User talk:Jdforrester/Old Archive 9

This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.

---

Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...

*Please* put Arbitration matters here

Procedural Guidance Requested

As I have been preparing the Evidence for my Arbitration case, I have made three TALK posts on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence.

• My unique problem, Guidance Requested
• OK to "Yield" DIFFs in DIFF-Count?
• Items Still Pending in Preparing Evidence

While I wait to hear back from my AMA advocate, your procedural guidance on those issues will be very much appreciated. Thank you. - Researcher 21:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

See the appropriate talk page.

James F. (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Concern over wording

I've reworded the jguk finding that you were concerned about, please take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Still not sure about it; thank you, though.

James F. (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Signing my posts

I often choose not to sign lists of wikilinks on talk pages, so that they can more easily be added to. Sam Spade 20:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh-huh.

James F. (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

141

Would you be so kind as to examine my edits to James Dean and Nick Adams? As one of his assigned mentors, I have attempted to distill onefortyone's edits, which I consider, in these two cases at least, to be well-sourced, balanced, verifiable and encyclopedic discussion of the actors' sexuality. They are repeatedly being reverted (and I've now been taken to WP:3RR as "violating the ArbCom order." I do not consider them to do any such thing. I would appreciate your input. FCYTravis 22:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere.

James F. (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Climate change dispute

You may want to notify all the parties involved in the dispute. Particularly helpful would be notification of those not yet identified. (SEWilco 05:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

I didn't start the case request, and it's not my duty to inform the parties involved. Feel free to do it yourself, if you think it that important.

James F. (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

I'll try to stay away from him as well as much as possible, and i've gotten a few friends from this ordeal that I can alert if anything goes awry from now on regarding him so I can stay away from any contreversial blocks. I cannot begin to tell you how much this restores my faith in everything being ok on here, thank you again. karmafist 20:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. It's what I'm, erm, not paid for. :-)

James F. (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd Pay You In Barnstars, But That'd Look Like Bribery

POTW is trying to rile me up again. Can you or one of the other arbitrators do something about this? Like I said time and time again at the rfar, he'll keep on going with this trolling(of me or something else)until he's forcibly stopped, and i'm trying to stay out of this. karmafist 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cease making personal attacks. With regard to the above; if you're not prepared or able to back up your allegations with evidence, don't make them, either. Andy Mabbett 00:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean? He doesn't respect the arbcom enough to see the rfar(where the evidence is), but he's more than happy to hound me. Please, something has to be done here, and I do not want to be the one who has to do it, but if someone does not, I will. This cannot continue. karmafist 03:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

if someone does not, I will.: Are you making threats, again? Andy Mabbett 15:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wilkes/Wyss/141 acceptance

I have not yet seen your reply as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests to my request here as of 15:39, November 24, 2005 re with respect to this process. Please provide a rationale for your vote that was rendered while I was prevented from responding on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests which states "Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested." Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 23:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Four things:

1. The Arbitration policy does not require individual Arbitrators to do anything to do with opening requests, merely for the Committee as a whole.
2. The case is now opened, so making a comment as to why I opened it seems a rather frivolous waste of everyone's time; however, also note that whether or not parties make comments, the Committee can and does accept cases - the need for a comment is not to "defend" the actions (that is the purpose of evidence), but to draw immediate attention to possible policy breaches to help us decide whether or not the area needs looking in to. A comment of a party will never dissuade us given otherwise evidence, so your lack of time to give a comment did not cause (nor affect in any other way) the case being opened. Of course, if you've done nothing wrong, the case will not disadvantage you at all
3. Your adversarial style isn't doing you an favours. Calm down and speak quietly and gently and you may be more persuasive. :-)
4. The original location of this comment wasn't where you're meant to put these kind of talk page comments - as it clearly says, above. I've since moved it.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why did you accept this RfAr when no efforts, nor evidence of any efforts, to remedy the alleged issue by other means have been made or presented? I ask because this seems to be contrary to both the template instructions and WP policy. Could you please cite the documented section of Wikipedia's written policy which you used to make this extraordinary exception? Thanks. Wyss 00:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

See my reply, above.

Further, note that the Arbitration Committee does not follow a written policy per se, and certainly not "WP policy" at all.

James F. (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that arbcom does not follow Wikipedia policy? Also, does your answer mean that template instructions for an RfAr can be ignored? Wyss 01:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, missed this.

Essentially, yes. The Committee's manner of working is not described by a specific policy, though the "Arbitration policy" - which is not, in fact, Wikipedia policy - comes close enough. We are bound by No Personal Attacks and so on when coming to decisions just as much as any other editor would be, of course.

The template instructions are there for us to guide others as to how best they can provide information to us so that we can come to the most well-informed opinion and judgement possible. Everyone is free to ignore them (and we are free to find them to have violated Don't Disrupt Wikipedia To Make A Point and ban them of course, but that's another matter).

James F. (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We are bound by No Personal Attacks and so on when coming to decisions just as much as any other editor would be, of course: And yet you recently accused me of "repeated personal attacks" (I presume that you weren't acknowledging that I've been on the receiving end of repeated personal attacks), with no evidence whatsoever. How odd. Andy Mabbett 18:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Motion to provide voting rationale

Please see [1]. Thank you. Rangerdude 18:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered there.

James F. (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Directing energy Re: ArbCom

elements cross-posted

Hi James. I read your message [2] on the ArbCom elections page and was wondering what is the best way to direct energy into possibly restructuring the ArbCom? I don't have a specific proposal in mind at the moment, but most that I've seen would change the fundamental nature of the committee. Would these proposals be better discussed on Meta or could an "official" forum be created here on En for discussing such changes. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 20:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, a proper discussion of possible changes would be a good idea. The thing is, the appointments are not the appropriate venue for attempts at reforming the Committee. Meta wouldn't be the best place, no, because the Committee is w:en-specific.

James F. (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your change to that page smacks of self-promotion. Your platform may be to retain the status quo in how the Committee operates, but other candidates (and many editors) are seeking a fundamental change in that process. Please revert your change, and feel free to express your view on the talk page or your own statement. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a "view", it is a statement of fact, coupled with a dollop of advice. I am trying to avoid wasted effort on behalf of the great many people running whose views I respect but seem at odds with what they are in fact running for.

James F. (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Arbitration Committee procedure re request by RedWolf

Please note that the Arbitration Committee appears to have failed to follow standard procedure as seen here and notify User:RedWolf that his "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been accepted" and that he "Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence." Please ensure this is corrected. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been done. Thank you for noticing our slip-up and bringing it to our attention.

James F. (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

If once someone's probation or arbitration ends. Can he/ she be nominated to become an administrator after that? --Terenceong1992 15:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are no restrictions due to Arbitration or Probation events on nominations for sysophood. However, it may be more difficult to achieve consensus towards becoming a sysop.

James F. (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration case closed

Thanks for the notice. — Instantnood 18:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, just doing my 'job'. :-)

James F. (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence

Hi, I didn't want to take the time to gather evidence, and am generally too sick of dealing with this user to involve myself more formally, but I have written an extended comment which I hope will be helpful, in which I tried simply to summarize my conclusions about his behavior here rather than trying to provide formal evidence for those conclusions.---CH 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, we will review this.

James F. (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

At first blush, it looks overly complicated, a sledgehammer forged to crush an non-existant gnat.

James F. (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You voted to reject ...

... accepting the request for arbitration that I filed against SlimVirgin for abuse of adminitrator priviledges. Would you please tell me your reason? Marsden 15:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. I considered your edits not only highly unhelpful, but deliberately divisive and pointless, and SV's actions wholly praise-worthy in the circumstances.

James F. (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's really quite a bizarre comment, James. But thank you. Marsden 21:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master probation expansion

There are now six votes supporting (none opposing) expanding Zen-master's probation to all articles. I'm not sure how many votes are required for the measure to pass, but six is a majority of the ArbCom. As the most recent arbitrator to vote, would it be possible for you to enact the measure? If not, how/when will the probation be expanded? Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 19:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Done, and notified.

James F. (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for clarification from HK

Regarding Nobs01 et al: I am asking for clarification regarding the proposed penalty of indefinite probation to be imposed on myself. Given that there is no finding of fact against me, and that even the allegations against me in Cberlet's complaint boil down to nothing more than a few edits that he disapproved of in the article Chip Berlet, one and one half years ago, I hope that you can understand how I might have a lack of insight into any role my behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case -- it appears to me that my behavior is not an issue in this case. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me much more likely that the proposed penalty is purely in response to "the dissatisfaction expressed ...with the decisions reached in this case." This would seem to be an offense akin to Lese majesty. --HK 18:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

fairness to both sides

So anyone that tries to edit out bias, mis-quotes, expand controversial articles is a member of the entity that is the subject of the article, and those that join the editing, reverting are too? Why would anyone want to edit articles at Wikipedia if he would be subject to such allegations? I request that the arbcom also deal with the issues that I and others have raised. I look forward to a solution that is fair to both sides of this debate. Sincerely, Johnski 19:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Final statement

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration

1. The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!) not forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Wikipedia and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if none of the policies forbids it?
2. In view of the Arbitration Committee, the existing policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Wikipedia should be different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
3. It's very funny that for a single revert of copivio article made by mistake I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
4. It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
5. It's very strange that multiple edist of my opponents that disrupted Wikipedia: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
6. The group of users that has been squeezing Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
7. The Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
8. Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent voting.

Even a serial killer has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to protect Wikipedia against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--AndriyK 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Necessary?

Am I right in reading your comment on RfAr as saying the rules against me are necessary? Why? What do you suppose would happen if they did not exist? Everyking 12:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously. The Committee would never go to the fag of imposing restrictions upon users were it anything other than necessary. As to the your behaviour that we are trying to prevent, as it is damaging to the project, please see the Findings of Fact in your previous cases.

I'm surprised that you seem not to already understand this; it suggests a wholly-misunderstood approach as to what Wikipedia, and the Arbitration Committee's point in particular, is.

James F. (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Well, I think the same of you, but it's not a recent revelation to me. But go on, if you want, and educate me, since you say I need educating. And reviewing the findings of fact is not going to help, since they were, of course, BS, as even other arbitrators have more or less admitted to me. Everyking 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? "I think the same of you"? What think you of me, and why do you think that I think that you are like that? Please don't be overly cryptic; it is tiresome.

You seem muchly wed to the legalistic metaphor for the Committee; very well then, consider this a warning that calling our Findings of Fact "BS" (what's wrong with the much more pleasant term 'nonsense', or even 'wrong'?) could well be considered "contempt of court". :-)

And it's "Arbitrator". With a capital 'a'.

James F. (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, I have a lot of contempt for you guys. Everyking 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. The feeling certainly isn't mutual, despite what you seem to think. If there's anything I can do to help change your opinion...

James F. [[User talk:Jdfor::: And it's "Arbitrator". With a capital 'a'.

rester|(talk)]] 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you know what that is. I mean, what is the basis of this whole conversation? Everyking 04:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what "the basis of this whole conversation" is; in the words of 5-year-olds everywhere, you started it.

James F. (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"policy is not what is written down - that will always be an incomplete and poorly-worded form of the true policy - but instead, a combination of common sense and what we've been doing for a while. Sysops are tasked with making "policy" (that is, responding to new situations or taking new actions) all the time. If you can't deal with that, well, good bye. I wish you well in forking off."

Doesn't the community get to determine how Wikipedia is run? If the community decides that method needs changing, the community needs to simply leave? What are your priorities here? I, for one, strongly disagree with what you wrote (as an admin, no less); does that mean I need to leave the project? I think this is a disgraceful view. Everyking 02:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In order:

Doesn't the community get to determine how Wikipedia is run?

No; at least, not the way you define "community". "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and all that.

If the community decides that method needs changing, the community needs to simply leave?

See above.

What are your priorities here?

I'm here to write an encyclopædia (and no, the community is not "a close second" - it's not even a distant second). How about you?

I, for one, strongly disagree with what you wrote

That is unfortunate.

(as an admin, no less);

Yes, well done. Though I'm pretty sure I congratulated you on making sysop, so it's a tad odd or you to remind me of it.

does that mean I need to leave the project?

No, not necessarily. But it does mean that we need to work on enculturing you to the correct viewpoint (and it is regrettable that anyone would be here for a tenth as long as you have without being encultured; for a sysop to be this way is alarming in the extreme. But, if you wish to leave, then so be it.

I think this is a disgraceful view.

Ah, and this is where we disagree primarily - you think that what I'm saying is a "view". That you can think this is a very clear demonstration that, as you say, you do not subscribe to the Wikipedia culture. Yet.

HTH.

James F. (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[Please don't enmesh answers within others'; you've certainly been here long enough to know that rule. ;-)]

Doesn't the community get to determine how Wikipedia is run?

No; at least, not the way you define "community". "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and all that.

So who does?

If the community decides that method needs changing, the community needs to simply leave?

See above.

Does that mean "yes"?

What are your priorities here?

I'm here to write an encyclopædia (and no, the community is not "a close second" - it's not even a distant second). How about you?

Write an encyclopedia. I feel your views are destructive to the encyclopedia to the extent that they are implemented, and we are functional more or less to the extent that we rely on process and policy and respect the community.

I, for one, strongly disagree with what you wrote

That is unfortunate.

(as an admin, no less);

Yes, well done. Though I'm pretty sure I congratulated you on making sysop, so it's a tad odd or you to remind me of it.

does that mean I need to leave the project?

No, not necessarily. But it does mean that we need to work on enculturing you to the correct viewpoint (and it is regrettable that anyone would be here for a tenth as long as you have without being encultured; for a sysop to be this way is alarming in the extreme. But, if you wish to leave, then so be it.

Alternatively, you could be wrong. Nobody but a handful of elite users hold this view of yours, and even among them I've seldom seen such a radical version. So I would say my view has a lot more in common with the "culture" than yours, and is a lot more "correct" than yours. And no, I'm not going to leave, far from it. I intend to devote as much energy as I can for as long as I have to to keep destructive viewpoints from prevailing in the administration of this site. I am pretty confident of success in this, because I don't see how a small minority can win over the long term in a project as fundamentally egalitarian as Wikipedia.

I think this is a disgraceful view.

Ah, and this is where we disagree primarily - you think that what I'm saying is a "view". That you can think this is a very clear demonstration that, as you say, you do not subscribe to the Wikipedia culture. Yet.

That you are an arbitrator is an almost unspeakably sad thing.

Everyking 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[Reply to follow tomorrow James F. (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

Kelly Martin RfAr

elements cross-posted

I've relisted it. It's too soon. I may even change my mind and accept it, but even if I don't it's better to leave it sitting there for a bit longer I think. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I wasn't absolutely sure about it.

Come on IRC again, even if only in the private channel. We miss you.

James F. (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for rejecting the "userbox" RFAR request

Hi, Jdforrester, could I ask you to expand upon your reasoning for rejecting this arbitration request? I'm just interested in knowing your reasoning. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But tomorrow, if you don't mind; 'tis 01:20, after all...

James F. (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to do this? Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, here goes nothing:

The main problem is that the situation is primarily a "culture-shock" experience for quite a large number of editors, even if some (far too many - well, "any" is too many) are sysops. As far as I can tell, they seemed to think that policy did not allow sysops to be bold in such circumstances, and, consequently, that the process - making sure that everyone is "happy" with the manner in which things were done - is more important than the result. In this, on both counts, they are wrong.

Perhaps we should go around, explaining to the newer users that this is how things are. The newer users especially seem to want things to be written down before they become "law", and that specific written documents are what form policy, whereas in fact policy is the general grouping of recommended behaviours, some of which is written down. If we go and write up a policy document saying "admins may be bold in such circumstances", or whatever, there will be two major problems.

Firstly, vast swathes of (newer) users will say "that's not polcy, you just made it up" and try to vote (!) to "not let it be policy". Anyone trying to helpfully explain How Things Are will be told that they are being rude, dictatorial, autocratic, "anti-community", trolling, or a number of other terms, or even that they are simply wrong (!).

Secondly, and more importantly, many of the users will then take the written form that they see it at face value - the exact wording of it will be used as the basis, rather than the semantics of them. Again, this is a cultural thing - policy to what now seems to be a great majority of people is written down documents that say how people must behave.

The "old-timers" essentially need to find a way to both offer the newer users "respect" whilst telling them, at the same time, that (a) they're wrong, and (b) no, they really can't have the stupid boxes back (or whatever the problem is this week). Specifically to this particular discussion, what on Earth is the Arbitration Committee meant to do about it? Babajobu said (and I steal his words whole-heartedly) that we need to roll out a stock response in such situations of "We're sorry, we understand that you feel violated here, but you misunderstand our rôle, and the nature of Wikipedia policy. Let us explain...".

In summary, it's a cultural thing. The newer users need to be "encultured" (to use the term being banded about right now for it). There is absolutely nothing that the Arbitration Committee can do about it, even if we were meant to be dealing with such issues.

Speaking personally, rather than as an Arbitrator, I'm not sure what to do about it, either. Perhaps we need to take the German Wikipedia's route of just declaring a cabal, and slowly expanding it from a core of a few dozen old-timers to include the newer users as we discuss things with them. But that has a great many potential problems (making the "disenfranchisment" that is already imposed on every user's personal opinions plain and ill-felt being but the most obvious). I dunno.

James F. (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request / result of a personal threat

User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Wikipedia guidelines, manners, and so on. To his credit he is trying to learn. Unfortunately, he was a bit abrasive at first and stirred up some vandals and such, especially anonymous editors User:68.45.146.191, User:199.216.98.66 and User:216.13.219.229 who placed User:Bumpusmills1's personal contact info on User:Bumpusmills1's user page and threatened him. (Examples of these threats are [3] and [4], although there are more examples in the history.) It appears these anonymous users are sock puppets of one user. To cut to the chase, I was told to check with the people on the arbitration committee to see if one of you could do a checkuser on these ISPs and see if this is a Wikipedia editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give.--Alabamaboy 23:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've passed this on to the other Arbitrators; I've elected not to have the CheckUser bit, as I've got enough work as it is.

James F. (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoilsport - David Gerard 07:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wording of an ArbCom statement

Words modified after it was pointed out that people might think that I was being rude

On that principle you may also consider using another word than "bleating" to describe the sincerely held opinions of a large number of good contributors. Respectfully, Haukur 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In what way does "bleating" suggest that said opinions are not sincerely held? Or do we speak such different dialects of English?

James F. (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker of English and I may well be completely wrong here. To me it does not suggest that the opinions aren't sincerely held and I didn't mean to imply that. It just seems like a disrespectful choice of words, comparing a lot of good and sincere contributors to sheep. I may well be wrong, maybe the word does not have the connotations I thought.

I didn't notice your separation of your userpage into ArbCom and non-ArbCom matters. Sorry about that. - Haukur 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It means to me to be a general exclamation made by individuals saying the same thing as part of a large crowd, with them thinking seemingly that, because a great many are saying it, it has any more (or any less) validity. That's not how things work on Wikipedia. A hundred people saying the wrong thing do not out-weigh the three saying the right thing; similarly, three people saying the wrong thing VERY LOUDLY do not out-weigh the hundred saying the right thing. The problem was that we were getting a lot of people saying the same thing without any significant point to them saying so - we had already got the point. If people had something different to say, we would have welcomed the input, but a hundred "me toos" (but not as succinctly put) are worse than worthless - they waste everyone's time, something of which the dispute resolution system in general, and we Arbitrators in particular, are in dire lack.

No problem about the talk page split; no-one else notices, either. ;-)

James F. (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clarifying your opinions. From this and your other recent comments on your talk page I've decided that I will prefer other candidates in the coming election. Nothing personal, keep up the good work :) - Haukur 17:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert I case

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I as Robert I has resumed editing I'd like to request an injunction. Homey 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that that is justified right now; thank you for the alert, anyway. I will consider it some more.

James F. (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your email

Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

James F. (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA/William M. Connolley 2

You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. (SEWilco 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Indeed.

James F. (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK Proposed Remedy #5

In AndriyK's case, Remedy #5 states that "Moved pages which have become irreversible by adding to the page history of the redirect page may be moved back without the necessity of a vote at Wikipedia:Requested moves." Do you support or oppose this one? I'm asking since most other items already have 6 votes, while this one has only 5. --TML1988 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks.

James F. (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom for Dummies

elements cross-posted

I've just created User:Snowspinner/Arbcom, which is a first draft of basic advice that people who are taking a case to the arbcom should have before trying to write an evidence page. It's geared towards the practical rather than the idealistic, but I wanted comments on it before I do... I don't know, actually, what I'll do with it. Phil Sandifer 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I've corrected the capitalisation (sorry, but it's become a pet hate of mine ;-)), but other than that...

James F. (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Cartesian materialism

The arbitration for Cartesian materialism was really requested by me because Alienus and I are locked in a dispute and there are only the two of us involved. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deadlock_with_two_contributors_-_response_to_preliminary_arbitration . Requests for comment and third party input have been unsuccessful. I would like to be shot of this matter and move on to other things (I think Alienus would as well) but we both believe that the other is wrong. For me it is a matter of principle about the structure of articles. Please save us from this deadly embrace! loxley 13:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my mind on this matter. It is a case of deliberate bullying for no reason (ie: teasing with insults purely for the gratification of the teaser). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Not_a_content_dispute.2C_just_straightforward_bullying

This is not a content dispute, just straightforward bullying see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind#Final_mediator_recommendations_by_Nicholas_Turnbull

I added the following text to the request for arbitration:

I would like to reinstate this request.

1. I have added all the content for this article. It cannot be a content dispute.

2. Alienus refuses to talk specifically about any point, including the new data that obviates his objections.

3. The mediation concluded that the dispute involved bullying.

4. The article is the victim of an evil troll who is simply teasing me.

Please do something. loxley 09:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Xed arbitration case

Just noting that I have responded over at talk ... /Proposed decision. — mark ✎ 19:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

James, thanks for your responses on the talk page. As I noted early on there, I am not always as cool as I would like to be either, and I took more of a "tone" in my reaction than was warranted.

My perspective on this, is in part, as a veteran of 2/4 cases involving Rex (and one on BigDaddy). In all those cases, including even the 4th one against Rex, the complainants spent I suspect literally a hundred hours collectively in fruitless discussions with an utterly unreasonable POV-pusher. I know I spent plenty. While he was plenty nasty, that was not the real problem nor was it the reason the cases were decided against him; it was editing content and refusal to engage in any serious good-faith dialogue. In the end, after 4 cases, Rex was banned from one specific article. It was also decided that any admin could block him for any problematic editing. First, part of my reaction is that I spent a hell of a lot more time trying to resolve these disputes than was spent on this one. Second, the "crime" was much more serious as it went to content, and Jimbo's sole "non-negotiable principle" NPOV. Third, at least as I see it, Rex had never made any non-trivial contributions to the community. Fourth, the sanction was far less severe. Not that I have a problem with any of that; it just stands in stark contrast to this case.

So, when I see Snowspinner start preparing a case within apparently minutes of a rather mundane conflict, it rubs me the wrong way. All the more so, considering another recent case he brought (with which I was also uninvolved), see my comment on that. Snowspinner was hardly civil or AGF there, so I view his complaint here as quite crocodile tears. I realize there is more going on behind the scenes, and that's what bothers me — the lack of transparency. There have been allusions by arbitrators to secret evidence they can't disclose. If for some reason arbcom can't make decisions in the open, Jimbo ought to just make the call in private. Anything else erodes trust in the process, and since we are all volunteers, one wants to feel all warm & fuzzy about the community & its procedures.

Ultimately I quarrel with your statement in the arbcom election that we should "favor the well-mannered over the expert". I'd rather get it right, and yes sometimes it is an either-or proposition, at least at present. Experts are not easy to come by. I'm a recognized authority, and I don't even edit in my areas of expertise anymore because I find it maddening. I understand why the climatologist (Connolly?) gets irritable. But I'd sure rather have him editing the climate change articles than Silverback. Substance counts more than style with me. While Xed's attitude is wholly unacceptable, he is not harming the content of articles (that I am aware of). He is actually improving them, and in an important way. So, my attitude is to let the admins simply block him for progressively longer periods at any time and for any violation, or even purely at their own discretion. It's just not that much trouble given over 700 admins.

I don't really care much if someone calls me names, as long as they'll debate me in a reasonable fashion. My guess is that Snowspinner doesn't actually either. That's why my perception is that he's gaming the system on a content dispute under the guise of civility (I've never had any other contact with him).

If Xed were being banned on content grounds, I'd be first in line to condemn him. I just don't see how a few unpleasant words, said to supposedly grown-up people, should lead to a year-long ban for someone with real contributions. Even if he was on parole.

You are absolutely right that the criterion ought to be whether Xed contributes on net to Wikipedia, rather than whether "justice" is served. That's why I quarrel with the decision. I haven't seen evidence that Xed is a drain, quite the contrary. Though if he does get through this, and still keeps up with the rudeness, he ought to be banned for sheer stupidity.

A long-winded explanation from what was started as a short apology. Anyways, sorry for my curtness & irritation. I'll respect the final arbcom decision as fair, because I know people have been looking at it again carefully. Derex 00:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Gibraltarian

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian

As per the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests, Uncle G's 'bot is ready to prepend this template to the talk pages for all IP addresses in 212.120.224.0/21. Just say the word. Uncle G 18:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

My condolences Congratulations on your reelection to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to you both.

BTW, Quadell, the EasyTimeLine you created is now wrong - it puts people where convenient, instead of which tranche we're actually in. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I blush to be so bold, but I think Jimbo actually got the tranche names wrong. Mark (Raul) changed the names since you made this comment. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and yay for continuity : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Easy win for you James. Knew you could make it. Congratulations! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom timeline

I think your changes to the Arbcom timeline make sense. By the way, I've wondered for a while, why don't you change your user name? All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem; as to the name change, well, you try getting the developers to change the name of a user with 10k edits or whatever. Anyway, I rather like having a seperate username and screen-name. :-)

James F. (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man

I see that that matter is going to arbitration. Can you explain what that means? Will there be submissions made by the parties? I will copy this to T-Man so he can see what I have communicated to you (am I supposed to speak to an arbitrator without notice to the other side?). Thanks in advance for any information you can supply. Dyslexic agnostic 02:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion Dyslexic agnostic 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost interview

Hello, James F.. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.

1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint yourself, Fred Bauder, and Jayjg? What would you say to those who opposed this decision?
6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
12. Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If some of the questions look familiar, feel free to skip them; I reused some questions from last time. Thanks!

Wheel war term

In a recent Arb case, you support a principle about wheel warring, yet say that the term is misguided. Is there some better term that you prefer? Radiant_>|< 07:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel war any help? Kim Bruning 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII Case

I saw that you voted before I made my statements. This is my fault. I wasn't aware of the articles. I just found out about the "Workshop" article today and have made edits there: [5]. Also, I made a statement on the Discussion page of the Proposed Decision page: [6] Thanks for your consideration. RJII 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, looking.

James F. (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

Hello, James F.. Just a friendly reminder that I would appreciate it if you would answer some of the interview questions above; I would love to have complete responses from all of you for Monday's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, James F.! I hope you don't mind, but I've got another friendly reminder for you. :-) Seriously, though, if you are interested in answering the questions, I'd love to have them back as soon as possible so we can include it in Monday's Signpost. If you're not interested, just let me know, and I'll stop sending you friendly reminders! :-) Thanks a lot; I really appreciate it! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, James F.! I noticed you were around, and just wanted to give you a last chance to answer the questions before we publish tomorrow. All of the 11 elected Arbitrators except you and Filioct, who's on Wikibreak, have responded; I would love to have replies from all of you. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A late congrats

I remain in awe of your ability to continue to fight the good fight at the AC. My heartfelt congratulations to you for continuing to serve in a thankless and overwhelming capacity. If a book is ever written about Wikipedia and what made/makes it work, I hope a decent corner of it is saved for you. Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 07:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, James. Thank you very much. That means a lot coming from you. But there are far more interesting and more suitable subjects for mention in a book about Wikipedia than me. :-)

James F. (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology Requested

For this comment. [7] Considering that contrary to your belief, Jimbo is not infallible, and recognized his error. [8]. My only mistake here wasn't talking more, if we don't follow and enforce policies, regardless of who we are, then they're worthless since double standards rapidly deteriorate into chaos. Jimbo violated WP:AGF and WP:BITE. My only regret is that I love Wikipedia because you and others like me can apparently take it away from me at any time without any real reason. Karmafist 17:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're complaining specifically about this:

No; wheel warring against Jimbo is such an egregious violation of common sense and community expectations that I can't see us really having the moral mandate in giving his privileges back to him. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you seriously think that I can sincerely "apologise" - that is, say that I should not have said such a thing - then, well, we obviously don't see even a dozen leagues away from eye-to-eye on the issue.

James F. (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

DA

I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

James F. (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you voted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision. I would strongly urge you to reconsider the 6-month ban of T-Man. I feel I am much to blame for his behaviour, and I truly believe that given a chance he will not again act inappropriately. Probation gives the admins sufficient control over him (and me) in case we step out of line again. I really feel badly for T-man and the current situation, and I fear a 6-month ban will mean a possible permanent loss of this obviously talented and comic-knowledgable individual. Dyslexic agnostic 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not to blame for others' actions. My job in such things is to look at what I believe, given what I have seen, will be an effective way of making Wikipedia better. I agree with you that T-Man could be a worthwhile asset to the project, but there are obviously problems right now in his edits and behaviour causing disruption; I do not believe that essentially "letting him off" - that is, letting him back onto the project immediately on the cessation of the case - will likely have an ameliorating effect on this. I have, however, endorsed the idea of a 1-month ban to achieve this, in conjunction with the Probation ruling that you mentioned.

I hope that this answers your point.

James F. (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Other discussion elements

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Welcome to the team, and congratulations.

James F. (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism Bill 2005

Hello, I noticed you edited the Prevention of Terrorism article, perhaps you can help the above article too? --bodnotbod 21:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Will try to help out.

James F. (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity overview

Hi James, I've set up this overview of Wikiversity as per Anthere's request (by email). You might like to take a look and modify as you see fit. Cormaggio ^@ 00:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do.

James F. (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

complete failure of wikipedia NPOV policy

This article Talk:Palestinian_exodus is a complete failure of wikipedia NPOV policy. Nearly 3 years ago it was anti-Palestinian. Now not a shred of that POV remain and it is completely biased to the other side. I have edited this article for a week, yet every single word i changed there got reverted by a coordinated revert gang which is able to circumvent in this way the 3RR rule. It seems that unless I am able to get a "gang" of my own:-) there is no point trying to get this article to be NPOV. slim and jayjg are involved yet they too do not make any contribution toward NPOV. This is not what Wikipedia is all about but it is what wikipedia has become.

I don't have the time or the organized manpower as the other side to go through the usual Wikipedia mechanism. These mechanisms have failed in this article. In 3 years not a single Wikipedia admin was able to make significant contribution to make this article NPOV. This is a symptom to other anti-Israel systematic bias that is spread all over wikipedia and I suggest you find a way to address it as I can't. Zeq 18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can really help you in "re-"inserting POV into articles. That's not what we do here.

James F. (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I only saw your reply today. The issue is not to "re-insert" a POV but to make the article NPOV. I understood policy as demanding that if there are two version of an historical event both versions should be on the article - Have I misunderstood ? Zeq 05:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Make_sure_this_page_is_descriptive, would be nice if you have 5-10 minutes to maybe help screw some heads on. Kim Bruning 23:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Kim sent me - Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Radiant_>|< 23:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, you two. Am looking...

James F. (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

CTO vs. CDO

Out of mere curiosity, where did you get the idea that Brion is "CDO"? All pages on Meta I can find - m:official positions, m:Wikimedia Foundation organigram and m:Chief Technical Officer - refer to him as the CTO.--Eloquence* 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ho-hum. My mistake, then. I could have sworn that Brion was CDO. One-off brain-slip that froze into certainty, presumably. Sorry for any confusion.

James F. (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

James

Thanks for adding the revised MoA and AoA to the relevant Wikimedia UK pages (although I think we still need to sort out the name :) ). There are still two things that's still concerning me before we go ahead and incorporate:

(1) Do you know what's at the heart of this concern about having an educational aim? (ie What are the statutory references or links about the problem?) I've searched the Charity Commission website and looked at a few other websites and bits of the law, and I can't see any issue there. If there's a genuine problem, I'm happy to accept that that is the case - but I would like to be sure, as on the face of it, it would be much more straightforward to go for the "educational" head of charity;

(2) Can we get a charity law expert (ie lawyer) to look at this before we incorporate? I think it's important to do this because as well-meaning as those familiar with company law and/or other charities are (and I include myself in the former!), that's not the same as being an expert, and I know from my work experience that if we don't take advice from experts where appropriate, things go wrong.

Kind regards, jguk 20:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

See meta, list.

James F. (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion dabate

Since you voted in the mete vote I'd like to bring your attention to this. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Belatedly. :-)

James F. (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I'm not expecting to be online as much over the next few days so...

-- Francs2000 09:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank you. And to you, and your kith and kin.

James F. (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Football World Cup move

As a contributor to football articles you may wish to vote at talk:Football World Cup Jooler 13:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

James F. (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

James - are you planning to put brief minutes of what we discussed last Sunday on the relevant meta-wiki page? If not, I'll add something myself - I think those unable to present would be interested in some of the edited highlights, jguk 19:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

After you selected the nodes

...did you try moving them around, Einstein? ed g2s • talk 15:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, dear.

*sighs*

James F. (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

your deletion of Template:User homosexual-no

This template was created by me (a lesbian) in response to a request at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality, and does not attack homosexual people but rather expresses an opinion about homosexual intercourse. Please read the rationale for the template's creation at Template talk:User homosexual-no. Also, see Template:User marriage man-woman and its talk page. Also, there is an open deletion debate on this template, so please do not delete it while debate is ongoing. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that others err in their judgement is not a basis by which to err yourself.

James F. (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So, is it okay for us to stifle any view we think is wrong on Wikipedia? Because last I checked, this wasn't the case. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to read WP:NOT.

Essentially, all of the templates on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sexuality must die. Painfully.

James F. (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the place to take care of that is at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes, not by speedily deleting individual templates you happen to disagree with. - AdelaMae <sup>(talk - contribs) 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why, exactly, should one have to go through a tortuous-verging-on-interminable discussion populated almost entirely by those who seek to turn Wikipedia into a playground when policy already requires one to remove such nonsense from the project? Wikipedia is not a soap-box.

James F. (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you are not the wikigod. And you were not entrusted wish adminship so that you could impose your whims or views on everyone else. When Jimbo decrees removal, then do it. Until then, you should play by the rules like everyone else, and wait for consensus at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. You say policy forbids this; that is hardly a consensus view. User boxes suck, but there is a valid reason people are pissed at Kelly's high-handedness. Fishboy 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, could you review something for me before I take it live?

User:Kim Bruning/voting, because Eloquence pointed out to me that we don't really have a version that didn't violate WP:BEANS before. So here's a page that describes when you CAN use voting. Kim Bruning 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Advice?

I am hoping to set up my own IRC room for wikipedians where the operators aren't quite as anal as the ops presently abusing the current room(s). You know, in the interest of free exchange of ideas. A novel approach? Any advice? Regards... Hamster Sandwich 02:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think that kicking someone from a channel for repeated personal attacks after being asked to stop is being "anal", well dear, you have a lot to learn.

And, why yes, that was another personal attack on me. Well done. You must be very proud.

James F. (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well You'll have to prove there was a personal attack against you on IRC. I don't remember mentioning anybodies name there, except to say that I agreed with the comments that SlimVirgin and Geogre had been making concerning the seemingly overwhelming opposition to these so called clerks, both in the process which they have been selected, and the functions they are to perform. I was making general comments as to my feelings that there is a huge potential for cronyism in the selection of the "Clerk Scouts". Since you were rushing to ban me rather than have a discussion which has very much to do with wikipedia, and its functions, you have stepped out of the mandate provided by the freenode people to stay ON TOPIC. Which I take to mean wikipedia discussion. Now answer me, did you have any say in promoting clerks yourself? It seems to me that you banned me in a fit of immature anger. Perhaps, because I was not spouting your "party line" like a good little crony, and instead had the temerity to actually voice an opinion that was not your own. I guess if you have no real talent for debate, banning me must have been the easy route out. Perhaps its as simple as that. Or perhaps, you had a fear that I might have actually been making some good points about this Bad Idea, and your banning me was a "circling of the ArbCom wagon" as it were. Hard to tell as it is. I would try to assume good faith in your actions, but its hard not smell that...caprice. Simple as that. If you want to run that IRC channel as your personal fief, perhaps its time for someone else to take your place. Sooner rather than later. I don't see any advice on actually creating a channel that would offer a more relaxed atmosphere, and less imperious operators (I quote you "You picked the wrong guy to piss off") so I will presume you are ignorant as to the process. As far as my comment "anal" which if you don't understand already it was meant to be shorthand for "Anal retentive behaviour", rather than for "Asshole". Calling you an "Asshole" would be, uhh, wholly innappropriate, so its right out. The "Asshole" part, I mean. Regards Hamster Sandwich 13:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1.0 Collaboration of the Week

Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores ^Talk 08:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist

replies on Karmafist's talkpage

The real issue with me on this now isn't the icons, but rather the thuggery of certain users, including some who posted below yours on my talk page. Is the Wikimedia Foundation really so frightened of one admin who disagrees with them that they have to sick a goon squad out to do their bidding? Or is it just some goons on a power trip looking to exert intimidation over someone, and "decrees" give them an excuse to do so? To me, it's a clear WP:IAR, in this case WP:CIVIL is broken to uphold WP:FU.

I can get a decent alternative on one of the userboxes i'm "edit warring" on, and I can likely get permission in regards to the Dem logo (I know several Democratic National Committee members), but I may conduct some civil disobedience just to stand up to those bullies even if I do go down that route, which i'd prefer. I haven't decided yet. What do you think, eh?

One thing's for sure -- if those dicks are able to rally up a mob and lynch me for standing up for what I believe in, Wikipedia will be a worse place for it. Karmafist 12:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's idiotic. The only possible reason why the Wikimedia Foundation would have such a policy is because they fear to be sued. If there's no chance of that, there's no reason for this dictate, unless Jimbo's dream has changed from "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" into "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the cheapest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language." And if people act like thugs, I will call them thugs. Good faith or not, there's no justification for their behavior, unless of course I am right, and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are basically meaningless and contradictory. Karmafist 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin IRC

Hey there, I was wondering if you could grant me access to #wikipedia-en-admins please? If you like, email me with the response. Thanks! enochlau (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied via email.

James F. (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin IRC

I would like access to the admin IRC channel. Thanks. Kaldari 22:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied via email.

James F. (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

add me to ur lsit!!!!!!!!1!!!!! --Tony Sidaway 07:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia AU

elements cross-posted

Hi James, some of the Australian cabal are thinking about setting up an Australian chapter of the foundation and an IRC channel would be very helpful for that. Apparently any freenode channel starting with #wikimedia is reserved for the foundation, so I've been pointed to you for help in setting one up. I think the preferred name would be #wikimedia-au, to fit in with the other chapter channels. I'd be pleased if you can help! --bainer (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll get a skeleton crew on it and hand it over to the appropriate people if you'd like some sleep, you know. Kim Bruning 22:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll let David handle it then :-) Kim Bruning 22:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Done; you're now a chanop (and channel alternate contact). Good luck. If you need anything, just shout.

James F. (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! --bainer (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedia and userboxes

Hi, I put the following question to David Gerard today:

On Jimbo's user talk page, February 6, you described the use of userboxes on the German Wikipedia:

'The way it works on de: apparently is that they only have userboxes for Babel and where you live. Everything else is in userspace. (e.g. note that all the really silly ones on my userpage are actually subst:ed)'

I guess I'll have to go and look at the thing myself, but in essence my question is this: does German Wikipedia have transcluded templates in userspace that many people link to just as they do on en to userboxes in template space, or are the boxes mostly inline (subst'd or copied)?

Wikipedia:Userfying userboxes which is about having trannscluded userboxes in userspace, proclaims the following:

• Jimbo thinks it's a good idea.
• The German Wikipedia did it, apparently

I queried both of those on the talk page on February 9 [9] and never got a satisfactory answer. The claims are still on the project page. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

David replied that you had told him at the last pub meet, so suggested that I put the question to you. I've looked at a few German user pages, but all I see so far (if anything) is babel and location boxes (This user lives in Munich", that kind of thing). --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ho-hum. I'm not sure about the "userfying" thing being used on w:de; I certainly don't recall such a conversation as David suggests. But then, that is the way with conversations in pubs, I would imagine. :-)

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

James F. (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to remember better where the heck I heard the de: thing then ... bloody hearsay. ALL PUB CONVERSATIONS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED ON THE WIKI. - David Gerard 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC #wikipedia-en-admins

I would like to join this channel please. Is this the correct place to ask, or is there a central page where these requests should be placed? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Contacted by email.

James F. (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Signpost story

I've drafted a story about the UK chapter's incorporation, which you're welcome to review at User:Michael Snow/Wikimedia UK chapter. In particular, please correct any American spellings I may inadvertently have used, given the subject matter here. Also, I wasn't always sure to what extent some people want their names connected with their Wikipedia identities. Anyway, if there's anything important that you think should be added, go right ahead. --Michael Snow 18:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Done a bit. Not sure if more needs to be said... Will see what David says.

James F. (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)