User talk:Jaysweet/Archive 5

Today I am [1]ing [2]es.

Archives:

Best wishes

and good luck (if you need it). ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I read it and found it immensely interesting and poignant. Although we have never spoken, if you feel like venting more, my email is open. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks. I feel a little better. I am having trouble not re-opening Wikipedia and refreshing my Watchlist every time I have to wait for something to compile :D My wikibreak may, uh, take a little time before it really takes. hah haha... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm the same. I'll declare that I don't feel up to editing, and about an hour after I've posted the wikibreak message, I mysteriously become absolutely addicted to the wiki again... Seraphim♥Whipp 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article writing

Re: your WP:AN comments, are you into baseball? If so, I've always got plenty of ideas for articles (few of which I ever get to implement). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly (more of a football guy myself) but I suppose I could always learn. What kind of stuff do you have in mind? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not nearly as familiar with the goings-on over there. The two I'm most familiar with are Pats1 (talk · contribs) and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). You might want to get some ideas from them. Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) has a few DYKs to his name as well - although I think more baseball-related. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well one thing that has always annoyed me is that folks made a pass making zillions of little stub articles like 2005 St. Louis Cardinals season - almost in bot-like fashion. That one actually has far more content than many of the older ones. But many of the recent years from 2005 and 2006 are still stubs and have no right staying in that status. There are undoubtedly mountains of news articles and write-ups that could be used as sources for such recent sports activity. There are also entire books dedicated to older World Series teams. I found an entire book on the 1965 Minnesota Twins season and they didn't even win the World Series that year! Baseball is a sport that has no shortage of written and reliable sources and it's a shame that so many of our baseball articles are stubs. It's also not a particularly contentious area of Wikipedia - WP:MLB folks generally Live and Let Live. You're likely to be able to just park yourself at a season article and add content in any way you see fit.

One of my more liberal baseball ideas is on writing entire articles based on single games - like the 25-inning marathon game played over two days in 1984 (or 1985?). That game became legendary and has been written about quite exhaustively. I have a book with an entire mini-chapter devoted just to that one game. But I haven't found the time to get into it yet. Maybe you want to give it a try? Just some ideas. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MLB folks generally Live and Let Live

O rly? Talk:Atlanta Braves#14 vs. 11 dispute... ;p

hehehe, anyway, I like the idea of an article about this 25-inning game. Do you recall the participants? I suppose I'll have to make a trip to the library, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't recall any disputes going all the way to RFAR like some of the other sports. WP:OWN is not linked in nearly as many discussions as in the WP:NFL realm! Here is the 25-inning game. BTW, Retrosheet is the greatest site on Earth and anyone that says otherwise is a villainous bottomfeeder! :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. The amazing thing about this game is that it stretched nearly a game's worth the next day. Usually a game like that would end quickly, with everyone rested. Maybe they were, accounting for each scoring 3 runs in the 21st inning (or 4th, that day). I recall a 25-inning game between the Cardinals and Mets ca. 1973 in Shea that was played all in one night. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was 1974, and it's covered in an article with the gloriously understated title Extra innings. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longest professional baseball game. It would seem that Longest Major League Baseball game might be notable as well... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, and then you're compelled to find additional information not already stated in the extra innings article, or you don't have much of an article. I think one of the SABR research journals had a writeup on marathon games, a year or two ago. There is certainly drama in these kinds of games, especially when they drag out. The closest comparison that comes to mind is Stanley Cup playoff games that can go on and on. NFL and NBA overtime games typically don't last all that long, although the ones that do (such as the Miami / Kansas City game in the early 1970s) become epics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One possibly interesting aspect of baseball is the true "statistical" look at things, such as what percentage of players or teams or games get to the upper (or lower) echelons of performance. 10 or 11 inning games are fairly common. 12, 13, 14, etc., progressively less so, all the way to the rarified air of 20-plus innings. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowel management

Hi there. I've done some work on this article, could you have a look at the new version? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coaching

Just wanted you to know I got your message. I had a very long day, but will get back to you for real soon.

Best regards - Revolving Bugbear 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very concerned about this incident with the "bad hand" account. Can you please give me whatever explanation you believe is necessary regarding it? - Revolving Bugbear 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please do not edit my userspace. As I said on the top of the page and on the talk page, that table charts only finished discussions. It does not include userfied, DRVed, or other articles I plan to DRV at a later time. It only includes those discussions that I am totally finished with. I am not finished with the Emperor's Children, or Warhammer Armegeddon articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of the ones I added had already been through a closed DRV. Well, in any case, since I know you are generally an honest fellow, I trust that you will either complete those DRVs in a timely manner and then add them, add them now, or else put a disclaimer at the top of the page making it clear that this is a subset of the deletion discussions in which you have participated chosen to disproportionately represent those in which your !vote was accepted. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the top of the page, it outright says, "This table charts finished discussions and therefore does not include deletion discussions being reconsidered at Deletion review, discussions that have not yet been closed, or discussions regarding articles that are currently userfied." Just because DRVs closed a certain way does not mean that all efforts to userfy or rewrite the articles in question stop, i.e. as new sources turn up, I am continuing my efforts. Fortunately, in some of these instances, such as here, others are helping. Plus, I read elsewhere (off-wiki) that a number of editors are apparently deliberately going to DRVs I start to disrupt them and so am trying to determine how to proceed in that regard. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADSITES failed to get consensus. Why not link to the supposed evidence that people are going to DRV just because you are putting articles up there? I know that I'm not reading WR to learn where to go. The DRV's you suggested related to articles where I felt the close was in order and an overturning of the close would be a miscarriage of process. I like you, man, but this is bordering on paranoia. Please consider the possibility that many editors comment on discussions because the result you desire is outside of consensus? And more to the point, I think what Jaysweet is saying is that your "deletion outcome" page suffers from an extreme selection bias. It's your userspace, so you have the right to put anything you want there, but the page doesn't even begin to represent the deletion discussions you have been involved in. Protonk (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not there to represent anything, i.e. it's not intended as some kind of a score card or something, but for work purposes (apparently a number of editors do that, see [3], [4], for example). I have a folder in my Favorites of the various discussions I intend to work on at some point, but eventually every article I've ever argued to keep is likely to at least wind up as a redirect and so unless I am convinced that that can never happen, I keep those discussions on the side for the time being. My userspace page exists primarily for my own work purposes, although I allow the talk page to also serve an additional advice-oriented purpose. As for as some of the off-wiki comments (I am keeping the perhaps more revealing emails I received private regardless of how vicious some were as I view emails as intended to be private), such remarks include one that my DRVs "actually attract people who vote delete purely to try and oppose" me or one from an alleged admin who claims that when he sees me in AfDs, it "spurs" him "to close those AFDs as delete regardless". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's totally fine if you do that. But it sure looks like a scorecard at first blush. As for off-wiki evidence of some conspiracy, I'm underwhelmed. Even if such a conspiracy exists its effects would be swamped by the number of people who contribute regardless of your input and the number of people who contribute because of your input. Your method of argument is...frustrating to say the least. I'm not at all surprised that people who have views largely opposed to your would want to comment on AfD's solely to spite you. EVEN THEN some trust has to be placed in administrators that they will discount votes that are just "ZOMG I hate legrand!". If spite for you brings a user to an AfD or DRV but that user leaves some comment like "Article X isn't notable for reasons a,b,c. Delete due to WP:N", then that is no big deal. You also keep mentioning the private evidence of one administrator who would close debates improperly knowing that it would irk you. That is also underwhelming. One administrator may close an AfD or a DRV but (usually) not both. The total impact of having admin Z close debates against consensus to spite you is probably nil. Protonk (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's more in the way of emails, but as much as I dislike their insults, I am far more interested in respecting the confidentiality of something sent to me intended as private (even if in obvious bad faith) than trying to make myself somehow look better here. If anyone comes to discussions I am in solely to spite me than that says a lot more about their own character than anything else and whether or not their motivations are really about the article under discussions and the editors who worked on it. I wish some would take better evaluation of their own manner of commenting in these discussions as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~" I wish some would take better evaluation of their own manner of commenting in these discussions as well." ??? Protonk (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)~~ NVM misread it. Protonk (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't want to reveal private information (which is great), then stop alluding to the presence of the information in order to make a point. If I ask for some evidence that admins are making bad faith closures and you respond by mentioning unrevealed off-wiki communications that happen to support your argument (that admins do make bad faith closes), what am I to do? Protonk (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand, here's my problem with the "It's for work purposes" assertion: Why does it only include articles that you are done working on then? It would seem to me that if you were keeping a page for work purposes, it would seem most logical that it only include articles that are not yet closed, that you intend to bring to DRV, etc. What is the "work purpose" of this page?

I would be less inclined to make a big deal out of it, but I remember one time not that long ago me referring to you matter-of-factly as an "inclusionist" (not even in a derogatory way; I was just trying to neutrally characterize your editing habits to explain something to another editor) and you said, "Inclusionist? Really? Here's a list of how I've voted, and look at all the delete !votes I have.." Now, I'm not sure if it was the same page or not... but I am really concerned here. I feel like you may have misrepresented to me in the past about just how often you vote "keep" in a hopeless discussion, and I feel sort of burned by that. I don't know if I want to facilitate you doing that to other editors.

The other thing that is starting to worry me, and why I'd like to see some honesty in your tally (even if it is only your own personal tally, I want you to see it) is the incredibly low success rate I believe you are having at DRV and with "rescue" articles. This is not an inclusionist/deletionist thing; it is a disruption thing. For example, about two months ago, I told another editor I was very concerned at his AfD success rate, i.e. the fraction of article that he nominated for deletion which ended up being kept was disturbingly high. Everybody gets it wrong, but if you are getting it wrong 90-95% of the time, I wonder if the disruption outweighs the contribution... you know?

Anyway, perhaps I should not have edited your userspace. I thought maybe you would appreciate the updates, if it really was an honest "for work purposes" page. I noticed you updating it, and I was reading it for curiosity's sake, and I was like, "Wait... no, this is impossible." And I was right. Even if it's "for work purposes", it is horribly skewed. There's only like two articles where you ever admitted defeat! That's fucked up, yo... --Jaysweet (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo.

User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Archive 22#Thanks for the comments at WQA

That's why I'm so pissed off that this page is inaccurate. You pointed me to that page to try and give me a representation of your "attitude towards deletion". I now come to find out that this page you pointed me to is a gross misrepresentation of the actual nature of the deletion discussions in which you have been involved. I felt like you were trying to show me that your "keep" vs. "delete" votes were more balanced than I had previously suggested. I believed you. Now, I come to find out that the page is missing all of the "keeps" where the outcome didn't go your way. In other words, my initial impression of your "attitude towards deletion" was accurate. And you duped me.

That page is "not meant to represent anything?" Bullshit. :| --Jaysweet (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(number)2: Wikipedia_talk:AFD#Various_suggestions. Under the reason why we shouldn't consider you an inclusionist but we should reject people who vote to delete. I knew I had seen it somewhere. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Le Grand's defense, he was cooperative when I asked him to clarify the omissions on his list of deletion discussions. He explained why the list omits certain deletion discussions, and when I asked him to put that explanation at the top of his user space he obliged. I know me and Le Grand have disagreed many times, but I figured a little truth can help resolve this dispute. Randomran (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If someone politely makes a request and does not just unilaterally begin by assuming bad faith then they are apt to get positive and productive results. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randomran, I simply don't buy it. There are discussions that ended over a month ago and for which Le Grand has done no follow-up work. The "explanation" seems like a convenient excuse to me.

Anyway, it's not important. As per below, Cube Lurker is absolutely right that I should not be stirring up Wikidrama like this. I am archiving this discussion. It doesn't need to continue. Le Grand thinks what he thinks, and I think what I think. --Jaysweet (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

I always saw you around WGA but now you seem to be starting wikidrama, what gives?--Cube lurker (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Are you talking about the Le Grand thing? I am serious about this. Le Grand is probably the preeminent inclusionist on Wikipedia, and as a result commands a certain amount of respect. To find he's been so grossly misrepresenting the outcome of deletion discussions he has participated in concerns me gravely.

Is there somewhere else I am "starting wikidrama"?? --Jaysweet (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to point out that since Le Grand can put just about whatever he wants in userspace, I acknowledge no action is likely to be taken in regards to the inaccuracy of the page. However, since he has shown it to other people as a "scorecard" on at least two occasions, I feel it is important that anyone who may have been directed there as if it were a scorecard is aware that of the systematic omissions on that page. I think that is fair. --Jaysweet (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) That's it and you seem to be starting the fires not defusing conflict. Your choice of course. I'm not giving a warning, you're just not acting like the user i'm used to seeing.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to be starting the fires not defusing conflict. Wow, that really resonates. Okay, I think you're right. Time for me to back off of this.

FWIW, see here for why I am taking this so personally. But you're right, it's time to let this one go. I have still lost all respect for Le Grand -- but at the same time, there is no need for me to disrupt the project just to prove a point. Thanks for getting through to me! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i wouldn't and haven't sent the note to people that were usually fighters, it just seemed out of character. Best wishes, and hope the rest of the day/evening goes well.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I have revised the lead further. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your show of good faith in doing so. I still am not entirely satisfied with that intro, but since I think you've currently got the moral high ground due to my initial rudeness, I won't force the issue. Peace? --Jaysweet (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always open to making peace and I am actually open to any suggestions regarding the wording. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Hi Jay, Michael Jackson has been at FA for sometime time now, it has a chance of actually passing. Could you help with a copy edit today or asap, it might still have some minor glitches. It would be appreciated. — Realist² (Speak) 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has passed FA now, but your more than welcome to read the article in it's glory and correct any minor faults. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 16:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contraception article discussion

I have added the following to the discussion page I opened in the section “Christian Views on Contraception#Roman Catholic Church”: Jaysweet and Ilkali: Following Jaysweet’s advice, I opened this discussion page. The issue for discussion is clear. Is Burke’s article of sufficient merit to warrant a link to the only website where it is available? If it is, then, according to Wiki’s own definitions, the inclusion of the link is not spamming. For more than two months, you two have refused to discuss this issue. Why? Perhaps you have read the article and don’t agree with it (which would not surprise me - but that is your freedom of opinion. Plenty of others consider it the best article they have read on the topic. Its publication in the official Vatican newspaper is no small sign of how it is considered). Or else, as I suspect, you have not bothered to read it (Jaysweet thinks it is a book!), and simply wish to suppress it or make practical consultation of it impossible. Whatever the reason for this, if you don’t enter into a serious debate about the MERIT of the article, you are engaging in unthinking or deliberate censorship, and blocking the free communication of information.Finisklin (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am forced at this point to assert that you are batshit crazy. In my last three messages to you, I told you that you can add the reference to the article and I will not revert you. How is it "deliberate censorship" if I tell you to go ahead and say whatever the hell you want?!?

Please don't contact me anymore. I have nothing more to say. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. — Realist² (Speak) 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists, episodes, and characters

Well, I think I have actually come across two lists and lists concerning episodes and characters at that that I may actually support deleting. See User talk:Narutolovehinata5#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FYin .26 Yang: Might and Magic School. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community enforcement

Regarding this post, yes the community does enforce WP:UP#NOT point #9. It is just that the community enforces it with its own discretion. That means the community decides if it should be used in any given situation, it does not mean the community does not enforce it. That being the case it is probably best not to go around telling users we don't enforce that policy as you would be misinforming them. Chillum 15:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come every single place I take it, people say "wrong forum"? If people stop saying "wrong forum" and saying "I don't think this is egregious enough to violate WP:UP#NOT" then I will retract everything I said and apologize. But everywhere I take it, the loudest voice says "Wrong forum!" Without exception. If you can get people to stop saying "wrong forum", I'll apologize. Until then, I stand by my assertion: There is no enforcement mechanism for WP:UP#NOT/9. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify -- I am not bitching because consensus didn't go my way. On the contrary, I feel that I have been unable to find any forum to establish consensus. At the MfD, the only !vote I even marginally count is DGG's. SmokeyJoe said that MfD was the wrong process and rejected the premise of WP:UP#NOT/9 (he is now on record saying that point should be removed from policy). Posturewrite, Whatamidoing, and Gordonofcartoon are involved parties. You commented that it was an appropriate forum, but did not express an opinion on the content.

I don't want to WP:CANVAS, but at least one other user as well as an admin has expressed the opinion that the section should go. But they ain't showing up at the MfD. Perhaps I should canvas then? am not trying to be a problem user here. But seriously, if people bring up WP:UP#NOT/9 at WQA, and a compromise cannot be reached, I am going to advise them that they can try ANI or MfD, but that in my experience it won't work so they should just try harder to find a compromise. I stand by this assertion until I say any example of WP:UP#NOT/9 being enforced where WP:CSD#G10 wouldn't already take care of it. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well those that said wrong forum regarding the MfD were just plain wrong. Material in the userspace is removed via MfD when an agreement cannot be made. Perhaps if you had left it open you would have gotten some more policy based responses, and who knows the closing admin may have even discounted those opinions that were contrary to policy. But to he honest, it seems like the community sees the page as a collection of evidence related to behavioral issues, which is allowed. In practice I find the policy to work just fine, but gray areas are always going to be hard to enforce. Chillum 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about striking the nom retraction. As I mentioned to SmokyJoe, I've been really tense the past couple weeks (personal issues) and I have caught myself doing a bit of WP:POINTy editing here and there. Retracting the nom in a huff was probably a bit POINTy, wasn't it?

One more question though: "it seems like the community sees the page as a collection of evidence related to behavioral issues, which is allowed" But only in preparation for a timely RFC/U or other process, right? You cannot keep a collection of evidence related to behavioral issues indefinitely? Or at least, that is my reading of WP:UP#NOT... Do I misunderstand? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the issues related to the posted text resolved? Or are they ongoing? I really don't know. WP:UP has long been a policy that is enforced through consensus, that is to say the admins generally don't take unilateral actions on talk pages when there is any room for interpretation. I really don't know what else to say other than the fact that sometimes the community finds it prudent to enforce the policy, other times the community does not. If you are unable to convince people that it needs to go then it won't go regardless of what the policy says. Policy guides us, it does not force our hand.

I do think you closed it too early, if you get a competent admin closing it then they will most likely see past arguments that demonstrate a lack of understanding of policy. All you can do is express your opinion and accept the result. I don't think you have been pointy, perhaps a little dramatic, but not disruptive in any way. Chillum 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are unresolved, I suppose, but the user stated his intention to keep the section indefinitely. There is an ongoing RFC/U (not about the users being criticized there, though, about Posturewriter) but judging from 3rd party participation so far (dismal) I expect it to drag on for quite some time :D

Let me ask your opinion on a different page: User:GHcool/Views. Last I checked, we were waiting for GHcool to return from vacation to discuss it more. In this case, I did get some admins to take action, but another admin restored the content. It was previously on GHcool's main user page, but the admin restoring it put it on this subpage.

The reason I've been so adamant here is that there was a rash of similar issues raised at WQA, and I couldn't for the life of me get anybody to compromise. heh... So I've sought to test the waters on what the community considers acceptable and what they don't. I guess, rather than pronouncing that the community "doesn't enforce" WP:UP#NOT/9, I could more accurately (and less dramatically) say that there really is not a strong community consensus on what is acceptable in this regard. I think that is at least true... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully that the community consensus on what is acceptable in this regard is far from settled. I will say however that if a page crosses a certain line the community will respond by enforcing its removal, it is just that this line is unclear. Chillum 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:GHcool/Views, it does seem rather polemical on one hand, though on the other hand it may be related to Wikipedia content. I am not really versed enough on the subject to know if the statements being made truly reflect a history of changing consensus through reliable sources or if it is simply original research. If it is the former then I think it could serve some purpose to those seeking perspective on the subject, if it is latter then it would be in violation of WP:SOAP.

Once again it is unclear. That is why WP:NOT is not a reason for speedy deletion, that is to say it is never the decision of a single admin. Such things need in depth analysis, and sometimes(not always mind you) we get that at AfD.

To be honest when something is in the gray area you need to really spell it out in the nomination. You need to quote policy and the text that violates policy, and even explain why it is a violation. This is because many people do not research the related policies or even read the page that is nominated, rather they only read the text of the XfD itself. I think if you spell it out like your talking to people who have the attention span of a 7 year old you will get better success at deletion nominations. Chillum 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: bug

I reverted your edit to AN/I because it somehow removed all the page's contents. Perhaps it's like that other bug that's been occurring recently...? Seraphim♥Whipp 15:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that too. Bizarre. Your edit (Jaysweet) added about 250 bytes, but the page shows as blank, even though it contains 385501 in total. What the heck? I've seen numerous bugs on the noticeboards, but this is a new one for me. Do you remember what you tried to add? was there anything unusual in it? Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird... No sweat on the revert, it wasn't a particularly important comment anyway. I added a sentence or two to the bottom section, and I did so by clicking on the edit section button. Nothing out of the ordinary.. I've seen cases where broken formatting caused everything below a new comment to disappear, but I've never seen this.

I'll check the diff. Anyway, thanks Seraphim Whipp for the revert! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird... It doesn't even have the comment I added, eh? (FYI, I was just asking what the heck the blocked user meant by "bankhead" in that context, because Bankhead doesn't seem to explain it...)

The proxy server here sometimes drops the ball when trying to load a page... maybe it had something to do with that, only with POST info instead? <shrug> Ah well, my comment was unimportant and the damage is undone. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land Raider

While I disagree with a deletion notice being put up, I do appreciate your notification. GoldDragon (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. As I mentioned on the deletion page, I actually more or less agree with what you have said on a philosophical level. I only differ on a practical level. FWIW, I do truly hope the result is redirect&protect... Whenever I have tried the "redirect" option, I get reverted. The only way I know of to make the process binding is via AfD. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, we need a defined process for a consensus protected redirect. Right now there is a large school of thought that AFD should be for deletion only, not redirecting or merging, and that merges and redirects should be handled at a low level, such as the article talk page. These are both largely correct, but it is becoming apparent that this is not sufficient for all articles. Pagra shtak 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you 100% (see my recent rant here, where I said something quite similar last week). If I redirect, I get reverted. If I put a "merge" tag, it usually gets ignored. I suppose I could try RfC, but those get ignored half the time too. But AfD! That gets people's attention! :) Unfortunately, it forces me to endorse deletion, and then sort of back off from it, because if my initial nom says "merge & redirect" it may be rejected as a malformed nom... :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I didn't get this before I posted about it, because no one mentioned who the first check user was against. :) We need lots of diffs to link everything for people like me who seem to overlook the important stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysweet, I merely asked that you tone down the language of calling someone a "liar", which is not acceptable even if correct. The reason why is it causes problems with discussion, as we need to try and work things out, and words as that are problematic. I hope this makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I didn't say they were a liar, I said they had told a lie. The former is an aspersion on their character; the latter was simple fact. --Jaysweet (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Mr. Admin....oh wait you are not a admin?

Hey I was reviewing some of your contributions and found myself stumbling across your logs and noting that none of them were "admin like", I was shocked. For the past year I could have sworn you were a administrator and with such clueful contributions, I can only see you being a asset to the community. As such I am seriously looking into nomination you for adminship (unless you have no desire to hold the mop and bucket). Thoughts? Tiptoety ^talk 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually thought about this myself as well, and would like to nom you, however I have one question about your abilities. Because you spend a lot of time at WP:ANI and the like, I ask that you look through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avruch and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lawrence Cohen. Do you think you'd get opposes similar to that, which might cause a problem? Wizardman 23:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure you saw my comment above regarding this - Revolving Bugbear 03:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@RB: Yeah, I had missed that comment, I'm glad you point it out to me. I will address it below.

@Everyone: Thanks all for the interest. I am indeed interested in becoming an admin, but I am not sure the time is right. There are three big things holding up any potential adminship for me, and y'all have hit on two of them. I would very much appreciate advice and thoughts in this arena. I have divided up the issues into subsections here. I signed at the end of each subsection in case people want to reply inside the individual subsection. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow XfD experience

This is the only one you guys didn't hit on, and the least of a problem for me, I think. Since a big part of admin responsibility is closing XfDs, I think it is critical that potential candidates have a wide breadth and depth of experience on XfD. I am getting there, but I think I need a little more time. Particularly, I need to work more on IfDs, because I don't yet have a great feel for the criteria there. I'm already getting the ball rolling on this now, as my recent contribs may show. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of strong article-building

Yes, I have read Avruch's RfA, as well as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gwynand, and a bunch of other similar ones :) I am concerned about that too, in terms of my chances of passing an RfA.

I do copyedit here and there, and have even done one or two heavier weight rewrites, but I don't have much to show in terms of obtaining sources (especially not dead tree sources) and I have zero to show in terms of GA/FA work.

Before an RfA, I'd like to get at least some minimal experience in GA-style work, and not just as a checkbox to passing the RfA process... Getting an article up to GA or FA status builds skills that an admin can't get anywhere else, such as vetting the reliability of sources (and balancing contradictory sources), making sure due weight is given to all aspects of a subject, etc. Even if I were to go on to do completely unrelated work as an admin, I think these skills would come in handy. For instance, admins sometimes need to make very quick decision on BLP articles, especially when there is breaking news, and having experience in article building I think could help me get a knack for the best course of action. Also, like it or not admins also often fill the role of informal mediators, and knowing your way around content is important when you are going to constantly have content disputes thrown your way.

My goal is to put together one GA where I am the main contributor before I run. I think it would make me a better admin and placate a lot of the oppose !voters that don't like to see a low ratio of non-vandal-reverting mainspace contribs. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bad hand" incident

Ah yes.. Please see the contribs of DontCallThisHandBad (talk · contribs). Yes, that was me. I have never denied it, and I intend to be 100% upfront about this should I run an RfA. I thought I might put a question from myself in the "Optional questions from other users" section saying, "Have you ever engaged in disruptive sockpuppetry?" and tell the tale straight away.

I'm not going to sugarcoat it: The bottom line is that I wanted to see what it felt like to be a vandal. I'm sure each one of us who works on dispute resolution or vandal patrolling or any area of controversy probably occasionally has the urge to engage in personal attacks, WP:POINTy edits, etc. What set me off is I was getting really tired of the nationalist debate over the lede text for Alexander the Great. For like a week I was watching this go on, and I kept being tempted to make POINTy edits to the lede in an attempt to mock the pov-warriors. So much of the vandalism we see is so brainless, e.g. "bob eats his own farts", and I couldn't help but think that I could be a "better" vandal (whatever that means...) Eventually, I said, "Hey, why not?" and created the bad hand account. And so it was that a few days later, I embarked on a short-lived spree of POINTy vandalism and trolling. (Incidentally, note that even my bad hand account had as many positive contribs as disruptive contribs, heh...)

You know what? It was really disappointing. Even before I got caught. I wanted to know what it felt like to be a vandal, and what I found out was that it's pretty hollow and boring. It really demonstrated the power of WP:RBI. The edit warriors that I had so desperately wanted to mock barely even noticed I was mocking them, the good faith editors reverting my changes seemed mildly annoyed but didn't pay much attention.. and I felt bad, too, because I could see in one case the poor guy was reverting the vandalism manually, and I'm like, "Dude, just use the undo button!" but I had to keep my mouth shut... All in all, very hollow and empty. Dumb.

I know a lot of people are going to call 'bullshit' on this, but I think the bad hand incident actually makes me less likely to abuse the admin tools. Now I know how shallow and unsatisfying it is to be disruptive, even if you think you are being clever. If I ever were tempted to abuse the tools to make a WP:POINT, now I have the experience to know that, well, not only will you get in trouble, but getting there is not going to be as fun as you think it is.

I'll tell you what, I know the bad hand incident helped me in dispute resolution. Before, when I was tempted to tear into and ridicule someone for tedentious editing or other types of annoying behavior, I bit my tongue primarily because I didn't want to get in trouble. Now I bite my tongue because I know from experience that if I were to tell the person off or mock them, it wouldn't really be very satisfying and in most cases is not going to have any effect on the aberrant behavior whatsoever. It's a lot easier now to say to myself, "Hey Jay, do you really think it is going to do any good to say that? Erase that crap you have typed in the edit window, and think of a more constructive way to approach this problem."

I recognize that no matter what I say about it, and no matter how much time goes by, I'm going to get a whole slew of oppose !votes due to this incident. But I hope that most people will understand that it was an isolated incident; that I regret the harm I caused the project; and that, paradoxically, what I have learned from this incident may actually help me to be a better admin. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and if I did run I would request a CU to do a pass on my account just to allay any fears that anyone might have that I am maintaining or have maintained any other socks. MariahSweet (talk · contribs) will come up on one of my IPs, but I think everyone will accept the rather innocuous explanation for that one ;) My contribs from work are routed through a proxy server, so there may be other edits (or even accounts) from that IP, but I seriously doubt there is any disruption there (I looked through the contribs for my work IP once about a year ago, and about half of them was minor stuff I did before I got an account, and the other half were pretty innocuous minor changes, e.g. typos and the like.) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as that incident was recent (8 May 2008 to be exact) I unfortunately must say that I think you will need to wait at least one year without incident before I would be willing to nominate you seeing as time is really the only way to prove your trustworthiness. Also, take a peak at the CheckUser policy, you can not have CheckUsers preformed on yourself in order to clear your name ;) Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must do what your conscience tells you, of course... --Jaysweet (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

decision

Take it for what it's worth, but I agree with Tiptoety -- you should wait a good while. I'd be willing to work with you in sort of an informal loose mentorship, but I think it's too early for admin coaching yet. - Revolving Bugbear 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the difference between "informal loose mentorship" and "admin coaching," given that the "formal" admin coaching program is nigh dissolved already...

Regardless, I think I'll decline your offer. I absolutely accept the fact that some people will say, "Oh, he socked less than 365 days ago, no way!" and that this will destroy any trust they have in me, regardless of context, lack of significant disruption, and a longstanding pattern of constructive behavior both after and before the isolated "bad hand" incident. Sockpuppetry is one of the most serious issues facing this community, and some people will (perhaps justifiably) refuse to look past even a single brief incident of it.

However, I don't really want a mentor who doesn't implicitly trust me. Thanks anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I don't trust you, but if you want to interpret it that way, I can't stop you. But I do believe that "admin coaching" is to prepare someone for adminship ... and I'm not convinced that you should be making that your current goal. What the "bad hand" incident and the (in my opinion worse) "bad accounts" page indicate to me is that your immediate goal should be working on mutual trust and respect between yourself and the community. I encourage you to think about that. - Revolving Bugbear 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

I have never made a contribution to WP:Dispute resolution. Have read through a few mediation cases, but in the end I found it too much effort to completely understand the opposing views. I have dabbled with WP:3O third opinion requests, and even they can be hard work. In comparison, MfD is usually easy, and WP:DRV is particularly important. Actually, WP:DRV tends not to be so tense. It’s usually a mix of newcomers and important questions. WP:AfD can get tense, and is often dreary. I have some real experience with non-wikipedia and real-world dispute resolution. Email me if you want to talk about it. I don’t think my ideas/knowledge is so much idealised, indeed, I think there is no single answer. What firm opinions I have are along the lines of what doesn’t work. Silencing one party (via blocking, or deletion) is a very bad mechanism of dispute resolution. Authoritative intervention doesn’t work in the long term, except with children. What to do “when one party demonstrates a persistent inability to understand the concerns of the other party”? Well, an argument is what happens when two people want to be heard but don’t want to listen. When one is not listening…. Try asking that party to summarise the position/perspective of the other. Importantly, you have to be concerned that you could have a troll. There is some very important advise there, and interestingly there is overlap with the often sound advise of “ignore people who annoy you”. Given your statements, I think that WP:UP#NOT/9 was not just poor, it was causing a misleading impression of possible solutions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jew of Linz book

Jaysweet, thank you for your reply in the ANI thread initiated by Cornish and the invitation to follow up here. I think it is too late for what you suggest. Comments and third-party opinions have been plentiful already. Cornish's credibility is in tatters. If he wants to restore it, he must start ASAP acknowledging criticism and issuing corrections ("errata", in book parlance).

I don't think he will, though. Remember, his book came out ten years ago, and he has not been upfront about any of his misstatements yet. Instead he plays "Hide the ball" and "Ring around the rosie". On the WikiAnswers page he told me:

"The Bethmanns were originally Sephardic Jews who moved to Amsterdam, Nassau and then Goslar. (1492 was a fateful year for Sephardim.) This issue was thoroughly thrashed out (with full references) years ago in threads on the Richard Wagner discussion page:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.music.composers.wagner/browse_thread/thread/a0b339556a428ae9/0bba33393d08456b?

Doesn't that give the impression that some kind of consensus was reached in the Wagner and that they largely agreed with him?

It did to me. However, when I visited that group to ask the people there, they responded with some "choice words" for Mr. Cornish! Go ahead, read what they say about him!

For a good approximation of what it's like to argue with Cornish, try nailing a custard pie to the wall!

Oh, yes, I do have an abrasive, some say confrontational style. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. However, other people have tried patience, flattery, equanimity, etc. etc. with Mr. Cornish, all to no use.

I am serious about my proposal to classify The Jew of Linz as fringe science, akin to the "Moon Hoax" and the "WTC was blown up by planted explosives" theories. Please consider whether or not to lend me your support.--Number17 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your latest comments now up on my Talk page, cheers!--Number17 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal notification

Hi! I'm suggesting a merger for New Mexico's 3rd congressional district election, 2008, an article you worked on. Flatterworld (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb bomb comment...again.

Trilemma's at it again, deleting the comment after it stood uncontested for several weeks. We're discussing it here if you want to add your two cents. AzureFury (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to RevolvingBugbear

I want this to be at the bottom, as it represents somewhat of a period (or exclamation point?) on the end of this talk page. On August 11th, respected admin RevolvingBugbear wrote:

I didn't say I don't trust you, but if you want to interpret it that way, I can't stop you. But I do believe that "admin coaching" is to prepare someone for adminship ... and I'm not convinced that you should be making that your current goal. What the "bad hand" incident and the (in my opinion worse) "bad accounts" page indicate to me is that your immediate goal should be working on mutual trust and respect between yourself and the community. I encourage you to think about that. - Revolving Bugbear 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well well, where to start. I waited over a week to respond to this, because I was worried that my initial reaction to these comments was one of anger, and that perhaps if I let it ruminate I would feel differently. If anything, I feel more embittered by these comments now than when I first read them. I don't want this response to come across as, "Waah, you won't make me an admin so I'ma throw a fit!" Tiptoety's comment above, while a hard pill to swallow, was the kind of response I anticipated in regards to these previous infractions, and while I disagree with Tiptoety's position, I respect it. It is not personal. But I have some serious problems with what Revolving Bugbear said, and sadly I am beginning to believe these comments probably represent the opinion of most of the community.

Okay, first: By the "bad accounts" page, I can only assume you are referring to the deleted "Lack of Enforcement" page. If so, I believe your characterization of this is either due to a severe lack of context surrounding the creation and deletion of the page, or else is a case of delayed WP:BITE. I created the page fairly early in my Wikipedia experience, when I was not aware that WP:UP#NOT prohibited the listing of "perceived flaws" of other users. In any case, it is clear from the prose on the page that it was never intended as an attack page -- it was intended to show that there were cases where a user was clearly in need of an indefinite ban, but that the community waited to take action.

As I became more experience with Wikipedia and with its policies, I simultaneously became aware of a policy prohibiting that type of page (WP:UP#NOT bullet #9), and also gained the experience to understand why the page was a bad idea (its potential to offend) -- and perhaps most importantly, I came to understand why the community does wait so long to take action in certain cases. Once I gained a better understanding of this, I blanked the page and contacted an admin to have it deleted.

In summary, I held a belief which I now believe to be in error, and at one time I was preparing to promote that belief in a way that was unwittingly in violation of Wikipedia policy. Once I came to understand the problems with this, I voluntarily retracted everything. To my knowledge, nobody else was even aware of the page. Nobody put pressure on me or told me to delete it. I just learned enough about Wikipedia to understand why it was wrong, and so I retracted it. If anything, I think this shows I am willing to admit when I am in error. If you really think that is an egregious problem in achieving "mutual trust and respect between [my]self and the community", then I really don't know what to say to you.

Ah yes, so now we come to the comment that really wrecked it all for me. Perhaps it was just a bad choice of words, but this I have found to be a pill I simply cannot swallow. I have tried for nine days now to look past it, and I can't. I would like to write this off as just some isolated jackoff who had a problem with me or didn't review my contribs, but I continue to get this sinking feeling that the community would support Revolving Bugbear's characterization here. And I can't abide by that.

First of all, it's a little funny that RB's post begins with "It's not that I don't trust you" and ends with the suggestion to build trust. To paraphrase: "It's not that I don't trust you... it's that the whole community doesn't trust you!" Gee, thanks.

Far more importantly, though, are RB's decision to use the words "respect" and "mutual." These are the things I cannot get past. All the rest I can write off as Revolving Bugbear failing to understand context, but this... I just don't know.

I understand that many elements of the community will not trust me for quite some time after any incident of sockpuppetry, no matter how brief or minor or uncharacteristic of my contributions. And I am okay with that and thought I was braced for it. As I mentioned, Tiptoety's proclamation that he would not support giving me any tools for at least a year, while difficult to hear, is the kind of response I expected and that I accept.

But respect? Who the fuck reads my contribs and has no respect for me? The people who I interact with on a daily basis I am sure have the utmost respect for my past contributions to dispute resolution and informal mediation. I constantly get comments like, "Wait, you're not an admin? Why not?" Of course, I then explain to them why the community does not trust me. But does that erode respect?? How does that make any sense?!

And yet, perhaps it does... And this is why I can't look past this comment. I can accept that a lot of the community will say, "Oh, Jay broke the rules something fierce pretty recently, and even though that seems like uncharacteristic behavior for him, how do we know he won't do it again?" That's frustrating, but understandable. But RB has now made me realize that a lot of the community will say, "Oh, Jay broke the rules something fierce once, so now I think all of his positive contributions are uncharacteristic behavior, and he's just a vandalsock." I think I could handle it if it was pov-pushing assholes who thought that about me, but for well-respected admins to feel that way... Put it this way: I think anybody who says I should not be respected needs a major troutslap, and I have now lost confidence in the community to wield the trout in that way.

Lastly is the word "mutual." I am sure RB didn't think very hard about this word -- or maybe you did? I don't know. But anyway, ironically, it is this word "mutual," which implicitly suggests that I have something less than utmost trust and respect for the community, which has done more than anything else to erode my trust and respect for the community. Not to wikilawyer, but I could almost argue that the user of the word "mutual" here was a failure to WP:AGF. It is just nonsensical to me that anyone would think, based on my contribs over the last few months, that I did not have respect for this community. I was contrite about my early errors, and rectified most of them voluntarily once I understood what I had done wrong. And then I worked tirelessly to resolve disputes and to educate others on the best way to interact on Wikipedia.

And yet, it seems because of this scarlet S sewed to my chest, many people in the community, even respected admins, will be blind to all of this. It all seems somewhat pointless now. As I said, I am fine with hearing, "Look, you socked too recently, so we can't trust you with the mop." It is another to hear that I don't have mutual respect with the community. I can't fucking handle that. So, I think I am done contributing actively to the project. I still read Wikipedia a lot, and when I see an obvious mistake, I will surely correct it (that's what I loved about this community in the first place, *sniff* *sniff*), but I just can't bring myself to continue to work on dispute resolution, which is something I felt I did quite well. I will always be 2nd class, a clown of sorts, because I made some mistakes a few months ago.

I dearly wish RevolvingBugbear had been willing to leave it with my carefully phrased comment that I did "not want a mentor who does not implicitly trust me." I chose my words very carefully there... I did not mean them to be offensive to you. I was merely observing that your trust in me was conditional, which is quite understandable and rational. It is a position that, while it is hard for me to accept, I still respect it. I was willing to leave it at that, that many well-respected members of the community will not trust me due to my past transgressions. But that has now been amplified from "a few won't trust", to "the community will neither trust nor respect, and they don't believe I trust or respect them either." I can't swallow that one. Sorry. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and regarding the "goals" that you mention... My goal, prior to nine days ago, had always been to improve the community, and my desire for the mop was driven by the same impulse, as I thought I made clear here. I felt that "mutual trust and respect" was already being built implicitly as a result of my work towards that goal. But apparently not. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, I think you have both read too much and too little into RB's comment. We're a community of pseudonyms, and a community is really little more (especially in this context) than a web of relationships, with trust and shared goals at its core. Using multiple pseudonyms, and in particular using them to disrupt the process of improving an article, is destructive to the trust that underpins the community. No one is saying "Jaysweet is a bad guy, and he'll do bad things." The issue of trust and respect is purely in the context of becoming an administrator. Anomalous behavior often torpedoes RfAs - since our predictive ability is so hamstrung by the medium we work in, any fly in the ointment makes people wary. To have a successful RfA, you now need to do a lot more work than might otherwise be necessary to demonstrate that you are consistently reasonable and willing to work within the confines of our policies. If you choose not to request adminship, then you remain a "normal" editor - not a bad thing, and not an indicator that you're lesser or not respected.

The only other advice I give is something I should adhere to more often myself - try not to take things so seriously that you get very upset, particularly criticism. Few people if any will read the totality of your contribs here on Wikipedia (if they do, it won't be with benign intent), and none of us know the actual person behind the words. Avruch^T 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right to suggest that one "try not to take things so seriously that you get very upset," and in fact this is very much involved in my decision to stop actively contributing. Online relationships are not nearly as important to me as real-life, so if any interaction stemming from an online community pisses me off for more than a day or so, I'm done interacting with that community. All previous stuff that has pissed me off on Wikipedia, I'm pissed for no more than an hour or two, then I get over it. The "mutual...respect" comment from RB is something I have not been able to let go of after nine days -- so, I'm letting go of active contributions to Wikipedia. <shrug> No big loss.

Also, please don't try to explain to me why sockpuppetry is so disruptive to trust, as you did above. I don't need to be condescended to. I understand completely why that is the case, and I feel like I have articulated it in a previous thread above better even than you have. I accept fully that a single brief instance of sockpuppetry could prevent the community from having the trust in me to be given the mop. What I don't accept is the suggestion that my aspiration to get mentorship is somehow a distraction from my trust in and/or respect for the community.

Most of your reply above is trying to placate me about not being an admin. That's not what this is about, and I thought I made that clear. This is about having my goals and motives impugned by a respected member of the community because I dared to say that I prefer to interact with people who trust me.

Bah, anyway, it's not important. That's the key thing here: Wikipedia is not important. When I think about interacting with people on Wikipedia, all I think about now is RB's comments. So fuck it, I just won't interact with people on Wikipedia. It is not a big loss. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it came across as condescending. I was inartfully trying to describe my belief that you are trusted and respected by the community in general, but the issue is nettling enough to cause an RfA to fall down in these areas. The community trust element above was just my attempt to provide a complete thought, I'm sorry if it came across as lecturing or caused offense. Feel free to remove my first comment and this one as well. I hope, if you do stop your involvement in the metapedia, that you reconsider at some point and in any case do find the time to fix some errors once in awhile! Avruch^T 22:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you're way off on your interpretation to my comments. And please don't try to lay your decision to not "interact with people on Wikipedia" at my feet because you "can't fucking handle" your interpretation of my comments. If this was enough to set you off for nine days, then I don't know what to say, apart from the fact that I regret the way that you reacted to what you apparently believed I was saying. - Revolving Bugbear 23:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I won't lay it at your feet. It's my fault for thinking that working on XfD participation or Good Article creation would be anything but a distraction from "building mutual trust and respect with the community." Or perhaps it was my impertinence for thinking that the person who would help me with these things ought to have faith in my ability to grasp those concepts. Either way...

I don't know, it seems clear from an objective standpoint that I am overreacting. I should just write you off as some random jerkoff. I do think it was kindof unnecessary to rub it in after a "thanks anyway." You offered something, and I didn't like the offer. You responded to my declination by disparaging my long-term goals. Seemed like an asshole move to me, but for whatever reason I am having trouble writing you off as just another asshole. It's not even that your are an admin; plenty of admins are ignorant dickheads who couldn't pass on RfA these days to save their life and have just been grandfathered in from when the process was a lot easier than it is today, and I have come to the point where I view the only difference between an admin and non-admin to be one of the buttons available, not one of wisdom or respect. And yet... for whatever reason I can't seem to write it off. Maybe it's because I am the asshole after all. In any case, Wikipedia is not fun anymore all of a sudden.

Avruch, thanks for the kind words and sorry I snapped at you. I certainly will not stop with fixing errors on Wikipedia, as my recent contribs have shown. I just feel like I am through with this community, at least for now. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, maybe there is way I can get over this after all. I think, perhaps, I was indeed mistaken about what admin coaching entails, now that I look at some of the coaching that RB has done. I was under the impression that the purpose of admin coaching was to develop the skills and abilities necessary to be an admin. A number of people said to me that the only purpose of admin coaching was to check off a few token achievements and get the answers correct on an RfA, and urged me to avoid it as valueless at best, and possibly even detrimental. I thought that I could perhaps leverage the program anyway to develop skills in areas where I felt I was weak. I viewed this is a long-term process, since I want to actually learn these skills, rather than just get a token that I could cash in at a potential RfA -- which is perhaps why I thought it might be appropriate to begin the journey so early after the "bad hand" incident, even knowing that I would realistically not be able to pass an RfA for another 3-9 months.

But now that I look closely at some of the coaching that is actually being done, it seems that perhaps, after all, admin coaching is just a glorified Cliff Notes for RfA questions. Heh, now that I think about it, when I looked through the list of admin coaches to see who I might want to contact, I only caught one or two names that I recognized and trusted... most I had never heard of, and one or two I even thought were kind of blowhards. Perhaps I should have read deeper into this and realized that the type of admins who participate in the coaching program are generally not the type of admins I aspire to be like??

Perhaps I did misinterpret RB's comments. When RB said, "But I do believe that "admin coaching" is to prepare someone for adminship ... and I'm not convinced that you should be making that your current goal," I took this to mean that some perceived problem with me means that I should not aspire serve the community. But no... now I understand, what RB was really saying was, "Admin coaching is just a cheap cram session you do before your RfA, so don't bother with it until you are a few weeks away from the actual RfA." See, I wanted to prepare myself for adminship, but "admin coaching" is about preparing for the admin test.

Heh... you know, my entire decision to contact RB was based off a conversation at AN a few weeks ago, and I should have known when almost unanimously, the folks who knew me said, "Don't bother, it's gimmicky and you don't really need it anyway." Yes, this is my confusion... this is why I have been having trouble letting go of RB's comment... I had not quite grasped how worthless admin coaching was, even though the people that I trust and respect almost universally told me it was worthless.

That was kind of dumb of me, wasn't it? :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

I don't remember why your talk page is on my watchlist, but I am fully tired of the gross incivility here. Please maintain decorum and focus on project goals. If you want to flame people, please take this discussion elsewhere. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another person involved in the Admin Coaching program fails to grasp any sense of context... A possible pattern developing? Anyway, I will archive this whole thing, I don't really want it here anymore anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]