User talk:Roger Davies

ARCHIVES: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

Interaction ban

Thank you for your note. I am uncertain how to proceed at this point. I see that JohnWBarber is now the subject of a Finding of Fact, so perhaps I should put my proposal on the back burner until that has been resolved. Since I have voluntarily removed myself from the topic, I shall not be adding to the JWB FoF. Besides, the problems I have with JWB are not topic-specific (although many of the diffs presented in the FoF against me were a direct result of his attack upon me in this topic). Unless you suggest otherwise, I am going to wait until the CC-related ArbCom case has run its course before going any further on this matter. I hope, at that time, ArbCom will not view any CC-related diffs I may present in any sort of action against JWB as a violation of my voluntary withdrawal from the topic. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hit us with them. He has goaded me into a FoF even if most editors on either side of CC regard me as a fair unbiased editor arbcom has listened to JWB. If it seems that he has displayed a similar pattern in other situations which may be described as trolling then it should be presented. Olap the Ogre (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

←This is why an interaction ban is needed. JWB is attacking me again, and this time he is doing it in a forum I cannot defend myself in because of my voluntary withdrawal. This is personal for him. If it was a wider problem, he would've opened an RfC/U about me. Instead, he has saturated places like WP:ANI with mentions of my username, presumably in the hope that if he can sling enough mud some of it will stick. Please give me guidance in how to handle this situation, or point me in the direction of someone else who can. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Put together a rationale for a mutual interaction ban, supported by diffs, on your talk page, ensure that JohnWBarber is aware of it and it can be copied across to the PD talk page.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what? I can't be bothered. We are talking about sifting through literally thousands of diffs over an almost three-year span. Most of the difficulties can be found in various discussions at WP:ANI (example where "Noroton" attacks me for trying to defend Wikipedia against a massive sock farm), but it is hard to express them in terms of diffs. JWB/Norton is adept at gently poking me with a stick over and over again. No single diff will show a problem, so I'm not going to waste my time. I will begin documenting every edit that JWB/Norton makes that includes mention of me or my username, and then bring this evidence to bear on the next occasion he tries to wikilawyer me into a box. I am forced into this in order to protect myself, but I'm sure JWB/Noroton will frame it as "stalking" or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the difficulty. Unfortunately, without consent, that is the best option in the curent circumstances. Take comfort though from the thought that if the behaviour continues, now that you've diengaged from the topic, it will be much easier to prove.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I am (more or less) going to stick to my interaction ban pledge I have made previously, despite it being one-sided. I will not be interacting with JWB/Noroton in any way other than to collect any diffs that mention me in some way. The next time I mention him will be in an RfC/U or some similar mechanism, but hopefully it will never come to that. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dropping this

I've been reflecting on all that has happened. I have written to JWB in the hope that we can put our difficulties behind us. Thank you for helping me work through this. I appreciate it. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Sockpuppetry_in_the_Climate_Change_topic_area

I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see that a couple of my colleagues are looking at this and I'll keep an eye on developments.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

John Jervis

John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent has just been rated as a good article. As I was the main contributor to the article, several people have suggested that I put it up for Featured Article status. As I'm relatively new to Wikipedia I really don't know how to do that. Could you, if you have the time, point me in the right direction. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good and interesting article. Well done! Before going to FAC, you may wish to put the article up for a Milhist A-class review. You don't have to be a Milhist member of course to nominate, it's the article itself which has to be within scope (this one clearly is). The review covers much the same ground as FAC (a sort of FAC-lite) and will improve your chances later. The whole process takes about a month but is well worth doing. If you decide to skip the A-class review step, you'll find directions for nominating for FAC here. Good luck!  Roger Davies ^talk 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for such a prompt reply. I shall certainly follow your advice and head over to the Military A-Class review panel. All the best and thanks again, Corneredmouse (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the stripes Roger. I feel really guilty about leaving this to you again, but I'm so pushed for time at the moment that I know if I offered to help it just wouldn't get done. Speaking of which, I'm supposed to be teaching 5 minutes ago.... :) EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to echo similar appreciation. I'm really suprised, though. I know I've added a bit on input when other OMT members called for assistance, but I never really thought I had much to bring to the table for article improvement. I suppose this makes me feel... validated. I might take some time and lend my voice to reviews more often now. Thanks. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know...

Hi, you were correct to hat that discussion. I just saw the third account show up, sorry, I was wrong here. Please except my apology for this matter that I unintentionally helped to contribute to. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's as well to note that the blocking admin has expressed doubt as to whether the latest account was really Polargeo. I had a bit of spare time this lunchtime and took a look at the account's earliest edits, and my subjective impression was that the claimed identity seemed unlikely but I would have to look closer to be sure one way or the other. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please drop it Tony. This matter has been resolved. Risker (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider it dropped. I'm not advocating any course of action in any case. We're all getting a bit tired so it's easy to misread tone. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and a note

Thank you for the reviewer awards. I understand you do a lot of this maintainence checkup for the project. I want to say thank you for myself, and also, I assume, the project as an entirety, for helping with this lot of 'dirty work' nobody wants to do. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 03:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much though I really cannot take much credit for this. AustralianRupert did the heavy lifting assembling the data: I merely dished out the gongs! :)  Roger Davies ^talk 06:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha. He seems to do a lot of reviewing himself. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 01:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for considering the request

Today I opened my Wikipedia page to find: Hello Milogardner. Please see the result of the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner. A community ban has been enacted. You are banned from editing articles about Egyptian mathematics, broadly construed. You may not contribute on their talk pages either. Your options for contesting the ban are listed at WP:UNBAN. The ban may be enforced by blocking if necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The ban has been logged at WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be contacting Ed Johnson shortly. Is it premature to request an appeal to disclose the 'false' set of conditions that have been associated against my name in this case ... directly to you?

I would be pleased to discuss this case in Wikipedia generalities, and/or specific scholarly aspects of Egyptian mathematics that are being distorted by a 'band' of Wikipedia smart editors that post via an unclear pedagogy related to scholarly attested Egyptian mathematics.

Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've just looked at the RfC/U and the AN/I discussion and it looks fine to me. There's no obvious reason for ArbCom to intervene.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look

I'm trying to focus on my own part of this, but I had a moment and looked at the CC case talk-page history, saw AQFK's comments, then saw your discussion with him on his talk page. I'd thought about this a lot before, and so I added a comment there that I think is worth your time to read. I won't have time to discuss it more, but please take a look at it. [1] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've looked.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Even more QVC vandalism

In the past couple of days two users (presumably also controlled by QVC) have made blatant POV edits to the QVC article. I personally think if this continues we need to appeal for a range block or at least block all IPs that belong to QVC if an indefinite semi - protection is impossible. Either way we can't just let this continue as is. Deftera^talk 14:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just semi-protected it for three months. I don't think range blocks are the answer: the ranges are too diverse and the level of disruption too low.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Roger Davies. You have new messages at KimDabelsteinPetersen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposal for voluntary restriction for William

See here on NYB's talk page I also notified William, he would have to accept this, of course. Knowing William a bit, he may not be someone who takes the initiative himself to propose something like this, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't accept something along these lines when proposed. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to discuss this via an intermediary. If WMC has something to offer, I suggest he makes a proposal himself. My view though is probably that it would do him the world of good to withdraw from the topic entirely for a while. He is the focus of too much bad feeling and that must be exceedingly wearing.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What *is* rather wearying is the failure of the arbs. In comparison to that, everything else is roses William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review and comment

Please read my recent section on the PD talk where I discuss the context of several of my diffs, particularly regarding 2/0, and tell me where I went wrong in questioning those admins. Thanks. ATren (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you had just called out one sysop, fair enough, but there's a clear and extended pattern here. The strong inference that can be drawn is that you are attempting to influence the process by neutralising administrator involvement and to an extent which is disruptive. That's how it strikes me anyhow, and that's why I support the finding.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, yes, it is a pattern, but a pattern of what? It could be one of two possibilities: (1) that there was a pattern of unfounded accusations on my part, or (2) that there was a pattern of problematic behavior by the admins enforcing this probation board. You took much of this evidence from 2/0, who (of course) believes the former and is going to present it that way, but isn't it possible that it was the latter? If you don't examine the context, you can't really know which it is.

In that vein, I'm asking you now to review that section, where I present the context of almost half diffs you voted on, involving three of the five admins I warned. I'm asking you to review that evidence and comment whether my complaints against those admins had merit. I believe the evidence is quite compelling. In the meantime, I am continuing to collect evidence on the others and I will present them in the next few days. ATren (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a third possibility: that you are unable to edit collegially in a controversial topic, that you needlessly personalise disputes, and that you stick to your guns come what may. In this example of this type of conduct, your focus was administrators. There was no need for you to warn five admins: if their conduct was as inappropriate as you claim other editors, less invested in the topic, would have picked it up unprompted. It's the fact that you warned five admins that is concerning and also the fact that you still don't seem able to acknowledge that what you did was inappropriate.

There's a widespread and incorrect belief that ArbCom requires proof to be beyond reasonable doubt. That is not so: we operate on the lower civil standard of balance of probability. In other words, it is likelier than not that such and such happened. My view is that in this instance this standard is comfortably met and, while you can proceed with your analysis of the diffs if you wish and I will read what you say, a series of mini-trials on the propriety of each diff is unlikely to make me change my mind.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, did you read my evidence? I've collected them and presented them, all you have to do is read them, and you can decide for yourself whether the evidence shows my complaints had merit. ATren (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've listened to a word I've said.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And did you read what I wrote? In particular, did you read the diffs in 2/0's hatted section, where 2/0 defended a dozen clear battlefield edits by WMC? 2/0 presented diffs where WMC mocked one editor's intelligence, accused another of being dishonest, and called opposing editors idiots, yahoos, trolls and the mob, and made several other clear battleground edits -- all of this in the span of two days -- and after presenting all these, 2/0 actually said "this is not the portrait of an editor we should be topic banning." and "WMC has been markedly more diplomatic" and "If he starts attacking other editors then we should do something about it." Ask yourself, what is wrong with expressing concerns about an admin who not only noted, but defended, nearly a dozen battleground and attacking edits from a single editor in 2 days? And that's just 2/0, there is also evidence for 2 of the other admins. I am asking you again, please read the section. It will take about 10 minutes, in a case that's dragged on for many months, and I believe it is compelling.

In other words, yes, I realize that you don't need legal levels of proof to issue a finding, but in this case, I am presenting evidence for you to read and asking you to simply read it and comment. This is evidence that is relevant and compelling to my situation. It's one thing to make a decision based on "balance of probability" when evidence is lacking, but now I am providing you evidence which you clearly have not read. It's perplexing to me that you would not address that evidence. ATren (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have been reading it (I've been closely following the talk page for the past twenty-four hours) and note that it is a series of assertions from a single perspective. I see no benefit in mini-trials on each of the diffs, which is what is needed if all the parties were to input on them, as it doesn't address the core issue. Incidentally, many people would consider that your tenacity on this point is itself tendentious.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, if you read those diffs, please tell me: was the behavior of those 3 admins (representing 5 of my 12 "battleground" diffs) so beyond reproach that my response was not only ill-advised but actionable? Because that's what you seem to be saying here, that not only was 2/0's defense of WMC's dozen battleground diffs correct, but that it was beyond reproach. Is that what you are saying? Otherwise, why would a good faith editor be sanctioned for simply raising what can be rationally construed as valid concerns? ATren (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not me, though. I just looked at the diffs that were claimed uncivil and saw no such thing, which I find quite worrying. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've received your message, ATren, and am responding here to keep the discussion in one place. During the course of reviewing this case, I've read a couple of hundred articles and their talk pages, and read over thousands of diffs. The objective of providing example diffs is not to summarize all that an editor does that is problematic. In situations where the editor exhibits chronic low level combative issues, the diffs are but snapshots that must be read in the context of entire discussions, or even entire talk pages. I have no problem saying that you've been part of the problem in this topic area for quite a while; your manner of participation here has not been the worst, or the most volatile, but it's time for you to start looking to participate in some actual editing of the project, in an area that is noncontentious. Risker (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't the charges say that then? --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@Risker, I have never had a problem being removed from this topic area. I was one of the strongest proponents of SirFozzie's "scorched earth" approach, which would have removed pretty much everyone, including me. But if I am to be removed, along with others like JWB whose evidence is extremely mild, then there is a whole bunch of editors that were missed. For example, on Shell's talk I identified nine combatants that were not dealt with in the battleground findings:

• Three of them (SBHB, Stephan Schulz and Guettarda) were involved in attacking Lar, frequently in a mocking tone. Cla68 documented the abuse in Lar's RFC and the arbs were aware of that evidence. Yet no battleground finding on any of them. See here.
• ScienceApologist was highly combative on a BLP issue during the case (and he was misrepresenting sources) -- no finding.

And there were at least five admins who were problematic and are not part of these battleground findings:

• 2/0 and TOAT for their efforts to protect WMC (whose actions this committee has now acknowledged as being problematic) even in the face of extremely hostile behavior by WMC, and even as they were coming down hard others for much less. And recall, 2/0 not only defended WMC, he actively undermined the only other admin who did address the problem, reversing Lar's 1-hr block with minutes to go.
• NuclearWarfare - for a very serious BLP violation that he not only endorsed but enforced with a block of the editor who tried to remove it. The material in question was a link to an unpublished presentation and was the subject of threatened litigation between the parties. This was a very serious transgression, but the committee has not said a word about it.
• Other admins who not only exhibited battleground behavior, but used or threatened to use their tools in support, such as Fut.Perf and JEH (see my section for Fut.Perf's evidence, and Jehochman's is coming soon).

Some of these editors were presented on the PD talk, but Roger archived most of them. Others were available in the evidence presented. I assert to you, Risker, that the evidence on every one of these editors meets, and usually exceeds, the level of disruption from people like me and JWB, and in the case of the admins it was even worse because of the use or threatened use of tools.

How does this add up, Risker? How can the bar be so low for editors like me while so many other combatants whose behavior was worse are not even dealt with? And why am I sanctioned for my responses to many of these obvious transgressions, responses that were far more civil and impersonal than the original aggressors, while the aggressors themselves are not? Again, please read the evidence I just posted (did you?) and tell me that I was not justified in addressing those admins. I really believe you have misjudged the root cause of many of these conflicts. ATren (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a progression here. Brow-beating editors gives way to brow-beating administrators, and finally brow-beating arbitrators. See my talk page for further comments on this pattern. --TS 12:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change proposed findings 25, 25.1 (JohnWBarber)

It looks as if the present status is that 25 is passing with 1 abstention and 4 supports. In the circumstances, and considering your reason for proposing 25.1 was the possibility that 25 might not pass, you may want to withdraw 25.1. --TS 11:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)