Hell, I'm villified by a large portion of the community simply because I had an association with the group that's been trolling him. I've written an FA, created over 250 articles, and I have 10k edits to my name, but that doesn't change anything in a number of people's minds.
You can run for admin anytime you want and I will abstain from voting. I dropped out of the arbcom race since I had no chance of success..a number of others did as well. I counted 10 opposers that were in some way affiliated with ED in some manner or another, and with an open arbcom hearing, I saw no reason to continue.
--------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:10:04 -0800 (PST), Mongo Montana mongomontana@yahoo.com wrote:
Hell, I'm villified by a large portion of the community simply because I had an association with the group that's been trolling him. I've written an FA, created over 250 articles, and I have 10k edits to my name, but that doesn't change anything in a number of people's minds.
You can run for admin anytime you want and I will abstain from voting.
Jeff did run for admin (I nominated him). It was derailed by people who disliked his inclusionism. I didn't see that as relevant, myself, since an inclusionist is, if anything, less likely to be a problem as an admin than a deletionist. But what do I know?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Jeff did run for admin (I nominated him). It was derailed by people who disliked his inclusionism. I didn't see that as relevant, myself, since an inclusionist is, if anything, less likely to be a problem as an admin than a deletionist. But what do I know?
And this isn't about that anyway. I don't plan to run again in the future because I know I have no shot, largely because of the falsehoods put forth by certain parties because of that one association from a year ago. My only reason for bringing myself up is to demonstrate something simple - the large amount good you do isn't going to make a lick of difference if people perceive the very small amount of bad a certain way, fair or not.
-Jeff
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:36:12 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
the large amount good you do isn't going to make a lick of difference if people perceive the very small amount of bad a certain way, fair or not.
Right about now, you do not need to tell me this :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
the large amount good you do isn't going to make a lick of difference if people perceive the very small amount of bad a certain way, fair or not.
-Jeff
Someone suggested starting a biographical page about a source I used to bolster my case a year ago; I thought "hell no", I wouldn't dream of exposing someone's impecible credentials to the slanders and trolls existing policy now allows, just to save my own ass.
nobs
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Jeff did run for admin (I nominated him). It was derailed by people who disliked his inclusionism. I didn't see that as relevant, myself, since an inclusionist is, if anything, less likely to be a problem as an admin than a deletionist. But what do I know?
Actually I opposed Jeff on the basis of his opinion regarding BLP and his support for people who were using Wikipedia for harrassment... (hmm, this seems oddly familiar)
Guettarda wrote:
Actually I opposed Jeff on the basis of his opinion regarding BLP and his support for people who were using Wikipedia for harrassment... (hmm, this seems oddly familiar)
For context, I supported having an article about the DailyKos blogger Armando, and supported including information about him that was published in two major magazines. Two people decided to twist that into something separate, which isn't shocking.
Case in point - something people disagree with gets twisted into an entirely separate perception. On this issue, Guettarda misrepresented me from the start and continues to do so, and the myth persists. Even if I was wrong - and later consensus on the page decided that long term relevance didn't exist and I dropped it - this is what defines me for him. I have to deal with that, and that's fine.
-Jeff
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:45:29 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Case in point - something people disagree with gets twisted into an entirely separate perception. On this issue, Guettarda misrepresented me from the start and continues to do so, and the myth persists. Even if I was wrong - and later consensus on the page decided that long term relevance didn't exist and I dropped it - this is what defines me for him. I have to deal with that, and that's fine.
This is indeed a problem. It is quite possible to have a legitimate difference of opinion while still respecting each other, but in some cases false inferences (and in other cases legitimate ones) can be drawn. I'm not going to be drawn on which applies here, since I don't actually recall the incident. There are some legitimate differences which are also legitimate bases for opposing an RFA, others which I don't think are, and position on the inclusionism spectrum is one of those, in my view. I perhaps subscribe more to the "no big deal" philosophy than some, though.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It is quite possible to have a legitimate difference of opinion while still respecting each other, but in some cases false inferences (and in other cases legitimate ones) can be drawn.
This can be refered to as "assigning motives" which can then place you in an ideological block. The myth can be rapidly spread from there.
nobs