Talk:James Robinson

From RFC

Note: Other relevent comments may exist at Talk:Free_Republic. Consider reading that page, too, before taking any brash action.

Please consider discussing before deleting-Casito 07:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete, I redirected after merging all content into the Free Republic page. My apologies for being bold. That said, you are free to chime in on the Talk:Free Republic page if you so wish. --Jonathan Christensen 08:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Repost of the message from the FR discussion forum. All further discussions of this, if any, need to take place here.

JC - the only person who seems to be acting unilaterally on this matter is you. You've unilaterally merged the page itself twice now with little to no discussion at all, though others have asked you to discuss that on Talk:Jim_Robinson. Showing up on the talk page and saying the equivalent of "yeah, but i'm gonna do it anyway" is not a discussion. As it stands right now there seem to be three people who favor leaving it as it was with only you proposing to merge it, yet you plow right ahead with the merge unilaterally. As for common wikipedia policy on people who are well known for their websites having separate articles, I direct you to a couple well known examples:

The Daily Kos blog and owner Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
The Drudge Report and owner Matt Drudge
The Little Green Footballs blog and owner Charles Johnson
Power Line (blog) and its owners John_H._Hinderaker and Scott_W._Johnson

Based upon these precedents, it seems that a separate article here would be both appropriate and in keeping with wikipedia formatting policy. I have restored the previous article and removed your redirect on this basis. I will also post a copy of this comment on the discussion forum there. If you still support a change in which the articles are merged, then YOU need to go over there and make your case for it on that discussion section rather than acting unilaterally and turning talking only after the change you desire is done. Thanks for understanding. Rangerdude 16:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the time being, I shall comment here. First, there are several factual errors in your interpretation I would like to point out. For starters, you state that the only person acting unilaterally was me. Hardly! I initially merged the pages in keeping with the WP:BB policy. If others didn't like it, they might have reverted it and tried to discuss it. Did they? Perhaps a look at the summary Wakeforest left when he reverted the Free Republic page will be enlightening:

(don't agree leave page alone or you'll be blocked)

Oh, but that's not at all unilateral, is it? Here's a brand new user account (Wakeforest had neither a user page or a talk page at the time he made that revert; he created his user page with no meaningful content soon after, and I created his talk page), probably a sock puppet--he shows some knowledge of Wikipedia, if he is seemingly entirely ignorant of proper processes--threatening to block me if I edit the page at all. Why? Because he doesn't agree with me. But that'snot unilateral, is it, Rangerdude? No, of course not.

After he made that comment, I decided that the best thing to do would be to discuss it. So I asked a question on his talk page:

Hey, what's up with the Free Republic page? "leave page alone or you'll be blocked?" Who do you think you are? If you disagree, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I will be forced to take this to arbitration. --Jonathan Christensen 07:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, that's pretty unilateral, isn't it? I dunno, I guess Wakeforest had better keep on being nice and accepting, since I was being soooo unilateral. This is what I got in response:

Who do I think I am?

Not relevant to a little person as yourself.

I have warned you once. You won't get a second warning before you are blocked and hard-banned. Wakeforest 07:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, it's clear that Wakeforest is absolutely not being unilateral, isn't it. I mean, isn't it? It isn't? Oh dear, what am I to do?

So what does the oh-so unilateral JC do? Why, he asks Wakeforest for an explanation, once again:

Since when do you have the ability to block and hardban me, and why should I be blocked or hardbanned? I've posted a comment on that talk page; unless you explain yourself reasonable, I will take this to RfC immediately. --Jonathan Christensen 07:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Damn him and his unilateral ways, asking people to explain themselves not once, but twice! After 25 minutes without any kind of response or action on Wakeforest's part--strange, IMHO, for someone who was just about to hardban me--I once again merged the page, figuring him to be some sort of obscene sockpuppet joke.

Now that that is out of the way, we can turn to more relevant matters. First, you claim there are at least three people in favor of keeping it as two seperate articles; in fact, I count at most two, you and wakeforest (who, as I noted earlier, is most likely a sockpuppet--his only edits are reverting the changes I made, creating his user page with a singly comma on it, and threatening me on my user page[1]). Although one other person edited this page soon after Wakeforst reverted it, they have yet to weigh in on either side of the discussion, although I invited them to do so. If or when they do, perhaps you can say three.

Second, in all the other cases you cite those pages have information which certainly does not belong on the main site page, and merits a page for that particular person. Although Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is a small page, that biographical material certainly does not belong on his blog's page. Drudge's page has its merits merely in its size, though some of it is surely duplicated on the Drudge Report page. No matter. Charles Johnson's page has other material as well, such as his career as a jass guitarist. This page has no such material; all of it, apart from the two sentences at the top, clearly belongs in the Free Republic article, and even those might be debated.

So, I need to go over where now to make my case? Perhaps I need to join the Society of Unilateralists, or the Society of Sock Puppeteers, so that I can make my case more effectively, as Wakeforest obviously seems to have convinced you that way?

Please, get a clue about what is actually going on here. Or are you going to threaten to hardban me now for disagreeing with you? --Jonathan Christensen 19:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JC - Your response to an attempt at discussion is unnecessarily combative in tone. Wikipedia works on consensus, not flame wars. Contrary to your indications, others DID try to discuss the issue here above after you came along and changed the article - see Casito's post to you "Please consider discussing before deleting." Your response was to neglect his request for a explanation of your changes, send him over to the FR discussion page, and go right ahead with those changes unimpeded and without any genuine consideration of the requests that had been made of you. That is the definition of unilateral action. Wikipedia operates around consensus, and quite frankly the consensus to date is NOT with you on this issue. It is plainly evident from your post that you have some sort of previous issue with Wakeforest that I'd prefer not to tread into. Come back when you're mature enough to engage in a polite discussion of the proper placement of this article absent your disposition toward combative rantings and unilateral changes against the consensus. Rangerdude 00:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. This looks to have been unpleasant. Personally I don't see any problem with a redirect; this person is only notable for his involvement with the Website, which has its own page. Information on the author of the Website can go there. I probably would've just put it up for VfD. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and this probably goes without saying, but it's not very polite to make threats about banning someone just because you disagree with something they did editorially. (Not to mention pretending to have the power to ban someone in the first place.) · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The source of the unpleasantness to date has been JC, who unilaterally changed the article at a time when there was no consensus to do so. Going by how similar website/website author articles have been formed (see the examples I gave above) it seems perfectly proper to split them into two articles in keeping with how other situations like this have been handled. Rangerdude 00:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creating a redirect in this situation -- as opposed to ridiculously empty threats about banning someone over an editorial disagreement -- seems much less unpleasant. As to the rest, I suppose if someone were invested in the article it would seem unpleasant for someone to create a redirect and merge the information in another article, but Wikipedia asks us to assume good faith. It also says to be bold. On the other hand, it was perfectly OK for someone with a disagreement to revert his edit. So far everybody's playing well together. The proper thing to do then becomes discussing the redirect/revert on talk pages; unfortunately the person who reverted his edit instead let his or her temper get the better of him and began making empty threats about banning in a laughable attempt to get his way. As for prior precedents, personally I don't think this person and this publication rise to the same level of notability as something like Drudge Report or Daily Kos. I don't claim to be the ultimate arbiter of such things, but I've heard of all the others you mentioned -- but not this one. Perhaps this is best decided as part of a VfD vote where it will attract more opinions, as was my initial thought. Just my two cents. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:11, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

- Once again, I do not know why that user threatened a banning or whatever else he did. From the looks of things those two users have past issues. My attention is concerned with this article, and JC's response to several simple and polite requests that he explain himself rather than acting unilaterally was unnecessarily combative and accusitory. His edit was reverted because at least three people, myself included, voiced disagreement with it and with the unilateral manner in which he went about conducting it despite requests to engage the issue in a consensus-oriented discussion. As to your comments on this site author, Free Republic is actually a larger and better travelled website than all of the other examples save Drudge. The "well I haven't heard of him" standard doesn't leave much to go by, and those who have heard of him seem to be recognizing his importance for a separate article. Also, regarding a VfD, I don't think this option should be sought unless more substantive differences are exercised here. Just because some random user comes along and decides to make a major change to a developing article without justifying it doesn't mean we have to immediately poll all of wikipedia to resolve it. Let's use a little common sense here before taking it to a higher level. Rangerdude 16:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Personally, I think VfD is the commonsense next step unless more people notice the RfC. RfC doesn't always attract a lot of attention. Currently we're stalemated, for instance. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

- - - I don't see what you describe as a stalemate. Right now I see (1) a user who is angry over the fact that his attempts to merge the articles were reverted and met objections from not one but several editors, most of whom he's essentially shunned to pursue personal issues with one over events that happened on the Free Republic article (2) you, apparently voicing the belief that it should be merged, and (3) four users who have indicated that it should be separate in some form, myself among them. Given these circumstances, it does not seem that this article is suffering from a lack of attention nor does there appear to be a "stalemate" (4 is larger than 2). Nor does there seem to be anybody seriously making the case why a merger is necessary, though I have made an extensive case based on other precedents that support having two separate articles. If you'd like to resolve this then by all means make your case. But jumping to a VfD before that's even happened and in the seeming deficit of other supporters for whatever your position may be is not the solution at this time Rangerdude 21:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - Sorry, I take that back -- three people who are for separate articles and two against (I forgot to include the original reverter). Not sure who you count as a fourth but it doesn't look like it matters. Mea culpa. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:35, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

- - These two users do not have past issues, because the other user did not exist in the past. He was created solely for the purpose of threatening to ban me. I'd be very interested to know who's puppet he was, however. Perhaps I should see if I can get any help on that. Second, my edit was reverted because the owner of this puppet (this puppeteer) disagreed with me and wanted to ban me, not because three people coived disagreements and wanted to discuss it. Perhaps you need to work the chronology out... --Jonathan Christensen 17:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Whatever issue it may be between you and him, take it somewhere else. This discussion is about the design and placement of this article, not a forum for you to whine about whoever you think has wronged you. As I noted previously, come back when you're mature enough to engage in a polite discussion of the proper placement of this article absent your disposition toward combative rantings and unilateral changes against the consensus. Rangerdude 20:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - See, it's impossible to take it somewhere else, because the user account effectively doesn't anymore. It's called a sockpuppet. You may have have heard the word before. But, this will now go on VfD, because here, at least, you insist on repeatedly turning the discussion towards me rather than the matter in question. Perhaps there you might be able restrain yourself from personal attacks? --Jonathan Christensen 06:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There you go again, JC. You cannot seem to even move beyond your personal disputes with that other editor (and I don't care who or what he may have been - this is no place for a pissing match), nor do you seem to offer any reason in support of your position. Rangerdude 04:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this can do with being a separate article, it is about as notable as other examples given. ObsidianOrder 06:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD Tag is Inappropriate per wikipedia policy

As noted on the VfD discussion page started by JC, his use of this tag is inappropriate for this article and in violation of wikipedia policy. As I understand it, JC wishes to merge this article with another. Wikipedia's policy on candidates VfD's - found at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy - explicitly EXCLUDES merger requests from article disputes that should be resolved by this mechanism. Barring any subsequent justification for it, the VfD tag should be removed for the reason that it misuses this option. Rangerdude 04:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the first time, yes, but there have already been two merges conducted on this page ([2] and [3]) but these have been reverted. Therefore I think it appropriate to put it to the community to decide. --bainer 06:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that both of those mergers have been attempted unilaterally and without concern for discussion or consensus by a single user. Wikipedia has separate policies for settling merge disputes. VfD, per its explicit guidelines, does not apply here. You should also note that the first of those mergers was made unilaterally within only 30 minutes of the article's creation and was not discussed with anybody. The second was made by the same individual a day later DESPITE several outstanding requests of him to discuss the matter before acting as he did. Rangerdude 14:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right, WP:DP does say that articles that need to be merged shouldn't be put up for deletion, what it says is they should be merged. And that was done, twice, and then undone, twice. My point was that there is clearly not going to be a consensus here between two users, and so putting it on VfD would seem to be an appropriate way to get more users involved. Personally, I think that all elements of this page are either mergeable, or constitute a vanity page as per WP:VAIN. In any event, just let the VfD take its course, and the correct solution will be reached. --bainer 04:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was done twice unilaterally by one single problem poster and undone twice, each with a request to see the discussion page, after multiple people objected to his unilateral merger. This too was done in violation of wikipedia policy as the procedure for mergers is to place a merge tag on the top of the page in question then allow time for comments on the discussion page over how and if that article should be merged with another. JC did none of this. He simply changed it - the first time only half an hour after the article came up and the second time in complete disregard for the objections stated on the talk page. Furthermore, this discussion as you can plainly see has attracted more than just two users at an impasse. Rather, it has involved at least four separate users who have objected to JC's unilateral attempts to merge, another user who supports the concept of merging, and JC himself, who merged it twice but refuses to participate in a dialog over WHY he thinks it needs to be merged or reach any consensus. The fact that one single editor won't play ball with all the rest is not a legitimate reason to initiate a VfD, and especially one that is not in compliance with wikipedia policy. It reeks of not getting your way on the discussion forum and then trying to circumvent it elsewhere. If he wants to delete this article and make his case for deletion then he needs to restart the process from the beginning and make that the question to vote on through a VfD page. If he wants to merge the article and make his case for doing so then he needs to add a merge tag and make that the question to vote on right here at the discussion page. There's no use in having wikipedia policies if we're not going to abide by them, and right now JC isn't. Rangerdude 05:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Closed deletion listing

This article was listed for deletion on 16 April, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of merge and redirect to Free Republic. This article will not be deleted, but the information in it will be merged into the target article and this article will be turned into a redirect to it. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jim Robinson. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notice of Disagreement with this decision

It should be noted that this decision produces an unusual situation on wikipedia wherein this particular individual, Jim Robinson, is deemed insufficient to merit his own article whereas similarly situated persons famous for a political website and little more, among them Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, Matt Drudge, Charles Johnson, John_H._Hinderaker, and Scott_W._Johnson, are given a separate article though Robinson is not. In reviewing the page Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jim_Robinson one may plainly see that the majority of "votes" in favor of merging the two articles contained absolutely no reason or justification for this desire beyond stating the direction of a vote. At least one participant in this voting process, himself purportedly an administrator no less, initially cast a "vote" containing nothing more than childish profanity (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jim_Robinson&oldid=12960317) before modifying it to his final position to remove the article. Furthermore, as was pointed out on this talk page and the VfD page as well, the VfD process itself was initiated in violation of Wikipedia policy and against the standing consensus on this page at the time, which was to keep the article. Given these outstanding inconsistencies on wikipedia, the arbitrary nature of the merger decision, the lack of substantive rationale for that decision, and the failure of parties involved to address or offer any solution for the standing inconsistency between the approach taken to this article and the aforementioned articles of a similar nature, it is my hope and anticipation that this matter will be revisited in the near future. Rangerdude 20:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have listed a number of objections:

Neutrality described Jim Robinson as a "notable asshole".
Other site-owners get their own articles.
Most votes gave no justification.
Listing for deletion was a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Well Neutrality was very naughty and you should consider taking the matter up with him. As I indicated earlier, VfD decisions are made on an article-by-article basis, so if you think there is a serious problem with Matt Drudge, say, having his own article, please list it on VfD with a view to merging and we'll see what the consensus is. Most votes gave no justification, but a VfD vote is at minimum merely an expression of personal preference. No justification is required. And finally, VfD is the main venue for decisions on merges, deletions and transwikis. It is eminently sensible to list on VfD if consensus on the article itself is against you, because then a wider section of the membership can look at it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem though - the wider membership does NOT actually look at the article itself - most are completely unfamiliar with what's been going on in the article's discussion page itself and just cast a yes/no vote after reviewing the thing for a matter of minutes if not seconds. Whatever your merge decision was based upon, I am not confident it was made with a full view as to the events that preceded it or the problems surrounding the attempt to separate the two articles. As I noted elsewhere, this entire process was initiated at the behest of one single disgruntled user who disagreed with the consensus here and who made multiple unilateral decisions to merge the article without the proper merge tag or period of discussion and in direct conflict with the consensus against him. NONE of these pertinent facts were ever addressed by proponents of a merger throughout either the VfD process or the discussion here. Furthermore, it is a straw man argument to suggest that Drudge et al should be examined in the case of their own article, as my intent is not to merge those other articles but rather to ascertain why an inconsistent set of principles are used to merge/separate articles on persons and their websites that are otherwise very similar. The issue is not those other articles, but inconsistency between your decision and those other articles and inconsistency of that sort diminishes the overall quality of wikipedia's content and writing. Rangerdude 02:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you keep insisting on making statements like As I noted elsewhere, this entire process was initiated at the behest of one single disgruntled user... but I'll point out -- once again -- that I was the one that suggested the VfD in the first place, not JC. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:55, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, Katefan. You initially suggested a VfD under the mistaken belief that there was a deadlock here between people who favored and opposed a merger. You asserted at the time your belief that it was necessary to attract more attention to the issue. As I pointed out in my reply to you, you were mistaken in your counting of the votes as there was no deadlock and a clear majority favored retaining it. Furthermore, there was no deficit of attention as at least a half dozen different editors had weighed in in one form or another. You acknowledged this response with the following statement and dropped the VfD issue at that point:

Sorry, I take that back -- three people who are for separate articles and two against (I forgot to include the original reverter). Not sure who you count as a fourth but it doesn't look like it matters. Mea culpa.

Some time after that, JC returned and in his normal unilateral fashion tagged the article with a VfD request, thus initiating the VfD process. Talking about doing a VfD and then retracting it after it is pointed out that you've counted incorrectly is not the same thing as initiating the VfD and physically sticking a tag there. Rangerdude 04:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Whether you agree with the reasons why I suggested the VfD in the first place, I still suggested it originally. Two people can't initiate a VfD, so of course JC was the only one who functionally wrote {{subst:vfd}} into the page. But to suggest that he somehow acted "unilaterally" with no other form of support for the action is just wrong, no matter how much text you dump into this page. And just because I was mistaken in not counting User:Wakeforest as having an opinion doesn't mean I then changed my mind on the VfD. I always felt like it was the best course to take. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

- You certainly didn't pursue a VfD after that was pointed out to you, and by all indication your response beared the characteristics of an apology for its predecessor and a retraction where you conceded that "it doesn't look like it matters." You did not say "sorry, I was wrong but we should still do a VfD anyway." You left it at the equivalent of "sorry, I was wrong" and from there ceased pressing for a VfD. You only came to support one after that when JC initiated it on his own and the vote there started to shape in favor of your position. Rangerdude 16:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not "only come to support one after ... JC initiated it on its own." One of my first comments on the talk page was to suggest VfD, and my opinion never changed on that score. You obviously have a significant investment in this article, for reasons that I can't fathom (of course, I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that I know those reasons better than you do) -- but I respectfully ask that you not put words in my mouth. I have made clear my position numerous times. You can try to twist it to your purposes all you like, but I know what my opinions have been and the intent of my own words and I'll thank you to respect them. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well if you're saying now that it was three for separate articles, two against, this means there was no consensus--all the more reason to go to VfD. I just don't accept the argument on inconsistency--the last thing Wikipedia needs right now is to strive for consistency. We avoid making broad policy decisions such as "all articles on owners of blogs/cms's like Drudge Report, Free Republic etc must be merged with their respective websites unless they have significant fame elsewhere", but decide things on an article-by-article basis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you reject a majority here in favor of keeping it as a lack of consensus yet you also base your decision to merge the article on a majority vote to merge it from VfD? No wonder you find the concept of consistency so troubling. Rangerdude 16:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now you know that's wrong. We don't go by majorities on Wikipedia. Even by my stringent standards, 9 for and 3 against (75%, with no suggestion of voting iregularities) is a consensus; some administrators would have accepted even 8 for and 4 against (66%). Your "2 for and 3 against" (60% against) obviously didn't qualify as a consensus against the proposal even by the generous 66% interpretation, much less by mine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to run for President and win the election by 60% it would be considered a landslide and a mandate. A majority is a majority, and accepting one majority while shunning the other is fundamentally inconsistent. Let's suppose you are right for a moment though, but in doing so seek the fullest vote of consensus possible. That means including the two users who also indicated here and on the Free Republic page that they were against the merge, but who did not participate in (and probably did not even known about) the VfD that was initiated after they cast their votes here. The total changes to 9 for and 5 against (64% to 36%), which is a mere 4 percentage points removed from what you deem a lack of consensus. But that returns us to consistency, and consistency dictates that two conflicting majorities existed where the votes were separated. As I have also shown above, one of the minority views on this talk page who called for a VfD even retracted that position and apologized to me for doing so when he/she realized that the majority had voted here to keep the article as is. As to your claim that no suggestion of voting irregularities happened on the VfD, I beg to differ. I have already shown you one documented case where a vote you counted was tainted by a crude and profane personal attack and your only response was to tell me that I should take it up with him, even though you are the self-appointed vote tallier and thus exercise the discretion to evaluate the propriety of votes such as that - not me. If you so desired to read the background of this discussion, you would also find that I was repeatedly maligned with an untruthful allegation of being/using a "sockpuppet" - once by heavy inferrence from the original problem poster who later backtracked when called out on it, and a second time by another poster who concurred with him and interpreted his inferrence as a direct suggestion that I was using a "sockpuppet." Furthermore, issues were raised from the very first day of the entire VfD that it was being improperly pursued in contradiction of wikipedia guidelines for conducting a VfD versus conducting a merge tag, which the original merger ALSO failed to follow. The truly odd thing about this entire charade is that it never had to happen and wouldn't have if only the original merger had used a little tact and greater respect for consensus from the get go. If he wanted to make his case for a merger I'd have been open to it. Instead he showed up barely half an hour after the article was created when barely anybody had even the slightest chance to review it and merged the two unilaterally without a merge tag, discussion, or anything but his own whims and desires. He was nevertheless called out at the time by three separate posters who objected to the way he handled the merger and urged him to discuss it before merging. But instead of doing that, he returns to post a rant full of personal attacks on one of those three other users and in short order unilaterally merged the thing again without a care for consensus! As far as I am concerned the article was never properly discussed from the very beginning, and when such opportunities arose on the VfD page for those circumstances to be mentioned, they were quickly removed to an obscure talk page that the vast majority of people who voted never even saw. You, as an arbitrator of the VfD process, had an obligation and duty to properly evaluate and inform yourself of the full circumstances of the VfD request and weigh the arguments made for and against a merger on their content, not their number. Instead, as far as I can tell, you simply counted the votes (including a number of votes with no reasons stated and at least one that was cast through a profane means entirely inappropriate for wikipedia), picked the majority as the winner, and went with that as your decision. Rangerdude 16:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have also shown above, one of the minority views on this talk page who called for a VfD even retracted that position and apologized to me for doing so when he/she realized that the majority had voted here to keep the article as is. Once again, you are misrepresenting my position. My mea culpa was for mistaking the amount of people who had weighed in. Nothing more. You are reading more into my words than I ever intended -- and in fact, have set you right about now in multiple places. Wikipedia demands that we assume good faith -- but I'm beginning to wonder when you insist on misrepresenting my opinions. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:17, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary. You staked your earlier request for a VfD on the grounds that (1) not enough people were taking notice of this and (2) in your own words "Currently we're stalemated." As I pointed out, neither happened to be the case. There was no stalemate as a majority consensus existed and there was no deficit of activity on this talk page. You conceded those points when I made note of them and then posted your apology. By direct inference, your stated reasons to do a VfD no longer existed and with it the VfD request made upon them. If they were not your reasons for a VfD then exactly what were? Rangerdude 19:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not continue to argue with you about what my opinions were and are. I have stated them plainly to you and I will appreciate your representing them properly going forward from here. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:31, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also point out that one of those three against (Wakeforest, who also made empty threats about banning JC) was accused of being a sockpuppet, which could factor into an admin's decision on whether to count the vote or not. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

And I'd also like to point out that when that sockpuppet allegation was made, you asserted that it pertained to me as well without any basis in fact, evidence, or reality. Furthermore, the original problem editor chose to wage a personal attack upon the editor he accused of being a sockpuppet in lieu of repeated requests by myself and others to discuss his case for a merger, all the while implicating me by inferrence in his allegation even though no evidence exists that could ever support it. Rangerdude 16:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested that the person using a sockpuppet was you. JC made that allegation. I only pointed out that the allegation had been made at some point. I took (and take) no sides. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:17, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well JC now denies that he did that. So which is it? Rangerdude 19:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obliged to prove anything in particular. You were the one who suggested I alleged that Wakeforest was your sockpuppet. I denied it. Now the burden lies on you to show me (and whoever else is still reading this) that I in fact did that. Which is an impossible burden, because it never happened. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, to summarize, it looks to me like you don't accept the policy of consensus on Wikipedia and you don't accept the right of other editors to list items on VfD if the majority is against them on the talk page. And most of all you think my actions here have been rubbish because I decided to merge when nine editors voted to merge and three editors voted to keep, and because I didn't take sufficient account of your opinion. Well I think this is where I say it's time to get some further feedback on this. I suggest either a RFC or a post on WP:AN/I. The former is to get other editors to look at what I did and see if they agree that I've been a bit naughty. The latter is to get other administrators to look at it and see if they agree that I've done something bad that another administrator needs to sort out, or that requires the censure of my fellow administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There you go constructing straw man arguments again, Tony. I've long been an advocate of consensus on this discussion page as consensus clearly existed at the time that JC made a unilateral decision to merge the artice...twice...in the face of multiple direct standing requests that he abstain from doing so until the matter could be discussed. You seem to be mistaking consensus with a simple unweighted majority vote, and a vote that outright disregards the presence of a different majority on this talk page in the other direction. Seeing as your own comments admit to the fact that you based your decision on little more than unweighted votes (including unweighted votes by editors that were somewhat less than in keeping with wikipedia's policy, two wit "notable @$$hole"), I do indeed think it is fair to say that your actions here are rubbish because they failed to take sufficient account of any opinion or rationale offered in the discussion of this article at all. Rangerdude 19:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that continues to be your opinion, and if at least one person agrees with you and has also tried and failed to convince me that I did something wrong here (I still accept it is possible that I acted wrongly), then I urge you to raise my action here under either "General user conduct" or "Use of administrator privileges". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Coming to this from the RfC. After reviewing the talk page and the VfD page it appears to me that the VfD was conducted properly and the results were judged correctly. The weighting of votes, as I understand it, is intended to discard invalid votes from very new users, etc, rather than to give additional weight to editors who give good reasons. The comparison to other articles is informative to the VfD process but not determinative of the outcome. The earlier merges may or may not have been valid or wise, but that is moot. -Willmcw 23:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Saw this discussion on RfC. Willmcw has most elegantly made most of the points that I would bring up. Although VfD isn't technically the place to which article merger questions should be brought, it nevertheless serves to expose the question to a significant section of the Wikipedia community. Since there was already one inconclusive RfC on the issue, I can understand how VfD might have been a 'desperation' step to resolve the question. I see no reason why the VfD results now available should be disregarded. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the first "inconclusive RfC" on this? The initial merge decision was made unilaterally and without any tag, merge or otherwise. Virtually no effort was put forth by the main proponent of the merge to either discuss the change he desired or to obtain consensus on it before he initiated the VfD. Rangerdude 06:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at this. Regardless of how the VfD was initiated, it did serve to sample the opinions of a number of editors. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks then as if the first RfC was never even given a chance to run its course by JC, who added the VfD barely a day later. Of course his apparent justification of attracting more editors was never a legitimate problem to begin with. There were plenty of editors who had weighed in around here with edits or posts to the talk page - already 5 or 6 within a day of the article's creation. His whole problem with them is that all but one of those editors disapproved of the way he was conducting himself unilaterally. Rangerdude 15:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough--JC didn't give the first RfC very much time. Give him a Wikislap on the wrists, and encourage him to learn from that mistake. The point is that the question is moot with respect to this article's merger. Since the VfD has taken place, there's no point in pretending it hasn't, or that the opinions contributed there in good faith shouldn't count. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, but it's not the only slap on the wrists merited from this whole exchange. JC engaged in a very similar pattern of behavior throughout the dispute. His original unilateral decision to merge the articles was made only 30 minutes after its creation. It had already attracted attention as an article and was immediately reverted back with multiple requests of JC to explain himself. He came back only 30 minutes after that and merged the two a second time. He made 2 unilateral mergers in less than an hour, during which no less than three different editors including myself told him to stop it and explain himself before making any drastic changes like that. That is no basis to justify a VfD. As to the mootness, I realize the VfD is done. But my point is that the VfD was corrupted from the very beginning by being improperly launched and that the manner in which it was decided disregarded many of the facts I am discussing here right now. A VfD is of little value if the introductory post to it is written by the primary offender and he leaves out a true accounting of his own actions because the participants don't see what has actually been going on without extensive searching on their own. Even if we were to take all subsequent votes in good faith (and I've already shown that at least one wasn't due to masked profane content), it remains that the VfD itself was NOT initiated in good faith. Also, I raised these points at the time the VfD was initiated before it was moot and the administrator who reviewed the case apparently could've cared less. Rangerdude 15:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

← (drag discussion back to left margin) If a VfD nomination is widely believed to be in bad faith, then the nominator usually catches an earfull from the community. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesus comes to mind as a current example. If someone put up a VfD suggesting a merger of George W. Bush into George H.W. Bush, I'm sure that there would be a dramatic (and quite justified) outcry.

JC's behaviour is irrelevant to the merger of this article. Several good editors made sensible comments on the VfD, and a sound decision was reached there. The VfD process was apparently correctly followed; I see no reason why its result should be disregarded. I'm pretty sure if we carry on with this thread we're just going to repeat the same arguments ad nauseum, so I yield the floor. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and all on a VfD for somebody like Bush, but the situation is not really comparable. Bush is a well known figure to everybody. Robinson is relatively obscure, albeit notable. Thus while a bad faith attempt to delete the Bush article would quickly prompt an outcry, the same for Robinson would not necessarily attract much attention at all. As to the process, JC's behavior is completely relevant because he initiated the VfD in conflict with wikipedia policies and did so under misleading pretenses. If you read his description of why he called for the VfD, it suggests that some sort of a long standing impasse had been reached on the talk page with little participation and no other way to solve it than a VfD. In reality, the article was less than two days old, discussion was ongoing here, and the only person refusing to participate in that discussion was JC himself. You can see that plainly above where I made no less than three direct attempts to get him to make the case for his change, but instead he kept going back to his personal disputes with another editor who he believed had wronged him in some way. I also attempted to bring this pertinent background material to light on the VfD voting page as a comment, but JC promptly removed it and stuck it on a backroom talk page. You cannot honestly say that circumstances such as these do not alter the way a VfD article is read or presented. Rangerdude 18:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken, and it's neither here nor there at this point, but I think the person who moved the information from the VfD to the Talk page was Radiant. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:02, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. Radiant moved it and JC posted a concurring message with the move about 30 minutes later. Strangely, Radiant described the material he moved as "discussion not relevant to this article" yet as far as I can tell virtually everything on the talk page had to do with either the article itself or the VfD process directly involving the article. Rangerdude 19:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A policy page that might help

I wonder if it might be useful to inform the discussion here if folks read WP:POINT. It has a number of good observations about consistency or the lack thereof, to wit: The nature of consensus editing, combined with editor churn, means that Wikipedia is not consistent. Where there are two or more equally correct ways of handling matters, and no consensus or guideline has been established, Wikipedia tolerates inconsistency except where it creates some sort of practical problem. For example: [...] Implementation of deletion policy is not consistently applied to marginally suitable articles. The vote-based nature of the deletion process results in decisions affected by the mix of people following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion during any given week. Consequently, some articles that are deleted are arguably more meritorious than others that have been kept. Since marginally useful articles are indeed of marginal value, this doesn't create a practical problem. Understanding the inconsistent nature of Wikipedia and accepting it as a desirable thing inherent in the processes and values of the project helps relieve Wikistress and limits the temptation to make disruptive edits. For what it's worth. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:00, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but the presence of inconsistency and a willingness to tolerate its existence in no way means we must also embrace its existestence in and of itself and accept it as immutable. Accept that inconsistency exists if you like, but work to reduce them wherever possible. Rangerdude 19:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the VfD process was not properly conducted then there is also a complementary VfU, Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, which is available as a mechanism to appeal VfD decisions. Either accept the VfD or go through the proper channels to have the decision reversed. -Willmcw 21:09, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've already found it. It'd helpful to note that fact here, since interested parties may want to participate. -Willmcw 21:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

It can be found here for anyone interested in participating: Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Jim_Robinson. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:49, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I would have missed this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SHall we restore this page?

The FR page is full of Jim Robinson stuff, and sending that to it's own page would focus it. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 09:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the VfD debate on this a while back. The decision then was to merge, but things may obviously change over time. Feel free to restore and expand. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 10:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably paste the disambiguation stuff to a new article Jim Robinson (disambiguation). --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 10:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It depends.

He has been in the news recently. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Google News only lists one very minor mention [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21243421.shtml]. That doens't seem sufficient. Is there something else? -Will Beback 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Six-in the New York Post-isn't a "minor" mention by any stretch of the imagination.

Plus, I can only assume that the story itself was republished in other media outlets outside of New York and/or Texas since this scene is apparently a major part of the film being produced by the manager of the Dixie Chicks. Ruthfulbarbarity 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the "news" is that Jim Robinson won't appear in a movie about folks who disagree with him? That's not really a notable event. I don't read gossip columns like Page Six often, but I'm sure there are many people mentioned in it that don't have Wikipedia articles. -Will Beback 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the news is that he-and by extension, his website-are the focus of an upcoming film, which has attracted a lot of publicity.

Supposedly his spokesman explains Free Republic's position in lieu of his appearance.

And I respectfully disagree with your second contention.

Page Six is one, if not the most widely-read gossip column published in a major daily.

There are very few, if any, individuals mentioned-by name-in that column who are not noteworthy in some capacity. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an article on the Free Republic spokesman? I don't think so. In any case, this apears to be as much about FR as about JR. Let's see what happens when (and if) the movie is actually made. -Will Beback 23:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying that we should have an article devoted to his spokesperson.

My point was that Jim Robinson was asked to appear in this film by its creators but declined to be interviewed, instead referring that request to his media representative.

Whether or not the owner of a notable website deserves a separate article is an arguable question-which has occasioned debate over other unrelated articles-but when that owner earns substantive media coverage in his own right I think it's worth exploring the issue.

I agree that waiting for this documentary to be released-and then analyzing the extent to which FR and Jim Robinson play a pivotal role-is an advisable course. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To James Robinson

I disagree with the recent redirect to "James Robinson" because: Readers may be looking for someone commonly called "Jim", and having them have to look through a significantly longer list at "James" to find the person makes finding who their looking for more rather than less difficult. Also, at least one of the Jims listed here (the trombononist) was never a "James". -- Infrogmation (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]