James Forrester, I don't know the history- why shouldn't I vote for him? Options

Please could tell me something about the past of jpgordon on wiki, what has he done over the years which you disapprove of? Anything in particular? I mean in the past. I know what he's been upto in the last couple of weeks, and have found that for an arb, he has personality.

I don't know a lot about him either, but to answer your question I do have one excellent reason that you shouldn't vote for him: he's not running.

Please could tell me something about the past of jpgordon on wiki, what has he done over the years which you disapprove of? Anything in particular? I mean in the past. I know what he's been upto in the last couple of weeks, and have found that for an arb, he has personality.

What I know is that he rightly told Mr. Jayvdb to back-off in regard to Tony, when Mr. was doing it for the show. But that's not in the past.

But why anyway, he isen't running.

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

I don't know a lot about him either, but to answer your question I do have one excellent reason that you shouldn't vote for him: he's not running.

LOL! I must've meant that james forrester bloke, and got him confused with him! Forrester then, why should I not vote for him? Just for the sake of us justifying the thread. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I wasn't going to vote for Forrester just because he's a current arb. and I think we need a change. But otherwise he hasn't made himself very prominent, enough for me to know much about him as an individual, and even distinguish him from others (which reflects more on me than him (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) )

Please could tell me something about the past of jpgordon on wiki, what has he done over the years which you disapprove of? Anything in particular? I mean in the past. I know what he's been upto in the last couple of weeks, and have found that for an arb, he has personality.

What I know is that he rightly told Mr. Jayvdb to back-off in regard to Tony, when Mr. was doing it for the show. But that's not in the past.

But why anyway, he isen't running.

Lol, replied to SI about my mistake. We can discuss forrester instead if you like, or the mods can kill this thread.

I have been pleased with the reason actions of jpgordon though, but that's by the by.

You should not vote for Forrester because he only gets involved in Arbitration matters when the case involves one of his personal friends or enemies, and otherwise ignores it entirely. He combines the uselessness of a lazy Arbitrator with the maliciousness of a corrupt one to make just about the worst candidate possible.

Oh him..., see in his summary here what he thinks the arbitration procedure is. A party.

I know there is a big deal of criticism about him here, but I have not paid much attention to them so I can not judge the validy of them all. But that comment on the summary for me would be enough to oppose him.

This "diff" should be sufficient.

Josh was the arbitrator who proposed the fraudulent alternative motion in my ArbCom appeal last February, which ended up passing by one vote; as a result of his motion, I'm stuck under a litany of restrictions right up to the present day. I say Josh's motion was fraudulent because he crafted the motion so that it appeared to lifting a bunch of restrictions, while leaving a few in place--but in fact, the restrictions that he proposed to "lift" had already been automatically lifted several months earlier due to expiration dates on those restrictions. By including the expired sanctions in his motion, he made it appeared fair and reasonable, as if I were being granted a bunch of concessions--when in fact I wasn't granted a damn thing. In fact, Josh's motion actually increased the severity of my sanctions by sneaking in one new restriction, which permitted me to appeal my restrictions only once per year. It was a disgraceful trick, and of all the departing arbitrators, I think his departure will be most beneficial.

I heard an amusing rumour which I have posted a couple of times before that he approached uk intelligence about his position in wikipedia to offer his services... and was told to piss off (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Mind you this came from an unreliable source... and I'm quite an unreliable source too, so make of that what you will (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

(To make it clear, I'm talking about jdforrester, not jpgordon)

You should not vote for Forrester because he only gets involved in Arbitration matters when the case involves one of his personal friends or enemies, and otherwise ignores it entirely. He combines the uselessness of a lazy Arbitrator with the maliciousness of a corrupt one to make just about the worst candidate possible.

Possibly you are right, I don't know, but I suspect he will be appointed even if the only vote he receives is from himself.

Giano

I've been acquainted with James (Jdforrester/JamesF, who is not the same individual as Jpgordon [Josh] whom wikiwhistle seems to have mistakenly interchanged with JamesF) for many months now, in the course of my ArbCom clerk work. As an individual, he's an exceptionally friendly man, and one who takes a great interest in Wikimedia in general. He's also pleasant to converse work and very intelligent.

Despite this, I won't be supporting James this year. He has been coloured very recently a "useless yes-man." Whilst I think that particular description is needlessly gruff, I sadly do agree with the sentiment. I rarely see James "thinking for himself," and, although I have not gathered statistics to exemplify this point, my impression of his voting and opinions are that he "goes with the flow" a substantial proportion of the time.

I don't think the earlier claims by Kelly that he sits on the Committee with nepotistic motives are warranted. I also do not believe James would be the worst Arbitrator we could select, and there are certainly worse candidates running this year. I do, however, think it is time for a change and time for some new energy on the Committee. Undertake your own evaluation of James; you may deduce differently from how I have.

James is a good editor and friendly person whom I've met on several occasions. I have no reason to believe he would make a bad arbitrator.

James is a good editor and friendly person whom I've met on several occasions. I have no reason to believe he would make a bad arbitrator.

James is a good editor? really? How did you come to that conclusion? James goes for months at a time without creating content. This has been true for years.

James is a good editor and friendly person whom I've met on several occasions. I have no reason to believe he would make a bad arbitrator.

You dinged me for suggesting, as James F. does, that RfB-style checkuser elections might not be a good idea--we even cited the same counterexample (Cato).

This post has been edited by One:

James is a good editor and friendly person whom I've met on several occasions. I have no reason to believe he would make a bad arbitrator.

You dinged me for suggesting, as James F. does, that RfB-style checkuser elections might not be a good idea--we even cited the same counterexample (Cato).

Well there's a good reason. Thanks for the heads up :-)

James is a good editor and friendly person whom I've met on several occasions. I have no reason to believe he would make a bad arbitrator.

James is a good editor? really? How did you come to that conclusion? James goes for months at a time without creating content. This has been true for years.

When was the last time you wrote an article? And when was it mandatory to edit every hour of every day for nearly six years? Unlike some people around these parts, he does things off-wiki as well, and is allowed to take breaks.

James is a good editor and friendly person whom I've met on several occasions. I have no reason to believe he would make a bad arbitrator.

James is a good editor? really? How did you come to that conclusion? James goes for months at a time without creating content. This has been true for years.

When was the last time you wrote an article? And when was it mandatory to edit every hour of every day for nearly six years? Unlike some people around these parts, he does things off-wiki as well, and is allowed to take breaks.

1) You didn't answer my question. You said that James was a good editor. How did you come to that conclusion? I'm giving you another chance here, Alex, to be taken as something other than a joke, if you can answer the question that is.

2) This is an encyclopedia writing project. Someone who comes to the project and hangs out and doesn't create any content is generally here for the wrong reasons. Editors, especially those in positions of power and authority need to have their hearts aligned with the the goals of the project, otherwise they tend to do more harm than good. Creating content is, in my opinion and experience, the most reliable indicator of an editor's intentions and value. After years of observation, when I see someone doing something so incredably stupid that it causes me to look at their contribution history, I generally find a lack of content creation.

3) Even though I'm disgusted with the project and its leadership, I can't help but create something very good about once a month, even if it's only a nice illustration.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

James is a good editor and friendly person whom I've met on several occasions. I have no reason to believe he would make a bad arbitrator.

James is a good editor? really? How did you come to that conclusion? James goes for months at a time without creating content. This has been true for years.

When was the last time you wrote an article? And when was it mandatory to edit every hour of every day for nearly six years? Unlike some people around these parts, he does things off-wiki as well, and is allowed to take breaks.

1) You didn't answer my question. You said that James was a good editor. How did you come to that conclusion? I'm giving you another chance here, Alex, to be taken as something other than a joke, if you can answer the question that is.

2) This is an encyclopedia writing project. Someone who comes to the project and hangs out and doesn't create any content is generally here for the wrong reasons. Editors, especially those in positions of power and authority need to have their hearts aligned with the the goals of the project, otherwise they tend to do more harm than good. Creating content is, in my opinion and experience, the most reliable indicator of an editor's intentions and value. After years of observation, when I see someone doing something so incredably stupid that it causes me to look at their contribution history, I generally find a lack of content creation.

3) Even though I'm disgusted with the project and its leadership, I can't help but create something very good about once a month, even if it's only a nice illustration.

I come to that conclusion because he's not a bad one. Therefore he must be good. By the way, you're the joke around here, not me. Better get used to it.

I come to that conclusion because he's not a bad one. Therefore he must be good. By the way, you're the joke around here, not me. Better get used to it.

Ya, right, and James is a good editor, despite the fact that he isn't. Any other reality corrections you'd like to make, Alex?

-edit-

Ok, this is starting to make sense now. You're the artist formerly known as Majorly, aren't you? I've put your quote in my sig, next to my old avatar where it fits right in.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

Here, James Forrester confuses the words “jurisdiction” and “jurisprudence” while announcing his decision to ignore the ruling of his own his Committee:

“I'm not going to vote on these items because of an illusory, but perceived, conflict of interest. I am, however, going to note that this is unenforceable, given the lack of jurisprudence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...mins_deprecated
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=253516576 10:17, 23 November 2008

When Peter Damian or I say something off-wiki that they don’t like, that’s actionable. But when Wikipedia administrators plot against volunteer contributors on IRC, that’s outside of the Committee’s "jurisprudence [sic.]."

I come to that conclusion because he's not a bad one. Therefore he must be good. By the way, you're the joke around here, not me. Better get used to it.

Ya, right, and James is a good editor, despite the fact that he isn't. Any other reality corrections you'd like to make, Alex?

-edit-

Ok, this is starting to make sense now. You're the artist formerly known as Majorly, aren't you? I've put your quote in my sig, next to my old avatar where it fits right in.

Oh, you only just found out? It's old news. Really, your arguments astound me.

I'm honoured you thought of me when thinking of what quotes to include for your messageboard sig too. So kind of you.