User talk:Gregbard: Difference between revisions

• Current time: Sunday, July 14, 2024, 03:55 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Gregbard! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

According to this edit of the article for board of chosen freeholders, I "don't seem to know what an 'agency' is." I do. I have read and re-read the article for government agency and a county government is not an agency of county government. A government agency is defined as "a department of a local or national government responsible for the oversight and administration of a specific function" and this just does not fit, regardless of your determination to make it so. In past discussions you have advanced the position that all of county government is really an agency of state government. That might well be a wonderful technicality, but the issue here is the fact that a board of chosen freeholders is the county government in New Jersey, not an agency of itself as would be a sheriff's department or a county library. Can you point to anything that supports your cliam that a county government is an agency of county government? Alansohn (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your board of Freeholders is required to hold open meetings. So why is that? If you ask the counsel for the board, you will discover that the open meetings law for state agencies is the reason why. BTW, if you are relying on Wikipedia for your understanding of things, that would suggest that you don't really understand them. Greg Bard (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not relying on Wikipedia's definition, I'm demonstrating that Wikipedia consensus contradicts your idiosyncratic interpretation. Do you truly believe that because county government is subject to state law it's an agency of itself? Is there anyone here in Wikipedia who agrees with you? Why sin't county government listed as a state agency? Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally responsible for the Wikipedia consensus. However, it is my duty to inform you that a county is an agency of the state government. This is the case, in reality, regardless of what the Wikipedia consensus is. Please let me correct your mis-impression: I don't believe that a county is "an agency of itself", nor do I believe that a county is an agency of the state government "because county government is subject to state law." I know that a county governing board, such as a county commission, is an agency of the state government because it is only in its capacity as a state agency that it is required to hold open meetings. If it wasn't a state agency, that requirement just wouldn't apply. Unlike everyone else comprising the Wikipedia consensus, I am not pulling this fact from my nether regions. This is not an idiosyncratic view among anyone who actually has any education on the subject matter. Here are just a few sources which support my claim: (Alabama,California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin) Furthermore, the NACO website itself states that "...early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Among these sources are statements such as "It is well-settled law that counties are state agencies", and "the general rule still is that a county is an arm of the state" ref. So I think what needs to happen, is for people to admit that they are relying on a high school civics, and freshman college level of understanding that they got in those required classes, and also admit that when someone who actually has studied the matter on a graduate level, that despite their strongly held impressions, that probably the person with the graduate level of study probably is, in fact, more credible on those issues. We have a guy who is working on a "PhD. in Appalachian Studies" and a person who has held government jobs as the leaders in that Wikipedia consensus, so it is pretty much a case of WP:FAIL. Greg Bard (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legalisms are interesting but irrelevant. If you are using these sources to argue that a county government is an agency of state government, then a county legislature is a state government agency, and if so why describe a county government as a "county government agency". Even using your mischaracterizations this still makes no sense. Why are county legislatures and sheriff's departments both agencies? You may want to look in the mirror before making accusations of WP:FAIL, when you're trying to ramrod through your own bizarre stance on how to categorize county governments and their agencies. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You presume too much. My interest in placing the boards under "county agencies" is the fact that they don't belong in the parent cat, and they don't belong under the "officials" cat. I have recently created a category just for "legislative bodies", and that should resolve the "agency of itself" issue. So your nitpicking has resulted in some progress, but you still really should drop the attitude and presumption. I'm doing the best that I can, and am receiving no help from the peanut gallery at all. However we will probably now enter into the full conflict about whether or not the "legislative bodies" cat should be under state agencies or not. I find your statement that "legalisms are irrelevant" to be a little shocking. So you don't even deny that my claim is true, just that it is irrelevant, is that the idea? Greg Bard (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That counties operate under the authority of state government is true, but irrelevant. Your interpretation is that this means that any and all aspects of county government are agencies of state government, a position that has been thoroughly debunked both by me and most notably by Orlady. If what you call "nitpicking" has lead to a more logical category structure, than that may well be the way to go here. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, again, you are presuming. A county governing board is considered a state agency, for open meetings and liability purposes. It isn't about merely "operating under the authority of the state." However a sheriff, a parks department, etc are rightfully "county agencies." I have never claimed otherwise. You don't seem to get the nuances. Reality isn't simple. No one had "debunked" anything! If you are impressed by Orlady's convoluted interpretations, you obviously are not a very critical thinker. She's tap dancing to shoehorn her POV and you fell for it. I'm sorry, but the scholars agree with me, not her. Greg Bard (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:County governing bodies in the United States is finally an accurate description of county government, as Category:County government agencies in the United States is patently incorrect for this purpose. The title that would match your description -- Category:County government bodies in the United States that are a state agency for open meetings and liability purposes -- will never exist, because it's wrong. The "for open meetings and liability purposes" qualifier is pedantically true from a legalistic standpoint, but trying to ram that through as a title for a category or describing county government bodies as "agencies" of county government in circular fashion is wrong. The scholars you refer to are not agreeing with you; You're misinterpreting statements that show that there is some vague agency status that exists for open meetings and liability purposes but that does not have any relevance here, as Orlady has thoroughly demonstrated. Consensus is the Wikipedia standard, not the truth you believe to see. Alansohn (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are hopeless. Most of those references when taken at face value clearly and unambiguously support my claim, however most of them are not scholarly sources. The scholars do, in fact, agree with me. Your nonsense about trying to portray my view as legalese, or semantic in nature is cruelly and pathetically ironic. County government is only "local" government in a semantic sense. Campaigns and elections aren't governing, they are means of accountability. The actual government is state government. You need only to read up on the tenth amendment to realize this. Have any counties legalized marijuana or permitted more lenient gun laws than their state has permitted? How about elections? They are not federalized in the US, they are reserved to the state. So who is in charge of elections where YOU are? Oh right, the county elections officer.... who reports to the Secretary of what? Right. Secretary of State. You basically are a religious believer, in the face of overwhelming evidence. Greg Bard (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that anyone agrees with Greg, I would like to point out that "state agencies" cannot declare bankruptcy, while cities and counties can (under title 9). In fact, there is no real difference between cities and counties, except that in (most) states, every thing is in exactly one county, and in at most one city. (And a county board of supervisors or city council is not an "agency", even under your definition; it's the county and city that would be state "agencies". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making inaccurate and misleading edit summaries, as in this edit, which was inaccurately identified as having reverted vandalism. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, by this posting you are disrespecting Gregbard's explicit request to you not to post further at his Talk page. I noticed some of your previous interactions and don't like what I see. A relatively new user should be encouraged and given some guidance, perhaps, not goaded and disrespected. If you come across as arbitrary and illegitimate, that breeds disrespect by this editor, probably leading the editor into trouble with other editors, too. But your disrespect is part of the problem, part of goading the editor on. Please refrain, yourself. --doncram 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Gregbard is hardly a newbie needing your protection. He registered here on 3 April 2006 and has over 80,000 total edits. Anyway, if you are interested in defending his honor (and/or telling the world about your opinions of me), you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Orlady. --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, where else do you think I should have communicated to him about his misleading edit summary? --Orlady (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, please take a deep breath and think on what I'm about to offer. You are coming into a new group of people and attempting to force your preferred version of information down everyone's throat without getting to know the people or discuss things. As you can see, that's not going so well. Wikipedia is not about trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it even about "truth" - it's about reporting what has been stated by verifiable sources. If the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and CNN all say that the grass is purple - then that is what we report in an encyclopedic fashion. It doesn't matter if the grass is really "green". When I first started here, WP:NOT was a difficult thing for me to accept - but we all have to abide by our policies and guidelines here - aka "the rules".

When you storm in and start declaring "I'm the adult here" - it comes across as the precocious 12-year old demanding "You're not the boss of me". We have no way to verify that you hold the credentials that you claim, and the project has been duped in the past with things like that. (Essjay comes to mind). There are people who do actually want to welcome you into our group, but you have to learn the ropes and play by the rules my friend. For example: You wouldn't walk into some biker bar and start demanding that everyone renounce their evil ways and have a "come to Jesus" moment - it just wouldn't work out well.

As it stand now, you're not only headed down a path which would remove you from an area that you are so passionate about, but you're getting dangerously close to being blocked for WP:NPA. Please step back, consider a different approach. It's not too late in your wiki-career to earn our trust, work towards earning the respect that I'm sure you deserve - and please try to stop being so confrontational with everyone. Orlady is an experienced editor, and a kind person. Manning has been around as long as Jimbo Wales himself. Ask for guidance and you will be gifted beyond words. Please? — Ched :  ?  05:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do reinvestigate this issue. If you read very carefully, you may realize that there are other interpretations of the facts. If I identify myself as a mature adult, that isn't everyone else's cue to say I'm not. It is, however, an opportunity to hold me to my claim. I have put myself out in a very vulnerable position with the idea that I can trust that we have other mature adults. Well it really looks like my trust was misplaced. I am in a position right now where, I have the proverbial gun pointed at me, and my hands up. So what more do people want? This situation has gone way out of control, and I think people have placed way to much faith and loyalty in Orlady. I've been around for a very long time, longer even than many administrators. I think I have earned the respect at this point, and if I say that people should be ashamed of themselves, I have done what I needed to do in life, and in this community for my words to mean something. We are on the internet, using only typed words. It is very easy to be ruthless, cold and even mean. So have I done any of these things? No. I have merely stated my case firmly. If there is anything that bullies hate, it is a person who stands up for themselves. I was a member of my university's academic senate, and in that capacity, I was the primary author of a policy on civil debate. This was long before Wikipedia ever existed. I think people need to re-evaluate the whole story, and realize that I was very patient for a long time, I chose not to escalate the conflict, and I didn't violate any policies. So where did the idea come from to fight with the gloves off with a topic ban? I think I will be approaching the Wikimedia board of directors to tell them they need to take some responsibility if someone gets shivved in the prison yard that they have sustained. Incidently, not that anyone cares, but it is very hurtful to me personally to be treated this way. I am completely innocent, and I don't deserve this drubbing. Greg Bard (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, you're getting a tough lesson on the word "community". First, it is community that determined the policies and processes of this site: WP:CONSENSUS being the main one. However, it is the community who also responds to issues, and the community that has the right and authority to impose limitations on its members. Remember: you voluntarily signed up to this private website, and agreed to those policies. Your actions have gone against community norms: consensus decisions are NOT OPTIONAL. Unfortunately, you have acted like the proverbial "bull in a china shop". It is clear, based on the interactions (all of which are permanent record), that you have lashed out against those who dared to tell you that you were acting against policy. So, now you're guilty of violating two of the key rules you agreed to: consensus AND WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA. In ANI, you've now made a comment that you'll ignore what the community decides: you cannot do that, as the community is the supreme body of governance. This is not a place where you have rights. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a lot of presuming about the facts. You have made a lot of claims against me and about this situation which are not true. Where exactly have I stated that I will "ignore what the community decides?" At what point do we determine that there is a consensus that I have gone against? That implies that the discussion is over. That hasn't been determined, annd if it is being shut down, that isn't civil. What uncivil act am I accused of exactly?! I've taken to the talk pages with the issues, so what the hell are you talking about?! I really don't think you have thoroughly investigated this issue at all. You don't seem to understand how to use quotes either. I have never used the terms "dare" "right" or "authority." My claim at this point is that the administrators are overstepping the reasonable use of their powers, and we that we have a new issue here. I haven't been given due process at all, and sanctions are being threatened against me, with no clear instance of a policy violation. Please consider that you may not be perfect. I have been around a long time, and find repeatedly condescending posts to my talk page, to support my claim that the admins have lost their way. I am trying to talk you people down, and you are offended at the attempt! That isn't civil, or fair-minded of you. I need to look at my options for defending myself at this point. Greg Bard (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed it, you stated that you will "ignore what the community decides" when you stated (and I quote): "Comment I will not accept any sanction of any kind". If ANI decides you're going to be sanctioned, there's little you can do about it. Claiming you're being ganged up on, or that admins are abusing anything is not at all borne out by the facts - so many people are trying to help you by showing you that, and MOST of these people are trying to prevent you from being blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• my apologies for assuming that you were a newish user. I have no further comment at this time. — Ched :  ?  20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and I'm sorry that I thought Gregbard would actually appreciate one or two people actually trying to help him in a fair manner. Who knew? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Bwilkins, please stop harassing Gregbard. You are not helpful. Let some other admin handle this. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no due process see (WP:NOJUSTICE) and being correct (if you are, I don't know one way or the other) doesn't count for much around here. Wikipedia itself is a political process and you're looking either getting blocked or topic ban if you continue on the current trajectory. Best advice right now is to take a break and, when you return, start working the content dispute resolution forums (e.g. WP:DRN, WP:RFC.) And don't make comments about other editors, no matter whether they're justified or not; what's valued on Wikipedia is the ability to create content while working with others (I know it can be frustrating). Stay off ANI -- it really is a shark tank. NE Ent 02:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair-minded analysis. I don't think it is right that just my defending myself is hurting my case. That isn't a sign of a fair-minded community. I have taken a complete break from any editing on anything other than this issue. Any help appreciated. If I am sanctioned, I will spend the entire duration on the political and judicial issues. If there is anything specific that you think we should be thinking about, talking about, or doing something about in that area, please let me know. In particular I find "wikipedia is not a democracy" "wp:canvassing" and most recently "boomerang" to be policies that should be offensive to any reasonable and decent person. The whole consensus decision making system, and the fact that the board of directors stays hands off to this community to be very irresponsible. I think we should adopt the basic parliamentary procedures, majoritarian governance, and judicial review by duly appointed and fair-minded people with some special qualification to that role (rather than a prison yard situation where its just anyone who shows up among people who have just been around a while.) Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should remove the ANI post you just made ... will post again soon with more. NE Ent 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't have wikitime to go into sufficient detail but, briefly, Wikipedia is an iconoclastic society which has evolved into something between a fair minded judicial / dispute resolution system and junior high school. If I could fix it, I would. I can't, not can any other individual. It's kind of like having a boat on a body of water with rocks in it -- can't move the rocks, but I can try to warn others where the rocks are. The probability the approach you're talking will "work" in the sense that either English Wikipedia, or the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) will change is pretty much nil. The most likely outcome is a series of escalating sanctions. If you feel that standing up for what you believe is right is what you need to do, I reckon that's what you gotta do but I don't think it's in your best interest nor the Encyclopedia in the long run. What is needed is a critical mass of editors willing to work to make small, incremental steps to an improved Wikipedia. NE Ent 01:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal Greg. Enough of this. Either abide by WP:CONSENSUS, stop with the personal attacks, and learn to stop editing in a disruptive fashion. If you continue the way you have for the last few days (weeks? ... months?) .. then I will block you. I'm willing to work with anyone here .. and I'll help where I can .. but this type of disruption simply HAS to come to an end. I don't /enjoy/ blocking anyone - but I WILL do my duty and stop disruptive behavior. You're an adult - fine, so am I. You are educated in a particular field? Great. So one adult to another - knock it off. Are we clear? — Ched :  ?  20:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited anything other than discussion about you clueless people wanting to sanction me for the past three days. So what exactly is it that I am supposed to "knock off?!" ANI/I is my venue to defend myself. If you are offended by just the fact that I am defending myself, then you shouldn't have administrative powers. Shame on you. I haven't violated any policy, and I don't intend to. But if I need to call the Wikimedia office every day from 9 to 5 for the next three months, then I will. Drop the attitude. I don't have to pretend for one moment that it is warranted. The way to make me "knock it off" is to drop the idea of sanctions, and leave me in peace. Thanks for giving me the only "warning" I have received yet so far. It was very fair-minded of you to do that before implementing any sanction. What a novel idea. Greg Bard (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look Greg, I would like to help - I really would, but actually you HAVE been violating policy. The WP:NPA one. Wikipedia:Consensus is actually a policy too, and it appears that you've been beating on that one with a sledge hammer as well. Let the ANI thread die a natural death. Concentrate on the articles you want to work on, but try to find a common ground on the talk pages when there's an issue. You calling other editors "clueless people" and "immature" or whatever wording suits your mood simply is NOT going to get you what you want. Digging in your heels and demanding "I am right" simply is NOT going to get you what you want. You can call whoever you want to call ... all day long ... I honestly don't care how you use your phone - but comments like that are going to have some folks screaming WP:NLT. You're digging a hole deeper and deeper here, please stop that. Take a break. Come back with the approach that "I'm going to work with these people". OK - I'll stop there. I won't come back and preach at you. I won't come back and try to lecture you. In fact I won't come back to your talk at all unless I feel I have to leave a block notice. I'm not turning my back on you in a sense that I won't talk to you ... you are more than welcome to stop by my talk. I'll even talk politics with you ... (but only off-wiki since it's such a hotbed on wiki. I don't really engage in political or religious discussions "on" wiki because I feel that everyone is entitled to their own opinion). Anyway ... it's up to you Greg. You do whatever it is you feel you need to do. — Ched :  ?  01:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly not made any legal threats at all. I am pretty sure that harassment is a wikipedia policy and that offenders will be summarily banned for three months without warning. It is interesting that you should bring the issue of legal action up because that would imply that there exists an interpretation of the facts that some person other than myself would consider a valid case. A guilty conscience needs no accuser. All I have been asking all along is for the harassment and bullying to stop, and at this point, that would suffice for me.The easiest way to do that is take the proposal for sanctions off the table as I have asked repeatedly, and we can all live in peace. Greg Bard (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, it is not harassment for people to tell you you're not following the policies you agreed to. If you're violating policy again and again, it is not harassment to follow your edits and revert the ones against policy. It is also not harassment for kindly editor to drop and try to get you to stop flushing yourself down the bowl - you have stuff to add to this project, but you agreed to a set of rules when you became a member, and you cannot change those rules by self-appointed fiat (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is harassment if I am being threatened with more dire consequences if I defend myself. That is exactly how bullies operate. The thing they hate the most is a person who stands up to their bullying. I haven't done any editing, so all of the escalation has been over "my approach" to defending myself. That's not a fair or judicious process! My claim is that the things of which I am accused are extremely mild, and the proposed sanction is insanely harsh. I have stated repeatedly my intention to comply with policy, so all of this attacking me is just gratuitous. At no point is anyone considering that it is the shark tank that has gone off the rails. There is a huge amount of presumption. People are operating on very little of the whole story. People are creating their own reality (ala Eastwood) Where does the idea come from that I am "changing the rules" for instance? Not only do I have to stand by my original claim that I am the mature adult in the room, but it is very clear that we have some very immature administrators. More so than I ever imagined. I may have implicitly "agreed" to certain terms by entering not the community voluntarily, however there are rights which can't be taken away in these types of agreements. I don't have to stand for harassment. It doesn't seem anyone is considering for one moment my interpretation of things. That's not respectful. I'm over here talking about decency and fairness, and having it shoved down my throat! We have policies like "boomerang" and "suicide by admin" which people are throwing around as if that reflects some good value to uphold! What the hell is wrong with these people?!? If we had a policy called "no good deed goes unpunished" you would think someone is a sociopath if they went ahead and actively punished people for good deeds. This culture is just far gone. Don't encourage them, and don't tell me how to behave until you reflect on what I have said. Greg Bard (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call someone who does the same thing over and over again but expects different results each time? Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snark isn't really helpful here and now. NE Ent 02:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not snark, it's an attempt to wake Greg up. You have your approach and technique, and I have mine. Good day, sir. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it right. - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greg,

I'm wondering if you accidentally restored some of the reverted vandalism on Talk:Philosophy with this edit or if that's some kind of intentional punnery related to freeholds or something? --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I having problems with my computer that occasionally causes this kind of error. My apologies. Greg Bard (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Archive navigation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]