User talk:GregJackP/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

I only wish that it had been enough to get you over the hump. If you ever make another run, let me know, I'll support you. GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

New article: Misappropriation doctrine

I am working on constructing a new article - User talk:PraeceptorIP/Misappropriation doctrine - You are welcome to co-edit and comment.

The latest drahmah

Hey, you and I often agree on many things, including, as a rule, support for Corbett. On this latest drama, I am going to advise you not to go after Keilana, though. I'm asking this as a friend to both of you; I don't know what is going on here, but I think there is more than meets the eye. (email me if you want) Montanabw^(talk) 07:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'll back off because you ask, but I am not real keen on cutting people breaks when they state they are open to recall and then renege the first time that they run into a problem. GregJackP Boomer! 07:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Appreciated, thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 07:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• You should have mail. GregJackP Boomer! 07:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

From Deicas ...

Would you please have a look at my most recent edit to [our discussion at AN/I]? To find the edit easily search for "Deicas (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)".

Deicas (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Kagama Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Kagama is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Kagama/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Emerald ash borer

I have protected the page for 24 hours. Please note that you were right on the cusp of violating the three-revert rule. Could you please take your concerns to the talk page and try to work out a sensible solution. Please note that my protection should not be understood to support either version of the page; I have no opinion on the dispute itself. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Affinion Group

Is a 10K an unreliable source? It is submitted to the SEC and audited. Please tell me what you know, since I am new. --Surgenski (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's created by the company. You need a secondary source, not a primary source. GregJackP Boomer! 20:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington at DYK

Hi, GregJackP. I have begun to review your nomination, and there is an outstanding issue at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Washington, you will see I am suggesting that a more concrete hook is needed. Would you please look at this and let me know on my talk page when you would like me to return to the nomination? Regards, Moonraker (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		To GregJackP, for politely voicing his minority viewpoint. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am dismayed to see the hostility directed towards you at the recent RfA. Even though I supported the candidate, I accept that your viewpoint is a valid difference of opinion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is why I stick with WP, because every time I start to get discouraged, someone like you shows up and proves that there are still very good people here. I really appreciate your comments. GregJackP Boomer! 19:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for United States v. Washington

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote of the week

I just realized you won't get pinged by my "Quote of the week" box, since I didn't sign it, so I'd better notify you here: thank you for saying "The purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from the content creators." I've featured it as the quote of the week on my talkpage. Please let me know if you have an objection — I hope you like it. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

Absolutely no objection at all. I could give you a wiki-hug, I'm that pleased and tickled that you like my quote. GregJackP Boomer! 23:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty well-said.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cratchat

I'm interested in your opinions, and happy to debate, but would you mind not heating things by throwing around terms like "BS"? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are planning on disregarding peoples opinions, it is BS, so no, I won't change my language. What you have proposed doing is one of the reasons that the community needs to have a viable recall process for admins and bureaucrats. Unless I read it wrong, you stated that you intended to substitute your judgment for that of editors who opposed her, because you don't agree with their reasoning. That is BS, plain and simple, and if you believe that it is acceptable, you should not be an admin or a bureaucrat. GregJackP Boomer! 15:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm really truly sorry that you choose to take the inflammatory language further rather than stepping back. However, I'll extend you considerable courtesy by nonetheless explaining where I come from, and it's not about me substituting my judgement, but applying it. There's a sentence in our policy on consensus that summarises quite well how we are supposed to assess consensus. It reads "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." This is not new and applies to any type of consensus-finding, not just RfX. Wikipedia bureaucrats have an obligation to weigh the quality of the !votes at an RfX, not merely count them. Hence my comment. You'll also notice that my comment was an open-minded one, seeking the kind of feedback that is coming in from other Crats - and other editors on the talk page, who are choosing to debate, rather than throw around angry assertions that people aren't fit for x or y. It's not an easy RfA to assess and the Cratchat is supposed to encourage a flexible discussion, which is what is happening and which I am flexibly participating in. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Supervoting your opinion is not applying consensus. If you think it is, perhaps you should resign the bit and ask for another RfA based on that principle. Coming to my talk page to shut me up? Ain't going to happen. GregJackP Boomer! 15:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I came here because I thought we could have a discussion, but it unfortunately seems we can't. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dweller, are you justifiying your downgrades on the argument that the relevance of content creation experience as qualification for admin, is not found in policy ("Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy")? If so, what about other factors also not found in policy that editors might use as their !voting criteria (e.g. seeing routine shallow analyses from a candidate, as per my !vote). My point is, WP policy isn't comprehensive re qualifications criteria, is your argument based on that it is? Thanks for explain. IHTS (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso I've posted a clarification at the talk page of the Cratchat. Feel free to drop me a line at my usertalk if I've still left anything unclear. I wasn't on top form yesterday, generally, so it wouldn't surprise me! --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Dweller. Don't see anything there that answers my Q. (Had already read that entire Talk prior to posting my Q above.) IHTS (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

<replied at IHTS's usertalk. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)>

Greg, I don't think he's trying to shut you up - I think he is simply asking you to use less provocative language so the message doesn't get lost.Minor4th 15:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, if Dweller is not trying to shut me up, I'm more than happy to talk, but my experience has been that admins try to squelch the voice of those who disagree with them. I'm blunt, but I'm also open to changing my language if he really wants to talk. His call. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Greg, <and I feel like I'm bending over and asking to be kicked by coming back here again> please re-read my first post in this section. Every word of it was meant. I don't know what kind of bad experiences you've had with administrators or bureaucrats, but when I say things I really do mean them. --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a very good opinion towards admins in general, based on my past experiences here at Wikipedia. There are exceptions, people who are fine admins, but in my view, the purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from content creators. Many admins, of course, do not agree with that philosophy, usually when they do not have a background in content creation.

It's not about the number of mainspace edits, I could care less about that, nor is that relevant to one's performance as an admin. Content creation, especially creating good and featured articles is absolutely essential for evaluating whether a potential admin has the chops to do a good job in protecting content creators from those who mindlessly enforce "rules" and who do not have a clue what WP:IAR means. Your comment that you would discount the opinion of editors who you disagreed with is disheartening to me, and in my view, inappropriate.

People do not understand the garbage that content creators go through, and it is critical that we get admins who understand that process. For example, I had a article at GAN, and a non-content creator who had never edited the article before decided to remove an image and then continually argue about it on the talk page. This will likely cause a fail at GAN, because someone who doesn't edit legal articles didn't like a photo.

The problem with Liz is that she doesn't understand content creation and is of the mistaken idea that all editors are of the same value. They are not. Her attitude is shown in several of the diffs provided, and it is why a great number of the editors feel that content creation is a big deal. Wikipedia is about content. That is why it exists. GregJackP Boomer! 16:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait. I never used the word, or meaning "discount" in my comment at the Cratchat.

Let's be really clear here, because this is more important than just this conversation between you and me.

Did you misread my comment as saying "discount" or did you interpret what I actually wrote as meaning "discount"?

This is not just semantics. By "downgrade", I meant "give less weight to". It's a subtle difference, but a difference. --Dweller (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In practical terms, there is no significant difference between "downgrade" and "discount." It is an argument in semantics that I would never use in court, as I would lose.

"Discount" is defined as "a deduction taken or allowance made" or "a reduction made from the gross amount or value of something." (both from Webster's). "Downgrade" is defined as "an occurrence in which something becomes worse, less valuable."

In either case, you are making the comments and opinion of those editors less valuable. What gives you the right to do so? That's the point I'm trying to get across. GregJackP Boomer! 16:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be back later, but quickly, in my BrEng everyday English, discounting an opinion means to totally dismiss it, while by downgrade I mean give less weight to. Assessing weight is what Crats are supposed to do at an RfA. --Dweller (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, AmEng and BrEng. We really need a translator to talk to each other, lol. Same idea, different words. GregJackP Boomer! 17:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to say that "downgrade" and "discount" in this context seem to have the exact same meaning. Dweller, could you explain the difference in more detail, please? Minor4th 16:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

See above. --Dweller (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP, I think you now understand better what I meant. It's been a useful process for me, because I wasn't aware that my words had been unclear - they were, and I've clarified on the Cratchat page. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we're good. GregJackP Boomer! 21:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dweller is correct that consensus is to be interpreted through the lens of policy. You can always go to WT:ADMIN and propose some sort of "content creation" requirement for admins. If you can gain consensus for that then you arguments would have a basis in policy. Chillum 16:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Good, so you won't mind if he downgrades the weight of your support !vote? Since you did not make any argument from policy, it is OK for it to be disregarded? Or is it only opinion that you disagree with that should be discounted? GregJackP Boomer! 17:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW Chillum, why would I need to go to WT:ADMIN? WP:ADMIN already provides for me to express my opinion, Any editor can comment on a request, and each editor will assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way. Unless, of course, you are saying that my way doesn't count, while your way does. There's a phrase for that type of reasoning, but Dweller asked me not to use that word, so I won't. GregJackP Boomer! 17:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You can of course comment, and assess your confidence in a particular candidate’s readiness in your own way. Policy certainly allows for that. Policy also says that consensus will be interpreted with policy in mind. You are entitled to an opinion and you may form that opinion in your own way, but consensus is to be ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. It is not only acceptable but required that the closer take such things into account. Chillum 23:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And it is perfectly understandable why you disparage those who believe that content creation is important. How many articles have you created? None? Yet you're an admin. SMH. GregJackP Boomer! 23:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the noteworthy number of editors who, in general and consistently, consider a baseline level of content creation to be a prerequisite of a good admin, and who, in this RfA in particular, note that the candidate publicly denigrated the concerns of content creators, and has repeatedly defended sock puppets against actual content creators, why yes indeed we do expect that the 'Crats will take these concerns seriously into account. They're certainly a lot more meaningful than the usual "Support, looks like a good candidate" and "Support, I don't see why candidate would abuse the tools" WP:ILIKEIT-style votes. There is no need to "propose some sort of 'content creation' requirement for admins". WP:ENC, WP:5P, and WP:COMMONSENSE already provide a perfectly solid basis from which any voting editor can expect that a candidate is actually here to help create an encyclopedia, not for some kind of social purpose; WP:NOT#FORUM, and WP:NOT#SOCIAL / WP:NOT#GAMEHOST also address this, and provide plenty of policy basis for editors to raise such concerns at RfA. See also WP:MMORPG, which relates strongly to the issues raised about this candidate's apparent "grooming for the role".

A bovine excrement metaphor doesn't seem to be entirely unreasonable in the face of statements that appear to boil down to the supposition that a particular concern with which one doesn't agree can be magically invalidated by not being specifically enumerated at WP:ADMIN, while one simultaneously accepts as valid all the criteria with which one agrees but which are also not enumerated there. See WP:KETTLE and doublethink. Where was the criticism of all the support votes that had no basis in WP:ADMIN, or any basis at all other than personal liking? There's a well-established tradition of, and tolerance for, various editors' having and to an extent promoting particular adminship criteria, and the community intentionally leaves these open to editor discretion, within reason. It's pure campaigning to repeatedly berate an editor, inline in an RfA, for having a well-formed opinion of this sort that one does not share. "Not enough content creation" is not some crazy, out-of-the-blue "concern" like "not blonde enough", or "hasn't given me a barnstar", or "insufficient attention to fixing citation formatting at Pokemon-related articles", and we all know that.

That said, I agree with Dweller's and Minor4th's assessment that labeling others' positions "BS" is usually counterproductive. It just drowns the signal in noise. I find it's often helpful to write the "screw this bullshit" version to blow the steam off, stop and go have a glass of something refreshing, come back and revise to a less bombastic statement, then click "Save page".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If Swarm ever happens to lecture you on your manners again, you could always contrast it with his comparing another editor to Hitler, calling them a troglodyte, and telling them to f--k off his page. Alakzi (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, he sort of seems like a kid, but how do you tell? Again, thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 08:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Spaghetti07205

thought as much! Cassianto^Talk 09:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Good call! GregJackP Boomer! 15:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

General statement to Idiots

If you look at my user page, you will see a number of userboxes, for all sorts of items. For idiots who believe that my Menominee blood, or the fact that I have been in the military, or any other userbox prevents me from looking at facts objectively, well, you're an idiot.

First, Ward Churchill is an Indian wannabe who has done irreparable harm to the American Indian with his academic dishonesty and false claims of Cherokee blood.

Second, to get articles to FA/GA status, you learn what is NPOV and what is not. You don't get articles to that level with an obvious bias in the article.

Third, the Black Hills were unlawfully taken (e.g., stolen) from the Sioux, see United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371, 424 (1980), where the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that the Black Hills were unlawfully taken from the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota peoples.

Fourth, my people fought and beat both the Sioux and the Ojibwe to hold their land, and then the Ojibwe beat the Sioux to force them out onto the prairie. Our peoples are not exactly friends, but neither the Sioux nor the Ojibwe have lied like the whites have done. (BTW, you can support that statement with dozens of WP:RS).

Finally, only a moron would believe I'm an admin—I know both of my parents. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for volunteering to complete the GA review for Schmerber v. California, and for your tireless efforts to improve legal articles on Wikipedia! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping

Thanks for the ping and nod at Texas A&M. I mean that. However:

• I am trying to minimize my involvement in COI matters, which can be delicate, where I have a troubled history with one of the people involved, especially following the Atsme matter (one tries to learn and change).
• I can't put together your kind ping and nod, with your consistent statements around WP that you don't trust my judgement.
• I am also steering clear of you per Trypto's advice.

Sorry for putting this here but it seemed the only reasonable place to respond to your ping. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• I understand that you are trying to minimize your COI involvement and actually applaud you for that. I think that will help in your overall value to WP.
• I think that you misunderstand some of my concerns with you. I have never doubted your interest in WP, although I have disagreed with some of your actions. Some of your judgment has been less than optimal, but until I gave up editing in a couple of contentious areas, mine was no better. I disagree with you primarily as regards to Praeceptor, not as regards to all of WP.
• Your answering here was appropriate. I debated posting on your talk page, but decided against it, as I'm sure you understand. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. I was ... apprehensive. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if this is possible, but I would like to try to talk with you about PraeceptorIP's editing. Would you be open to that? Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We can try, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea. If it starts to get heated, we need to have agreed beforehand that either of us can tell the other that we are ending the conversation. If you're OK with agreeing to that, I'll give it a shot. GregJackP Boomer! 15:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Either party may terminate this discussion by providing written notice to the other at User talk:GregJackP, which notice shall be effective as of the date of said notice. How's that? :) We can also do this offline if you like. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That works for me, and online is preferable for me. GregJackP Boomer! 16:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

great - so first thing i would like to say, is that i am very happy to have someone of PraeceptorIP's stature working in WP, and I want him to be happy and to stay. There are some issues with his editing - as there are with many inexperienced editors - but those are very fixable. That is all I want to do, is work with him to fix those things. My intention is in no way to shut him down or muffle him, but to help him be a better Wikipedian so that he can be even more productive (if he wants to be). I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my sense is that you don't .. trust my intentions and want to ... protect him from me. (being tentative there, please correct anything that is badly stated or inaccurate) I wanted to start there, on the level of intentions, before we move to specifics, so we have a foundation on which to talk. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I trust your intentions, but you only have two speeds, full speed and off. You come across as too intense, and I want to make sure that we don't lose someone of Praeceptor's expertise. If you could learn to moderate your intensity, I think you would have much more success. This is (I think) the point that Tryptofish was trying to make with his Javert comment, to get you to ease up. Javert was utterly righteous, but he ended up destroying himself because of that.

Part of the reason I recognize that is I was in many ways the same, full speed or off, and I went through a lot of grief because of it. I also know that I'm not the most diplomatic guy in the mix, but I'm not trying to take any shots at you, I'm just blunt.

Again, I trust your intentions and know that you want what is best for WP. GregJackP Boomer! 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I came here because GregJackP, in turn, pinged me. I've read the discussion here, but I do not know the details behind it. In my opinion, what you are each saying to one another here makes very good sense, and is on the right track. Please feel free to ping me again if I can be of help in any specific way. Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that we can start from a basis of trust.... discussions are easier that way. I hear you that I can be too intense sometimes; i don't agree with the characterization that i have only two speeds, but i think the point of concern is that i can be too intense -- that is what worries you and I hear that, and know that. Hopefully that is agreement enough.

Assuming it is... turning now to PraeceptorIP. Again, am very grateful to have someone of his stature here. My concern, briefly and summarized, is that he has been treating WP too much like a canvas to write essays (which is what many experts do, when they come here). I wouldn't be circling back to this, if he weren't creating a lot of content - both new articles, and working over existing articles. What I wanted to do with him, was work with him to get more oriented him toward our key content policies (OR, NPOV, VERIFY) and the nature of WP writing (which is really different from writing a law article, where the very point is to make an argument and persuade people to accept it) ... to work with him on the foundations of what he does here.

That was my goal, and remains my concern. I don't know if you see what I see in his editing (some of the POV issues are pretty deep in the weeds of IP law). I know that somewhere you mentioned that it would be good if he referenced things better....

but having the "writing Wikipedia articles is not like writing other kinds of articles" discussions with distinguished experts is hard and is generally a conversation that I try to hold in the least "hot" mode possible (switching metaphors from your "two speeds" description of interactions). This one is triply hard because a) his stature: b) the fact that I first encountered him in the midst of working on content which muddies the waters (as I mentioned, already makes things difficult); c) your ... running interference/protecting him. I would often bring a case like this to COIN, but i really don't think the drama would be good in this case. I don't want to "win" or beat anybody. i want him to learn.

So I am a bit stuck and am unsure how to proceed and wanted to ask you, what you think i should do. what we should do. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No prob, it's better if we can work together.

I think Praeceptor is trying to do what is right and write what is accurate. The problem is that law is not like science. A MEDRS approach in legal writing is foreign to lawyers in general, as the typical lawyer answer to a question is "it depends." Wikipedia views secondary sources as the most reliable, while lawyers view court opinions and statutes as the most reliable. That's one of the reasons that MOS:LAW tells editors to use both, but to go with the primary source in the event of a conflict. You don't want to quote the NY Times on what a legal rule is, you want to quote the actual case.

Second, almost nothing is settled in law, there is almost always going to be a collateral attack somewhere down the line. You'll have bad, terrible, decisions, like Plessy v. Ferguson that will last for decades before they are overturned. During that period, you will have legal scholars arguing against the decision and others arguing for stare decisis. With very few exceptions, these are not fringe theories or views as far as Wikipedia is concerned.. Fringe is saved for the pseudolaw idiots (Sovereign citizens and the like). So a lot of what Praeceptor is doing is correct, and correct for Wikipedia, it just doesn't look that way to editors that are more used to the MEDRS style of sourcing and writing. GregJackP Boomer! 23:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I hear that perspective (totally! - I have more formal education in the humanities than in science/medicine, where all my learning is practical), and I would just sit back and applaud if what I saw, is that Praeceptor more frequently aimed to cover all relevant points of view on decisions with appropriate weight; the problem I have is that he generally is turning articles into essays that lead the reader to supporting his views and give the most weight to content support by his journal publications in the "Subsequent developments" and similar sections. (I found him open to discussion about re-balancing weight at Bowman, when we first started talking there. I was starting to try to have the broader/more fundamental discussion when things... derailed. What I would love is to have him use his experience/erudition to cover all the main views, and try to give weight more judiciously, more frequently - to aim for that..... He is such a good writer. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

Sure, it will be later this weekend, if that's OK. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Thanks Dennis, I sometimes get on a roll and get carried away. GregJackP Boomer! 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Crats, please strike this vote which has no diffs as evidence. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• I'm still an admin, so I have unlimited power. Take your pick: I hat your comment, or I peel your cap back. Greg, BMK, what prompted these observations? You tickled by curiosity. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Never mind. Speaking of hatting, someone's been quite busy there. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

"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)

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)

• 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)

• Geez, didn't I go overboard? I tried... BMK (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ANI notice

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

Notice of Racist Statements noticeboard discussion

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)

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)

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)