Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lord Roem (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 8 July 2014 (→Huns edit war continues: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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)

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)

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)