If you leave a message here this editor will possibly reply on your talkpage, or here, or on the talkpage of an article concerned, or somewhere else, or any combination of the above. It is probably best for you to suggest the preferred arena for a response... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have mostly retired this account. Someday I might unretire it. I enjoy Wikipedia a lot, and despite some of the crap that happened around the time I stopped editing so much, I'm not embittered (anymore). I just find I get a lot more done at work when I'm not actively involved in the community! hahaha...
In the spirit of full disclosure, I still edit from time to time, both from home (dynamic IP) and from work (shared IP via corporate firewall). I do not log in because I don't really want to make people think I'm unretiring -- I'm just poking around here and there when I see mistakes or major problems, etc.
I don't consider this IP socking: If anybody is that interested, you should be able to figure out what IP(s) I usually edit from. I'd ask that nobody go telling other people, though, please. Anyone who really wants to find out can surely uncover it themselves.
Ugh... just wrote a massive comment on your most recent thread. Saw it was edit conflicted out and you archived the whole bit. Probably a smart choice. Skipping over 90% of what I said and going to the end... please understand that it is the natural human reaction to frustration to say you are leaving or changing your editing patterns. Just understand that regardless of what's been said, the community will not be better off if you decide to avoid dispute resolution. You may not garner any real praise for it and a succesful RfA might be further away than once expected, but so be it. Just my thought. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; but I wouldn't advise going into RFAish areas for just a bit of time. Stay cool, and remember how it was before the quest for the mop ;) - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a dream the other night that some other admin I respected told me that RevolvingBugbear was kind of an arrogant prick. hahaha... In the dream it made me feel a lot better. Sadly, apparently in real life I am the arrogant prick.
FWIW, there was no "quest for the mop," there was a only a "quest to get some assistance in getting more experience that might someday lead to the mop, but might not".
My initial declination of RB's offer was designed to save face without being particularly rude to anyone in the process. I simply said that I would not want as a mentor someone who didn't implicitly trust me. I think this is fair. If I were going to accept a mentor, I would want it to be someone who had every confidence that the past incidents were behind me, even if they did not have confidence that I could pass an RfA. I think that is a very reasonable desire on my part. It is also quote reasonable that many well-respected community members wouldn't feel that way, that they wouldn't have that confidence that those incidents were behind me. That is fine too; I just didn't want to be mentored by someone who feels that way.
RB didn't allow me this simple face-saving retreat, and as silly as it is I just couldn't get past that. I still have trouble getting past it. I shouldn't let a single person's single comment get to me, I know that, but somehow it just tears at me that a well-respected member of the community would deny me that simple face-saving declination.
I guess the reason why I can't get past it, even though it was one comment from one person, is that I am pretty certain that I would have had a very hard time finding many -- or even any -- respected community members willing to say that RB's denial of my attempt to save face was a dick-ish move.
Suddenly, I felt on the outside looking in. Previously, I felt my status in the community was such that if somebody were being a dick to me, the community at large would say, "Wow, what a dick." But I kindof realized all of a sudden that because of those past incidents, well-respected community members can be a dick to me and nobody but me will see it that way. I don't feel a part of the community anymore -- which is why I continue to make minor edits Wikipedia, but not to participate in it in a particularly interactive way. I just don't feel like I am a member of this community.
I guess I had sort of let myself forget that I have forevermore a scarlet "S" sewn to my chest. RB's comment, while on its face seems relatively minor, reminded me all at once that I am branded as a former sockmaster because of one brief lark, and since it was fairly recent I really can't be a full member of this community right now. (When I say "full member", I'm not referring to adminship; I'm referring to being enough a part of the community that someone who doesn't let me save face would be the dick instead of me being the dick)
If I had my druthers I suppose I'd retire this account and start a new one, being careful to conceal the original identity (which should be easy since I don't have any topic obsessions -- and if I waited long enough before returning to dispute resolution, nobody would likely notice that either). But fuck that, that's a lot of work to go through to become a member of a community that thinks I am a dick. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why be an admin anyway, they're thick on the ground already. Instead, how about creating a new type of position, maybe called "editors' mentor", with Jaysweet as the first one so designated. Make it a highly selective title that only a limited number of people can acquire, then watch editors beat a path to Jaysweet's door and that of the other e-m's.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since he doesn't call out other editors by name, I inclined to let it go. Despite what WP:UP#NOT says, a certain amount of soapboxing is de facto tolerated on userpages.
If you want to press the issue further, I was informed by User:Chillum that the proper venue is WP:MfD. Of course, when I created an MfD on a relevant page, some people said it was not the proper forum, hahaha, but whatever..
That said, I don't feel I could back you up on an MfD. Since it only expresses a strong political opinion, and does not actually attack other editors, it seems better to just tolerate. Hell, if nothing else, it exposes potential pov-pushers :D If one feels strongly enough about a topic to use one's userpage as a soapbox about that topic, perhaps one's edits on those topics will be less than neutral as well... ---Jaysweet (talk)
Nell Rankin
If something is in quotes and is followed by a citation from the source it isn't a copywrite violation. Although that one sentence really shouldn't have been in there and that is my bad. I meant to change it but forgot about it. Anyway, it is perfectly fine to quote media as long as it is in quotations and cited. Nrswanson (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however, the one sentence that I refactored was not in quotations. The fact that the rest of the paragraph was in quotations is why I left it intact. I thought my comment and my edit together made this clear. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I just have to add that I am really pissed off that you paid virtually no attention to the actual edit I made. I specifically said in the edit summary that "the sentence I modified" was the one I felt was a copyvio. I left the sentences in quotation marks completely untouched. Yes, I split them off to a separate paragraph, but that's because her pet jaguar has absolutely nothing to do with her husband. That had nothing to do with copyvio, it was just flow. And the sentence I modified, I stand by that.
Sorry Jay. Didn't mean to upset you. I thought you had deleted the whole quote. (the whole thing showed red when I compared the two versions) but I should have eyeballed the article It was my fault that one sentence got in there in the first place. I meant to go back an edit it and it slipped my mind. Thanks for the catch.Nrswanson (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I understand the confusion. No worries then. Sorry to overreact, especially when it turns out there was a perfectly innocent explanation after all. I am just very irritable right now. Pissed off at certain aspects Wikipedia, elder care issues interfering with my marriage, first kid on the way, another 650 sq ft of hardwood flooring to install (already did the first ~400 sq ft), etc., etc. I'm really sorry I took it out on you. I find pretty much any stimulus infuriating right now, heh, so an innocent misunderstanding can get all blown out of proportion. Thanks for being gracious in the face of my ranting. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments requested on "Don't restore removed comments" page
On 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC) you said: List of free and commercial alternatives is a total spam magnet, it must go! I said:
I came to the plagiarism detection article because I was looking for the commercial systems (I could not remember the name of one I was looking for--it turned out to be "Turnitin".) I could not believe that an encyclopedia article would not mention applications designed to do the task the article is about. So I went back through the History and found that the article did indeed have this information, but that it had been deleted, apparently because listing them was somehow thought to be advertising. But this would be like the Wikipedia article on Word processor not mentioning Word or Open Office for the same reason (that article, of course, does mention these and other applications). Moreover, three of the plagiarism detection applications in the list already have their own Wikipedia articles! I've tried to restore the information about plagiarism detection applications in a way that does not appear to be advertising. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, neither Word processor nor List of word processors has an external link to the Microsoft Word or Open Office websites. I am not opposed to linking to the Wikipedia articles about the pieces of software (assuming they are notable enough to have one, which it appears they are). It's the indiscriminate linking to external sites I have a problem with, because then what's to prevent me from writing a totally crappy piece of plagiarism detection software, and then sticking it at the top of the list on the Wikipedia article in order to get more business?? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you reverted the vandalism on Satan. In the future, though, it'd be nice if you didn't say comments like "Christians are destructive, obsolete and are on the other side of the coin from Satanists" as some Wikipedians might find that to be offensive.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to provide a well-reasoned argument that Christianity is obsolete and destructive?
Religion once served two very important purposes: Codification of morality and ethics (NOT the invention of morality and ethics; that's in our DNA -- but the role of ancient religions in codifying this intuitive understanding should not be ignored); and providing placeholder explanations for important gaps in human understanding, so that the common person could continue their daily life amongst a sea of ambiguity.
The former was made obsolete in the 13th century with the signing of the Magna Carta and the acknowledgment that government could exist not just to serve the ruling class, but also to safeguard the fundamental rights of the average person. The latter was made obsolete in the 17th century when luminaries like Darwin and Newton ushered in the age of modern science.
As for my contention that it is destructive, well, look at it this way: As much as Christians and other deluded religious folk talk about humility, they must recognize that faith is the ultimate expression of unfounded pride. Faith is the belief that not only do you have The Answer, but your grasp on The Answer is so absolute that a) no amount of thinking of reasoning can disturb it, and b) anybody else who thinks they have The Answer is wrong if it does not conform to yours.
Doubt is the ultimate expression of humility. It is the admission that nobody has any idea about reality. We embrace the scientific method to learn what we can, but we are always aware of the fact that our understanding could change at a moment's notice should new evidence arise. We reject the immovable indisturbable pride of faith, and instead embrace a humble and flexible approach to reality.
Christianity, along with other religions, rejects and demonizes that humility. Put it this way: Religion looks at a man who is willing to put his God before himself at every turn, willing to submit to any whim of his God, and calls that man a virtuous man. At first blush, perhaps this looks admirable -- but then we remember that all available evidence points to the fact that either there is no God, or if there is, this supposedly virtuous man has absolutely no clue what God actually wants. The man is committed to action, but then we see that nobody is guiding the action. It is stepping on the gas pedal of a Ferrari with your eyes closed. Ain't nobody driving, but the car's moving pretty fast. THAT'S destructive and dangerous.
Want concrete evidence? Hmmm, I dunno, maybe the fact that the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and cost thousands of lives (perhaps hundreds of thousands, depending on whose estimate you believe) because of a God-based foreign policy. Or maybe it was the people getting blown up cuzza cartoons. Or the continued nuclear posturing in the Middle East that ultimately comes down to a prideful argument over who gets to own a gaudy building built on top of some dusty ruins. Or the fact that, surprise surprise, there seems to be a high correlation between politicians who believe in the rapture and politicians who don't give a damn about global warming. (Hey, would you make any sacrifices to save the world if you thought it wasn't going to last much longer? Me neither.)
My comments are offensive? Watch while I totally don't care. Because I have more important things to worry about than some prideful person getting their feelings hurt... like, I dunno, some prideful person squandering all of my tax money, or writing anti-rational graffiti on my money ("In God We Trust"), or worst of all, maybe some prideful person is going to blow me up one of these days. With all of those threats from the faithmongers, I'm not really worried if I offend a few of them.
Note that I do not intend to inject any of this commentary into articles. I am committed to the WP:NPOV policy, even to the extent where "neutrality" in this case means cowtowing to a dangerous and obsolete ideal simply because it is mainstream. However, as far as speaking my mind in comments and on talk pages, where relevant, I make no apologies. Go ahead and report to WP:ANI if you think this is inappropriate; I would be honored to get my first block for speaking out against one of the largest threats to humanity that exists today. --Jaysweet (talk)
By the way, I don't consider it incivil to say that the KKK is a hate group, that hand grenades are dangerous, and that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. I also don't consider it incivil to say that Christianity is obsolete. WP:SPADE. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can read. I just chose not to. There was no point in reading something that I have already seen before. I didn't come here to debate you on religion, either; I'm sure there are many who'd be interested in doing so. I thought I was fairly polite in my initial request; I was just asking you to be civil, not for you to convert.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was civil. If I said, "Christians are assholes," that would be incivil, because it is an ad hominem attack, and one that cannot really be supported (and which I disagree with anyway; the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are all very nice people). However, "Christianity is obsolete" is not incivil, IMO.
It is true that your initial request was very polite, and I probably have been a little incivil towards you, and for that I apologize. I stand by my edit summary, nonetheless. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated an essay regarding Genre Warriors. Since you don't edit music I'm not sure you have come across them? The essay gives an idea anyway. I love your essay's and I hope you set up the one on OWN. Any help you can give expanding mine would be great! Cheers. — Realist223:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch, personally I agree it is unlikely to come to any fruitful use, but if Arbcom is asking for it as a step before blocking the user or filing a desysop RFAR, well then I suppose our options are either create a bot that auto-reverts his edits to date articles or file the RFC/U. MBisanztalk18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that he's written some sort of script or bot to make these edits on his behalf, since he hasn't actually communicated with anyone in apparently two years? He is a computer scientist, with a Ph.D. by now if his userpage is out of date. Avruch T 18:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems based on FloNight's comment "If there is an editing dispute, then use dispute resolution" that at least some of the committee members didn't even read the damn request. How the hell does WP:DR help when someone isn't responding on their talk page?!
Frankly, I have zero faith in the ArbCom ever since their botched handling of the OrangeMarlin/FT2 debacle. Yeah, I know it is different members now as a result of the election, but I don't think it makes much of a difference. The prevailing philosophy among the upper echelons appears to be that the ArbCom doesn't have to apologize no matter how obvious their screw-up is. I don't have any faith in an organization with that philosophy.
I do think the RfArb was premature, but the committee's response showed they have no idea what they are talking about. I for one would not bother with an RFC/U. I would just go ahead and block. If it turns into a wheel war, that will get the Great and Powerful Committee's attention right quick, hmmm? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually the same Committee as it was during the FT2/OM thing, although everything in that situation is not what it seems to be if you only read what is on-wiki. I can see their point with respect to this not being an administrator tools issue. In that regard, it is an "editing issue" that can potentially be resolved with a block, and if the block fails then it becomes a admin tools problem that can be acted upon with a desysop. Avruch T 18:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I thought they'd already had an election. Silly me.
I'd like to reiterate that I absolutely agree a desysopping is not appropriate at this time. However, some members of the ArbCom are saying that a block is not even appropriate, that we should try dialog/dispute resolution first. Which is highly suggestive of a skyrocketing illiteracy rate on the committee ;D Okay, I kid, but seriously... the lack of dialog is kindof the whole point, so to suggest a remedy like DR, that relies so crucially on dialog, shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the concern.
As far as the FT2/OM debacle, I don't really care what was said off-wiki or how the mistake came to be. My big issue is that, with the exception of jpgordon, the committee stubbornly refused to issue any sort of apology or acknowledgment of error or anything that would come close to an appropriate mea culpa. Regardless of how the mistake happened, they made a mistake that sent a large portion of the community into an epileptic seizure for the better part of five days. Sure, the community itself was mostly to blame for the hysteria and teh drahmaz, but one can't deny that an ArbCom faux pas was the catalyst for the debacle.
The committee responded like they had Karl Rove as a charter member: Silence, denial, followed by the briefest of clarifications, and then more silence and denial. A little explanation and a "my bad" would have done wonders to calm the community, IMO. And I think it's sorta retarded that they were unwilling to do that.
Again, kudos to jpgordon for unilaterally issuing his own apology. I don't know why the other ArbCom members and the committee as a whole found that to be such a hard concept... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre.... I can't really figure it out! Does that mean he is trolling? Does it mean he is, eh, "simple"? Pathologically shy? Harmph... Definitely worth mentioning at the RFC/U, if you haven't already. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will, I'm researching him more, besides being a sysop here, he is a crat and sysop of the Hindi wiki and a former sysop of the Marthi wiki. For someone with a PhD in CSC and until 2005 an excellent comprehension of the English language, he is very surprising. MBisanztalk20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I just meant that if somebody is advocating a fringe theory and is failing to use reliable sources, it's not like you need to be talked into opposing the uncited fringe content. I mean, do I have that wrong? :p I'd take it as a compliment: I was more or less saying that you have a dependable history of demanding that controversial and/or fringe content be supported by reliable sources. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say it, but I think it's in large part due to his attitude. One can make the argument that this was a natural consequence of the often hostile article discussions he participates in, but whatever the cause, it is problematic. A number of uninvolved editors (including myself) saw the ANI thread and were like, "Oh yeah, he probably shouldn't have done that, but no big deal and no real harm done. We'll just let him know it's better to word it neutrally and then everyone can move on with our lives." But SA's response has been a big middle finger to anyone who dares suggest he might have made an error in judgment.
As I said on the ANI thread, I'm somewhat of a ScienceApologist apologist. The whackos would run wild over Wikipedia if there weren't folks like him beating them back. But this kind of anti-community attitude is not going to win favor with the community (ya think?) and all it accomplishes is to give SA's enemies more ammo for their distraction campaign.
In other words, if he didn't get all pissed off every time there was an ANI thread, I think there'd be less ANI threads...
P.S. And you can't say I don't have any idea what it's like, because I've been called out on ANI before. When it was bullshit, I laughed it off, confident the community would back me. When I maybe crossed the line a teensy bit but felt raising the issue on ANI was overblown, I found that a brief mea culpa invariably made the thread disappear. Just my thoughts... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This edit was made after I archived the section. You are now legally required to click on the link contained in this section title. Thank you for your co-operation :P SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hehehe... actually, I am going to have to plead innocence on this one. While I agree I technically made the edit after you archived the section, I did not do so intentionally: While I admit I clicked the "Save" button after you archived, I clicked the "Edit" button before you archived the section, and apparently the Wikimedia software's conflict resolution algorithm is getting really good these days.. Maybe too good! :D
I considered backing it out, but I ultimately decided to leave it because I felt really embarrassed about the pronoun gaffe. I'm usually the pronoun nazi, so I felt really sheepish to have put my foot in mouth in such spectacular fashion. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've fallen foul of that sort of thing myself - opposing an RfA while it was being closed as a fail, no less - so I do have some sympathy for you there. And I do think that, on balance, it was nice of you to set the record straight with the pronoun. I'm almost always careful to be neutral, but then I also try to use the right pronoun for any user who does identify their gender. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK22:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Barack Obama
Just a friendly word of caution: You inadvertently removed a posting of mine and overlooked it in your effort to restore all postings. I had to restore it myself, which obviously isn't good because had I logged out right after posting, it wouldn't have been restored. Nevertheless, I know it's clearly just an error on a high traffic talk page. Everyme17:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies, and I'm glad you caught it. The page is so high traffic I figured there was high risk of something like that happening, but I decided to roll the dice. Anyway, thanks for understanding, and sorry again for accidentally stomping on you! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q. Why is a conduct dispute on Wikipedia unlike a seedy massage parlour?
To answer question 1, it is not uncommon for a user (admin or not) who feels that a discussion with another user has reached a point where no further positive progress has been made, to ask the person to stay off his or her talk page. I have done it in the past... it's not usually the best solution, but it is done.
To answer question 2, I would once again discourage you from taking action. I believe SheffieldSteel has handled the situation appropriately, and you are not going to get anywhere making a federal case.
However, I will try to answer you honestly: You already opened a thread at WP:ANI if I am not mistaken, and that is generally where one would start if there was a problem with an admin. The fact that the thread was closed without action should give you an indication that you are not likely to get anywhere.
If a consensus were to develop that an admin (or any user, for that matter) was posing a major problem to the community, there is a process by which requests for comment on the user can be gathered. I am not going to give you a wikilink, because I think that opening a request for comment on SheffieldSteel will cause aggravation for you, for him, and for everyone. It's just going to make you look bad.
The final step, in the incredibly rare case where an admin is behaving so improperly that the admin tools must be taken away, it has to go to the Arbitration Committee. Now, let me tell you just how fscking hard it is to get the ArbCom to hear a case of that sort: I recently encountered an incident where an admin was making certain changes to pages that contradicted the Wikipedia style guide, which is no big deal, but the problem was that when people tried to contact the admin to talk about it he simply ignored them. In fact, nobody could get any answer out of him whatsoever. We tried the article talk page, his talk page, e-mailing him, e-mailing him on accounts he has on other wikis -- nothing. He refused to explain or justify his actions, and continued on making the incorrect changes, despite the extra work this was causing.
When another user brought it to ArbCom to have him de-sysopped, the ArbCom unanimously (and somewhat angrily) refused the case and told the user to try harder at dispute resolution. (Which seemed strange to me, since dispute resolution only works if the other party is communicative, but whatever)
(First: the ANI was about Flyer22 and the result was, that she was asked to remove the content I reported on.)
Then: Thanks for your help! As in real life, it is also so here on Wikipedia, that people do not always behave themselves. As in real life, there is very often not anything one can do about it, other than shrug and move on. Certainly, I would like to create a page containing my personal views on a number of administrators but something tells me that would be unwise. Instead, I want to stay positive and thank you very much for your efforts in this regard! --Law Lord (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up admin coaching in your comment on the Slrubenstein RfC. I'm not sure how its connected, can you elaborate when you have a moment? Avruch T 18:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall, Jehochman (one of the complaining parties) went through the admin coaching program, and he now offers to act as a coach. I have not been super-crazy about Jehochman's actions as an administrator. He's not terrible, but he's not great either.
I brought it up because I think the admin coaching program is a complete joke. In theory, I think it's an absolutely wonderful idea to coach people on how to be a better admin before giving them the mop. But in practice, the admin coaching program is about how to pass your RfA. In and of itself, that's only a little disappointing -- but throw in the fact that, IMO, the RfA process is a very poor predictor of future admin ability, and the admin coaching program is an unmitigated disaster. IMO, coaching someone to prepare them for the RfA process is, in terms of their future performance as an admin, useless at best, and perhaps even worse than useless.
This doesn't mean everyone who goes through the coaching program sucks. I believe User:Tanthalas39 went through the program, IIRC, and he does an absolutely bang-up job. So who knows... I just couldn't resist making the snarky remark, since right now Jechochman is being about as un-administrator-like as one could imagine. "Somebody make Slrubenstein apologize!" sheesh... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I am both a graduate of admin coaching and that I have coached others, I can pretty much say you are spot on with everything above. MBisanztalk14:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
