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.

Functionary Assistance My ability to help as a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator in individual matters is currently limited by my positional and non-Wikipedia obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary.

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:

POLA Express

POLA failed - I have made comments on the talk page thereof where I hope to simplify the wording of what I hope is what ArbCom views as the gist. Collect (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

POLA was adopted by the WMF board. Implementing that is up to us, but we are not able to simply disregard the directives of those who pay our way. Jclemens (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My position was that we mark it simply as a "WMF principle". The consensus instead on Wikipedia was to disavow it entirely. Hence my attempt to make the gist clear and acceptable to the community, which has a history of "not invented here" rejections. Collect (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AFD

Hi Jclemens,

I just listed an article for deletion that you have previously nominated but later withdrew. This was in 2008 and I don't think that since then there has been enough to establish notability. You can join the discussion here. Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied there, but there's really nothing more to my reasoning than what shows up in a Google News Archive search. I think he's met the GNG, if perhaps barely, and that hasn't changed in 3.5 years, per WP:NTEMP. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche

Hello, just pointing out that I seem not to be the only person who has problems with User:Epeefleche's behaviour (including a clear attempt to influence an AfD discussion by page blanking and whitewashing my criticism from his talk page). He has already been banned not once, not twice but three times for offences that seem to range from sockpuppetry to disruption and questionable methods in an AfD. --hydrox (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=475016091&oldid=474956190 :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in the least, no. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sock block

Hi,

You blocked Juice Leskinen as a sock, but I couldn't find an investigation. Is it one of those secret ones, or based purely on behaviour? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It was based off an emailed complaint. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Was there an actual investigation and IP check, or was it purely behavioral? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

When a checkuser makes a behavioral block, they will just use a normal template as any other admin can do. That one was entirely tool-supported. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixty Minute War

Would you mind redirecting that to Mortal Engines Quartet in lieu of deletion, per WP:ATD? I know no one brought up that possibility in the AfD, yet it remains the best policy-compliant outcome... Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that's appropriate, please go ahead. Out of interest, when looking at the AfD, I came upon this - I wonder if there are other such real world events which share the name? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If there were a disambiguation page for this, I would redirect from the disambig page, but since this appears to be the only Wikipedia usage and "sixty minute war" doesn't seem like an established name for the real conflict, I'm good with (and just performed) the redirect to the fictional one. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

opinion?

Does WP:WEaPOn run afoul of WP:NPA in any way? Noting its odd preoccupation with User:Joedesantis and the material implying that his acts are improper to say the least? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think if anything it's more BATTLEFIELD than anything else, but I also think that the current crop of paid editing proponents has taken a cue from MLK and the American Civil Rights movement: they're complying with unreasonable and insulting demands, tolerantly enduring assumptions of bad faith, and overall behaving themselves far better than their philosophical opponents. That wasn't always the case. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)