Jump to content

User talk:GregJackP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Useitorloseit (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 29 August 2015 (→Thanks for the support: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please add new posts at the bottom of the page.

James T. Brady

Hey Greg,

In a mildy quid pro quo-type way (), could you do a GA review of James T. Brady for me. It's a pretty short article. Shouldn't take very long. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it will be later this weekend, if that's OK. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coinage Act of 1873

I'd be grateful if you'd bring your legal skills to the FAC and for any comments. I read your most thoughtful standards, by the way, and I agree entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy have been enacted:

  1. The Arbitration Committee delegates the drafters of this case to amend and clarify the text of the policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to bring them in line with the clarifications contained in this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement closed

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support votes

I would suggest simply asking support voters who attach minimal text to their supports for diffs of actions that particularly impressed them about the candidate's qualifications.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a good idea, but I fear if they are too lazy to write more than "sure," they are likely too lazy to search for diffs. Plus I'm kind of discouraged and beat-down. Another non-content creating admin just blocked Dapi89 because of civility, after another bozo came in and was f'ing up the Bibliography and citation style on the article. Dapi89 is a WWII content creator with numerous GAs. But hey, we need more non-content admins... GregJackP Boomer! 06:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins follow the direction of the community. If you think that content contributors should be exempt from our civility policy then you can seek consensus for a change in policy to reflect that. If you can get consensus for such a change then admins will follow that. Even content creating administrators have to follow what policy says. However I think that the community wants the civility policy to be enforced evenly towards all editors, at least that is what the consensus is every time someone suggests something like that. Chillum 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that they should be exempt, but they should not have to put up with the riff-raff f'ing up articles, or any of the many other ways that content creators get harassed. It's a question of weight and value, and at the top of my userpage is an outstanding view of how things should be. I would go further that Wehwalt went—the guy judging the dispute should be able to weigh the value to the project of the respective parties. I think it is clear that the mason is more valuable than the trash collector. An admin's decision should reflect that. GregJackP Boomer! 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greg, I would say I like you, and I like people who rattle the cup against the bars of this prison that is Wikipedia. I've always had a soft spot for people willing to stand up and denounce hypocrisy and the like, and I've broken the rules more than once doing the exact same thing, much to the chagrin of the powers that be. We both agree content is king, and is more important than minor incivility (you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet), and even if we have different thresholds for content creation at RFA, we both agree experience is important. My point, however, is that you might be pushing it too far, so far that you lose some of us that tend to agree with you on many points. Making a single WP:POINT is sometimes handy and often funny as hell, but a string of them can be tiresome and the real meaning gets lost in the drama. Sometimes you just have to settle for half measures in making your point, and keep your powder dry for another day. That's all I wanted to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hi Greg,

Please stop exaggerating my comments (such as stating that I called you a "troll", when I never did anything of the sort; I asked if that particular comment was trolling, which was a perfectly reasonable thing to ask when you listed procedurally removed redirects as examples of deleted content), and such as implying that "non-reasonable" were my words, when you were the one who first invoked the phrase. This is evidenced by the fact that I would have used the more appropriate "unreasonable". I apologize for my needlessly snarky engagement, which was thoroughly unbecoming of an admin, but on the same token there's no need to rehash it at every turn, especially in response to unrelated and genuine attempts at discussion. You'll note that I never supported the candidacy in question, and had indeed considered opposing, so I have no interest in "harassing" you or any other editor, only to point out what I believed to be faulty logic. At the very least, could you throw me a courtesy ping when you discuss my comments on public noticeboards?

As an aside, your poignant comments on lifetime appointments and the preservation of NOBIGDEAL inspired me to overhaul my recall procedure from this utter convolution to something much simpler, so I thank you for that.

My best, – Juliancolton | Talk 17:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments. I can only state in mitigation that in past RfA discussions I have been attacked by admins and I thought this was more of the same. If you want, I'll strike my comments and clarify, just let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 17:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belated note of thanks

I just wanted to express my appreciation for your comments here. After reading your well stated responses, I felt there was nothing more I could add; so I didn't bother. Unfortunately, that made you the focus of litigious chest-beating that would have otherwise been directed at me. Sorry about that. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm just glad it all worked out. GregJackP Boomer! 17:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfAs

I wanted to let you know that I just spent an interesting half-hour or so looking through some of my old RfA comments, back when I was much more explicit about applying a content-based criteria as my primary reason for supporting or opposing (a much looser criteria than yours, but nonetheless content-based), and I was surprised to find what I hadn't remembered: that I got the same kind of negative responses to my votes are you seem to get. It appears that there are just some people who don't like the idea of judging potential admins on whether they have a good understanding of the content-creation process, and the problems that content workers face in expanding the encyclopedia. I think that surprised me back then, and is probably why I'm not nearly as specific in my statements now as I was then - I probably got tired of being hassled. BMK (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drmies, your objection is noted. Overruled.
  • BMK, thank you for your comments, both here and at the RfA. Chillum just doesn't seem to get it, and there is not point in talking to Swarm about it.
  • I would actually prefer a system where we just put our positions down, and the only questioning would be to clarify. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. GregJackP Boomer! 00:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And speaking of hats, I just reduced my hat size a bit by shaving off [what's left of] my hair. The other advantage of this is that it should allow for more expansion when I get a swelled head, and faster dipping time when I have to hang my head in shame.
    Greg, you're welcome, just calling them as I see them. BMK (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ooo, I just thought of a drawback: the next time Greg and I butt heads, I won;t have as much padding on my side. Oh, well. BMK (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am happy to talk with you on my talk page about this or any other matter. Perhaps in the meantime you can refrain from talking behind my back. Thank you. Chillum 00:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chillum, there is no mandate that everyone gets pinged when they're mentioned. At the same time, I'm sure you're welcome here if you want to weigh in. BTW, I think both of you, Greg and Chillum, went a bit overboard in that RfA. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum, you are free to watch my page, I assumed that you were. However, I'll discuss whoever I want to here. You're welcome to join in if you wish.
BMK, that's OK, I've got plenty of padding.
Drmies, I am suitably abashed at your almighty power awesomeness thing going on deal. GregJackP Boomer! 01:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got plenty of padding. That's what I'm worried about. Anyway, who knows, things change, the world turns, tomorrow is a new day, insert appropriate cliche here, etc. etc. -- maybe we won't butt heads again. Best, BMK (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, GregJackP. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 07:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This diff: [1].

Basically, I don't know who pulled whom offsides, but the totality of the behavior on the RfA has gone past acceptable levels. I am asking for more admins' eyes on it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Georgewilliamherbert, fine, I'm notified. In the meantime, stay off my talkpage. I'm tired of admins harassing people, baiting them, and setting them up for other admins to drag 'em to ANI, so if you're going to jump on the bandwagon too, you can either block me, play drama at ANI, or whatever. It's pretty bad when one admin tells you to question the support !votes and then every other asmin comes in and starts screaming that I'm now harassing those editors. Funny, no one seems to care if an opposing editor is harassed. Of course not a peep has been said about the repeated harassment by two admins, one across multiple RfAs. So if you're going to play that game too, stay the hell away from me. GregJackP Boomer! 09:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed down the ANI thread, but seriously Greg, as Dennis has said above, you're overdoing it. I don't really think anyone's got an issue with you voicing your opinion at RfA - if it matches the majority, great, if it doesn't, well that's life, and if you express blunt opinions, expect people to disagree with them with equal bluntness. Michael Portillo's made a successful career for himself despite a very famous case where consensus really didn't go his way, and the sky does not have seem to fallen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing. A number of people disagree, asked clarifying questions, and we discussed it. What is the issue is the other ones, the one's who do want to shut down the dissent, who make it a goal to harass the other person into submission. See here. Also see:

"The term “groupthink,” defined by psychologist Irving Janis in 1972, refers to how cohesive groups of people make and justify faulty decisions. People affected by groupthink usually feel pressured to conform to the views expressed by an influential group leader. They hesitate to voice concerns for fear of being shamed or ostracized, and, in the absence of dissent, they assume all other group members approve of the decisions being made. Alternatives to the group’s actions are either dismissed or never considered at all. Outsiders who raise objections are often regarded as enemies and dehumanized. Groupthinking most often arises in homogenous, insulated groups that possess no clear guidelines for decision making." Communicationstudies.com

You've got two admins who are intent on beating on this subject until I submit or leave. Why has not one admin commented on their behavior? Has anyone criticized either of them? No, and I'm the one that gets taken to ANI.

I know my position is not the popular decision, I know that Wbm is going to get the bit. I don't have an issue with that, that's what the community wants and demonstrates in the RfA process. I still get to present my opinion. You should not allow admins to hound opposing viewpoints into submission. GregJackP Boomer! 16:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say that that RfA looks like a total and utter bloodbath now. I don't know if it's been the weather or something, but this week really has seen some really nasty fights in this area with various camps ganging up against each other, and it really isn't worth it. For the record, no I am not happy about anyone beating up on anyone else from any side of the debate and there's no reason for you to call Chillum names just as much as he shouldn't be taking pot shots at you either. It is possible for you to both be wrong. And for sure, there are admins that I personally think are idiots but for the sake of good harmony and keeping the project together, we try and get on, just as I have to get on with people in the real world I don't like. The harsh reality is that sooner or later some admin is going to snap, say "enough already" and serve you with a block - that's not being mean, or belittling, that's just a plain fact of life. Sorry. Now, I've got to sort out some carpet tiles and skimming some plasterboard, so I'll leave you with soothing music and a kitten..... enjoy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments, and believe me, I'm well aware that I can be blocked at the whim of an admin, been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I'm one of only five editors who were Arbcom block/banned who have come back and earned a valiant return triple crown, so I'm aware that they can block me whenever they so desire. I'm also well aware that none of them can do what I do as far as content in my area, nor are they likely to find someone who can do it. So if they want, they can block me, but I don't have to put up with their BS. GregJackP Boomer! 17:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I am not trying to shut down your or anyone else's participation. But that you assumed I'm part of some admin cabal and trying to censor, instead of being VERY CONCERNED at how the discussion went to such abusive levels all around, is part of the problem.
I really don't have a horse in the race on whether content contributions are a necessary component of an admin promotion; it's a valid discussion to have and reason to object, as far as I'm concerned.
I am not blaming you and only you for how abusive the page got. But you were participating and seemed the focal point for one side.
I keep telling people, the reason civility matters isn't just politeness, but that it makes hard conversations (real issues, real disagreement over goals and approaches) much harder to resolve, because the acrimony destroys the ability to talk about middle ground and assume other parties are there in good faith. That's stunningly clear all around on the page there now.
I have no interest in wading in swinging. That's why the ANI notifiation, which seems to have resolved with a bunch of people arguing it's not that bad, which I am somewhat confused by but have no interest in arguing with now.
My only parting message - You are clearly past the point that the attitude you used went from productive to counterproductive in making your case about the real issue of content and admin fitness. If you want to pick a fight, that's the way to keep going. If you actually want change, that's not the way to keep going. I hope you went there to talk about and try and make a change, not pick a fight.
Have a good weekend. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think that blowing smoke is going to make me believe you. You had just as much of a chance to talk about Chillum and Swarm, but chose not to do so. I'm the one, the only one, that you took to ANI.
I would like to clarify something else. When I said to "stay off of my talkpage," what I meant was STAY.OFF.OF.MY.TALKPAGE. It's a fairly simple concept. Go away, and don't come back. Bye. GregJackP Boomer! 03:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to drop a quote here (by Eric Corbett), but can't seem to put my finger on it. (Anyway, in it he said, if memory serves, the sole reason anyone goes to ANI, is in the interest to have someone blocked. [Eric = pragmatic, truthful, and wise.]) IHTS (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jack, contrary to rumours put around by the anti-admin brigade, more often than not it's your peers who demand a block or some other remedy at ANI - the admins just read the consensus and press the buttons and make it official. Insisting on FA and GA isn't going to get a better quality of admin - the ones we need are those with an equitable sense of judgement. Users who persistently demand unreasonably high criteria for admin candidates or who frequently find themselves in the midst of drama or at the root of it there, will certainly be hauled to ANI sooner or later, and again, it won't be by the admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudpung, yeah, I've seen that in most cases. For some reason though, I've been the exception to that rule. Almost every time I've been taken to ANI, it has been by an admin. I appreciate your comments though, and take them in the spirit they were given. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deftige Kost

Welcome to the cabal of the outcasts which you were part of without signing up ;) - Beer? Here you go, with Grundlage. - Simple rulez advice: only one revert, only two comments in a discussion, then move to a new topic, - saves time. Please feel free to add TFA and projects to the lists (including archive), and add articles open for review here, - also use that forum to your liking. A GA review for BWV 119 is badly needed because it should appear on DYK best on Monday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Racist Statements noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia Administrator's noticeboard. The thread is [here]. Thank you. JordanGero (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for Bringing United States v. Kagama to FA Status!

I just saw the good news about Kagama – and thanks for the beer! (I just saw your post on my talk page as I was writing this). Congratulations for all your hard work to bring the article to FA status! Your contributions bring tremendous value to this encyclopedia, particularly because there are so few content creators that know how to write about legal topics (and few that know how to tactfully write about the history of Native Americans). Keep up the good work -- Wikipedia needs you! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

...on my recent unblock request. I promise I won't make you end up looking foolish. See you around the project. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GregJackP&oldid=678501896"