User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 2014

Mail (cross project coordination)
Thank you! --Neskaya sprecan? 02:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

EastEnders villains.
Dear Mr Davies,

I came across an article which I fear is being deliberately edited with clear untruths. On the list of soap opera villains, there are list of characters with some classified as 'villains' when they are not suited for such title. The word 'villain' according to the Oxford Dictionary in reference to television is '''a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot: a pantomime villain'''. However, as a lifelong viewer of the soap opera, EastEnders, I know for sure that many of the characters that are listed do not classify them as villains. Some of the sources, were incorrect and were used before the character's appearance on the show. Some of the sources did not even mention the word 'villain' at all. I have tried to edit this but one editor who has not had any history of editing EastEnders, kept on reverting it which resulted in an edit war. I also used a key primary source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/imagegalleries/characters/villains-gallery.shtml) and I used this (http://www.virginmedia.com/tvradio/soaps/soaptrivia/eastenders-best-ever-baddies.php?ssid=20). I made suggestions on the talkpage, so that editors could have a discussion about who they felt was 'villainous' but this was ignored. Can I have some advice on this issue? I would suggest that we get official confirmation from producers of the show, if necessary, in order to make sure our information is 100% factual but I can assure you that what is in the list is not factual at all. Yours, --AngieWattsFan (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

DS review
Your comment here seems to be saying my participation in that forum is not in good faith/not valued. In addition, the wording of the templated message from my talk page seems to have been mis-represented, unless it was your intention to make a new accusation here. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments,  Roger Davies  talk 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"(ii) Kww left well alone in future"
This isn't terribly important, but perhaps you could clarify if by that you mean Philippe should leave Kww alone (as some kind of WP:IBAN suggestion) or if Kww should leave something (office actions or Phillipe himself maybe) "alone". Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Err, no. If I'd have meant that I'd have written "... left Kww well alone in future" but even then the sentence as a whole wouldn't have parsed ;) but I've added an "if" to avoid any ambiguity  Roger Davies  talk 09:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ping
There is no need to further notify me of anything related to the Gun Control Case. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I just sent you an email
Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Correction to collapsed discussion
Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at :

"This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back."

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above). NinaGreen (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that Nina attempted to cross post this wall of text to every arbitrator's talk page. In light of her disruptiveness, which has been annoying for several days, I have blocked her account until such time as she, you or others come to an agreement about how she can participate constructively. The current pattern of editing could not continue, so it won't. Jehochman Talk 19:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification lapsing
I haven't been following the discretionary sanctions review that closely, but could you point me in the general direction of the discussion where it was decided that alerts/notifications should only be valid for one year? Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 13:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail Call
-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is something you might wish to pass on to the committee (either using the "Email this user" feature at User:Arbitration Committee or via this address .  Roger Davies  talk 18:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Question
Roger, saw your comments on one of the other drama boards regarding warnings and such. I raised a question here and no one has commented, though it seems the appropriate forum to raise it. Curious how to proceed, particularly as the threat of unilateral and unappealable action made to me here has me a bit jumpy. As you seem to have an interest in the topic, I am wondering if you have any thoughts. Montanabw (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The best route is to raise it here if it arises out of case.  Roger Davies  talk 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Prior to going to a dramaboard, though, my concern is that we are dealing with asking for reversal of an individual's action, so not sure if it's within the scope of that page?  Montanabw (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Apparent anti-female bigotry. Thank you. Northern Antarctica (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you!  Roger Davies  talk 03:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Tentative comment
Hi Roger, I have made a tentative comment at the DS review. I have no idea if this is any help to your efforts, but you are welcome to what little information I might be able to provide. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Trout
For dereliction of duty, endless delays and breaking numerous promises to post "soon" the proposed decision in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Nsk92 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarifiation
I am answering your direct questions here, because answering on the Clarification page will spin out of control. I am also going to comment on a couple of other things you said. I believe also that you will read this thoughtfully, whereas piled on the muck heap it will be skim read and misunderstood by many.

"If you're able only to edit by typing into a box and pressing [save page], does editing Wikipedia have any long-term attraction at all for you?

Or, to put it another way, are you simply marking time here, until the moment when your bot privileges are restored?"

Here are two completely different questions, both, if I may say so, rather confused. I think I made it clear in my email to the committee that I am mainly catching up on edits I wanted to make while I was blocked. And I think I also made it clear, that just because I ran bots and used tools, it did not mean that I was not a content creator - albeit overshadowed in my fields by people like Matt Crypto, Charles Matthews, MIcahel Hardy, Oleg Alexander, etc.. I do not like to sit comparing dozens of pairs of texts as if I were searching for V1 launch sites (perhaps an apt comparison). However I do like to see the encyclopaedia improved. I find it strange that people would fix an error without asking themselves "How widespread is this sort of problem" and "How can we prevent it happening" and "How can ewe fix it everywhere?" So does Wikipedia hold a long term attraction for me? Yes, if we are talking in the realms of a few years, I will continue to fix errors whether they are substantive such as this, or stylistic. I will even search them them out, so for example the previous mentioned error was discovered after chasing down a dubious statement supported by unreliable sources that was inserted in about ten articles. These statements are linked to the Jagged 85 case, which means they have been on Wikipedia for 6 years and are propagating across the internet and print media, and back into other WP articles. We do not have the manpower to deal with this sort of thing, despite tremendous efforts by some editors - kicking out someone who might make a contribution there seems crazy.

Similarly I tagged some 3000 incorrect ISBNs in 2012, 2600 of them remain (and probably some have only had the tag removed) and another 3-4000 have been created since. As far as I know, no-one has made a concerted effort to fix these in my two years absence. I am most of the way through fixing the 24 Featured Articles, and have fixed about a dozen others, including some of the 100 odd Good Articles. In the process I have done the following:


 * 1) Edited by typing into a box and pressing [save page]
 * 2) Copied text from the edit window to use elsewhere
 * 3) Copied text from the page to use elsewhere
 * 4) Cut text by selecting it and pressing Ctrl-X
 * 5) Replaced text by selecting it and typing
 * 6) Pasted text from elsewhere
 * 7) Moved the caret by using the mouse
 * 8) Selected text using the control and arrow keys
 * 9) Used the scroll bar on the edit box

In the process of writing Cayley's sextic I also used the "Greek" gadget to insert π and θ (knowing full-well that there exits some combination of "alt" and numbers that will generate the symbol). I also cut-and-pasted the details of the references. And above, I cut and paste the url of a diff.

So really the type of edit that is prohibited by the motion that is responding to my two mis-clicks in 2012 is pretty much inclusive of any serious editing. "But nobody would be such a jerk as to invoke the restriction for edits like this" I hear you cry. That, of course, is exactly what I thought. The purpose of this over-broad restriction, was to prevent what was seen as (perhaps reasonably) a work-around to previous restriction. In fact it provided another layer of "gotchas". I wonder if you can imagine what it is like working under these restrictions, and having people who don't know the facts say like "violation of all manner of BotOp, administrator, and consensus policies" or "apparently this user has screwed this up so many times".

The fact of the matter is, that, rightly or wrongly, the committee wanted to stop me using "automation tools", defined as "a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits" - and this has resulted in me being blocked for a year over a single edit that provided references to an article, the only problem with that edit being a single character that was typed (or not typed, I forget) by hand. This was not, I believe the aim of the restriction.

So does editing Wikipedia hold any attraction? If people are going to edit cooperatively, then sure. If they are going to throw obstacles in my path for the sake of it, then not so much.

Am I marking time? Hardly! I think I have been pretty productive, I have in your area of interest, created at least stubs, or redirects for half the articles on this list. I have yet to attend to this problem with Elliot Roosevelt, and, have abandoned for now planned improvements to Carolingian Renaissance, because of the time I am spending on this, but please look at the work I have done in the last 2 weeks. It only scratches the surface, of course, but it is at least workmanlike, and an improvement. I also have spent some time at Teahouse and Help Desk, (which are the fora for being welcoming, rather than abrasive).

As to Fram's pathetic claim that he is forced to run around after me fixing my errors, I have always said that I will fix any errors brought to my attention. Fram reported three minor errors (two typos) on Jimbo Wales talk page, while I was blocked. Fixing them was the first thing I did when my block expired - Fram was happy to hunt for them to besmirch my name, but not to tell me about it. Similarly the Arb case was brought as a BLP issue - the world was about to implode because we were revealing who had had sock allegations made against them (this was debunked pretty quickly)   my fourth edit was to address that issue. Although it was apparently vital enough that I should be whipped about town, have my rights removed etc. no-one was actually concerned enough to make sure that these details weren't exposed - except me. By their fruits shall ye know them.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC).


 * If you want me to consider this, please put it on the /Clarifications page.  Roger Davies  talk 19:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well, we will see whether my predictions in the first paragraph are borne out. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

At your service...

 * User:Tryptofish/Charity work

Roger, I'm so sorry about the delay. There were a series of medical if it can go wrong it will go wrong problems affecting first, my 85-year old mother, and then me, so all that kept me from editing for quite a bit of time. This is pretty much the first thing I did since coming back.

Anyway, I hope that you find this helpful. I think your committee may have revised the appeals policy while I was away, so you should in particular check those parts of the table for accuracy. I sincerely believe that these additions will help make the Committee run better. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I was sorry to hear about your troubles, particularly as they closely mirror recent real life events with me ;) Thank you very much indeed for looking at this and coming up with the draft tables. The first is fine and just needs a few minor tweaks. The second needs more thought as internal motions ("resolutions") are becoming increasing rare and controversial ones even more rare. The last two points will need to go as there is no consensus for them. I do appreciate your assistance on this,  Roger Davies  talk 03:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I wish you, too, all the best in real life. Hopefully, the first table will help with what I am increasingly convinced are unfair community perceptions about the ArbCom workload. I realize that the second table is one that could only be implemented following further discussion. As you most likely already know, the last two rows in the second table have been, for a long time now, the motivating reason for my discussing these things with ArbCom (and, indeed, the reason why I was willing to spend the time and effort starting these tables for you!). If there continues to be what you call "no consensus" for them on the Committee following the last election, then please expect that I will initiate community discussion advising the Committee about them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions#2014 ?
In the "Discretionary sanctions (2014) housekeeping provisions" line of Arbitration/Index/Motions, there is a mention of a user named "Collipon". No such user exists. This may be a typo of the user with a similar name but only one "l". davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Where/How to Report Outing
I've been skimming over articles related to WP:Outing and WP:Oversight but can't seem to find a direct link to where I can report an incident of attempted outing of another editor. Can you supply me with such a link or email, so I can get the issue resolved and the content stricken from WP?Scoobydunk (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember not, Lord, our offences
de:Remember not, Lord, our offences is right now on the German Main page. (They have an equivalent to DYK with two new entries each day.) I didn't write the article but translated (as you may have read in the Signpost) and got it there. - In the context: I liked what I happened to read in an older discussion on the user pages of banned editors: "It seems to me that the way forward is simply to add the template at the top of the user page extant at the time the ban was executed." Do you still support that? - "... And be not angry with us for ever ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Fredcopeman.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Fredcopeman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Fargo
Hope you're feeling good again. I managed to watch Fargo eventually and it was excellent. Oh Ja! I'm about to investigate the TV series spinoff. --RexxS (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Still a bit wheezy and breathless, but much on the mend, thanks! I'll glad you liked Fargo; I don't think you'll be disappointed with the TV spin-off. Whole new cast, but the same look and feel (and sound, ja). If you haven't seen it yet, run to see The Grand Budapest Hotel (or catch it on cable/satellite). Extraordinary and outstanding! Best,  Roger Davies  talk 06:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Thank you! And delicious as well,  Roger Davies  talk 10:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure of the appropriate arbcom page to post this on
But I made a request for a summary motion at Arbitration/Requests/Case. I'll also notify NYBrad of this. I just want to make sure arbcom sees it. Please let me know on my talk page if there is a better place to let the arbcom know. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, . We can dispose of cases by motion if there's no real dispute about the facts. That is not really the position here. However, as the request has now been accepted, a case will be opened shortly.  Roger Davies  talk 09:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Could I ask your advice?
Hi Roger - Could I ask your advice about how to respond (if at all) to some intemperate discussions at Talk:Landmark Worldwide, which appear to me to be breaching the civility policy and the Talk page guidelines. On the one hand a group of editors have been asserting that the article is biased (and posted an Advert tag to it, then replacing that by a NPOV tag), but on the other hand they have refused to respond to my invitation that they make specific and constructive suggestions for improving the article. They have also made a number of remarks which read to me as questioning the good faith of editors who have worked on this article, yet refuse to indicate which specific editors they are accusing.

I'd also appreciate your opinion on whether the article itself at Landmark Worldwide does merit the NPOV tag, and if so what issues need to be addressed. It has been in a fairly stable state since your Arbcom decision in August 2011 which topic-banned Cirt from this and other articles for extensive negative POV-pushing. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since writing the above, one of these editors Astynax has inserted a large block of controversial material into the article which he put in a year ago and was extensively debated, and a consensus reached, at that time. DaveApter (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . At this stage, your best course of action is probably to follow dispute resolution processes. The administrators' noticeboard or the NPOV noticeboard are often very helpful in these kinds of situation.  Roger Davies  talk 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, sorry to have troubled you at this stage. I will go ahead with that; the situation there is spiralling out of control. DaveApter (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Best of poor alternatives
Hi Roger, My apologies for posting here instead of on the arbitration page...the talk page there is so cluttered I'm not sure where to post, and I'm sure you're getting pinged there right and left already. Anyway, I am contacting you regarding your statement about being open to suggestions for alternatives to banning Eric Corbett. I'm not sure if you saw this thread on the talk page, but it contains some ideas for an alternative that several people agree might work better than the current proposed remedies. Anyway, I just wanted to make you aware of the proposal. I realize you're probably overwhelmed with demands on your time, and I won't be offended if you don't respond. I would appreciate it if you looked over the proposal, including the revised wording lower down. Thanks, ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support that: going for any alterative instead of such a poor one, not worthy of your support. (I wanted to say something but lacked words.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. Simply put, sanctions/restrictions don't have good outcomes unless the person under restriction does they best to make them work. I'd like to see some evidence of commitment to change because trying to craft something.   Roger Davies  talk 08:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is such a commitment in an exchange between Seraphimblade and Eric at the proposed decision talk—search for "Yes. Eric Corbett 22:20, 18 November 2014". The proposal is that, where necessary, any admin could impose a short block which would not be overturned and which would be discussed only at WP:AE. If that were found to be ineffective after, say three months, a simple request for clarification could deal with the matter with a motion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Roger Davies, Thank you for your response. I just wanted to provide the diff for what Johnuniq was saying. . Eric Corbett's "Yes" was in response to the question, "...are you, Eric, willing to stop shouting at and insulting people, no matter how justified you think you might be in doing it?" From someone as proud as Eric, I'd say that's a huge step toward trying to make things work. Is there something further that you are looking for or would like to see? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom gender case COI?
Mr. Davies,

You may wish to review the new evidence just presented by arbitrator Salvio to see whether you might have a COI. 

Regards,

—Neotarf (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The material raised by Salvio played no part in my vote.  Roger Davies  talk 12:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Were those suppressed posts attacks on you, Roger? Is so, an editor cannot manufacture a COI by attacking somebody in order to disqualify them.  Jehochman Talk 13:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, they weren't, and yes I'm familiar with that tactic ;)   Roger Davies  talk 13:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Case names
About renaming the GGTF case: I would name it GGTF, as an abbreviation that doesn't spell out the term gender gap. Will the infoboxes case perhaps also be renamed, because it wasn't about infoboxes? I learned it eventually but too late ;) - I received interesting answers to my questions to the candidates, but the question about the "spirit of the restrictions" is still open. Whatever the spirit, the restriction to two comments per discussion is wise and should be applied more generously. Imagine the PD talk in the GGTF case under that restriction for everybody! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Gerda, I didn't notice this before. I'm not sure that artificial restrictions help much. Best is to let everyone say their bit and remove stuff that crosses the line, or is unproductive, or is way off-topic,   Roger Davies  talk 13:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't think I seriously suggested that, no? - I said "imagine", I meant "imagine". I have a friend, a women, who is a doctor and was trained that in case of an accident with many victims, you don't look for those who scream (and obviously have some energy left), you help the silent ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

GGTF case
In the implimentation section, there's 13 votes in Neotarf's ban total. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed ;)  Roger Davies  talk 21:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging
Sorry for the template. I noticed that you recently tried to ping someone as an addition or correction to a previous post you'd made. Thousands of editors think this works, but it doesn't. I'm on a quixotic quest to tell everyone I see doing this that pinging only works when you also add a new signature at the same time as the ping. See Notifications if you're curious.

There. One down, 9,999 to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I had no idea, Floq. Thanks for that and very nice to hear from you ;)  Roger Davies  talk 16:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You're my first; I just made User:Floquenbeam/Pinging. If I had templating skill, I'd make the "One down, 9,999 to go" change each time I used the template. but alas, I don't. Hope all's well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All is indeed well and I'm reminded that we never got round to having that phone call to set the world to rights.  Roger Davies  talk 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but now that I'm not on the omnipotent AC, I no longer have the power to help right all the world's wrongs. An easier path, perhaps, would be to usurp Mr Wales: being God Emperor of Wikipedia looks like it's much less work that being on the AC, and the speaking fees are higher. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. Even though the role of ArbCom is enshrined in the TOU, and the role of the Founder (note capitalisation) isn't, he gets the fees. As for righting wrongs, I was hoping to persuade my colleagues to do a New Year message this year, calling for world peace and an end to poverty but it hasn't received quite the internal traction I was hoping for.  Roger Davies  talk 16:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (watching with interest) How about first simpler peace, - don't you think that "battles" in the "infobox war" look rather harmless now, see the most recent Beethoven and ? - Floquenbeam, I just pinged you elsewhere, did you get that? You don't need to tell me that you have to sign a ping in order to make it work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I got it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me guess:
 * 4 in favor of such a message
 * 3 think that world peace is so important that the message, as written, dilutes the topic by mentioning poverty, so must regretfully oppose
 * 3 think that poverty is so important that the message, as written, dilutes the topic by mentioning world peace, so must regretfully oppose
 * 1 is actively in favor of war and rich people
 * 2 haven't commented on anything in months
 * 2 quit like little babies earlier in the year
 * 15 total (or is it supposed to be 16? I can't remember)
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You made my day, LOL! - Seriously: that peace message could be enriched by quotes from answers to my question to the candidates, - your and Salvio's "no foul, play on." whenever the (Wikipedia) world is not in danger, and "Go and sin no more" instead of banning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And what of those with IFF votes who prefer the various alternative versions that (a) state this is NOT a content issue; (b) state this is NOT new policy; (c) state that it is new policy but is mandated by the TOU; {d} wish to see the outcome of an RFC first or (e) propose a letter to Santa instead.   Roger Davies  talk 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (f) No sense in lame duck AC issuing a message, wait for new members to join and get settled and participate in discussion (resulting in earliest possible message being Feb 15) ; (g) Argument about whether outgoing arbs who supported prior to the 1st should be listed as signatories, or whether only those who are arbs as of the date of issue should sign... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see those fond memories all flooding back ....  Roger Davies  talk 19:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence
May I be given permission to go over the 1000 word limit for evidence in order to provide background information on WP:GS/GG and issues of single purpose accounts disrupting the topic area?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

All of your comments on the workshop page ask for the proof I've already posted on the evidence page. What is that oage for if not making it easier than having every single God damn proposed finding based on the evidence repeating the evidence again?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A FOF isn't a repeat of all the evidence but a summary of it, with diffs supporting the key points,  Roger Davies  talk
 * I thought the purpose of the evidence page was to leave the evidence there and then make findings based on the evidence we had gathered without having to repeat the content of the evidence. If the diffs are on the evidence page or the information is included in the email you were coed on then why are these clarifications needed?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 12:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's only true to some extent. The evidence page is about providing narrative, context and all the diffs. However, diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways and, to avoid ambiguity, the diffs need to be attached to the summary of the allegation that's being made. Part of the purpose of the /Workshop page is to provide an opportunity for people who are the subject of proposed FOFs to comment on the material about them, and they can do that if they don't now what diffs are relied on in support of the allegation. Providing the supporting diffs also helps protect you against allegations of personal attacks and casting aspersions. If you have provided evidence by email, simply say "[Private evidence]" or similar instead of a diff. The other aspect is that you supplying diffs for your FOFs is going to be much quicker than someone else trying to tie your evidence into your FOFs and extracting what they think are the diffs you are relying on. This is such a big case, and the potential for delay is so great that we need these loose ends tied up from the start.   Roger Davies  talk 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * okay, then I will add diffs to everything shortly.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much,  Roger Davies  talk 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate workshop
Hi Roger, could I draw your attention to this discussion I've been having with Callanecc and SPhilbrick. The tl;dr version is that I'm asking for this proposed finding of fact in the GamerGate workshop to be removed because, beyond the first comma, it contains no facts whatsoever and because the comment that was made with it is a personal attack. I've explained to the clerks that I feel a greater need than normal to defend my reputation because of the amount of mud that has been slung during this case and because I'm a completely uninvolved admin who has made admin actions in the topic area and I intend to continue doing so as necessary, but they are reluctant to act without input from the drafters of which, obviously, you are one. My full rationale is in the thread I linked above, and in case it's relevant an approximate list of my admin actions in the area is in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision&diff=640245233&oldid=640240667 this post]. If you could look into the matter, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)