User talk:Swatjester/archive13

Garry Owen

Garry Owen to you on your RFA. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Blues and Royals, more like ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But Garry Owen is an Irish drinking song, so I figured you might recognize it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Hey Swat - I value your opinion and would like you to comment on this question if you have a moment: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Wikinews_Interviews_as_Reliable_Sources --David Shankbone 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know much about Wikinews and was asked to join it because the photography was getting too staid for me and I was considering leaving the project; not in a huff, but just in a "it's time to do other things" manner. The only thing that sounded appealing was an effort to record the views of notable people, but I wasn't sure how I could use those recordations on WP. I figured that it would be a learning process, especially since it hadn't particularly been done. --David Shankbone 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your interviews and the style, they read very well. Maybe be a little more selective about who you interview? It doesn't bode well when your interviewee suggests that Yitzak Rabin's assassination was coordinated by the christian right, or for instance that standard US naval deployments are damning evidence of an impending invasion of Iran. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Age

Thanks for responding to the candidate questions. That relieves a lot of my worries. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

National Legal Center for the Public Interest

Could you assist on something? You did a great job on mediating a dispute on the Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them page. Over on National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an organization that no longer exists, that it was funded by corporate sector for corporate interests (primarily). This really isn't a particularly controversial statement, and I have three sources. A user who likes to shadows my edits has taken issue with this. He feels it is a criticism and that including this New York Times story is a WP:WEIGHT issue. We've gotten to the point where we are both arguing the same thing over and over, and we could use a third opinion about it. My point to ATren is that if he would like to see the article cover more topics, that he should expand it; instead, he wants to contract it by removing the cited source. Could you weigh in with your opinion? --David Shankbone 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I can, however can you give me a few days and make sure to follow up? You picked right in the middle of my exam reading period. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I'm going to back away from the article because the argument keeps going 'round and 'round and 'round. Thanks Swat. --David Shankbone 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Please do not list articles for CFD with the sole rationale of "we have recently deleted other articles like this." See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please add at least a valid reason for deletion to your nominations. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. In response:

1.) These are not articles

2.) Precedence for CFD exists, see Wikipedia:Overcategorisation

3.) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is part of an essay (compare to Wikipedia:Overcategorisation, which is a guideline...)

A quick version of this is that categories (unlike articles) are an organisional grouping. And as such are dealt with that way. I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 20:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please then use valid deletion reasons, rather than "other things were deleted" which is not and has never been a valid deletion for anything. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) - And since you seem to be interested in articles, you may also wish to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, as another example of precedence.

There's also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion reason G4 (which deals with precedence directly).

And I note that on your user page you're interested in Arbcom, and may also wish to check out Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions.

Essentially, while there is no binding-ness in precedent (since, as I presume you know, Wikipedia:Consensus can change), referring to past discussions of consensus is valid in XfD discussions. So in other words: It's a valid reason. - jc37 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of precedent, and I'm aware of all of those pages. No need to throw them at me. However, it is still absolutely not a valid deletion reason per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "throwing" anything at you. I'm pointing out what you seemed unaware of, in order to clarify what you seemed not to know/understand by your accusations above.

And you may wish to re-read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. I'll quote an important sentence for you (emphasis mine.):

• "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:"

But all that aside, rather than accuse someone of having an "invalid nomination", why not express why you feel that the categories be kept? These are discussions after all. - jc37 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My reason for keeping is that no good reason for deletion has been presented. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of the above, what about the reason don't you find to be "good"? - jc37 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A) it's against the spirit of OTHERCRAPEXISTS and xFD guidelines. B) It doesn't even attempt to address the merits of the inclusibility of the category. We delete or keep things on their own merits, not the merits of others. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I respond, I'd like to ask: Do you participate much at WP:CFD? (Note that I'm not asking about WP:UCFD, which, while related, is a separate page.) - jc37 23:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I participate at all xFD's. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) - Well, the reason I ask is your comment of:

• "We delete or keep things on their own merits, not the merits of others."

AT CFD, we actually do take other categories in consideration. The difference between CFD and the rest of XfD is that categories are sets of groupings. And precedent exists at CfD because these are groupings. (Which is why I pointed you to the example of Wikipedia:Overcategorisation.) And there is a preference to have these groupings have a "current convention", without having the bureaucratic overhead of listing the convention of every single category.

So if it's been decided in the past that some "type" of category should be deleted, then precedence comes into play, and it requires a new consensus to over-ride that.

I'm explaining this because you seem unaware of this convention.

Now, I'll agree that I could have linked to those previous discussions, but I didn't out of convenience, since they occurred in the last month.

I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 07:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I find that misleading at best. At CFD, overcategorization is taken into consideration, and certain precedential rules are followed, but we do not simply delete a category because we have deleted other categories. We delete each on on their own merits; otherwise there would be no reason for nomination for deletion. While we may consider other things having been deleted in the past, that is never the sole reason for deletion; indeed it cannot be, otherwise we'd have wholesale deletion of useful categories because one solitary similar category was deleted at some point. There always has to be a reason, unless the nomination is in bad faith. This is universal to all deletion debates. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the confusion is best laid out in the following:

• "While we may consider other things having been deleted in the past, that is never the sole reason for deletion; indeed it cannot be, otherwise we'd have wholesale deletion of useful categories because one solitary similar category was deleted at some point."

The first part is obviously correct (up to the comma). "that is never the sole reason for deletion" is incorrect, based on precedent, G4, and any number of other examples (such as we've already discussed above). And the last part is a good example of crystal balling WP:WAX/WP:ALLORNOTHING.

Just remember that at CFD these are discussions, and not necessarily "deletion debates". I think that this may be the main confusion for you. It's often the case that someone who is active in AfD joins in a CfD discussion presuming that the discussion is merely a black-n-white keep/delete.

(You show this with the statement: "My reason for keeping is that no good reason for deletion has been presented.")

CfD is a discussion concerning the category and what should be done with it, which can include keeping, deleting, merging, renaming, recategorising, clarification of inclusion criteria, or other ways in which it may need to be cleaned up/clarified/modified/whatever. Though some may be "speedy" discussions, even speedy discussions last at least 2 days. So if someone has issues with the nomination, there's nothing wrong with offering other ideas. And if a person feels the nomination is groundless because of "x", then please explain how it is groundless. All the nominator has to do is express a concern about the category in question. It's up to everyone else to discuss the concern and the category.

I hope this clarifies more for you. - jc37 (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

D&D

You don't agree with the redirect? How come? The new list is a composite of the two older ones. Miremare 21:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Each list is well formed on its own, and is able to stand on it's own two feet. I'm not against a redirect per se, however. I've been informed by someone that we can have sorted lists now, so from one page you can select by platform, or by setting. I'd rather see that instead. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of what I did. ;) Miremare 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd still rather see them separate but if you want to go ahead and revert me, I won't revert further. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I made the new list as a result of a post at WT:CVG asking if we need two such lists and thought merging them into a sortable one would solve the problem, as well as adding the ability to sort by developer and release date (and alphabetical order, should anyone so wish!) to platform and setting. I'll revert back as you suggest/allow though I'll also start a request for consensus if you want, and if there are any concerns you have with the list I'll gladly address them. Cheers, Miremare 01:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. /me slaps head. I didn't see the WT:CVG discussion, there was an irc debate going on about those two lists, and I figured you were just acting from there. No, if there's been discussion at WT:CVG, I certainly won't try and stand in the way of it. And thanks for doing the work. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers, Miremare 18:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, once again

I'm delighted to have been given the mop, at your suggestion, and I'm already having fun using it. I'll be sure to ask you if I need any further guidance - let me know if you see anything I'm doing wrong, or could do better, or might like to try. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey

You there? Could you fly past IRC if you are - I need to talk to you about this mediation thing. Cheers, Daniel 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I got into a beef with an editor on the List of massacres page and somehow it has bled over into your ArbCom nomination. Never my intention and I apologize that you are in anyway involved in this. Yut.--Looper5920 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a worry. She's upset at me from a dispute we had long before that. And "Yut", I haven't heard that since my days at Mother B. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, 2

You are right with your message, and I wanted to thank you for the matter-of-fact, open way you brought it up. (I wrote a bit more about that on my talk page.) — Sebastian 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV on one of your speedy deletions

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAWNGAME. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GRBerry (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's RfC

I think you're a bit behind the curve in your responses to me, you might want to review the order of who said what, because the text you were responding to was superceded by later posts in both cases. ++Lar: t/c 07:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, didn't appear that way to me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] also, you replied directly to this: (emphasis added) So although this RfC has now been certified, I still feel that the information in this section could stand to be improved significantly. That's directed at all of this section not just your contributions, and is in tune with what I said before. Normally {{sofixit}} applies but in this case, I feel the onus is on those bringing the claims to do so. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC) which was way earlier than either of your comments, so your claim that I was claiming it wasn't certified would be incorrect. Surely you're not suggesting that giving links not subject to linkrot is a bad idea? That is ALL I'm suggesting and all I ever did suggest. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't see the first sentence. The other places I commented gave the impression you did not believe the RfC was certified yet. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jeeny

I must say you are demonstrating poor judgment, by your continuing to comment. The situation would have been diffused, if you would cease your commenting. Yet, you continue. Whatever your intention, to give helpful advice or otherwise, your continued comments appear to be an attempt to provoke the user. Jeeny has asked you several times to refrain from further comment, so why can't you just respect that? - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Jeeny is provoked by my comments is her own problem; my comments are neutral, helpful advice, and any reasonable objective person would not be provoked by them. It's symptomatic of what I believe is her excessive emotional attachment to Wikipedia which apparently is the reason why she cannot remain civil and refrain from personally attacking others. Whether she has asked me to refrain from further comment is not her decision to make: she lost the right to make that decision when she referred to that guy as a moron and trolled my candidacy. She involved herself in this discussion, and she will remain involved until she begins abiding by policy. As long as she continues to violate the rules, I will continue to give her warnings and/or block, as should any other administrator. As for your interpretation of my judgment, I'm sorry you feel that way, but had Jeeny ceased personally attacking people and being incivil, there would be no situation to diffuse. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. Why is it necessary to continue to say "last warning" for the same incident? Obviously, if there are further incidents of incivility, then further comments by you (or any admin) are necessary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to give her multiple chances before I block her, since obviously that caused problems last time. However, the multiple warnings are not for the same incident, they are for different incidents. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, every time you've said "last warning" or "only warning" in this section are relating to the same incident or incidents. If you feel it is appropriate to do that, okay, but you should realize that myself, and others, feel it is inappropriate and / or unnecessary. The fact you fail to realize that could cause a problem for you in the ArbCom election. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are misunderstanding me. They refer to multiple things. They refer to the initial personal attacks she made, that is incident #1. Incident #2 was her attacks on my candidacy page. Incident #3 was her continued comments on her talk page AFTER the warning. Incident #4 is the ill-considered AN/I thread. As for my ArbCom Election, how you choose to vote is your business; not mine. I only ask that you try to look at this from the objective viewpoint that Jeeny has been a recurring problem on this project, and thusfar the AN/I thread has shown support for my actions.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, and I understand the original warning that you gave. Like I've said, after the warnings, I didn't see the need to continue. It's just a difference in opinions. I agree, the warning was necessary, however, the manner in which you delivered it, was not. This is my opinion, and a user who has responded at ANI seems to agree, evident from this diff.. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That diff does not state the users agreement; it states that they don't know. As for the manner in which I delivered it, I believe you and I will have to agree to disagree. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While it does not state the users agreement, there is clear hesitation. I am surprised that doesn't tell you anything. I've thoroughly explained the potential problems with your behavior, and have no further comments. Good luck. - Rjd0060 (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't tell me anything because it's not obvious whether there is hesitation, or a failure to investigate. Either way, your comments are noted, and best of luck to you as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

cavalry tactics

cattle is usually not considered cavalry, but their tactical role in Africa was the same as cavalry so it is legit to mention this somehow. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See, I didn't read it as such, I read it as more of a tactic to startle other cavalry. In any event, use of cattle would be more similar to dragoons than to cavalry (i.e. they don't ride into battle on the cattle, rather they use them to support their fighting). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lakewood yeshiva

You have modified the Lakewood yeshiva article based on a legal decision. These allegation is unjustified and is ones personal agenda, as the official Lakewood township site has information that has been deleted from the above article. This is an attempt by someone in charge at Lakewood Yeshiva to remove things they don't like but are in fact not harmful in any way. Please explain why and on what basis they were removed. --Shmaltz (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is not. It was based upon a complaint to the OTRS system. Please do not make presumptions based on information you do not have access to. Due to privacy concerns I cannot give you any further information. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you misunderstood me, I did not accuse you, but the person filing the complaint. What I am saying is that the person that filled the complaint is acting not on behalf of what he claims he is - homeland security - but on behalf of someone in Yeshiva, it just happens to be that he has a badge and I don't. As evidence I have showed you the link to Lakewood TWP site that has more information that is currently on the wp article. If it would be a homeland security problem, why is that not gone?--Shmaltz (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the sender of the ticket, sorry. I will say that on the face of it, the credentials check out, and while not all of the requests were granted, some of them involved things that we do delete revisions for, such as disclosure of personal information. It does not matter whether or not the information is available on other sites if it is against policy to include here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can hear that. Which parts qualified as personal information? The names in the faculty sections should NOT qualify as such, since they all have WP articles of their own. Why were all the stuff that had nothing to do with personal info deleted, including:

1. faculty section?
2. Chabura system with the photo that came with it?
3. Study sessions?
4. Photo for the tumelt day section, this photo has been reduced to quality where not a single face is identifiable.
5. Facilities section?

Thank you.--Shmaltz (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot go into any further detail without divulging the information regarded in the ticket. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please at least say against which policy this is? Sorry, but the way I see it, someone with a badge sold you the Brooklyn bridge. He just made up some stuff and you bought it.--Shmaltz (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote: I will say that on the face of it, the credentials check out, and while not all of the requests were granted, some of them involved things that we do delete revisions for, such as disclosure of personal information I know the credentials check out, and that is exactly my point. It was done based on the credentials and as far as I can see not on the content or validity of his claim. Please just tell me what other things you delete revisions for, as I'm trying to understand this. Thank you.--Shmaltz (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CBLANK which states: From time to time, a discussion about an article will have a majority of its content that, in the judgment of the community may potentially cause harm to some person or to some organization. This harm can range from invasion of privacy, libel or emotional distress. Due consideration should be given if the person or organization in question requests such blanking. In order to avoid having such text in the most recent version and thus be indexed by search engines, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy. For AfDs, the entire debate can be replaced with the afd-privacy template; the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In more serious cases, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed after due consideration is given to fairness issues.

I received the ticket, reviewed it with fair consideration, and history blanked the article. As I've said repeatedly before, the action was taken based upon information provided within the complaint. The information was credible enough to warrant the blanking. As is standard for responses to legal complaints to the foundation, it's not up for further discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.--Shmaltz (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI

just think cucumbers Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Or bananas. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny

If you look at User talk:Jeeny#Continuing our discussion, you'll see she has agreed to follow all guidelines relating to civility and AGF. She seems to have calmed down, and is willing to work with me to resolve conflicts before they escalate. I've posted this to FT2, too. Jeffpw (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much Swatjester. I am taking this very seriously. I feel my own reputation is on the line, as well, and will do my best to be a good mentor. Jeffpw (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You've done a great job thus far, and I'm impressed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

SWATjester, can you unprotect my user page? Nevermind, I see why she felt it may need protection. But, I'd like to edit my userpage. Thanks. - Oh no, it's Jeeny ^(talk) 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, your sig looks really bad on Firefox, but great in IE. Just in case you didn't know that. I wonder which one you like. lol. - Oh no, it's Jeeny ^(talk) 05:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User page appears unprotected, or rather dropped to semi. As for my sig, It looks great in firefox on Mac for me, but looks blocky and splotchy in Safari. I think it's getting time for a sig change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:P R Resolution

Thank you, I'll have the pictures ready for Wikipedia by tomorrow. Senators Juan E. Hernandez Mayoral and Jorge I. Suarez Caceres were there among a lot of other people representing the three political parties. They also want me to go to PR this coming May to give a speech (with expenses paid). Man, it was a real surprise. I went by myself and didn't take my family because I thought that I was only going to meet McClintock and that's all. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Strange that they kept you in the dark about the whole thing, but I'm impressed!⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the links! I'm not sure why you added the link to Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as a mediation example - that page has mainly Action potential (talk · contribs) as a contributor for the last 500+ edits. Did you mean to add the link to a mediation case? — Sebastian 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant it as an informal mediation example. I mediated that article before it went to ArbCom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not visible at all from the link. Maybe you can create a subpage in your user space that describes what you did, and link to that? — Sebastian 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in the talk page archives for the article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, please provide the correct link. — Sebastian 08:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you did that, thank you! You were indeed quite involved in that case! — Sebastian 23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

fa2 link

Please stop removing the FA2 link in Firearms (computer game). The project is mentioned several times in the article and therefor should be mentioned in the external links section. Furthermore, I request you help me with rewriting the "Controversy" part, as it is not written from a neutral point of view. LSky (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FA2 is a separate, unrelated project. Wikipedia is not a place for linkspam. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FA2 is NOT an unrelated project. You know this as well as I do. Please stop removing information from this article. Furthermore, the request of helping to rewrite the controversy part stands. LSky (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, FA2 IS a completely unrelated project. It has no actual rights to the firearms name, it's not the official follow-up to Firearms. It's just a mod trying to cash in on the Firearms 1 team's hard work. YOU know this as well as I do. The article is about FA 1. FA2 is commercial linkspam unrelated to FA1.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate question

In one of your responses to candidate questions, you wrote this about me: "Everyking's desysopping, I believe, was more a result of the fact that he intended to publically post information that was deemed to be sensitive and private (and had been removed), rather than the place that he would have posted it. (I'm going from memory here, but I recall that he did not actually get around to posting the material)." This is false and harmful to my reputation, and I would like you to rewrite or remove it. To say that I "intended" to post the material (when I merely suggested the possibility and then declined to act on it) and that "did not actually get around to posting the material", as if I would have if I had more time, is a damaging misrepresentation of events. You are of course free to think whatever you like about my desysopping, although if you are basing your belief on such a serious misunderstanding of the situation, I would hope you'd reconsider your view. Everyking (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're arguing semantics, and the substantive point is the same: it wasn't about where it would have been posted, it was about that you would have posted it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not post it, so what grounds do you have to say that I would have? Do people ordinarily do anything they suggest and muse about? Besides, I am not concerned about the principle of the point you are making in your candidate response, I'm concerned with the effect it has on me for people to be spreading around false impressions of events. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're not concerned with the principle of the point I'm making in the candidate response, why does this matter? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I explain that? I wrote: "I'm concerned with the effect it has on me for people to be spreading around false impressions of events." Everyking (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And as I said before, I don't believe it's a false impression of events, I believe the difference between the version I've stated and the version you've stated is semantics. However, in acknowledgement of your concern, let me look back at my statement to find a way that I can reword it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Modified. Better? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mirandargh

This is a legitimate sock of Miranda. Check the logs. I (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked Mirandargh, just letting you know that I've reversed your admin action. Hopefully this isn't a bad thing. :) Miranda mentions this sock explicitly on her userpage. Not that this was more than a human mistake, but I'm sure she'd appreciate a quick apology. Cheers, Nihiltres^{t.l} 04:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A chance

I don't think it would be much of a surprise for you to know that as it stands now, I would likely oppose your nomination for arbcom.

Though likely not for the reason(s) you may think, It's not because you claimed a nomination of mine was "not valid", nor for your "vote" to overturn. It's because in those instances, it was almost like pulling teeth to get you to convey the "why". You never did clarify your "point" at the UCFD discussion (though you did somewhat on your talk page), and your comments at the DRV seemed (at least) "stressed". And in all, you came across (perhaps unintentionally) "short", overbearing, and closed to discussion. (A sense of: "I'm right, you're wrong, now go away and leave me alone...")

And for me, being able to denote and convey "the why" is vital to a member of ArbCom. Else how is one to understand how another discerns, how another is expressing themselves, and how that is being interpreted. In my opinion, it is imperative that this is a skill/talent/developed ability of a cantidate.

That said, as I look over the things you're involved in, and the responsibilities you've carried, perhaps I've been too hasty to ascribe you to not having attined such a developed ability. (This could be just due to this set of localised incidents, after all, and not represent the who of who you actually are.)

I would like to hope that I'm an open-minded individual, and perhaps I've missed something. So similar to what you're doing on your "portfolio" on the template, I'd ask you to do something for me:

Would you provide several links here showing where you feel that you were at your best at discussion. For example (but not limited to) Where you openly offered to help, and the "how" of implementing that help. Where you positively joined a discussion to help as a "fellow Wikipedian", and strong consensus came of it. It doesn't have to be an XfD discussion, we have a myriad number of discussions throughout wikipedia.

If you choose to, thank you in advance. If not, I would understand that as well. - jc37 08:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly had to look back to figure out who you were and what our debate was about. Certainly doesn't seem worthy of an oppose to me. Anyway, if you thought it was like pulling teeth for you, imagine how it felt for me? Also please note that you did eventually understand my point on my talk page, when you asked for clarification on it. Barring things like OTRS actions, I've been largely open to explaining my actions when questioned about them. See just a few sections up on this page, where I explained something on my candidate statement to User:Everyking, and after listening to his complaint, worked out a compromise statement with him. As for other examples, you can look to the NLP mediation I conducted, more recently Talk:United_States_Army#Weapons through "simplified edit" for our discussion and strong consensus on a change to the article. Other cases are more subtle, and emblematic of much of conflict resolution work being related to OTRS actions. For instance, see recently Beth Medrash Govoha, which due to an OTRS legal complaint I had to delete nearly all of the article's history, as well as some edits that other users were not pleased with. After discussion on my talk page, which was continued through email between myself, the OTRS-en-l list, Jimmy Wales, and the parties involved, we finally got the problem worked out in a way that satisfied both the ticket complainant, and the article editors (and the OTRS-en-l list which was concerned with the GFDL status of the deleted revisions). Much of that you'll have to take my word on, though if you are an admin you can view the deletion history on that page. Please also consider Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007#Age_limit.3F in which I discussed an age limit on candidates. That discussion sparked Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007#Ruling_on_age_limit by the committee. I strongly believe that your statement "That said, as I look over the things you're involved in, and the responsibilities you've carried, perhaps I've been too hasty to ascribe you to not having attined such a developed ability. (This could be just due to this set of localised incidents, after all, and not represent the who of who you actually are.)" is accurate. Much of my time spent on OTRS is answering tickets from very angry people who are upset about something they don't like on Wikipedia, and do not know nor want to know our policies, they want results. It's very difficult, and an extremely thankless job, to try and help them. Just as much, the hours devoted to the communications committee, drafting and re-drafting press releases and internal communications, or the hours within the legal department spent reviewing contracts and answering subpoenas and helping law enforcement agents, often times having to tell them no, when they don't want to hear that....I think I've met my burden of positive discussion and helping people, even if you can't see it. I am not asking for your thanks. I'm only asking for your informed vote, and if you are going to vote oppose, and it's on the basis that the above is not compelling to you after having read it, that's your decision.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen A Few Good Men? In reading your sysnopsis above (and I'll admit I haven't checked through the links yet), I felt as If I was (re-)witnessing something similar to Jack Nicholson's speech on the stand. ("I am not asking for your thanks." - in particular)

But rather than further attempt to try to understand your tone, I'll be honest with myself, and realise that by explaining that I was already leaning to oppose your cantidacy, it may have framed this request as adversarial, which wasn't my intention.

I am sorry to hear that dealing with OTRS is so stressful for you, and I do hope that it lessens in the future for you.

Anyway, I just thought I should comment, before going on to reading through the links which you generously offered. Thank you for that, by the way. - jc37 09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen the movie, and didn't view it as adversarial. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Judicial hellhole restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at the Arbcom vote

Hi Swatjester - You made a curious comment on your ArbCom vote. I expected that many users would regard my lack of logged-in editing as a negative (to be honest, I have no expectation of being elected, chiefly for this reason). However your comment "seems out of touch with today's Wikipedia" completely caught me by surprise. If you have the time I'd be grateful if you could explain how you came to that opinion. Cheers Manning 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah - that was more to do with using IRC :) I haven't used IRC in over six years and couldn't remember the conventions, and was also clueless on Wikipedia IRC customs. I am also fairly ignorant as to the inner technicalities of MediaWiki (which is unlikely to change) and my problem was to do with userids and historical data. It even took Tim Starling a while to figure it all out, so I didn't feel too dumb in the end. But thanks for your reply - appreciated. Cheers Manning 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani block

I didn't follow the case but I think he is upset by all this stuff and particularly by the endless disputes around the Arab-Israeli conflict related articles...
Don't worry for that and have a nice day ;-) Ceedjee 11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

userpage

Your userpage is possibly the greatest thing I've ever seen in my life. what's the chance you'd give me permission to steal it and format it for myself, considering I am a HUGE addict to a social networking site the page bears a striking resemblence in my imagination to?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Provided you don't also steal my friends! Or my barnstars – Gurch (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if it really is the greatest thing you've seen in your life, you need to get out more. You can start by looking at Commons:Commons:Featured pictures – there's a whole world out there! :) – Gurch (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova stuff

I read the incident recently featured on Slashdot, and I just wanted to thank you for your continual questioning. Reading through the entire page, it seemed like you were the constant voice of skepticism when there was a lot of shady support for a shady incident. So thanks.--- Bob 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's evolved so far beyond my initial skepticism that I barely even know what's going on now. I've gracefully bowed out of any more discussion simply because I don't know all the details anymore and don't want to make incorrect statements or look dumb. But thanks for your notice. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

BallenIsles

Someone tried to delete your BallenIsles article. I have adjusted it slightly and hope it may be saved. Season's greetings.76.108.172.100 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My votes

It's an interesting situation. I'd like to publicly show that I support the candidate, but that I also oppose the candidate. I don't actually feel neutral. Now, I understand that my method is unusual - and I can see the sense in an indentation. But I don't quite get the thinking behind a total reversion which has the effect of hiding my views totally. I'll remove my "votes" myself if you can point me to a guideline which says that is the way my action should be treated. I'd be interested in opening a discussion on this with the community is there isn't a current guideline to get some consensus. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply, you're not allowed to vote twice for the same candidate, that's a duplicate vote. Your vote has the effect of directly hurting a candidate. Think about it. Say I have 1 support, and zero opposes. After you come in, I have Two supports and One oppose. What you claim "cancels each other out" actually significantly hurts me: I've just dropped from 100% to 50%. The negative vote will stick, only the positive vote cancels out. Similarly if I 2 supports and 1 oppose, placing me at 66%, your vote would make it 3 support 2 oppose, placing me at 60%. It hurts the candidate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the process of dealing with an ineligible vote that I'm interested in. Should the response be a revert or an indent? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Because a revert is a blunt tool that causes offence, and because indenting still leaves the comment/vote as part of public evidence during the running of the vote. The duplicate/simultaneous vote may have been a protest vote, or may have been made for other legitimate reasons. I support and agree with you that the voting should be confidential. However, the current system uses a public voting system, with the flaws and benefits that brings. As you indicate yourself, this public method means that the very act of how previous voters behave has an impact on subsequent voters. Removing someone's comment/vote therefore has an impact on the outcome of the vote and needs to be considered seriously. Would you agree? SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 19:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion causes offense? That's funny, because we have a thing called WP:BRD, which says reversion is perfectly ok. We also have a little message every time you edit an article that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." If you are taking offense to being reverted, you're in the wrong place. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'll say what needs to be said: SilkTork, your two vote thing, and its reasoning, is silly. You are thinking too much about it. Vote for, or against, or don't vote at all and be done with it. Stop being pseudo-intellectual about the whole thing. --David Shankbone 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts

Hi there. I noticed an exchange at The Tranhumanist's RfA, and rather than jump in there (more than enough comments there already), I thought I'd raise it here. I agree with what CBD said here. For a case similar to that described in Q10, see this warning and advice I posted. I suspect some people would have just slapped an indefinite block on, but I think my edit summary demonstrates why I didn't. In this case, it is not vandalism-only, as there was a genuine edit. In the Q10 case it is difficult to label an account with one edit outside of an attempt to write an article as vandalism-only. Would you agree? Are you saying that the hypothetical account in Q10 in that RFA is a vandalism-only account? Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Upon deleting a totally non notable garage band's attempt at getting an entry into Wikipedia, (the entry consisting entirely of the idea that they'll be big in 2008, and a link to their Myspace "official site"), the article creator decides your user page would look better off it it just said "The Transhumanist is a gay fucker". These are the editors only contributions. Block or no block? Why? Pedro : Chat 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)"

Yes. After the deletion, the account's only contribution is a vandalism to your page. Hence, it's a vandalism only account. We don't need to be coddling trolls like this: anyone who thinks that the proper response when your page is vandalized is "XXXX is a gay fucker" needs to be blocked. We should not be tolerating that sort of behavior in the slightest. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So this is based on whether deleted contributions count or not. The attempt to contribute an article should not be discounted, in my opinion. Maybe that needs clarifying in policy or guidelines? As for the other points, I'll quote what CBD has just said elsewhere:

Looking at this guy there are really only three possibilities;

1. He never comes back - doesn't matter whether he is blocked or not.
2. He comes back and acts disruptively - This is actually made more likely by a block, though of course he'd have to use a different account name if it was an indef block. In any case, if future disruption is significant... someone will block him. If it's a random 'hit and run' insult... do we really care? We actually lose ground if we 'escalate' minor problems.
3. He comes back and contributes positively - Granted, this is probably the least likely outcome... but why prevent it when doing so doesn't really gain us anything?

Another point I think needs to be made is that if seeing people post "XXXX is a gay fucker" upsets you, then that is not the best state of mind in which to decide on the next step to take. If others can handle things in a calmer manner, why not let them? Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Upsets me? No. Why would it upset me if XXX person is a gay fucker? I don't care a whit about their lifestyle choice. Does it violate policy? Yes it does, and we should take immediate action to prevent this user, who appears to have every indication of being a vandal, from insulting more people. How do you see that as equating towards being upset? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that it is the fact that people are posting offensive stuff that may be upsetting, not what they are posting. In other words, the people best placed to decide what to do when someone posts something offensive are not those who see the act of posting offensive material as a great crime. What is needed is people who can step back and look at the bigger picture. Has the user been warned? Have they been told about the policies? Are they new here? Have they done this before? Do their contributions include potential good edits (including their deleted edits)? Have a look at what WP:BLOCK says:

Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning."

Do you see how what you are suggesting go against what is said there? The phrase "main or only use" in that quote was neveer intended to apply to accounts with only 4 or 5 edits. As the Transhumanist said, it is persistent misbehaviour that should lead to an indefinite block, not a single incident. The first step should always be to see what attempts have been made to communicate. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No I don't agree with that at all. From WP:BLOCK "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking". Warning is done with the intent of giving notice that a user is doing something wrong. Do you honestly think a user that posts "You are a gay fucker" believes he is doing something right? Prior notice is not necessary in such instances when the user clearly understands that there is no possible way what they are doing can be within policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole sentence should be quoted: Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking." For a comment like that, a final warning would be justified. If they do it again, then block for a short period of time. This is what I would do if you started behaving like this, and I don't think new accounts should be treated any differently. I wouldn't block you indefinitely if you behaved like that. And I wouldn't block a new account indefinitely either. Can you at least understand the reasoning behind that, and respect it? Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hang on. Sorry. I think I'm confusing this discussion with some others I'm having elsewhere. I've suddenly started mentioning indefinite blocks, but I've realised you haven't said how long you would block for in a case like this. If you wouldn't block indefinitely, my apologies. If you would, then carry right on with the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

TT RfA

Hi there.

Hope you're well and the elections aren't stressing you out too much. Just as a voter, they're exhausting - I take my vote extremely seriously and really check out the candidates before slapping my name on.

Hope you don't mind if I stop by and mention that you've puzzled me. I thought Q10 was a pretty odd RfA question because IMHO there actually is no real right or wrong answer (well, within reason). There are admins who would block such an account on sight and I wouldn't view that as an abuse of the tools. Other admins would take AGF to the extreme and warn.* Frankly, I'd rather have new admins erring on the side of leniency with the block button; I don't think TT's answer was truly awful. At worst, it was perhaps a little naive, but then everyone's inexperienced with the tools before they, erm, get the tools. :-)

Finally, it looks like TT's 3rd RfA is going down the pan, like the previous ones. I think it's a shame. The guy sometimes argues things incorrectly (hey, we all do that) but is man enough to admit when he's wrong. I think his manner has got up the noses of people in the past which has gone against him. Having been here for a while, I think this is a common problem for Gnomey admin candidates.

In my book, you're fair-minded and I respect you as a Wikipedian. I have this opinion because I've delved into your edit history and I like what I see... and I'm off in a mo to act on what I've seen. I'm sure (no sarcasm here, just sincerity) that similarly you did look at TT's edit history before signing at RfA, but I'd like to invite you to take a few moments and have another review of his recent edit history (say, some period between the last RfA and when I invited him to start thinking about adminship again). Please drop me a line at my talk page to let me know if you think he is or isn't trustworthy. I say my talk page, because after 2.5 not-so-pleasant RfAs, I think TT's had enough stick without me inviting more (in the eventuality you hold by your current opinion that he can't be trusted with the tools.

Hope you don't mind this request and I certainly hope you don't feel offended. I make no assumption you'll change your mind, but I want to know where my error of judgement is - that I could twice trust someone to the extent that I'd nominate them... yet the community deems untrustworthy.

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

*for what it's worth, personally, I'd have blocked. But I'm relatively new to the mop and a few months back... I'd have warned.

I agree with you that it's a shame that his RFA is going down. I opposed him last time, but with most candidates, I forgive them their past transgressions from prior RFA's unless they show they haven't learned. I don't see that he hasn't learned, but I do strongly disagree with the question 10. I'm not offended, and I don't view it as a lack of trust per se. I would actually trust him with the tools because we can always simply desysop him. However, I have to oppose simply because I think his answer doesn't show the kind of viewpoint that I would like to see, which is less coddling of blatant vandals. You said one statement that struck me though. "I think his manner has got up the noses of people in the past which has gone against him." This is absolutely true. However, I don't have a prior history with him, so I want you to understand that is not my problem. Further, those sorts of people are generally not worth thinking about. Everyone knows who they are, and more importantly, everyone knows who the people who AREN'T like that are. For instance, W.marsh and I had a disagreement back in the day over an OTRS action I took. He to this day believes I was wrong, but still supported my arbcom candidacy, because he doesn't let one interaction weigh him down. That is the kind of attitude that we need to see perpetuating throughout wikipedia. If Transhumanist runs again in the future, he'll once again have a clean slate with me, and I'll judge solely based on his actions between RFA 3 and RFA 4. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough and considered response. Just to clarify, if his record and RfA was otherwise entirely spotless, would that answer to Q10 prompt you to oppose? --Dweller (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably yes, though to be completely honest if his record and RFA were otherwise entirely spotless I likely wouldn't have voted.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

lol. I'll leave you alone now. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Ok, I wasn't sure you'd time with law school and all, but your new (adapted) user page has convinced me that you'll have time. Incidentally, where are you getting the updated vote tallies, or is it your own script? Cool Hand Luke 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections. Gurch's user page is amazing. Cool Hand Luke 06:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Yes it is. I don't know if WCL is different that other law schools, but I certainly have a great deal of free time here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusing comment

"I'm very glad you posted the email, it was the right thing. Unfortunately, that would be unacceptable for an arbitrator."

Are you saying that doing the right thing is unacceptable? Or that you don't trust his judgement on what is the right thing, even though he got it right this time? —Random832 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I believe that posting the email was the right thing for him to do. However, posting private emails, while the right thing to do maybe for a user, is absolutely unacceptable as an arbitrator. So he did the right thing, but because the right thing involved doing something that indicates a lack of trust for sensitive material, I cannot support him for arbcom; even though his actions have greatly raised my respect level for him. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Still confusing. He's made it clear in his answers to questions that he would view ArbCom communications as sacrosanct. Thus your reasoning for opposing is confusing. Mr Which^??? 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. While you've said it's the right thing as a user but unacceptable as an arbitrator, you're ignoring the fact that he was an ordinary user when he did it and has unequivocally stated he would not as an arbitrator. —Random832 15:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And based on his words, I'd agree with you. Except, I'm not ready to trust his words yet. While I morally applaud his decision, his actions (despite his assurances that he would not do the same as an arbitrator) do not inspire trust. Think of it like this: There is very little a single arbitrator can do to hurt the arbitration committee. They can be abusive or banhappy, but such things would be overruled by the other arbitrators since you need a majority for a remedy to pass. What they CAN do is post private information, which as an arbitrator is unacceptable even if it is the morally responsible and right thing to do. Therefore, while Giano is a great candidate and has no problems in any other area as far as I'm concerned, (he could even have been say, a relatively abusive admin) and I would be proud to have a person of his moral character on arbitration committee, based on my personal principles I cannot support him. Besides, I'm running on a platform of trust and safekeeping of private material; it would be hypocritical for me to support him, even though I morally applaud Giano's actions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Moulton

Hey Swat, I think the reason that KC is a party to the Request for ArbCom is because Moulton himself believes that KC is some sort of a leader in the great cabal over at the Wiki-Intelligent Design project. It was this cabal that apparently is responsible for him being banned. Just a quick FYI. Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny

That's the story with User:Jeeny? I stumbled across the fact that User:Jeffpw is her (new as of a week ago) mentor when he advocated for her in a somewhat odd way. She seems to express herself in very emotional and black&white moralistic terms. --Pleasantville (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The story is a little longer and more complicated than just the Jeffpw mentorship. I'm more than happy to fill you in on the story via email (to avoid inflamming a further debate about it here that I have no interest in being involved in). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh, you'll be "more than happy" to fill her in? Why does she need to know about ME regarding editing of the Meier suicide? My "very emotional" concerns on the Meier article has nothing to do with the case, but for Wikipedia's guidelines for articles. Look at her user page, there is a link to her blog where she has a strong opinion about this Meier case. I do not have a stong opinion on the case, and am not emotional about it. My "emotional" concern is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source or blog. That's my argument, and others agree. Please do not go that route and talk about me in private email that does not have to do with this issue. Do you really believe that is ethical, or the right thing to do? What do you expect to accomplish? Is it help Wikipedia? Think of the answers, you don't have to answer them to me Sorry I posted in haste. - Jeeny ^(talk) 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		It seems impossible you have never been awarded a barnstar. Someone who gives. A lot. David Shankbone 07:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Layout

I asked Gurch, but he said it was your layout and therefore to ask you, so here I am. I am currently using the same layout as you, with some additions and removals I have made. I am quite happy to give full credit if you tell me where - my question is if you would please allow me to use it? Thanks. ☺ Asenine ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I got it from Gurch ;) Of course, simply copy it over and fill in the subpages. I'll ask that you leave the attribution history at the bottom intact, and simply add to the end of it that you got it from me (as I had added that I got it from Gurch). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A visit from the past

Hi there. I see your name frequently while editing, so I thought of dropping by and saying hi. That is, if you remember who I am. :P Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course! It's good to see you back, I actually saw you somewhere on a page yesterday and thought maybe it was a fluke or an imposter account, but nope! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm back. Trying to start contributing like I did in the old days. P.S. Nice userpage, puts mine to shame. Even though you spirited it away from Gurch. :) Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and;

		The Original Barnstar
		'tis the season of giving, after all... keep up all the good work! Master of Puppets Care to share? 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha thanks a lot. When the elections are over, I'm changing username over to User:SierraSix, so make sure you remember ;) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do! Also, you've got quite the arsenal there, according to SierraSix's userpage... I vow to never anger you. :) Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 17:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, thanks, but I've moved to a city that outlaws even thinking about guns, so it's all safely tucked away in a bag with family. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks a lot for the bright shiny thing that showed up on my talk page! It was really kind, very unexpected, and means a lot to me coming from you. I'm glad we have been able to work through past conflicts and work together harmoniously on a project that obviously means a lot to both of us. Jeffpw (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, and your help and congeniality frankly surprised me too (in a good way.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

rfar comment

Just seeking clarification on "begs the question" - i.e. which question is being begged. (Note I also queried a vote that agreed with mine on a different question which was also unclear, so this is in no way a challenge) Orderinchaos 06:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That physchim abused power. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

testing

Whoa- does that happen automatically? Have to test. Tvoz |talk 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WOW. Tvoz |talk 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments automatically showing up on your wall when they're entered here. I'm impressed. Tvoz |talk 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TRANSCLUDE. When you leave a template on a page, it's basically the same thing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But not as cool. Thanks for the pointer . Tvoz |talk 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Parma, Ohio

Dear Swatjester, a while back I worked with you with an alternate account of mine (Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?) on the Parma, Ohio article. Anyway, I recently saw on national news channels coverage of an incident in Parma pertaining to some kind of unidentified object. I first noticed it on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, but I did some searches online and it appears to have received fairly widespread attention. Anyway, I added a small section to the article at [2] and thought it be worth seeing if you had any ideas on if additional sources are needed or if the section should be expanded. All the best! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Refs look good. Creepy, but good. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the response!  :) Unfortunately, Mycroft.Holmes is once again removing anything new anyone adds to the article. I warned him not to that and he just removed my warning and someone else's note. Wizardman warned him about violating 3RR, something for which Mycroft had been blocked twice for, but he just removed that one as well. Thus, I started a discussion on Wizardman's talk page, as I planned on doing some more clean ups and reference fixes to the article, but now I am concerned that 1) Mycroft will just come along and revert it and 2) that it could be incorrectly perceived as revert warring. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with adding in the ghost ref as well. Go for it. Wizardman 05:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if he's removing the warnings he's obviously aware of them. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. I have improved the sections on the Witch Hunt, gas station ghost, popular culture, and references by reorganzing and adding additional references, as well as revising some text. I hope that you like these improvements and thanks again for the time and help in developing this article! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ballen Isles

Controversy still rages about your Ballen Isles article. Do you have any comments? 76.108.172.100 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I think it's keepable, but I don't really care that much. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Avilla came to the rescue. Is Avilla a mate of yours?76.108.172.100 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, of sorts, yes. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi.

Why halo thar. :o --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A brief return to troll the ArbCom elections. You? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, losing my run for ArbCom elections. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The percentages don't look good, do they? I must say, I'm surprised at how low Adam's is, and how bloody high FT2's is. I would have thought he would have mid-80s, kind of like KISS. Well, look at the bright side... you've got Jeepday beat. Poor guy. Also, while I'm on the topic... does Giano's run say something about the current divisions within Wikipedia? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano's run absolutely is a statement about the divisions within Wikipedia (whether he knows it or not). The amount of support and opposition to it is testimony to that. I mean, just read the comments. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to make a barnstar for all the people who are going to end up losing. "I ran for Arbitrator and all I got was this stupid barnstar." Good idea? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, sure. Any serious candidate should get one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The only "not-serious" canidate left is Jeepday, and he deserves that barnstar. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Endlessdan is not serious...⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. Stone cold chillin is not serious business? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No more so than the internets being serious businesses. If you have to be serious about stone-cold chillin, then you're no longer stone-cold chillin. You're simply stoned. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes I am! --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 19:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You should probably get on IRC sometime today and ping me. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It will be this evening. What is your IRC nick? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My Wiki username, same as always. I've still got an active hostmask too, unexpectedly. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, cocks. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 00:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We ridin spinnaz???⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dey don't stop. But for srs. Comment. Here's the first step to ArbCom election salvation. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 02:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 03:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

arar article

Hello Swatjester, I see that you have reverted not only my reverted edit of the Maher Arar article, but the justification for that reversion on the talk page.

It is difficult for me to understand both changes. I will confine this particular discussion to the reversion of what i wrote on the discussion page for the article:

According to the talk page guidelines, a discussion page is a place "for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." Under the central points provision, the guidelines state that a discussion page is a place to, among other things,

• communicate (i.e. explain a change for instance)
• share material
• discuss edits

What I wrote on the discussion page,

• explains why i reverted an edit
• provides links and material, pursuant to a request to provide evidence to substantiate that maher arar's rendition was extraordinary
• discussed the issues involved

It seems quite clear, based on the evidence, that Mr. Arar's unfortunate experience is best understand not as a rendition (after all, there are countless renditions), but as an extraordinary rendition. This is what I am trying to communicate and I am concerned that your reversion is made in bad faith. If you would like to carry on this discussion, you are of course invited to write comments on my talk page.

Thank you for your consideration. I think, though, that in the interests of discussion, that I will revert your reversions until it becomes clear that they are not thinly veiled attempts to censure a point of view. Perhaps you would care to consult the appropriate wikipedia guidelines on that subject: What Wikipedia is not Ben (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

conspiracy theories

I have reviewed what Wikipedia is not page. I cannot find a single policy that substantiates this alleged rule that wikipedia "is NOT a place to discuss conspiracy theories, and wikipedia talk pages are NOT forums for idle chat about a subject."

I have several questions that I would also appreciate some clarification on as well

• What is your definition exactly of a conspiracy theory?
• What makes you think what happened to arar, as described, is also a conspiracy theory?
• Since there are many articles on and discussing various conspiracy theories, what criteria is used to determine which ones should be censored? Ben (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll point it out to you: WP:TALK, and WP:NOT a soapbox. If you are unable to comprehend it, I cannot help you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that attempting to insult my intelligence is very helpful. I do not agree that discussing whether arar is an example of extraordinary rendition or not fits the bill of being propagating a conspiracy theory or anything similar. (Remarkably neither What Wikipedia is not or WP:TALK even mentions the term conspiracy theory.) What is at issue in that section is what are the allegations. That seems relevant and sufficiently easily resolved by reviewing evidence of what the media is saying and the facts that substantiate the allegations. I regret that we disagree over this point. I would appreciate more of a civilized dialogue with you on this point. I hope that you will indulge me. Ben (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)