User talk:Jdforrester/Old Archive 8

Archives of earlier items from this page are available:

• 28th Feb 2003 – 13th Feb 2004,
• 15th Feb 2004 – 05th Aug 2004,
• 06th Aug 2004 – 15th Sep 2004,
• 15th Sep 2004 – 23th Nov 2004,
• 25th Nov 2004 – 10th Mar 2005,
• 10th Mar 2005 – 11th May 2005, and
• 11th May 2005 – 11th Aug 2005.

---

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

*Please* put Arbitration matters here

AI prohibited from CoS articles

And what is the reason for this based on what? --AI 21:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The evidence. What else?

James F. (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: See also Wikipedia:Arbitration rationale, specifically:

[...] we feel that what's important is the product, not the process - our decisions and rationale given, and not the details of how we came to the conclusions we did.

HTH.

James F. (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Gavin RFArs DreamGuy

How is wikipedia helped by accepting this RFAr? Hipocrite 17:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

How is it helped by leaving it to fester?

James F. (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that WP:RFC would be sufficient, don't you? I've got comments I'd like to make about DreamGuy's editing (comments in the negative, mind you). If he's up for some sort of punishment, however, I will be conflicted, in that I'd have to insist that the RFAr against Gavin The Chosen close before I contribute meaningfully to this. Hipocrite 17:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No-one is necessarily "up for some sort of punishment". We don't punish, we take action to prevent damage to the project.

James F. (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I'll just decline to participate untill the close of the GtC RFAr, then. It's really a shame that this never went through RFC. Hipocrite 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Apologies. I now find out that it did, in fact, go through an RFC at one point, though this was not linked in the evidence section. Wish that someone with even a remote hint of credibility did the nomination, though. Hipocrite 13:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel/Gavin is due to be blocked for a month for his current RfAR brought up by about 20 editors (and considering he just continues to make more violations that may even be extended). It seems to me that there will no longer be any "fester"ing once that RfAr is finally finished, as he will be gone and be forced to take a new name and then risk further blocks should his behavior continue. This is just a last ditch effort on his part to get something on me, and considering his chronic examples of bad faith editing (including working with another editor to try to falsely accuse me of violations to try to get me banned, see his RfAr) i would think that his word wouldn;t mean much. Vashti and Elvenscout's complaints are separate matters entirely, and their refusal to work with me on trying to resolve the conflict through normal dispute resolution process should not be encouraged in this way. DreamGuy 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine

elements cross-posted

Apparently, I have been named by Ultramarine as a party to the RfAr. Since I did not initiate the action, and was not named as a party by Septentrionalis, I am not sure exactly what this means. Can you help clarify what his naming me entails for me? I am not sure if I am being exactly accused of anything, or if I should post something on the RfAr, and if so where. Thank you. Robert A West 21:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC) (talk)

I believe that he wishes your input; if you could provide evidence, that would be helpful to us. If you don't chose to, then we won't hear your perspective on what has happened. It it possible, but looking at the request, highly implausible, that you would be found at fault, and obviously were that so and you failed to comment, we might not fully understand the circumstances.

However, don't be worried - any help you can provide in deepening our understanding of the case will be greatly appreciated.

James F. (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the proper procedure for providing input? Do I respond on the RfAr under Party #1? Do I add my own section? Do I wait for interrogatives from ArbCom? Thanks. Robert A West 07:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding your own section would be best, yes. We won't go chasing for people's input, though (people who care are generally quite happy to discuss). Feel free to put in anything you feel might be helpful.

Thanks in advance.

James F. (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom Election/Selection/Appointment

The Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee page could be a lot more clear about the apointment process. Perhaps you could improve it. Superm401 | Talk 00:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Erm, the rules don't really define any structure to the process. It's very informal. A discussion between arbitrators on the arbcom mailing list might look something like: "Hey, we're missing a lot of arbitrators. Maybe Jimbo should appoint some" "OK, who would be good for the job?" "Well, from my experiences with him, I think user X would make a bang-up arbitrator" "Oh, yeah, from the work he did on that controversial article, I think he has superb judgement" 'etc. →Raul654 02:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yuber arbitration

James, before Yuber's case is closed, can I ask you to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision, and specifically my post here? I feel that Guy should be allowed to present evidence if he's to suffer the same penalty as Yuber, and should have been told that Fred had compiled evidence against him. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for bringing this to my specific attention.

James F. (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration Case

Thanks for letting me know. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 12:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem.

James F. (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI/Evidence

I've added new evidence that discusses AI's belligerent article revert warring and intimidation. AI has unapologetically verified (on the evidence page) that I have quoted him/her accurately. I noticed a motion suggested to close the arbitration, but I hope that the new evidence will be considered beforehand. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks, HKT ^talk 17:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.

James F. (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

rktect request for arbitration

In that every story has two sides to it it would be nice if both sides were represented in this arbitration. Where one party claims original research and pseudo science and the other party shows that the material in question is neither original research nor pseudoscience, the question should be worded so that it may be related to the evidence to be submitted, ie; the references which prove it isn't original research. "Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)." Citing Herodotus should not be considered original research. "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". The question of Original research turns not on the opinion of the many (consensus) but on the facts. When I can cite facts from reputable publications that support an historical interpertaion as mainstream that cannot be considered original research even if one or more individuals diasagree with the concept. "Re. Primary and secondary sources; Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations. Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

• HerodotusTemplate:Section:Book reference after author
• VitruviusTemplate:Section:Book reference after author
• Claudias PtolemyTemplate:Section:Book reference after author
• Lucas N. H. Bunt, Phillip S.Jones, Jack D. Bedient Template:Section:Book reference after author
• H Arthur KleinTemplate:Section:Book reference after author
• R. A. CordingleyTemplate:Section:Book reference after author
• GardinerTemplate:Section:Book reference after author
• Antonio Loprieno Template:Section:Book reference after author
• Michael RiceTemplate:Section:Book reference after author
• GillingsTemplate:Section:Book reference after author
• Somers Clarke and R. EnglebachTemplate:Section:Book reference after author
• Francis H. MoffittTemplate:Section:Book reference after author

Rktect 16:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

In regards to bad faith editing, repeated systematic reverts of contributions without discussion on the talk pages and repeated systematic submission of contributions for vfd on grounds of false or misleading charges and repeated solicitation of actions by others should be listed as among the actionable offenses.Rktect 16:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Maoririder

Thanks for the heads-up on the ArbCom. I'll certainly keep an eye on the procedings and take a stance if need be. Back to the ol' wikivacation.  :) - Lucky 6.9 20:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll be happy to participate in this process, but I haven't followed this user for a while. Is he (or his sock puppets) still making contributions? I sort of got the impression that this problem was fading away.... ike9898 13:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think he still is. Will look into it.

James F. (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo arbitration

Sorry to bother you, but there is one key unresolved issue (finding of fact one way or the other) that is not currently being voted on in the proposed decision page. Please see User talk:Fred Bauder#Stevertigo arbitration: one key finding of fact is not resolved. -- Curps 17:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Will look now.

James F. (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer

I appreciate that the ArbCom has a lot to do, but I would really like to see this casego forward ASAP. Ever since the request went up, Lightbringer has gotten worse. He considers basic research to be propaganda, has called the ArbCom the "Masonic goon patrol", and makes outlandish claims and attacks on people who are simply giving reasonable explanations as to why his edits are being removed. The result is that Freemasonry Talk has become full of garbage rather than proper discussion, and I think that really needs to stop. Is there some way to expedite the approval process so evidence submission can begin? MSJapan 17:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Other discussion elements

Infobox standardization

You have just voted to have info-boxes standardized. We are still looking for people to join the team to implement the new boxes. If you are interested join the team on Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation#Team. This is also the page where you can submit your design for the new infoboxes.--Fenice 17:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. James F. (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Bbsrock

I see that you put a comment on Bbsrock's (talk) page to the effect that he should stop changing en-dashes to hyphens. He has not. He also goes around moving birth information out of the intro paragraph, even when this is not a style improvement. In the case of Keith Olbermann, he moved it into a section titled "Olbermann at ESPN," follwing the section "Early Career." "Early Career," if very liberally defined, could include birth, but I don't think he was born at ESPN!!

He also changed a perfectly good verb to passive voice (or something like it) for no reason.

Unweildy link to Olbermann changes

So, is there any way to stop this well-meaning whirlwind of destruction? He doesn't seem to read his Talk page.

67.173.240.27 12:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend attempting some discussion before trying anything more drastic, certainly.

James F. (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

He appears to have forgotten that his Talk page exists. I see several comments to him and no replies. I am relatively unseasoned at Wikipedia. Is there some way to grab his attention, just to get him to read the Talk page?

67.173.240.27 21:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Full stop

elements cross-posted

Hiya. I noticed you readded a full stop to 'Dr(.)' in the Mo Mowlam article. Please note that in standard British usage, which is appropriate for an article on a British personage, there is no . in the abbreviated form of Doctor ('Dr.' is 'Drive'). --Ngb 13:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree that such usage is "standard"; the two forms are, if anything, reversely-so common in use. I am "Mr. James D. Forrester" (or "Mr. James D. Forrester, Esq." to Lloyd's), in short form. Reading "Dr." as "Drive" would be, well, uncommon, because roads called "so-and-so Drive" are fairly uncommon, notwithstanding my mother being born on one. :-)

It is, as you say, an issue of style, but one which I have always read as a bit of an uncouth modernism of not bothering to try to use the correct form. One wonders what Debrett's of yesteryear said (modern Debrett's being that awful concoction for the Merkin market, of course).

James F. (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Conventional behaviour in British English is that abbreviations that use both the first and last letters of the word being abbreviated do not use the full stop (so 'Dr' Doctor but 'Dr.' Drive). See almost any British style guide or, for that matter, our own article on Abbreviation ('History' section). The 'uncouth modernism' is the accidental adoption of the standard American usage, which does always use the full stop. --Ngb 17:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"Conventional" suggests that there ever was a single usage, the lack of which was my very point. I am very much aware of the differing styles for this, having read easily a dozen different style guides, each of which, essentially, disagrees with all of the others. It is most tiresome :-)

James F. (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's a non-issue on Mo Mowlam anyone, as apparently you aren't supposed to use The Right Honourable with other prefix honorifics. --Ngb 06:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Meto

elements cross-posted

Thanks for fixing various meto/metoffice URLs I put in. William M. Connolley 12:54:44, 2005-08-20 (UTC).

No problem; I was asked to fix them by someone at the Met. Office who emailed info-en.

Keep up the great work. :-)

James F. (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Prefices

elements cross-posted

You said ""The Rt Hon." and "Dr(.)" aren't meant to be used together anyway)" - really? Didn't know that. Lots of articles combine several preficies (e.g. ISTR "Professor Admiral Sir Foo Bar" or something similar). Are there any general rules?

Also - you're off? Please don't go! Your fantastic copyediting may not feel substantive, but it's massively appreciated, at the very least by me.

James F. (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Styles emanating from the Sovereign and the Church aren't supposed to be used at the same time as styles emanating from other sources (like universities). So "Professor Sir John Smith", "Professor the Lord Jones of Oxford", "Alderman Sir Henry Brown", etc., are incorrect. "The Right Honourable" also replaces prefixed titles like "Mr", "Miss" and "Mrs", rather than being stuck in front of them, so it would overwrite "Dr" anyway, even if it could be used with it (as "Dr" is used in exactly the same way as "Mr"). Military ranks, as they emanate from the Sovereign, are different, and so "Admiral Sir John Smith" is obviously quite all right.

As to my absence, it seems likely that I'll be back before long, as the draw of Wikipedia is as strong as ever, and I don't seem to be able to keep away. Proteus (Talk) 09:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, we'll await with baited breath your full-scale return, then. :-)

James F. (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

(Not) a probable robot mistake

(deleted -- my mistake, not the robots, I see it has also reordered categories alphabetically) --stochata 22:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No worries. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

RSVP

Hi James, thanks for the invitation to the London meetup, sadly i'll be in Manchester that weekend but maybe next time! Look forward to hearing about how the WMUK discussions go on. best wishes, ClareWhite (Wikinews, I can't make the link work!)

Never mind. We'll see you at some point, I'm sure. :-)

James F. (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger

JD, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this.

James F. (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Bot oopsie

elements cross-posted

From this edit, it looks like JdforresterBot is confused by nowiki tags. -- Beland 05:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Will pass it on to the author of the bot ('tis PyWikipediaBot). Thanks.

James F. (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

My user page

elements cross-posted

I never gave you permission to vandalize my user page. Please don't make the mistake of doing it again. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 11:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry... whut?

James F. (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think he's commenting on the jdforresterbot's recent edit to his page that re-categorized Queer Wikipedians to LGBT Wikipedians. - CHAIRBOY 23:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

How confusing. It wasn't a re-categorisation, it was a standard category fixing, and certainly not "vandalism". Threats about "making the mistake of doing it" are laughable, however.

James F. (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What Chairboy said. I didn't ask you nor or bot to touch my user page. Please don't do it again. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Then you evidently fail to understand that you don't "own" anything, even "your" user page. This is Wikipedia. Feel free to read up about it. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Voting is banned

People said that no such page existed, so I made one. Any corrections appreciated! :)

Kim Bruning 20:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

(now all we need is some good pages describing how consensus actually works on wikipedia) Kim Bruning 20:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

In light of the recent CFD debate about fictional emperors and empresses, I decided that the issue was way overdue for a more global discussion. Thus, please join the talk at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Radiant_>|< 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Ta.

James F. (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Winter Queen

Naming conventions: Please take a look at Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia. Arrigo 15:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you; I have now given my opinion.

James F. (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi, Jdforrester. Thank you so much for your support on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:28, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bot's deletion of category "Massacres"

"Removing from category Massacres" is an inadequate edit summary for a bot. How is anyone to know why it is to be removed? Moreover, the "discusssion" on it in CFD seems to have disappeared, not in the archive or anywhere. --Zero 12:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The bot doesn't have functionality to say specifically why category changes are made; complain to Andre. :-)

On the point of where the CfD discussion went, I have no idea - I just carry out the instructions when I'm around. I'll look.

James F. (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Your bot removed Damour massacre from category:massacres. Any reason, or just for a bit mischievous bot fun? Anyway, I'm reverting it. Babajobu 16:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's because the category has been sucessfully nominated for deletion. Unreverted.

James F. (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Biography

I'm having some issues on John Vanbrugh. People keep removing the infobox! I think it's quite useful as it does take some hunting to find information about birth places, birth dates and death dates/places in many of the articles. Could you comment on the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

London meet

Well, I still hope to come. However, I seem to have arranged a flatwarming party the evening before, and am unsure whether I will be able to send people on their way in time to come. We shall see. Morwen - Talk 14:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Likewise, I'll prolly be there, but it depends on my hangover (obv). Thanks for the reminder, though! — OwenBlacker 14:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Can't make it I'm afraid, though I hope to be at the Birmingham one if it goes ahead. Take plenty of pictures! the wub "?/!" 15:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed a definite, but the unexpected may still happen. Do I need to do inform anyone if the unexpected indeed happens? JFW | T@lk 16:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

James: Nothing in this world is definite except the present and the past (and even that is subject to interpretation). At present I definitely intend to meet you on Saturday! —Theo (Talk) 18:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep i am coming. Not sure i wanna be showcased by Thryduulf's digicam tho as i am avoiding the gaze of some bods. Will come appropriately attired - max rspct 20:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

aargh.. something else came up on the same day, so i'm not sure i'll be able to make it... ;( but i'll try next time! -kate

At the moment I'm planning to come. William M. Connolley 17:06:28, 2005-09-10 (UTC).

3RR

elements cross-posted

Heya,

On Wikipedia we have a rule called the "Three Revert Rule", or "3RR" for short, which forbids people from reverting a page more than three times in any 24 period, on penalty of being blocked for 24 hours. I've noticed that you've sadly broken this on Homosexuality, and so I'm meant to block you. However, if you agree to not do so, but instead work together with the other editors on the page to discuss the matter, I will relent. Deal?

Yours,

James F. (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Is a guideline not a rule. You should really deal with the Vandals that are deleting rather than editing. I supported my text with a citation, which they refuse to accept. There are many such citations, advise them to simply google.com them. Cordially WritersCramp 15:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

For someone so terribly au fait with extactly the distinction, you do seem unable to follow it. :-)

James F. (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania 2006 in London?

Queen Mary bid looking more mature now LoopZilla 22:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed.

James F. (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Unicode

You have replaced all the Unicode infinity characters in the Comparison of BitTorrent clients article with (X)HTML entities. AFAIK, in MediaWiki you are supposed to use straight Unicode characters. Do you allow me to set them back? --logixoul 23:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You're "allowed" to do anything you like. ;-) However, I replaced the Unicode with HTML entities merely to make it easier for people to edit, and there's nothing wrong with having Unicode itself instead if you'd prefer.

James F. (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm allowed to do many things, but I'd rather not get into an editwar with anyone. IIRC there was a Wikipedia rule (or was it a guideline?) about having to use Unicode and not entities, though I can't find it again, I forgot the article name. And IMHO character entities are even harder to edit than Unicode - 1 character vs 8 characters... Please explain why do you think you made it easier for people to edit. Because of older browsers? --logixoul 07:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

There certainly used to be a guideline the other way around, advising people to use HTML characters to avoid corruption from Unicode-non-compliant systems. Not sure if there's the one that you describe, though.

As to for whom entities are easier, yes, indeed, those with "older browsers", or bots, or non-browser editors, or ... Unicode is all well and good, and it's great that we can use it, but Windows users alone count for a sizeable number of our editors who cannot properly use Unicode.

James F. (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unicode --logixoul 12:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the infinity symbol is part of WGL4, which means that pretty much all Windows users should be able to display it. Our WGL4 article implies that Linux and Mac should too (it mentions all platforms support WGL4). Anyone making new edits could choose to use either the literal Unicode character or the HTML character entity reference. -- Curps 05:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I did say "easier to edit". :-) But yes.

James F. (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Saint

For being a saint.

I hereby canonize you a saint of the Catholic Church of Wikipedia for accepting the sacred burden of being an Arbitrator. May Jimbo's blessings be upon you. Pax tecum. -- Essjay · Talk Servus Servorum Jimbo 04:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. :-)

Might, however, I beg humility? You can venerate me once I've martyred myself on the rocks of doom.

James F. (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

See! More saintly conduct! You've leveled up to Wiki Martyr Level 2. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 22:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Votes requested on cfr Tudor and Plantagenet

Hi! I note your input on the Tudor dynasty page, I would greatly appreciate your voting on the proposed renaming of Category:Tudor to Category:House of Tudor, and Category:Plantagenet to Category:House of Plantagenet it seems the vote was suggested by obsessed with uniformity, however renaming the categories would be a mistake in my opinion, due to the fact that Tudor people is a sub category of Tudor, and having it as a sub category of House of Tudor would make no sense. Also, in my opinion House of Anjou is the more normally used phrase for the descendants of Geoffrey of Anjou rather than House of Plantagenet. please vote here Thanks, Arnie587 21:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already registered my comments, but thank you for the heads-up anyway.

James F. (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

James

At my request could you please look at this at your convenience, [1] It's very harrassing, let alone user claims he is being staulked when in reality he is the staulker, Thanks Scott 00:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote Deletion

I noticed you seemed to have removed my keep vote and replaced it with your delete vote on the Category:Terrorists AfD. I'll assume it was just an accidental oversight, but urge caution to doublecheck in the future. Happy future wiki-ing! Sherurcij

Hmm. Odd. MediaWiki shouldn't have merged those lines. Will ask a dev. if something went wrong.

James F. (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

elements cross-posted

Hello, Jdforrester/Old Archive 8. In case you haven't noticed, I'm writing a special series on the upcoming 2005 ArbCom elections for The Wikipedia Signpost. In the October 17 issue, we will be profiling the current ArbCom members. Note that this should not be a platform for re-election; rather, it should serve as an insight into what you feel about the ArbCom, and your opinions of it are. Thus, I hope you don't mind answering a few questions. Many thanks!

1. Are up for re-election this year?
2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?
3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?
4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?
5. Weaknesses?
6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?
8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?
9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.
10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?
11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?
12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

I hope you didn't mind me bombarding with you with questions; by no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of them. Thanks for serving Wikipedia, and for taking your time to help a Signpost reporter! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem:

1. Are up for re-election this year?

Yes, I am All of the temporary appointees' terms end in December.

2. If so, do you plan to run for re-election?

I plan to run for election for a second time, yes. Hopefully this time I will be successful. :-)

3. How do you feel about serving on the ArbCom?

I consider it very interesting work, and certainly useful to the community. However, it occupies quite a lot of my time related to Wikipedia (and Wikimedia generally), which I could otherwise spend doing other things, though quite probably less useful ones. :-)

4. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom?

When cases come all the way to us, the disputes are often difficult and highly acrimonious, and also seemingly never-ending. The Committee's ruling generally causes the problem to end, or at the very least abate significantly. But then, that is the entire point of the Committee, so I would say that.

5. Weaknesses?

The Arbitration Committee is, by design, much slower than any other process on Wikipedia, because we want to consider the cases carefully and try our hardest to come up with workable and successful solutions and remedies to the problems that are brought to us which are in the best interests of the project and the community at large. This slowness has been criticised, and understandably so, but I think it preferable to the Committee rushing through things and being a destructive force.

6. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?

It is disappointing that participants in cases do not try to structure nor marshall their arguments in a way that is clear both what they consider wrong in general, the the parts that they are most concerned about. If we were merely concerned in which side presented the better argument, we could just discard them, but we're actually here for the good of the project overall, so we just have to deal with it as best we can. Sometimes it is rather frustrating that we don't force people to actually work at what they want, but I'm not sure that there's much that we can do about it, sadly.

7. Do you regret accepting your position? Why or why not?

No, I do not. It's a necessary duty for Wikipedia, and it doesn't tire me the way that it seems to tire others, so I suppose it's my duty to carry it out.

8. If you could say one thing to the current ArbCom candidates, what would you say, and why?

Be aware that the worst possible thing that the Committee could do, worse even than effectively stalling for months at a time and not dealing with cases, is to carry out cases in such a way that the community's trust in the Committee is reduced. The Committee only works because we keep that, and it's absolutely vital. We inherited a great deal of responsibility from Jimbo when he delegated his powers to us, and abusing or jeopardising the faith placed in us, even accidentally, would be disastrous.

9. Do you think your job is easy? Hard? Explain.

Elements of being an Arbitrator are quite hard - analysing the evidence is often difficult, and made more so by counter-productive ways in which complaints and items of evidence are displayed. Then there's taking the flak - whatever decision you come to, at least one party will likely feel slighted at least partially. Sometimes this goes quite a bit further (death threats and to a lesser extent other threats of violence are not unknown, though they have become significantly less common of late, and then there are the obvious elements of vague legal threats, and rude emails generally). The main difficult is probably the workload - reading through reams of posts is tiring work, and not everyone (or anyone, really) would find it fun.

10. Looking in retrospective, is there anything you would have done differently?

Not really. I could be rather asinine and say that I wish I'd devoted more time overall, but I could always say that. There isn't really a limit to how much time you can end up spending.

11. Do you feel that the ArbCom is appreciated by the community? If not, how do you think that could be changed?

Sometimes, certainly, it feels like the Committee not being appreciated that much by the community gets some of us down, but again this problem seems unsurmountable, really. When we do well, people don't really notice that much - there's merely one iota less friction in the system. When we do less well, however, people complain readily. :-) This is even more significantly a problem in mediation, both formal and informal, and as these underpin the dispute resolution process and are vital to making the Arbitration process work at all, really.

12. What is the most frustrating thing about being on the ArbCom? Enjoyable?

The most enjoyable part of being an Arbitrator is the sense that you are doing something significant for the community. The most frustrating part, really, is the lack of recognition. But such is life.

I hope that this helps you.

BTW, it's "Arbitrator" with a capital 'A' (and with the other terms, too), always. :-)

James F. (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Signpost

Thanks for your edits on the Signpost. No worries about editing the article, as long as it's just minor stuff like fixing typoes and mistakes. Ral315 W_S 16:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Right.

James F. (talk)

"Censoring on meta:Don't be a dick"

Just to let you know that I didn't have a problem with it being uncensored - rather that if it were not censored, it seems to me to make sense to uncensor both the link and the explanation.... anyway, take care :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuber/Guy

Thanks for letting me know the outcome of the case, James. Something went badly wrong with this case, in my view. Guy has ended up with a greater punishment than Yuber, even though without question Yuber was the worse of the two parties, and almost no evidence was presented against Guy.

It seems to me that Guy was given an extra punishment (the three-month ban from editing Israeli-Palestinian articles) because a number of people spoke up on his behalf, particularly about the issue of his not having been notified that a case was being made against him by Fred. I asked Fred [2] [3] [4] what he meant by saying "Probation seems unworkable in this case due to solidarity with him by other editors in this area," and "How could any administrator employ [probation] when you (and your supporters) make such a fuss?" — which were the reasons Fred offered for proposing the three-month ban — but he didn't answer, so we're left to guess what he meant.

It means that Guy has a three-month ban and probation, whereas Yuber only has probation. I can't think of any judicial system in the world where a person would be given an additional punishment because people spoke up to defend them.

Guy is not an easy person to defend, partly because his POV is regarded as unacceptable by many people, and partly because he announces it openly on his talk page, and says he is here to defend it. I don't agree with his POV either, and I strongly disagree with people who arrive at Wikipedia with the sole purpose of defending a particular position. I admit to having felt a little wary of defending Guy for those reasons.

However, what was done in this case was clearly unfair. Guy didn't know when he brought the case that it might be turned against him. He wasn't informed that Fred had built a case against him, and the case was nearly closed without Guy being given the chance to mount a defense. A few editors, myself included, objected to this, and so the arbitrators who had voted to close the case withdrew their votes, and Guy was given time to respond. That was good, and that's how it should have been left. But then Fred added the additional three-month ban on the grounds that the "fuss" from his "supporters" meant that probation was unworkable. First, there was no "fuss"; it's called a defense, and the objection that Guy needed to be given time to defend himself was an entirely legitimate concern. Secondly, not everyone who wrote on his behalf was a "supporter." At least some of us were only concerned with what appeared to be the unfairness of it, and had this been done to Yuber, I'd have spoken out against it in exactly the same way. Third, Fred didn't explain how any of Guy's "supporters" could have made the probation unworkable. And fourth, the supposedly unworkable probation was upheld anyway, so now Guy has both.

I know there's no right of appeal in these cases, except to Jimbo, so I know there's nothing you can do, but I just want to express my unease at the way this was handled. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)