Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert

Summary is unclear
So perhaps 100% participation in cat CfD is unreasonable, but what about 50%? 10% 5%? ... DavidLeeLambert (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I am through and deliberate on every vote I make in CfD. Since many of the issues are related more to category policy than anything else, I do not see that participation in lots of votes is problematic.  I try to understand the issues involved in each vote, and understand accordingly.  I see nothing wrong with my methods.  I have tried to limit my responses in discussion.  However in the case of Category:1911 establishments in Turkey and related discussion it has proven neccesary to discuss the issues involved more than I initially thought.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * DLL, there isn't a magic number per se. It's more of a Potter Stewart situation...you know it when you see it.  We can't just say, "JPL can only participate in 53% of CfDs, and not make more than 7¾ comments in each one". So, yes, it's unclear, but there's no way to clarify it.  p  b  p  02:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Benkenobi's comments
I'd like to take a moment to note the inappropriateness of Benkenobi's comments, for the following reasons:


 * 1) You can't "not endorse" a summary. Being mum on an RfCU indicates a partial or full non-endorsement.  If someone has a dissenting view, he can either hash it out on the talk page, or can start a subheading as to your own personal view
 * 2) There's no "boomerang" in RfC/U. He can't turn this RfCU into one about me.  An RfC/U is about one user; if Ben wants to RfC/U me, that's not for this RfCU
 * 3) The reason it went down now is because the second person signed on last night. Had they signed on a week earlier, or a week later, it would have happened then.  There's no sunset date on a RfCU; people will have plenty of time to comment after Christmas is past

p b  p  02:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest moving the section and renaming it to "Statement by Benkenobi". The move at least should happen because it's currently listed as a subsection of Johnpacklamber's #Response section (making it look like Benkenobi is anti-endorsing JPL's statement, when in fact, he is anti-endorsing the basis of the RfC/U). Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

JC's comment
JC37 wrote:

"Oh and the #Desired outcome is not only unenforceable, but the presumption that: Because he is making fewer edits, he considers each edit more carefully. - rather suggests a lack of understanding concerning the editing of a page." Well, of course the desired outcome is unenforceable. RfC/U isn't about enforcing stuff; it's about raising concerns. And I fail to see how the edit count is a lack of understanding: the fact is that if you make 10 edits, each spaced a minute apart, you spent a minute or less considering each one. And in a great number of cases, the edits I've seen JPL make warranted more than a minute of consideration. p b  p  21:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Actress attack
The fact that the discussion on Category:Actresses by nationality closed keep implies a clear decision to allow all by-nationality subcats, including Category:American actresses. The fact that I am being attacked for following this clear precendent shows a clear failure to understand the precedent forming nature of CfD decision, especially the fact that group precedents are properly seen to affect not only the nominated categories but other potential categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Confused
Color me confused by Johnpacklambert's activities in categorization. Having gotten embroiled in the kerfuffle over the Tennessee colonial people category and several other CFDs in December, I was seriously irritated with JPL and have formed the impression that he has been pushing a POV in connection with his categorization edits. However, I have been unable to discern a consistent POV in his category work. I'm confused about what he has been trying to do.

Perhaps Alansohn has hit the nail on the head in his suggestion that JPL needs to get a life... --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)