From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Single-stream From when I had but the one talk page
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	11th May 2005 – 11th Aug 2005 11th Aug 2005 – 07th Nov 2005 07th Nov 2005 – 23rd Feb 2006
Arbitration items Items specific to my Arbitration duties	IRC items Items specific to my Group Contact duties	Personal items Anything and everything else
28th Feb 2006 – 10th May 2006 12th May 2006 – 16th September 2006	27th July 2006 – 16th September 2006	25th Feb 2006 – 10th May 2006 12th May 2006 – 24th Jul 2006 25th Jul 2006 – 16th Dec 2006

Contents 1 Arbitration matters 1.1 Netoholic's ban 1.2 Can you deal with this? 1.3 Motion in "Giano" case 1.4 Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2: banning of Andries for one year 1.4.1 While you are here 1.5 Evidence question 1.6 Motion to Close (Naming Conventions ArbCom Case) 1.7 Guidance 1.8 Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University 1.9 Husnock closing 1.10 Revoking remedy by the Kosovo arbcom 1.11 Clarification on Arbitration Case 1.12 Your motion (not) to close 1.13 GordonWatts RFAR 1.14 Osli73 1.15 Policy edits 1.16 Re: Starwood RfAr case 2 IRC matters 3 Other matters 3.1 Task Force Baum 3.2 en banc 3.3 Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent 3.4 Category:Mythological Objects 3.5 Edits to talk page archive 3.6 Excession 3.7 Meetup 3.8 Bad moves of categories 3.9 Wikipedia Enculturation 3.10 West Hampstead railway station 3.11 Next meetup Tue 9th (that's tomorrow) 3.12 Virus mail 3.13 Heeeeelp! 3.14 Sir John Soane 3.15 Email 3.16 Energy: world resources and consumption 3.17 Where is the Willow? 3.18 Everywhere Girl / deletion debate 3.19 Cyberanth / Hall of shame 3.20 spam message under your organization's name 3.21 iyisozluk.com 3.22 User:Durova/Community enforced mediation 3.23 MI5 3.24 This is a automated to all bot operators 3.25 Lists of postal codes 3.26 Automated message to bot owners 3.27 Checkuser 3.28 Wikimedia OTRS confirmation 3.29 Survey Invitation 3.30 DRV 3.31 Again? 3.32 Starwood arbitration 3.33 Richard Walter - Fraudulent Article 3.34 Richard Walter article - Libel 3.35 Anthroposophy 3.36 Happy birthday!

---

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

[edit] Arbitration matters

Add new item

[edit] Netoholic's ban

As a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2, Netoholic was banned from both the Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces for one year. During Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole, you proposed that the ban be reinstated "in modified form" for another year, but you left out the Wikipedia: namespace. Was this intentional? He's trying to resurrect Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, the rejected "policy" page he created that all of his disruptions revolve around. — Omegatron 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with elsewhere at the time.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you deal with this?

This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I've managed to locate the post which I put in the wrong place... and seeing as you moving it here indicates that you have read it, I hope you don't mind me repeating what I said to Charles Matthews, "I realise I can't expect the arbitrators (or anyone) to respond immediately, or drop what they are doing to deal with one case among many, but I'm left wondering exactly what level of response I should expect to a question like this ("can you deal with this?")?" I also asked if there was any off-wiki discussion going on about this case (just a brief note to this effect would greatly reassure me). Carcharoth 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with elsewhere at the time.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion in "Giano" case

You were (presumably) recused in the Giano case. I don't know whether you considered that in deciding to vote on the pending motion. I understand the pending issue is removed from your own involvement in the prior situation (which I always thought was a trifle overblown), but I am sure the question of your current participation in the case may be raised, so I am flagging it here for your consideration. Newyorkbrad 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not actually formally (or even informally) recused; I was on a leave of absense from the wiki entirely, per the request of some uninvolved (but no doubt 'interested') parties. I would not personally have seen the need to recuse from the majority of the case - I was not involved in the main substance of it in any way; a note about a single comment of mine was tacked on to the end of the case, from which I would obviously have abstained, but the items were seperate in my mind.

In this case, nothing related to my making a comment using sarcasm is relevent to the motion, and I decided that I did not need to recuse, and did not feel moved so to do, either. Thank for flagging it, though; always good to know that people are looking at what I'm doing and aren't too bored/shy/apathetic to mention concerns to me. :-)

James F. (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

James, while I agree with the proposed remedy, shouldn't you recurse yourself as an involved party? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. I don't believe I am in any conflict of interest (I fail to see that I am an involved party), but I do make mistakes, so please do inform me if you disagree with my judgement.

James F. (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Have replied on your talk page. I'm no great fan of splitting a conversation into too many obscure places. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

James, in response to User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration, I disagree with your judgement. You are heavily involved, and the right thing for you to do would be to recurse yourself. It is not to your credit that you have to be asked to do this. Further, while it is your right to move these questions I put to you, I find it discourteous that you did so without leaving any indication of where you moved it to. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement. I am not "heavily involved"; in my opinion, I am not involved at all. Obviously, were I to feel that I was involved in such a way as to influence my judgement, I would recuse; it would be deeply dishonourable to suggest otherwise.

I have now recused, however, in large part because you (and apparently others) for some reason consider me "involved". It really does perplex me. I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me as to how it is that I am "involved".

I am not being "discourteous" when I move a talk page message to the place where to they are directed by the very page; the use of "Arbitration matters", "IRC matters", "Other matters" as section headings, and messages of "Do not post Arbitration or IRC matters here. Put them on the Arbitration-specific sub-page." are intended to be helpful. :-)

James F. (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks James. All the best. Ben Aveling 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I imagine you are considered "involved" partly because of Giano II's claims of misconduct, including but not limited to the snippet of (what he claims to be) IRC channel logs that he posted on 29 December. I'm not going to comment on the validity of those claims or the content of that post, nor am I saying that this is a good reason to consider you involved; merely that it appears to have had that effect – Gurch 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, James F has identified or been identified as either "owner" or "proprietor" or "operator" of the en.admins IRC channel. Since Giano is at least perceived as being a pointman in the disquiet with that channel's existence, it would seem that the involvement, at whatever level, above the ordinary with that channel would lend a conflict of interest in ruling on whether a person's challenges to the channel are "incivil." This is in addition to Giano's alledged incivility being licensed by comments made by James F on that IRC channel, alledgedly. Since these -- both whether the comments were legitimate responses and whether there were incendiary or inappropriate comments about Giano made on that IRC channel -- are parts of the issue under consideration, that would put James F as either a confirmed or suspected party of the dispute. At least that's why I argued for recusal. Additionally, I felt that the agreement to the motion was alarmingly quick -- so quick and unusual as to suggest undocumented rallying around a single issue or single personality. That, to me, suggests that those agreeing to the motion do not perceive how involved in the issue they are. Geogre 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that the owner of a bar is not a party in a criminal case where some of his patrons have a fight therein. :-)

Also, I find it odd that someone would find it surprising that Arbitrators discuss items on our mailing list before posting things publically. It's what we've been doing for years.

James F. (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2: banning of Andries for one year

I was very surprized that Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) supported UninvitedCompany (talk • contribs)'s motion to have me banned from the Sathya Sai Baba related articles for one year. I thought that I had received a complete amnesty for my possibly bad edits in Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in the first arbitration case. Banned for what? I would be surprized if anybody can find just one single edit that seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first arbitration case. And I would very surprized if somebody was able to find that I repeatedly seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first abritration case. Andries 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

James, I sent you an e-mail. You supported Fred's motion that I edited the article Sathya Sai Baba responsibly, but you also supported Fred's motion to ban me indefinitely from Sathya Sai Baba related articles. I consider this contradictory. But may be I miss something. An explanation would be appreciated. Andries 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] While you are here

May be you could explain why you support banning an editor from an article whose edits on that article you describe as responsible. How will banning a responsible editor help the encyclopedia? Andries 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Editors with significant conflicts of interest having a major part to play in the shaping of any of our articles does unacceptable damage to the project. I would have thought that obvious.

James F. (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How do I have a conflict of interest? Having a COI implies that I will edit differently after I disaffiliate from exbaba.com . I can assure you that that will not be the case. Andries 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you dispute FoF 2? If not, I fail to see your line of questioning.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I confirm that I am affiliated with exbaba.com and I edit under my real name. I regret that I have always been honest in that respect, because clearly honesty is used against editors. Affiliation with exbaba is a consequence of my POV that was shaped by my experience. Disaffiliation will not change my POV or anything in my behavior in Wikipedia. How then do I have a conflict of interest when my interest does not change when I disaffiliate from exbaba ? It is like banning somebody from the article Christianity because s/he is a member of the local Anglican congregation. Andries 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I updated the Wikipedia:banning policy to reflect your reasoning. [1]Andries 19:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence question

Hello, I had a question about the current Naming Conventions case. I was in the process of supplying evidence a couple weeks ago, when my wiki-time was interrupted by the holidays (and the fact that I got stuck in the New Mexico snowstorm for a few days). Upon my return to Wikipedia, I see that the voting phase on the case has already started, before I was able to finish supplying evidence, and before some of the other involved editors had returned from their own holiday break.  :/ May I continue with supplying the rest of my evidence? Or would it be too late at this point? I'd posted alerts about my upcoming absence and return on the ArbCom talk pages, such as at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Christmas and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#Additional evidence, but I'm not sure if anyone saw them. Thanks for your time, Elonka 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, my section is now completed. Please accept my profuse apologies for the multiple delays! It's a been a really tough winter so far, with many power outages[2]. I'm getting caught up now though, and have been able to finish presenting my own evidence, as well as a few extra proposed principles and findings of fact on the Workshop page. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could review them. If not though, I understand. To be honest, I feel better just knowing that I was able to complete my section, since its half-finished status was on my mind during the last couple weeks.

For what it's worth, I have no intention of challenging the final ArbCom decision, whichever way it goes. I see ArbCom as a useful part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process. And just as with an AfD or DRV discussion, I may not always agree with the decision of the closing admin, but I will respect it.  :)

Despite some of the other comments that have been made about my behavior throughout this process, it is my hope that ultimately it will be clear that I am a longtime hardworking Wikipedian, that I believe strongly in the project, and that in general I'm not groundzero for various disputes. In this one particular case though, I felt strongly that I had an obligation to speak up. But I will be glad when the matter is finally resolved, as I am very much looking forward to getting back to writing articles! :) Elonka 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that a significant part of Elonka's evidence is either misleading or downright false, as noted here. >Radiant< 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with at the time.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to Close (Naming Conventions ArbCom Case)

I noticed the motion to close for this ArbCom case. I hope i'm not too late in asking the ArbCom members actively voting in this case to take a look at this request and consider it before closing the case? Thank you. --`/aksha 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with at the time.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidance

Re: Starwood Arb

I implore the arbitrators who have not recused themselves in this case to please give some direction in the Starwood Arb, or at least a timeline of when they will be able to deliberate. It quite literally has devolved into a Lord of the Flies scenario on the evidence and workshop pages, and the wikilawyering, off-topic diatribes and verbosity are making it difficult to make heads or tails of what is going on. I am not trying to impose upon the process, I am just asking for some feedback & order. - WeniWidiWiki 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have improved itself somewhat; will take a further, deeper look.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear ArbComm Member of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University;

This note is to bring to your attention two issues which are creating upheaval in the article located here [3]and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee."[4]. This request is based on enforcement or remedies stated in the arbitration process and failure to follow up on it.

1) An article-banned user [5] orchestrated a come back through proxy IPs from Japan and then through an account "Some people" which has been blocked twice. The problem with this is that this user had modified the entire article in less than 12 hours on January 28 2007. This user partner, TalkAbout; acted in synchrony with 244 on that night and made some changes as well using "Some people" new version. User Andries had a minor edit of that version as well.

Request to investigate user Some people [6] Analysis of situation [7] Suspicion of sockpuppet account [8] Blocks to user Some people for "a reincarnation of the editor who formerly posted from the IP address 195.82.106.244"( As admin Thatcher put it) [9]

2) The only admin we've dealing with is Thatcher131. I would like to bring to your attention what I consider to be "lack of neutrality" and fairness from his/her part. Even though, user "Some people" was blocked by Thatcher131 under a strong suspicion of him being user 244 (banned by the ArbComm for a year) Thatcher131 supported the new version of the page which are the versions of a banned user.[10] A request for enforcement of arbitration has been submitted long time ago before user 195.82.106.244 (aka 244) made several changes through his sockpuppet account "Some people" [11] but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 [12] and then User TalkAbout added some content and at that point, that was considered the new "good version" of the article.

I would like to request the following: 1) the article to be reverted to a state before "Some people" took over. 2) To change the "admin in charge", Thatcher131 to someone who is not emotionally involved in this issue (Thatcher131 was the clerk in the arbitration case and helped user 195.82.106.244 to file the case and presented some evidence against me but not against 244[13])and that could enforce normal wikipedia procedures are taking place. I appreciate your time and prompt consideration on this.

Truly Yours, avyakt7 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Fred Bauder [14]. Thatcher131 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on same user Talk page [15] Thank you. avyakt7 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock closing

The "Husnock" case is ready to close today (4-0 to close), but you added a new finding proposal yesterday which is still being voted on. Any objection to the Clerks closing this case now or would you prefer the closure wait until this finding is voted? I think the plan is to go ahead with the closing unless you or one of the other arbitrators would prefer not, so please advise. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. :-) Oh well.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revoking remedy by the Kosovo arbcom

Hi, on 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have raised some questions regarding this remedy (see below), and Fred Bauder has now initiated a motion to revoke these remedies. As you are an active member of the arbitration committee I respectfully ask you to consider my case. The questions I raised regarding the decision of the Kosovo arbcom were:

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Dmcdevit, the administrator on the Kosovo arbitration committee who initiated the remedies against me has chosen to vote against revoking these. I have, in turn, replied to his argumentation here. Sincere regards Osli73 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Will deal with there.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on Arbitration Case

There is some confusion with regard to an Arbitration Case you handled. Would you please comment. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarification on Parole violations Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, going there now.

James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your motion (not) to close

Hello there, I noticed this edit of yours opposing the motion to close the SSB2 arbcom case. I would agree with you in the matter of a solution for User:Kkrystian and would like to bring to your attention the fact that several Arbitrator votes were cast when there was little or no evidence presented about the user. This changed significantly a while ago (Evidence: one, two. Workshop: one) with diffs provided for recent violations/bad edits but doesn't appear to have come to the notice of Arbitrators. Perhaps you may like to review these links and perhaps inform the other arbitrators too. Thanks and kind regards, Ekantik ^talk 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Now voted to close, given altered quoracy.

James F. (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GordonWatts RFAR

Hey -- could I suggest that you add this rejected ArbCom request to the list of rejected requests? The diff is here: [16]; it might be useful to keep track of it, because it shows that the community ban there was upheld by ArbCom's rejection of the case. Mangojuice^talk 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't normally list rejected cases, but there's nothing stopping people doing it themselves.

James F. (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osli73

jdforrester, in the Kosovo arbitration case, you voted to put Osli73 on revert parole. I wish to bring to your attention that he has been violating his parole with impunity for some time now. On February 24, this behavior was brought to the attention of the arb enforcement board (see link below), but there has not been any action or comment since. Meanwhile, edit warring is heating up again at the Srebrenica article. If those who have been put on parole can violate the limits put upon them with little or no consequence, it puts us at risk of the article falling back into a free-for-all. Could you either respond to this or contact the appropriate administrator? Thank you. Fairview360 01:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#.5B.5BUser:Osli73.5D.5D

The proper place for this is WP:AN/I, I believe. Have prodded people on IRC, though.

James F. (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy edits

In your recent edits to AC policy you indicated cases are accepted on 4 votes, however the RFAR/Header still indicates 4 net votes. I know this has been discussed extensively on talk:RFAR and I don't have a strong opinion either way but the two pages should probably agree. Thatcher131 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, whoops. Yes, should be gross, not net. Thanks for the spot.

James F. (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Starwood RfAr case

User:Kathryn NicDhàna has given another statement (I think it's semi-evidence, but it's placed on the main case page) at here. Please advise action. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that Penwhale posted a link to a statement that Kathryn made about this case that did not include my response. I hope you will consider it as well. [17] Rosencomet 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosencomet has written a rebuttal at Kathryn's comment. Here's the original, which I've subsequently moved it back into his/her section here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC matters

DO NOT POST A CLOAK REQUEST HERE

Ask them of Xyrael on meta instead.

[edit] Other matters

[edit] Task Force Baum

Please be advised that under U.S. Army doctrine, an organized Task Force is not an "ad hoc" unit. In fact, during WWII Task Forces were routinely formed and dissolved at all levels from Army down to battalion. There were not "ad hoc" units, but were purposely and intentionally formed from those units deemed best suited to complete a certain mission. Please consider altering your robot accordingly. Thank you. 14thArmored 19:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Please ignore my previous remarks. I do not know what I was thinking when I wrote them. Brain cramp, I guess. 14thArmored 04:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. :-)

James F. (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] en banc

Actually, I think you do sit en banc, meaning that each case is decided by the committee as a whole, rather than by panels or individual members. But that apart, I do understand the points you were making. My biggest concern really is that there was a period last year (and from what I've read, in prior years) when decisions were delayed for a terribly long time. In the past couple of months they have been much more timely and I wouldn't want anything to happen that would jeopardize that pattern. Newyorkbrad 20:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, yes, there was a failure of negation ("some idiot forgot to type 'not'" ;-)) there.

James F. (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent

elements cross-posted

Sorry if I'm being an idiot, but isn't Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent meant to cover the current, former, and coming year, which would be from 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2008 - but you've just changed it to be 01-01-2007 to 31-12-2009, and I'm confused. :-)

James F. (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm five days early :) I've reverted until the 1st. Ral315 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that for 2007 shouldn't the years covered be 2006, '7, and '8, as you yourself wrote originally when making the template? Or have you changed your mind? :-)

James F. (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally wrote that 2006 would be 2006, '7, and '8, with the intent that in 2007, it would cover 2007, '8, and '9. I suppose it makes little difference; the way you mentioned would show arbitrators who just left the Committee, while the way I mentioned would show the end of all terms. Each has its advantages, and I suppose it really doesn't matter. Ral315 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

*shrugs*

I just imagined that something about tenures in two years isn't that interesting, whereas "who is this fool who seems to know a lot about Arbitration? Oh!" is. :-)

Still, it seems silly to care one way or t'other. Will just leave it as-is.

James F. (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Mythological Objects

Category:Mythological Objects is incorrectly capitalized per Wikipedia's standard sentence case for titles comprised of non-proper nouns. (To quote the second sentence of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): "Standard article naming conventions also apply; in particular, do not capitalise regular nouns.") Please stop your bot, JdforresterBot, from moving articles into this malformed category and replace it with Category:Mythological objects instead. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Someone screwed up. Thanks for spotting (and fixing) this.

James F. (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to talk page archive

Sorry about this, but I accidentally edited an archive of your talk page. It was late at night and for some reason I thought I was on your talk page and I hit "edit", instead of coming out of the archive and going back to the 'front' talk page. See the edits here and here. Again, sorry about that. Let me know if there is anything I can do to fix things, and I'll be more careful in future. Carcharoth 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excession

Got the book for christmas, finally got to read it. <GRIN>

I've sometimes used some terms from the Culture as analogies for wikipedia, but I never thought the fit would be so close!

The Interesting Times Gang is so familiar, I almost felt right at home, despite not being a super-sentient Mind, of course ;-)

Kim Bruning 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, several current nicks even resemble ship names! ;-) Kim Bruning 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. :-)

OhWhatALovelyWar! (ta... James F. (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Heya James, is there a meetup in London somewhere on Jan 2nd? I'm in London at the moment! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. Was nice to meet up. :-)

James F. (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad moves of categories

See this edit as an example of where the bot apparently moved categories that were in substed code. This should not be done since they would be missed by bots or users cleaning up the template that is left. Vegaswikian 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. How odd. The category should not have been simultaneously up for merger and rename, with the latter proceeding whilst the former was still in discussion; this would not normally happen. However, thank you for highlighting this issue.

James F. (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Enculturation

Hello! Have you written any essays on this subject? Kim Bruning 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't write essays; others are a great deal better at it than I. Have you considered doing so?

James F. (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Hampstead railway station

Just thought i'd let you know i've put it up for a move a second time. Simply south 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks.

James F. (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next meetup Tue 9th (that's tomorrow)

I picked a probably-wrong venue and Jimbo got the date wrong. But somehow I've worked out how to blame you if it all goes wrong! I'm sure you're pleased. Signup sheet at Wikipedia:Meetup/London#Informal_socials - David Gerard 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, you knew I wouldn't be able to make it and you arranged it regardless. Bastards! ;-)

James F. (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virus mail

An e-mail sent from jdforrester at gmail dot com to info at wikimedia dot org was a virus transmission (i.e., there was no mail message but a PIF file was attached.) This may or may not even be you, but this is just to notify you. —Centrx→talk • 14:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Very odd. Not from me, no; I have lots of issues with spoofing of my addresses for some reason. Were I to forward something to OTRS, I would send it from my @wikimedia.org address anyway. Thanks for flagging it, though.

James F. (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heeeeelp!

One of the bastard children of something we once wrote is up for a bit of a battle. Can you come help? Wikipedia_talk:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion :-) --Kim Bruning 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And now WP:TRI too... --Kim Bruning 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Argh. Too many policies to police (ha ha), so little time. :-(

James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On the positive side of things, Wikipedia:Consensus is getting a facelift at the moment. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir John Soane

needs you!

--Amandajm 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Will try some work on that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied; sorry for the delay.

James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the Willow?

Where is this willow? I would like to put it on my blog. (I asked you the same on Commons.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is in St. James's Park, in London. Sorry for the delay in answering.

James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everywhere Girl / deletion debate

Hello, I wonder if you'd be interested in adding a comment to this ongoing debate. Specifically ReyBrujo's statement (copied below) about your recent discussion with The Inquirer. Is his claim that the Inquirer reporter reworded his questions correct? This is important because it has some bearing on the question of whether the Inquirer is making a 'legal threat' to WP in the reporter's statement quoted below.

Apparently the reporter reworded his questions for the article. I do not really think he would say "However is seems some little revisionist book-burning Nazis take pleasure in continually libelling us in your pages, a situation we can no longer tolerate". and get an "Absolutely". as reply. In case you did not notice, the legal threat is there (of course, unless you have been in contact with our litigious world, you would not recognize the subtle sentence that implies either a legal threat, or disruption attempt). -- ReyBrujo 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_23#Everywhere_Girl

218.102.23.114 14:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Have replied there; thanks for bringing this to my attention.

James F. (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberanth / Hall of shame

FWIW I actually don't him 'quoting' me on his user page (I use the term quoting lightly), as it's a clear sign for anyone who cares to look into it that he's deeply unhinged.

Perhaps that opinion in itself is against wikilove, and actually gives more reason to remove it, who knows?

Ones thing for sure - after a couple of days worth of disputes with random nutjobs my love for working on wikipedia is definitely gone. Artw 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think you've highlighted my point.

James F. (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spam message under your organization's name

Dear Sir,

I received the following spam message purporting to come from your organization - the header claimed to be

Wikimedia nonprofit [acwsvnbwlum@club-internet.fr]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.191.23 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

(I removed the content of the spam, for obvious reasons :-) ). Wikipedia does not control club-internet.fr . You have been deceived. --Kim Bruning 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fun. Thanks, Kim - a better policer of my talk page than I. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iyisozluk.com

Hello , my site (iyisozluk.com) is now black list. [18]

 \.iyisozluk\.com               # Jdforrester # pan-wiki spam

Do you ban my site ? What's the mean "pan-wiki spam" ?

My site is online multi language dictionary service for Turkish and other 12 language therefore I'm adding my site link to 3 article (dictionary,turkish,turkey) in all wiki country sites.I thing this very much links for wikimedia. Please include my site spam-whitelist.

Sory my bad english , And Thanks ...

Related Link 2 Related Link 1

81.214.126.124 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Durova/Community enforced mediation

I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Would appreciate your comments on its talk page. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We can run this immediately, if the enforcer is not the community, but instead some cabal. O:-) --Kim Bruning 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, indeed. ;-)

James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MI5

Hi there James,

There's a discussion going on about what to call the MI5 page, and was wondering if you'd like to take a look and add a comment, since you edited a past discussion on it a while back, but didn't add an opinion. If there's anyone you think might be interested in adding their thoughts, so much the better! ConDem^Talk 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jamie.

James F. (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, a bit. Don't have the time right now to dig out authorisation from so very long ago. No idea what wiki it would be on, even (didn't we use to do such things on meta? I forget).

James F. (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of postal codes

Hi James,

I nominated a list of Postal Codes for deletion I commented on the deletion of (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Nepal), and a comment was made about starting a debate on whether lists of postal codes were suitable material. I thought I'd follow up on my nomination by nominating List of ZIP Codes in the United States for deletion, and starting a debate that way about lists of postal codes in general. Unfortunately, when I tried to add the reason, I was redirected to Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia?, and also noticed a later discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in the United States. In both of these debates, I really think more could have been said about the fact that useful information (eg, the Phone Book) doesn't necessarily have a place. I think more argument would be useful. I'm really telling you this, as a very experienced user, to ask for your thoughts on whether a new debate was worthwhile, given that the last one was nearly two years ago, and how to go about it if I wanted to open one. ConDem^Talk 01:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ho-hum. Too late for that. Need to pay more attention to my talk page. :-(

James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated message to bot owners

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 03:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Useful. Because we all know that watchlists are sufficient. *rolls eyes*

James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

I offer both my congratulations and commiserations :) Cheers, and good luck, Daniel.Bryant 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I offer my deepest condolences . . . :) --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it was getting irritating having to ask someone else to do it at times of urgency.

James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia OTRS confirmation

Hi, could you please check the Wikimedia OTRS for permissions for Image:Vijaytamil.jpg and Image:Rajini in spain.jpg. They are both tagged with {{wrong-license}} and seem to link to the same permission (I would think each image gets it's own permission). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Thanks. Good luck with your research.

James F. (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

[[19]] - Privacy 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again?

"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

[edit] Starwood arbitration

Since this case looks finished, please vote to close. The case is three months old and I'd like to close it tonight or tomorrow morning. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jdforrester,

Thanks for your involvement in this case. I hope my comment here is not inappropriate, but I'm a nervous person by nature, so I hope you'll forgive me. All the points of this arbitration have come in with a 4 to 0 majority, but the case can't be closed without 4 votes, and there are only 3 to close. If this is just an oversight, I hope you can visit the case once more and add your vote to close at the bottom of the Proposed Decision page. Thanks again, Rosencomet 18:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Walter - Fraudulent Article

Arbitrator:

Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge.

This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file.

I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now Buzzle45 (talk • contribs), an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 (talk • contribs • WHOIS). I am not certain these are two separate individuals.

At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him.

Anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. Buzzle45 (talk • contribs) has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility).

This informaion is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Wikipedia entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point.

Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified.

As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Wikipedia as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud.

Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance.

Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Scientist

[edit] Richard Walter article - Libel

Why is Mr. Turvey so relentless in trying to slander Richard Walter?

To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court.

I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard.

In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal.

In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal.

Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false.

I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's version on his websites.

While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka).

Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS.

Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim).

With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own".

I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state.

Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense.

02:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Buzzle45 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Anthroposophy

Since you have participated decision making about anthroposophy, I have to ask you to read through my comments in Talk:Anthroposophy#About anthroposophical sources, please. I'm sorry that I was at first unaware what an arbitration is. Erdanion 14:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy birthday!

Feliz cumpleaños a ti! Gratulerer med dagen! Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum Geburtstag! สุขสันต์วันเกิด! Penblwydd hapus! 誕生日おめでとう! Jon Harald Søby 06:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

For he's a jolly good fellow! Happy birthday, enjoy the day, back to work tomorrow! --Skenmy^(t•c•n) 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Finding Forrester! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 18:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)