User talk:Jclemens

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

Your comment

Re: [1]. My argument isn't "nonsensical" at all. Articles based on primary sources are unacceptable. WP:N is a guideline, certainly, but it is a guideline which, like most good guidelines, lays out the consequences of our policies on the encyclopedia. One of the consequences of WP:V is that all articles need to derive their material from independent sources. The "WP:N is only a guideline" argument fails to take into account that we are supposed to follow guidelines, not ignore them, and ignoring a component of a policy because you dislike a well-established guideline that flows from it is, well, "nonsensical", to borrow a phrase.—Kww(talk) 00:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't use the "not a guideline" argument, save to point out that you've borrowed something from a guideline and tried to graft it into a policy in a way that I believe is fundamentally incorrect. I have no problem with your line of argument (secondary sources are necessary) being based on WP:N, which is entirely accurate. V requires reliable sourcing; N requires independence and secondariness. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The text in WP:V is "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It used to read "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but someone went through WP:V and made it command based, avoiding "should". I don't know exactly when it got added, but it was there in 2007 when I started editing. I'm not borrowing or grafting anything at all: the requirement for independent sourcing is part of policy, not a guideline.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So I have been pondering why on earth V would mention primary sourcing at all, and it occurs to me that in many instances, primary is a synonym for possibly incomplete and/or inaccurate, intentionally or not. A primary source on the battle of Iwo Jima, for example, is just one person, private to general, incapable of seeing the entirety of the conflict, imperfect in recollection, and with a vested interest in downplaying any failures on his own part. A primary source in the context of literature, fictional or not, lacks each of these characteristics: a fictional element is described in a work of fiction in words that are (essentially) immutable and can be examined by all objectively. They're entirely different situations, yet still theoretically covered by the wording you're referencing. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the whole idea that fictional elements can be dispassionately and objectively dissected by editors is false. Bear in mind that people don't even agree as to what things are fictional and which are not in the first place (witness that there is a substantial segment of the world's population that considers Jesus Christ to be a fictional character, something which would make most North Americans furious). Without independent sources, there's nothing to ground and weight our perspective in. Every article needs to use independent third-party sources as the basis for its content, and use primary sources only to fill in the background necessary to make the summary of those third-party sources comprehensible to the reader. Keeping articles which are based on primary or dependent sources runs counter to our mission.—Kww(talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but the world is not, in fact, flat. It is eminently possible to describe what, for example, the Gospel of Matthew (as recorded in Codex Vaticanus) says that Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount. That is objective fact. Whether that objective text represents anything at all, and, if so, what, is a matter for commentary. The problem in the particular case that sparked the discussion, RPG elements, is that the authors of the primary sources of the elements are also the primary publishers of commentary on those elements. So Gary Gygax writes the Monster Manual, giving a brief snippet about a particular creature, and then Ed Greenwood or someone comes along an publishes an "Ecology of the (whatever)" in Dragon (magazine), which both creates detailed analysis, and ends up foreclosing the possibility of secondary sourcing, because the same company is responsible for all the material. Given such an environment, our independence requirement fails to differentiate adequately--much like it does for Pokemon, or Transformers, or any of another of fictional franchises where the (sole) publisher produces all the material. What if Sony were the only record company? Would we have Billboard or Rolling Stone, then? These are not easy questions, but I can say that a reading of V which doesn't take into account these nuances doesn't serve our readers well, either. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I always dislike having the plain meaning of a sentence described as "a reading". I don't see anything in the sentence or its history that smacks of ambiguity. Personally, I think an encyclopedia without detailed coverage of fictional elements that are only discussed in licensed and primary sources would be fine. If RPG elements aren't sparking discussion in independent sources, there's no need to have the coverage here, either. I think you would find that the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did trigger substantial independent coverage, so you need not fear that I would ever take Jesus Christ to AFD.—Kww(talk) 20:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we ignore our roots at our own peril. There's been plenty of appropriate trimming of fiction and in popular culture elements, but the idea that Wikipedia rules prohibit the sort of things that made us popular in the first place is problematic. WP:NOTPAPER doesn't get enough credit these days, and there's a big difference between eliminating promotion of current products by folks with a vested financial interest in their success and eliminating a catalog of fictional elements from already popular products written by fans of those products. Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We can agree to differ as to the effects of the policy and how closely it is/should be adhered to. I don't think the trimming of popular culture, fiction, and non-notable little specks in derived from atlases has gone far enough. I do ask that, in the future, you carefully consider the arguments that I make at AFD before responding to them. The strong impression I am receiving from this discussion is that you argued with me at the AFD, saying that I had taken things out of context and calling my view nonsense without taking the time to actually review WP:V and note that I had taken nothing out of context. Here, you stated that I had "borrowed something from a guideline and tried to graft it into a policy", which reinforces my impression that you hadn't carefully read the policy under discussion. AFDs only work if both sides actually read the opposing view carefully and take the time to understand it. That entails verifying both your own claims and the claims of your opponent.—Kww(talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see the disconnect here in saying that you're taking the wording of one policy, V, and used against the intent of the policy, into realms properly in the scope of N. Understanding how that wording got there does not change my belief that your reading of the policy is incorrect, and, indeed, taking that statement out of the context--not just of V, but of the various interplay between policies. In light of this discussion, I might call your position misguided, but wouldn't call it "nonsense" the next time it arose. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that you want the intent of WP:V to be much narrower than it actually is. Note how stable the language of the main thrust of my point has remained. It's in modern versions, but if we are talking intent, let's do some archaeology.

• Dec 30, 2008, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.".
• Dec 30, 2007: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.".
• Dec 30, 2006:"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.".
• Dec 30, 2005:"Subjects that have never been written about by third-party published sources, or that have only been written about in sources of dubious credibility should not be included in Wikipedia."

That language has been in sections completely unrelated to notability. Preventing articles based on dependent and primary sources has been part of the intent of WP:V for six years. WP:N was written only to explain it and elaborate upon it, not to add additional restrictions. Articles based on primary sources and sources related to the material (even if secondary sources) violate fundamental Wikipedia policies, not guidelines.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed that you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg. I'd like to let you know that Medusa is also up for deletion. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

AFD/Ix

I was hoping to persuade you to read my comments at AFD/Ix, and in light of them change your vote from merge to keep. If you are unpersuaded, feel free to do nothing.

The relevant bit is, "...for me, the question is solely one of due weight, which would drive the decision whether to contain the topic (at its due weight) entirely within List of Dune planets, or to break it out into it's own article. I beleive the topic is of sufficient weight to have its own article, and at a minimum due weight would be too large for the list."

At the risk of seeming to fawn, I'll mention that I am still laughing at your "breakdown" above. =D

Best Regards,

-SM 07:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not particularly persuaded by your comments, but I find Warden's locating the article in The Science of Dune to be sufficient reliable independent sourcing for me to so amend it. Jclemens (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, and unexpected (as I thought my bit about minimum due weight to be more persuasive). Thanks for the feedback.

The thing that concerns me about such an AFD question in the abstract- for an article documenting a notable topic within a large fictional franchise- is that the very idea of secondary source independent of the topic seems inherently problematic and less compelling. The franchise is epiphenomenal of the works within, as are the topics within the franchise (such as Ix). As these works authoritatively document the franchise, confering notability merely by the weight they collectively give to various topics, why would an outside source be essential or even preferable?

At best, they would offer a secondary fine tuning, adding but never removing a topic from notability. Obviously there are insignificant topics within such a franchise- the Atrides dinner guest making an imitation of the water sellers' call of "suk, suk" is likely unworthy of her own article, but the slight weight given the character by the works themselves (in this case, one passing mention early in the first novel, echoed in the films) seems sufficient to make the primary determination. In other words, in a contained fictional universe, the intertextuality of the constituent works should be a sufficient, principal source.

This state of affairs isn't really addressed in the guidelines, and the thought of the notability of so many articles in so many franchises hanging on some peripheral work like The Science of Dune is unsettling. Fictional franchises are a part of that tiny little wedge: after all, I found this AFD because I actually consulted Wikipedia concerning Ix, and found a useful article, of about the weight I'd expected. I have an interest, then, in the preservation of that state of affairs.

Fictional franchises can acquire cruft, and a good deletionist toolset is essential to keeping such topic spaces sharp and clean. Relying on the secondary sources-conferred notability test as a deletionist tool to improve such parts of the tiny little wedge seems inherently damage-prone. That Ix could be carried away by it is worrying. Also, I see unnecessary AfD templates anywhere as cruft far more ugly that a bit of excess length in a minor fiction topic.

I am interested in your thoughts on this because I sense you've given some thought to nobability, deletion, and cruft, and likely have stronger deletionist tendencies than I. I lack the requisite cynicism to see the wedge as quite so small (I'd like to see a data-driven map!), but have horror enough of cruft to be sensible of the map's point.

Thanks in advance for your views,

-SM 23:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is embarrassing, are you just too busy then? -SM 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, that I'll get to at some point, but one that doesn't have a time limitation on it. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And, sorry, I did not intend to imply one: I was just slightly embarrassed at seeming to have written a short essay that was of interest to no one save myself, and so felt like I was imposing. I am actually looking for a bit of guidence on this, since I see others putting a lot of weight on secondary sources where (in the case described above) I don't see the point, and so I wonder if I am missing something. Thanks again, in advance, -SM 07:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As suggested by AN/I participants...

I have begun an RfC on the guidelines and usage of the Rescue Tag. As long as we have guidelines on Canvassing and guidelines on the Rescue Tag, and your small group insists on violating one or the other, I will be pushing for a correction. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your own peculiar and incorrect interpretation of WP:CANVASS is not my problem. If you'll look, the rescue tag itself is limited, neutral, nonpartisan, and open. How people use it is a behavioral issue, not a tag issue.

Further, it is disingenious to pretend that you're about "correcting" usage when you've said that you want to abolish the tag. You still, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to actually rescue anything, despite my admonishment to walk a mile in the shoes of an article rescuer, but appear to have plenty of time to edit war against the status quo... even when the most obvious solution to a not-followed instruction is to simply drop that instruction.

Out of curiosity, are you a sock of anyone? Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You could easily just admonish people who aren't following the usage instructions, or allow the minor change to let people remove the tag after a reasonable time, if they don't follow them. The fact that you insist on using this tag for canvassing, rather than being reasonable, puts me in a position to have to ask for outside intervention. As far as wanting to abolish the tag, I say in the intro to the RfC that it has a useful place in Wikipedia. If you want to accuse me of being disingenious, where do you feel like starting? I've asked for reasonable solutions, and essentially 4 people out of all of Wikipedia who "guard" this tag, say "no", while the general sense of what I get from outside your group is that ARS is abusing their position. If you want a reasonable outcome, then be reasonable. I've asked for reasonable and MINOR change. Either ask people to follow your own rules, or let it be tweaked so that others can. This idea that I'm a sock is just another side track. This is not the only thing I do on Wikipedia. I have a lot of interests and this is easily seen via my Contribution History. If you feel like I'm targeting you guys and if you feel like I'm doing nothing but bothering you, you're very mistaken. I'm simply not going to be run off like you guys have done with many editors before. I want to make sure you follow these guidelines and that's my ONLY goal. I don't get a pass to break rules when I like, and I don't appreciate the idea that you guys feel you deserve a pass just because you're doing a noble thing. If you want improvement in ARS, then support me or support your own rules. If you just want to be looked at as corrupt or as a problem, then by all means keep arguing for breaking the rules. -- Avanu (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the simplest solution is to delete the offending text entirely if no better directions are given. Since "Article rescue" is almost entirely about finding and adding reliable sources, why on earth is a rationale all that necessary? Why don't we change it to say "Please say where RS might be found if you have any clue..."?

But fundamentally, you fail to understand the purpose of article rescue: Anyone can say "Hey, I think this CAN be saved and turned into a worthwhile encyclopedia article..." If they're wrong, it gets deleted anyways. If they're right, it is transformed from something that's unacceptable to something that's inclusion-worthy. Using the rescue tag in the first place is an admission that the article needs serious help, and won't just be kept because the nomination is without merit. This is not a deletionist-inclusionist football; it's a safety net against accurate AfD nominations of articles which are currently so far below their encyclopedic potential we risk red-linking them.

Likewise, you misunderstand the link between article rescue and the ARS. Go do some digging on that one if you care to, but I've been on record for quite some time as involved in the activity, but expressly denying membership in the ARS and outright opposed to the idea of membership in the ARS at all.

You've been asked to provide evidence of how the tag violates CANVASS; you haven't. You've been asked if you were a sockpuppet; you addressed the question without denying it. You've been blocked on at least three separate occasions this year for poor behavior. On what basis am I or any other editor supposed to endorse any change you propose, given that track record? Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have provided evidence how it violates Canvassing guidelines. If you cannot see that, I can't help you. If you feel the need to verify whether I'm a sock, then by all means, ask an admin, and you'll see that I'm just me. Denying something explicitly that I can't prove to your satisfaction is pointless. Attacking me also doesn't solve issues with the abuse of this tag.

As far as article improvement, I can tell you with certainty that saying "I like it" and dropping a rescue tag into an article and doing nothing else, doesn't fix or improve anything. Giving people solid arguments for fixing articles does, and that's what this tag requires. -- Avanu (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I asked SlimVirgin at his Talk page to review my sockiness, and he said he would. I'm not sure how long it takes, he might have gone to sleep, but I haven't heard anything back yet. I also linked to this discussion, so if he wants to tell you he can. I asked him for this, since this seemed to have concerned you, and its not something I myself can prove to you. -- Avanu (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

SV is a she, and I didn't ask for evidence to exonerate you--I simply asked if you were a sockpuppet, which you still have yet to deny. I find that asking a direct question and watching for evasion is often more telling than an SPI. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Are you a sock?" "Definitely not" "Oh, well that settles that" ... silly to think that such an answer would satisfy anyone at all. Isn't that why we give the admins tools to discover such things? Here's a direct and concrete and specific answer for you. I only edit Wikipedia as Avanu. My account was created years ago and I dabbled briefly with Wikipedia, left for awhile because I had other things to do, and finally got bored one day and started editing Wikipedia at my house under my IP, realized I might still have my old account, searched for what I expected my username to be and found it, then guessed what my password probably was, and I was right, and so ever since I've just been and only been using Avanu again as my one and only and ever Wikipedia account. It is entirely possible that I have an even older account, since I've been part of the Interwebs since before the Web even was a part of it. I used Gopher and FTP sites back in the day. But regardless, as I said above, I can't PROVE any of this to you, so that's why an admin is needed. As far as SlimVirgin's gender, it hardly matters with regard to her intelligence or capabilities, and I suppose gender identity is hugely important for some online interactions, but I can't see the enormous fault I have for assuming a male pronoun when it is the default generic as well. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible WP:CRYBLP examples

Some eight months ago you were involved in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard where you stated "I concur with Scott Mac: there is no BLP issue to justify the edits made in the name of BLP. Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP."

The recent issue with Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive119#Juice_Plus.2FJohn_A._Wise convinced me that per Wikipedia_talk:BLP_zealot that examples should be provided but I chose to put them in WP:CRYBLP as I feel that was the better essay.([2]). However given the conflict I am currently having with that article I thought your input on if using such an example was a good idea as you specifically referred back to WP:CRYBLP in that case was warranted. Is using such example if the editor is still active a good idea especially when the editor in question has a "This user is considering retiring from Wikipedia" template on their user page and that you and a fellow administrator ruled we effectively had a WP:CRYBLP case on our hands?

One editor said "BLP is not being used as censorship at all" even after these examples were provided (Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply) which IMHO shows we need actual real world examples of WP:CRYBLP so the essay is not dismissed as a strawman.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I authored the essay not as an example set but as a process discussion, although there are a few examples nestled within it that are intentionally opaque. I'm perfectly capable of writing example-laden policy discussions--see WP:WI1E and WP:WIALPI. I have no strong opinions on whether it would be improved or not by the addition of additional specific examples. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way...

I just wanted to mention that I appreciate your thoughtful discussion on this. I know there are some editors who feel like this is just a big waste of time, but honestly you've been generally pretty decent about discussing and working through questions and answers, so I just wanted to make sure and let you know not only is it a stand up thing to do, its appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Some people may be calling it "a waste of time" for their own partisan reasons, just like some are advocating changes that will be detrimental to the ARS (and, by extension, the process of rescue) for partisan reasons of their own. My own reasons, if you'll look back on my history with article rescue, is that I believe it should be a core function, like WP:3O that any editor can and should dive into, not a partisan inclusionist/deletionist tug of war. The reason I believe the discussion is mostly a waste of time is that the number of editors who will a) participate, and b) are non-partisan, is not large enough to generate a valuable signal-to-noise ratio. Still, with Wikipedia's ever-evolving nature, it's impossible to settle anything forever. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Another note:

I see that the Proposal 3(a) is getting a lot of attention. Kind of figured it would when I saw how strict that idea was. Yikes! I'm just curious what you thought about my compromise language earlier. Its really just an attempt to be conciliatory at this point. Because it seems unlikely to become a more strict tag, this would at least preserve the intent, while giving ground to the 'ARS regulars' as I call them. Disclaimer: I count you in the 'ARS regulars'.

In conjunction with this tag's use, adding your helpful comments at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen can constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and will likely benefit our readers.

After all this debate, it seems clear that we might just be stuck with accepting things as they are, without any changes, but I'm willing to still work on compromises, if others are open to that too. -- Avanu (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to change things, you need to first understand why they are the way they are. The fact is, there are a lot of editors who 1) don't think WP:ATD or WP:BEFORE should be followed, 2) vehemently express WP:NIME, and/or 3) simply get joy from destroying the work of others they view as inferior. There are plenty of good faith deletionists, but a couple of them in that discussion are no more than petty schoolyard bullies who would love to remove the ARS and the process of rescue entirely, so they can make themselves feel better at the expense of inflicting misery on good-faith contributors and harming encyclopedic coverage of topic. That's not to excuse the uber-inclusionists who never met a non-notable article, but inclusionists don't drive away new editors--if anything, they encourage them by assuring we keep a ton of interesting but inferior work around. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

After offering to let you tag articles and have me write the rescue rationale, I spent a few minutes looking over the current AfD's. (didn't get to do that until tonight)

I did a review of the ones from yesterday. Something like 98% of the articles need to have sources to meet Verifiability or Notability. I believe you said this tends to be the main AfD rationale. After seeing this, I can only think that a course on super-Googling would be more helpful than anything else.

Anyway, about your comments. Maybe I need to focus my tenaciousness on the other side of this for a bit. Go yelp at the deletionarians for a while. I have to wonder why editors wouldn't look for Alternatives to Deletion, or follow the process of 'before you delete'. I agree that having some content, at least stored somewhere, even if its not perfect, is better than the content disappearing altogether. I also can see that there is a downside to letting a lot of crap accumulate somewhere. As far as the Articles for Deletion that I saw, I can see a lot just need more research done. Maybe we need an automatic incubator system. Like when articles are being reviewed for 'Good Article' or 'Featured Article', maybe we could have a 'Publishable Article' status, and have certain criteria for that. Like a brand new article gets shown in the real Wikipedia for a time... maybe 1 month? And then it has to undergo a review. If it fails the review, it gets 'Unpublishable Status', and moves to the Incubator. Until it is reviewed, its just sitting there waiting. So an article could wait for a long time, in theory. I think it might help for there to be a lot more transparency between the Main Wiki and the Incubator. I don't know... I'm just talking and making up ideas, no idea how good or bad they might be. -- Avanu (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making a lot of sense there, but there's too much inertia for this to take off anytime soon. If you decide to go prod the deletionists, I suggest you propose that WP:BEFORE be upgraded to a guideline supporting WP:ATD which is itself policy. I'll be happy to support you, and I'm sure you'll gain even more useful perspective. Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Jclemens. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Silverseren^C 11:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Received and replied to. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette discussion

Hello, Jclemens. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning Perl. Thank you. --Msnicki (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Commented there, thanks for the notification. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Harley Hudson

It's not usual to modify AFD discussions after they close, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage Guidance Counsellor. Was it really so important to add that note? Just asking. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a recent no-consensus close, which might reasonably end up at DRV, so I noted the sock after the end of the archival section. Unlike the others, I didn't strikethrough anything within the archived section.

While not necessary in this case, it's reasonable for someone to go through past XfD's and see if any were influenced by Harley's voice and thereby be revisited. He seems to have been mostly sticking to CfDs and RfDs, since I or someone else catches him pretty easily when he starts in on fictional elements AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, now what?

I nominated Jonathan Waud for deletion. A short time after, User:Harley_Hudson tags the article for a speedy G12. User:Fastily then deleted it as a G12 and then Harley redirected the name to the article about the season of the show. My question is, now that Harley turned out to be a sock, does that change the speedy? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If the G12 was legitimately a G12, it stays gone. G10, 11, and 12 are always a good idea if correctly applied, no matter what the ban status of the nominee. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• So should the AfD be closed then? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, when an admin speedies an article with an AfD pending, they're generally expected to clean up those details. Might drop Fastily a note to that effect. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle whichever

Does any admin talk page stalker feel like going through this latest Otto incarnation's XfDs, speedies, and PRODs and finding ones which were inappropriately influenced? I see a few that were, a few that were not (i.e., reasonable noms that the community endorsed), and a lot more that need going through. I'd love to be able to delegate this to a volunteer, given what all else I have on my plate... Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of these nominations (hell, most of the ones I've looked at) look perfectly valid to me. I don't know where you got the idea that we struck out valid comments because they were made by socks (except in cases where the socks were supporting each other): we only unperson people around here if they're actually banned, and an indefinite block is not a ban. It's fair enough dropping a note indicating that the account was a sock, but striking the comments themselves was OTT. I've unstruck one open TfD for that reason. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. You'd think we'd auto-upgrade repeat sockmasters to bannees for just this reason, but apparently, you're right. I'll start the WP:AN discussion. The point about banned users clearly applies to sockmasters, though: we've given them the boot, and instead of asking permission to return to editing, they intentionally and capriciously return year after year, attempting to carry out their chosen agenda. Really, un-striking a comment doesn't seem like a good idea, even if legally permitted. Are you advocating that Otto4711 be pardoned from his misdeeds and reinstated as is? If not, then why un-strike a single one of his edits? Just because they happen to agree with your perspective on something? By all means, make the same argument and good for you should it carry the day, but do not let recalcitrant sockpuppeteers have a say outside their options to appeal to the community for reinstatement. Jclemens (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)