Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 12 January 2015

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Archives

Archive 1: Dec '10 - Jan '11 Archive 2: Feb '11 - Nov '11 Archive 3: Dec '11 - Mar '12 Archive 4: Mar '12 - May '12 Archive 5: June '12 - July '12 Archive 6: July '12 - October '12 Archive 7: Nov '12 - Dec '12 Archive 8: January '13-May '14

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Hi Lord Roem and thanks for the trust to give the rights of rollbacker! I promise I do my best. Aldebaran69 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hey, M'lord, welcome back, you were missed! Hope you're going to get back into DR. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Great to be back! Yes, I absolutely will. Cheers, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI

We are reviewing the situation at Ghana and trying to figure why you blocked one editor there. I was going to protect it but saw the single block and I'm quite sure of the read here. Pop by ANI if you can. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Great to have you back!

Hope you like Corona, it's the special of the day. I got it for you at three dollars less than its usual price. Always great when you can get an import at almost half the cost, especially when it's my favourite beer. Kurtis 00:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha, thank you! --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Explaination

Me? but Ryulong started it. He/she was being stubborn with me. I wasn't trying to do anything wrong. -- Funnycoolman ~ (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. They asked you to stop trying to keep the message on their own talk page. You two need to sit down and consider going to the dispute resolution noticeboard for your content disagreements. Otherwise, you need to stop your disruptive behavior on his page. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but just tell Ryulong to stop being such a pain. Because he has the disruptive behavior, not me. -- Funnycoolman (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Funnycoolman: I strongly advise you to read the comments on your talk page by the admins who declined your unblock request. Your behavior was clearly disruptive. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

I need your help in fighting edit war in the article by some IPs. The IPs are removing some sourced information from the article about foreign assistance to the nuclear program. They are saying the line should go to foreign assistance section but according to MOS:INTRO, shouldn't it be mentioned in the intro as well? Also, I think same IPs are vandalizing Economy of Pakistan and inflating the numbers, please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Bhardwaj (talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You two need to work it out on the article's talk page rather than reverting each other. If you can't come to an agreement, take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not dealing with only one, there are many IPs who are continuously edit warring, I don't think they will listen to me on the article's talk page, now today an editor just remove the citation needed tags calling it tag bombing. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Make the effort before giving up. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith but they are not listening. Can you have a look at my latest edits on these two pages, is there any problem? I.Bhardwaj (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Persistent vandal of Iraq and Ukraine conflict articles

I saw you blocked the IP vandal who was inserting unsourced info and making insulting comments towards other editors. I thought this created the possibility of him cooling of. However, this morning, the same user started reinserting unsourced info to the Ukraine conflict article again from a different IP address, which is similar to the already blocked one. I can only guess his IP address changes every day. Thought I let you know. EkoGraf (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Lord Roem ~ (talk)

Can you please cancel that edit, you did in En otra piel and in La impostora?

You did so, that in pages En otra piel and La impostora can edit them only administrators. But user Ricardo80, who is not an administrator, and who is very active in those pages, he adds ratings, viewership and descriptions of episodes. Can you please undo that edit? I promise, I talk to Chema and there will be no edit-war Sky0000 (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Continuation War article

I am not sure if you saw the replies before the protection request was archived.
To repeat the points made, there was no content dispute as the IP users did not initiate any discussion.
The edit summaries for the reverts were blank, but this one contains are very "convincing" argument...
One of the IP users also followed me to three other articles and reverted my edits there.
I think it is obvious that the IPs (it might be just one person) are just edit warring.
So can you change the level to semi-protected, or at least undo the changes made by them? This will show that edit warring with the use of different IPs does not work. -YMB29 (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29: Their inappropriate edit summary got them a warning. In terms of the article's protection, the added content isn't clearly vandalism or disruptive material. This is part of a long-running dispute about the outcome and goals of the conflict. Thus, the reason I felt (and still feel) temporary full-protection is warranted. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no serious long running dispute, only random users or IPs reverting the result from time to time.

There is consensus for the result both among the users who edited the article and in reliable sources, and this cannot be changed just by edit warring from IP users.

Also, no edit summaries for reverts or summaries with personal attacks is disruptive material. -YMB29 (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29: I do agree, reverts without edit summaries and without attempts to discuss the issue are disruptive. Let's see how things go in the future. There's no immediate need to reduce the article protection. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My recent block

Hi Lord Roem, I have no issues over your recent blocking of me (I was, after all, edit warring), but you should be aware of an ongoing problem with the other party. It's the same IP who has edit warred in a number of places and been increasingly insulting in his interation. A look through his edit history as 201.215.252.50 shows his approach to editing, and this shows his approach to reasoned dialogue on the talk pages, even going to the extent of edit warring at ANI - again and again and again. All he does when blocked is to jump to a related address and keep on going. I think I've come across them on another page too, doing exactly the same thing, but I'm strggling to remember exactly where that was. Thankfully JamesBWatson has temporarily protected some of the pages on the basis that the IP will probably return, although the last time the IP visited the Bond Motifs page was in March, so he's more than happy to wait a couple of months before returning to a particular page, although he'll be doing much of the same sort of stuff in between. Short of blocking off the whole of the Santiago IP block, is there nothing else that can be done? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I think the semi-protection should be a good prophylactic measure, especially if this is an IP that's jumping around. If/when they expire and this continues, please feel free to contact me. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As I know this IP has been acting in this manner under at least three addresses (or at least in three uncivil edit wars with people), I do wonder how many they have been involved in with other editors. How many times do we have to jump through various hoops before something happens, or are you happy that they carry on warring with numerous editors and instantly going to uncivil communication when asked about their actions? - SchroCat (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me to do. I can't preemptively block these IPs. If there's further disruption, extending the semi-protection will be sufficient. Feel free to keep me apprised. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Lord Roem, Just to update you and JamesBWatson on this, the full history of this individual is being uncovered in chunks by a series of unconnected editors at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP; I suspect that the full extent of his block evading, socking, incivility and other misdemeanours will not be uncovered, but as it stands there is enough there to make people take notice and suggest further courses of action. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thanks for the update. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSICON and WP:FOOTY

@Number 57: & @SMcCandlish: Thanks to both of you for giving me concise intros to the dispute over at the 3RR NB. I think we should move discussion to another page where we can keep things more organized. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you may have seen from the wall of text produced in response to my comments at the noticeboard, I don't think a resolution is possible here. I'll leave you to judge with whom the problem lies. Number 57 12:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I note that Number 57 never responded substantively to a single point raised, only introduced irrelevant hand-waves. Not sure how this should proceed. I have no doubt that if the page were unprotected that Number 57 (or someone contacted by him to act as proxy) would immediately begin the reverting again. Number 57 refuses to acknowledge even one single policy point raised in the discussion so far, a textbook case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Even his principal ally at this dispute at WT:MOSICONS backpedalled, and realized he had been approaching this as if it were a proposition to strip the template of all flag icons, when clearly it's not. I've sat on this quietly for a whole week, and Number 57's not addressed anything at all, only made snowjob accusations of "text walling". I'm not sure it escapes anyone's attention that any time someone runs to a legalistic enforcement forum like ANEW, ANI or AE and then cannot produce evidence and policy-based arguments for the demands they're making, their usual course of action is to claim that the opposition's successful production of such material constitutes some kind of unfair "text wall". So, now what?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: Please change the heading "User:SMcCandlish reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)" to "User:SMcCandlish reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Both warned)" at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive249, to accurately reflect the actual action taken and to stop singling me out; you know as well as I do that people looking back over archives of this sort rarely read the entire cases, they just look at the apparent results, when they're fishing for something to point fingers about.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: & @Number 57: I think you're right about your latter comment; I've updated the archive to reflect my actual action on the request. Regarding how the two of you move forward, would you be okay if I made a subpage of either my talk or the WP page in question for discussion? I'd follow my general approach for mediation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to mediate, how about starting with the accusation of being open to meatpuppetry. Number 57 11:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be canvassing by direct messaging. Meatpuppetry is getting non-Wikipedians to join Misplaced Pages just to vote on things your way; not related. Number 57 has already blatantly engaged in broader canvassing on this very issue, here. Number 57 knew full well it was canvassing, because he shortly thereafter took another editor to task for precisely the same kind of post on the same page (it's even about player nationality again!), but in a case where he doesn't agree with the poster, here, and (I couldn't make this up) issued the same party a 3RR warning just a little later, here, after he'd groused to you and WP:ANEW about my warning him similarly. Number 57 should perhaps see our long-standing essay Misplaced Pages:Don't call the kettle black. Number 57 already really, really knew better, because it turns out he's an admin. Note also that this "Need a revert..." thread indicates that this wikiproject's talk page is in fact used to canvass revertwarring in particular, making my suspicion that this could happen in this case not unfounded; that does in fact seem to be how that wikiproject operates. (Contrast this with Number 57's baseless accusation of bad faith here.)

I'm sorry that Number 57 doesn't like MOS:ICONS, but its wording is very clear and has been stable on this point in particular for years now; there is no dispute about what it means, there was simply a discussion about whether to maybe change it, and that discussion did not result in a consensus to change it. The end. Move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  15:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing. You made some controversial edits to a WikiProject Football, and I notified the project that developed that template in a neutral manner ("An editor has been making changes to the football squad template documentation today, mostly in relation to the flags debate, which I have disputed. It would be good to have some third party input to review whether those changes are consistent with the outcome (or lack of one) of the debate."). I did not ask anyone to revert you, I asked for third-party input to review the changes. If you want to talk about canvassing, you might want to consider the behaviour of an editor who starts sections with clearly unneutral titles like "WT:FOOTY canvassing/editwarring against MOS:ICONS compliance". Number 57 16:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Lord Roem, you mediating is fine by me. Despite the above, I'm not assuming any actual bad faith problem, but a zeal and perspective one. I have nothing against Number 57 personally, I just don't think he's being objective when it comes to things related to WP:FOOTY, and is putting the wikiproject before the Misplaced Pages Project sometimes, sorely testing the trust we've collectively put in him as an admin, in the process. I doubt that's habitual, and it's probably a factor of the high degree of stress put on editors (and admins, when acting as such) at football/soccer pages due to the World Cup, and especially the unprecedented interest in it (finally) by Americans, a huge block of readers and readers-turned-noob-editors, plus the attendant increase in vandals. I think if Number 57 were to actually try to address the arguments I already presented at WP:ANEW and again at WT:MOSICONS that this would resolve quickly enough. The only way this dispute could perpetuate is refusing to do so again on the grounds that the arguments I've presented several times already are "too long" or "too repetitive" or "not rational enough" or any other "I'm ducking these issues so you have to repeat them again so I can ignore them again" pseudo-response. If they're ducked again, it should be formally taken as conceding. We can put them in a numbered table or something if that helps. But no more WP:ICANTHEARYOU games.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  15:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the most important ways to keep discussion focused is by splitting up the issues to talk about. Bringing up everything that's happened in every reply to the other party--something both of you have done--is the first thing to cut down on. Now, I'll make a page for this later today when I have more time, following my approach to mediation. In the meantime, I'd prepare some bullet-point lists on the issues in this dispute, ranging from the broadest to quasi-conduct things that may be damaging your ability to communicate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I'm willing to engage in this (as long as it's properly mediated), but will be going on holiday later this week, so may not have internet access for 10-11 days. As for the comments above about "formally conceding", WP:BLUDGEON may be worth a read. Strong mediation is going to be needed here please - being even handed is fine, but you're going to need to put your foot down at some point. Thanks, Number 57 08:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi all – sorry if my piping in is unwarranted, but I've revised my summary of the voluminous flags discussion. Please feel free to use this as you see fit. SFB 17:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. And @Number 57: let me know when you return and I'll begin the process then. Cheers, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do. However, I do have one suggestion/request - that the discussion should be limited to 250 words per response/comment. Although I've alluded to it previously, I've just seen Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention and I have to agree with the comments of Johnuniq at the bottom. A proper discussion is not possible with huge volumes of text being produced. Number 57 12:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a similar rule for my mediations already. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks :) Number 57 12:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So when are we going to get to this? Lord Roem, you may not have noticed this, but GiantSnowman, |Number 57]]]'s close ally, has, in a move that is effective wheelwarring in spirit if not quite letter, used his admin power to mass revert all my changes to Template:Football squad player/doc, after you full-protected that page specifically to prevent more revertwarring and to induce actual discussion before more changes happened. The WP:SOAPBOXing of these two resulted in a massive, pointless skyscraper of text at WT:MOSICONS, an RfC in which they did not get their way on this. So why are they still editwarring their view, which blatantly contradicts the clear wording of MOS:ICONS, into template documentation? Are we going to have a third-party mediated dispute resolution, or should just take this to RFARB? This is not a case of legitimate disagreement over interpretation, it's blatant WP:LOCALCONSENSUS defiance of a site-wide guideline because they think "their" project is magically exempt from it and can make up its own rules.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  06:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Credit where it is due?

Thanks for the mention at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/StringTheory11#Questions for the candidate but I don't think that question originated with me, it is far too good. Of course it may be my memory that is faulty. --John (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@John: Ah, maybe not! I do know you had it at both of my RfAs ;) Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 6 Atlanta Wiki-Picnic

You might be interested in signing up for this: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 8.--Pharos (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs

Why was Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs closed only days after two Keep votes? I wanted to address the two users' responses.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Emperor's New Spy: The AfD was closed more than seven days after the last relisting. I read your argument and considered it along with all the others before I closed it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I was unable to to respond to last two votes, which seems to misunderstand the point of the delete side thinking we are arguing that all members of Georgian royal family are not notable which is not the case. The discussion should have led to no consensus and not a keep since the delete side presents arguments not countered by the opposition. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I felt their arguments were more persuasive and did, either directly or indirectly, challenge the delete !votes. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I left you a note here. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to take another look at your close? It was premised on a misunderstanding (albeit an understandable one, considering the confused record). Best. Epeefleche (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the diffs provided, this isn't a violation of 3RR or an example of edit warring. Unless something's changed since I last took a look, my close remains the same. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The close was based on your misunderstanding (which I hope I've clarified). There was classic edit warring as defined in Misplaced Pages:Edit warring (nobody raised 3RR -- that's a non-issue). (Which even included repeatedly re-adding uncited blp information, in violation of wp:v). Ample messages were left for the editor on his talk page. No reason for violating wp:v, repeatedly, within a 2-hour period was given. I believe from my long time at the Project that there's no need for 3RR to be passed for it to be edit warring, our policy says as much, and this series of adds in violation of wp:v even after a series of notices, within two hours, is clearly what is viewed as edit warring. I would ask you to reconsider. Especially since your close was based on what was clearly a mis-perception. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at it again. I don't believe they were edit warring; they also appear to have moved their thoughts to the talk page. That is a productive step and I encourage you both to pursue it towards consensus. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I'm very much surprised by your conclusion, which does not accord with either what I see in the policy or with how the policy is read in general, for the past years. But you are the decision-maker. I'm also concerned that the basis of your initial conclusion was wrong' I assume you agree in that regard, though I'm not sure I saw you indicate as much. Also -- if you look at the article, you will note that his talk page comments as well failed to acknowledge the importance of wp:v -- I fear that your failure to act will encourage him to continue to violate it, which is not a good thing for the project or for other editors with whom he may deal on the subject. Finally, as you will note, all of the material that he kept on adding has now been deleted, by a combination of deletions by a sysop (wearing his "I'm just an editor editing hat") and by a redirect of what was left ... so there is of course no further talk page conversation to be had. But my regret remains that by not acting when there is edit warring over wp:v, and many posts to the editor doing so, and he continues to revert a number of times in two hours, and then after his very last revert leaves a post that fails whatsoever to acknowledge he needs to act in accord with wp:v but failed to, that your choosing not to act has the deleterious effect of failing to advise him to act in accord with wp:v in the future. Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

India News

I believe this content is a BLP violation by a SPA, Amt000 . The sources don't look reliable. The websites look highly political or blog like and edits clearly place undo weight on relatives of the owner, but not the owner. I have reverted it twice and that is all I'm going to do, but I did want to bring it to your attention before I remove it from my watch list. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree and reverted it. Also likely WP:UNDUE. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Amt000 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)no sir this reference purly good and belibale if he dont know hindi use translte Amt000 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have translated the Hindi article and it is just a politics opinion piece on a political site. It is unacceptable. Also, whether on not relatives committed a crime is not relevant to the company. My best advice is to give up your vendetta it is considered WP:POINTy and, as I warned you earlier, you are engaged in an WP:EDITWAR. I am One of Many (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amt000: Can you please explain how actions the TV station owner's son did are relevant to the article on the TV station? If anything, it may be better placed on the station owner's individual profile. My concern is posting this possibly defamatory (or at the least, highly negative implicit statement) would be inappropriate for this page; what's the compelling reason to include? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Amt000 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC) i give more link .jessica lal murder case very popular in india so i attach these link Amt000 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Amt000: Okay, I understand that may be the case. But that's not responsive to my concerns that the inclusion of this material isn't relevant to the TV station. Can you see where I'm coming from? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Huns edit war continues

Even after your warning for edit warring, user:Akocsg reverted Richard Keatinge. Would you consider protecting the article until a consensus is formed? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Akocsg is clearly edit-warring after the warning I gave him. They've been blocked for 31 hours. Discussion should be on the talk page, not through warring edit summaries. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

ARE

I guess I had my request in the correct section to begin with? I moved it because my previous questions to the Admins went unanswered. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Yes. The pinging will ensure we see your comments, no need to put them right under ours. Don't worry, I'm reading it! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Notices don't have to be logged any more

Hello Lord Roem. About your recent log entries. Please see this message that I left for Solarra advising that he un-log an ARBPIA notification. In the opinion of User:AGK notices *must not* be logged, though I don't get anything quite so strong from reading the motion. Routinely leaving notices out of the log guarantees that we won't have any future wars about logging by non-admins. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Got it, thanks! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, it's you

I appear to have missed the boat; I actually looked at your contributions maybe one month ago and was disappointed to see that you hadn't returned yet. Good to have you back. Ed  21:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@The ed17: Glad to see you're still knockin' around too, Ed! Thanks for the note. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My Topic Ban

As you can imagine, I am disappointed, and feel singled out from a culture of contentious editing (the culture within alt med articles). I do understand, however, that my talk page entries with uncivil tone and inappropriate language were excessive. I will take some time editing less controversial subjects for awhile, and would like to appeal the length of my ban after I have demonstrated a changed editing pattern. Any advice on how to best demonstrate that would be appreciated. Herbxue (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Herbxue: Should you demonstrate a more civil and collaborative tone in other editing for a sustained time, I would be very willing to limit the duration of the topic ban or lift it completely at some point in the future. I think the first step is seeing where I and some of the other admins were coming from in our discussion and doing your best to improve. Wishing you the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have watch listed a few articles in topic areas related and unrelated to medicine, avoiding alt med and fringe science. It will take me some time to get up to speed with making contributions, and once I do I will bring some diffs and ask your opinion about progress. Herbxue (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made some productive edits, but 2/0 and Bull Rangifer have identified the topics as violating my ban. Can you help me sort out what I can and cannot edit? Here are the topics I have contributed to, or would like to contribute to:

1. 2 Han Dynasty medical books, the Shang Han Lun and the Jin Gui Yao Lue. The article Jin Gui Yao Lue is particularly lacking and nobody seems to be editing it. It is relevant to Chinese medicine, but I am hoping you will see it as a historical work rather than an alternative medicine topic.

2. Biographies of historically important Chinese doctors, such as Zhang Zhongjing (author of the 2 books above), Li Dongyuan, and I would like to create an article on Ye Tianshi, a Qing dynasty physician.

3. Other classic Chinese works that have nothing to do with medicine or fringe science (Confucius, Dao De Jing, Zhuangzi, etc…)

I think I probably pushed the envelope too much with this edit on the systemic bias talk page and I won't do that again. The page was not one that I am banned from, but I should not have weighed in on the subject being discussed.

Can you let me know which, if any, of the above are articles that I am free to edit? Thanks Herbxue (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you, but can you give me some guidance regarding the topics above? Thanks Herbxue (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic-bans are broadly construed so if you are unsure whether it falls under it, you should act as if it does. A cursory look at the topics above appear to be about Chinese medicine, which is close, if not directly part of the subject of your TBAN. I'd advise editing in an area completely different (military history, sports, legal issues, entertainment, science, there's definitely many places you can help out in). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I am sure about #3, but I'd better avoid 1 and 2.Herbxue (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

Hello Lord Roem,

93.103.152.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues the edit war at Party of Miro Cerar despite your warning (diff). I am afraid that it was not enough and he/she is not willing to join in the discussion that I have tried to start. I hope that you can help. --RJFF (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for a week. Don't feel comfortable imposing a block for a single edit, though if this slow edit war continues, I may later. Thanks for the note. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your action! --RJFF (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW

I was in the middle of composing a final reply to Capitalismojo at ARE when you closed the case. If this is a problem and you have to remove it, can you put it on his talk page? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, edit conflicts happen all the time. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Kurtis 15:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hi. I'm just an ordinary editor, and I'm not really expert in what goes on behind the scenes at Misplaced Pages, but I've been following the events surrounding the Media Viewer with great interest. I have been particularly upset and in one case quite offended by the high-and-mighty attitudes of @Fabrice Florin: and his colleagues over the course of this discussion. I suspect that I am not the only person for whom this case is likely to substantially impact my own view of Misplaced Pages, my participation levels, and my general goodwill to the project. I've tried to read the draft principles and findings, but there is an awful lot going on, and the one thing I can't find clearly stated is an answer to this question: are they going to be able to scr*w us again in future?

You'll have to excuse my language, but I'm afraid I feel very strongly about this, and my choice of metaphor is quite deliberate: I feel violated by the WMF's actions, not just in rolling out the Media Viewer, but in the following weeks of reaction and comment. What you have to answer in your final report, clearly and distinctly, is this: can WMF force their will on the editing community? There should be no beating around the bush, no remarks about how people have learned from the experience and will do better next time; quite simply, there should be an answer to the question: can this happen again? It is very clear that many of the team at WMF think of Misplaced Pages editors as people working for them, on whom they can impose working terms and conditions, and on whose work they can impose the form that Misplaced Pages readers receive the finished product. This isn't why I signed up, and I guess I'm not the only one. We need to be sure that Misplaced Pages will remain a co-operative endeavour. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@RomanSpa: You're free to express your thoughts on the case on one of the RFAR talk pages, or participate in the more nuanced discussion in the Workshop (here). As to your questions, this is far above my pay-grade. I'm just the messenger... Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Lord Roem: Oh, sorry. As I said, I'm not really an expert in these things. Thanks for your patience and the advice, and sorry to disturb you. RomanSpa (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hodge-podge?

You referred more or less to my Arbitration Enforcement filing as a hodge-podge. Are you suggesting that I should have filed two AE requests, one against each of them? They were both edit-warring, and they can't be understood, in my view, without each other. Now that they are being warned, we shall see. I don't expect that they will stop edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

AE usually deals with an editor's disruptive involvement in a particular topic area. If two editors are edit warring, unless there's some other topic-specific problem with their behavior, the usual channels (AN3) are usually a better place for the request. Insofar as it's a "hodge-podge," the initial filing was malformed and the inclusion of two parties in one generally makes it harder to go through. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army dispute (COD T 3)

I'd like to make a last statement before I get banned, please see my rebuttles to the bias and unfair accusations:

• By Misplaced Pages standards Encyclopedia Judaica is considered a legitimate source, but not a neutral source. So, my objection was against Faustian using a claim made by EJ and writing it in the Misplaced Pages Editorial Voice, as if the Jewish interpretation of the events was the only definitive view of the events in question. User Faustian was reminded by other users on 22:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC) that due to the highly controversial and conflicting accounts of the events in question this kind of editing style is inappropriate. Also, please see the offensive statements directed at me:
• 'No User:COD T 3 is engaging in original research and Jew-baiting. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)'

Please note that the date of this statement is 14 June 2014 nearly two months prior to the statement I'm potentially being banned for 2 August 2014.

• User Faustian titles a talk page discussion "Blue Army Rapists" on 04:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet no admin questions his neutrality or intentions, maybe Faustain holds a potential Anti-Polish bias? I don't think that by WIkipedia standards this was a neutral statement.

Thank you for your unbiased honesty in overseeing the Misplaced Pages project! It's been a very informative experience to learn just how the process is being administered, and what kind of material is being allowed to flood a page with no admin noticing even if a Undue Weight tag is present. But, for the moment it's me that will get blamed for being disruptive to the Misplaced Pages process. --COD T 3 Last Statement (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

question

On the AE, can you please show me a diff where I refuse to "accept the connection?" I've tried my best to explain what my thinking and assumptions were at the time, but I've not argued with the admins who've said it was a violation. I had wrong thinking about it which I state I recognize. I'd appreciate the diff. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the diff. MastCell has made many personal attacks and sarcastic comments to me in the past, especially at the ArbCom pages, and when I saw he'd posted on my talk page, I deleted it without really even reading it, but I did see the edit summary about the topic ban. I thought MastCell was harassing me because he'd not agreed with my iVote.

I realized there was a problem when I read Stephen Schulz's comment. Here was an uninvolved admin saying, yes that's a violation. I immediately understood it then. I went back and looked at the Donald Trump talk page and realized that I'd been thinking all along that it was a BLP sourcing issue, but realized then it was a TPm issue. Then when Sandstein said it was a TPm page because of the discussion, I knew immediately what he meant.

Since I'd arrived there from an RfC bot notice, I'd simply gone straight to the RfC discussion section, thinking BLP sourcing. But when I went back and looked at the page, I saw there'd been a previous discussion on that page. It was never my intention to violate the ban. The ban was imposed a year ago, and in all that time, I've never had one violation. This really was a stupid mistake on my part and as I said in my statement, I'll never go near another page with even the slightest suggestion that there could be a TPm issue. The bot had earlier sent me to the Dave Brat page. I didn't know who he was, so I Googled him, and when I saw TPm connections, I gave the page a miss. I'd appreciate it if you would look over my statement again, and please reconsider your decision. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC) 02:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warning violation Blue Army (Poland) article

After account COD T 3 was blocked, user Faustian edited the Blue Army (Poland) article. The edits are significant/bias and were made without initiating any kind of discussion on the talk page (not covered by any of the RfCs). Also, the changes were made immediately after user Faustian received a ArbCom warning regarding his approach to editing the article. Please take action against such disruptive and bias behavior.

• Name of disputed section changed: "Controversies" to "Anti-Semitic Violence" - 14:16, 7 August 2014‎
• Removed long standing Undue Weight tag from disputed section, originally added after an unsuccessful Mediation Board: "Undue|section|date=June 2014" - 00:56, 7 August 2014‎

--Wikirun 20 (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

Hello, you protected this article a couple of weeks ago and now that protection has been lifted, the unconstructive edits have returned. I was wondering if you add a lengthier protection to the article at least until the media attention dies down. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi. I just want to know how is that in a report against Kipa Aduma, I ended topic baned. As you know, articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are controlled by pro-Arab guys (so to speak). Those articles are flooded with anti-Israeli propaganda and well supported texts are deleted while infringing Wiki laws. There is no way where a single editor (or two or three) can compete with these overwhelming POV (+outright lies) info, therefore to ban me for "having an (alleged) POV" is pretty shocking. You can watch my contributions and tell me why it's unacceptable that I get involved in this topic. I don't think that a group of activist-editors who act together to censor anyone who doesn't agree with them and try to show other points of view in controversial articles can be considered a legitimate "consensus" to apply a topic ban. I've always tried to make constructive edits and I might have committed mistakes – for which I was already punished (just for the record, I didn't know this was considered a revert) – but I don't think this deserves a topic ban, let alone when other editors make much more obvious POV contributions (this is a small example). It's not impartial at all. I ask you to please reconsider my topic ban. Thanks in advance.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your topic ban was imposed as the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE. I think we made the right call and, based on the wording of your statement above, I don't see reason to lift it. Your request is declined. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup needed on aisle five

Could you address / remove / collapse the side conversations between Risker & T Canens and Hasteur & Risker at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media_Viewer_RfC/Proposed_decision#Proposed_motion:_Case_suspended ? NE Ent 03:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Looks like my colleague beat me to it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Timothy J. Dyches

A while back, consensus was gained for the deletion of an article about Timothy J. Dyches. Because of that consensus, you closed the discussion and the article was deleted/redirected. In the interim, proposals have been made to delete other articles about current or former members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Some gained consensus for deletion, some did not. But also in the meantime, Vojen presented a concrete argument against deletion of such articles (on Misplaced Pages: Articles for Deletion/Randy D. Funk) that has resulted in all subsequent nominations failing. My question is this: Would you consider restoring the Dyches article if it could be shown that the consensus was for it? I think if a proposal was made to restore or recreate it, the result would be much different in light of Vojen's argument. So I was just curious about how you would feel on the issue. Please post any reply to my talk page, as I don't habitually check other user's talk pages for responses. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On Jgstokes' behalf, I've listed a similar case at DRV, here, and mentioned this one as well. Your input would be appreciated. Lankiveil 11:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

GA Cup

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Incompetent editor who pushes Fringe

I have requested Arbitration. Could you check that I have done it right. - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers. Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC) To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate change denial

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climate change denial. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of wars involving the United States

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of wars involving the United States. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. - Volokh cite?

At Talk:Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. I have posted a question trying to look up your Volokh citation. The citation format you have used is extremely vague. I'm not finding the cite easily with Google.

Is Volokh a first or last name? Are you being vague because this is supposed to be a well-known person for whom vagueness is a sign of respect and authority? -- DMahalko (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Appeal

Hi Lord Roem. Six months have passed since the imposition of my topic ban. I was punished for half a year and I respected that decision. I was wondering if now you could lift my ban, please. I promise I won't break 1RR again and I'll seek consensus before making controversial edits. I really want to contribute to this beautiful encyclopedia in a correct manner. I apologize for the incoveniences I may have caused.

Thanks a lot!--AmirSurfLera (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I made an appeal at the arbitration committee.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)