User talk:Jfwambaugh

Welcome[edit]

Hello Jfwambaugh! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Johntex\^talk 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 North American pet food recall[edit]

Jfwambaugh, please don't get discouraged by this. This is not typical and I'm sure if we all talk it out we can come to a suitable merged version. Also, it looks like you have been here off and on for a while but that no one has ever left you a wlcome message yet. I will do so below. Johntex\^talk 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have talked with Jeffrey and he realizes that he got a little carried away. I do agree with him that his version happens to be somewhat more complete and with a few more references. Therefore, I hope we can work off the version he created as our starting point for expansion. Could I ask that you please try to add stuff into that version of the article vs just waiting a few hours and reverting? I know we all want to keep the article moving in the right direction and not get sucked into a time wasting edit war. Thanks so much for your efforts so far on the article. Johntex\^talk 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is how things are done, I want no part. People have been arguing about the nuances of wording in that article for a month and this random guy who is so clearly superior has dumped in a lot of text that will require a lot of work to fix it. This is totally unfair to everyone involved.

It doesn't usually work this way at all. Arguments do sometimes happen, sure, but this is the very first time I have ever seen someone do this, and I've been here more than 2 years and I've editted thousands of pages. Also, the "random guy" is usually a respected contributor. Please don't let it get you down. In a couple of days we will have worked through this. Johntex\^talk 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid/minimize conflict, not seek it[edit]

Hi Jfwambaugh, I know you don't like some of the thinks Jeffrey has done with the cat food recall article, but we all need to move past that.

The Talk page of the article is for discussing the content of the article. The post you made here was inappropriate. Whatever Jeffrey may or may not have done on his own Talk page is not really relevant to the Pet Food Recall article. Also, Wikipedia guidelines generally give a user fairly wide latitude in editting their own talk page.

If you still have a problem with Jeffrey, you need to follow WP:DR. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between minimizing conflict and minimizing the reporting of conflict. It seems from his talk page that he has a pattern of abuse. It also seems from his recent actions that he is a an egomaniac. Ignoring either issue will not lead to resolution. Jfwambaugh 02:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would never urge you not to report something if you think it is a problem. Still, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about resolving the problem. Please read the WP:DR guidelines if you have not done so already. The first step is always to try to work it out yourself. For that, please use Jeffrey's talk page, and not the Talk page of the article. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 02:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was replaced, not deleted. (Well, technically it was deleted and replaced with a redirect, but still....) So DR is off-point. Maybe AF/I would get wider participation than Arb, and would be the suitable preliminary that the Arb process asks for. Andyvphil 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with JOG[edit]

Yes, I would be more than happy to help in anyway to help him realize that his as an administrator should not be abused.Although I think he does have some credibility as an administrator.He created the very well written page of the pet food recall article all by him self and I think the article was very good and detailed, and it was much better than the other one that was created.His input I think would be good for wikipedia if he just learns not to abuse his powers. Rodrigue 16:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he used any admin powers in substituting his article. But he demonstrated such bad judgement as to disqualify him from being an admmin. Andyvphil 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if the next step is AN/I or RfA, but something ought to be done about JOG's high-handedness. It's not remotely believable that he thought the pet food crisis had gone unmentioned on Wikipedia so many weeks after it had hit the headlines. The logical conclusion is that he lied as a way of bypassing the necessity of attempting to reach consensus on substituting his text for the existing article. I don't care to see him blocked from editing articles on pet food, but someone who has so thoroughly undermined the possiblity of assuming that he is telling the truth oughtn't retain admin powers. I got no meaningful response to my requests that I be told in what forum I can speak plainly without being blocked for violating NPA, so I've held my peace. But you've asked, and I will not misrepresent what I believe. So, yes, I will participate if you raise this issue. Andyvphil 16:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everyone. I think that it is important that we not be hasty and that we not overreach. There are two types of Requests for Comment, one for admin abuses and one for user abuses. I am not aware of evidence that JOG has a pattern abusing admin privileges and other than deleting the time-line article I think our problems stem from his user conduct, for which we have a great deal of evidence. I think pursuing action against him as a user is more appropriate.

Based on the evidence we have I don’t think the removal of JOG’s admin privileges is a likely outcome. Instead, we can try to have him blocked from interfering with the pet food recall and related articles. We can also carefully document his actions so that in the future JOG will either learn from this and behave less cavalierly or, if he continues to act similarly, other users can use this incident to indicate a pattern of abuse.

Additionally, the guidelines for WP:RFC state that “RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.” We need to tread carefully and be very even handed in how we pursue this.

In order for our request for comment to go through, we need to show that two users have contacted JOG and failed to resolve their problems. I think that these two diffs are sufficient: [1][2]

We will also need to agree on wording for our RfC. We need a joint statement of the dispute, need to provide evidence, and indicate which guidelines and policies were violated. I suggest the following for our statement of dispute:

JOG has violated WP:VAND, WP:3R and WP:OWN in editing and deleting articles related to the 2007 Pet Food Recalls. JOG claims to have independently written an article on the pet food recalls, unaware of an existing article on Wikipedia, despite including references to and images from articles that clearly referenced the existing effort. JOG replaced the existing article with his own, in violation of WP:VAND. Then, after attempts were made to incorporate material from JOG’s article into the existing article, JOG violated WP:3R and WP:OWN to coerce the other editors to use his article as the template. As editors attempted to reorganize JOG’s article and incorporate information from the original article, JOG continued to violate WP:OWN by reverting and reinserting redundant copies of text from his version of the article. JOG also refused to compromise with other editors with respect to the layout of the article, reverting attempts to improve clarity again in violation of WP:OWN. Finally, JOG has deleted new articles created to split the content of the large article into more readable sub-articles.

I think there is plenty of evidence to support all of this in the history.

Please help me revise this and let’s make sure we’ve covered all our bases before the next step. Jfwambaugh 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jfwambaugh, I hope you are doing well.

I am glad that you realize that Jeffrey did not abuse (or even use) admin tools in this dispute.

He has admitted to violating WP:3RR early on in the edditing of this aticle, but perhaps others did too? I'm not sure. At any rate, I hope you will ask yourself whether you are still mad at how this started out, or if there really is an ongoing problem.

If you believe there is an ongoing problem, I would encourage you both to follow the dispute resolution process. There are steps to take before going to arbitration. The first step is to try to talk it out. This does not mean hurling accusations at each other, it means an attempt at civil discussion concerning whatever the issues are. What are the issues, currently?

If talking fails, then formal or informal mediation is suggested.

If that fails, then RfC, and finally Arbitration as a last resort.

I'm happy to help facilitate this, but I see no point in my taking sides or issuing my own judgements or opinions. It is much more helpful long-term if the involved parties can work it out. Johntex\^talk 14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johntex. Thanks for your helpful work as a go-between. Though I can't speak for the other editors involved, I would be happy to have a mediated discussion with JOG, since writing to him has so far not been productive. While I think that documenting his initial actions is worthwhile in itself, my main concern is that the article content be allowed to develop without hostile obstruction on his, or anyone else's, part. The current issue is that JOG deletes articles and reverts changes without discussion or agreement. I think his pattern of editing falls under WP:OWN and it is quite frustrating to deal with.Jfwambaugh 14:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be having a similiar problem with him too.I don't know If it was an example, but is it fair to delete an image in less than a day after tagging it when no one has said a word about it yet except the person who tagged it?.Because I'm not saying that could have been right in tagging my image, but it was it a right course of action to delete it so quickly?Rodrigue 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I link here at [3]. Actual conversation on desysoppong JOG is here.[4]. Andyvphil 23:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chcicken feed?[edit]

My reading of the May 2 CNN cite Feds: Millions have eaten chickens fed tainted pet food is that all of that feed included tainted ingredients from pet food scrap. If so, it's still in that first vector. We may have even worse news soon if they find melamine in ingredients actually imported for animal feed. It could shut down the whole meat industry. Abby Kelleyite 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Sorry about that. Great catch. Jfwambaugh 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of your password[edit]

Someone just broke into my Daily Kos account. But I have it stopped now Abby Kelleyite 19:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been meaning to do that anyhow. Jfwambaugh 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message re pet food edits[edit]

Why, thank you very much. My blood normally runs cold when I see that strident yellow "new messages" box ("oh cr*p, what have I done now?"), so it's nice to get a pat on the back once in a while. Once thing I've noticed is that a little recognition goes a long way round here. Best, Sgt Pinback 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]