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.

Welcome to my talk page. I am just getting the hang of this place after reading through formatting explainations for over an hour :) so apologies if I make an error. Lord Roem ( talk) 01:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Bolshevik Influence on Political Correctness. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 10:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Censorship. 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. — RFC bot ( talk) 11:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Lord Roem:

Thank you for contacting me. Yes, I intend to participate fully in mediation. "Cabal" implies a group, so I have two questions in this regard:

(1) Will there be other mediators beside yourself? (2) I notice that you deal with legal questions, focused perhaps on areas of free speech. While I think a legal viewpoint is very constructive, there are also technical questions; specifically, areas of symbolic logic and mathematics. It might be useful to have other mediators with expertise in symbolic logic and mathematics.

When questioned about technical material that has been excised without even reasons being supplied, Itsmejudith instead has reverted to making corrections concerning grammar, spelling, etc. I am not challenging corrections of this type; in fact, any such appropriate corrections made by anyone are welcome.

I don't wish to bias the situation, but I don't recall if I included the following related material when I applied for mediation. (If I did, and you've seen this already, please disregard:)

Similar directly-related disputes, that have already been resolved, have arisen between me and Itsmejudith. I view her ill-considered censorship as biased and perhaps based on consequent antagonism. Thus, without trying to bias the issue, I would appreciate it if you would examine the conversation that has already occurred with regard to Wikilinks such as Shark Island Extermination Camp, Okahandja Concentration Camp, Swakopmund Concentration Camp and Windhoek Concentration Camp; specifically, the section on "Bridging the Second and Third Reichs" -- not only with regard to the table of concentration camps, but also the confusion of continuity there with "continuity" used in a technical sense by Lucy Dawidowicz.

I look forward to your participation in mediating my case. Virago250 ( talk) 05:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lord Roem,

Thank you for your response. I have put a watch on the mediation page. I am more than happy to restrict my comments to what material should be on the contested page (what is relevant vs. what is not relevant). I realize that this particular Wikipedia page is complicated and thus presents special problems: mainly, that there is no way, in my view, that the material can be simplified and still provide a meaningful and valid coverage of the material. Similar material is dealt with in a very simple way: it's not covered.

I would like to have complete justification for taking material out: for example if it is felt that predicate logic should not be included, I would like to know the specific reason WHY. As far as I am concerned it should only be removed if it adds unnecessary complexity. (This is only one such example.) I had hoped that making Wikilinks to relevant subjects that already exist in Wikipedia (such as Predicate logic) would remove questions of bias.

I am sure that you have been exposed to other disputes over issues of censorship while mediating on Wikipedia, and realize the absolute need to provide solid citations.

Sincerely, Virago250 ( talk) 15:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I will participate if Virago will. It does seem somewhat premature. I was in a mediation recently and it was sorted out by a post on RSN, which could have been made before the mediation. If you would like to recommend anything before mediation, whether 3O, RfC or whatever, please do. But if you do think it will be appropriate to start mediation now, please take this as my formal agreement. I will abide by the outcome of the mediation. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that discussion is beginning on the first issue in our mediation case, and that you've left me a question to answer. I promise to answer it within 48 hours. Best regards, Virago250 ( talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your recent New page patrolling. Just to let you know, I've removed your speedy deletion tag from the article Shutter (Software) because software is not one of the subjects where the A7 speedy deletion criteria applies. Thanks. -- Mrmatiko ( talk) 11:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Sorry about that :-/ Lord Roem ( talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

— Richwales ( talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited United States v. Hatter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Medicare and Social Security ( 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) 10:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lord Roem. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I usually start with the SCOTUS decision and see how many cases are given, then I (carefully, since it can get complicated) work backward from the circuit, then district, and eventually down to state courts as far as I can locate the decisions. In most cases I get all I need from Google Scholar's legal search (one has to be watchful: not all decisions are linked), but sometimes I supplement it with general web searches (i.e. to ind docket numbers of unreported cases). Circéus ( talk) 18:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. I like that kind of wiki work. Circéus ( talk) 19:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lord Roem, I just reviewed a GA nomination you had, Illinois v. McArthur. My comments can be viewed here: Talk:Illinois v. McArthur/GA1. Regards, -- 12george1 ( talk) 00:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for writing the Arb report. I did plan on doing it today, but nevertheless, thanks :-). You might want to add something about this amendment request as well, which is part of the reason why I didn't start a draft until, well, today :) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

These are not 'random letters' but an essential part of the template coding. If you see something that needs updating on an arbitration committee page or template, please contact one of the clerks. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 07:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited United States free speech exceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bar ( 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) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Lord Roem/Archive3: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 December 2011/Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Lord Roem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot ( talk) 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry to do this, but do you think you'd be able to write the report this week? It was to be the first thing for me to do this morning, but since then other more pressing matters have come up. I should be able to do it next week though. Let me know if you can't manage and I'll scrape something together. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your contributions to GAN, in particular, your efforts to raise discussion at the RfC you started. I was partly as surprised by the strength of the consensus as you must have been, but I was also reassured that the ideals of GA have taken a deep root, and hope you might understand those ideals better by reading the comments made by editors there.

For my part, reading your RfC, and similar discussions elsewhere, caused me to spend some time thinking about the longer term. We may eventually need to moderate nominations in some way, so we need to ask what constraints would be compatible with the GA goal to improve as much of the encyclopedia as possible as soon as possible?

And I think I have the beginnings of an idea :) Geometry guy 23:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words! I am glad we had the discussion, and as I said on the project page, I think it is good for proceeding with GAN in the future.

As to your idea, I'm very curious ;-) Lord Roem ( talk) 03:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Curiously, my idea is at completely the opposite end of the spectrum to the recent proposal by User:Masem at WT:WGA. Geometry guy 22:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In the past six days since you expressed support for promoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark to FA status, I've done a substantial amount of work on the article — mostly in response to specific concerns raised by others. I suppose it's possible (I don't know how possible) that some people might discount your support on the grounds that the current article is not the same as what you said you supported. If you have time, it might be helpful if you could go through the article and the FAC discussion again, comment on the outstanding concerns if you feel inclined, and make it clear whether or not you continue to support promotion of the article as it stands now. Please note that I'm continuing to work on some of the concerns that have been raised, and there may be a few where I'm not sure what I'm going to do because I may not necessarily agree with the criticisms. Thanks for any additional input. — Rich wales 01:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to look through the article's progress and make any necessary changes/additions to my statement. Keep up the good work! Lord Roem ( talk) 03:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. One issue in particular, which I think it would be helpful to have additional input on, is the apparent disagreement between Calliopejen1 and Savidan regarding the use of sources (and what sorts of sources to use). This dispute seems to revolve around the selective use of sources (whether primary or secondary), vs. an exhaustive use of all primary sources (I'm guessing this is being urged in order to avoid any possibility of cherry-picking). I currently see no way I can possibly please both Calliopejen1 and Savidan on, say, the impact of Wong Kim Ark on subsequent cases. Even if (as is looking more likely now) the article may not make Featured Article this time around and may require a significant amount of additional work before a future FAC, I'd like to get as much feedback now as I possibly can on this and any other crucial issues. Thanks in advance for any input. — Rich wales 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Thanks for all the work you did in making Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 13:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I finished my review of False statements of fact at Talk:False statements of fact/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow you to address the issues raised in the review. The article will be reassessed on January 18, 2012. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you pop over to Template:Did you know nominations/False statements of fact and make a comment? In light of name change, it may probably needs a new hook.-- LauraHale ( talk) 22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Lord Roem/Archive3: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 December 2011/Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Lord Roem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot ( talk) 05:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What false statements of fact don't involve defamation? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

False statements of fact that don't involve defamation include: seditious libel (not really defamation in the civil sense), false advertising, lies about public service ( Stolen Valor Act), and "negligently false statements" in some contexts.

Additionally, defamation issues is much broader than the First Amendment-specific law the article discusses. While I completely agree that defamation serves a broad array of issues under this category, I think renaming it that would be far too under-inclusive. Lord Roem ( talk) 23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, perhaps i could point you towards aritcle in the register that makes it crystal clear that a follow up to Half Life Two: Episode 2 has not been announced. Many Thanks. Mike _talk 05:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, SandyGeorgia has "restarted" the FAC discussion "for a fresh look" on where everyone stands on this article. — Rich wales 02:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking a break for a few days (before I asplode :P ). Can you do the Arb Report (again, I know :P ) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Since I've been doing so much additional work on the Wong Kim Ark article in the last week or so, it's been suggested that I should ping the previous supporters and "ask them to revisit with an eye towards whether they're still satisfied" with the article now. Be sure to check the FAC's talk page ( here), since the lengthy exchanges involving Calliopejen1 and Savidan were moved there to reduce clutter on the main page. Thanks. — Rich wales 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Lord Roem, I thought I'd stop by and thank you personally for the work you've been putting into the Arbitration Report in recent weeks; it's great to have such a capable reporter on board.

Regarding the formatting you mentioned in this note, you can avoid having to copy and paste from previous issues by initiating the report from within the newsroom (click "start this article"). The relevant templates and section headings will then magically precede you.

On a second point, if you're planning on contributing to Monday's report, it might be worth taking note of the outing of two of the named parties of the Article titles and capitalisation case as sockpuppets as it has the potential to upset the direction of the case.

So, let me know if there's anything else Signpost-related you'd like to discuss, and I hope to see you around the newsroom in the weeks ahead. Regards from the editor, Skomorokh 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I really appreciate you taking over in recent times. Been really busy with DR stuff. You can feel free to take over as normal report writer and move me to backup if you like :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I might go back to writing reports :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven, you are free to ruin your mornings with Arb Reports any day, I don't mind the collaboration :P Lord Roem ( talk) 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is late breaking, but the Δ rfar case is about to close. There's enough net supports to close now, and likely will do so soon.

I would like to point out there is considerable controversy over the case. Most of the discussion is located on the Proposed Decision talk page, in particular the threads located here, here, here, and here. There's allegations of ArbCom incompetence, sockpuppetry, threats by ArbCom, etc. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alerting Skomorokh to this as well. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Hammersoft. I did see that the motion to close has enough support votes to pass. According to one of the clerks, that will be effective in 24 hours. As to talk page discussions over the case, I will look those over to see if anything merits inclusion. Generally, the Report is supposed to be a purely factual, descriptive telling of ArbCom actions. I think some of the discussions you link to might be more appropriate in the Discussion Report. You can find that at the Newsroom here. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 21:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• My point wasn't to add discussion, but to highlight something potentially newsworthy. I'm not a frequent contributor at ArbCom, but the amount of controversy generated against ArbCom in this case seems rather large based on reviews I've made. Think of it this way; if a bill before Congress passed with little debate, you might say "The insert bill name bill passed Congress along party lines today". If there were a tremendous amount of controversy (as is I believe the case here), "The insert bill name bill passed Congress, after a highly contentious debate today, with accusations of incompetence levied against ArbCom, sockpuppetry by contributors and threats by ArbCom". I'm not suggesting wording here so much as style. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Most, if not all, ArbCom cases are contentious and involve accusations of X and Y against arbitrators and the like. I honestly do not think a case being controversial in and of itself merits inclusion in the article. All cases before the Committee are controversial, that is why they're there.

Again, let me clear: I am not saying that this remark about the talk page debates should not find its way somewhere in The Signpost -- I'm just saying its probably not best for the Arbitration Report. We should in all instances try to keep out commentary; claims of "incompetence" are by their very nature, opinionated. The article is served best by being absolutely neutral. Lord Roem ( talk) 22:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Tell that to modern journalists :) Seriously, let me be clear; I wasn't attempting to get you to tilt anything out of neutral, just report. That's all. Thanks for your time. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• So very very tired :P Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article United States free speech exceptions you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Connolly15 ( talk) 15:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-20/Arbitration report. Let's get started. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me sleep for a few days first :P

But yes, thanks for the note. With the small # of arbs on the case and the large amount of activity already, I can see a plausible path to the closure of Civility enforcement by next issue (or a few days thereafter). Also note, TimidGuy PD will be posted in a few days. So, lots of stuff coming up. Regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 05:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleep is for the weak ^_^ Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The article United States free speech exceptions you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:United States free speech exceptions for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Connolly15 ( talk) 10:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah apologies, I will revert to a hold status if you want to take a stab at editing. Connolly15 ( talk) 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. I'll try to make the suggested changes over the weekend so I don't hold this out too long. Thanks again for the review! Lord Roem ( talk) 22:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Lord Roem. May I have Esther Hill, an article I nominated for DYK, un-promoted from Prep 1 and held back for use on Women's Day on March 8th, please? Thanks in advance. -- PFHLai ( talk) 19:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's probably a good one for that day. Feel free to move it back to the noms page under the "Special Occasion" section. I believe another is also being held for March 8th. Regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll move the nom there now. Thank you. -- PFHLai ( talk) 19:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lord Roem!

I'm watching this MedCab because I was originally involved in that discussion, but I was left aside when the MedCab was called (and I've had too much problems with one of those editors so I figured that I'd leave it that way).

Anyways, you asked for User:Jeffwang's MedCab experience and I think is relevant to highlight that he has been involved in a mediation about a Falkland Islands article last June. Sadly, it wasn't very helpful and we ended up deleting the whole section.

Good luck & thanks! -- Langus ( talk) 23:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! It is very likely that ItsZippy will remain as the mediator for this case. If Jeffwang actually gets involved, you can be assured that other editors active at MedCab will be watching to ensure the process remains productive and fair. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 23:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK review note: Thank you for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Torture during the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified; please respond on that page as soon as possible.

This issue has also been raised at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Duplication_Detector. Mikenorton ( talk) 16:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment here Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-02-20/Arbitration_report -- Surturz ( talk) 04:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that you mean well, but could you please leave it to the clerks to update arbitration committee templates. Thanks -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 18:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought it was just a simple update to complete. I'll stay out from here onward. Lord Roem ( talk) 19:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in quickly to support my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Lord Roem, just wondering if you are covering the AUSC appointments on 29 February 2012, two days after the release of the Signpost next week. The reason I ask is because I'm planning out the Discussion Report for next week and don't want it to overlap with the Arbitration Report (because the AUSC appointments are currently on CENT as a community-wide discussion). I also noticed that you are planning an Arbitration special on new arbitrators voting (which I left comments on :P). Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I will make a note of it, but won't cover it extensively. Lord Roem ( talk) 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your recent edit, Yarborough v. Alvarado was not overruled by J.D.B. v. North Carolina. In fact, the opinion in J.D.B. explicitly states that their holding does not conflict with Alvarado. See page 3 of the syllabus: "these conclusions are not undermined by the Court’s observation in Alvarado". To clarify, in Alvarado the Court simply noted that using age in determining police custody was not required by law. They declined to say whether it was relevant or not and O'Conner's concurrence explicitly left the question open. In J.D.B., the Court held that age is relevant to custody determinations and should be used in the analysis. So rather than overruling Alvarado, J.D.B. simply answered an open question. -- Sailing to Byzantium _{( msg)}, 23:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. I think then using the "Superseded" template would be more appropriate, in that JDB gave that explicit answer. Lord Roem ( talk) 00:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is neat because I've never actually encountered this part of the template before. Are there guidelines for when to use things like overturned and superseded? For example, in this case the use of age could be said to have been superseded by J.D.B., but the other aspects of the case were not. -- Sailing to Byzantium _{( msg)}, 01:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The template page doesn't have any specific instructions, and I'm not sure of any specific common practice. So, it really depends on whether we think "supersede" is the right word to use here. Lord Roem ( talk) 02:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK review note: Thank you for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Torture during the 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified; please respond on that page as soon as possible. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Looks like my suspicions were right that there were duplication issues. Lord Roem ( talk) 13:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not Vandalism, it's true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.60.235 ( talk) 05:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In your first edit - [1] - you removed a newly entered reference and added a sentence with a "!" which indicated either a test edit or vandalism. Then you made this edit here - [2] - which directly contradicted that same reference. Both instances are either vandalism or disruptive editing, without an attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page first. Lord Roem ( talk) 06:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the COI RfC requested by ArbCom. I already have a draft in my sandbox, and I'll publish it soon after the case closes. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 00:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As the case is officially closed now, the RfC is live. ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 01:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lord Roem. I've noticed that you've been doing a lot at DRN (and as you're part of the Cabal and I'm still fairly new at DRN, you're likely more knowledgeable than I about dispute resolution). I'm not saying this to be trite, but I am legitimately curious about it. Your first response to any dispute seems to be to run to RFC, and I'm not sure if that's always for the best. I'm specifically thinking of your closure of the "Texan vs. Texian" dispute (which, between you and me, has to be one of the dumbest disputes I've ever seen on DRN; that's truly one to add to WP:LAME) - because there were/are so many different articles involved, is it really appropriate to refer it to RFC? I think the number of articles involved really puts it beyond the scope of RFC. It might work, but trying to RFC about one thing on so many talk pages would be cumbersome, I think. I mean, it's really too late now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this topic on DRN again. Again, I'm not meaning any of this as a challenge - I guess we just have different opinions on the matter. Sleddog116 ( talk) 16:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

From my experience with these issues, a great deal of the problem comes at two sides (sometimes two editors in particular) butting heads and in constant disagreement. Just having some non-involved editors (be it at DRN, MedCab, or an RfC) will allow the discussion to move forward, rather than dig down into a nasty edit conflict. An RfC may be the best option to avoid a mediation case, as it directly takes outside opinions from the community on the question. While I prefer the focus a mediation can have, we could probably decrease the need for such a process if the warring editors can hear a third opinion or external editor's views. I hope you understand my thoughts. :) Lord Roem ( talk) 17:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism. 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. — RFC bot ( talk) 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm still involved in this issue. Although I took a few broad-sides during the discussions, I really don't have a dog in this fight. My only reason for being involved in the Talk in the first place was because it was obvious that left alone, Djathink & Rangoon would never agree on improving the page and I was trying to seek concensus (in my own poor, pathetic manner). If you want me to continue to be involved, I'll be happy to help but I don't want to hinder/cloud the process. Yours - Ckruschke ( talk) 13:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

You were just listed as a party on the original DRN posting. If you feel you are no longer involved, please feel free to remove yourself from the list of disputants on the mediation case page. Regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 14:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to see Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Texan_verses_Texian. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Lord Roem ( talk) 20:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both.

Roem wrote: "I think an RfC is the option you should seriously consider."

Yes. I created the RfC (see: Talk:Texas_Revolution#rfc_398FC48) four or five days ago, and have had one new comment almost immediately and nothing since-- one more than I expected.

Serious students will scoff at Wikipedia for years before the current bunch fade away and someone, embarrassed by articles seeming written by Slim Pickens in character, comes along and restores "Texan" throughout. It won't be me.

The few of us who have bothered to try, have done what we could. But if you ever come to Texas and refer to us, or our ancestors, as Texians, we are going to look at you funny.-- cregil (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

An RfC may take some time, but I still think its the best option to get outside input. If it eventually appears the RfC is not getting anywhere, please contact me and I can get a mediation case started. But try your best to make the current process work. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 14:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lord Roem: I noticed your impending report. In your earlier report you asked: "But what does this really mean for Wikipedia and the Dispute Resolution process?... We can only speculate as to the long-term effects."

I offer the speculation that the steady reduction in the number of formal cases accepted (and requested as well) means a greater reliance on the actions by individual administrators outside of the formal process. That means more reliance on individual judgment and less upon fact finding and due process. That in turn means that reasonable handling of disputes depends more upon the personal judgment of individual administrators.

There is a reason why there are 9 Supreme Court justices and not just one. There is a reason for 12 jurors and not just a judge. WP is headed away from these models toward a less desirable one. Although Alexander Pope says: "what is best administered is best", I haven't unbridled confidence in any individual administrator.

It is extrapolation to be sure, but this evolution is headed toward a WP in which all activity is rigidly controlled by a few individuals, including changes in article content, which will be made only by the favored few. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I have suggested that deliberation times could be shortened and controversy reduced by implementing a filter upon cases submitted to arbitration. The purpose of the filter is to limit the number of cases tried, and to pass on only cases that were more cut-and-dried. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Brews ohare for your wonderful thoughts on the article; I may even incorporate your image. I think your specific feelings are well placed, and I would love your comments and critique as I write the article later this afternoon. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 19:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to offer comment on your article. The brief outline you provide below suggests a rather ambitious effort to identify arbitrators' thought processes when engaged in arbitration. I have little insight into their minds. I have had some experience as a subject of such deliberations, however. As a basic observation, I'd say that I was completely unprepared for just what an arbitration case was intended to do. Of late I have looked at this matter more carefully, and my observations can be found in WP:Editing environment. The summary of this research is as follows: Administrators have carte blanche in such proceedings, and are under no obligation whatsoever (other than their own consciences) to follow any precepts such as WP guidelines and policies, nor even any requirement to use fact rather than opinion. They are empowered to take action to prevent hypothetical future acts of their imagining that may or may not occur. Moreover, they are responsible to no-one except ArbCom, which is composed of their own members. That doesn't mean that the system doesn't work. But for myself it means that any action that might attract Administrator action is to be avoided, and that includes even actions that would clearly be to the advantage of WP, but that arouse controversy. So, I am happy to consult Administrators as regards their view of how things should be done, but even a slight clearing of the throat is enough to send me elsewhere. Brews ohare ( talk) 18:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Brews ohare, you may be interested to review the article; it is currently nearing final-publication stage. Regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 18:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps your introductory segue: "a review of what new angles each new editor brings" would be well-served by a summary section at the end of the article to underscore what these "new angles" are. Apparently these include AGK's use of a summary and a bottom-up approach, a radical departure from the Wikipedia article's statement that ArbCom serves not to reconcile editors but to remove them. Courcelles appears to have in mind another radical departure: actually explaining the principles behind decisions instead of simply stating the ruling and avoiding clarification. Hersfold comes across as radical in one regard: actually looking at the record instead of relying upon the traditional view that "opinion" of "reputable persons" is more significant than facts, and the approach of the documentation that states arbitration is not about "who said what, when" but about prevention of envisioned future bad actions that might affect the project. Silk Tork exhibits a similar focus upon evidence rather than hearsay that is not apparent in past ArbCom statements and WP documentation of the arbitration process.

An interesting question that apparently was not addressed is this: why has the number of formal arbitration cases applied for, and the number accepted, dropped to about a dozen a year, as shown in the chart above? Isn't that a concern when the total number of disciplinary actions is considered? It would seem to mean that reliance today is upon individual administrator decisions, arrived at through individual judgment or possibly justified through an informal judgment of "consensus" on AN/I? Possibly it is such concerns that have motivated the new Arbitrators in their attempts to modify ArbCom processes?

Your article is a singular effort. I hope these suggestions find some resonance. Brews ohare ( talk) 13:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You are free to interpret the arb's statements however you wish. I just try to provide that transparency in an objective way. As to the declining number of cases, that may be a subject of a later article. Thanks for the comments, I really do appreciate it. :-) Lord Roem ( talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem: My attempted summary of what "new angles" were brought is, of course, my reading of your article. I understand that it is safer to avoid any such summary and avoid possible misinterpretation of the remarks in the main body. Perhaps a disclaimer instead of a summary is less dangerous, such as: "It is hoped that the above comments make clear the new angles brought to arbitration by the new arbitrators. The author apologizes in advance for any infelicities in stating their objectives in improving arbitration." Some kind of summary statement, however weak in content, would tie up the article by restating its purpose. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to provide an interpretation of the article in the comment section, you are free to do so. I however, will not try to interpret arbitrators' actions beyond what I have already included. Please understand the remark about 'new angles' is meant to spur discussion, not a 'final answer', per se. Lord Roem ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to answer questions relating to your pending article. When is your deadline, please? Although I cannot guarantee an especially prompt response, I will do my best to respond promptly. Regards, AGK [•] 23:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, shoot me an email. And ditto the lack of guarantee above, but I'll try my best. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello SilkTork! I am beginning work on a story for The Signpost, similar to an article I wrote last year, this one concerning the voting patterns of newly-elected arbitrators. While my work has not yet begun, you will be able to find the draft story here. I would like to know if you would be willing to answer some questions (via email) concerning your experience as a member of the committee and the principles you balance when making decisions on a PD. Your assistance would enhance the purpose of the article, which is to make arbitrators more visible to the greater community as individual actors rather than a monolithic block of 'deciders'.

If this works for you, please leave a note on my talk page and I will be sure to email you promptly. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 20:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. No need to go via email - I can answer on-Wiki as there's no privacy concerns. Leave your questions on my talkpage, and I'll post the responses back to you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Let me first outline what the story will actually cover. I will look at the discussions that took place during voting (and the voting itself) on the most recent proposed decisions, in an attempt to find the methods that thinking newly-elected arbitrators employ when casting votes. To give more depth to the analysis, I am very interested to see how each arbitrator sees himself in terms of evaluating the evidence, constructing workshop proposals, and finally voting.

Below are some questions to highlight what I note above. If you have any concerns, questions to me, or comments in general, please feel free to email me or leave a note on my Wikipedia talk page. The draft article should be linked in my original message; if you see anything out of place, don't feel restricted in letting me know.

1. What was your initial motivation for running in the 2011 ArbCom elections? In simple terms, what was the focus of your campaign; what elements of Committee process did you want to highlight, change, or improve on? Further, how have you implemented these ideas into Committee activity?

• I had not intended to run, but while in Nice, taking part in the Nice-Cannes Marathon, I saw a Signpost story that not enough candidates had applied, so I stepped forward. I was a little concerned as leading up to that time I had been somewhat busy in real life, and was not responding as promptly as I normally do to requests for assistance, so felt that perhaps I was not the most suitable candidate for a post that would require even more of my time. I applied because I like to help out.
• I generally don't follow ArbCom cases, nor get involved in much of the politics and drama that is the background to much of the cases; however, I was aware of some of the issues that the community have regarding ArbCom - that it can be secretive and over-reaching, and those concerns mirror my own, so I am interested in addressing that. Making ArbCom more public has been raised with the rest of the Committee, and there are those who are in favour, and those who have concerns. We discuss a lot of stuff via a very, very awkward email system. The system itself is problematic, as email threads get split, which can (and has) resulted in people getting slightly differing responses from the Committee. This not only looks unprofessional, it is. Though there are ongoing attempts to improve and monitor the email system, it is a random and disorganised system, and emails can end up ignored, especially during periods when we receive a lot of them. It is not always clear if someone has responded to an email. And worse are those emails that get a response, so everyone else switches off, and the email then becomes effectively the responsibility of the first responder, who may simply have sent an acknowledgement, with no intention of following up. Added to which, when responding to emails, there are two audiences: the rest of the Committee, and the person emailing. When responding to the emailer, one has to be very careful which part of the thread is being forwarded, as it is possible that one can reply to the wrong part and send the emailer the private discussions of the rest of the Committee. When discussing matters in private, certain comments are made that would not be made when using a public forum. Not offensive comments, but in the nature of thinking out loud in order to voice concerns, making comparisons to one's own experiences, trying out different wordings, etc; stuff that would be inappropriate to send. I would be more comfortable if we had a more managed formal on-Wiki system for dealing with ban appeals and other correspondence - one that could be monitored and clerked. I do, though, take on board the views of other Committee members that as we need to be in touch with each other on a fairly regular basis, that it is easier to do that on a smart phone vie email than via Wikipedia; also, there are some types of discussion that are more appropriate to have off-camera: such as a personal disagreement with the way another member has just done something, or a request for the most appropriate wording for a statement, etc. So a formal on-Wiki arena for receiving, discussing and replying to ban appeals and most correspondence, while retaining a private email discussion system for the Committee, along with a separate email system for receiving privacy material. At the moment we deal with all three in the same place, albeit with different email addresses for some matters.
• While these concerns have been aired, nothing formal has been done yet. When we have five minutes to spare, I'd like the Committe to discus this on-Wiki via a series of motions.
• As regards dealing with ArbCom being over-reaching, that is done by how we individually conduct ourselves in discussions, and how we respond to each other's suggestions. On the whole I feel that the current Committee is very aware of ArbCom's relationship with the community and that we act within policy and not above it. During discussions there are enough views being expressed regarding our role and responsibility that it is being kept in mind. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

2. You have participated in several debates over proposed decisions.

How did *you* think through the principles and remedies? What principles (of decision making and evaluation) did you use to approach the problem in each relevant case? For example, did you first look at the evidence page and try to see where the remedies were needed or did you try to construct a mental timeline, etc.?

• I have only been involved in three main cases so far, and each has been different. I am still on a learning curve as to how cases are presented and decided. I think it is easier to vote on proposals that one agrees with. If the principle drafter's views on the case accord with one's own, then it appears to be a simple matter of ticking off the principles, findings of fact and remedies. If one doesn't agree, then it can be awkward. I hadn't expected that. I had expected a drafter to be somewhat more neutral, and to present more options. However, the cases that we accept are complex, and it is very helpful to have a form of direction and insight into a case that a drafter can bring. If one does disagree with the direction the drafter has taken, then we do have the option of further discussion and more proposed decisions, though that does then lengthen the case.
• I was concerned before joining the Committee regarding the nature of the evidence and workshopping that takes place, and that concern is still with me. The evidence and ideas presented are fairly random, and can be misleading. Essentially it is down to the Committee members to do their own investigation into the conduct issues. I'd like to see more control and direction of the investigation by the Committee. Generally when dealing with disputes on Wikipedia the person taking responsibility for mediating will ask questions, and control the discussion - if they do not, then the dispute continues, and the mediator is simply an observer to people slagging each other off. The control needs to be intelligent and responsive - I don't see the value of limiting an individual who is part of the case to the same word limit as someone making a drive-by comment. We do end up with a lot of noise and clutter and have to sift through that for information of value. It would be wrong to ignore the evidence and opinions, but it takes up a lot of time for little and sometimes negative value.
• I haven't yet noticed if I have a particular approach to a case. I think that the first thing I want to do is get a feel for what the case is about, and then look at the options. It's inevitable that as one starts reading an opinion will be formed, but it's important to keep an open mind. In the TimidGuy case my initial impression was that Will Beback had been over-enthusiastic but well meaning, and the most I was expecting was an admonishment proposal which I thought I would end up not supporting. Reading the evidence, both on-Wiki and the private emails, a ban was a reasonable outcome, and that's what I agreed with.
• As well as the on-Wiki case pages there are discussion by email regarding each case, and some use is made of an ArbCom wiki in which a draft version of the proposed decisions may be posted for the drafters to decide on the final wording. Other members may also offer comments or opinions on the wording. I haven't noticed a pattern in how I approach the material. I will read something in the workshop, and this may lead me to investigate a particular bit of edit history, or check a policy wording, and then I may recall something I noticed earlier on the evidence page, and check with an email in which the accuracy of that evidence was questioned. What I haven't done, is read an entire page in one sitting without going off that page to check on something. What is common is to have several Firefox tabs open at the same time, and this may be 20 or 30 tabs.
• Even though by the time the proposed decision is posted I will have been familiar with the findings, I prefer not to make a vote on a proposed decision until I have rechecked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

3. How do you work with other members? Basically, does everyone "get along"?

• I am happy to work with the others - they are a good bunch and I don't foresee any personal issues between me and anyone else. However, my policy on Wikipedia has always to be polite rather than friendly with other users, as this is not a social networking site - we are here for the very serious business of writing a very high profile encyclopedia. I think this endeavour is one of the most significant in the history of mankind and transcends personal feelings. Being part of this is like being part of the team that made the pyramids, or the Great Wall of China, or the Hoover Dam. This will last, and these early days will be remembered. Though there are people that one tends to like more than others, I am wary of forming friendships as that may interfere with judgements. There is a tendency to be more accepting of ideas from friends; or perhaps, it is that one is less inclined to reject ideas from friends. If there is a choice of ideas from two people I'd like to be able to make the choice based entirely on merit, and not be swayed by any unconscious feelings of loyalty. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

4. What, if any, changes would you make to ArbCom procedure and practice? Anything you think could be done better now that you are on the 'other side of the curtain'?

• I think I've already answered this in my responses so far; if it's not clear, let me know, and I'll highlight what I've said. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for helping out.

Cheers, Lord Roem ( talk) 00:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Answers (AGK)

Here are my answers; I hope their delivery is sufficiently prompt. I wrote out rather lengthy answers and have went some way to making them more brief, but I stopped because I guessed you'd prefer to have a wider range of views from which to pick; for that reason, please feel free to be very selective in your quotations. Repulsive though it is, I'll venture my answers are very receptive to "soundbites". Good luck with your story, and thanks for your ongoing contributions to the Signpost! AGK [•] 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

1. What was your initial motivation for running in the 2011 ArbCom elections? In simple terms, what was the focus of your campaign; what elements of Committee process did you want to highlight, change, or improve on? Further, how have you implemented these ideas into Committee activity?

   A: I originally nominated myself because, when the nominations phase opened, there was an apparent dearth of candidates. Although this is typical of our elections to ArbCom (candidatures tend to come in at an increasing rate a few days after the phase opens), I didn't see any harm in padding out the candidate list - if for no other reason than to encourage others to run. When I began answering the questions and participating in the process of candidate scrutiny, I suppose I began to accept that I would not mind if I were given a seat. As it happens, the election was rather close (with about 70% support being returned for most of the successful candidates), so I must have said a few sensible things in the Q&A :-).

   I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for some time, and I was already an ArbCom clerk, a "community" checkuser, and a member of the AUSC, so I had observed the arbitrators at work for some time. Aside from some ambitions to eliminate the more unnecessary principles that creep into committee decisions and a few other ideas for change, the aspect of committee process that I was most interested in reforming was the practice of private internal discussion. At the time of the elections, I was hopeful that we could move some internal discussion to a public venue (such as an on-wiki space for arbitrators-only, or a WMF-hosted forum-type site - although the other forum site we know perhaps made that an unlikely solution!). Having sat on the committee for several months, I now see the benefit of a private discussion space, which allows the committee to deliberate without the entire community scrutinising every comment. Nevertheless, I hope my colleagues will agree to discuss this (I know of at least one other arbitrator who shares my views on private discussion) at some point in the future.

   Nevertheless, it cannot be emphasised enough how heavy the committee's workload is. The primitive mailing list system makes co-ordinating, for instance, banned appeals a logistical nightmare (although, again, some slow progress is being made to find a new system). Keeping up with the caseload alone could be a full-time job, and there simply isn't enough time to make speedy reforms. Implementation of any reform has therefore been disappointingly (though not unexpectedly) slow. AGK [•] 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

2. You have drafted at least one proposed decision - one that involved a highly contentious dispute.

   (a) You decided to post a general summary of the case, to highlight the background for the impending PD. Is that normal practice for the Committee?

   A: It was unprecedented, so far as I know. However, it was my first case as a drafting arbitrator, and the learning curve is extremely steep; a lot of work (and especially discussion and questioning of the parties) goes into what is often a polished, or at least workable, final decision. The general summary got a good response, especially to the mere fact I posted it (decisions can appear out of thin air, so some sense of "showing our working" seemed to be appreciated). Nevertheless, I haven't decided whether the general summary is something I intend to use in future; it probably isn't compatible with large cases where multiple drafters are heavily involved in writing the decision, and it certainly takes more time than you might think to produce a readable, balanced summary of a contentious dispute. AGK [•] 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   (b) How did you and the other members work together to draft a decision? Did you do one component and another drafter did a different part?

   A: I drafted the decision alone, in that case, although a couple of colleagues were kind enough to review the draft before posting - and their suggestions were valuable. AGK [•] 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   (c) How much discussion internally occurred before the actual PD was posted?

   A: The case in question is atypical because I drafted it almost entirely alone, so in this case not much discussion took place. Nevertheless, ten or twenty e-mails were exchanged on the dispute before the draft was posted; even in what is a relatively low-key case, my colleagues are admirably attuned to the need to give attention to our core workload of deciding cases. In this respect, my previous scepticism of their priorities was misjudged. AGK [•] 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   (d) And finally, and most important, how did *you* think through the principles and remedies? What principles (of decision making and evaluation) did you use to approach the problem? For example, did you first look at the evidence page and try to see where the remedies were needed or did you try to construct a mental timeline, etc.?

   A: I take a harder line on principles than my colleagues do, and dislike banal re-statements of simple policy. Instead, I consider whether a principle demonstrates the committee's thinking in relation to the dispute. In some respects, the principles are the hardest to rule on, because Wikipedia policy is complex and detailed. The remedies, on the other hand, can be simpler to write up and decide. Often, a problem is self-evident, and our choice is simply between less and more draconian remedial action. I was previously active in arbitration enforcement and have a lot of experience on this project with dispute-resolution, so I also pay attention to ambiguity in proposed remedies; our remedies must not be subject to interpretation (or wiki-lawyering).

   With respect to my approach to the 'problem-solving' process in arbitration cases, I use the evidence page to evaluate conduct issues with specific editors, and to get a feel for what the disputants view as the issues in a case. However, I prefer to look beyond the evidence page, because it is inevitably partisan, and instead review all the recent discussions about the dispute. Typically, I'll review until a few months before the arbitration case opened, and use both specific comments (and any trends in such comments) by an editor as a basis for the draft decision.

   Similarly, we also try (as a committee) to look at the root of the dispute. We can do more in many cases than slap wrists and send the remaining parties back to argue for a further six months. We can give useful advice for resolving the disagreements about content. We can establish by dictum a community-based binding discussion. We can pass discretionary sanctions and decide their scope, so the community is equipped to deal with future disruption on the topic more easily. The saying that arbitration tries to break the back of the dispute holds true: we do try to look beyond the question of "who has threw the most tantrums?" to "why is this dispute not resolved, and what can be done to bring it to a close?". Our conclusions about such wide issues as "what is the root of the dispute?" are rather difficult to put into specific timelines, because such methodologies inevitably compel one to look at the narrower issues, but these can be useful in very technical cases like EEML or TmidGuy (though I have not yet drafted such a case). AGK [•] 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

3. How do you work with other members? Basically, does everyone "get along"?

   A: How voyeuristic a question :-). I can't think of a single arbitrator I dislike, which is certainly a small miracle, because we are all essentially thrown together and asked to work together for one, two, or in some cases three or more years. One small benefit of an entirely private discussion space is that we can be frank about our views, compared to in public when it's sometimes necessary to present a united front. Although there is healthy disagreement, a satisfactory resolution is ubiquitous in most of our internal discussions, and it certainly seems as though we strike a good balance between not "sweeping issues under the carpet" and respecting the different views of our peers. AGK [•] 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

4. What, if any, changes would you make to ArbCom procedure and practice? Anything you think could be done better now that you are on the 'other side of the curtain'? AGK [•] 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   A: Our software is completely outdated, with the mailing list, e-mail management and co-ordination, and the handling of appeals being especially unworkable. Since the new arbitrators joined, we've came up with a few improvements to the system, but things are by no means complete. Aside from the Micky Mouse software we use, I'm not sure there is much else I would change; the committee copes admirably well with its workload, and I don't expect it to function perfectly. AGK [•] 11:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to your question on my talkpage, I'd be very glad to provide information for your story. We can do it here, via e-mail, on the phone, or however you like. Please let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

LM, when I meant gr, I meant grammar :-). It was my own fault for not fully proof-reading my answers. Thanks for your work with this article! Regards, AGK [•] 19:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad you like it. -- Cheers, Lord Roem ( talk) 19:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not revert an arbcom clerk when xe closes a case request after it was rejected by the arbitrators. Thanks -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes yes, that was just an honest accidental rollback. Lord Roem ( talk) 21:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say that I can't actually see right now, so that's why your e-mail questions have gone unanswered. May be another day or tow before I can, sorry. Courcelles 23:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, I'm sorry to hear that. Its perfectly fine. I hope you're back to full health soon. Best wishes, Lord Roem ( talk) 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. 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. — RFC bot ( talk) 20:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed it's still 70% in the text, although your edit-summary says 79% now. The ACE support was 59%. Cheers. Tony (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tony. I think we're looking at different numbers. The Arb Committee election here gave Courcelles 79.74% of the vote. Whatever the case, I removed the comment as it probably isn't materially relevant to the article. Lord Roem ( talk) 17:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Input is needed at a law-related RfC. I selected you at random from the list of editors at the RfC Notification service. If you are too busy, or not interested, please disregard this notice. -- Noleander ( talk) 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)