User talk:William M. Connolley/Arbcomm 2009 elections

Feel free to ask questions William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on me

I assume that buried in the "Various" are several excellent reasons, and I think our philosophies are sufficiently different that I didn't really expect your support, but I wanted to make sure that you realize that the specific quote you cite was me being facetious. Of course, if you cited it to highlight my appalling sense of humour as a basis for an oppose, that's a different matter. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Though in my defense, that particular joke is not a Steve Smith original. Steve Smith (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The sentiment is indeed not original; it was one of the first things I saw on talk around here (ex-arb, British, David X I think). I assumed you were deliberately retaking the saying back. Certainly As I noted in on offsite venue at the time, "We must do something, and this is something, therefore we must do it." The state of governance on Wikipedia is such that any kind of structure is welcome, is most naturally interpreted as you commending the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development as desirable on the grounds that it is something. How else can "any kind of structure is welcome" be interpreted? If you intended this to mean something different, I think you should rephrase it. At best it is highly ambiguous, at worst wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your interpretation is basically right. I am predisposed towards supporting anything that adds structure, though not to the extreme that that comment would suggest. I was using that phrase to exaggerate my attitude for (what I hoped would be) comic effect. If your opposition to me is based (in part) on my predisposition towards supporting structure rather than (as I believed) on a literal interpretation of that phrase, then I think we're okay. Thanks for your clarification, and best of luck with your candidacy. Steve Smith (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If my original interpretation was right, then I'm not really sure why you're saying "I wanted to make sure that you realize that the specific quote you cite was me being facetious". What you now appear to be saying is that "We must do something, and this is something, therefore we must do it." does indeed represent your attitude. No? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not literally saying that any "something" will do. I'm saying that the situation is sufficiently dire that we should give serious consideration to any idea proposed, even those that we might dismiss out of hand were the situation less dire. Saying "We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it" is plainly ludicrous, but in this case it's illustrative of my general attitude towards Wikipedia governance (again, provided it's not taken literally). I used the extreme quote both because I think it's funny and because the spirit behind it is applicable. I wouldn't care to be opposed because somebody thought that I believed that literally, but I don't mind being opposed because people correctly interpret that attitude that I'm trying to convey. Does that help? Steve Smith (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, insofar as I can interpret what you're saying, my original objection holds William M. Connolley (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold? --BozMo talk 09:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My enemies

Of all the editors on Wikipedia, I have the most numerous and diverse set enemies. I am truly proud, and fond of, them all. As a matter of discretion and politeness, I will not list my "fans" here, but if you check the records and archives I am sure you'll come to the same conclusion! Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blow me down

In regard to your thoughts on me. It is important to note that the user I blocked did not say "blow me down". If he or she had I most certainly would not have blocked them. They wrote "blow me" in the midst of a contentious arbitration case. Where I come from, and where a large number of others come from, that expression is an insult. I point you here (NSFW) for examples. The user did not appeal my block, if they had (and raised the issue you raise) I would have given them the benefit of the doubt and unblocked. I also would like to point out the user was awarded a barnstar by another participant shortly after my block for his comment. I just wanted to explain myself again. I wish you the best of luck in the election. KnightLago (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the same explanation. Perhaps I didn't explain myself as clearly as I might have. Where *I* come from, "blow me" is a contraction of "blow me down" (or at least, very commonly can be) and can be used by perfectly respectable people in polite conversation. Nowdays we have probably semi-imported the couurupt (:-) usage so it might become a double entendre. However, I will re-examine the incident and my vote. I would not like you to think that my vote turns on this one incident William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. KnightLago (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration, I can't justify an oppose on those grounds (I still think you're likely wrong, mind, but not wrong enough). I dislike some of your answers but so what: I dislike some of my answers William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. As I said above, I wish you the best. KnightLago (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]