me on the subject. Giacomo Returned 20:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I ignored them, as indeed I ignore many florid opinions others, including you, express.  Roger Davies  talk 20:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, at least we all now know where you stand on lies and insults - they don't matter a cuss. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways - so get used to it. so go and have a nice chat with your mate BarkingMoon. Giacomo Returned 20:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't matter a cuss if I don't take notice of them. And BarkingMoon is not a mate of mine.  Roger Davies  talk 20:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war ongoing
Hi! There's an edit war going on at Battle of Cortenuova. A recent user is endlessly reverting my recent expansion of what was a mere stub, to a version based on 19th century, non-Italian sources, full of some strange features such as unjustified capitalization, wrong naming of Italian cities and titles etc. Can you help? --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See also his nice behaviour in this new edit. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's also missing to follow any invitation to give a mere check to WP:Manual of Style at least... the result is that his version starts with a "Prelude" section without any lead introduction. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your attention
Roger, I made a comment at the Arb talk page discussion about RTV that I was hoping you would respond to. I wasn't sure you were aware that I had addressed you directly in the comment and am now notifying you of that fact just in case. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded on that page.Griswaldo (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll reply there shortly though it seems we're taking at cross purposes. Frustrating for you though it may be, given the nature of the discussion, I'm afraid I can't really discuss it in anything other than generalities.  Roger Davies  talk 17:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know
Hi, Roger. You remember that problem you let me know about last week? I just thought you'd like to see where that stands. :/ Sigh. Glad you pointed it out before it got worse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for seeing that through. I knew I could count on you :) Sorry to have been elusive: various RL crises (including having the main water pipe seize up and a dog making a slow recovery from an operation) intervened.  Roger Davies  talk 17:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tommy Davis BLP
Roger, this is regarding your critique of an edit of mine to the Tommy Davis BLP on arbcom-l during ARBSCI. It’s a long time ago, but given that the material has recently been leaked, I would still like to set the record straight, and share some general impressions with you if I may.

According to the leaks, in support of a proposed finding that I "Removed material, critical of Scientology, sourced to reliable sources", you argued:


 * As an example, the cause of Sweeney's explosion was his apparently being stalked by CofS employees, culminating in Tom Davis turning up at his hotel unannounced. The whole thing is on film and was extensively reported: I dug it out and watched it. Jayen removed all that back fill, even though it was sourced. This slants the article very differently. As does the change of "[BBC man] rebuked" (source) to "[BBC man] disciplined" (Jayen).

This was the edit concerned. There are three aspects to your critique of my edit:
 * 1) The reasons for Sweeney losing his temper
 * 2) Davis's "creepy" visit to Sweeney's hotel
 * 3) Was Sweeney "disciplined" or "rebuked"?

Your proposed finding was criticised by Vassyana (recused on that case, but invited to comment), who said your diffs did not support the finding. You asserted they did. In the end, this finding did not make it into the decision. But even so, I would like to address each of your three points in turn.

The reasons for Sweeney losing his temper
Before my edit, the Tommy Davis BLP stated, "Sweeney apologized, explaining that his outburst was the culmination of having been followed and harassed by members of the Church of Scientology in the days prior."

After my re-write, it read: "While Sweeney was visiting the Scientology exhibition "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death", Davis accused him of being biased and of having been too easy on one of his interviewees. Sweeney lost his temper. "

The cited sources were:


 * DigitalSpy: "BBC man rebuked over Scientology show",
 * The Observer: "The BBC man, the Scientologist - and the YouTube rant",
 * The Australian: "Nine denies church motive".

I have re-read them, and would invite you to do the same, because none of them mention Sweeney explaining his outburst in the terms referred to by you. Sweeney does not do so in the programme you say you watched either. Let's look at that first. In the programme's transcript, he says, about his visit to the psychiatry exhibition,


 * "I find Scientology's hijacking of the holocaust sickening. After 90 minutes I feel as though they're taking control of my mind and I can't bear another second of it. Then Tommy Davis launches into me yet again for the uncritical way he believes I interviewed Shawn Lonsdale back in Clearwater and I lose it big time."

The Observer article said,


 * "Sweeney lost his temper while visiting the Church of Scientology's exhibition, 'Psychiatry: Industry of Death', which uses graphic images to attack psychiatry. Sweeney said that, having dogged him for six days, Davis accused him of giving an easy ride to one of his interviewees, a critic of Scientology, even though he had not heard the full interview. It was then that Sweeney, his face contorted with anger and his finger jabbing, began yelling at the top of his voice: 'You were not there at the beginning of the interview! You were not there! You did not hear or record all the interview!' ... Sweeney, a former Observer journalist, admits he went too far. 'I am hugely embarrassed,' he said. 'I look like an exploding tomato and shout like a jet engine and every time I see it it makes me cringe. The moment it happened I said sorry. I let the side down and the BBC down and I am ashamed. But I felt I was being brainwashed and if people see the full clip I think they will have more sympathy with me. ... I feel mortified. There is no one on this planet more irritated then (sic) me. Fool, Sweeney, fool. It was like an animal reaction to a series of images and pressures. I felt they were trying to control my mind.''"

Would you agree that this is at variance with the wording that was in the Tommy Davis BLP before my edit, but does support the wording of my rewrite?

Of course the harassment Sweeney experienced was part of the context, but we simply cannot say Sweeney attributed his outburst to such harassment when he explicitly attributed it to the psychological pressure caused by the feeling of being "brainwashed" at the psychiatry exhibition, plus Davis laying into him at that exhibition.

Davis's "creepy" visit to Sweeney's hotel
BBC: "Row over Scientology video" was the source cited for the following sentence:
 * Davis located Sweeney's Clearwater, Florida hotel and waited in the lobby for Sweeney's arrival. In the documentary, Sweeney described the incident as being "creepy".

The cited source had a different slant:
 * "After a long day with Mike and Donna we went back to our hotel at midnight, only to find Tommy Davis waiting in the lobby with his own black-clad Scientology cameraman. He harangued me for talking to the heretics. I told him that Scientology had been spying on the BBC and that was creepy."

I pointed out the discrepancy in the case evidence, but apparently to no avail. Why did you ignore the point? We were calling Davis's turning up at Sweeney's hotel "creepy", in his BLP, when the cited source did not apply the word "creepy" to Davis personally, but to Scientology's spying on him. By the letter and spirit of BLP policy, this was a BLP violation. It was a derogatory statement about Davis personally, in his BLP, essentially calling him a creepy person, that was not supported by the cited source. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I understand today, from having read the transcript of the programme, that something similar to this would have been okay to say – Sweeney said, "From my perspective, you and you and the church of Scientology have been spying on the BBC. You have been spying on our hotel. We didn't tell you where we were staying, so you've been spying on us. And I find that, if I may say so, a little bit creepy."

But at the time I made the edit, I had not read the transcript, nor viewed the programme (which was not cited), and assumed the programme said the same as the BBC's summary of it. I simply went by what was in the cited source. You wanted to sanction me for that. A little AGF would have been appreciated here, Roger. Such edits occur every day in Wikipedia, to protect our BLP subjects from poorly sourced derogatory material, and such edits are usually considered a good thing. It was up to the editor who introduced that wording to Tommy Davis's BLP to cite the programme, and confirm that the wording in the programme differed from the BBC summary, and that Sweeney indeed found Davis's visit "a little bit creepy". That's standard BLP editing.

Was Sweeney "disciplined" or "rebuked"?
You refer to the change of "[BBC man] rebuked" (source) to "[BBC man] disciplined" (Jayen), and say that my using "disciplined" "slants the article very differently".

Here are the sources that were cited: DigitalSpy: "BBC man rebuked over Scientology show", The Observer: "The BBC man, the Scientologist - and the YouTube rant".

I do not understand why you thought my use of the word "disciplined" slanted the article, given that that was the precise word the cited sources used.
 * DigitalSpy stated, "He confirmed the BBC had held an investigation and disciplined him: 'I've been arse-kicked but I haven't been fired.'
 * The Observer stated, "The journalist has been disciplined after an internal investigation. 'I've been arse-kicked but I haven't been fired,' he added."

Summary
I am not saying my edit was perfect. Even though the programme itself was not cited, it was mentioned in the text (though it was not so originally, when the material was first introduced). I could have made a proactive effort to find and watch the programme, or locate a transcript. I didn't do so. But all I did was try to bring the BLP in line with the sources that were actually cited. That is something BLP policy tells editors to do.

I realise this edit did not turn up in the eventual ARBSCI decision. But I believe that without Vassyana's intervention, it very well might have. I also believe that no such sanction would, under similar circumstances, have been proposed for any anti-Scientology editor "deleting sourced material critical of a Scientology critic". In fact, I was sanctioned for adding sourced, scholarly criticism, from top academic publishers – in the mistaken belief that Wikipedia welcomed and prioritised scholarly sources – to the biography of a cult critc, whose on-wiki well-poisoning and personal attacks against me passed without remark or sanction from anyone on the committee.

The standard of perfection applied to neutral editors doing their best to balance these articles is apparently a different one than the one applied to anti-Scientologist editors. I say neutral editors advisedly: even while I respect Scientologists' religious choice, I have no love whatsoever for the Church of Scientology. My aim in these articles, from day one, has been to make sure that self-published sources are not used, and that preference is given to high-quality scholarly sources over tabloids and gossip sites. In any other topic area, that would be considered a good thing. Not here though, where editors who use gossip sites like Radar Online in BLPs are praised, and held up as examples.

Anti-Scientologist editors have linked to self-published YouTube videos accusing living persons, named living persons, of crimes like sexual abuse of minors, and calling for viewers to provide information on them. In which other topic area would such a thing be countenanced? They have misrepresented sources, written attack pages and coatracks on "cult-friendly" academics and politicians, put flattering political biographies of candidates opposed to these perceived "pro-Scientology" politicians on the main page before elections, and have "vanished" and been shoehorned back into the project, and the same topic area, under new accounts, with their past history of sanctions obscured. That applies to both Cirt/Smee and Prioryman/Helatrobus. And, as I believe we both understand, in neither case did this have anything to do with any threat from the Church of Scientology, but with other matters entirely. Those who have called these policy violations out have been harassed at AE and AN/I, been accused of bad faith, "wikihounding" and lying. They have been denounced by administrators in good standing as probably just a bunch of socks, had their religious affiliations questioned, and generally been dumped on, as though drawing attention to a policy violation in this topic area is a heinous personal attack on the editor who committed it, and certainly a worse crime than the violation itself. I thought we were writing an encyclopedia, rather than contributing to an exercise in amour propre. I would really like that dynamic to stop, Roger. It is a major contributing factor to a strained editing environment when AGF, free passes for glaring policy violations, and the right to vanish and come back to the same topic area are ten a penny for one side, while good-faith editors on the other side are put under a huge magnifying glass, liberally blocked and, as in Justanother's case, topic-banned forever for crying "foul".

Regards, -- J N  466  01:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. The note comes from the first very rough cut of the case outline. It contained about forty draft FOFs, mostly summarising allegations from the evidence/workshop pages. There was litte attempt at that stage to weigh evidence as I was trying to get a handle on the case as a whole and there is no point in writing up something in detail which ain't going to pass. Generally, it bears, incidentally, no resemblance to what ended up on the PD page two months later. Specific to you, it is a far cry from the eventual FOF and the subsequent full credit I gave you for an apology for edit-warring in the proposed remedy.
 * It's worth mentioning that the evidence generally was very poor, with (as usually happens) more speculation and mudslinging than fact. This is why I put out a call for new stuff. As often happens, my view of the case changed very considerably as it progressed and it was an interesting insight into a world I knew very little about.
 * I'll briefly comment on ChrisO. My longest finding was about ChrisO and it was skipped repeatedly in voting (an indication arbitrators are uncertain). I posted an alternative new FOF and old FoF), which did pass. Simultaneously to the old FOF, I posted a remedy topic-banning him, which was also skipped over. I then focused instead on a plea bargain so that at least something was achieved.
 * This flows directly into my next point. Prior to the Scientology case, it is true that anti-Scientologists were very influential on Wikipedia. One of my objectives was to try to neutralise the topic and prise apart the factions by force if needs be. In retrospect, the case went a long way to addressing that. Numerous activists were put on notice and several high-profile ones were - and remain - topic-banned. This was highly controversial at the time and resulted in loads of grief coming my way for months. Additionally, in a controversial remedy-less finding, paired with an enforcement provision, named administrators were prevented from using their tools in the topic. Yes, some people were treated harshly but, hey, this was the fourth case in four years, and Wikipedia was becoming a laughing stock, so what do they expect in they're not on best behaviour?
 * I agree with your general comments about BLPs and the encyclopedia has got a lot better at dealing with these. If I could wave a magic wand and re-write policy, the biggest change I'd make would be to remove use of as-the-news-is-breaking press articles and considerably simply the rules about reliable sources.
 * Finally, what you omit from your list is the near impossibility of dealing swiftly and effectively with civil POV-pushers, especially when they have vocal factions behind them, wiki-lawyering everything to death with barrages of accusations and counter-accusations. It's usually obvious what the agenda is but it is exceedingly difficult to prove motive and the community is unlikely to support motive findings unsupported by clear evidence of actual wrongdoing. The best one can hope for is that they eventually slip up (a bit, I suppose, like Al Capone and tax evasion.) This is one of the reasons why case structure reform, including scoping, evidence lengths, active clerking, etc is so desperately needed. Whether the current committee has the political will to do this, especially given the complications arising from the data theft, is another matter.  Roger Davies  talk 08:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Justa was originally up for a lenient remedy but managed to lose his cool completely, in the closing stages of the case, with predictable consequences. Contrary to what seems to your sub-text, I have no axe to grind as far as he's concerned (quite the opposite in fact) and personally negotiated his return to editing earlier this year. After he's been editing regularly for a while, he can ask for a return to the Scientology topic, per the standard standard arrangements.  Roger Davies  talk 08:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, Roger; it's a good one. You did get it far more right than wrong in ARBSCI, and I said so at the time. Overall the topic area has much improved as a result. You deserve every credit for that, and the point about civil POV pushing is well-taken. Regards. -- J N  466  12:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Prioryman evidence: where should it go?
I may have misspoke by suggesting that Prioryman evidence goes in the Cirt-JN466 case. What say you? Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Evidence. Cool Hand Luke 22:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that the Cirt-Jayen466 case just focus on those two as otherwise we're back to the Six degrees of separation problem, with the world and her husband being roped in.  Roger Davies  talk 05:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

graphic
.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm probably being particularly slow on the uptake but is there something here I'm missing?  Roger Davies  talk 05:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Military History and WP:Espionage Merge?
On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ChrisO
Is User:Prioryman the same as vanished user ChrisO? ATren (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies (motion to close)
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision

Hi - There appears to be a motion to close this case later today. In the case that you have not noticed - there are two new proposals predented by Newyorkbrad - 3.3.2.1 Cirt restricted from BLPs and 3.3.2.2 Cirt restricted from "political" biographies - that you have not voted in. Thank you for your attention to this. - Off2riorob (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

FAC withdraw
Hello, I was wondering how to withdraw a FAC nomination or if you could help me? It can be found here. I want to withdraw the nomination because a copyvio issue was discovered during the review. Thanks. DrNegative (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am no longer active at FAC, I'm afraid, and am unsure of the exact procedure these days. Perhaps the best route is to contact User:SandyGeorgia and ask for help there.  Roger Davies  talk 02:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Roger, I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew and I'm one of the Storytellers working for the Wikimedia Foundation on the 2011 fundraiser. This year we're broadening the scope and the voices of the Wikipedians we profile in the fundraising banners and appeals. While Jimbo has been very successful bringing in the treasure in previous years, he alone doesn't represent the diversity of people who make the projects so important. I'm curious if you would like to participate in an interview with me for this year's efforts? They usually last 60 minutes and I would ask a number of questions about your personal editing experiences and about Wikipedia more broadly. Also, you were recommended to me by Scartol, who I recently interviewed. If you're interested, please email mroth (at) wikimedia.org and we can set up a good time. Thank you! Matthew (WMF) 01:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for writing something good
At Tenmei and disputes, thank you for writing "I am sure it is not intentional."

Perhaps you recall writing in 2009,
 * "I have noticed that, like many people, when you believe you are under attack you react by trying to explain your position. You make enormous efforts to do this ... but, unfortunately, as you delve deeper and deeper into the problem, the issue becomes so complicated that it becomes impossible to follow."

As a gesture of thanks, please let me point out something John Vandenberg wrote here -- which you may take for granted, but it's new to me. I do not believe that the underline sentences are made explicit in any other place.
 * "... the  policies for talk page are not as strict in regards to original research and POV , as  consensus comes from people providing their opinions on the talk page  .... In this dispute, there were only a few parties involved in the process, and most of them prevented consensus using different methods ... [T he proposed discretionary sanctions will mean this topic will be subject to the organised complaint management system of Arbitration enforcement ...."] John Vandenberg 11:52, 25 September 2011

This would have made a difference if I could have read it before today. This is the answer to questions I had not yet thought to ask.

As support for your belief, please consider this:


 * A. The references at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute were each added by me; and some of the articles about the linked authors were created by me to help our evaluation of the works as reliable sources.
 * References
 * Belcher, Edward and Arthur Adams. (1848). Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. Samarang, During the Years 1843–46: Employed Surveying the Islands of the Eastern Archipelago. London : Reeve, Benham, and Reeve. OCLC 192154
 * Charney, Jonathan I., David A. Colson, Robert W. Smith. (2005). International Maritime Boundaries, 5 vols. Hotei Publishing: Leiden. 10-ISBN 0792311876/13-ISBN 9780792311874; 10-ISBN 904111954X/13-ISBN 9789041119544; 10-ISBN 9041103457/13-ISBN 9789041103451; 10-ISBN 9004144617/13-ISBN 9789004144613; 10-ISBN 900414479X/13-ISBN 9789004144798; OCLC 23254092
 * Curtis, Gerald, Ryosei Kokubun and Wang Jisi. (2010). Getting the Triangle Straight: Managing China-Japan-US Relations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 10-ISBN 488907080X/13-ISBN 9784889070804; OCLC 491904160
 * Findlay, Alexander George. (1889). A Directory for the Navigation of the Indian Archipelago and the Coast of China. London: R. H. Laurie. OCLC 55548028
 * Hagström, Linus. (2005). Japan's China Policy: A Relational Power Analysis. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780415346795; OCLC 475020946
 * Shaw, Han-yi. (1999). The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the P.R.C., R.O.C., and Japan. Baltimore, Maryland: University of Maryland School of Law. OCLC 608151745
 * Inoue, Kiyoshi. (1972) Senkaku Letto /Diaoyu Islands The Historical Treatise. Kyoto: Daisan Publisher (出版社: 第三書館) (1996/10)「尖閣」列島―釣魚諸島の史的解明 &#91;単行本&#93;. ISBN 978-4807496129; also hosted in here for online reading (set to Shift-JIS character code), with English synopsis here. Chinese translation by Ying Hui, Published by Commercial Press Hong Kong (1973) 釣魚列島的歷史和主權問題 / 井上清著 ; 英慧譯, ISBN 9622574734.
 * Jarrad, Frederick W. (1873). The China Sea Directory, Vol. IV. Comprising the Coasts of Korea, Russian Tartary, the Japan Islands, Gulfs of Tartary and Amúr, and the Sea of Okhotsk. London: Hydrographic Office, Admiralty. OCLC 557221949
 * Lee, Seokwoo, Shelagh Furness and Clive Schofield. (2002). Territorial disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands. Durham: University of Durham, International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU). 10-ISBN 1897643500/13-ISBN 9781897643501; OCLC 249501645
 * Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea. (2000). International Organizations and the Law of the Sea. London : Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff. OCLC 16852368
 * Pan, Junwu. (2009). Toward a New Framework for Peaceful Settlement of China's Territorial and Boundary Disputes. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. 10-ISBN 9004174281/13-ISBN 9789004174283; OCLC 282968950
 * Suganuma, Unryu. (2000). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.	10-ISBN 0824821599/13-ISBN 9780824821593; 10-ISBN 0824824938/13-ISBN 9780824824938; OCLC 170955369
 * Valencia, Mark J. (2001). Maritime Regime Building: Lessons Learned and Their Relevance for Northeast Asia. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 10-ISBN 9041115803/13-ISBN 9789041115805; OCLC 174100966


 * B. Qwyrxian, Bobthefish2, STSC, Lvhis added no references to scholarly works. In other words, there was a very clear difference in the lens through which we perceived the subject.


 * C. Even in the problematic contexts Qwyrxian and Magog presented in evidence and elsewhere, my research-based contributions are rejected only for "style" or procedure, not content. In this highly-controversial topic, your belief in my intentions are confirmed by the sourced material I added to these articles.  What matters today is that no one else is complaining about it.


 * D. Please take a look at the graphic analysis of File:Criticismandpraise senkaku islands arb com case.png in this week's Signpost. Notice the green arrow from me to Lvhis.  After months of arguments based on opinions only, Lvhis re-positioned inline citations to the lead paragraph from other parts of the article.  This small green arrow stands out.  It draws attention to a step back from the kind of  opinion-based arguments which John Vandenberg now normalizes. This green arrow is emblematic of my serial attempts to highlight something verifiable as common ground for moving forward.


 * D-1. Please look at the first and last diffs here in a comments thread about the "criticismandpraise" graphic. According to Magog, the investment of time was misplaced, but my effort does show what I valued in my peers and what I was trying to encourage in others.


 * D-2. In the sea of red, my small green arrow is an argument for keeping me -- not banning me.


 * D-3 Perhaps most important, Lvhis' edit here suggests that my deprecated talk page investment was at last beginning to bear dividends.

In 2009, you observed,
 * "I believe that Tenmei was trying to create an appropriate backdrop for later helpful and meaningful discussions. However Wikipedians usually prefer simple direct methods and, in jarring contrast, Tenmei's approach was elaborate, complicated ...."

The Senkaku issues were not simple; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I remember clearly the huge efforts you put in to find mentors and the equally huge efforts you made to improve your discussion style. I was both moved and impressed by them. However, it is pity that that you have set aside the lessons – and progress – of the past and that we are once again visiting the same old issues.  Roger Davies  talk 12:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts
You are correct in recognizing the very considerable efforts that went into mentorship".

You are not correct in whatever you mean by "its subsequent failure".

No mentors failed, nor was mentorship a failure. Each of us did everything we were asked to do. Whatever you mean is moving the goalposts. Those who volunteered to be mentors deserve thanks and encouragement, nothing less. --Tenmei (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Hitler jugend.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hitler jugend.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly shouldn't be deleted as it's of historic significance (much cited example of Nazi attempts to brainwash the Third Reich's youth) though whether it needs the high res version User:Thisglad uploaded is another matter: there's an earlier 47K which may suffice. Anyhow I've replied/commented here.  Roger Davies  talk 13:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Fredcopeman.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fredcopeman.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Commented here. There was a flier with the picture and it appeared twice in the subject's autobiography which would be mean it qualifies as NFCC/promotional but this is so long ago I can't find the relevant bits. Feel free to craft something if you're interested.  Roger Davies  talk 13:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to be entirely about French freedom of panorama thing and nothing to do with NFCC. I've no idea how newbies are supposed to respond to these templates when a short explanatory note would be better. Anyhow, I've tracked down the artist (David Petersen (sculptor)) and will see what he says about an OTRS release. The two dragon images probably need to have their histories merged as File:Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood (original).jpg and File:Welsh Dragon Memorial Mametz Wood.jpg are the same image for copyright purposes.  Roger Davies  talk 14:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Dummy awards.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Dummy awards.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it: it was only created for use in a wikiproject drive in 2008 and is no longer needed.  Roger Davies  talk 13:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Flying-MILHIST.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Flying-MILHIST.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it: it was only created for use in a wikiproject drive in 2008 and is no longer needed.  Roger Davies  talk 13:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Pharaoh-MILHIST.PNG
Thank you for uploading File:Pharaoh-MILHIST.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it: it was only created for use in a wikiproject drive in 2008 and is no longer needed.  Roger Davies  talk 13:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Romans MMVII.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Romans MMVII.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it: it was only created for use in a wikiproject drive in 2008 and is no longer needed.  Roger Davies  talk 13:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Wikistripes-dummy.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Wikistripes-dummy.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it: it was only a dummy mock up for a barnstar and is no longer needed.  Roger Davies  talk 13:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Testt&a.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Testt&a.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it: it's no longer needed.  Roger Davies  talk 13:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:WPINDIA-SA1.PNG
Thank you for uploading File:WPINDIA-SA1.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the template and added "It's a composite of elements found in File:Emblem of India.svg and File:Ashoka Chakra.svg".  Roger Davies  talk 13:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:WPINDIA-SA2.PNG
Thank you for uploading File:WPINDIA-SA2.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the template and added "It's a composite of elements found in File:Emblem of India.svg and File:Ashoka Chakra.svg". Roger Davies  talk 13:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:WPINDIA-SA3.PNG
Thank you for uploading File:WPINDIA-SA3.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the template and added "It's a composite of elements found in File:Emblem of India.svg and File:Ashoka Chakra.svg".  Roger Davies  talk 13:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Return to editing
Hi, Roger. It is more than a year since I voluntarily withdrew from the topic of climate change. As I put it back then, I'd like to dip my toes back into the water. I said at the time that I would seek a nod of approval from a member of ArbCom before doing anything, so here I am. What say you, sir? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the basis that you're a year older, and - I dare say - a year wiser, it sounds fine to me ;) However, restriction is permanent and you're instructed to abide by it, so you'll need ArbCom's collective okay before you edit in the topic. Best place to ask is here.   Roger Davies  talk 13:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. If the restriction was voluntary, why do I need to seek ArbCom's collective okay? No sanction was imposed upon me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was voluntary but, per standard ArbCom practice, it became binding. This is because some people (and I'm not saying you) withdraw one day and return the next. I did though mention this before the thing was finalised in |this discussion, though that may have slipped your mind. I don't have the authority to okay your return to editing within the topic on my own.  Roger Davies  talk 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I didn't really understand that at the time, but no matter. I will do as you suggest :) -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I have requested amendment. Thank you for your help. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

November Op-Ed
Hey Roger! I've started work on a November op-ed here. As you are someone who's been here god knows how long and knows many of the editors that are the subject of this op-ed, I'd like for you to go over the op-ed and add/change anything that is necessary. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Butting in, but I don't think you mean "members who were once detrimental to our project". Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * :P. Instrumental. Buggie111 (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, Roger. I just wanted to thank you for your guidance on the climate change thing, both during the original ArbCom case and for suggesting I seek an Amendment (now passed). Your help has been very much appreciated. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words.  Roger Davies  talk 17:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom election 2011
Thank you for nominating yourself and welcome to the election. I volunteered to pass out welcome messages such as this one. Your statement seems fine. It's under 400 words, and you've disclosed everything you need to disclose. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: enforcing as written
Is that not what the underlying case request was all about, after all?

Arbcom set such a restriction against wheel-warring that the community *can't* enforce it as written. The rules form an unsatisfiable paradox. The only way out of this is either Arbcom step in proactively - somehow - or get out of the way, i.e. let a little wheel warring happen when admins do something wrong.

I know why you're reluctant. But if not now, when, and the phrase "Pour encourager les autres" becomes more necessary the longer this can is kicked down the road.

If this continues, forcible desysops will become necessary for one of these incidents. Guiding hand now, or hammer tomorrow?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (note: also copied on case page Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC))


 * Thanks for your note. I entirely agree that this is all profoundly unsatisfactory but the great difficulty is getting a proposal together the bulk of the committee will support. I've started writing up some thoughts (in response to Wehwalt's comment on the request page and Eraserhead1's comment on the AC talk page) but I won't get that finished until tomorrow at the earliest as I'm afraid I have other things that need very urgent attention first. Please bear with me,  Roger Davies  talk 08:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Time, we have. Thanks for your attention and caring.  I understand it's hard within Arbcom at the moment, as well as the community.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WebHamster
Have I missed something as to why his talkpage has been locked? All I can see is him responding to two editors that were trolling. Black Kite (t)  08:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You too, with the trolling accusations? The blatant personal attacks should be removed on WH's page at least: this isn't a freakin' popularity contest. Redirecting the talk page is what should be done. Doc  talk  08:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Black Kite: I was in the process of writing him something but if you believe his comments are completely appropriate, feel free to unlock his talk page. My own view is that he needs to be more restrained in what he says, but YMMV. Roger Davies talk 09:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that Webhamster was back until I noticed in my watchlist: Roger Davies [...] changed block settings for WebHamster (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked). I took a look there and was very surprised. Webhamster was using his talk page to appeal for a very limited lifting of his indefinite block, and to argue back at those who argued against this. Now, you may say that arguing back is counterproductive, and that calling someone a "pompous ass" is more of the same. Even if that's so, I don't know how arguing for or about the lifting of a block, or responding to people who have chosen to write on his talk page, is an inappropriate use of his talk page. I'd agree with at least two people who've commented there that his visible irritation was provoked. And therefore I recommend that you allow him to use his talk page, and hope that all who wish to concern themselves take a deep breath and think thrice before posting there. -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Hoary: I was expecting BK to unblock per my earlier message above but I've now left a message on WH's talk page to the same effect. As for his ongoing appeal, what he's basically saying is if you don't do as I say, I'll continue to sock. Which doesn't bode well.   Roger Davies  talk 14:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, it doesn't. But from his PoV it is, I suppose: "if you treat me as a pariah, then I shall behave like a pariah". Which is hardly surprising. He's being more candid about this than most in his position. This is probably very unwise of him, but I rather admire his refusal to say the diplomatic thing merely because it's the diplomatic thing. &para; I've only skimread the recent stuff on the talk page, but it seemed to me that he politely put forward a suggestion of a very restrictive set of conditions for an unblock. I suppose proposing can be termed "dictating", but this was one example of what looks like a set of edits intended to smash him down. &para; I regard Webhamster as a long-term valuable contributor. This doesn't mean I'm blind to his faults or that I'm demanding that his block should be ended; it does mean that I find the baiting of him particularly unfortunate. (And as for the umbrage taken at "pompous ass", take a look at the nuggets about me that I happily display near the top of my user page.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you "anti-block" guys think an indef blocked user "needs" his talk page just to post "not my IP" taunts and to continue posting characteristic personal attacks, resulting in the page becoming a non-productive channel, you need to think again. You guys say poking a blocked user is taunting – I say a guy who stands high out of reach and yells insults at the crowd is a pusillanimous fool – people in glass houses... If you also think "Anybody would think you'd been labelled as a sex offender" is an acceptable response, to anyone, troll or not, you need to read WP:CHILDPROTECT and consider that such remarks are not appropriate, whether implied, or directly applied. WH's enablers, supporters, and those who encourage his abuse and think he should be allowed to continue harassing members from his isolated channel, under the pretext "defending myself", need to read WP:COMPETENCE – he's blocked, he doesn't need to come back and read anything, never mind respond! The guy is deliberately malicious, and has stated himself that he is still socking – he's a predator, and the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour. As for admins like Black Kite and Drmie, sympathising, supporting and even supplementing his activity, I personally condone condemn your despicable actions, which WH thrives on and ultimately persists on being an unwelcome and disruptive presence as long as you humour or sponsor him in any form. I hope, if this matter continues to spiral out of control, that you are each held to account for your actions and that your ability to sysop is reviewed, and withdrawn if necessary. I've already noted a number of open-minded detractors to your behaviour whilst looking across several talk pages, and it's clear to me that not enough is being done to rein you in and being law to your own actions – uncivil to others and then hiding behind mirrors and smokescreens to avoid exposure. Neither of you appear to represent the civility of other admins, and are a let down, the weak links, in the admin team and overall community spirit. Along with similarly ill-mannered members (akin to friends) such as Parrot of Doom and Malleus Fatuorum, like a band of vengeful vigilantes you seem to provoke more members through negative jibes than you aid through the trust granted adminship. WH was one of those on the same team, it would seem, whether from home or the luxury of a HMS Prison, and I notice a shared distaste for his block, and disreputable behaviour towards those who challenge any of you, resulting in mobbing of talk pages, attempts to intimidate and vilify, and pervasive wiki-lawyering to ridicule, belittle or mollify those who oppose your actions and threaten your group's longevity. Why anyone should want to defend someone who "spits on the jury" after he's been found guilty, is beyond me. I'm sure you guys will have your "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" showdown with your amassing detractors, in due course. I sincerely hope they win; an epoch in purging bad blood to maintain the overall health of Wiki. And for those of you consider this a PA – compared with WH's lengthy history of unjustified and crude PAs, this is a piddle in the ocean. At least my language (competent English which reflects a level of education superior to WH's gutter talk standard) is usually clean, civil and as directly worded as any compos mentis admin on AN/I might appreciate when looking for openness, as opposed to abrasive deception. Rather than beating about the bush, I call a WP:SPADE: Where trouble is allowed to brew, tyranny is certain to follow. I think Roger Davies has done the right thing – we should't feed the trolls, but a block isn't a "safe haven" from which to hurl abuse – WH has stated clearly that he's not obliged to conduct himself civilly under a block, so he shouldn't feel obliged to post, period.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this hard to follow. First, do you have anyone particularly in mind when you say that a guy who stands high out of reach and yells insults at the crowd is a pusillanimous fool? Secondly, you stress the importance of civility, but you say that the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour. Thirdly, you personally condone [the] despicable actions of a couple of admins; because yours is competent English which reflects a level of education superior to WH's gutter talk standard, I have to believe you when you say you condone, but then I wonder why you're writing much (or all?) of this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice move from Hoary - his first admin action for three months to enable a disruptor from his clique to disrupt some more - Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have reenabled WebHamster's use of his own user talk page. I hadn't been aware that I was in a clique; but yes, I do indeed make sparing use of my admin superpowers. -- Hoary (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given there are 1,514 administrators it there doesn't seem a reason for concern if an individual admin goes a few months before taking an admin action. However, I believe claims of "superpowers" are WP:OR, and should be supported by WP:RS or retracted Gerardw (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I sit corrected: yes, my powers are indeed paltry. Incidentally, my admin action count probably hasn't gone down much more than my edit count. (Simply, I went off on a summer vacation and on my return found that I had other things to do that were more pressing than WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great job. The "child molester" comment is probably more why the talk page access was revoked - perhaps I'm wrong. I could care less what this person thinks about me, but why even raise that sort of specter in twisted jest? He didn't call me a "pompous ass", BTW: he merely parroted it from a comment someone else made. Doc   talk  13:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My browser does not find the string "child molester". It does find this: Anybody would think you'd been labelled as a sex offender. Perhaps this is what you're referring to. Pulled out of context, as immediately above, it may look damning. The context makes it extremely obvious that he doesn't think that anyone has been labelled a sex offender, and there's not the slightest hint that he thinks anyone should be so labelled. -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad: "sex offender". Guess I was splitting hairs. I don't know why Roger revoked the talk page access, and hopefully he'll clear up why that happened. I was just taking a stab at why it's more likely that the "pompous ass" thing was far less likely to have been any sort of reason. Paragraph #2 Maybe it was the next several edits to the page? Doc   talk  14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't improve civility by being incivil. We can't alleviate disruption by being disruptive. WebHamster cannot offend anyone not reading his talk page; therefore editors who find his rhetoric offensive should stop reading his talk page. Gerardw (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...or, his talk page access can be revoked as an indefinitely blocked user spewing rhetoric. Noting an insult on his talk page is taking offense: so ignore the talk page to avoid offense? That's the moral of the story? Whatever: I have not insulted WH, do not care if he insults me, and have a pretty good idea where this will go anyway. Cheers... Doc   talk  14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is now off and running using his talkpage as a chat forum and "Live on stage, WebHamster Ungagged" his first edit summary just about says it all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and he's calling me out. Ha! Funny thing is, psychology was in my education, and he is a prime nut, imo. Anyone who comes "having a quiet word" with me on his behalf is going to be sharply turned away - AGF and civility are two-way streets. I don't give my trust, respect, or faith to anyone who doesn't earn if first – online or in reality – and with his record, he won't ever earn it, because there is nothing "good" or "civil" about him. As said before, it's all rhetoric. i.e. mass deception, smokescreens, silver-tongued buttering up. Let him try to demand favours from his talkpage, perhaps we'll discover who else is a sympathiser of his "Godfather" persona, and do some naming and shaming to ArbCom. It may take a few dysysop requests to help reform things on the admin circuit, before disruptive blocked members are given priority treatment, free handouts, WMF grants, or special treatment over genuine hard-working, respectable contributors, who are trying to create an encyclopedia, not a bloody forum for mental cases to joyride, lower the tone and make a mockery of the project because society rejects them.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 16:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not a two way street. True civility is an immutable quality of the editor possessing it. Gerardw (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your unsupported opinion, not mine. "Immutable" means "unchangeable" - how many married couples start off in a "civil" relationship, then end up kicking and screaming through a divorce court? Relationships are more likely to falter online than face-to-face due to the difficulty of knowing how to interpret a faceless remark. In conclusion: moot point. Incivility includes use of bad language, which seems to be the limit of WHs vocabulary. That is not autism speaking – pressing "f" "u" "c" "k" then "Save page" is a 5-part action, and he is aware of the context in which it is used. Fact is, there's no proof he even has that condition, you can either believe him or take it with a pinch of salt given that there are motives at work. Sympathy is a fast way to get a foot in, or back in, a door. Period.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 16:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While the phrasing is mine the consensus policy at WP:NPA states "Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse." Gerardw (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes policy needs to progress, when situations arise than expose loopholes and flaws which need closing. One cannot provoke reform without first highlighting examples, including culprits, their disruptions, and the consequences – that's not PA, it's exposing truths which they don't want to see exposed. Don't allow WH to cloud your mind with his rhetoric and obvious fallacies. My remarks regarding him have been limited to this one talk page, and I commented on the AN/I regarding his unblock. That does not quality as "The guy is slagging me off everywhere he can" or "spreading about me all over talk space" – it's the same number of pages he's limited to. One. Even he can count. Funny how he's now running to mommy when the shoe is on the other foot. I can see right through him.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;Chat &bull; RFF] 16:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Roger's (alas typical) heavy-handed approach is yet another reason why he should disengage from many matters on Wikipedia. His alarmingly poor work at ARBCOM (IMHO) is indicative of his self-serving attitude. His lack of humility and ability to consider that he may be wrong is, frankly, deeply concerning and this poorly thought out effort in removing WH's talk page access is symptomatic. Whilst it's only fair to thank Roger for his hard (yet often misguided) work, it's clear that he needs a break from Wikipedia in order to address many of these concerns.
 * Roger - I'd urge you to step down from any position of advanced user rights. You're obviously getting a little out of control, and it would be better you do it cleanly and with dignity, rather than at a later stage through enforcement. One assumes you have the interests of the project at heart. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat  22:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Arbitration Committee Elections
Roger Davies,

As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. --Tznkai (talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FT2's questions on ACE
FYI, Roger Davies, Kirill and Risker: you're receiving this message because FT2 has posted similarly on the questions pages of all five returning arbs, while I've posted to Jclemens's and Coren's questions pages, urging FT2 to move his sections to Talk. Then I ran down.. but in the Coren version I alluded to his posts on you guys' pages, too, so you might like to be informed. FT2 has responded to me on Jclemens's questions talkpage. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Reply from me
In case you don't see it, wanted to let you know I've finally made a real reply to your comments at my talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Defence fund

 * Working with stakeholders and the WMF to develop a contingency defence fund for arbitrators, checkusers, oversighters, and administrators.

I read this in your arbcom candidacy statement. I have a couple of questions that don't really warrant being on that page, but I'm interested nonetheless if you have the time to consider it here:

Firstly, why would general editors be exempted from this? I'm thinking specifically of such cases as Derrick Coetzee who might just have easily not been an admin. Secondly, isn't setting up a specific fund, risking painting a target on us for potential litigants? --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem in principle with cover for general editing though The current thinking is that it is there for admins/functionaries acting in the legitimate performance of their duties. It might be difficult to specify the general editing circumstances in which it were available for general editing. For instance, if an editor were sued for libel because of dodgy material they'd added to a BLP, would they automatically be entitled to legal assistance? The reality is probably also that funds will always be available, or lawyers prepared to work pro bono found, for "public interest" cases like the Derrick Coetzee matter, which are about important Wikipedian principles.
 * I don't think it's making us a target for potential litigation because what the fund would be about providing legal assistance rather than providing a pot for payment of damages. So, instead of saying of saying "hey guys, there's this pot of money you can get your hands on if you sue", it's actually sendinfg the message "Hey, think twice before suing because the people you're suing will have access to good lawyers to defend them no matter where you issue procedings". In other words, it's an actual disincentive to starting proceedings.
 * Roger Davies talk 00:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A favour
Hi Roger, a reply to a comment on my talk page was oversighted earlier along with some really nasty stuff. Could you dig out the reply and put it back where it was. Cheers, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've emailed this directly to HJ Mitchell. The post included telephone numbers of individuals, which is a standard reason for suppression; however, the information is probably publicly accessible through other means. Risker (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Note
I've sent you an email. — Ched : ?  00:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A Proposal
You can follow this link to my proposal on the future of WikiProject History. I am wondering, if you have a chance to comment, what your opinions are on this.  DCI  talk 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fladrif's workshop on TimidGuy appeal
If the material presented by Fladrif sounds familiar, it's because you've already examined it in the TM arbcom case. It contains diffs all the way back to 2006. TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger, your comments on each of the findings that I proposed were premature. With the evidence now posted, those comments are now misleading and inapt. I would suggest that you strike or redact them to avoid confusing people. Fladrif (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much :) Perhaps you could simply add "Done", with a diff for ease of reference? Incidentally, talking of diffs, would you mind adding links for each of the COIN discussions you refer to please? That'll make it much easier to find them.  Roger Davies  talk 17:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

These are the COI postings. There have been other complaints and warnings as well. Perhaps Fladrif can post these under his evidence. (FWIW, it was the failure of TimidGuy to respect the early COIN findings that led to my involvement in the topic - a problem which I'm still trying to resolve.)   Will Beback    talk    07:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 2  26 February 2007
 * 2) Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_5 5 March 2007
 * 3) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 30 17 February 2009
 * 4) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35  11 August 2009 (Note: TimidGuy later admitted that he was the editor using the 76.76 IPs.)
 * 5) Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 40 24 January 2010
 * I have added in the redundant links to the COIN archives on the evidence page, as well as added the notation "DONE" to your comments, with links to the corresponding subsectnion of the evidence page for each proposed finding, again redundantly showing the very same links that were already in the proposed findings of fact. I trust that this will suffice. Fladrif (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations on your reelection to the Committee! I'm looking forward to working along side you for the next few years. :-) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! It's good to see you'll be staying with us! ;-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! Your sentiments are heartily reciprocated. Roger Davies talk 17:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I owe you booze next time you're in London! Congrats :). Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look forward to that!  Roger Davies  talk 03:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from me as well Roger Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick.  Roger Davies  talk 03:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for 2011
Roger Davies,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much indeed. I had a splendid time and I hope you did too. I'll take this opportunity to wish you and yours an enjoyable continuation of the holidays and a very happy New Year. Best,  Roger Davies  talk 13:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_Admin_Review_at_talk:cold_fusion
Pls cmt on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Ta.  Chzz  ► 20:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Two small things
Hi Roger, two quick comments... Thanks, EdChem (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Just in case you (understandably) aren't watching, I posted a question to you in the cold fusion discussion at ANI; it'd be great if you could respond when you get the chance
 * 2) I noticed your accept vote at the MF request for arbitration but I think you may have incorrectly updated the tally - I think it is 6/1/3/3 rather than 7/1/3/3, though I could of course be wrong


 * Hi EC:
 * I've commented, as you've probably spotted by now. Thanks, I'd missed that :)
 * Yes, you're absolutely right (I counted Brad's accepting as an accept). Duh!
 * Best (and happy holidays!),  Roger Davies  talk 11:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Representation
Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:


 * File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
 * Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
 * Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year -  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 22:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)