Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Right, last newsletter before the next round and it's a congratulations to eight of you lot. Unfortunately we say goodbye to a fair few users along the way but that is the competition. Next round, there will only be one pool which will see the lowest scoring users eliminated two months into the round. Should be good fun! Get your nominations in soon!
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
You're welcome, but please don't do wholesale reversions like that. For one, you removed 'dead link' notes (essential for fixing them; all sources need to be verifiable). For another, it's best to change title attributes by hand. For yet another, the various {{cite}} templates are good in case we migrate to different referencing formats; it allows for backwards compatibility. And for yet another, using those templates means consistency within and across articles. → ROUX₪02:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Just let it go
I wasn't taking sides in your scuffle with Prodego; I honestly couldn't care less. But it was unrelated to the RfA candidate or the particular opposer (or his !vote), so it got removed. Don't take it as a personal affront or anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I will not allow other users to blatantly and deliberately lie about me. Please either restore my comment or remove Pmanderson's. Allowing his lie to sit there is indefensible. → ROUX₪20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
...what lie? The closest thing to that is his comment about you responding to every oppose, which calling "a lie" is just blowing it out of proportion, and anyone with half a brain can see it's just a stupid comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the one. It is a deliberate falsehood--a lie--specifically designed to cast me in a bad light. I was under the impression that Misplaced Pages is generally against that sort of thing. Again: please remove the lie or restore my statement, as I am intensely disinclined to allow such ridiculous characterisations of my behaviour to stand. → ROUX₪20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've pointed out that his comment is pretty far from the truth. Nobody is going to put any stock in his comment; calling it a ridiculous characterization is an overstatement. However, reacting (in the RfA) to his comment (which anyone can see is bogus) in such a dramatic fashion is far, far more likely to cast you in a bad light, and by your own hand no less; again, I recommend just letting it go. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
'A bit of a stretch'? It's a deliberate lie, you know it, I know it, and most important of all: he knows it. But whatever, the usual Misplaced Pages mentality takes over; people are allowed to make attacks and lie about others, but God forbid anyone tries to defend himself. → ROUX₪20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That is an astonishing lack of clue from someone I usually respect, EVula. It's really very simple: did Pmanderson lie about me or not? He did. Did you remove my defence against his lies? You did. There is a problem with allowing lies to stand but the defence not. And don't you dare ever insult me like that again. Adults are, believe it or not, allowed to object to people lying about them. → ROUX₪21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Do whatever you want. Make a fuss in the RfA if you think that'll be a worthwhile use of your energy. I think you'll make yourself look silly, making a mountain out of a molehill, but hey, there's nothing I can do to stop you from making yourself look bad. I tried to address a pathetically minor situation in my own fashion, but you didn't care for it; I've reverted my edits and restored the comments, which is more or less what you wanted. Knock yourself out. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring. However, I don't think it is making a mountain out of a molehill to dissuade editors from lying about each other. Every day on this site it becomes more and more apparent that policies regarding interaction are hot air, and multiple editors are simply allowed to get away with whatever they want. I am saddened that you--again, someone I respect--don't see that as a problem. More to the point, I had made a single comment regarding it.. it was only when Prodego--an admin with a very clear bias against me who frankly should have been desysopped for a blatantly anti-policy block of me some time ago--stuck his nose in that it started getting bigger. And then you came along and removed the wrong things, which didn't exactly help. → ROUX₪21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Dropping the hyperbole and rhetoric in discussions helps greatly. Had you said "could you restore my 2<5 comment please?" instead of "I deserve to defend myself against lies!" we'd be talking with far fewer colons in front of our comments. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no hyperbole on my part. He lied. That is simple fact, which by definition hyperbole is not. For what it's worth, I do understand where you're coming from, but there's a systemic problem inasmuch as statements like that are frequently allowed to stand and defences are removed. That needs to change. → ROUX₪21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In which case my defence should stand. It is an endless failing of Misplaced Pages that people are allowed to lie about others, but the subjects are not permitted to defend themselves. I don't really care--remove it outright, or restore my comment. Either is fine. Pmanderson should also be unequivocally warned against lying about other editors. It is unacceptable, period. → ROUX₪20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Communications with ArbCom
Hi Roux. I noticed you said this: "Because in my experience and that of others emails to ArbCom fall into a black hole and never resurface". This was one of the things that this year's ArbCom moved fairly swiftly to resolve, as we were aware of those concerns from last year. There were some teething problems, but since at least April, we have acknowledged and logged all the incoming e-mail. Please don't carry over experience from the past, if that is what you are referring to. I can personally assure you that if you had sent an e-mail to ArbCom about this, it would have got a reply and it would have been dealt with. Maybe not as swiftly as you might have liked, but it would have been dealt with. If this is about any particular e-mail you sent us, please e-mail me personally, and I'll see if I can find out what happened to it. If you want more of an insight into the volume of e-mail we deal with, please see here. Over a period of six months, we received 1,064 e-mails from people outside the mailing list. Not all those needed a response (some were part of threaded discussion), but each new e-mail on a new topic did get logged (once we realised we needed to do that). That's the "252 external queries or submissions logged over the 100 days from 23 March to 30 June 2009" bit. Now, we can't do much if people are refusing to e-mail us, but as I said, if you had e-mailed us about this, it would have been dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Swiftness wasn't the concern. Some sort of response was. I'm glad that ArbCom is fixing its communication issues. → ROUX₪23:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
(comment by admin who would rather threaten regular editors than take on abusive admins removed)
"To make it clear - I have, before issuing this - issued a new, balanced set of warnings ( another warning to David Fuchs for the original behavior, and an AGF warning on the meatpuppetry claim to Jehochman ) to the administrators involved." Did you threaten them with blocks, as you have done here? --MalleusFatuorum00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Did you expect otherwise, honestly? Again it has been proven: you can say whatever you want, but woe betide someone who makes the egregious mistake of responding to it. → ROUX₪01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me put something to you Roux. You and I conspicuously don't get on, but is that really a problem for either of us that needs to be solved? Aren't people allowed to take a dislike to each other here in this "best of all possible worlds"? I often find myself agreeing with an opinion expressed by someone I generally would have no time for, and you clearly do as well. Very few of us actually know each other anyway, so why in Hell should we care whether someone we don't know likes or dislikes us anyway? I know I don't, and I can't even be bothered to keep track of all the people who claim that I've upset them, because I just don't care. --MalleusFatuorum01:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming that was in response to the 'you' in my statement above? It was intended as the generalised 'you,' not you-Malleus-Fatuorum. Sie if you prefer I guess. Sorry for the confusion. → ROUX₪02:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, then it was my surprise at agreeing with you? That has nothing to do with whether or not I like you. It has much to do with me finding most of your pronouncements asinine in the extreme, a feeling which I am sure is mutual. I am not the sort of person who makes the mistake of thinking "X said Y, therefore it is wrong," it's just that I don't like you and you happen to be wrong most of the time, in my opinion. The two issues are separate, which I think is what you are getting at here. → ROUX₪02:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Or probably better: 1) I don't like you, 2) I disagree with almost everything you have to say. The first does not cause the second for me, with you or with anyone else. → ROUX₪03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I have misunderstood you somewhere, or you me. What I was trying to say is that no, it doesn't matter; whether I like or dislike someone has no bearing on whether or not I will agree or disagree with something they have said. I'm not sure why you felt you had to get a dig in. What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? → ROUX₪03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Better question: why ask me for my opinion only to tell me how little you think of any opinion I give? Seems a bit off. → ROUX₪03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's good, but could probably be shortened a bit to the more salient points, with the details (much of what you have written is far better than what I originally wrote) provided at WP:DEVCOM. Then we just need a template for the election pages and it's ready to go. → ROUX₪03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
