User talk:Lord Roem

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/1/2
Marine 69-71		26 October 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Voorts 5 0 0 100 21:06, 8 November 2024 6 days, 23 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Admin statistics

Action	Count
Edits	10895
Edits+Deleted	11070
Pages deleted	640
Revisions deleted	15
Pages restored	2
Pages protected	178
Protections modified	27
Users blocked	167
Users reblocked	7
Users unblocked	3
User rights modified	78
Users created	1

Hello! Welcome to my Talk Page!

Leave a message or shoot me an email if you need me! -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

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)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

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) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Searle

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)

Message

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))

Consider

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 [1] 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 [2].) 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)

AN/EW resolution (Donald Trump)

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)

Silvana sin lana

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)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

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)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)

WP:AE

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.[3] 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)

Travel/Work (Busy)

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)

Heya

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)

Sagerad

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)

ARCA notice

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)

Request to reconsider sanction

Before appealing the sanction at any other place, I would like to ask you, as the administrator who imposed it, to reconsider your sanction against me.

I feel that although at a certain point you were more inclined to see things my way, the continuing conflict at especially the talkpage of Mahmoud Abbas has made you change your mind. I feel that the incessant allegations of Nableezy and Nishidani have swayed your opinion. I think this is incorrect. Those two editors, who come from the same camp and in all cases act in consort, are simply trying to remove my opposition to their point of view by using WP:AE. That in itself is reason to dismiss the complaint against me, and to boomerang back on them.

I have not violated 1RR, 26 hours is far from that. My edits were not simply repetitions of one and the same revert, but were what I considered improvements of the text. At the same time there was active talkpage discussion. This is not the type of behavior that warrants sanctions.

Nableezy and Nishidani have taken no less an active part in this as I have. With the difference that they have refused consistently to reply to any content and policy related questions. I think that if you would go over the discussion at Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar (again) you will see that yourself. I ask you to go over that section again, because I am sure their edits make my point better than I do.

In my defense at WP:AE I also asked for actions against Nableezy. I feel you have largely ignored that part of the WP:AE post. Unjustly so. I have clearly shown a pattern of an editor moving from argument to argument with the sole purpose of censoring information he feels reflects negatively on Mahmoud Abbas. In addition, please see the incivility of Nishidani at [4] and [5] and [6] e.g., and of Nableezy at [7] or in this edit summary [8] e.g. This pattern of belittling other opinions confirms my suspicions, based on long acquaintance with these editors, that they are trying to censor Wikipedia according to their POV. The way they are all over a dissenting opinion at the neutral WP:RS/N also emphasizes this point. You have ignored these concerns, and I think that was a mistake, which will at the long run be to the detriment of Wikipedia.

I also feel that a three-month topic ban is not a light measure at all. Probably over half of my edits on Wikipedia are in Judaism and Israel related articles, and for me this is a serious impediment. After all, I am here for already 8 years, because I have fun editing the articles I edit and participating in the discussions I participate in. In addition, I didn't violate any restriction, and basically this sanction is arbitrary. I have shown you edits of Nableezy with a few more hours in between, and you were fine with that. Introducing arbitrary sanctions is not a good thing to do. Sanctioning me is a statement of bad faith, assuming I was trying to game the system, while my edits were far from that, as I have said above. Assuming bad faith is not a good thing to do. Also, since there is no problem with me not using talkpages or misusing talkpages, I see no reason why the sanction should be applied equally to articles and talkpages.

Please also consider that there was only one other administrator who expressed an opinion on the WP:AE post, and he clearly expressed his opinion several times that he is against sanctions (and only reluctantly agreed to a light sanction in face of your point of view that perhaps a DS was in order).

Not to mention that I don't see anything good coming from this. The problem doesn't lay with me, but with editors trying to push a POV over the objections of other editors. I can list you at least 10 articles where these two editors have over the last year disagreed with other editors and tried to push their POV in this area. Sometimes we have reached compromise, sometimes I have admitted to have been wrong, and sometimes they have, but the pattern is there. Your sanction plays into their hand and that hurts this project more than my partial good faith revert after 26 hours.

In short, I think this sanction should be revoked and Nableezy (and perhaps also Nishidani) admonished for trying to game the system, pushing their POV, and refusing to reply to legitimate concerns on the talkpage, as well as claiming that the fact that there is two of them gives them the right to do so. Of course I have no problem with a (unnecessary) waring to me to be even more careful with 1RR restrictions, but I already am, and I always explain myself in edit summaries and talkpage discussions. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at this. I think this is a very negative result of this unjust sanction. As an 8 year editor being accused by some newby (or sock?) of editing in a "political-religious matter", and of this ban saying something about "you and your way to edit", I find very unpleasant, and I really think you had no justification in the materials before you to impose such a harsh sanction on me, which is already reflecting on my reputation and will surely be used against me many times more. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

And then there was this edit,[9] probably from a sock. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, I think the tendency to revert without discussion and your behavior on article talk pages justify a short-term sanction. I do agree that Nableezy has said some uncivil things and continued behavior like that on their part would be inadvisable (and potentially sanctionable in the future). However, that doesn't absolve you.

I take what you have to say in good-faith. You're free to come back in one month's time and ask me to review your recent contributions. If all looks good, I'll lift the topic ban at that time. There's nothing preventing you from editing in the wide swath of article space outside this heated area. Until then, I think this is a proportional sanction based off the evidence presented at the enforcement request. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I revert without discussion? Didn't I show you that I participated in the talkpage discussion? I even showed you that I opened a dispute resolution post that Nableezy torpedoed, and that he didn't even deign to reply to the consequent biography noticeboard discussion. His behavior has been unpleasant (see the diffs above), he has not replied to my objections (as you can see for yourself in the talkpage discussion), he and Nishidani are simply stonewalling, and you topic ban me? With the argument that I don't discuss...!?

And if I am guilty of reverting before the discussion is over, well, first of all there are two editors stonewalling, and torpedo all other venues I try, so I don't really have much of a choice. And secondly, I am no more guilty than Nableezy and Nishidani, and even though I asked you in the WP:AE to sanction them, you have decided not to do so. I don't think there is any justification in the diffs that were shown to you for not sanctioning them at least as severely as me. It does take two to make an argument. Please notice that today Nableezy has reverted once more,[10] without answering any of the objections and despite the WP:RS/N post not being favorable.

I think that even a month is a lot for something that is not even a violation of 1RR. Not to mention that the reporting editor has also made reverts in over 24 hours, just that he waited a little longer. Even according to your opinion, you could allow me to take part in talkpage discussions.

Please also take into account the various other editors who have posted at WP:AE in my favor and against Nableezy. And, I repeat, the fact that the only other admin there was clearly against sanctions. At least there should be a majority in favor of sanctions, IMHO.

I am not interested in spoiling my fun on Wikipedia, but I am also indignated at the injustice of sanctioning me at all and alone. I thank you for stretching out a hand, and showing that you are willing to reconsider this after a month. However, as I have shown you in two diffs above, this topic ban is already being used to discredit me and my edits, and I don't want the precedent. In addition, at some time, somebody will say "you were already topic banned once" and I will from now on always draw the short straw. I have seen that that is the way things work, and I don't want this to be a black cloud on my editing after over 8 years and 90,000 edits.

I ask you again to reconsider and keep it at a warning. I can even agree to a probation period in which, e.g., I wouldn't be allowed to revert for 48 hours, instead of 24. But if you insist on a topic ban, I will see myself compelled to appeal. Again, please consider alternatives to a topic ban. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

What if I replaced the topic ban with a period of time where you're placed under an 0RR, i.e., you cannot revert another editor's addition/removal in whole or in part. This would resolve my concern about you being too quick to click 'undo' while giving you the chance to participate on the topic pages. I would also strongly, strongly urge you to keep an open mind and edit in a dispassionate manner.

If you're accepting of this and can demonstrate you understand why you were initially sanctioned, I'll consider modifying the restriction as described above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. With respect for you personally, and for your efforts to understand me. I would be willing to accept a 0RR rule for a month, by way of compromise. What I can not in good conscience say, is that I understand why I should be sanctioned at all.

I mean, you apparently think that reverting after 26 hours without consensus on the talkpage comes too close to problematic editing. That I understand. However, I disagree with that conclusion in this case.

I think that reverting was in this case the only way to break the stonewalling by editors who 1. refuse to ask outside opinion, 2. try to game the system by using alternating arguments, 3. try to game the system by reporting non-violations at WP:AE. And I think that it is the duty of a conscientious editor to do what I did, in order to improve this encyclopedia. It was necessary to be bold, with all due respect for 1RR, which I was careful not to violate.

In addition, my natural, human feelings of justice can not appreciate a punishment when other editors are gaming the system in the most clear of ways, and go unpunished. If my acceptance and disagreement are acceptable to you, then in order to close this issue what sooner, I can agree to the unjust punishment you propose, as it is a worth proposal for compromise, and compromise is in my understanding a central tenet of community editing. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused why you think 'using alternating arguments' is gaming the system? That's concerning. This is naturally a topic area that's heated and a tendency to get close to the 1RR line (26 hours)--on top of my other concerns--justify a short sanction.

I don't think you're ready to continue editing in this area yet. If you'd like to appeal the topic ban, you are free to do so. I can't functionally reduce or remove a sanction based on your response. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Did you see "Well, why in the fuck didn't you figure out the obvious in the first fucking place days ago? Messahge." from Nishidani ("Messahge" is "idiot" in Yiddish)? Do you want to take care of him, or where do you think this should be reported? Debresser (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've addressed it on their talk. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I posted at WP:ARCA. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FEnforcement.23Debresser I hope you will find my post there fair to you. Sincerely, Debresser (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE#Herr Gruber

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: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] 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)

An inquiry about a recent RFP that you granted

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)