Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:05, 14 June 2012

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Archives

Archive 1: Dec '10 - Jan '11 Archive 2: Feb '11 - Nov '11 Archive 3: Dec '11 - Mar '12 Archive 4: Mar '12 - May '12

Data set

Do you have the original dataset you used to create this graph? I want to relabel the axises and take the mean number of cases per month during the the time period. You can email it to me if you want. thanks --Guerillero | My Talk 03:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I made that on Excel with an old computer that I've replaced. :-/ Lord Roem (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I will need to extract it myself. Thanks. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Lord Roem, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me, and also impressed by your work with the Signpost. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Misplaced Pages's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Crisco. I appreciate the kind words. Best of luck in your new admin duties! -- Lord Roem (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

• Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

• News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

• Discussion report: Watching Misplaced Pages change

• WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

• Featured content: On the lochs

• Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

• Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

• Why did you remove what I wrote about Mohamed Morsi's opinion about the 9/11 attacks? I properly quoted it from a Foreign Policy article? 8 June 2012

I didn't think there was anything unsubstantiated. The only thing that came close was my claim that the ED page is harassment (which seems pretty obvious). As I supplied a link that agreed it was ridicule (and the same link is on the evidence page) is fixing that enough? I put (way too much) effort into that and I think it adds value. Just let me know what to fix. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Or, if the issue is the claims with Fae, can I just cite the links made by others (also on the evidence page)? Just trying to figure out to what you are referring. Hobit (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You are free to post on the evidence section links regarding the central issues in the case. You need to ensure though that every single accusation is linked with a diff illustrating the behavior or issue you're criticizing. You can use your post, sure, but it needs to be 1) condensed into a more factual (less exposition) form, 2) needs to have diffs, originally had a single link, 3) needs to avoid speculation, only containing incidences of specific events, not broad and vague, possibly 'casting aspersion' type of language. This not only ensures your evidence complies with the rules, but also increases the chances that what you have to say will be thoroughly considered by the Committee. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to leave another note here or contact me by email. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't feel I was making accusations that weren't documented by links on the evidence page. Would it be enough just to include those same links in my comments? Can I just link directly to the evidence page rather than copying those links?
      • The ED page I _can't_ link to, so I'm not sure what to do with that. Is it casting aspirations to claim that I think the page is an attack page? I mean, I've no idea how to prove that (diffs or otherwise) but it would be deleted in a second as an attack page on Misplaced Pages, I don't think anyone would debate that. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • And commenting on the evidence, on the evidence talk page, is traditionally what the talk page is used for. I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Any guidance?

If I have time to update that, I'll e-mail it to you first. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are uncertain about posting the evidence, feel free to email it directly to the Committee. Just let me or NW (the lead clerk on the case) know so we can alert the Committee to be on the lookout for your evidence. As to your other question, you do need to link directly to the edit by the user you're critiquing. This ensures an easy to see thought process from your statement and the incident cited. Lord Roem (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hummm, I guess the root problem is that I'm not trying to post evidence, I'm trying to comment on the evidence. Is there any place I can do that? Hobit (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You're certainly free to do that on the page you were trying to edit on. I think it was very clear though that both the nature and form of your post was like a long evidentiary statement. If your purpose is commentary, be sure to keep it commentary, not arguments. Lord Roem (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give that a shot. The boundary here is a bit fuzzy. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I'm finding your clerking here fairly far out of the norm. I responded on that page to you, but perhaps your talk page is a better place for the discussion. I feel people are claiming the ED page isn't an "attack page" and I'm trying to establish that DC and Michaeldsuarez (both of whom have indicated it is not an attack page) would agree that by the standard we use for Misplaced Pages pages they agree it would be an attack page. I think I've done that in a civil tone. If instead you could ask them the question and get a "yes" or "no" out of them without caveats that would be fine too. I don't need to be the one writing the words, but I do think it quite reasonable to understand what they mean by "attack page". Hobit (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not see what good will come from getting into an argument with another editor on the case talk page. You both have the opportunity to state your positions in either a workshop discussion or through evidence linking to Misplaced Pages behavior on the evidence section. Whether or not they think its an attack page is immaterial to how the Committee will make its decisions. There's simply no use in getting something out of another editor here - it's just not the point of the process. Lord Roem (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • They are using a term that is used as a term of art on Misplaced Pages. I'm trying to establish what exactly they mean by that (the term of art per G10 or a more generic term). Again, if you feel I'm getting too hot on this topic (as you indicated on the talk page) I'd be pleased to have you or someone else pose the question. As far as being on a different page, I'd assumed discussing the terms used in the evidence page and the talk page would belong on the talk page. That seems the traditional and expected place for such a discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
      • It appears SirFozzie has confirmed my suspicions about the unhelpful nature of this discussion in hatting the section off. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Eh, looks like SirFozzie agrees with you. Given that (I've learned to respect his opinion and that gives me two independent people with the same opinion) I guess I was out of line. Still don't see it, but that's they joy of taking things too personally, you often don't see it. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Notes

Just wondering what was the reason for this edit. The article seems to have been using the "references" subheading since the beginning so is there some guideline to use to notes subheading I'm not aware of? Regards, SunCreator 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi SunCreator! As per a guideline, I'm not entirely sure. The reason I made the change was because those first two appeared to be specific citations while the latter (bulleted) points seemed to be books or scholarly work that was generally being used for the article.

I'll try to find the guideline. One minute. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I found the reference here. It's just something I've seen used on some Supreme Court/law articles. I feel it tends to sort the references better. Lord Roem (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the link and explanation. Regards, SunCreator 22:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick chat?

Would you be available on IRC or Google chat (if you use that) for a quick chat about my evidence? Prioryman (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think its generally fine. I just think you need to rephrase your statement. Rather than "XYZ has an attack page", make it "XYZ follows the page closely" or "XYZ did nothing about categorization into a bad/negative category". Its an important distinction, one that I want you to make if possible. Lord Roem (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to discuss evidence I haven't yet posted, so the question stands. :-) Prioryman (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Feel free to email me. But, please note that if I am unsure of a reply, I may forward your email to the Clerks list. Would you be fine with that? Lord Roem (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. It's something I contacted NuclearWarfare about earlier but he's not replied and he doesn't seem to have edited today, so there may be a bit of overlap. But if it's something you can advise me on in the meantime, that will help, given that the cutoff date for further evidence is not far off now. Prioryman (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Sounds good. Send away! Lord Roem (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. :-) Prioryman (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ta

I can understand why he's getting cross - and I'm trying to get through to him about copyvio and advertising. Thanks for reverting, but I was actually amused. No-one's ever called me fat before - I'm one of those infuriating people who eats full fat, non-diet full sugar (and chocolate) things and doesn't put on weight. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha. I need to steal your genes. Lord Roem (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mailing list

Hey Roem, way back in April you asked me some questions for the Signpost. I must have missed the initial posting--is it still relevant or have you already dispensed with that story? :) Apologies again, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the beginning of clerking, User:M.O.X has taken over the Arbitration Report at the Signpost. I'd ask him if he wants your answers as I think he'd still be interested.

Best, Lord Roem (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fæ's answers

I've been patiently waiting for Fæ or someone else to remove the two long quotations in his "answers" which serve no purpose other than to attack me. I've asked about them on the talk page twice now. What do I have to do to get the stated rules of evidence to be applied? My patience is wearing thin, but I thought I would approach you directly before taking more drastic measures. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a look. Lord Roem (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify as to what specifically is distressing you? Lord Roem (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

DC may well mean Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Unsupported_claim_4 and following, which look like they are as yet unattended by a clerk. JN466 01:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'll check it out. Lord Roem (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Just checked, seems he has a series of cites that follow that claim. Lord Roem (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? Did you bother to look at the links he provided? Only a single one is to Misplaced Pages and the is absolutely no connection made between the comment in that statement and WR. Do you have any comments on the other six very specific issues I detailed on the talk page for you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As NYB said on the talk page, some of these issues are just irrelevant. However, from your line below it appears you want quotations of you removed? Things he claims you said? Is that more accurate? Sorry, but you need to be explicit. You raised a long series of issues on the evidence talk page, and I'm just not sure which specific one you're bringing here. Thanks for clarifying, Lord Roem (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand the relevance of NYB's statement. I have made specific requests about 7 parts of Fæ's "answers" - as clerk, please address them (on the talk page at the very least). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

More specific than asking for the long quotations to be removed? How much more specific can I be? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• This quotation of Russavia is an attack on me personally: "This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already. Editors should know that DC posted Fae's home address and phone number on WR, on a thread which was discussing Fae in a manner which can only be construed by any reasonable person as harrassment, so their claim here that they are only interested in Fae's Misplaced Pages activities is absolute and clear BS... It is obvious it is, because they made a point of including a photo which Fae had taken at this beach in their statement; obviously hoping to play in homophobic feelings which some editors may hold. It is absolutely atrocious and disgusting behaviour to be engaging in...". Please remove it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• This quotation of 28bytes is an attack on me personally: "The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and clear WP:OUTING violations by Delicious carbuncle are simply appalling, as many of the participants in this discussion have noted. DC seems to have participated in an "ends justify the means" campaign to bring the alleged wrongdoing of another editor to light. Well, the ends don't justify the means here, and it is simply unconscionable to publicly post private information taken from an e-mail sent in presumed confidence, and further use that information to play detective in an attempt to "bring down" that editor." Please remove it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I do think the first quote is probably over the line. Which numbered cite is that? -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't a numbered cite, oddly enough. Let me know if you have any trouble locating it - perhaps I can draw you a diagram. On what basis is the second quotation acceptable? It makes untrue claims of a violation of WP:OUTING, and speculates as to my motivation and actions with no attempt to support those claims. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I mean, this isn't an exact science. I just feel the tone of the first one seems much more personal compared to the second which could be explained as just making a argument (albeit in a form I wouldn't prefer). But yes, if you could tell me where the cite is, that would be helpful. There are over 100 diffs on the page. Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think it might help to review what the question being answered was and ask if that second quote is actually relevant or necessary to present some particular fact. I think you will find that Fæ is not answering the question at all, but instead making a case against me based on an erroneous supposition which I have already asked to have corrected. See the history of the evidence page for your diagram. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Fae is entitled to quote one of the more popular opinions from the RfC/U. Collect's "46-versus 34" vote also excludes the 29 who favored this draft, some of whom did not sign on with Hobit's 34. It is important to represent the RfC/U fairly. Wnt (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem, the quote from 28bytes is highly relevant, as it reflects the opinion of many editors and administrators in closing a thread that I started on AN/I back in January that's of central importance to this case. Further evidence is in preparation that will demonstrate the significance to the disputed RFC/U of the comment from 28bytes - an admin who is, as far as I know, not currently involved in issues concerning Fae and, again as far as I know, had no previous involvement at the time of the thread. The quote is not a personal attack - see Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Avoiding personal attacks: "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U)." Please keep the quote in place. Prioryman (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DC, if you wish to get a second opinion on the second quote, you are free to message either SirFozzie or send an email to the clerks mailing list. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hi, Lord Roem! I think that you will make a great admin and therefore have supported you. Congratulations on your (current) 97% support, I have no doubts that this one will go down as successful. Regards! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Electriccatfish2. I wish you the best in your own content work. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, you have done a lot of good work in your time, and you have not lost all potential. Bearing that in mind, my advice is that you should avoid making the foolish mistake of sticking to one area - you may be tempted (even indirectly) to follow examples which will eventually not help you too. The negative feedback provided by users in your RFA is a lot more useful than what some other RFA candidates or even Arb candidates receive; it is up to you to make sure it does not go to waste. Best, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick question about your username

Hi, I didn't want to raise this at your RfA since it's largely irrelevant and just for my personal peace of mind – but how does one pronounce the second word of your username? Like "Rome"? Like "rain", but with an "m"? Thanks. It Is Me Here 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha! First time someone's asked me that!

You would say "Row-em" like Row as in rowing a boat and then the letter 'M'. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Question re:Commons

Would it be acceptable in my evidence to link a comment of Fae's made at Commons that I referred to in my initial submission to Arbcom? Would it be acceptable to reference the existence of an email sent to me and characterize how I interpreted it? Thanks. MBisanz 03:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel that both are ok, but let me confirm via the clerks list so I can give you a definite answer. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a response on the list yet, but you have safe harbor to include the evidence you want to include above. The Commons link didn't raise concerns when first posted, and I see no reason it should now. The discussion of the email needs to be careful to not disclose anything private, but if it's about how you "interpreted it", that sounds fine as well. Thank you for asking before posting. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. MBisanz 05:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I intend to post some links to Commons as well. Based on other links already present, I am going to assume that this is allowable, but if not, feel free to remove them and let me know. I asked about scope on the evidence talk page, but no one has answered as yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You're fine in posting such links, as I told MBisanz above. Lord Roem (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Rfa and my removal from opposition

I look for any evidence of maliciousness or incompetance in admin candidates and in your case I see no prior history of either. Therefore, since my only reasons for opposing were due to a low edit count and the 8.5 month hiatus from which you returned and resumed good work, I have retracted my oppose. Good luck.--MONGO 01:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MONGO, I appreciate your courtesy message. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Steven Zhang 05:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Steven. I'm a little backlogged at the moment but will get to your email later today. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Gchat is fine today as well - but this is a bit time sensitive so as soon as possible :-) Steven Zhang 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you ....

... comment here if you have the time. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 13:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Noticed that you're up at RfA - Good luck with that! --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've responded there. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence length

Thanks for the notification. I've reduced it to 548, still slightly over but only by 48 words. I've asked SirFozzie if this is good enough for him to accept (see User talk:SirFozzie#Evidence length). Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think 548 is within a margin of reasonableness. Thanks for trimming! Lord Roem (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to clarify RFA evidence

Very late last night, just before the evidence phase closed, another editor noted a potential error in the evidence I posted. I did not notice the problem until this morning. The problem results from imprecise language condensed in order to meet the 500-word length limit. I can resolve the problem without violating that limit, and the language would not have been quite so drastically condensed if I had known of the leeway subsequantly recognized by your response to Prioryman on your talk page (but not by the boilerplate bot language). I therefore request permission to add brief clarifying language to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Off-wiki_commentary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Go ahead. Lord Roem (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads-up

Could I ask you to take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop‎#Sections of Prioryman's workshop entries need to be stricken before it devolves into yet another futile argument? Prioryman (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've compromised by removing the section that seems to be prompting the most comment, but I won't be removing the other one ("Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention") since it's an important point and one would think an uncontroversial statement of fact. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RfA

I see that you have withdrawn from your RfA, which was probably good timing as you have received as much good information as you were likely going to. While I don't think you are quite ready, I can see possibly supporting you in the future once you have had time to address the issues brought up. Without rehashing any individual items, I thought you handled the overall process better than most candidates. It is a trial by fire, to be sure, a painful but necessary ordeal. I don't see anything here that would prevent a successful RfA in the future when you are a bit more experienced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis. I too appreciate your thoughtful remarks. Opposes can sometimes be incivil or argumentative, but yours was thoughtful and offered good advice. I will take it to heart. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lord Roem,

I want to repeat that I have a favorable impression of you, and would just like you to get more experience. Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

drat

I am sorry to see you withdraw - I had the page on my list to edit as a "support" when it happened :). Please do try again -- I suppose once you hit 5K edits some of the "opposes" will evaporate! Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry you received so many opposed for my question. Your answer was satisfactory to me. I was more concerned that you have a vague idea of the forces at work in the scenario rather than that you knew a textbook answer. Apparently others felt differently. Had I known the question would tank your RFA, I would've just left it be and stayed in the neutral section. Sorry again.--v/r - TP 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Argh

Apologies, just saw the bit about not editing the page. :/ My edit was just to change "above" to refer to what "above" meant after the move to the case page. Orderinchaos 17:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your withdrawal statement

Impressive. Please make sure you let me know if/when you run again. --Dweller (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note

I meant what I said at your RfA—both the (hopefully constructive) criticism and the praise, and I think you have the potential to a bloody good admin in the not-too-distant future. I hope you won't feel too down that that day isn't today, and if you're going to Wikimania in DC, make a point of bumping into me and I'll buy you a drink. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I didn't like seeing the Perth pages marked as needing to be patrolled, so I added autopatrolled to your rights. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Next time

Well...next time they will surely support in droves. I was saddened to see several editors use your Rfa to take potshots at each other. However, it was great seeing your calm and reserved reactions. Best wishes.MONGO 18:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatting

I strongly object to your hatting of that section at the evidence talk page. I asked a legitimate question, and it relates directly to what is unclear in the evidence. You made a serious mistake there, and you need to correct it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The hatting is not due to it not being a legitimate question, it very well may be. But the responses will be based on pure speculation. You asked "What, then, does it come from" in reference to potentially vitriolic remarks about Fae. There are may possibilities; I won't speculate myself now. But, others would, and that's strictly against the rules.

If you are unsatisfied by this, then please keep in mind one thing: the proposed decision will include a long timeline leading up to any remedies the Committee feels is appropriate. It may even provide an answer to your question. But right now at least, it isn't appropriate. Lord Roem (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)