User talk:Lord Roem/Archive9

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I am not sure if you saw the replies[1] 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[2] contains are very "convincing" argument...
One of the IP users also followed me to three other articles and reverted my edits there.[3]
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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

@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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 Wikipedia: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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 Wikipedia 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 Wikipedia 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, [[User:Number 57]|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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention at Wikipedia: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)

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

Why was Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

I believe this content is a BLP violation by a SPA, Amt000 [4]. 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)

Even after your warning for edit warring, user:Akocsg reverted Richard Keatinge.[5] 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)

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)

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)

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 ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 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)

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)

Just noticed this. Belatedly, FWIW, I think it's overdoing the topic ban to forbid Herbxue from editing those three areas mentioned above [6]. ESPECIALLY #3 -- it's Chinese philosophy for crying out loud. 1 and 2 may be forbidden under the letter of the law, maybe; but under the spirit? No, they shouldn't be. None of these topics are subject to WP's perpetual alt-med warring, which is the only area where Herbxue's conduct was questioned. I'm really disappointed with how 2/0 and Brangifer acted here (and am pinging them because I feel that strongly); it's rigidly bureaucratic at best and vexatious at worst. Not letting the guy edit uncontroversially in his area of expertise (in areas nobody else is editing!) is punitive to Herbxue and bad for the project. He's an expert editor and is being treated like crap when WP should be thanking him. I know the ban is over or nearly so, just saying. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 06:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

I was in the middle of composing a final reply to Capitalismojo [7] 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)

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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Kurtis ^(talk) 15:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just an ordinary editor, and I'm not really expert in what goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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

• By Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia process. --COD T 3 Last Statement (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 Wikipedia: 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 ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC).

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)

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'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.

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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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 more than 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 Wikipedia: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) 00:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Lord Roem, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, thank you for the kind wishes and apologies for the insane delay on my reply! RL has made things impossible for me to do as much as I used to on here, but I still poke around every now and then. All the best to ya! --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Lord Roem, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, thank you for the kind wishes and apologies for the insane delay on my reply! RL has made things impossible for me to do as much as I used to on here, but I still poke around every now and then. All the best to ya! --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Searle. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Lord Roem: I left a message at the page protection page on Wikipedia, thanks (121.214.14.118 (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC))

@Lord Roem: I left a reply to your message. (121.214.14.118 (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC))

It was not my interest, aim, desire, or idea of a good time, to have any discussion whatsoever re Talk:Donald Trump signature size. The long-standing default sig size was shrunk ridiculously small by an editor, I changed it back to the default, and he/she reverted. On that basis, I opened the issue on the Talk page. (Probably that shoe was on the wrong foot; the editor needed to justify reverting the long-standing signature size, I didn't need to justify anything.) It wasn't my interest, idea, desire, or idea of a good time, to involve in the discussion in that thread. But the other editor kept inventing shifting rationales, inventing non-existent "consensus", and also kept changing the signature size to a reduced inappropriate size, without offering any reason, not even WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

So why do you blame me for a "silly discussion" that was not my idea or stemming from any of my interest? There was nothing wrong with the long-standing default signature size, and the shrinking of it was without basis, so my involvement was limited to restoring and defending the long-standing size, I gave reasons for embracing it, there were no reasons given to shrink it that made any sense.

Also, it wasn't my idea, interest, or desire to open the WP:EWN. The other editor did that, and in addition while it was open, continued to revert the article signature size, and drop new meaningless arguments on the BLP Talk page.

Also, another editor decided to insult by calling me "kid", and double-downed with "playground" insult. I am a serious editor on WP. I did not sign up as volunteer to receive insults on my maturity level. (If I have to do that, accept abusive insults in order to retain volunteer editor status at WP, then I'll immediately retire.) I'm not sure why you feel my response to personal attacks by that editor needs admonishment, and why exactly you feel that initiating an insult on an editor's maturity level is somehow more acceptable.

It's easy when you are not involved. Easy to call someone a "kid" and not take offense. Easy to call a discussion "silly" when you are not a serious editor objecting to a ridiculous change, then being reverted, and ground down to death with repetitive ridiculous made-up arguments continually claiming "consensus" when no such thing exists.

It's easy to be an admin. All one has to do is claim superiority, and threaten a bunch of editors, call their interest "silly", and ignore other editors who initiate personal attacks against them, but admonish and threaten the abused editor if they respond bluntly. Yeah, that's why I never want to be an admin.

Sincere, IHTS (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

p.s. I have no idea how you think you have contibuted anything positive to resolve the issue which the other editor has pursued relentlessly, to shrink the long-standing default signature size without valid reason. (He/she offered several bogus, absurd reasons.) What have you done to stop that editor? What have you done to give me a path to stop him/her? The discussion on the Talk page provides no solution, that discussion is already 1,000 times longer than it should have been. You apparently don't see what I'm dealing with re that editor, and with your actions have provided no help toward any path to resolution. (Unless I've missed something. If so, please tell me what I have missed.) IHTS (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

p.p.s. I don't need any more insults. (I.e. your "silly" comment.) And I don't need patronizing. ("Take a break.") IHTS (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: You undid another user's change to the signature size, then did it again after you were reversed, both in the span of a few hours. The Donald Trump page is subject to a 1 revert rule. Changes of any nature, except for reverting unambiguous vandalism, need to be discussed first on the talk page instead of debated through edit summaries. Additionally, on the edit warring noticeboard, instead of lowering the tenor of the argument, you chose to escalate ("And fuck you for it asshole"). The warning remains as does my advice that remaining calm is essential, especially on heated political pages. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You managed to not respond to a single thing I asked. IHTS (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"You undid another user's change to the signature size, then did it again after you were reversed, both in the span of a few hours." I've read the DS article restriction. What you're conveniently skipping to mention, is that the other user s/ not have reverted my undo, and in doing that was in violation of the restriction: He/she made an edit that undid the long-standing default sig size, I undid that change, he/she was obligated (not me) to taking it to the Talk page, instead of reverting me, which violated the DS restriction. (If I'm wrong about it, then please explain.) IHTS (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The other editor made a change to the sig size at 19:25 on 14 July. You undid that a few hours later. A different editor undid your change thereafter. About 15 minutes later, for a second time, you undid that user's edit regarding the signature. That's more than 1 revert in the same 24 hour period on an article where there's a 1RR in place. Of the editors involved, only you broke the rule. Now, you're right in saying the issue should be discussed on the talk page if it's in dispute, but wrong to suggest your second revert is right because you prefer it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not what I was referring to. (But now that you have brought that up, I'm flabbergasted that you cannot see, that the first edit of mine that you diff above, contained a gross error resulting in an unintended gross signature size, and that Yopienso came in behind me to reset the size parm before I messed it up so as to correct my gross error. And then my next edit "about 15 minutes later" was simply to make the edit that I had intended to make earlier, instead of the edit I did make containing the gross sizing error. [So your characterization that I "undid" Yopienso's edit isn't a fair one--that user had essentially come to the rescue for WP readers to restore the size condition before my error that grossly messed it up, and that I did not immediately see. And after that rescue I went back in to re-do my edit the way it should have been done to render the size I originally intended instead of the gross error in size I previously made. So your counting that re-do as "violation", perhaps it is the "letter of the 1RR law", but clearly not the "spirit" of same. {So wouldn't it be better looking a bit deeper before making judgment re 1RR "violation", when it would have revealed that my edit was purposed to re-do an earlier gross edit error and not to "undo" another user's edit, and that user's edit was purposed to fixing an unintentional mess I made for WP readers by my grossly errored edit!?}]) What I was referring to is what happeneed at the beginning of the dispute: I made edit to restore the long-standing sig size [8] as soon as I discovered it had been changed to a minuscule size. (I didn't know when it was changed or what editor changed it, turns out it was changed by this edit.) What I'm referring to is that user Devorguilla's change to minuscule size had been undone by me, and that user didn't have the liberty under DS restriction to revert my edit as was done here. And that the user s/ have opened a Talk thread discussion instead. (And that you overlooked the fact, and instead have accused me!?) Sincere, IHTS (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Unintentional or not, there's a 1RR on the article that you should be, and now certainly are, aware of. This is why I gave you a warning and didn't impose a block. Any future violation--barring one of the few exceptions to the rule--will cause a different outcome. Secondly, Devorguilla's edits in the two diffs above are separated by several weeks, thus no 1RR violation. I hope this answers your question. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, after looking again and refreshing, you're right--my edit was intended to revert Yopienso, because I was mistakenly seeing his edit not as the rescue it was, but as an undo of my previous edit. (I was unaware of my gross sizing error rescued by him until minutes later. Only then did I redo my edit w/ purpose to fix my sizing error [9].) So thank you, for not blocking. On the other topic, Devorguilla's edits that were separated by 19 days ... good-faith question: I don't see anything in the DS documentation where a time limit regarding reverting a change is mentioned, am I overlooking something? And if it's not in the doc, then isn't one person's idea of "too late" arbitrary and going to be different from someone else's? (It didn't feel like 19 days to me of course; I restored the long-standing signature size immediately upon seeing that it had been shrunk to misuscule size.) Sincere, IHTS (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I think you might be confused. The 1RR rule is a "no more than 1 revert in 24 hours" restriction. That's why two reverts over 19 days is treated differently than two reverts in the same 3-4 hour period. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well yeah, and that's because it is confusing. (The 2nd of 3 points on the Talk page about DS sanctions imposed, is what you'r talking about re 1RR in 24 hours restriction. Here's the 1st of 3 points listed: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). To me that reads like a DS-enforced BRD rule. Which as above, fits my reversion of Dvorguilla after 19 days. [He immediately re-reverted rather than opening discussion thread. Bingo.] Another separate thing that is confusing is the definition of "revert". [According to admin Coffee in a thread at User talk:Doc9871 where sanction was imposed, a revert is any undoing of all or part of another user's edit. Man, with definitions like that walking around, then any copyedit is a revert, since that satisfies the requirement. Or is that also in addition to 24 hours? Are you seeing how this might be legitimately complex/confusing now? Those DS santions need to be rewritten if blocking bats are supporting them. {Which brings up a 3rd way they are confusing. They say: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions [...] after an initial warning. But then when you un-hide the "Further information" box it says: Enforcement procedures: Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator. Is it the purpose of the editors who compose these rules to drive regular editors who can read Engilsh nuts?!} ] ). Sincere, IHTS (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be intrigued by my reply at AN/EW. The user in question has been generating light as well as heat. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. As I replied there, I don't think I'll "un-warn" the editor, but I am glad to hear they're working to cool things down. Hopefully that will continue. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I want to know why I was reported for alleged "edit warring" and why the article Silvana sin lana was protected because I don't do any of these edits with bad intentions. I provided the user Philip J Fry with three reliable sources in my talk page and he still reported me. Administrators should investigate first before doing those type of things. Borikén (talk · ctb) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Seriesphile: Disputed additions need to be worked out on the article's talk page. Protecting the page should give you and the other editors time to discuss the content dispute. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deluxe Entertainment Services Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Localization. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I have asked a question at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Debresser in reaction to your post there. Since you might not notice it, I though I'd draw your attention to the question. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've added a reply with an answer to your question. If I missed something you asked, please let me know! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I get the drift. Basically the best idea is to discuss. Which is what we did. The problem is that not always there is a clear consensus, often there isn't, and bold editing does help get move things along. In an area with so many strong POVs, that is almost the only way to make progress. Usually a consensus coalesces after a while, but sometimes editors try to game the system by group blocking of a certain point of view, or by reporting editors for what really isn't a violation. We all skirt the borders at times, some more than others. I tried to show that this was a good faith case from where I stand, with Nableezy pushing their POV by numbers and making a bad faith report at WP:AE. I think that to some extend, even with the warning at my address, I have managed to bring that point across. I am not a problematic editor, and I work fine with Nableezy many times, and I hope after this is closed, we will continue to do so. I hope you won't see this post as canvassing, but since the issue is in all likelihood about to be closed, I supposed that's okay. I just felt like I needed someone to talk with, I guess. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added an update in view of Nableezy further making tendentious edits.[10] Debresser (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you have read the material, and reached conclusions opposite to mine. I have however added a reply to my section, where I refute those accusations and prove the behavioral problems of Nableezy (and Nishidani) in this case. Including the fact that a WP:RS/N post agrees with my point of view, and you should just read their replies there. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll be traveling over the next day or so and may be busy with RL business. If you need to contact me for whatever reason--especially for AE or other sanction review--please email me. Thank you! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually know how to ping someone, but I've added the diffs as requested. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look later today. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

While I generally ignore their rants about the unjustness of everyone here (except where they start into direct personal attacks), they are now using their talkpage to link to attack content off-wiki. See here. Whats the next step? AN for ban? AE? The arbcom case in which they were topic banned clearly called out their behaviour however I am not sure thats sanctionable at AE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, honestly. One link b/c the editor is frustrated, on its own, probably isn't enough for a sanction. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I removed the link, but if you look at their contribution history, its full of this sort of crap. be silent for awhile, come back and post rants about bias. Turn up at articles, declare bias, then try to edit article to their POV. Its been going on a long time. I have generally ignored most of it, the stupid stuff like respond to bots making pointy comments. But its getting to be a joke now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA of which you are named party: action 1, action 2 --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

As you can check for yourself, about half of my edits are in other areas. And have always been. You can see the type of edits I habitually make and their quality in my contributions. There is no need to wait a month for that. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for processing this request. I was a little surprised that you asked for more information from me, but didn't wait for me to respond before closing the request. Regarding my own behavior, I have tried to heed the advice given in the previous AE request that you cited. However, the "trouter" in that case, Wordsmith, never told me which comments of mine he trouted me for. User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 6#Trout Can you help me prevent future problems by pointing out the specific action or comments of mine that you're warning me about? Felsic2 (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary here is a good example. Whatever your thoughts on the issue, focus your editing in as dispassionate a manner as you can. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I'll cut out the "crap" from my vocabulary.  :) I guess the proper term is "poor quality material".

You seem wise. If you have a moment, can you tell me what I'm doing wrong here? Talk:SIG MCX#‎Black mamba.It relates to this set of edits: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] It feels like editors are deleting well-sourced material because they don't like it, and are poisoning the discussion with aspersions. What should I do? Felsic2 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If you ever feel a content dispute isn't resolving itself, try the DR noticeboard if you haven't already. An RfC is a good idea too if you're in need of broader input but the normal mediation process won't work. Conduct issues, if they're related to an area under discretionary sanctions, should be brought back to AE. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that advise. Felsic2 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You recently granted (Special:Log/Lord Roem) user Timothyjosephwood the page mover user right. It appears they've only ever performed one page move (counting the article and talk page together as it was one action), Special:log/Timothyjosephwood (sort by "move log"). I also checked the account they claim to have previously edited under, Timothyjwood, which has not performed any moves. It is generally expected that "the editor should have experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines" (Wikipedia:Page mover#Guidelines for granting). I was curious about your rationale behind granting that user this right, or if that was indeed your intention (perhaps you accidently looked at the wrong user as the page had several requests at the time). Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Been here longer than 6 months, double the edit requirement, clean block log, nothing problematic on their talk page. Said they needed it and with nothing to concern me the request was granted. Remember, these are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Any misuse can and will result in it being taken away, of course. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Saying one needs something is different from actually needing something. I think pointing them to WP:RM/TR would have sufficed. As I pointed out during the discussion to create this right, misuse isn't always easily detected. e.g. As they've performed 1 move in the 7 years their apparent accounts have been registered (the move was performed last month), they may wait another 7 before performing another. I doubt I or anyone else will remember and still be keeping an eye on their logs by then. Due to their lack of familiarity with the process, and their sentiment that the power to delete a title is "mundane and uncontroversial": they may suppress a reasonable redirect that doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion on a page that isn't highly watched without anyone noticing. But alas, you are correct (and I understand that they are guidelines), "an administrator may grant page mover rights to users they otherwise deem competent". Thank you for the response. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear L R ! In your last edit to Pat Choate you converted 'a historic' to 'an historic' ? Well friend H is not a vowel its a constant. MessyX (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you had some contact with this user before I post rather here than start big drama at ANI. User:Ihardlythinkso is repeatedly making personal attacks at talk:Donald Trump like linking an editor's name to jackass, calling another a troll in the edit summary and tells them to "go fuck yourself". They're aware of the DS sanctions (you posted them on their talk) and received a fair warning just a few days earlier, acknowledged when removed. Could you please look into this? Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've dealt with the situation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just saw it. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be in "any edit I want is gonna be in the BLP" mode again on James Watson]

His summary is "This has indeed been thoroughly discussed. This edit is more than overdue"

And his talk page comment is "The edit is completely reasonable change based on consensus on this page. Please do not revert thoroughly discussed edits. You may suggest an edit and we can then talk about it. The article as it stood was clearly misleading and a disservice to wikipedia readers. This change is more in line with other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)"

The edit changed the consensus version "when he resigned his position after making controversial comments claiming a link between intelligence and geographical ancestry."

To his perfect version (which lacked consensus before and still lacks it): "when he resigned his position after making widely repudiated comments saying Africans and black Westerners are less intelligent than others."

This edit war mentality is now past ludicrous. Sigh. Collect (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, especially after as many warnings as they've been given. I've imposed a short topic ban on the article for the time being. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I appeal this sanction you have imposed. You seem to be abusing your power. I request a review from another admin on your action or a lifting of this sanction immediately. In this review it should be clearly stated what I did that is wrong. I expect an immediate response to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Landerman56, the basis of the sanction was in the text below your topic ban. "You have been sanctioned for continued edit warring after receiving multiple warnings prior," this on the James Watson article. The way to appeal is listed here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A second clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, your name popped up on my watchlist. Nice sight to see. Hope you stick around again. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Heyo, Ed!! RL has only gotten busier, but I do try and peek in every once and a while. Nice to see ya' again! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Hope busy = all is well in RL. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep! Life's progressing along smoothly, haha. Wishing the same to you too. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you have closed the issue (with a topic ban for Kamel and nothing else), but you never did answer my question. If you don't mind: I was referring to this sequence of edits:

• 01:45, 8 August 2016 - [27] -you will note it is described as "(Reverted 1 edit by Epson Salts (talk) to last revision by Malik Shabazz. (TW))"
• 01:47, 9 August 2016 - [28] , this, too , is described as "(Undid revision 733526348 by Mizuki84 (talk) not a reliable source, never in a million years, no)"

These two are spread exactly 24 hours and 2 minutes apart - if Debresser's sequence of edits was , in your words, gaming of the 1RR restriction, why isn't this one? Epson Salts (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say Debressser was gaming the restriction, only that I had concerns. They weren't sanctioned because of the reverts alone; it was their behavior on other pages in the topic that brought that on. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You actually said your were concerned because "Debresser appeared to be gaming the 1RR restriction", but fair enough. Do you/did you have similar concerns that Malik appears to be gaming the restriction? What would be, in your opinion, a clear case of such gaming? I am not asking for any sanction, mind you (so I am not really interested in why Debresser was sanctioned) , just for clarity.Epson Salts (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My short statement here explains the Debresser stuff.

I don't have any similar concerns with Malik. The two reverts you link to above appear to be reverts of different content. Also, "If Americans Knew" probably isn't a reliable source, at least at first glance. If nothing else, that revert seems reasonable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Addendum, like, the page has an article called "HILLARY CLINTON: ELECTING A FOREIGN SPY FOR PRESIDENT?" So, yeah, probably a reasonable revert. Certainly subject to debate on using the website as a source, whether the information it cites is or isn't true. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, i appreciate you going to the trouble of explaining your reasoning. But honestly, this explanation leaves me even more puzzled. Yes, the second revert is of different content, and is of a source that is likely not reliable. But, so what? are you saying that for a revert to "count", it has to be of the same material? That seems to run counter to the language used at WP :EW to define a reverts, which says "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." And, while WP:EW lists a number of exemptions (i.e - BLP violations, vandalism etc...), there is no exception that I can see for removal of unreliable sources? Epson Salts (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Remember, we're not dealing with someone breaking 1RR, we're dealing with someone getting close to the line. If the edit they're reverting is something clearly positive--removing a source that is likely not reliable--I'm going to be less concerned than if it's POV-y material being inserted. I probably won't be concerned at all if I can see the reasonableness of an edit. Either way, both this and the Debresser edits were outside 24-hours, and it's the broader context that helps determine whether an editor needs to be temporarily removed from a topic area. At worst, maybe Malik's trigger finger was a bit too quick, but is that alone a basis for kicking them out of the topic? In my opinion (and the consensus at AE), probably not. Yes, you're right, it doesn't technically matter whether a violation of a revert restriction is/was 'good' or 'bad' or the same or different content. But that's not what happened in this case. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

we're talking about whether or not gaming occurred. Based on your penultimate sentence, I hope we can agree that if he had made that revert 3 minutes earlier (i.e, within the 24 hour limit), then a 1RR violation would have occurred? If so, are you saying that making a revert that would have been a clear 1RR violation had it occurred 3 minutes earlier is NOT gaming? if so, I don't understand what you could have possibly been concerned with in the case of Debresser's edits, spaced 24 hours + 2 hours (again, I am not asking for Malik's topic banning- i just need to understand the rules here, and whether or not they are being applied even handedly). Epson Salts (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, Debresser wasn't sanctioned for 'gaming.' Debresser was sanctioned for re-inserting poor-quality sources, in addition to trying to control pages' content, all bookended by stonewalling on article talk pages. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, I am not interested in why Debresser was sanctioned. You said you were concerned the 2 of his edits, spaced 24 hours + 2 hours are gaming- what was the basis for that concern? Are you saying that making a revert that would have been a clear 1RR violation had it occurred 3 minutes earlier is NOT gaming? i Epson Salts (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Malik's reverts only minutes outside 24 hours are certainly a concern, but upon inspection they appear to be fairly reasonable, i.e., removing a really bad source is not on the same level as re-inserting something unreliable. That's the difference. Either way, 'gaming' is really hard to define (and perhaps, in retrospect, I should've used a different term). I think the only clear-cut case of gaming would be someone reverting the same material a few minutes after the 24 hour rule. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I appreciate your patience. Epson Salts (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have two questions: 1) Can someone please explain what I did that earned me a one month Topic Ban? 2) May I edit on Kibbutz Beit Alpha, information such as things about kibbutz life and people as long as any of my edits do not come close to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Thank you. KamelTebaast 03:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Kamel Tebaast, you were topic banned for your reverts on Yasser Arafat and the other concerns listed in the AE request. Your topic ban includes any article or section of any article relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. I would advise staying away from articles in the Israel-Arab category broadly so there is no question regarding your conduct. A rough glance at the Beit Alfa article shows there's some history that includes elements of Arab-Israeli wars (since it's a northern kibbutz). Again, my strong recommendation is to edit in a different area entirely for the duration of your ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You never responded to my email asking for clarity about my edits, so I'll try to get it here. I'm afraid that I don't understand why I received a Topic Ban. My "reverts on Yasser Arafat" did not violate the 1RR, I thought that I was working properly within WP:BRD, and I discussed those edits in the Talk page. Also, can you please give me detail about what "other concerns listed" means?

Also, why didn't you follow Wikipedia's guidelines:

Some editors, even some administrators on Wikipedia forget why we are here and begin to adopt a punitive model for Wikipedia politics. They support blocks, bans, and enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community.

Administrators should follow a preventative model for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them. Topic bans, page protections and so on are in some cases more helpful to the project than indefinite blocks or community bans. Short blocks may easily be interpreted as gamy slaps on the wrist that just serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. If you have a problem with the actions of a user, why not try to discuss the matter with her or him before blocking?

The reason the above is applicable is because you haven't yet said to me what specific policies I violated. Even regentspark wrote that my reverts on Yasser Arafat are "concerning" with no detail as to why. You've pointed to edits and wrote about "other concerns", but I, as a new editor, am in the dark. Further, the editor who brought most of the complaints against me even suggested "Probably a week or two in porridge would get the message over", yet you went with a one-month Topic Ban. Why didn't you, or another administrator, speak to me about the specific problems that you saw or give me a warning before prior to banning me? I would appreciate responses to my questions. Thank you. KamelTebaast 21:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Your reverts showed signs of POV pushing and tendentious editing. That kind of editing conduct isn't allowed. The topic ban is preventative, that's why it's been imposed; the other admins at AE, including myself, believe it necessary to prevent future disruption. To the extent this is an appeal of your sanction, your appeal is declined. You are free to appeal further as provided in the message I left on your talk page. Please remember that, in the meantime, the sanction remains in place unless and until it's lifted. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't an appeal, but thank you for the clarity. It is interesting that my attempt to balance a sentence about Yasser Araft that is heavenly weighted toward the Palestinian POV is considered "POV pushing", but, from what I've witnessed, it seems par for Wikipedia. KamelTebaast 23:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Lord, I will be appealing the topic ban. However, in doing so, I'll be discussing issues within the topic ban itself. Am I allowed to discuss issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict in my appeal? Thank you. KamelTebaast 00:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, if you're going to appeal you can obviously discuss the issues relevant to the appeal. It'd be one Kafka-esq restriction if you couldn't even talk about appealing it, aha. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Funny that you should write "Kafka-esq"! As I'm drafting my appeal, I wrote that I'm seeing this entire process as if I'm in Kafka's The Trial. With the way this all happened, nothing would surprise me. KamelTebaast 02:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really. A review was opened and the participating admins agreed your edits on the Yasser Arafat page were disruptive. You were given a very short one-month sanction, which itself expires in less than two weeks. You have a clear avenue for appeal. It's definitely a great exaggerated phrase to use, but not one I imagine will prove persuasive. I recommend you bear through the rest of the sanction and edit constructively in the topic area once it expires. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lord, Johnuniq wrote:

There is an ANI report where Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs) (account created on 30 May 2016) uses perfectly formed procedures. Naturally no one can prove anything except for the obvious: WP:ARBPIA is not working. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What does "uses perfectly formed procedures" mean? I ask you, not him/her because you handed out the sanction. Thank you.

Do me the courtesy of acknowledging that you saw my query, above (User_talk:Lord_Roem#1RR_Clarification), which is a repeat of the identical question you ignored here, and have simply decided not to address it. Epson Salts (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I wasn't ignoring you, I honestly missed the header when I went to reply to the other section on my talk. Apologies. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, that's why I pinged you and asked that you acknowledged that you saw it. Epson Salts (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Love this edit summary. Of course, as a techie, I know that the cause of any computer problem truly lies somewhere between the keyboard and the chair ... ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; this made my evening xD --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The moment you closed the WP:AE report, User:Athenean shows up at an article he's never edited, which is outside his usual topic area of interest, and immediately inserts himself into the middle of a disagreement between myself and another user.

This is a clear cut case of WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT. It's prima facie evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It also shows that the whole purpose of that WP:AE report was to pursue a grudge, as I've maintained from the beginning. The only reason for him to come to that article is because he wants to pick a fight (which he probably thinks he can turn into another spurious WP:AE report down the road). The intent of his actions is clearly to make editing Wikipedia as unpleasant for me as possible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. I saw the diff posted by D. Creish at the AE [29], where VM removes a huge chunk of well-sourced text on flimsy grounds, and I found it absolutely outrageous. Yes, the timing looks bad, but sometimes these things happen. It's not like I'm going around following VM to every single article he edits (nor do I intend to). Athenean (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Yes, the timing looks bad, but sometimes these things happen" <-- That's funny.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely not harassment and 'stalking' is way too harsh a word here. Just as MVBW is free to edit articles they previously didn't edit, so can Athenean. It makes sense they followed the link on AE, probably after seeing my close. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind (of course they followed the link from AE, right after your close. The problem is with *why* they did that).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Roem, I would like to draw your attention to this [30]. Athenean (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

We can always run back to WP:AE and see what other editors think about your behavior Athenean. I was really hoping that everyone had enough of those hi-jinks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Taunting me with AE now Marek? Do you really think that's a good idea? After your gross personal attacks and edit-warring [31] [32]? Do you, really? Athenean (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) Lord Roem, VM is doubling down on the personal attacks [33]. Please advise. Athenean (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Uh... what? Another user inserting a POV tag into an article is... me "doubling down on personal attacks"? What the Gertrude are you talking about? You are obviously making a series of edits which are meant to provoke me, which then you hope to use in another WP:FORUMSHOPPING exercise at some drama board. I am calling it out right here right now, that that is what you are doing in a perhaps vain hope that you'll abandon that battleground idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Roem: I put in the correct diff now [34]. Athenean (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You both need to stop this and focus on content. This personal squabble is not helpful for anyone. I would also advise against wholesale removal of article sections. Quick glance suggests it contains reliable sources (NYTimes, Bloomberg, etc.). There's certainly room for debate on what's included, how it's included, whether the sources support the written text, how big a section it should be, and so on. Gutting the entire "criticism" section of the article though? There has to be a better way to approach your "agitpop" concerns. Please move the merits of that to the article talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Lord Roem, I was led here quite innocently after seeing your close at AE, of course--I think you are correct with "personal squabble" (and I'd add something containing the word "hotheads"), but I'm giving the benefit here to Marek. I cannot escape the impression that Athenean really followed Marek there to lay it on.

  In addition, I think Bloodofox was seriously out of line earlier on on that Clinton Foundation talk page ("We all know that the Clinton Foundation is most famous for one thing and that's accusations of corruption via quid pro quo donations"--that's an almost automatic disqualification based on POV). That comment is from last month, and if I look at the whole discussion charitably I could say they toned it down a little bit, but that's looking very charitably. Marek warned them for AC/DS, which is fair, but the bigger problem is that they don't seem to be addressing the comments on sources and sourcing, never mind the other arguments (about separate sections, etc.). So while a large removal may look drastic, given Quinn's detailed commentary there is ample justification for it, but there is nothing this detailed coming from the other side. Looking at this, certainly a case can be made for keeping the first paragraph (and I think that was already made earlier on the talk page), but there was already consensus to remove that list of donors, for instance, and Schweizer's relevance/reliability is still not adequately maintained by anyone on the talk page; his book seems to be mentioned mostly by Breitbard, followed by WND, with reliable sources paying it almost no attention (I say this after going through 70 hits from this Google News search). So on both sides I see hot air and personal attacks (though less from Marek than from Scjessey, I'm afraid), but I see real detailed arguments only from one side. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Phew, I see that the list of names was removed somewhere along the line, which is good--see Talk:Clinton_Foundation#Contributors_section for the earlier discussion. I removed a bunch of (promotionalish) namedropping from the article as well. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No, not one bit, I went there after seeing this [35], which I found outrageous. Volunteer Marek does not have a monopoly over American Politics articles, nor am I under obligation to recuse myself from them because of the AE. By your reasoning I could just as easily assume you followed me here. Athenean (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Or that, like you, I follow Marek. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Or, like Lord Roem, you could WP:AGF. Athenean (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lord Roem, I sent you an email pertaining to Arb Enforcement, Steve Quinn (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Steve, nothing came through yet. I'm not sure if it usually takes that long? Try sending again, please. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I sent them around 24 hours ago via regular email, not via Wikipedia. I am wondering if you received them. I should have a left a message here just after I sent them. Also, I just sent you another one. Please let me know if you received it. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that you replied yesterday. I will work on those answers today. Thanks for asking, by the way. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I was reading my own stuff, and thought it was your questions. Duh! Um. I'll be checking myself in somewhere for some help now.

Why does Wikipedia make me look foolish sometimes? Or is it me? Hm-m-m-m-m. :) :) Steve Quinn (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Over at WP:AE, I added additional information. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In accordance with your stated willingness to review my editing after the first month of my topic ban, I would like to remind you that a month has past. In this month I have edited some interesting fields, like numerous articles in Category:Italian painters. I have asked for protection of articles like Mizrachi Jews and Sephardi Jews, where IP editors have tried to change population figures without indication of sources and without coming to the talkpage, and these articles were protected for a while. My few interactions with Nishidani, one of my opponents in the discussion that led to my topic ban, have been amiable from both sides. As an editor with over 1,300 pages on his watchlist, I have done my share of reverts, including the not always positive reactions to that, but I see that as positive and necessary for the good of the project. As far as the issue of the topic ban, which is still open on WP:ARCA, I must admit I am not much repentant, as I have stated and explained there. At the same I have duly noted that the consensus seems to be the sanction as imposed by you was commensurate to my behavior. I would appreciate it if you could review the need for my topic ban, and the possibility of shortening it to "time served", in view of all the above. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, User:Debresser, noting that I've seen your message and will be looking through your recent contributions soon. Thank you, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I only see one brief discussion between you and Nishidani--regarding what was technically a violation of your TBAN and the subsequent self-revert three minutes later--and it seems to be amicable. You understand that, should I lift the ban, you'd be on-notice regarding any future issues? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What does that mean in English "to be on-notice"? And how long for? Debresser (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It just means that if there's future conduct issues in the topic area, it's unlikely that I, or another admin, would be willing to lift a sanction or impose a lenient one. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That is usually the way things work. Even in real-life law. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did you read my AE filing and found it vexatious, or are you going by what Sandstein said? Not going to start an argument, I'm just curious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think there were a few points you raised that maybe had merit, but I admit I squinted at a few bizarre claims. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's call it "not completely vexatious" then. Thanks for your further consideration. If you would like an explanation for any of my "bizarre claims", please let me know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You've been notified. Thank you. KamelTebaast 00:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not realize that there was a word limit on statements in appeals as there is a word limit on statements in initial sanctions hearings. I'm not sure which arguments to cut from my already reasonably tight statement. As a clerk for ArbCom you obviously have greater expertise in what makes for a successful appeal and how ArbCom can best be made aware of a bad situation. I'm less concerned with the miscarriage of justice concerning me than I am with the non-action concerning the main actor on the article in question, for the reasons I evoke in context. Consideration of the context is crucially important to eliminate continuing bias (the continued reversions on that page since the 4 September show that fairly clearly). For the "red herring" GMO case, in which the kitchen sink was thrown at me by 3 involved editors over a ref-name change, I'm not sure which substantive arguments to leave out. Can you help in any way? I would very much appreciate your help. SashiRolls (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note appealing at AE isn't appealing to ArbCom, which is done at the amendments board here. As far as a successful appeal, my experience suggests that a concise and persuasive argument is the most successful. The only question at an appeal is whether the admin who imposed the sanction was reasonable in doing so. Anything else is superfluous and may give off the impression you're throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. I haven't actually read through your statement yet, but this is my advice. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I did email the full text to ArbCom yesterday and pointed them to this page, though I have received no response as of yet. In an effort to comply with your request, I've eliminated 10000 characters from my appeal, which meant that a great deal of argumentation was lost, but I do want you to understand that I'm trying to follow the rules in order to help you improve Wikipedia by helping to eliminate bias. Here is the deleted argumentation concerning the context of one editor on that page reverting multiple editors for a total of 30 reverts since mid-July. SashiRolls (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for removing some of the excess. Remember, there's no argument that's isn't persuasive with 200 words but is persuasive with 1000. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Over a month of investigative journalism is condensed into that 2 page/screen report. Sadly most of the behavioral aspects were on the second page/screen. First I felt impelled to respond to Tryptofish's claims, because they are what I was faulted with. But two pages was too much to read. I had hoped Wikipedia would take care of itself, but I guess nobody among the aging class of admins really cares that Wikipedia is out of touch with the modern world (in which the Washington Post is less and less of a trusted source than in the days of Woodward & Bernstein) and in which a (technology?) lobby -- or perhaps just some unemployed activists, though I doubt it -- is in fact working to control access to information on Wikipedia through the deceptive practices I documented for you on the tl;dr 2nd screen. SashiRolls (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

In any case, not to worry. I'm just sad to see reports of Wikipedia dying on the Criticism of Wikipedia page. I see that my experience is not entirely singular. But we all can only do what we can and I appreciate your looking into the case. SashiRolls (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on the Mahmoud Abbas talkpage was dormant, until recently another editor expressed his opinion as coinciding with mine, and the text in question was removed. However, Nableezy is the classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and continues to ask what objections we have, although they have been stated countless times. In addition, he is less than ideally civil. Please see these two things for yourself.[36] Please also see the hypocrisy I pointed out in his arguments.[37] I don't think this is enough for a WP:AE, but in my eyes it is clear that this is additional proof he is a tendentious editor in this WP:ARBPIA related article. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Might want to have a look at their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I could say there that'd be of use to the editor, based on their behavior. Hopefully, they abide by the TBAN and edit without issues in the future. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a 3:1 consensus at Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Unnecessary that certain information can be removed, but nobody is making the edit, and I can't because of the 0RR sanction. How to go about this? Debresser (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait until someone else makes the edit. (Sorry for delayed response, RL work is very hectic). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Am I allowed to ask from another editor to make the edit, or would that be a violation? Debresser (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tripwire has violated[38] his topic ban[39], this article includes much information about Balochistan[40] and TripWire commented on its deletion discussion. Capitals00 (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is being sent to you because you are listed as an emeritus member of MedCom and an examination of your contribution page suggests that you are still active at en-Wikipedia. MedCom is currently down to three or four active members (there are more than that on the active member list, but some of them have not edited Wikipedia in quite awhile). We have a current case awaiting a mediator which is receiving no response from the request for a mediator sent on the MedCom mailing list a couple of days ago, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Would you please consider reactivating your membership, taking that case, or both? If you're interested in doing so and are not still on the MedCom mailing list, please just let me know and I'll reactivate you and add you to the list. Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) 19:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (current MedCom chairperson)

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lord Roem.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you added a comment explaining why the user was banned, on the talk page. Is it appropriate to have the "F" word on their user page and am I allowed to edit it out?BMGRAHAM (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lord Roem. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message