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:

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Loopner

The article you offered comment on no longer exists. Uncle G did a complete rewrite, added some quite decent sources, and moved the article to its new name... "The Nerds". Perhaps you might wish to revisit the AFD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Since I was the last "holdout", I went ahead and closed it. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

An apology regarding the Tommy2010 RFA situation

It appears that one of the articles Tommy2010 had "written" was actually a fairly blatant copyright violation [1]; this is likely the case for his other "contributions" as well. I commend you and other editors opposing his request for adminship for having the insight to recognize the problems with the candidate, even though their exact nature wasn't fully known at the time. I apologize for excessive disputation with oppose !votes, violating WP:AGF, and neglecting to adequately investigate the user before supporting. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but not really necessary. I tend to be a professional nay-sayer at RfA, so I've long since learned neither to take things personally nor to blame other people (especially nominators) when they do. We live, we learn. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Kids Week

You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

POVforks

Appear to be a serious problem. I mention one at AN/I. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Redirect 'em. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Far beyond that state - more than 80% of an article has been "moved" to the forks. With a claim that the moves are by "agreement" which does not exist. TFD warned me not to do edits - though he and Petri excahnged plans/advice on how to get an article deleted through this means. Collect (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be a violation of WP:GAME. You have diffs, I presume? Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

[2] is my edit quoting the coordination of editors. (basically saying precisely how they intended to delete Communist terrorism as an article after the RfC to change the title was clearly rejected.

[3] shows TFD's creation of the Left wing terrorism article.

[4] shows Siebert's massive deletion from the parent article. [5] shows Igny reverting my edit.

[6] shows Igny moving a large section (without preserving edit history). [7] shows Siebert moving almost all the rest with the claim "per talk." [8] I reverted the move to the POVfork. [9] then redeleted the content calling it delete POV fork content per talk (making the apparent assertion that the original article is the "fork"! [10] Snowded then assert that the deletion was revert to talk page agreement) which does not exist.

[11] TFD asserts that the article Communist terrorism falls under Digwuren and warns me that I will be sanctioned for edit war if I dispute the POVfork. Sigh. The fact is that Petri and TFD knew they were creating a POVfork, established the means for deleting the original article, and are carrying it out contrary, IMHO, to WP policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So next time you make an ANI post, please include diffs of specific "bad actions" in your initial complaint--that is, if you want people to take your complaints seriously. You've got to answer the reader questions "What's wrong here?" and "Why should I care?" substantively if you want action to be taken. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Polemic

Is it not also polemic not to MFD the other one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demiurge1000/Second_enquiry_into_the_Rlevse_affair - Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I haven't looked at that one yet. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've now looked at it. If anything it should be tagged as humor. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps as Skomorokh says its better withdrawn, all in all, the whole affair is not very amusing. The wiki sometimes seems to self implode. Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A woman gets on a bus with her baby. The bus driver says: "That's the ugliest baby that I've ever seen. Ugh!" The woman goes to the rear of the bus and sits down, fuming. She says to a man next to her: "The driver just insulted me!" The man says: "You go right up there and tell him to f*** off – go ahead, I'll hold your monkey for you." - Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's always a good one. I'd planned to stay away from the MfD for a while, rather than babysitting it. If the community says that the "enquiry" is a violation of UP#Polemic, I can live with that, and if they disagree with my nom, I'm OK with that too. I'm a part of what I perceive to be the silent majority who are saddened and disgusted by the whole affair. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish the silent majority would speak up sometimes, best wishes to you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

re User:Msm041/Tetrafusion

No problems, just the fact that absolutely no work or effort was put into the userspace draft. Did the user whose subpage it is placed under, request it be put there? Was the user notified via their user talk page, as to the subpage's existence? Does the user intend to improve it? Will the subpage draft just sit there, indefinitely, as a Web Hosting Service? -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, buried in the DRV text was a request that it be incubated. I'm watching the userified copy--if he tries moving it back into mainspace without a good-faith improvement, I'll be on top of him. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Did you let him know via a notice to his user talk page? -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion re: handling of possible socking

Would you be willing to review my approach to issues toward the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limuel B. Forgey III? There's a large WP:DUCK in the room, but I don't feel like coming down on the guy like a ton of bricks is the best thing to do; if he socked, I think he did so as nearly to innocently as is possible, and his intentions are far from nefarious. Mostly I'd like to know if there are any major points where my approach is questionable. I'm wrestling with the idea of opening a sock investigation but pleading for the sockmaster to be warned rather than blocked if positive results obtain, so if you have any thoughts about that, I'd like to hear them. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look a bit more later, but there's no chance that such obvious newbiness is going to affect the AfD outcome. So yeah, take as much time as you want to be nice, and don't worry that being overly friendly will undermine cleaning up an article that doesn't belong in mainspace. I'd go ahead and offer to userify it if it's deleted from mainspace, so it softens the blow a bit--"removed from mainspace for now" doesn't seem as final as "deleted". Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned about the possible socking issue rather than the overall AfD; I'm sure that will sort itself out. Userification seems like a good step for this guy's peace of mind should things keep going they way they have, though, so thanks for that. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, there are two types of sock'ers. 1) those who do it because they're too new to figure out how to really get things done around here. I'm guessing this is where our fellow is. The other type, of course 2) knows exactly what they are doing and is using socking as a lever to obtain what they know they're not entitled to. I'm much, much less concerned with 1 than 2--and you're right, many DUCK socks are in the first category. So, outside this AfD, what is the lasting impact of this user's misbehavior? Is he putting anything else in jeopardy? Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He definitely seems like category 1 to me, and I'm not aware of any damage done at all; there's no danger of it even affecting the outcome of the AfD, I don't think. Assuming the quacking object is a duck, I strongly suspect he already won't try it again. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Brandun DeShay request to remove from possible deletion please

I decline the deletion of Brandun DeShay. Yleonmgnt. References are reputable and have wiki articles of their own. Notability is proven with two significant entertainers with wiki articles. I reviewed adjusted the article thanks to the the pointers givin by the one who added it to the deletion discussion in compliance to WP:RS and WP:ENT up to wiki standards. I see the dispute with the reliable sources but the blogs that were mentioned are all reputable and have wiki's themselves except for one: the segalaxy.blogspot.com blog (which i removed). Aside from that one reference, it passes A7. It is in compliance of WP:ENT with significant work from Tanya Morgan and Curren$y. Once again, by collaborating musically with two entertainers with wiki articles themselves the artist just clears A9.--99.180.194.53 (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to make this argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandun DeShay. I'm just one of the administrators who categorized the deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PJIRC

Could you please userfy PJIRC and Talk:PJIRC? Thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now at User:Tothwolf/PJIRC, etc. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Some questions though... This was deleted via prod after a previous AfD was withdrawn. Doesn't an AfD preclude the use of prod? Right now the version of the article in my userspace contains one published book as a reference (which was there at the time of prod and deletion), which contains about 3 solid pages dedicated to the client. A quick Google Books search turned up another book with a paragraph about the client, and I suspect there are probably a few more books which give some coverage to the client that that Google Books just doesn't index. Given the obvious coverage with two books from a simple Google Books search, it seems notability isn't a question, so would this be considered a disruptive prod, particularly considering the individuals involved in the prod and follow up "endorsement"? --Tothwolf (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the age, I'd just feel free to put it back into mainspace with the improved refs and let it be. Avoid poking beehives with sharp sticks, I always say. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll just add the diffs to the detailed notes I've been keeping in case the individuals involved return to this behaviour later. If this were an isolated incident I wouldn't be concerned about it but as previously documented, this is just typical of the behavioural patterns. I'm really not even sure where to begin with cleaning this mess up as there are literally dozens upon dozens of articles involved. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just let me know what got PROD'ed that you want restored, and I'll get 'em back as soon as I'm reasonably able. Easy go, easy come back. If you are going to keep score, do it offline, too. Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do on the prods. Unfortunately, not all of these were prods, though. There were a quite a number of "questionable" AfDs, not only stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konversation (resolved) but others such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abjects (unresolved, and where I personally wrote a large part of the article, including the section that "someone" claimed was already in Hal Turner (it isn't), hence why it was AfD'd and meatpuppeted). As for the rest, Document, Document, Document, and I've been doing just that for the last ~18 months. After awhile the patterns tend to become very obvious. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Abjects isn't even a "website", see the comments made in that AfD... Hal Turner would very, very much love for that incident to go away. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Observation

Man, AfD is hard. I see why people get all "RAAAR IT'S CRAP EVERYTHING IS CRAP DELETE IT ALL RAAAR". —chaos5023 (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Yep. Gotta keep your perspective if you actually want to build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Queen (JAG) (2nd nomination)

So how about ADDING the sources? That way we don't keep dancing in circles: article gets nominated, someone says there are sources but never adds them, article gets renominated, someone says there are sources but never adds them, etc. etc. I've noticed this infinite loop far too many times, so let's get cracking, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree. As the nominator, it's incumbent upon you to follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion, don't you agree? I can show you how to search and add sources if you need any help, of course. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, on further inspection, the Gnews link shows only TV.com (which is entirely user submitted) and a false positive. Tell me how any of that is reliable third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded!

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For your commitment to the helpful task of Deletion sorting, I commend you. :) œ™ 17:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I really wish Gene93k was back doing it. :-) He was the one who showed how effective essentially universal deletion sorting would be for efficiencies in commenting in AfDs. He's the one to whom original credit is due: had he not rocked it so well for so long, I would not have been chagrined enough by his absence to pick it up. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well kudos to him too indeed! I can see the value in deletion sorting and I'm just glad someone's out there doing it consistently :) -- œ^™ 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Security

Speaking as a fellow computer security practitioner, since the inception of Firesheep a few weeks ago the ability to access another editors account on an unsecured wi-fi has become a rather trivial matter possible. Anyone wanting to secure there account over unsecure wi-fi should login with secure server and have there entire session in https. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Note also Dcoetzee advice to admins and other privileged users. I think I may add something to this effect at ANI as it's relevant to admins. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible, but attributing a specific edit to another person requires far more than possibility to move it into the realm of plausibility. You'd need someone else within range (trivial) to have wireless (easy), hacker inclinations (plausible), Firesheep (as plausible as hacker inclinations), to be hacking at the specific time he was active (unlikely), on his specific stream (unlikely), and to make that specific edit to Wikipedia (VERY unlikely). Multiply all those odds together, and you get a far less chance of occurrence than just the theoretical odds of Firesheep being able to hack into a Wikipedia session. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I agree with much of that. In your edit you put it in general terms 'the assertion that an edit might have been inserted' perhaps you intended to mean a specific edit. i.e. User:Rodhullandemu's edit(s) in which case I agree with you. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

DRV close of Veronica Moser

This comment was added to your close, I've moving it here since it seems the most appropriate venue in the first place to address whatever needs addressing. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You stated that "the user is free to start a new biography of Ms. Moser that complies with current BLP guidelines" but did not state which user nor did you link to the BLP guidelines, nor did you state which guidelines were violated.

Instead, it would be better to state exactly which guidelines are violated and to do so on the "talk" page, after it is restored. That way there is a clear record of why that entry was deleted. The proliferation of information about other individuals shouldn't generally be hindered. Obviously enough of this and it will be difficult to find information on various individuals (did I mention that I was looking for information on Veronica Moser?)

How is "sufficiently egregious" is any less subjective (or any more of justifying reason) than "derogatory"?

What was on that original Wikipedia page that you feel the need to be so secretive about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.225.206 (talk • contribs)

Secretive? Nothing's particularly secretive, it's just outright too offensive to be restored without an impeccable source: "She is one of the most popular such actresses in the world, renowned for her enthusiasm and deft consumption of feces. Initially reluctant to perform coprophilial sex, she trained herself to enjoy it by eating her own feces daily." That, if untrue, would cause harm to a real person for it to be printed in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden

I'm probably considered involved, but I'm on the edge of blocking him for edit summaries like this one. I've discussed it with him several times, but he doesn't seem to recognize that using deceptive edit summaries is completely inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 19:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I have no idea what he's thinking. Really, I don't. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the Natural Theology article, you seem to have missed the discussion at the article's talk page: Talk:Natural theology#Marcus Terentius Varro. In this long discussion yesterday, I explained that the removal of inline citation tags was inadvertent. Hrafn had bundled several edits into one update and I had not appreciated its full scope. The matter was resolved in direct one-to-one discussion with Hrafn and we moved on to discuss other aspects of the topic. This is exactly how we are supposed to resolve such conflicts and disputes, is it not?
  • Colonel Warden: given your history of"inappropriate removal of cleanup tags, dishonest edit summaries, bogus sourcing to 'save' articles at AfD, and dissembling when challenged", I viewed your explanation with considerable skepticism. I just did not see any point in being a WP:DIK about the point. I would however note that three warnings for this offence have disappeared off your talkpage in the last week or so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• But I have a bone to pick with Hrafn's behaviour in this case. Apart from his usual difficult stance regarding the topic in question, he also rushed straight off to vote against my position in a couple of AFDs. For example, see here where he votes to delete a respectable article about aircraft design. These edits seem in violation of WP:POINT, being quite unrelated to the original topic, and so seeming to be in the nature of retaliation.
  • I think the above quotation gives ample reason why an editor might take a close, and skeptical, look at your activity on AfDs (and I only commented upon two, out of the myriad). I would also note that your own activities related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design process‎ has been the subject of considerable disapprobation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I encourage editors to take a good look at that AFD and the related work upon the article, aircraft design to see whether the sources supplied are bogus as Hrafn suggests above. They will note that Hrafn has now revised his delete !vote. His change of mind is commendable and it is encouraging that there is some convergence of views between us in this and the other topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Hrafn would request that Colonel Warden cease and desist putting words in his mouth. Hrafn did not suggest that the sources supplied for aircraft design "are bogus" (though he would suggest that the sources he saw were rather tangential). The "bogus sourcing" was a quote from a recent ANI thread about Colonel Warden's activities generally. Hrafn would also point out that he changed his !vote to 'moot' as nothing of the original article remained (neither name nor content) -- talk about "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it" -- and that any claim that this represents "convergence" is a gross misrepresentation Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• And another incident on the same day may be of interest. Please see Talk:If You're a Viper#When the song was written. In this discussion, User:Bali ultimate seems to violate WP:OWN by repeatedly using condescending and aggressive language such as:

• "You're an officious little ignoramus, aren't you?"
• "What the fuck are you talking about? Go read for a week and come back."
• "i appreciate you don't understand these distinctions of meaning"
• "Why are you struggling so to understand what you're reading?"
• "Well, let me show you how..."

After this tirade, I was beginning to think that interacting with Hrafn wasn't so bad after all. :) But how is it that the eager monitors of my movements did not notice Bali's incivility? My impression is that the complaints about my behaviour are quite selective and one-sided. What do you think?

Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say those are more WP:CIV violations than OWN, and yes that is typical for Bali ultimate - not only usually overlooked by those who share his wikiphilosophy, but often defended by same. Colonel, I agree that complaints often fall along the usual lines when prominent inclusionists and deletionists find an excuse to mix it up with each other. However, I also understand that Jclemens is concerned with your behavior in this situation as well (I haven't examined all the details), so I think it would be wise to take his cautions into consideration. It doesn't do anyone any good for you to be blocked, except for your opponents, the same folks who undoubtedly danced for joy when A Nobody was banned. So if there's something you can do to take the heat off of yourself, and work more productively to improve articles of unclear notability, then that's the best thing you can be doing right now. I, for one, would rather have you around than not. Godspeed, man. BOZ (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

going back to the top line of this section, with respect to the edit summary, I myself would have said "rvt redir. for which there was no consensus," just as I did for several similar edits today. But looking at the edit history [12], nothing is concealed and so the error is harmless: the page size changes says it all.

and I might as well say here that I consider Kww and myself both barred as interested parties from any blocks involving merging/redirected fiction articles--or even threatening such. In this field, I work only as an editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akela_(Jungle_Book)&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

My responses

Colonel Warden, I expected that the tag removal was inadvertent, and I believe you when you say that. Keep in mind, however, that you have recently been "taken to the woodshed" at ANI for admittedly intentional tag removal. You must take care to conduct yourself in a manner above reproach. Please do not do otherwise. When in doubt about an action that others might think inappropriate, (first off, think expansively) run it by me, DGG, or another editor you trust to be a sounding board.

Yes, Bali Ultimate is quite often incivil. He's far from the only one. I suggest you deal with it in the same manner I have: essentially ignore it and grow a thicker skin.

Yes, Hrafn likes more sourcing than many other editors believe to be reasonable. Unlike Bali Ultimate, what Hrafn prefers isn't even against the unenforced letter of the law. Again, I advise you to learn the same lesson I learned in dealing with Hrafn on Unification Church-related topics over two years ago: if you can source things to Hrafn's satisfaction, you've got ironclad and unassailable sourcing.

Ultimately, there is exactly one person on Wikipedia you can control: yourself. My advice is to be impeccable with your sourcing, careful with your edits and their summaries, and selectively deaf when insulted.

Oh, and sorry for not responding earlier. Was off with my wife at a Trans-Siberian Orchestra concert tonight. Jclemens (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)