User talk:Jclemens/Archive 9

WP:Ab initio

Is my draft attempt at reducing core policies to simple language by furnishing the reasons for them. Feel free to tear it apart. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with those is that everyone sees things differently. On first blush, yours looks mostly OK, although I would have said some things in entirely different ways. I'll see if I can get you more detailed feedback, but I'm up to my alligators in eyeballs. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback made a lot of changes - I rewrote a bit to make it as clear as possible, but when your eyeballs clear <g> yor input would be invaluable. Also anyone else who is lurking and wishes to see Wikipedia be made comprehensible to non-lawyers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Appending: It was sort of nice to see my suggestion about the "double or nothing" rule being adopted [1] <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded

I just now responded to something you wrote on my talk page by asking you a question. Since the discussion is really long and it was many hours ago when you wrote, I wanted to leave you a note here to make sure you see it, because I'm very curious to learn your answer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've chimed in there, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security

As one of the more active participants of WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force, would you like to comment on the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security#WikiProject restructuring? Cheers, —Ruud 18:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I replied there, thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Making a simple case into a mountain of motions?

Um -- I do not expect any answer, but I find it hard to fathom the motions being proposed on the "Unblock case discussion" page. I still rather think my proposal was elegant there, and wish it were directly proposed as being 1. short 2. simple 3. non-judgmental in a fairly moot case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you followed my voting, you'll see I preferred to open a case, and endorsed the motions only as it has become apparent that the committee would not open the case. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I noted that - I also was willing to give odds that enough would keep it from being a case <g>. Would that the others realized that deferring messes rarely prevents them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I am disappointed in the other arbitrators who are willing to give known repeat offenders an N+1th chance. You and I both know who they are: the people who can be counted upon to do far more to dramatize the process than to actually create or improve encyclopedic content. ArbCom is the only body with the authority to actually solve these problems, and yet mostly declines to do so. I get why--a concern for individual due process--but disagree, in that I believe that when editors have become intransigent net negative producers, their editing privileges should be withdrawn: we spend too much time dealing with the damage a handful of editors cause, instead of creating an environment that is warm and inviting to the casual or occasional editor. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

An interesting but completely misguided observation. Malleus Fatuorum 06:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom elections are open, Malleus. You're entirely welcome to run and try and convince the community that you have better answers than I do. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One day I just might, and you might be surprised at how much support I would get, but not today. Can't be bothered. Malleus Fatuorum 06:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens, one way I look at it is...what is a bigger problem, an editor who is incivil in the midst of argy-bargy on a heated topic...or one who misuses sources or copyvios or engages in some other behaviour that other editors have to spend an extended period of time reviewing and cleaning up - some of the copyvio reviews are mindboggling in their scope. Personally, I have much less of a problem with an editor letting fly a few Anglo-Saxon expletives at me, than one who in a pseudo-polite manner insinuates that I have engaged in some negative behaviour that I am innocent of. Obviously if a situation is tense and someone gratuitously escalates it, that is a major pain in the neck too, and I do think that writing the four letters is not as immediate and hence more easily avoided than verbalising them. Anyway, back to reviewing abortion...or writing something to clear my head first...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we're agreed that both are serious problems, and without excusing sourcing misuse I choose to focus on incivility as a pernicious and insidious contributing factor to the decline in casual contributors. Volunteers who've arrived to help build the encyclopedia, especially new contributors, should be constructively reinforced, engaged politely, and given the message that their contributions are welcome, even if imperfect. If we lose that atmosphere in Wikipedia, we're ultimately doomed. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You are so wrong. Casual editors NEVER see the incivility you are referring to. That isn't what puts anybody off. Casual editors are put off by having their edits reverted. The incivility Jclemens is talking about is only witnessed by holier than thou page stalkers.--94.196.236.14 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that the sort of communication that Arbitrators usually engage in?

Extended content

I was wondering if you had just missed my repeated, patient requests for your comments and thoughts about how you believe the climate change sanctions should be lifted. Apparently not. After three weeks and three polite follow-up inquiries ([2], [3], [4]) you went to the trouble of shortening the archive time on your talk page – while in the process of promptly and courteously replying to the other outstanding requests ([5]) – just so you could finally quickly shuffle my request off into your archives. I'm just really, really disappointed that you couldn't even be bothered to tell me openly that you couldn't be bothered to answer my question. There's a basic standard of communicativeness that the community expects of Arbitrators, even if you're faced with editors who might disagree with you. I get that you're busy and that you have multiple demands on your time, but a short message telling me either that my interpretation of your reasoning was correct, or that you might handle things differently in future motions, or that you just don't want to share your reasoning with me because you don't like me – anything at all – would have been better than the brush-off you just gave. I mean really—you couldn't even bring yourself to manually archive my thread; you had to set the bot to do your dirty work? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC) The fact that you repeatedly kept a thread "alive" to defeat automatic MiszaBot archiving by posting into it yourself has vindicated my decision to not reply. Whether you are as incapable of taking a hint as you protest above, or in fact have just directly lied to me about your thoughts and motivation, are left as an exercise for the reader. I will also note for those without access to my mailbox that TOAT has not chosen to email be privately with any of his questions or his "reminders". Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Wow, that's appalling. There was no 'hint' to be taken, until you decided to adjust your page archiving parameters. Until you did that, I was working under the assumption that either you hadn't seen my post, or that you wanted to take time to formulate a reasoned reply. The follow-up messages weren't deliberately aimed at defeating talk page archiving; at five-to-six-day intervals, I felt that they struck a reasonable balance between my desire to see a response to my queries, and my desire not to be a nuisance to someone who has a wide range of responsibilities. The 'defeating' of MiszaBot was an unintended side effect that I wasn't even aware of until I noticed your changes to the bot's parameters. If you didn't want to communicate with me, you could have simply said so. Instead of ignoring me for three weeks, and playing games with your talk page archive settings, you could have tried replying even once just to say that you weren't going to respond to queries on your talk page. I don't know why it would have helped for me to email you—you've just said that you were deliberately ignoring me, so I can't imagine the benefit to having you ignore me in another medium as well. The questions that I posed were of interest – I believe – to the other parties to the case and to the broader community; I didn't think that a hidden response would have been nearly as useful or nearly as constructive a use of anyone's time. I don't even begin know where to deal with being called a liar by you. If you've constructed a fantasy about some hidden agenda of mine, either have the guts to share it with the class or keep your snide innuendoes to yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC) I have no idea what your upbringing was, but where I grew up, asking a parent the same question multiple times when no answer was forthcoming was grounds for punishment. I have no idea what your professional background is, but in my previous and current employment, asking my supervisor the same question multiple times when no answer was forthcoming (with a few exceptions which aren't relevant here) would have been viewed as pushy and rude. I don't know what sort of relationships you've had, but asking my wife the same question multiple times when she deferred answering really annoys her. I'm none of those things to you, but now you've been publicly (again, your choice to not use email...) socialized a bit. Oh, and WMC's self-reverted comment on this thread does nothing but reinforce my growing suspicion that this entire evolution was engineered, rather than a legitimate question. So, if you were lying to me, and not simply ignorant as you claimed above, you have my apologies for the previous paragraph's pedantry. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC) There was no engineering, certainly not on my part. However, I have no idea what your upbringing was, but where I grew up, asking a parent the same question multiple times when no answer was forthcoming was grounds for punishment... definitely reinforces my view that you have an over-inflated opinion of yourself. You are not here in a parent role William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Nor am I in a managerial or spousal role, as I thought I'd said quite clearly with my "I'm none of those things to you" follow-on to those examples. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC) There was no collusion, collaboration, or 'engineering' whatsoever between myself and WMC, or anyone else. It is a remarkable and disturbing imagination you have that leads you to conclude editors who jointly disagree with you must be involved in a conspiracy. I asked you a question because I thought you either made a poor judgement based on poor reasoning, or else you had poorly communicated your justification for a vote on a motion. I posted a request to your talk page hoping that you might clarify that reasoning, or at least restate your position in terms that didn't look quite so unreasonable. I followed up first because I thought you might have missed my message, then because it seemed likely that the ArbCom would be handling similar motions in the near future, and finally because the ArbCom was faced with such a motion. You are neither my parent nor my employer – for which I am doubly grateful – and analogies based on those authority relationships are specious. Far more apt comparisons might be drawn to public servants or even elected officials. A refusal to communicate with your community and constituency is a failure on your part; your alternately insulting and condescending behavior since then has compounded that failure. This all could have been avoided with six words from you, any time in the last three weeks: "I don't want to discuss it." It would have been brusque and it would have been below the standard of openness that an Arbitrator should seek to achieve, but I would have taken it. It would have been a token acknowledgement that I was a real person, worthy of thirty seconds of your attention, even though I disagreed with you. Instead, here we are, with your explanation of how your rudeness is to my benefit, how you're "publicly socializing" me. Indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Cripples Bastards and Broken Things

I have given this article a review and left comments at Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1. Thank you for you contributions. My main concern is the references and since it has been in the queue for so long I thought I would give you a chance to find some more reliable replacements. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will get to this this weekend. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The WP:GACR page is slow, so have sought some advice regarding these sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fansites as sources for a good article. You may want to participate. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like this site might solve some of the shooting location issues, but I still have yet to sift through it. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think half the trouble is that the series is so new only the fans have had time to detail everything. It will probably get easier as time goes by. Let me know how you go. AIRcorn (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I got a proposed decision posted tonight, I need to nominate myself for reelection tomorrow, and I will get to work on this thereafter. Thanks for your patience. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It looks like we can work around the sources and you are not likely to disappear so I will expand a bit on my review in the meantime and you can let me know when you have some more time. Good luck with the Arb election. AIRcorn (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's kind of a double-edged thing: I can guarantee I'd have more time for editing actual, you know, articles if I weren't on ArbCom. :-) Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Hi. I am not a tech person at all, and find all of the deletions extremely confusing, so I'm hoping you can hand-hold me through an understanding - and help restore the pages.

1. The movie "Six Characters in Search of America" - is a REAL movie, on IMDB, and had screenings, and cast members are even semi-famous people. So the deletion of the page seems strange.

2. The deletion of the page for Rachel Wolf seems similarly strange, as she has a certain level of fame as well, as a singer, writer, producer and creator of an animal-related cause called "Patrick's Law." The Facebook page had 50,000 followers in one month and the website is approaching 100,000 views.

3. The deletion of the page for Stewart Wade (Rachel Wolf's collaborator on a few projects). Stewart has directed several indie films, both of which have been extensively reviewed, and one of them was even the source of a major controversy with Roger Ebert.

Therefore, all three pages should not have been deleted... and in fact, all need updating now as well. Please tell us how to navigate the maze of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Sure. In each case, can you go through Google News search, and see where newspapers, magazines, or other media outlets with a reputation for independence and fact checking (reliable sources) have covered each one? If you have a bunch of hits for any or all of these topics, then that topic likely meets criteria for inclusion. What happens when you run those searches? Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

ACE2011

Dear Jclemens, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2011 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the elections and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words. Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

In order for your candidacy to be valid, your nomination statement must also include a declaration of any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee), and must express your willingness and ability to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's access to nonpublic data policy.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! -- DQ (t) (e) 05:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please check the information on your row in the table on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Guide? Feel free to correct any mistakes or fill in any missing information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The only nit is that I changed my account creation date to 2005, vs. 2006. I didn't make any edits for quite a while after registering, but as I understand it I must have registered in 2005 (or earlier...) since my account creation date was not tracked. You're quite correct that the date of first edit was in 2006... I just don't remember exactly how long before that I registered, because Wikipedia really didn't become important to me until 2007. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Jclemens, With reference to the complaint I left some time ago I would like to offer apology for the tone and manner of it, and for showing impatience with the proceeding. I now see that ARBCOM cases can be somewhat complicated. Apart from submitting evidence I have stayed away from the proceedings mostly, and saw yesterday it is nearing conclusion. I won't try to defend my own behaviour on the article in question at those times when it was remiss. Once again I apologise for my lack of patience and the manner in which I raised the issue with you. Regards,DMSBel (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology. Rest assured that I don't take anything personally. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Responses delayed

My laptop is in the shop, so it may be a day or two before I can address issues. I can still read email and review Wikipedia, but editing Wikipedia from a mobile device is quite tedious. I will amend this notice once I get it back. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

... and that didn't take near as long as I feared. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No consensus = keep or delete?

Hi Jclemens, there is currently a dispute at National Organization for Marriage as to whether the Photo manipulation section should stay or go. There is no consensus after an RfC. Does WP:BURDEN apply when there is no consensus? Does the content stay or go? Wikipedia:Consensus#When there is no consensus does not address this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it stays. Looking only briefly at the references and assuming that they actually bear out the text, the incident appears to have been dealt with by multiple RS, which means it has enough notability for an independent article. Having said that, inclusion within the greater article on the same topic will help make sure it gets covered in context, and is probably the better choice. This is one of many such issues where small items are picked up by the media, meet our notability criteria, and are covered probably out of proportion to their actual importance to the life cycle of the article subject... but we're not going to solve that general problem here. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jclemens, I'm confused - are you expressing your opinion about the content, or speaking to the question of what happens when there is no consensus? There is no consensus either way at this point so we're at a stalemate. Clarification appreciated, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Both. The content in question is sourced, so BURDEN is met, so it stays absent a clear consensus to remove it. Simple enough? Jclemens-public (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

User:TheRoD1988

Hi there,

This user is currently blocked for edit warring, but IP addresses 202.156.11.12, 202.156.11.11, and 218.186.18.232 have been engaging in the same edit warring behavior on Magneto (comics). As a checkuser, can you see if these are related? Thanks. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to log into my privileged account for at least 10 hours. You will get a faster response to your inquiry at WP:SPI. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

From what I understand from an email the health issues with Orangemarlin had been discussed privately amongst arbitrators already by early October. Mathsci (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for a confirmation of this statement? Jclemens-public (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, there's no need in my case, because I have the email from an arbitrator. You might, however, want to make these matters a little clearer to the community. You wrote on the PD page that there were no objections to your postings about Orangemarlin, when you presumably know that not to be the case. There were objections in private off-wiki. On wikipedia is it not normal practice, when somebody is seriously ill, for communications and discussions about them to take place off-wiki? Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No one has objected, on wiki or off, to the substance of the finding of fact. No one has said that it's cherry picked, taken out of context, forged, or in any way fails to accurately reflect what OM said and did. I never denied that discussions took place about the appropriateness or timing of that finding, or alternate ways to handle it. In discussing off-Wiki matters, I will not confirm nor deny the status of any privileged information the committee may or may not have received about an editor's health. If you mistook respecting privacy for misrepresentation, then you have my sincere apologies, but on the other hand... if you're alleging that another arbitrator communicated the existence of a private discussion about another editor's health status to you, I would call that arbitrator misconduct. Without confirming that such a discussion DID take place, of course: if it did, then disclosing it would be violating Orangemarlin's privacy. If it did not, then implying or stating that it did would be misrepresentation. Even the egregiously incivil deserve to be treated with all due respect. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So I asked the rest of the committee about this, and it appears that you have whatever info you have because you complained in email to a different committee member about the drafters' (meaning mostly my) review of Orangemarlin's conduct, and received a response from that arbitrator. I'm still not seeing the problem that prompted your initiation of this thread, but I understand where you got the info from, and am a bit puzzled why you didn't just state that up front. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Davina Reichman

Hi. You restored the article. Shoudn't you restore the talk page too? Cheers, — Racconish^Tk 06:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Often, there's nothing of import on talk pages, but you're right, this isn't a typical PROD restoration. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks — Racconish^Tk 07:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing the citations on the root cellar article after I restored the article. A user with the IP address 205.213.111.50 made numerous inappropriate changes to that article. Is their a process to have them banned from future edits? Gavinski16 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition, but I just found that vandalism reported to the OTRS system, and fixed it. In general, it's not productive to block IP addresses for "silly" vandalism, because many are one-off, and blocking a dynamic IP address may inconvenience the next person who actually wants to make a positive change to Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

New Questions

I've added some new questions[6] to your candidate page, and I think it's in your best interest to address them before voting starts. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied there this morning, from Jclemens-public because the secure server wasn't working. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Geospatial topology

Hi Jclemens.

The deletion log for Geospatial topology says: "21:43, January 19, 2010 Jclemens (talk · contribs) deleted "Geospatial topology" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: No meaningful content to say what "Geospatial topology" is and to distinguish it from "topology". Mostly a set of disconnected non-sentences. No attempt to clean-up for substantial period.)"

I've now started the current page from scratch and it hopefully addresses the content issues. However this is the first time I've re-created a deleted article so I thought I'd better check with you that I've followed the correct protocol. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No problems, and thanks for asking. PROD deletions are like unanimous consent in parliamentary procedure: one person nominates, no one objects within a week, and the article is deleted. However, there is no lasting precedent to that deletion: someone can undelete that article and work on it, or start from scratch like you've done, without any issue or needing to notify anyone of anything. Do you have any specific content questions? Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Arbitration Committee Elections

Jclemens,

As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. --Tznkai (talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tznkai. I appreciate all you and the other coordinators do to make this mess work. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There's an ANI thread which may concern you here (you're involved in the histories of both the pages linked directly, including declining the PROD of at least one blatant copyvio). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish there. It's always good that more copyvio material has been removed from Wikipedia, but are you implying that PROD decliners are expected to give a reason (they're not), PROD decliners are expected to review copyright status (they're not), or AfD !voters are expected to review an article's copyvio status (they're not)? If you'd like to start a discussion on any of those three potentially proposed changes, there are better venues than ANI for the problem. My take on the matter is it is really up to the person who wants material deleted to put forth the most accurate rationale for deletion--PRODs are declined easily, while CSD G12s are not, in my experience. In fact, I'm struggling to think of a G12 I've ever declined where I didn't investigate the claim thoroughly enough to see that the material had been present on Wikipedia first, before it made its way to the site the nominator believed we were infringing. With a brief root cause analysis of the copyvio retention on my part, the one thing that would have eliminated this outcome was the nominators using CSD G12 instead of PROD and AfD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

On further exam, I'm not even sure what you mean by "without a rationale": "consider redirect or merge", the edit summary I used in this and many other PROD declines, is a shorthand which I'd always presumed that editors familiar with our deletion process would understand as a reference to WP:ATD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it disingenuous to argue that one is doing nothing wrong by removing the PROD from a page which is an obvious speedy candidate, especially where the speedy category is wholesale unambiguous copyvio (regardless of whether the PROD mentions it or not). Nor does that explain your argument to transwiki at the AfD linked from the discussion, unless you're suggesting that it isn't the responsibility of AfD commenters to make at least some brief attempt to examine whether an article is copyvio prior to commenting on it. However, the primary reason I pinged you is that at least on paper you're one of the most clueful editors who admits to frequenting this part of the project, so it's worth keeping you in the loop regarding potential problems admin-wise there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please show me where that expectation is set forth anywhere on-wiki. If I haven't seen it, it's a good bet that a lot of others are not fulfilling their responsibilities if it does, in fact, exist as a community expectation. PROD is and always has been a very lightweight easy-nom-easy-decline-easy-delete-easy-restore process. Since there has been extensive debate over the years over whether AfD-closing should even look at the article before rendering judgment on in (I think they should, FWIW), I find it odd that an expectation on !voters to check for copyvio would exist in that climate. Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, the expectation is by your fellow editors that they can trust that when you've touched an article you haven't left it in a worse state than it was in before. Your removal of these PRODs meant that we continued to host large pages of directly copied and unattributed text (hell, text copied from pages on blacklisted sites in some cases) for over six months when it would otherwise have been deleted (satisfying policy indirectly at least). If you don't routinely check for such red flags when declining PRODs (or commenting on AfDs) then perhaps you should. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying (if I can translate a bit) that it isn't a documented expectation, but you think it should be. That's fair. However, I tend to think that the responsibility lies with the editor who wants to delete material to put forth the most applicable reason for deletion, and G12 is probably the least disputable (or at least in the top three) reason for deletion: if it applies, there's either a wholesale revision or an outright deletion. On the other hand, I'm not sure that I would endorse an expectation that ANY editor other than the editor adding the material should be held responsible for the copyvio material: if we increase the responsibilities assigned to people in deletion processes, that will have an effect of reducing participation and hence throughput time and quality of decisions. TINSTAAFL, unfortunately, and each additional editing expectation comes with a non-trivial cost. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Putting that in the context of your prod removal, you're basically arguing that removing a prod, or indeed arguing to retain article content in some capacity at an AfD, carries absolutely no implied approval for the content in question even if it is blatantly copyvio (amongst a horde of other problems in this case). In fact, you're basically suggesting that copyright is simply not our problem, and that if editors add copyvio here that's simply bad luck and it is nobody's responsibility to remove it. I'd say that's a quite remarkable position. If it isn't explicitly noted anywhere that ensuring that our content is free is a shared responsibility then it absolutely should be. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright is a general obligation: I will absolutely tag it (or, as an admin, directly delete it) under CSD G12, when I know that something is a copyvio... but I do not go looking for it in the course of my regular editing; I AGF that other editors have done their part correctly. Copyright is not any editor's specific obligation unless they are adding (potentially copyvio) material. If you'd like, though, I would be willing to support a specific obligation on any deletion initiator (PROD tagger, CSD tagger, or AfD nominator) which gives them a specific obligation to use the most applicable deletion method and rationale, and clarify that CSD G12 is the first and only choice for copyvio material which cannot be fixed by normal editing. Indeed, when I remove a PROD, all I am necessarily saying is "this needs an AfD, not an uncontested deletion"; my track record for participating in AfD's of PRODs I've declined is probably around 50%. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• The general disclaimer makes it fairly clear that: "None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible..." The relevant policy about the making of intimidatory assertions of copyright violation seems to be WP:NLT. Warden (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you're confusing "responsibility" with "liability". The general disclaimer covers liability; general policy covers responsibility, specifically WP:COPYVIO's assertion that "[copyright violation] should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues". For a member of the closest thing Wikipedia has to an officiating body to believe that no editor on the project needs concern themselves at all with copyright is amazing to me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • To the best of my understanding, a user is NEVER required to check if other users' edits are copyvios when supporting keeping articles at AfD, when removing PRODs, or when declining speedies - unless a claim of copyvio has already been made in the relevant context (i.e a PROD which says "possible copyvio" in it; a G12 speedy tag). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If I saw a PROD with "possible copyvio" in it, I'd be likely to check it right then and immediately delete it with a CSD-G12 if it was clear and irreparable, or per the instructions at WP:CP if it was an uncertain or marginal thing. One of the downsides with PROD is that reasons are freeform, so that an editor might spot a copyvio, declare it in a PROD, and it not be acted upon for a week. When I did CSD, I did all G10s, then all G12s, and only then would I work on the others, usually starting with G11s. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why?

You're the drafting arbitrator. The evidence page says:

Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely...Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs....Please reduce your evidence submission to fit within the appropriate limits.

Why did you use evidence in violation of this rule to characterize me as a POV-pusher who manipulates sources? Why did you decline to give me permission to exceed this evidence limit in my own defense?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am indeed the lead drafter... but I did not write the portion of the finding of fact in question. I'd suggest you ask User:Casliber about it. Regardless, I concurred. As far as asking for the limit to be waived... is this what you're referring to? Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this is. I already raised this issue with Casliber at the decision talk page, but received no answer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That has got to be one of the most roundabout ways to ask for a waiver that I've ever seen. Have you considered that your request was not acted upon because you never actually asked anyone to waive the limit? Any number of arbs and clerks watched that page, and yet no one saw this tidbit, buried in a dialogue between you and MastCell, as an actionable request. Jclemens (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from the link I just provided, my preference was that the limit be respected by all parties. Failing that, I wanted to know if it was waived for all parties. The fact that you and "any number of arbs and clerks" did not read and/or respond to this fairly simple comment of mine perhaps suggests that any evidence I might have provided would have had similar impact (and ditto for what I said at the article talk page). I am very disappointed in you, ArbCom and Wikipedia. This was not the only comment of mine objecting to exceeding the evidence limit.[7][8]Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've suppressed your IP address twice just now, on the assumption that you wouldn't want it necessarily associated with your username. Please check to see if you're logged out in one browser window or something... Jclemens (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice gesture, but maybe unnecessary for a couple reasons. First, I'm using a smartphone which (I think) has a range of IPs that aren't easily identifiable to a particular device. The second reason is that, judging from my email lately, the cat seems to be out of the bag, as it is e.g. for NYB. That's why your assertions about my alleged misdeeds, and my difficulty responding to them, are now especially irksome.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I objected repeatedly to excess evidence. Then the arbitrators wrote and voted on a proposed decision relying on the excess evidence, and I'm now objecting again as loudly and clearly as I can. ArbCom said "Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely". That didn't happen as promised, and instead that evidence explicitly became the basis for your accusation that I'm a POV-pushing manipulator. You don't see a problem with that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, this isn't some sort of game - we have to review cases in detail which means looking over interactions over time and editor contributions to get context among other things. People have linked to all sorts of discussions (which sometimes link to further things we look at and so forth) which are not part of the "500 word evidence". Just because no-one pointed it out within a circumscribed fashion does not excuse you from behaving like that. Take some responsibility for your actions rather than try to evade on some sort of technicality. End of story. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider my reputation to be a game. You, on the other hand, treat the rules like a game. The rule in question was the only rule that has ever protected me from having to defend endlessly against MastCell's accusations over a course of many years. I relied on that rule. You should take responsibility for making false accusations, because that is exactly what you have done. I have already retired from editing Wikipedia, as I cannot be subject to such accusations any longer. If you have looked at the "context" of my edits over time, and have concluded that I therefore should be topic-banned, please be honest and say so, instead of using some bogus controversy about Black's Law Dictionary, or a straw man argument that I did not acknowledge which article motivated my policy edit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't recommend people be banned de novo but look at their editing, hence anyone must have reasons for recommending sanctions. based on what was found, there is an emerging consensus among the arbitators that you be topic-banned. This should more properly be discussed at the proposed decision talk page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Would a link to this discussion be sufficient at the decision talk page? I have already protested rather vociferously at the decision talk page regarding the evidence you used and didn't use. Please feel free to either link this discussion at the decision talk page, and/or start a new discussion there, and/or say here which you recommend I do. From what Jclemens said, I gather that much of the case talk pages go unread or unnoticed, which I hope justifies my coming here to make a clear and explicit objection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we just sometimes miss oblique references that the poster interprets as questions, buried in a back-and-forth exchange between two parties on opposite sides of a dispute. Consider, also, that a topic ban for you is a de minimis sanction, because any uninvolved administrator can already topic ban you from any particular article on Abortion, per the sanctions on Ferrylodge. When a topic ban is such a short hop, the level of justification needed to support the sanction is not particularly high. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether the lifetime sanction four years ago was right or wrong, it is no justification for you to make a false accusation. The Black's Law Dictionary stuff is a false accusation. The procedural nonsense only makes it worse. I was not oblique at the case talk page when I said MastCell was "flagrantly" violating the evidence limit.[9] And I am not oblique now. I feel comfortable meeting my end at Wikipedia sincerely trying to follow the rules. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)Please fully protect my home page and talk page. Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask that an uninvolved admin TPS do that, if you don't mind. If it's not done in a day or two I'll put this in RFPP. Note that as a user under ArbCom sanction, you are not free of those sanctions even under IP editing or a new account. I don't expect that will be an issue, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention it. Thanks for your efforts on Wikipedia, and best wishes in your new endeavors. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The abortion case

I haven’t participated in it very much, but I’ve been closely following the discussion about whether it’s appropriate to have a finding of fact about OrangeMarlin despite his absence, and I definitely support the position you’re taking about this. However, I’m also concerned about this hurting your chances at re-election, and I’m especially worried about the ramifications of that if it does. In order for ArbCom to be effective, arbitrators have to be able to stand up for what they think is right for the community even when it involves opposing a popular editor or editors. If arbitrators can’t do that without it coming at the expense of their opportunity to be re-elected, then ArbCom is going to become subject to the same problem that Sandstein mentioned in his candidacy last year, where popular and experienced editors can get away with a lot more than new editors can, because of everyone being reluctant to sanction them. I also agree with what you said about how this problem contributes to the creation of a toxic editing environment and the decline in participation.

According to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, Wikipedia has around 300,000 people who edit at least once a month, while only 854 people voted in the ArbCom election last year. That means the arbitrators are chosen by around 0.3% of the community, and in general it’s the 0.3% of editors who are most active and experienced. I worry a lot about arbitrators being held accountable only to the tiny portion of the community who elects them, who generally aren’t the editors in greatest need of protection. Is this a concern that you share at all? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think more participation in the elections process is always a good thing, yet at the same time, since ArbCom is not a policy-setting or governance body, it's hard to interest people in the election--we have no sound bites.  :-) I think I have a record as a straight shooter, and one willing to make the tough calls. I'm going to continue to do my job per my vision for what's the best for the project: treating everyone fairly while holding them accountable for our conduct expectations, regardless of their connections or lack thereof.

There are a lot of people who don't like my stances on things, which is my "fault" because I'm not a politician and haven't ever tried to mince words or conceal my thoughts on what's best for the project. But then, there were plenty of those last year, as well. At the same time, my record clearly shows that I have held the office for nearly a year with no "score settling", no pushing of any personal agendas, and what not. Ultimately, the editors who vote will have their say, and they will get the ArbCom they elect.

I actually think it somewhat funny that you're supporting me, because I don't think I gave you a single thing you sought me out for... except for some decent (in my opinion, but I'm biased) advice on how to handle conflict. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I’m not sure if I’ve clearly communicated my concern about this. I know you’re devoted to doing what’s best for the project, and I think that’s very valuable. And in this case, having done that might cause you to get voted out of office. What I’m saying is that in situations like this, if an arbitrator tries to do what’s best for the 99.7% of editors who are less active and experienced but not necessarily for the 0.3% who vote, that’s something which could cause them to not get re-elected. And conversely, an arbitrator who cares about getting re-elected only needs to do what’s best for the most active 0.3% of the community. What I’m concerned about is that there might start to be a trend towards arbitrators caring mostly just about the tiny portion of the community that matters in an election, and arbitrators (such as you) who place more emphasis on the other 99.7% can’t keep their positions.

I don’t think it should be such a surprise that I’m supporting you. For one thing, I think editors being held to unequal standards of conduct is probably the biggest problem facing the project right now, so anybody who cares a lot about fixing that problem will tend to have my support in general. Another reason is that even though you haven’t given me any of the specific things I requested, you’ve still been considerably more helpful to me than any other arbitrator. Whenever I asked another member of ArbCom the type of questions I was asking you, the most common result was that my query would sit on their talk page without a response for several days until it got archived. As I’ve mentioned to you before, getting an answer is always preferable to me over not getting an answer, even if the answer is no. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I believe that if I were on ArbCom (not that I think I would ever be), I would have probably wanted an FoF saying something along the lines of "It appears that User:Orangemarlin...", together with a brief summarty of why he was unable to participate in the case; and a remedy which ends with "However, as he has been unable to participate in the case, he may present his input when he's ready, and the ban will be reconsidered." Chances are that, were he able to participate, he wouldn't have been able to soften the results regarding him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Hi. This article contains a few sentences about abortion but it is not in any sort of abortion category. Does it fall under the umbrella of semi-protection for 3 years?--v/r - TP 13:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me answer one question with two of my own: While abortion is necessarily related to pregnancy, is pregnancy necessarily related to abortion? While there may be disputes and edit warring going on in the pregnancy article, how much of that has to do with what little abortion coverage that it does contain? My impression, based on what I hear rumblings about elsewhere, is that it is outside of the scope, but if the answers to my two seemingly rhetorical questions is not what I expect, I could be wrong. Jclemens-public (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the dispute that led up to either of the Arbcom cases and so my knowledge of the background is limited to what I'm willing to inflict upon myself. I'm aware that there is pro-life/pro-choice bias on Wikipedia, as well as anywhere else in the world, and I'd only like to know if the 7-sentence definition of Abortion on the pregnancy article warrants protection. So for your first question, I'd say that Pregnancy can be related to abortion as there are roughly three ways a pregnancy can end (birth, miscarriage, abortion) and while edit warring has been mostly focused on the lead image, I would suspect that when anonymous editors find that they are denied elsewhere they will find this little gem here. This may be too much forethought and I couldn't care either way, but since you drafted the Arbcom close and the pregnancy article has had my attention for the last couple weeks I figured I'd pose the question for clarification. --v/r - TP 16:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's cross that bridge when we get to it, then? The sweeping semi-protection remedy is already broader than anything else I've seen or participated in. Let's not make it even more expansive without a really, really good reason. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok.--v/r - TP 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life/pro-choice voting

Hi Jclemens, when and where does the discussion on pro-life/pro-choice article titles start? Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not involved in that remedy. User:Casliber would be a better person to ask, as he has some specific ideas on what should be done different vs. the prior MEDCAB case. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, was just thinking we needed to kick start this somewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks, please keep me informed Casliber. And sorry for not signing, haven't done that in ages. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start

Dear Jmclemns, I'd like to make a fresh start on Wikipedia if possible, though I may take a short break from the site to get back in touch with some real world matters, and take stock. If that is permissible and Arbcom have no issue with it, then could I close my present account/ username, and set up a new one?. DMSBel (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The deal with that is that sanctions apply to people, not to accounts, so you'd still be under sanctions, even in your new account, until they expire or are lifted. I also need to check if the procedures for doing so have been updated recently, because I know a discussion on the topic was ongoing a couple of months ago. Let me know if this is something you want to pursue--and email is fine for this sort of discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I was aware the sanctions would still be applicable to a new account or username. I'll let you know before I do anything. DMSBel (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing username is no big deal. On the other hand, in regard to starting over with a new account, Wikipedia policy currently states: "A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here) in place against your old account." MastCell ^Talk 05:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the link.DMSBel (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It might also be worth asking what the user understands by a clean start. Does xhe accept that it includes leaving behind previously edited topics, particularly wp:BATTLEGROUNDs? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Always a good reminder, but given the change in tone of his contributions on this page, vs. his initial response to the case, I think this participant is aware of that and looking for an opportunity to make a positive change. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Gillian Howie

May I suggest restoring the page for my colleague Gillian Howie (philosopher) since she has now been promoted to the rank of professor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljameshill (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I will do this when I get to a secure computer in 10-12 hours, but you may get faster service from WP:REFUND, or an admin TPS may get to this faster. Be sure to update the content, as the article appears to have been deleted a good while ago. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! No hurry!Danieljameshill (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there published reliable sources upon which to draw? A cursory Gillian Howie (philosopher) doesn't show any, though there are many publisher bioblurbs, etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I found a bunch of Google News hits for her, although I'd used "Liverpool" rather than "philosopher" as a secondary search term. At any rate, the bio's back, and I threw in an EL to her faculty page, just to keep the restored PROD from being an unreferenced BLP. It still needs work. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello, Please request possible.

Is it possible to develop an article Singer of the High School Musical, Corbin Bleu and become a good article See the article Arabic Wikipedia good article, can you? .

Look at this version will help you to become a good article. I do not see any adjustment well in this article, can you make a good article as an article Biographies.

Success in your life. Goodbye. --2.91.153.114 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I am not particularly familiar with the topic and have zero knowledge of Arabic. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well my friend, but can you fix this article, delete the non-reliable sources. And to delete the template at the top of the article. Thank you my friend. Such as this (version). Cheers. --2.91.153.114 (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for efforts facilitating a difficult case.

Thanks I appreciate the facilitating of the Abortion Arbcom, by Coren and yourself. While I'd have liked to have been given leave to appeal the topic ban imposed, I appreciate the case is closed now. I have asked Coren for clarification of its scope.

The proceeding however frequently mimicked a litigation (but without many of the checks) rather than arbitration sadly, with one or two participants acting more than a little bit like prosecutors. In fact in the aftermath its taken me to clarify in my own mind again that there is a sharp distinction between the two in several important respects. Whilst I in no way consider either Coren or yourself lacking in ability to handle complex cases, MastCell took part in fairly litigatory manner, and perhaps it needs explained to him what the difference between litigation and arbitration is. DMSBel (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Most cases that Arbcom sees are, in fact, adversarial. Rather than a prosecutor and defendant, however, two parties plead their cases, often using diffs to demonstrate how the "opposing" parties have failed to follow Wikipedia's conduct expectations. It's my belief that the case could have been resolved sooner if more folks had been actively pointing out the worst, most actionable failings of others. Indeed, I essentially asked for the community's help in doing just that. Arbcom doesn't have time to be investigators AND assessors of the facts. We really rely on the community to point us out where things are amiss, and then we mostly dig around to validate or reject those assertions, especially in huge cases like abortion. All sanctions can be appealed; topic bans, by demonstrating good editing and a learning of lessons in other areas, and site bans by going somewhere else and becoming a productive community member. Best wishes on your efforts to move forward, Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware of the initial run up to the case, and only had it brought to my attention some weeks after it started (by MastCell once he started citing diffs left, right and centre, indeed seemingly against nearly all editors except those who share a POV with him), I think the case needed and participants needed more reining in. Thats just an observation. By the time I was drawn into it, it had sprawled out to cover the whole topic (I had to present evidence). It started out from what I could gather over a dispute about article naming though. After being pulled in much of it seemed to do with articles I had no involvement in (ie. Support for..., Opposition to... articles). Apart from a couple of remarks I had otherwise no other comments on that dispute. Let that important political debate in the US run in appropriate venues and forums other than Wikipedia and it's talk pages, and not lay illegitimate claim to the pseudo-authority that Wikipedia sadly affords at times. You might think from this last comment that I don't have a position on the matter, but I do, and one of those articles would if this was a political debate forum give me opportunity to advance my views. As Wikipedia is not a political debate forum I object to both articles, and the using of Wikipedia to those ends, hence I never edited them. As there is an Abortion Debate article, a Abortion and Religion article, are not these other (Support for.../Opposition to...) articles unnecessarily going over that ground again? What else might we be opening up the the door to? There seems to be a collective missing of the point, though maybe arbitrators in private are aware of the topic-creep and the time it wastes. Undoubtedly mere involvement in these article is in itself no indicator of misusing the project. But I'd like to see something done about potentially polarising articles. The abortion debate cannot avoid being polarised at times, but we don't need to polarise editors. The existence of one nearly always leads to the setting up of another article by editors to counter it. This again is not necessarily motivated by any agenda or strategy, only that something akin to a cause-effect relationship seems to exist were neutrality and covering both sides is important. One article causes another to spring up (the effect). Which came first may not be all that important. But is this in Wikipedia's scope? I'd have thought the Abortion, Abortion Debate, Abortion in [country], Religion and Abortion type articles have a solid place, while Opposition to..., Support for... type articles don't.

By a recent estimate Wikipedia has 1600 times the number of articles on Britanicca. Might it be the the case that Britannica has about 1600 times less verbiage? I know you don't have any illusions about the percentage of articles which are useful. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In the most general case, the question becomes how do we protect the encyclopedia from groups of editors who are dedicated to achieving their own goals at the expense of Wikipedia's pillars? People writing about their own little niche whatever-it-is don't cause problems: some of their articles are arcane and will never get much traffic, but they're mostly harmless. The nationalist, religious, and political POV warriors are a much bigger problem, in that they believe, in good faith in many cases, that their POV is NPOV. There's a difference between saying "Many people believe a fetus to be a distinct human being, and elective abortion a process that causes its death, while others disagree, noting that the developing fetus is dependent on the woman until viability" and "It's just a bunch of cells, you [expletive deleted]" or "abortion is murder". Gross oversimplifications, to be sure, but the people who aren't interested in writing the NPOV sentence aren't aligned with Wikipedia's goals, are they? Jclemens (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed obscure articles on tv shows and what-have-you is just there for the meantime (they don't cause disputes usually). The biggies are in the fields you noted. I was sore-wrought over how to neutrally cover abortion. One of the diffs cited against me was simply my attempt to get the POVs out on the carpet (so to speak). So I blew full steam to see what the response would be, but I had stated my POV earlier. It's not merely that there are POV editors who sincerely think they have no POV (that is true), however it is sadly my experience that there are POV editors who are adept at hiding their POV, rather than setting it aside, and its easy to see, when those editors are questioned there usually is an anguished chorus of other editors crying "how can you suggest such a thing about so and so." It is apparent in the way that certain organisations and sources are considered "superior", while the NPOV takes all sources at face value (at least initially) and assumes good faith towards statements of purpose of all organisations, permitting scope for a democratic diversity in sourcing within Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Some measures might be in order to avoid the potential for sprawl in cases like the one that has just finished. Perhaps allowing Arbcom to set the pace of the proceedings rather than parties, with invitations to respond to questions, but perhaps that is too much like a parliamentary select committee? But with allegations, interpretations and remedies being fired from all directions I think the proceedings favored the "experienced" editors, or at least those with substantial "experience" in Arbcom cases.DMSBel (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Also food for thought: Following MastCell's comment to OM that fighting over an aspect of the lede was best left to the agenda driven editors, did he take his own advice and leave that discussion. What were those favoring the version which was reached by compromise and which had been stable "fighting" over? If this fighting over phrase was symtomatic of having an agenda, why were only myself and a few other editors being harangued.DMSBel (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Going along with the heading of this, I did not agree with the results of the case but you did a good job, Jclemens. Thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I also think Jclemens did a good job, considering what he had to work with. The self-appointed prosecutor (not Jclemens), an admin, only presented evidence against one side in the debate and the pro-life side did not present evidence defending itself or present evidence of misconduct by the pro-choice partisans. The result is that 6 out of 8 editors singled out for ArbCom's kind ministrations are on one side of the debate. But, what is an Arb to do? Jclemens fairly begged people to present evidence in the form of diffs, and even asked for uninvolved volunteers to gather evidence (which got him criticized). Which brings up a question or two: does ArbCom decide the matter based mainly on the evidence provided by the involved parties? how much of its own research does it do? what are ArbCom's responsibilities when the evidence presented is one-sided and the side being accused doesn't defend itself or bring counter-charges? The pro-life editors did not have an articulate and organized champion like the pro-choice side did, and that resulted in a lopsided outcome, in my opinion. But, it's a difficult and time-consuming case, and Jclemens deserves thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to press all the parties involved into two sides. I consider myself pro-choice in the only sense I can understand the term, that is I don't believe that one person can make a choice for another, not in the sense of regarding all choices to be equally good, justified, well informed, or commendable in particular circumstances. Several of the editors sanctioned may have a moderate pro-life position but edited neutrally. One the editors sanctioned Michael C Price, only involvement was to point out logical fallacies in the arguments in the discussion without taking sides.

The more important question is not "does Arbcom decide the matter based mainly on the evidence provided by the involved parties.." for we know that bare evidence is rarely provided, it is usually interpreted by those providing it. So the question is does Arbcom base it's decisions solely on the interpretation of evidence provided? How does it assess for instance the interpretations of editing or talk page behaviour and decide whether parties are making mountains out of molehills? It would be good faith to assume (except when there is evidence to the contrary) those elected can weigh the evidence impartially (and the diffs presented in context), so that the allegations these diffs indicate disruptive or tendentious editing are also weighed to see whether they are fair, or overblown.

As I didn't seek the Arbcom case, I wasn't going to present a load of diffs, or get distracted from my editing by it. I was content to await request to answer questions from the arbiters if and when required. No questions were asked of me, so I summarised up the areas of the dispute as I understood them in my evidence, drawing attention a couple of times to particular aspects that seemed to me significant, and which I thought needed further investigation. I didn't present my own defense as that would be have been too time consuming for me and I thought the committee could weigh the evidence against me fairly. Following the results my level of confidence in the current committee is not at an all time high, though I don't lay all the responsibility with the drafters.

If it could be ascertained that the case has been a learning experience both for the arbitrators and parties involved (it has been for me) then that might help restore my confidence. DMSBel (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. I shouldn't describe editors as pro-life just because they made edits that could be seen as "favoring" the pro-life side of the argument. I was going by my general impressions without going into it very deeply. I think what also influenced me in that impression was OrangeMarlin's "last gasp" (a few days before his imminent demise) in which he flamed several editors who later got "singled out" in this ArbCom decision, including you, right?

It's a shame that you are now prevented from editing the articles that interest you most, but no sanction is forever; in time, you'll be back editing them again. In retrospect, it may have been better if you had presented a vigorous defense and even gone on the attack. As I tried to say above, one conclusion that might be drawn from the decision is that "silence denotes consent" and that if you don't answer the charges against you, you'll probably get your rear end kicked.

I do hope that Jclemens finds time to address some of our issues here. Something tells me though that he's very busy in real life and also with the ArbCom voting. His suggestion for the lead of the Abortion article shows eminent common sense and that should give you some confidence in ArbCom (I mean, it does me.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction: I re-read OM's last gasp. You were the only one he flamed who was named later in this ArbCom decision. Michael Price is mentioned but not negatively if I'm reading it right. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to say a lot more here, as its not my talk page. My talk page behaviour at that article was at times remiss and some of the diffs showed that, I wasn't gonna argue that I had kept my cool at all times. Yes I agree that his comment about the lede show a lot of common sense, and that does help my confidence. A sort of feedback loop of bad-faith has been affecting that article and it needed broken, it would benefit from a fresh set of editors though, but not merely reducing it to like-minded editors, which tends to militate against NPOV. DMSBel (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You all are free to continue politely discussing things, including what I could or should have done better, here--no need to move off this talk page if that's where the conversation started. At the same time, I'm sometimes unclear about which issues are set for me to address--so, don't feel afraid to say "Hey, Jclemens, what about...?" and make it as explicit as possible what you'd like me to weigh in on. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jclemens. My impression of the case is that one side got "punished" more than the other because the "prosecuting" side presented most of the evidence and the other side didn't defend itself. So, my question to you is: what does ArbCom do when only one side presents evidence? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it did, in fact, affect the outcome. There are a couple of ways ArbCom can deal with things:

• Just work on the presented evidence: quick, high likelihood of the best storyteller getting the most favorable outcome.
• Ask an uninvolved editor to look at diffs. In doing so, I've been accused of non-transparency, even if all the diffs used in the case were posted online with my commentary.
• Redo everything ourselves and present the evidence that we find. We run the risk of being accused of persecuting case participants, it takes forever to do, and even still, there's no guarantee that political considerations won't undermine the findings. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think approach #2 might have been useful if you'd picked truly uninvolved editors in good standing. Captain Occam (talk · contribs) has a troubled editing history, including ArbCom findings of tendentious agenda-driven editing, edit-warring, and attempting to game the system. He also has a history of animus toward several of the case parties. Arguably, approach #2 could work if the choice of "uninvolved" editor were made more carefully.

As to the broader topic of this thread, I don't think the underlying assumptions are correct. Looking at the actual evidence page, it would appear that 12 editors presented substantial amounts of evidence: NYyankees51, Eraserhead, Vsevolod Krolikov, Anythingyouwant, HuskyHuskie, MastCell, NuclearWarfare, KillerChihuahua, DMSBel, CMLITC, ArtifexMayhem, and RoyBoy. It's not clear to me that any particular "side" is overrepresented on the evidence page - perhaps you could elaborate on your perspective to the contrary? On the workshop/workshop talk pages, Anythingyouwant (generally viewed as a "pro-life" editor) was the heaviest editor by almost a 2:1 margin.

As to defending oneself, it would seem that most of the sanctioned editors did in fact avail themselves of that opportunity. Anythingyouwant defended himself aggressively and at great length. NYyankees51 defended himself on the evidence page and responded to specific concerns here. Haymaker defended himself in a lengthy thread here. As for DMSBel, I doubt that anything said in his defense would have altered the outcome; the fact that he was blocked (again) for edit-warring on abortion during the voting phase of the case probably said it all, in a deeds-louder-than-words sense. In any case, I don't see that the sanctioned editors failed to offer a defense, perhaps with the exceptions of Michael C. Price and Gandydancer.

Finally, it's interesting to see different perspectives on this case's outcome. From my point of view, it looks like a number of editors were editing in service of their personal agendas at the expense of the encyclopedia, and were sanctioned as a result. To others, apparently, it looks like the "pro-choice" side won a victory over the "pro-life" side on the basis of better tactical organization. To be honest, I think the latter view - on prominent display in this thread - speaks clearly to an ongoing conception of Wikipedia as an ideological battlefield, which is unfortunate. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think Captain Occam did a rather good and unbiased job. I didn't have to filter much out before I posted diffs (and that wasn't for ideological bias, but just for excessive thoroughness) which is part of the reason I set myself up to be that sort of filter. It also got him off his current dispute and focusing on something else, which I also considered a good outcome.

With respect to defense, I agree with you to a certain extent, MastCell, but I think we can agree that not every argument made was presented with equal effectiveness, and that you and NW had an edge at presenting camera-ready evidence.

I don't dispute that Wikipedia is an ideological battlefield to many, many people. If I could fix one thing about Wikipedia, it would be to get people to internalize NPOV: that every side deserves to have its best foot put forward, and the readers get to filter things through their own belief systems. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, my perspective on your presentation of the evidence is that it was one-sided. Please refresh my memory: which pro-choice editor did you present evidence against? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I outlined the criteria I used to identify problematic editing during the case, the last time someone tried to work this angle. I'll repeat my question, since it went notably unanswered last time: which other editors ("pro-choice" or not) do you think deserved sanction, and on what basis? What did I overlook, in my one-sidedness? I essentially asked people to put up or shut up on this last time it came up, and the response then was deafening silence. MastCell ^Talk 01:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a squealer, I'm not a prosecutor, and, unlike you, I've never heard the expression "It takes one to tango". I find it unlikely that only the pro-life partisans were misbehaving. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to take MastCell up on his offer, actually. Remember, as things are now under discretionary sanctions, evidence of past misbehavior may well be calculated in to future sanctions, even if the evidence wasn't brought forth in a timely enough manner for the case. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It may take two to tango, but it only takes one to edit disruptively. I've never really found those sorts of cliches useful - they're more like ways of avoiding thinking - but your mileage may vary. Sometimes, things that one finds unlikely turn out to be true. You never know unless you actually test your assumptions. Which is what I'm (again) inviting you to do. It's entirely possible I missed something, and if so, I'd like to know. MastCell ^Talk 04:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I won't be presenting evidence here, for the reasons I gave. What's ironic, MastCell, is that while you're distressed that some of us have a battlefield mentality and edit according to our beliefs, you are apparently unable to see how your own belief system influenced the one-sided way you prosecuted this arbitration. That kind of blindness is unfortunate in an admin. You know as well as I do that there were established edit-warriors involved on both sides. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo, I don't find your reasoning for not taking MastCell up on his offer too compelling. I think you're undermining your position by postulating inequities, but failing to work to find and document them. If I missed something, if there was a miscarriage of justice by way of inappropriatley unbalanced sanctions, I really want to know that. At the same time, I'm far from the best person to review my own work--I've reviewed so much I get crosseyed going near the topic. If you won't do it, do you think you could recruit someone else to do so? Jclemens-public (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No. The time for presenting evidence is over. The lopsided result is more "justice half-done" than a "miscarriage of justice". It occurred because the system allowed two admins to prosecute the arbitration as though all the bad behavior was committed by one side in the controversy, which is absurd on its face. When analyzing a controversy, admins need to be held to a high standard of impartiality so that bad behavior on both sides is addressed. Editors in an arbitration should be allowed to be adversarial; admins, on the other hand, should be required to be completely impartial because they hold positions of authority and their higher level of expertise gives them power that ordinary editors do not have. Based on the evidence presented and the manner of its presentation, ArbCom was "constrained" to decide the case the way it did. --Kenatipo ^speak! 07:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there - I only got a notification in September that a proposal had been made. I never knew that this had moved onto the evidence and later proposed decision sections until I looked one day for the first time and saw that I was going to be sanctioned. If I had been made aware of how far this would have progressed I would have been active in the evidence section not only sharing diffs and commenting on other users actions but also in working to explain mine. I generally agree with Kenatipo, this feels more like justice half done than justice miscarried. - Haymaker (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review for A Golden Crown

Hello! I have reviewed A Golden Crown, and placed it on hold. You can see my comments at the review page. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin's incivility

I haven’t been paying close attention to this because I’m involved in a dispute on another article, but I’ve just noticed that during the week since the abortion arbitration case closed, OrangeMarlin seems to already be returning to his old ways. He’s making 50+ edits per day, so inability to participate due to illness clearly is no longer an issue. And he’s also returning to the same uncivil behavior that was discussed during the case, although since he’s no longer editing abortion articles, it’s now happening elsewhere.

Here are some of his comments directed at other editors during the time since the case closed: [10] [11] [12]

And here are some of his comments about what he thinks of you, based on your having argued in favor of him being topic banned. [13] [14] [15] [16] The last comment is directed at both you and me, with the phrase “go fuck yourself” four times in one paragraph.

When ArbCom ruled that OrangeMarlin needed to contact them upon his return to editing and before he resumed participating in abortion articles, I’m assuming that what they intended wasn’t that he would just continue the same behavior elsewhere. Do you have an opinion about how this ought to be handled at this stage? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I have my own ideas, but you might want to ask some of the ArbCom members who voted against the finding of fact or sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don’t have a clear understanding of how ArbCom feels about this issue in general. I’m hoping that the only reason any arbitrators voted against the finding of fact was because of OrangeMarlin’s inability to participate in the case, but I can’t tell whether some of them might have a different attitude from you about incivility in general. The reason I asked you is because you’re the one person who I know agrees that this sort of incivility shouldn’t be overlooked, so I figured you were the most likely to have ideas what should be done about it.

If you think I should get the opinions of other arbitrators, what’s the best way to do that? If you think I should post about this on several in their talk pages, I’d also appreciate it if you could suggest which specific arbitrators whom I should contact about it. (I’m assuming I shouldn’t make a massive cross-posting to the user talk of every member of ArbCom.) --Captain Occam (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It was my job to point out everyone's incivility in the Abortion case. That's now over, so my specific responsibility is as well. Contrary to several people's opinion, (including, apparently, his own) I really don't care about Orangemarlin. He's been incivil, violated NPA flagrantly, repeatedly, and without remorse, but my opinion that regardless of his health or lack thereof, his conduct has been incompatible with our civility pillar has not swayed the committee. If any of those who deferred the findings of fact or sanctions cared, they are perfectly capable of bringing it up on their own. You could file a request for clarification, I suppose. Feel free to skip Arbcom, since the recent behavior is mostly independent of the case, and report him to WP:ANI and see what happens, if you like. I've said my peace, and either he will change, or someday someone will block him. It's not my place to fret over the situation, else being an arb would be completely impossible! Jclemens-public (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. I have one other question about this: what sort of sanction is most typical in response to someone being persistently uncivil across a wide range of articles? Since the incivility isn’t confined to a single topic area, it doesn’t seem like a topic ban would resolve it. In this sort of situation is the only effective remedy a site-ban, or is there a lesser sanction that’s commonly used when this happens? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think civility is one of the most inconsistently applied areas of administrator intervention and other corrective action. I'm not sure that there is a really good answer to your question. Jclemens-public (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone else has brought up OrangeMarlin's incivility on AN/I already, here. Since I don’t entirely understand what ArbCom intended with their remedy for him in the abortion case, I’m not able to say whether his recent behavior is or isn’t consistent with that. But if you have an opinion about this, it might be worthwhile for you to comment there. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the discussion, thank you. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Your argument to revert to "Afd" was a non-argument, since "deletion" and "discussion" are both at "d". But since I was reverted again, , and respecting WP:BRD, I opened a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Bold.2C_revert.2C_discuss. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Revered again, eh? Friendly bit of advice, here: While WP:BRD is simply labeled as a "best practice", once someone has initially reverted you on a change to a major policy or process page (no matter how minor and correct you believe your change to be), then you're almost certainly going to be reverted a second time if you undo the reversion, so you might as well start the discussion after the first reversion.

On the specifics of this case: All our peculiar capitalizations are just that: peculiar capitalizations. Since AfD, RfA, etc. are all acronyms, the more standard English way of writing them would be R.F.D., etc. to the best of my recollection. But since periods have been being dropped silently from acronyms for years, then the full caps RFD, etc. would probably be more in line with mainstream usage. Having said that, my motivation for reverting you has nothing to do with my opinion on which capitalization is proper, but rather serves to highlight the distinction between "deletion" discussions and "discussion" discussions. As you may or may not know, I am one of the vocal minority who believes that AfD should migrate from deletion to discussion. Consensus has not favored that in the past, but the topic was raised again and is currently being bantered about (calling it a formal change proposal would be incorrect) on the WT:AFD talk page currently. As such, I would like the stylistic differences to remain as long as the semantic differences do. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's pouring thrones

Okay lets finish this. I went through the whole article again and instead of suggesting changes just made them. Hope you don't mind, revert/change any you don't agree with. The cast in the guest list still confuses me a bit. Apart from that I am happy with it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it another pass tonight. I think I spotted one typo, and I can go through and try and trim the guest star list a bit more. Thanks for all the work you've put into helping me improve this article. Jclemens-public (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Passed, congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work--and patience--with me on this. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Closing of DRV(climate change alarmism)

What exactly does numerical representation[17] have to do with the issue? AfD's and DRV's aren't supposed to be pollings. But instead an argumentation based on policy, with a derived closure based upon the weight of the arguments. That was the trouble with the AfD closure - and it is the trouble with the DRV closure - that this is not happening. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he was merely making a comparison. The "arguments" at DRV were mostly merely AFD pt 2, which is not permitted. There was no consensus to change the AFD based on policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Fucking bullshit. (I am strongly moved, and argument based on policy demonstrably counts for nothing.) The DRV is inconsistent with the original Afd, where a near even split of sentiments was claimed as consensus, and a minority opinion selected as the supposed conensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel the wording of your post above will impress many people? (especially Mr. Clemens?) Collect (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope that no one has taken my strong language as any kind of personal admonition. What I generally try to impress people with is careful analysis of views, clarity of argument, a solid foundation, and a willingness to engage in reasonable debate. And even a willingness to accept the views of others when they prove superior. But when there is a constant misinterpretation of facts and misstatements of the views of others, when the attempt at reasoned debate is trumped by the factually incorrect personal opinions of the admin (I refer here to the Afd), when what I value and would impress people with counts for nothing, then I see little point in trying to impress anyone beyond a strong dissent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got pretty thick skin. I do suggest avoiding exasperated language in general, though, because it doesn't tend to accomplish much. I hope my suggestions for how to proceed are helpful. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely in disagreement with that (that it was to some extent AfDv.2). But that doesn't moot my question here - does it? Numerical representations are not what should determine an AfD - or a DRV... Correct? I'm still waiting for an explanation based upon the merits of the arguments - and not simply a "i can't find the numbers to say something" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• The DRV was closed as no consensus. That seems reasonable, given the divided opinions, but is not an endorsement of the close and so it didn't settle anything. As the article was not deleted, the matter is now open to further ordinary editing in which editors may continue to explore the various options and sources for these topics per WP:BRD, right? Notice how the RfC for Yogurt/Yoghurt was immediately refought and reversed. Why would this case be any different? If the Keep camp was strongest, as it appeared, then they might press the point, eh? But what of the general arbcom sanctions on the Climate Change topic? Please advise... Warden (talk)

The way *I* would suggest going forward, if you want to restore the information to a separate article, is to put so much relevant, reliably sourced information on the term into the target article that people are complaining that it's unbalanced. Then, you have a great case for splitting it back into its own article again. Nothing is being deleted, the term is just being covered as a topic within an article rather than its own article. While I would not have closed a closely contested AfD as anything other than "no consensus, default to keep", the fact is that at DRV, that same approach yields "no consensus, default to endorse". There was neither a numerical or overwhelming policy reason to undo a merge, and yet there was not an overwhelming consensus that the merge was proper, so "no consensus" is my read of the DRV results. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The policy reason, per WP:DELREV, is that "the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". That is a point that could be examined as a factual issue, independently of which side can yell loudest. But where you look at only the numerical count of opinions, and the DRV is essentially a rehash of the AfD, with the same players, why would you expect a different result? By the same reasoning where you declared "no consensus" in the DRV, the AfD was also "no consensus". That is a misinterpretation, that effectively inverts policy and makes a mockery of consensus. But so what? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so in the DRV, all I evaluated is as the closer was "did consensus say that the AfD was closed improperly?" And there was no consensus there that the debate was closed improperly. There were roughly split opinions, without either numerical or argumentation superiority, such that "no consensus" was the result. Jclemens (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Jclemens for helping to promote Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This was very well said

:***Editors are responsible for their own editing, essentially indefinitely, but especially in a proximate ArbCom case. Whether they're inebriated, emotionally disturbed, mentally incompetent, suffering physical pain, facing their own mortality... none of these external circumstances ... absolve an editor from the responsibility to edit in an appropriate manner, which includes collegiality.

I wasn't paying attention to any of the event from November; just the last 3 days so I don't have a real solid opinion on that period. WP:civil needs this added. Alatari (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So here is a succinct form of it that could be added to the WP:civil:

• Editors are responsible for their own editing. Inebriation, emotionally disturbance, overly tired, mental incompetence, physical pain, or dying; none of these external circumstances absolve an editor from the responsibility to edit with civility.

I'm of the opinion that Inebriation is possible number one external factor for adult editors being uncivil followed by overly tired and then narcissistic personality and borderline personality. A great deal of the other problems are from being under 18 and lacking emotional maturity. Alatari (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If all of that is true, then presumably the countries where it's possible to get drunk legally while under 18, must be the perfect storm of incivility! That'd be Austria, Cyprus, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Georgia, Cambodia, Jamaica, Haiti, Sudan and Morocco. Strangely though, I'd never noticed an incivility problem from those countries in particular :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, how many editors are from those countries? My great grandmother was Austrian and she was trouble. ;) Alatari (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been told by one other ArbCom member that I ought to write something similar. I'll probably re-articulate these in more general terms in an essay. Jclemens (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

CSD proposal

Hey, I was disappointed when you didn't chime in here. I'd love to hear your thoughts! causa sui (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I think it's too nuanced to be a CSD criterion. Three separate prongs? The multipronged extant CSD criteria are often not applied correctly. I think your motives are good, but documenting these at WP:OUTCOMES may be a more reasonable effort than adding a whole new CSD criterion. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

When do the election results get published?

Hello, Jclemens. How long do we have to wait for the scrutineers to certify the ArbCom election? I voted in support of your re-election for your strong stand in favor of CIVILITY and for the common sense in your comments. It is truly discouraging to see a strong current flowing against you. Hope you make it, man! --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. If indeed only the entrenched core of voters who are distressed at someone else "threatening" their right to ignore the civility pillar voted, I expect I will be out of my ArbCom job pretty soon. But I've got real hope that the electorate will have seen through the manufactured objections to the real motivations behind those who opposed my reelection... Jclemens-public (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as how soon we'll know? Your guess is as good as mine. Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just read the exchange between KieferWolfowitz and skomorohk on the ArbCom election page and understand it could take up to 5 days! We're spoiled here in the Old Dominion—in a state-wide election involving millions of votes, we know within a few hours of the polls closing what the results are. (Maybe all the computer geeks swarming around Wikipedia make tampering more likely!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the results are in, and I'll finish out a second year on ArbCom. Given the rather vocal opposition I got from some well-traffic'ed guide writers, WMC supporters, and OM supporters, I'm pleased that my support numbers actually increased vs. last election. My thanks to those who believe I'm articulating a better path for Wikipedia for placing your trust and votes in my reelection; I would not have this chance to serve without the iceberg of support that has overcome the negative campaigning against me. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations - I hope my bullet-vote helped <g>. Collect (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

This is a reply to your comments on Orangemarlins talk page. As far as I know/recall we have not previously crossed paths; I first became aware of the current situation when the recent AN/I thread was started. Personally, I am quite relieved at the action Risker took in indeffing OM et. al.

Nothing herein is intended to excuse Orangemarlin's behavior. In my opinion, he should have been indeffed and his "parting shot" comments suppressed when he announced his departure last July. That did not happen; it is was it is.

I understand you have been subjected to repeated loathsome personal attacks by Orangemarlin. You did not deserve this. At this point it is cliche that Wikipedia is dysfunctional in maintaining its civility pillar: the problem is everyone agrees we should be civil but no one agrees what that means.

I understand and empathize with your reasoning that Wikipedia standards should remain constant regardless of real life factors affecting editors. However, Wikipedia is a social environment and, after a certain amount of time a perceptive observer of the human condition should conclude The most illogical thing a person can do is expect people to behave logically. The fact is that people have a tendency "to feel sorry for" a person under going significant tribulations. I thought the ArbCom remedy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Proposed_decision#Orangemarlin_instructed was a Solomon like response.

Captain Occam's notification to ArbCom [18] was all that was necessary and prudent (although his interpretation that what uninvolved editors would consider "playful banter" was "ominous" was off). SirFozzie promptly replied that matter was being handled. Occam's next posting [[19]], specifically This might sound overly cynical of me, but it seems like a strange coincidence that after being absent from Wikipedia for four months, OrangeMarlin returned within a few hours after the decision to not sanction him due to his absence received enough support to pass was a pseudo-carefully worded vile personal attack. The proper response at the point should have been a stern rebuke. Your reply is easily perceived as passively endorsing this attack.

Hard work, solid reasoning skills, understanding of policy and believe in the work of the encyclopedia are necessary conditions for an effective ArbCom or senior administrator and all the evidence I've seen thus far indicates you have demonstrated these. While necessary, there are not sufficient; a certain cultural sensitivity is also required, and currently that appears to be lacking. Gerardw (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerard, thank you for taking the time to think through and write a considered response to the situation. I do not think I have been previously asked to comment on Captain Occam's recent conduct. In case anyone reviewing the archives hasn't seen my comments to his posts here, it appears that he didn't take the hints to drop the stick and back away from the dispute. It is always a bit sad when an established editor is indef'ed, but in his case, it appears to be every bit as justified as Orangemarlin's indef is. While I initially asked him to help me out in order to distract him from his dispute with Mathsci, it appears that he became too invested in the dispute, trying to "win" it even when the case had been closed. Sure, anyone with a brain cell can make the same observation about Orangemarlin's timing... but the whole point about Orangemarlin is that he lacks appropriate self control. To posit that he stayed off to avoid sanctions (which weren't close to passing by any reading), but yet returned immediately afterwards to behave as incivilly as before... requires him to have, and not have, self control. ABF notwithstanding, this is not the 1980's Infocom Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy text adventure game (where one must have both "tea" and "no tea" to win).

With respect to the cultural sensitivity bit, I tend to agree. I think the real balance lies somewhere between accepting every excuse (the de facto status quo), and accepting none. If I had my way, I would indeed have had Orangemarlin blocked well before he could have convinced everyone who didn't already know him that he's irredeemably incivil... but as a preventative/corrective, rather than punitive, matter. But that isn't really possible in a polarized environment where people defend their friends against legitimate complaints, making excuses for unacceptable conduct. There are probably three or more editors whose defense of Orangemarlin essentially prolonged and exacerbated the problem, when they should have been counseling Orangemarlin to behave in an appropriately civil manner. Now, whatever apology he makes is going to be seen by all sorts of people who have decided to watch the train wreck. That's not going to be easy on his pride, I don't imagine. As I've said before, elsewhere in other contexts, it's the duty of friends to "talk down" those who are wrong. Several folks have done that for me over the years. For example, I've learned that if DGG ever tells me I'm off base... I really need to reexamine what I'm doing or saying. Paradoxically, those who sought to preserve Orangemarlin may well have worsened the problem.

How, specifically, do you think I should have handled things more optimally, given the background of the situation? Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Consistent with my new user name, let me ponder that for a bit before I get back to you. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You have asked for specific feedback on my opinion of how you could have handled the events surrounding Orangemarlin more optimally. I have reviewed the Abortion arbitration case and the current text on Orangemarlin's talk page but make no claim to have fully reviewed all past interactions.

I have found this difficult due to the extraordinary circumstances of an editor whose behavior has far exceeded the standards of Wikipedia civility suffering a tragic near death experience as discussion of their actions transpired, and I do not envy the difficulties of arbitrating such a case. After this additional review, my overall impression is as I first posted; it is not so much a matter of content as tone. Additionally, I have relunctanctly reached the conclusions that there is likely no possible wording you could have to used to avoid offending some editors who might consider your viewpoint heartless; it would be counterproductive to the effective operation of Wikipedia if we become so politicially correct we fail to speak forthrightly. While due diligience with respect to precision of phrasing is appropriate, there is a point we have to realize Rick Nelson's Garden party anthem you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself

That said, I have identified specific phrasing which could be problematic, along with alternative suggestions. In isolation, I would consider these nits and would not raise them with any editor who had not specifically invited a critical analysis; they are intended as implicit suggestions for future actions as an editor/administrator/arbitraitor in a more positive way rather than finding of fault for past actions. I would consider it unfortunate if other editors observing this dialog saw this as an opportunity to pile on and rehash old grievances.

You wrote:
It saddens me that so much of the committee is unwilling to call egregious behavior... egregious. Orangemarlin was made aware of the case, and declined to participate. Off-wiki reality does not excuse yet another clearly "guilty" (inasmuch as this is not a real judicial proceeding, yet evidence is presented and fault is being assessed) party escaping a just and appropriate reward for their behavior. Likewise, I am aware of past ArbCom conflicts with Orangemarlin, but that was substantially before my time and no factor, for good or ill, in my assessment of Orangemarlin's behavior. If we can't sanction Orangemarlin--no, wait, if we can't even come to the agreement that his behavior was entirely inappropriate and inexcusable--then we really have no moral authority to sanction any other party in these disputes.

This unfairly mischaracterizes what the rest of the committee was saying. The language here is a little too emotional (saddens me); As you note, Wikipedia dispute resolution is not a judicial proceeding, so using legal terminology such as guilty or moral authority are best avoided. Alternate wording, such as

I disagree with much of the committee deferring finding on fact due to an editors inability to participate as it is unfair to the other parties in these disputes. While understanding the reasoning for deferral in this particular case, it seems a dangerous precedent it which parties can opt out of arbitration proceedings by not participating. Likewise, I am aware of past ArbCom conflicts with Orangemarlin, but that was substantially before my time and no factor in my assessment of Orangemarlin's behavior.

1.First choice. Well, first choice of presented options. I have decided not to put forward an outright ban because it is apparent there is no support for it, which is a shame.
would have been better without the "which is a shame."

Or should we just drop the pretense, and automagically give everyone who says they have real-world medical problems a "get out of ArbCom free" pass? That seems to be the direction we're heading, and I don't see any collective will within the committee to change it.

As I indicated in my initial post, this by far the most troublesome comment. In the context it which it was raised -- an editor's veiled implication that Orangemarlin was faking or exaggerating their real life condition, a firm statement that assume good faith is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia and reiterating that the committee was aware of Orangemarlin's return and that Elen had contacted them would have been vastly preferrable. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's another reasoned, fair assessment. While the revisions don't sound like me, I certainly could have said something more along those lines. You've accurately highlighted the most frustrated of my posts on the topic, as well.

In the future, how could I better get across the point that I think on-wiki behavior must be considered in isolation, that I can wish Orangemarlin (or whomever else, he's not the first case we've dealt with in my year as an arb) a speedy recovery at the same time blocking him until he can behave in a manner consistent with wikipedia expectations? I don't appear to have communicated that effectively, and saying "it doesn't matter" and "I don't care" in various ways just seems to have incensed those who think it does matter and I should care. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The examples were meant to be illustrative, not prescriptive.

I'd suggest something like 'While wishing editor (a speed recovery, makes bail, Mom restores PC access), I think on-wiki behavior must be considered in isolation and therefore support (sanction); editor X is encourage to contact the committee upon their return to present their viewpoint, at which point sanctions will be reviewed by the committee.' Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, @Jclemens: The way you expressed that just now is fine. Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with your position on Orangemarlin (I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it as a reasonable perspective on the situation). The problem was with Captain Occam's insinuation that Orangemarlin was manipulating his illness, and your (witting or unwitting) amplification of his insinuation.

Looking at the thread in question, Occam raised his concern, which was appropriately answered by SirFozzie. Occam then repeated his concern, this time insinuating that Orangemarlin was manipulating his illness to affect the outcome of the ArbCom case. That was an incredibly uncivil accusation. Frankly, if I had been through a near-death experience, I probably wouldn't care if someone called me a sociopathic fucktard, but I would care, deeply, if they insinuated that I was somehow faking aspects of my illness. It should be obvious to any reasonably empathetic person that Occam's comment was highly offensive.

At that point, there were several options: calling out Occam's incivility, ignoring it, or amplifying on his insinuations. I wouldn't have faulted you for ignoring his comment - certainly I get a bit tired of people claiming that it's my personal responsibility to call out every instance of incivility, and I think the best course is usually to ignore uncivil comments rather than draw attention to them (after all, they're usually a form of attention-seeking behavior). I was disappointed to see you take the third tack. Intentionally or not (and it appears it was unintentional), your follow-on comment had the effect of amplifying Occam's insinuation. It's one thing for Occam, an editor with what could charitably be called a checkered past, to make such a comment, but another for it to apparently gain traction and support from the drafting Arb on the case.

So I think a lot of it isn't so much what you said as the timing, manner, and context in which you said it. But that's just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intent to amplify Occam's statements. While we've had editors lie to ArbCom about their health status repeatedly, there was no particular reason to doubt Orangemarlin's status. I guess I see how a non-denouncement may have come across as support for it, but I had no reason to accept or reject Orangemarlin's status--AGF'ing on my part doesn't extend to saying "I believe you" to unverifiable statements made by strangers. I don't do that to people who are spinning fanciful tales to me in the exam room, either. I seriously had a guy tell me he got parallel lacerations on his penis by tripping, running into a door, and siding down to the ground while he had been walking around his house nude. Suuure.... no bruises, no other cuts anywhere, just 2 lacerations perpendicular to the long axis. Even though the story I was given didn't remotely mesh the facts, I just said "Oh, how unfortunate" and carefully sutured his lacerated skin. It wasn't my job to comment on his claims, just to fix the problem that had presented itself. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on another term to ArbCom. Or maybe I should say, sorry you have deal with all the troubles of Wikipedia again. Either way, I'm happy for your success. BTW, thanks for the WP:NIME essay. I do feel it reflects a segment of our population here at Wikipedia. Thanks for your dedicated support of our project. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jclemens. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And me. Well done Jc. Good work in the past and good luck for the future and many thanks for your contributions. Youreallycan (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. I was clearly very wrong about you last year and I supported your candidacy this year. In fact, the only reason I voted this year was to correct that mistake. Good luck. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I'm humbled. What's one thing that I did that exceeded (or reversed) your expectations? Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid to say this. However, since you're asking I thought you did very well on the abortion case and not least defended yourself well without bowing under pressure (and I'm quite sure I'm not the only editor who silently agrees with that). That got me curious so I looked at your votes in the Manipulation of BLPs case and I saw nothing that warranted my concerns last year. Those two things combined changed my mind. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know shit about ArbCom except the little that I learned (and more that confused me) on this Abortion case. The whole thing seems like a muckymuck affair, and I just hope that what happened with Abortion isn't typical. Having said that, one of the few things I picked up on was that you were having to hold your ground against greater numbers of Arbicommers, and as the editor above noted, you acquitted yourself quite well. I'm glad you were there for the whole matter. I don't really understand the significance of the decision—didn't seem like much of anything changed—but I'm glad that someone was there saying things that made sense to me, and that was you. Congrats and, more importantly, thank you for standing again. HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Hi Jclemens, forgive me if this is a dumb question, but are abortion articles still subject to 1RR after the case, or are they just under discretionary sanctions? Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. I would go ahead and behave as if they still were, but that's just me: I behave as if the entire encyclopedia is 1RR the vast majority of the time. I know the wording that passed wasn't the original proposal, but unless we explicitly say we're taking away a community remedy, assume that we're not. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Another question - I used the {{inuse}} template to make many edits [20] to the Susan B. Anthony List article. Am I in violation of 1RR there[21]? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiple consecutive edits by the same editor have never been considered multiple reverts for purposes of edit warring. I do not see why the user would have accused you of edit warring; please engage with HIM to find out what his objection is. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh...?

Topic overrun by unhelpful input

Why are you, an administrator, nominating an article such as this for GA status? Not to be rude but the article is quite bad. This just doesn't make any sense to me... Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Because it takes three months for an article to be reviewed through the normal queue process. I'm nominating it for GA not because it's already there, but because I believe it can be in an appropriate time frame. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I see! But what if someone reviews it just a week after it's been nominated or something like that, wouldn't that kind of be a waste of the reviewer's time? Theleftorium (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC) The guidelines suggest that folks work from the top down, and I would hope that if someone had a particular reason for taking that one out of order, they'd ask the nom about such a circumstance. But, I think such an out-of-order pick is unlikely: of the 10 episodes in the season, that is the last to air, the last article in the season to be created, the last in my efforts to get the whole season to GA, and hence the last one upon which I plan on focusing my efforts. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Alright, that makes sense. I love the series so good luck! :) Theleftorium (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC) While I am leading this drive, there is absolutely no reason others are not welcome to help out! Four have passed GA from four different reviewers, as well as a couple of failures thrown in with varying degrees of useful commentary, so there's plenty of ideas and source material to work with. The limiting factor in my drive to get season 1 to a Good Topic before Season 2 begins airing is my time to do research and improvement... Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I have some other things I need to prioritize right now but I'll try to help out when I have time! Theleftorium (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Why are you re-nominating Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) without making any of the fixes indicated in the recent review and in the tags in the article? You do realize that it will be failed in its current state, right? As TheLeftorium indicated above, this is going to be a waste of some reviewer's time. Articles should come to GAN needing only a few fixes, not a complete overhaul. As an administrator, you really should know better. Ruby 2010/2013 20:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC) In short, because I'm expecting the next reviewer to not pick from the end of the queue, unlike how you picked from the middle of the queue, and the newest of six nominations in the category by me. There's a reason it's an ordered list. I'm not taking your review to WP:GAR, because it appears fair and accurate, and because I have every intention of completing the changes by the time it's actually the turn for the article to be reviewed. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC) One thing you may not be aware of, is that I have routinely waited three months for GAs in this series to be reviewed. Five days since nomination is astoundingly and uncharacteristically quick. In an ideal world, where the GA queue was not so long, then I would wait and polish articles before nominating them. As is, I nominate things ahead of time... not to waste anyone's time, but to budget my own. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC) So, because you assume everyone chooses from the top of the list, you are waiting to improve your nominations? Do you realize how silly that sounds? Reviewers have free will, and they have every right to choose from the bottom of the list if they're so inclined (especially during this GAN drive). When, pray tell, do you plan to improve the Game of Thrones episode articles? After they've been quickfailed? Because all the ones you've nominated need significant work. Ruby 2010/2013 20:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I assume nothing, except that editors performing reviews follow the guidelines articulated in the GA process itself. WP:GAN gives the following directions "nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority, except where the nominator has other articles under review." Thus, my expectations are that people will 1) pick from the top of the list, and 2) avoid picking a nomination from a particular editor when that editor already has another article on review. You didn't do either one of those things, but I'm not particularly griping about it, because you DID give me actionable feedback, for which you have my thanks. Do be sure to familiarize yourself with the actual quickfail criteria as well, please. To the best of my knowledge, none of the articles I nominated meet them. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I also want to note that this is disruptive behavoir and kick in the nuts to all who actually worked on articles before nominating. Especially renominating an article which was failed without even fixing the issues. Why are you wasting reviewers time? You take valuable time away from people who actually worked on something. --Maitch (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Wow... hyperbole much? The only point of immediate renomination is to reduce queue time. Any editor who reviews GA nominated articles without respect to the guidelines for doing so (i.e., by picking from the middle/end of the queue and/or reviewing an article by an editor who already has one on hold in that subtopic) has only themselves to blame for any wasted effort. If someone re-reviews Fire and Blood immediately, then that's their problem, not mine. Again, if people want to fix the GA review throughput such that five days is typical lag, then I would be happy to revisit the idea of proactive nominations. As is, I'm growing less fond of the backlog elimination drive with every such complaint. I'll note that I've been doing GA's for three and a half years now, and probably have a better idea of how things have been going over the long run than most Wikipedians. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Wow, you been here for three years - thats great. I have been here since 2005. Sometimes it takes three months to get somethings reviewed, sometimes it takes a few days. Get over it! It the same for everyone of us. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Maitch (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC) No, I've been getting GA's passed for three and a half years. I've been an admin for three years. And I know what WP:POINT is and is not. As far as telling me to "get over it"... you really think that it's appropriate to go to someone else's talk page, accuse them of bad faith and disruption, and then tell them to "get over it"? The action speaks for itself... and not kindly, I'm afraid. This topic is closed. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCOM: How Admins deal with one another...

Humorous images, messing with the below thread.
How admins deal with other admins they disagree with...---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I think the board upon which the subject is restrained looks far too smooth and splinter-free, actually. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Ok, you are probably right, this is more realistic.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

Hi JClemens, is it too late for me to comment here?[22] I've had a hellish week at work and am just getting around to my emails and Wikipedia notifications. Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that it's opened, yes. You can provide evidence in the case on the appropriate page, though. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so if I'm reading everything correctly, on that main page, I can no longer comment... thus, I've used my evidence and statement section on the appropriate page to leave what would have been my comment on what became the case page. That sound about right? -R ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's not, a clerk should either move them or tell you how to place them in the correct area. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome - much thanks! -R ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

3 years later, reconcidering the Notabillity of Nassim Haramein? (I'm not a new-age-guy or a believer of his "theories")

Hello!

I'm not a very active contributer to wikipedia (have only made a few anonymous spelling corrections etc.) So my reasoning may be very off in this case. Please let me know in that case!

I recently came across a character called Nassim Haramein. On youtube, he has some very new-agey ideas that he mixes with physical theories. Classic pseudo-science-stuff. In this case, however I got intriuged, because the problems he formulates are interesting. I wanted to look around for some critics, wich is alway available for controversial ideas. Naturally, I went to wikipedia, were I found out that you had deleted his page in 2009.

The reason was that he was not noteworthy if I understand thins correctly. However, most of the arguments are about weather his Ideas are plausable or not.

Maybe this has changed since 2009 or maybe it doesn't matter, however, I get around 550 000 hits on google on his name and I he has a bunch of videos on youtube , some with views in the 100 000:s. He also seems to do a lot of lectures. He also won this peer-reviewed award(however I have no idea if it is to be concidered valid) http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/1303.jsp

Also his latest paper has been peer reiviewd and published at American Institute of Physics, according to his own blog atleast: http://theresonanceproject.org/the-schwarzschild-proton-paper-at-the-american-institute-of-physics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoffernolgren (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

To me this seems like enough to concider him a public figure. At least so it's possible to present critisism to his ideas by people who get exposed to them.

Have great day, I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this matter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoffernolgren (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why are you asking me this? I didn't opine on his deletion, or delete his article that I can see. I think a better person to ask would be User:DGG who did weigh in on the last AfD, and opined that he did not meet inclusion criteria at that time. He's a librarian familiar with academic sourcing, and if you can't convince DGG that an article on an academic is worthwhile, odds are very, very strong that the community will agree with him. As for me, I have no familiarity with the topic, nor much time to research it over the next few days. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Fudge

The DYK project (nominate) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted, thank you very much. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviving a Page

Hi there, I hope I'm doing the talk thing right. I like to initiate a page for the Iranian Artist Mr. Alireza Sadaghdar, and there is already a deleted page. The page I would like to make is a biography of the artist. If it is the same content as the deleted page, will you please bring the page back so that I can edit it and add new content? Thanks. Mehdisad (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can, and will, but let me explain what I'm doing here: Since that article is about a living person but has no references, I'm going to tag it for BLPPROD. What that means is, in 10 days, if no sources have been added to the article, it will be deleted again. So, in a minute or two here, your countdown will start, and you'll have plenty of time to add content to what was already there... and a 10 day deadline to do so. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after pulling it back, it looks to have an unreliable, self-published source to the artist's own webpage. That should be enough to avoid a timed deletion, but the article does really need more content, and additional references, e.g. to commentaries on Mr. Sadaghdar's work in magazines, books, or the popular press. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of Addy12

You blocked for that? Boy, I wish you'd been around when people were adding claims about George Soros cited to sources that called him a "bigoted pro-abortion mogul" and paragraphs about politicians cited to press releases from organizations that campaign against them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP has gotten a lot more serious as things have moved from a dinky little website full of IPC content. The guy got a personally tailored warning, and then tried a different way of abusing sourcing, which was just not cool. As of now, if he's one of the regular customers in LGBT issues (Benjiboi, Otto4711, or WikiManOne), he'll probably abandon the account now that it has a block in the log. If he's not, he'll either give up and leave (unfortunate, but not altogether avoidable), or pay a lot more attention to sourcing BLPs. I'm sure there's sourcing out there to support his desired reading--but knowingly introducing article mismatch and then deleting a reference so that reference will no longer conflict with the desired reading are both not cool. And, for the record, I'd be more assertive on Soros if that nonsense were happening today and he was on my watchlist. Nonsense like that deserves an immediate indef, with unblock only after acknowledging the BLP policies and at least mouthing intent to comply. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify - the Soros thing was a couple of months ago and the press releases were a few weeks ago. :/ It's not really a sitewide strengthening of BLP - it's just that different people have different views on where it applies. Or so it seems to me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what, you see that sort of shenanigans on any page, no matter where on the political spectrum, and it isn't getting dealt with appropriately, come here and let me know about it, and I'll apply the same sort of swift kick. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering the discussion on his talk page, I think we should unblock him and hope this has been a valuable lesson. -- Luk ^talk 10:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

TimidGuy arbitration

There seems to be a lot of confusion around whether time to post evidence could be extended and whether subpages are permissible for extensive evidence. Some editors me included posted evidence close or slightly after the deadline making it impossible for others to rebut the evidence. In my case I decided to post late in the day and realize I didn't give much time for Doc James to deal with the evidence against him. A definitive statement from the drafting arbs on whether the deadline for posting evidence has been extended and whether evidence can be linked to on subpages might settle the environment on that arbitration which is ever so slightly starting to look like at three ring circus. I can't speak for anyone else but I'd be happy to give editors extra time to reply to my evidence. (olive (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

Thanks. the issue has been resolved.(olive (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

Why is there evidence against Doc James? He is not a party to the case.   Will Beback  talk  19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Doc James saw fit to post and his evidence was being closely scrutinized by an arb, I believe Doc's neutrality is in question per multiple biased edits he made most of which I did not post. Doc also came very close to outing TG and certainly harassing him. If the arbs feel my evidence is unwarranted, I will happily remove it. That's all I have to say on the matter unless an arb has questions, directives or comments.(olive (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC))

What do the arbs think about adding evidence regarding non-parties?   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Followup query on indefinite full protection of User talk:Anythingyouwant

Hi. On November 28, as Anythingyouwant was leaving in a huff, he asked you to fully protect his user and talk pages. You said you'd rather have an uninvolved admin do this than do it yourself. I obliged on December 15, so these pages are now indefinitely fully protected. I wanted to check with you to see if you still feel this protection should be kept up. I know WP:UPROT says that "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected due to retirement is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page" — but I figure you had your reasons in this case. — Richwales 04:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I don't really care one way or the other. I just think Anythingyouwant's wishes should be honored to the greatest extent consistent with policy--I didn't mean to authorize (as if I held any particular authority to do so...) deviation from them, and any implication to that effect was a misstatement on my part. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand. :-) OK, then, I'll unprotect his talk page, but I'll keep an eye on it (it's on my watch list). If anyone posts anything on it, I'll point out that he's retired. — Richwales 05:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

• File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
• Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
• Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but it appears to have been shut down before I got a chance to look at it. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN of Winter Is Coming

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Note this review will be claimed as part of the 2012 WikiCup. Review page is at Talk:Winter Is Coming/GA2. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will address the feedback this weekend. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Another textbook SK: Jelenin svet

When looking at the original, I could understand the nomination... specially as coverage under its Serbian title of Jelenin svet was so limited. I greatly appreciate it when a nominator reverses himself upon article improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I see this has already been done. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Always fun to bring articles into the fold. 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments at Muhammad Workshop

Even though I don't agree with all of them I thought it was really good that you made so many comments on the Muhammad workshop. Good job. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Working out consensus--or trying to--offline was part of the delay in the Abortion decision, which I was justly criticized for during the reelection cycle, so I've been making a concerted effort to participate in the workshop page. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you are commenting, but am concerned that you seem to be weighing in on the content side of things, when it was my understanding that arbitrators were supposed to be more focused on user conduct. If you would like to be involved with the content decisions, you are of course welcome, but perhaps not as an arbitrator? --Elonka 06:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In what way is pointing out how the article differs from other articles on similar topics a content decision? I think there's enough evidence to support a FoF that Muhammad has already been handled in a way no similar historical figure article has been handled. While Arbcom never decides content, it might well be within our remit to put the question to a binding community RfC: is a LOCALCONSENSUS at odds with how deceased individuals who are of historical significance are portrayed to be allowed to continue? Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to a community-wide RfC, as long as it is framed properly (i.e., just having an RfC "should biographies have images" isn't likely to produce useful commentary). But my question for you though, is as to the purpose of the case. Is it open so that ArbCom can decide how the content should be handled? Or to review the behavior of the editors involved in the dispute, to see who may have been blocking consensus or behaving inappropriately? --Elonka 07:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While the primary focus is on user conduct, as are our remedies, how far a particular dispute has drifted from community expectations and norms is always a valid question, IMHO, with which to frame the discussion. In this particular case, pointing the discrepancies out is as much a part of the dispute resolution process as cutting through the indefensible policy interpretations set forth by the disputants. The closest ArbCom comes to deciding how content is handled is by 1) binding RfCs, essentially forcing the community to choose, or 2) (topic) banning enough participants from one side of a dispute for their own behavioral deficits such that swaying the outcome becomes a side effect. While 2) is never a goal, neither does ArbCom artificially attempt to "balance" bans based on "sides" in a dispute: if all or a majority of the people on one side of a debate have been disruptively editing a topic, for example, while those who disagree have been civil and following community behavioral expectations, that will likely end in a de facto consensus shift after the decision is implemented. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just pointing out that I was getting uncomfortable with how your comments seemed to be veering more into content opinions, than I would normally expect from an arbitrator who was supposed to be reviewing things in a neutral manner. --Elonka 16:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While I haven't followed the Muhammad case, this does tie into a similar concern I had about the TimidGuy ban appeal case. There, the Arbs seem to be doing neither 1) nor 2) above, but rather using an "analysis of evidence" section to weigh in on which particular aspects of a specific source should be emphasized in an article. I agree with Elonka, in that if an Arb wants to get involved in the details of content and sourcing then they need to take off their Arb hat and act as a regular editor. That's always been expected of admins, but it seems like the line is getting blurred a bit at the ArbCom level. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a tightrope walking a line between reviewing how editors are using sources and making content-related comments. I agree arbs need to be careful. I haven't looked much at Muhammad yet and will do so soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I evaluate content all the time, because arguments about content are advanced by parties. I'm trying to be as transparent as possible, but there is a difference between arbcom deciding about content (we do not, and should not), and individual arbitrators having opinions on content matters (we do, and should). I make no pretense that I come to the "Muhammad images" case with a tabula rasa view of image policy. Quite the contrary, in fact. Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Serenity

Joss Whedon has revealed several times that the reason Alan Tudyk's character was killed in Serenity was because he couldn't commit to sequels. Same for Ron Glass. This actually threatened the deal going through, so the only solution was to kill off those characters, and so prove to Universal that sequels could be locked before production on the first film began. (Joss explains this here: [Joss Whedon Experience 2010]) That doesn't mean Tudyk and Glass wouldn't have reprised their roles, it just means that if Universal didn't want to negotiate a deal with them, the sequels could still go ahead. In Whedon's original "Kitchen Sink" 190 page script, it's the exact same story, but everyone survives at the end. Don't get too miffed with the actors, though, it was Fox that put everyone in this position. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Joss on killing characters (from the video): "The practical reality of the thing is sometimes a factor. It was with Alan [Tudyk], and I don't think is a big secret anymore, [but] there was trouble in the deal-making, and the idea of killing him from [that]. 'Well, you know. If he doesn't want to be attatched to a sequel... and the contract... Can't you kill him?'" As I say, the deal with Universal was in jepoardy if Joss couldn't lock down sequels for them. If Tudyk didn't have such a great career, he'd probably have happily signed on for sequels, and the idea of killing Wash probably never would have been considered. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, readd that with the quote in the reference, and cite it to that time so that people who have the BluRay can view it. On the other hand, it would be nice if there was a source in print. Mind you, this contradicts what Joss had said on other occasions about why Wash was killed. That doesn't mean that it can't also be true, of course... Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated by Joss in the video, it was once considered a "big secret", so that would explain why he contradicted himself. Joss has contradicted himself MANY MANY times over the years, in order to tow the company line. Another example is in Buffy: On the DVDs he states that it was his idea to give David Boreanaz a spin-off: "It was in this scene, where David really brought depth and emotion, that I began thinking he could carry his own show". It's, of course, very well known that the WB asked for a spin-off show to be made, and that Whedon would have permanently killed off the character at the end of Season 2 if they hadn't been asked to create one during that season. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Wolf and the Lion

The article The Wolf and the Lion you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Wolf and the Lion for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And will I have to wait 3+ months again, or will you re-review it as soon as the feedback has been addressed? Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to make sure that articles met the GA criteria before nominating, if you cannot recognise very poor prose then seek out someone to copy-edit. Then take it to peer review. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

By agreeing to review the article, you agreed to use appropriate processes to do so, which are the basis on which I have a reasonable expectation of actionable feedback. Please articulate which of the quick fail criteria apply (hint: none do), provide a detailed review, or place the article back in the queue so someone else can review it who will actually do a detailed review. Thanks, Jclemens-public (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you, that shouldn't have been a quick fail. Sure, the prose is pretty ropey in places, but that can be easily fixed within the span of the customary 7-day holding period. I'm afraid that you may have fallen foul of the latest drive to reduce the GAN backlog. We can't do much about the failed review, that's done and dusted, but if you re-nominate at GAN then I'll pick up the review. It may still end up not being listed, but at the very least I'll give you something to work on. I don't watch the GA nominations, so if you decide to go down that path then let me know on my talk page. On the other hand I can be a rather demanding reviewer, so you may prefer someone else; I just thought I'd offer to help. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus. I would be pleased to have you as a reviewer: I'm relatively certain I've not reviewed any GAs for you or vice versa, but word on the street is that you excel at it. Would you mind if I actually delayed taking you up on this for until I get back from a short trip and I can make sure ArbCom election drama has died down a bit, so I can actually fix some things both before and after the review? Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, there's no rush. Just let me know when you're ready to rock and roll. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Will be a couple of days now... I've just gotten one passed, and one more currently on review. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, Malleus, it's been re-nom'ed and I've started poking about working on things that other reviewers have commented on with respect to other articles in the series. Your input is welcome at any time. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at them - read all the damn books and watched the miniseries...and if GRRM takes another five years to write the next one, I will be.........very.......unhappy......Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have HBO, so I only saw the pilot so far. FWIW, I doubt he will ever finish the next book. He's completely lost touch with the characters, and the fifth book was a disaster. I can elaborate on why if you like, but that's more like an after-dinner conversation than a Wikipedia-relevant topic. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As an update, I've left you some homework for The Wolf and the Lion...not a huge amount of work...check it out anyway. I was going to do Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) as well, but it only has 3 footnotes. That needs alot more work, both in referencing and embellishing some bits - can we find some more commentary from GRRM or directors, actors, reviewers about the episode? It'd really help. I am mentioning this as I think it might take alot of work and be good to do it before someone starts a seven day timer ticking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: If you're trawling through references, would it help to have another article reviewed at the same time, or would you prefer to focus on one at a time? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, there is a challenge with respect to sourcing, which I had been planning on standardizing a good bit more throughout the process. I'll be able to address this feedback a little later on today, I believe. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm working through the feedback. It would be nice if that foundation-inspired WYSIWYG editing environment allowed me to more easily cut and paste between different pages. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten a little bit stalled on this, but it's not off my radar. I'm moving, again, this weekend--this time with my family, so it's a wee bit more complicated. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I commit to getting this done within the next three days (by Sunday evening, my time, in other words). Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I finished off the 4 citation tags and added a "header" to the plot section. I can do other stuff as needed, and will as part of the GT quest... :-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

IP user

Hi Jclemens, how should I deal with the IP user who is harassing me on my talk page? [23] Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, if he IP hops we can semi-protect your page. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For the blatant sockpuppetry going on at the talk page of NPA, I have opened an SPI for all of those users, but not including the IP.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) OK, I'll get to that, too. For those of you waiting for my GA article improvement, please note the delay... Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate to bother you more, but a new round of socks is coming tonight. A rangeblock appears necessary considering that autoblock isn't stopping it.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A rangeblock is probably not practical. Have you filed an additional SPI? Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the same SPI here, with DMacks and I commenting after the closure of it.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I see that WT:NPA has been protected for now, so I think the issue is going to be one of playing whack-a-sock until the guy gets bored and goes away, since the IP addresses use vary quite widely. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The main NPA page (WP:NPA) also needs protection since the socking has now moved there.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Already protected for something like a day. We'll see if longer protection is needed tomorrow night.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad images case

J, I'd appreciate a response to this post. I'm sure you just missed it in the crush, but I've had too many experiences in this dispute with other editors sidestepping rational arguments that they dislike. It's frustrating to try to have a discussion where editors ignore every reasonable thing I say and harp endlessly on every perceived slight they can dig out of diffs, and it would be nice to change that dynamic. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I already did. I could dig out the diffs, but I said elsewhere on the workshop page that I believe that POV images can indeed be balanced by other images, contra someone else's (yours?) assertion. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah - I must have missed it. I'll hunt it down and see what it says. --Ludwigs2 03:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It is here. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Dirkhising

Thank you for restoring the image of Jesse Dirkhising. I never understood why it was deleted in the first place. Caden ^cool 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I didn't restore it myself, but rather was one of the administrators who opined that keeping photos of notable murder victims, including Dirkhising, was entirely consistent with and respectful of the laws concerning fair use and copyright. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Pointy End

Hi, I've started the review for The Pointy End. I haven't taken a thorough look at the article yet, but I left some preliminary comments on the review page. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will be working on GA feedback on multiple articles from that series this weekend. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a busy weekend! It's really good to see a member of Arbcom actively working on improving the site's content. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I try and balance my time between the behind-the-scenes work, and working on things that interest me. I volunteered for advanced responsibilities because I believe in the project, not out of some personal desire for power or responsibility. I get plenty of each in my real life... Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I only got to 2 of the 3 GA reviews I had pending this weekend. I've asked Sandstein to help out, and I see that he has done some work. I will try to get to the rest of the feedback during the upcoming week. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

... And I will be getting to this one with a vengance now that both other GAs have passed. Jclemens-public (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I have passed the article, good job. I'll see you around, but hopefully not because of an Arbcom case being opened against me :) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I just added a photo of Sansa per your last request. I wouldn't worry about ArbCom cases--one generally has to be in a protracted conflict or do something truly egregious as an admin to wind up before ArbCom. Besides, if you did, I would likely recuse, and I tend to be one of the arbs hardest on editors whose behavior does not meet community expectations. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I did notice that about you in the lead up to the last election, and that was part of the reason that I voted for you. But, I forgot to mention, I haven't been following the Game of Thrones, but now that I've done this review I think I'll check out a few episodes. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I haven't actually seen any of the episodes except the pilot. I don't have cable, and I haven't been pulling sleepover shifts at a fire station while in my current phase of schooling, so I've had no access to them. I'm waiting for Netflix... Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Votes in Δ case

I see you've voted both for and against Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Proposed_decision#Betacommand_limited_to_BAG_approved_tasks, although it's true that your support was only a "distant choice". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I changed my mind, updated my vote, but forgot to strike. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment

As you may've noticed, I've just started an amendment thread about Mathsci's behavior toward and about me. However, AGK has raised concerns about whether an amendment thread was the best way to handle the issue. As I said to AGK in the amendment thread, I don't think going to AE is a good idea. In retrospect I'm unsure if I should've come to you about this initially, since you warned Mathsci about this specific issue pretty recently ([24]). I'm unsure of where's the best place to deal with this, so I was wondering if you had any idea of what should happen if he were to do what you warned him about again (which he did). Any help or advice would be appreciated. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a "best place" to deal with the issue. I will say that we're looking to clarify behavioral expectations of editors related to off-wiki conduct in one of our active cases, which may shed some light on these sorts of issues, but that may not be timely enough. Someone from Arbcom will be in touch. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Should Hipocrite be asking me to confirm the accuracy of off-wiki information about another editor in public? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The limited consensus of arbitrators who've opined on the matter agree that you should not feel compelled to answer that question. No guidelines exist to prohibit the asking such of a question, but we may make it more clear that asking questions which the recipient is not obligated to answer is not appropriate, and that editors who have concerns should direct them to ArbCom, who are chartered to deal with such private information and associated issues. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This conflict is continuing to escalate. Mathsci is now trying to get me blocked at AE, and in the amendment thread, editors are calling for me to be site-banned and are repeating the same claims about me that Mathsci has been making. None of these people are uninvolved, and I complained about basically the same thing from two of them in my evidence in the R&I case almost two years ago. I think this shows why I'd like this conflict to be handled by Arbcom rather than by the community. It doesn't seem possible for me to make any request that others see as related to R&I, no matter how tangentially, without it resulting in this. It would be really helpful if rather than Arbcom allowing this to continue spreading to other users and forums, an arbitrator who's familiar with all aspects of the situation could take the initiative and propose a remedy that would finally resolve this dispute for good. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Which arbitrator would that be? My ignorance in the whole R&I arena has been pointed out to me repeatedly. I have no idea what all baggage is held by whom in this arena. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Cool Hand Luke and Roger Davies are pretty familiar with it, though it looks like Luke hasn't been on Wikipedia in a while. However I also think that a decision from any arbitrator, even one who's not familiar with the arena, is better than just leaving it to escalate amongst the community. I think it should be possible to make a decision about the current conflict even without knowing the details of the baggage of everyone involved. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of the two, Roger's clearly the more active. CHL's term ended at the end of last month. Jclemens-public (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please tell me whether Arbcom is intending to address this issue? So far I've been given some mixed messages. For example Silktork said in his response here that he didn't know if I should withdraw my amendment request and make a request for clarification instead, or whether it could be handled in the existing amendment thread. And it seems none of the admins at AE want anything to do with the issue, since Mathsci's thread there is being completely ignored by admins. I'm getting the impression that although people think something should be done, admins and arbitrators both want it to be somebody else's problem. Forgive me my impatience, but I would appreciate some transparency in knowing whether Arbcom is still discussing this and whether they intend to do anything. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We have multiple other contentious cases open at the moment. I haven't seen any bandwidth expended on this issue on the internal mailing list, which makes me suspect that it's not on anyone's top list of things to deal with at the moment. What did Roger say when you approached him? Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I figured you were going to discuss this with Roger Davies privately. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Is your suggestion that I bring it up with him myself? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have other things to talk with Roger about, like the case we're co-drafting, and I lack the familiarity with R&I to convey the background well. Apologies if that wasn't clear, but yes, I was expecting you to approach him separately. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion here that you might want to look at.

As per your suggestion I raised the issue with Roger Davies, but his response did not address the issue. I'm not sure I understand the reason for Arbcom's lack of response in the amendment thread, but it means admins at AE are trying to take matters into their own hands. And as you can see from the discussion in EdJohnson's user talk, this includes the suggestion that in the future AE will make decisions based on off-wiki information about editors. You said here that Arbcom has decided this information shouldn't be discussed in public, so this is the first time I've seen an admin suggest that AE go against what Arbcom has decided.

I can't try to resolve this at AE. I've already seen in the amendment thread that the group of editors who opposed me on R&I more than a year ago are using this opportunity to bring up off-wiki information about me in public. Anything I post related to this issue at a noticeboard will likely get a similar response, and now I see that I can't count on admins caring whether my privacy is respected.

I understand that Arbcom is busy, but there are some issues that can't be ignored forever. At this point, it looks like Arbcom's lack of response for the past week may result in a decision that will make outing unavoidable in certain future AE requests. I know from your comment above that this isn't something Arbcom would agree with, so I'm asking that Arbcom please not continue to ignore this issue. At this point, even a response from an arbitrator who's unfamiliar with the R&I case would be a lot better than the consequences of no response. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Check WP:AE#Ferahgo the Assassin to see what has been written at AE so far. I don't believe that any information filed there up to this point creates a risk of outing anyone. The people who have commented there seem to have used caution in their statements. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about any information that's being posted in the current thread. It's about your suggestion that in future AE threads editors can be sanctioned based on off-wiki personal information, which means people will have to post that information in public. I explained this in your user talk, and your response was just that I should either bring this issue up with Arbcom or post about it at AE. That was right after I explained why bringing the issue up at AE would only cause more of the same problem, which is already happening in the amendment thread. I don't think I'm being unclear about any of this. I don't understand why you keep responding to a different point from the one I'm making, but this seems kind of evasive.

Jclemens, I would really appreciate some response from you on this. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what to tell you. I don't have the history in the R&I case, and really don't have the time to acquire any. Yes, the TimidGuy ban appeal will clarify what is or is not permissible in respect to pursuing other editors, which should have a direct bearing on the case. Functionaries who have identified to the WMF are the only approved recipients of off-wiki information, and within the functionaries, the arbitrators (and, to a lesser extent, Checkusers) are the ones charged with acting on it. The non-functionary user base, admins at AE included, are not entitled to receive privacy information, such that it makes no sense to expect them to act upon it. Of course, once anything has been brought up on-wiki by a party, then it becomes fair game, but off-wiki sleuthing is not authorized. Does that help? Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're on the same page about who should handle off-wiki information, so thanks for clarifying. But what would be more helpful than anything would be some reassurance that Arbcom won't continue to ignore these issues indefinitely in my amendment request. It's sat idle for over a week now, and my attempt to get Roger Davies to look at it was unsuccessful. And as you may have noticed, Mathsci is continuing to add new sections to his AE report about me and his statement in the amendment thread with diffs of all my comments here and in EdJohnston's user talk. Please try to look at this from my perspective: while this conflict is ongoing and I'm trying to bring it to Arbcom's attention, I don't know what to do about this continued silence. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would chill out and ignore it. Captain Occam's failure to do so undoubtedly contributed to his poor outcome in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring it might be an okay solution temporarily. But although I have no interest in doing so at the moment, I do hope that eventually it will be possible to appeal my topic ban. As long as things stay the way they currently are, though, even just the idea of trying to appeal my ban while having to deal with this kind of harassment seems like it would truly be a nightmare. I'm apparently not the only person who feels this way: two other editors have recently said that the editing environment on R&I articles has become so toxic that it's completely sapped their motivation to participate in it. [25] [26] As I pointed out in my exchange with Edjohnston, discretionary sanctions do not seem to be helping matters.

From my own perspective, I don't want this to be the atmosphere in which I attempt to appeal my ban. And looking at this from the perspective of the rest of the community, it can't be good to let the editing environment remain so toxic that uninvolved editors are consistently driven away. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Gaming the system"

I think it would be easier for your fellow Arbs to accept as principle (or even FoF) that applying unusual/novel standards only to a subset of images (which also happen to be the ones controversial for certain belief-structure reasons) rather than all images in the article is the most troublesome issue with respect to "gaming the system". I hope I've managed to illustrate that a bit in my [late] /Evidence. Unlike what you proposed at principle 10, such a principle [or FoF] does not require presupposition about the motives of editors engaging in argumentation distinctly different in sourcing/educational standards for various images. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thought. I think I like the FoF idea, but I don't know that I have the time to dig through the diffs to put one together, with my own obligations in another case and the speed at which this one is moving forward. Would you (or anyone else) be willing to do the legwork to illustrate the niche application of the novel arguments? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My brief evidence on that is here. JN466 had more arguments like that, e.g. in this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've looked, and I don't see enough there to build into an FoF that would support a generalized case. At most, it might support a finding with respect to Jayen, but I don't think his individual arguments are bad enough that I would feel comfortable supporting such an individual FoF. The fact is, the case is progressing rather handily and both my proposal and the one with which it was designed to contrast are nowhere close to passing, so I'm inclined to leave well enough alone. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Images case - POLA

Considering that POLA was pretty firmly rejected by the community in regards to how the Foundation described it, I think it's rather inappropriate to be using it in any incarnation in an active Arbcom case. You can't advise editors to follow a principle that the community has rejected. Silverseren^C 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can. POLA is an adequate idea, poorly phrased, that unfortunately hands a lot of ammo to censors in this case if misunderstood. As a pretty typical long-term Wikipedia editor, I am astonished that we do not have an anthropomorphic, unveiled likeness of Muhammad in the infobox. THAT, as far as I'm concerned, is how POLA and NPOV would mesh with respect to this issue. Jclemens (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose. I think you're actually the first person to try and state POLA as being used for the inclusion of images, rather than the dis-inclusion. The thing i'm worried about is that, since your interpretation of it is rather novel, everyone else is going to interpret the statement in the way that everyone has anyways, that it is restricting images, not opening them up. Silverseren^C 08:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It does have its place in the exclusion of inappropriate images. But I think the foundation probably deserve a little more credit than for us to assume they would expect it to be as simplistic and censorship-friendly as some have presumed it to be here. Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

They could have admittedly timed it better. With the timing relationship with the Muhammad fiasco, that's the main thing everyone thinks it is applying to. And, in such a case, it very much seems like they are trying to apply censorship to the subject. The main issue really is that they included religion in the POLA announcement, when religious offense is pretty much impossible to tangibly define. I mean, Piss Christ is very clearly offensive to Christians, no matter what the creator meant for it to mean, should we then not have the image of it in the article becuase it offends religious sensibilities? I (and I assume many, many others) would say absolutely not. The image is needed as an identifier of the subject and offensiveness or "astonishment" should play no part in it whatsoever. Sorry if i'm re-hashing things you've been discussing time and again with others throughout the case, but the conflict this has created makes sense, since so many of us see it as something fundamental, that to stay neutral, you cannot consider offensiveness whatsoever. Because offense is a subjective term. Silverseren^C 09:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've used that same example in the workshop. I have no real desire to see Wikipedia offend people, but I see no way to maintain both NPOV and a lack of censorship. If we have no (or reduced) images of Muhammad in Muhammad, we must either agree that some viewpoints are more equal than others, take out depictions from all equivalent historical figures, or abandon NPOV. None of those outcomes is at all acceptable to me. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

rephrase

Perhaps "Once an outside pressure group has publicly requested that Wikipedia content be changed, future arguments by editors seeking to achieve that outcome must be treated by the community with an appropriate level of suspicion. Assuming good faith should not extend to novel arguments about policy interpretation that "coincidentally" achieve the results desired by the outside pressure group." should become "Once an argument for removing material has been rejected on policy grounds (censorship, for example), future arguments by editors seeking to achieve that outcome must be treated by the community with an appropriate level of suspicion. Assuming good faith should not extend to novel arguments about policy interpretation that "coincidentally" achieve the same results."

The focus on "outside pressure group" seems to be the source of the resistance, and I don't think it was really your point.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. The problem I see with that revision, however, is that there's not agreement that "not censored" is a sufficient argument to reject a proposed content change; the current consensus seems to be it's not an argument to accept a proposed content change, a subtle but important difference. In the specific instance of images deemed religiously offensive by some subset of editors that might work, but I'm thinking more about the larger cases, including things like Virgin Killer. Would that help there? I'm not sure, because that was primarily a surge prompted by some publicity, which seems to have since died down. Jclemens (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure. I can see the argument for focused language on the particular problem, but it's actually a pervasive problem going beyond the removal of material. I certainly see it going both ways in AFDs, as people reach for increasingly specious and novel interpretations of existing policies to both justify retention and demand removal of articles. Perhaps a somewhat blander proposal that doesn't pinpoint censorship as the problem, but instead focuses on novel interpretations that achieve a previously established goal is the way to go.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks, Philippe. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

re: Block

I know it's still early in the ani discussion, but I'm seeing some range of "may be a bit much" in regards to the DreamFocus block. I note that he has now posted an unblock request, and I think several admins. may consider it a possibility. I didn't want to just "approve" it without coming and talking to you first though. What are your thoughts? — Ched :  ?  13:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, there is some sentiment for unblocking him, I agree. I also don't think that's necessarily the best course of action at this point, and I will elaborate in the ANI discussion. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• This block is like Obama disavowing Reverend Wright!!! (hyperbole intended...) We all had to come from somewhere!! oh well. hopefully the block will be allowed to expire, and if "evil deletionist" is out of the lexicon, so it is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion and Inclusion

Has there ever been a case at ArbCom regarding the deletionist/inclusionist debate? I am thinking there needs to be some effort at resolving the question of how the deletion process operates. Whether that would mean ArbCom or some other process is something I would also like to know. Is there a better way of raising ideas for decisively improving the process?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think part of the problem is that most people who use the terms (and an even larger percentage of those who use them in a derogatory fashion) have either not read, or not understood, m:Inclusionism or m:Deletionism. pablo 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the Committee has avoided framing a case as us v. them on purpose, but the cases I can think of that strongly implicate the debate are: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No case has come before the committee in the inclusionism/deletionism spectrum that did not include misconduct. ArbCom doesn't settle content disputes, nor does it make policy. What we do do, on the other hand, is look at the conduct of all parties and sanction those who have not been working appropriately towards dispute resolution. This, and every other i/d conflict, have not turned on anything other than user conduct. As a matter of fact, the more most editors work in deletion and rescue, the more moderate each gets, as they see the issues with extremism on either side, at least in my observation. The strident outliers, on the other hand, seem to get hyperpartisan until they are eventually sanctioned. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad block

I just spotted the now-closed ANI thread on your block of Dream Focus for what you characterize as "battleground behavior" and what I would consider an unwarned bad block on an editor exercising free speech. I just wanted to let you know that I disagree with your block and see it as a rogue action, no matter how the flash "consensus" of The Usual Suspects at ANI describes it. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. On the balance, it provides less justification than some of the objections raised in the ANI thread, which pointed out that he had not been warned. You are entitled to think any administrative action is improper--nothing in Wikipedia prevents you from disagreeing with policy or advocating that it be changed. However, note that Dream Focus' dislike of the deletion policy appears to have led to his unwillingness to conduct himself in a collegial manner, which in turn resulted in his block. In other words, you don't have to like it, but it is what it is: a community-endorsed (with feedback about how the community feels it might have been handled more optimally) sanction for failure to adhere to Wikipedia's expected standards of conduct. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Content Rehabilitation Project

Well, well. The {{rescue}} template has been deleted. One could argue that the close was premature, since there was an associated RfC also encompassing the TfD, but that's just a technicality. Reading the debate, there's clearly a large group of people who see the ARS as nothing more than a hyper-inclusionist voting bloc. That's unfortunate, but not as inaccurate as I would like it to be.

As such, while the ARS could probably continue in some way, shape, or form, I think it's an opportune time to supplant it with something that does the work, without the drama. Long-time readers of this talk page will note that this isn't the first time I've postulated something along these lines, but this time, it's probably the right time to actually do something about it.

To that end, I will be kicking off the Content Rehabilitation Project. The fundamental premise of the project is that deleted content represents something into which some editor invested time and effort, and is a source of topics and article "parts" that can, with appropriate effort, be made acceptable for the encyclopedia. In brief, it will have no membership lists, not take any part in inclusion guideline discussion, reward participants for actually improving articles, work on problematic content that needs help: whether older content that needs to be rewritten/merged/whatever, deleted content that needs to be brought up to current Wikipedia standards before mainspace, or the traditional domain of the ARS, content facing a current AfD that may be salvageable during the duration of that discussion. Want to help out? Let me know here. Jclemens (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time to help you out. But I hope you will allow me to offer a few thoughts on your proposal.

First off, I think that you are right to identify dramas as a major problem with ARS. That may have been partly a structural problem, in that the premise of ARS attracted a minority of determined battleground fanatics. However, I believe that it was also a wider social problem, in that it was highly unusual (as in I don't recall seeing it happen, but cannot say for certain that it never happened) for other ARS to try to reproach or admonish any of those who abused the project. There are plenty of reasons why editors avoid conflicts, but the result of all this was sadly that ARS appeared to be a welcoming place for vote-stackers and warriors, and even for fraudsters. When a lengthy RFC/U produced evidence of numerous incidents where one editor had used bogus sources to "rescue" and article, other ARS members piled in to offer support.

I know that raking over the coals is not a way forward, but I raise that now because I think it would be a pity for any new venture to fall into the same trap. Part of that requires a culture shift amongst participants, which I suggest should include warnings about battleground behaviour and a premise which explicitly acknowledges that even when content appears to be capable of rehabilitation, this may not turn out to be the case.

That's why I have a problem with your fundamental premise that "deleted content represents something into which some editor invested time and effort, and is a source of topics and article "parts" that can, with appropriate effort, be made acceptable for the encyclopedia." I suggest that if it is to succeed (as I hope it will), it needs some modification. A few points:

1. The fact that an editor invested time and effort is, sadly, relevant as a matter of collegiality and etiquette, but not as a factor in keeping content. If someone has invested a lot of effort writing an article sourceable only to comments to obscure blogs, then Wikipedia needs to be able to politely and supportively say that it doesn't belong here.
2. The notion that it is "a source of topics and article 'parts' that can, with appropriate effort, be made acceptable for the encyclopedia" seems to me to be too strong, because it risks encouraging a revival of the rescue-by-any-means-possible approach which some ARS members appeared to follow. However, I think this can be avoided if the word "can" is changed to "may", as in ""may, with appropriate effort, be made acceptable". That sounds minor, but I think it's very important in defusing the risk of battleground behaviour.

I do wish you luck in this. If a project like this starts off with a more nuanced premise of scrutinising carefully, improving where possible, and also readily acknowledging that some good efforts don't bear fruit, then it could do a hugely important job. If CRP involvement brought the promise of thorough scrutiny and honest reporting on the result of that research, then it could play a hugely important role in defusing the conflicts over contested content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that very detailed feedback. I think your first point is extremely well taken--sometimes it *is* clearly easier to just generate something new from scratch, rather than to try and upgrade something else folks have done badly, and yes, there is an editor retention/collegiality aspect to the idea of upgrading content even when the authors can't or won't.

On your second point, by "parts" I mean a couple of specific things: 1) Plot elements that have been redirected or merged too sparsely, such as when TV episodes are redirected to season or show articles without any content being transferred, 2) characters that have been redirected or merged too sparsely, much the same as 1, and 3) other fictional elements which never merited a separate article but have been deleted without appropriate merging or otherwise incorporating the content into relevant target articles. One other area I'm thinking of is topics where many articles exist, but as a poor division of the topic. Most of these ideas stem from fiction, because that's what I mostly deal with.

I think the solution to drama is to require a philosophical starting point of "This content does not currently meet the criteria for inclusion". Deletionists can add "... and it should be deleted if not fixed" and inclusionists can add "... and should be brought up to current standards rather than thrown away", each in their own minds. Then, having said that, editors can work together to agree on the scope of appropriate fixes, and implement them.

I think another check on the drama process is to require an administrator to "Certify" the conclusion of a discussion, much like they do for XfDs. Thus, while anyone can edit anything at any time, an admin-endorsed consensus is what gives legitimacy to the decision to un-delete content. Unlike DRV, though, there is specifically no argument that the content was improperly deleted--only that it will have been sufficiently changed to be ready for mainspace. Jclemens-public (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Toxik Ephex

Could you please restore the page Toxik Ephex, or at least send me a copy so I can recreate it with perhaps some more credible sources. Care was taken to get the page up to wikipedia standards and many other pages now point to this deleted page as a reference, that is validility enough in my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.230.225.6 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, feel free to add those sources... Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about a page you oversighted

FYI, near the bottom of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol, someone's asking about the page title for this oversight action; whether or not you believe the title appropriate to mention at the SPI, it might help if you commented there. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Process at ArbCom

Noetica added me, along with ten other editors to a complaint that had been brought by admin SarekofVulcan (∆ edit, here). That just seem so wrong. Greg L (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of the opening will be to scrutinize the list of involved parties and remove any obviously inappropriate ones. If you haven't done anything wrong, then I wouldn't sweat it. We try to find the real bad actors and sanction them, regardless of how that overlaps with the parties list. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well… OK. But it’s chilling and upsetting to those who don’t understand the system as well as you do. And it seems entirely inappropriate to have a respondent running about dragging others into this; that is properly the domain of the original petitioner, SarekofVulcan, who is a trusted admin who understands what was going on. And… yes, I did nothing wrong and I am not worrying. Emotionally, it is like getting a traffic ticket that you know you can beat… but it is still on your mind until your court date. Greg L (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no real good answer for that, I don't think. The good news is that the party who adds people as other named parties inappropriately will be losing credibility early in the case, and draw more scrutiny from arbs. We'll see whether that applies in this case... Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoting you: The good news is that the party who adds people as other named parties inappropriately will be losing credibility early in the case: there were some four neurons and 15 synapses in my brain that were responsible for that very same thought, which took about a quarter-second to form. Please see “#Trouble with the process here (by Greg L)” for an expanded but pithy version of my reasoning. I’m off to bed. Won’t lose sleep. Might wake up though, with this being the first thing on my mind. Greg L (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Hello, I am very sorry to return to this subject, but I felt offended by the way you poked your nose to a business that is not really your business and took the side of another user against my actions that I still feel are justified.

First of all, the original complaint ("edit warring" on someone else's talk page) does not hold, because I only ONCE reverted the comment back to show the context, and then on the third edit redacted the context per the user's request. Anyway I made a total of three edits to the user's talk page on the day the alleged "inappropriate" actions took place, which I don't think is considered disruptive by the very policy you stated (WP:3RR).

Whatever comes to article per se, the appropriate forum is of course the article talk page, but I have been able to verify all alleged facts from Internet sources. Your view that I was "entirely off base to suggest they be retained in the article" is both offensive and incorrect, because by the time you left the comment on my talk page those statements had been properly sourced, and are now retained in the article.

I generally comment on AfD debates to benefit the community, by e.g. saving articles from deletion that I feel should be saved, on which I feel I have a good track record if specialist knowledge that I can provide is needed (and which I thought was one of the points of Deletion Sorting). However, I have noticed that more and more users nominate articles for deletion even if they don't know anything about the subject, and editors wanting to save those articles often have to put their themselves on the line, especially in the minority subjects. This is not the first time I have gotten a bad rap but never before have I come across administrative intervention for simply opposing a deletion.

My suggestion for you both as a user and as an admin is to mind your own business, or at least not take sides for/against any one user. --hydrox (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, remind me where this discussion occurred? Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it. OK, so you want a few more pointers? I'm happy to oblige. First off, edit warring is not a matter of multiple reversions: on an editor's own talk page, a single reversion of their removal/archiving of contents is inappropriate. Second, removal of uncited statements is whenever any one editor wants, period. If you don't like it, the find a citation when you add the material back in. And finally, it's not about "sides", it's about educating you, or any other newer editor, on how to conduct themselves most appropriately on Wikipedia. I agree that there are plenty of problems with poor nominations and "me too" delete !voters, but the proper solution is to make them feel foolish by demonstrating the encyclopedic value of the content nominated, shaming them into saying "you were right all along" by turning the article from its previous state into one which clearly meets inclusion criteria, a la WP:HEY. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, well this is exactly what I have been after all the time. If you look at the article I sourced all those statements in the article, but felt like I was being ignored when I kindly asked the editor to withdraw the nomination, which was when all hell broke loose. And I am NOT a "newer editor", I've been editing here for over 7 years and expect to be treated like that. I respect your work in helping newbie editors, but I think I know what I am doing here. --hydrox (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that--I assumed, rather than checked, your longevity. Most people who gripe at me for being "an admin" without reference to me also being an arbitrator aren't that familiar with things. At any rate, I empathize with your frustration at trying to demonstrate how articles are appropriately encyclopedic, only to be met with skepticism, disbelief, or even rudeness. It happens far too frequently, but the solution is to never lose our cool. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 12 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)

If Martin Luther King, Jr. is capable of turning over in his grave, your invocation of his name in this context has almost certainly done the trick. No matter how cynical I become or how many times I see it happen, it's always disappointing to see the complexities of an issue ignored in favor of a judgement on the superficial civility of its litigants. MastCell ^Talk 06:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that would probably irritate someone, but it's true, at least on a superficial level: The paid editing folks are making progress because their behavior is winning the hearts and minds of the community, and the most vociferous opponents are losing the PR war through their own failures to see how they are presenting themselves. I make no value judgment on whether this is a good or bad thing, mind you, nor was my statement addressing, let alone minimizing, the complexities. Rather, I was just noting the effects from my perspective. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your choice of words, and of analogies, in your original post conveyed a value judgement very clearly. In your second post, you accurately describe this as a "PR war". Unsurprisingly, it's being won by the PR professionals. It's worth considering whether that's a good thing for an aspiring serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 06:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Aspiring and serious? The interesting thing about Wikipedia is that it's no one person's work. People write about what they care about, and much of that is neither aspiring, nor serious. If you look at my content creation history, for example, I've spend much of my recent efforts improving a popular, current television series, that, while acclaimed and entertaining (so I hear... I haven't actually seen Game of Thrones, since I don't have HBO), is not what I would call serious encyclopedic content. It does, however, get about five times more pageviews than my serious efforts. The irony is not lost on me that, after spending my time to improve the coverage of a commercial entertainment franchise, my efforts are helping HBO and George R.R. Martin increase their income, and I get nothing for my part in that--which is entirely fine, that's what I signed up for, and I did it based on my own personal interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia aspires to be a serious, respectable reference work. When I started out here, that was an uncontroversial statement of the obvious. In 2012, not even members of ArbCom subscribe to such a crazy idea anymore. Of course, it's impossible to ascribe the exodus of editors to any one trend. But speaking only for myself, I wound down my contributions here substantially when it became apparent that the idea of creating a serious, respectable reference work was increasingly ignored, if not treated with outright disdain.

I think we're talking at cross purposes with regard to "serious". It doesn't mean that we only cover "serious" topics. I'm fine with articles on Game of Thrones, or Pokemon, or Lost characters. Those subjects can all be treated seriously. I mean that we need to take seriously the idea of summarizing and conveying knowledge—a goal which seems obvious and central but typically gets buried in wikilawyering over content policies and civility.

Our content policies are usually interpreted to mean that "it was published in print, so it needs to go in our article", or "we need to present every crazy idea credulously and let the reader decide which is correct". Both of those ideas are antithetical to the creation of a serious, respectable reference work. But they're the dominant interpretations of WP:V and WP:NPOV, respectively, at both the community and often the ArbCom level. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right about cross-purposes there, which serves to highlight the difficulty with value-laden and description-light statement. We've strayed a bit from the genesis of the conversation, but I'm OK with that. On the topic of editorial control, however, I fear that you expect what Wikipedia has no governance principle sufficient to support. People continually add POV material to topics, and, to the extent that that material has been previously published elsewhere, it's pretty hard to come up with a scalable way to eliminate such tugs-of-war. To contrast with that, if you've been following Jimbo's talk page for the past few months, his interpretation of V is such that he is actively considering how to correct material he knows to be false, despite its publication in a reliable source. To me, it's patently obvious that if you fix the latter problem, you exacerbate the former beyond all recognition...

At any rate, back to seriousness. Given its baggage, I'd rather say that we try to be accurate, comprehensive, and exercise due care in our coverage. I think that hits all the important bits of "serious", without implying that Pokemon can't be covered. :-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Jclemens,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, replied in email. Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guardians of Ga'Hoole characters}} -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't need talkback notices. 22:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We quote things with the variant spelling used in the source, period

"We" quote things with the variant spelling used in the source, "period"

The "we" was exceptionally patronising. The "period" was not quite so patronising, but still very patronising none the less. You see the usage of "we" implies an 'Us v. them' mentality which designates anyone who isn'yt complaint with YOUR viewpoint 'one of them'. I suppose Wikipedia can be forgiven for not having a proper vetting process for those promoted to the higher level as it's a relatively new entity and it's political structure has not yet matured. Consider the polar opposites of 'Advanced C programming' and 'Retarded Z personality'. Brian W. Kernighan would be disappointed really. Although I suspect Dennis Ritchie, from my relatively few meetings with him would not have cared much as long as your voids were placed correctly. EOF Vexorg (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"We" is Wikipedia, including you in that group since you contribute here. Is it patronizing to tell an editor in an edit summary that direct quotes need to be quoted directly? It was not my intent to be patronizing, but to communicate clearly and directly that your intentional corruption of a direct quote is not acceptable. There is really nothing to debate about, and certainly nothing requiring a "please" in the process of fixing an inaccuracy you introduced. The first edit was excusable, if you weren't familiar with the American spelling of the word. The second was simply not acceptable--regardless of your intent, it came across as petty, in addition to being the knowing reintroduction of an inaccuracy. If you have suggestions on what edit summary I should have used to communicate the appropriate level of disapproval for your edit, I'm all ears. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Talk:History of South Asia|Requested move}} An RM based on opinions expressed in the AfD. Hope you can chime in, as you did in the AfD! CMD (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No thanks, not a topic I'm sufficiently familiar with to offer an informed opinion. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Baelor

Hi, I've reviewed this article for GA, and while it's pretty much there, there are some minor issues which need to be sorted out, so I've put it on hold for a week. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll address it asap! Jclemens-public (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard}} My76Strat (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#BC_3_Section_Break

Thank you for your answers on the Noticeboard. I did not consider that the Arbs could miss the discussion there and that it would maybe help to point the Arbitrators to it, my apologies for that. I have posted a follow-up set of questions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks for the note. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Could you comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Reformating_Emmy_Awards_episodic_Directing_and_Writing_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. That looks like a perfectly good approach, but not one about which I have terribly strong feelings. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

{{tb|He to Hecuba}} --He to Hecuba (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. Headed to bed now, will check back in ~12 hours or so. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

Hi - could I ask why the personal info recently posted there wasn't suppressed in the end? Mato (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Jossi's personal info? There are a number of reasons: too many revisions so suppressing is messy, someone else should have done it first, it's Jimbo's talk page and he's perfectly capable of asking for it, the subject never asked either, etc., but fundamentally Jimbo's right, since it is public contact info any harm is minimal. Not every violation requires suppression, nor is there any evidence of bad intent in the posting. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining :) Mato (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Baelor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friday Night Lights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. I'm leaving this note as an FYI ... just to let you know that I've quoted you here, as I understand some editors prefer the courtesy of knowing when they have been quoted or paraphrased (as, among other things, it allows them to make sure they weren't misconstrued).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing.

BTW--I am fairly certain I know the answer based on your response, but just to check -- is leaving a note such as the one that I left you above something you would suggest an editor do in general, whenever quoting another editor, as a matter of courtesy? And, if so, is that reflected somewhere in policy, or simply something that one might become aware of over time by editing and receiving input from others (as I have)? If you know. I poked around looking for written guidance on the issue when I thought about it just now, but didn't happen to find any.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is only required or expected, to the best of my knowledge, if you're reporting a user for misconduct at a noticeboard or somesuch. Otherwise, I'd say it's just best practice, since I know of nowhere a general rule on the topic is codified. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Baelor (2)

Hi there. You probably have it watchlisted, but I thought I'd let you know I left some comments about one of your GAs at Talk:Baelor#Some comments. Just looking at this page I can see that you're very busy here, but hopefully you can take a look over my comments when you get the chance. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, those are some great, concrete suggestions. I'll see what I can do about them tomorrow. If you feel like giving the same treatment to any of the other articles in the season, I'd welcome the attention. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've gotten through the lead, and probably agree with 70% of your ideas, yours inspired even better edit ideas in 20%, and 10% I didn't find compelling--which, considering how opinionated I am, is a ringing endorsement of the value of your proposed edits. As is, I'm going to be caught up in Arbitration business and responding to another GA review for the rest of the week. Why don't you go ahead and make the rest of the edits you proposed? If I disagree, I can go through and copyedit the ones that I disagree with, but on the whole, they appear to be a marked improvement. The only thing I ask is that you look through the other articles of the series, and try to keep the style consistent (e.g., not linking actor names in the lead) between the other articles in the Game of Thrones first season. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I'll make the changes in the next few hours and you're of course free to revert/copyedit any you disagree with. I'll also try and have a look over some of the other articles when I get the chance. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Talk:Baelor/GA1 was deleted since the reviewer was a banned sockpuppet. It would probably be best if someone else could review the article for GA status. If you'd rather re-do the GA review and provide that list as feedback, I can work with that as well. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look too, I saw the episode a few weeks back and really liked it. (I didn't see this thread and opened up an individual reassessment of the page, oops). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

An individual reassessment is probably the right way to go, when there's more of a question on the appropriateness of the reviewer than on the part of the nominator or the state of the article. I welcome constructive feedback, and will work to remedy any identified deficiencies. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've closed the GAR as "Kept". HtH seems to have done an Ok job on the review to begin with, and Jenks' feedback on the talkpage was pretty helpful too. Thanks for the quick responses on my feedback! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yeah, I suspect he did a good job on an article I wanted done as part of a set hoping for some quid pro quo. While I appreciate the job I did, banned means banned, at least until a successful appeal, and demonstrating good content work is generally not part of the problem. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see the article's still a GA and it's now even better in quality. I'll probably take a look at some of the other articles in the season in the next few weeks when I get some spare time. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)